Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

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

This seems good: "Tamm was born in Vladivostok, Russia on July 8, 1895 into an old established Jewish family."[1], page 202 in Alan Symons (2000). Nobel laureates, 1901-2000. Polo Publishing.

ISBN 0952375133. I'll add it as a source.--Avenue (talk

) 10:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joshua Rubenstein (2001). Stalin's secret pogrom: the postwar inquisition of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. Yale University Press.

ISBN 0-300-10452-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthor= ignored (|author= suggested) (help

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, the current name is not quite correct (it should be winners with a small w), which is what got me thinking about this to begin with. So I would at least like to fix that before it goes up on DYK (which could be in less than 6 hours - see

T:DYK/Q). People following the old link would be redirected here automatically, so I don't see why we shouldn't move it now. -- Avenue (talk

) 00:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2010 Nobel Prize for Physics laureate, Russian-born Dutch physicist Andre Geim, is apparently Jewish according to Scientific Computing World.

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

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

Deletion of links to this List

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

• Henry Kissinger
• Albert Einstein
• Richard Feynman
• Vitaly Ginzburg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you've misunderstood Wikipedia's

reliable sources say. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to invent new criteria. The source in question is "Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas", Scientific Computing World, (June/July) 2006. It states "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education." That's explicit and reliable, and all that matters. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Of course we have to follow (1), that's what Wikipedia policy demands. Please review

WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk)

18:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist. From

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

) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

What's the difference? Wikipedia doesn't care exactly what kind of Jew someone was - Orthodox, Karaite, Secular, Atheist, Ethnic, Religious, Cultural, Spiritual. All it cares about is what

WP:BLPCAT only applies to categories anyway, not this list. Jayjg ^(talk)

23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read

WP:BLPCAT again. The part I quoted explicitly states that it applies equally to lists. --Avenue (talk

) 14:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Inclusion criteria again

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

Given the contentious topic, this list needs clear inclusion criteria, per

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

What does that have to do with inclusion criteria for this list? This list is not a biography (and this subsection of the talk page is not about Andre Geim). You don't indicate what arbitration committee findings you are referring to, but if you are suggesting that this list falls under

WP:ARBPIA

, I would argue that that only applies to certain entries in the Peace Prize section, and those entries do not involve people of ambiguous Jewish identity. It does not apply to Geim or Diamond.

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

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

WP:LSC

:

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

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

And from

WP:Source list

:

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

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

Avenue, I find your comments quite baffling. Wikipedia editors cannot

reliable sources have described as "Jewish". Jayjg ^(talk)

23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I find your responses equally baffling; we seem to be talking past each other. My reading of your last post is that you maintain that no inclusion criteria are valid, besides what is directly implied by the list's title, and regardless of how ambiguous that might be. But when I look at one of the examples given in

WP:LSC, namely our list of terrorist incidents

, I find that not only does that list explicitly exclude state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism, but that you have long argued for this exclusion on that list's talk page. For example, you said back in 2005: "There really are things that are unambiguously terrorism; by moving out the dubious cases into other categories that fit better, we will end up with a much less controversial article IMHO." (In case anyone thinks that is ancient history, you continued to support the status quo there earlier this year.) It seems to me that you have argued that editors of that list should decide what is or isn't terrorism, at least for the purposes of that list. Why do you favour inclusion criteria in that context, but not here? Or am I misreading your position?

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

I'm not seeing the comparison or relevance. "Terrorism" is typically defined as "non-state" action. Some individuals/groups attempt to include state actions as a type of terrorism. So, Wikipedia reports on both (and, in fact, a third kind, "state-sponsored"). However, a Jew is not typically defined as "someone with at least 50% Jewish ancestry", with some individuals/groups attempting to include "Jew by ethnicity/cultural identity" and "Jew by religion" as a types of Jew too. Rather, both of the latter "types" have always been included in the definition. So, a failed comparison. In any event, we're discussing this article, and Wikipedia policy. This is a

WP:BLP on this article. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Does this remind anybody of the "Grünberg" issue a few years back?

WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'd say the same for the Chinese and Japanese lists, by the way. Bulldog123

03:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

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

I agree the inclusion criteria should be clear, but I do not agree with that proposed criterion, or that title. It seems to run contrary to

WP:BLPCAT. Whether Geim should be listed here is a separate issue. Whether Geim's article should link back here, even more so. --Avenue (talk

) 15:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times has Geim's name been removed from this article, and then re-added? I agree with you that labeling Geim as "Jewish" runs contrary to

WP:BLPCAT.betsythedevine (talk

) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The sentence you have now removed three times (see

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

) 00:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the consensus is not so clear to me. We should decide on the inclusion criteria first, then see who belongs in the list, not the other way around.

You added the sentence; it was reverted; now we discuss. --Avenue (talk

) 01:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

How many times must we go over this? This article has no special "inclusion criteria", nor do any other Wikipedia articles. The only criteria

reliable sources say? Jayjg ^(talk)

01:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

So Jewishness has nothing to do with religious beliefs?

WP:BLPCAT applies to lists too. --Avenue (talk

) 01:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

If

WP:BLP together are. And there's no need to "make this clear", particularly in article space, since all articles should abide by these policies. Inserting such a disclaimer in this particular article would imply that articles without such a disclaimer (i.e. 3.5 million others) don't have to abide by these policies and guidelines. And it's really not up to us to try to guess what readers might or might not misunderstand, and therefore create special criteria or "warnings" for articles, in an attempt to forestall these theoretical misunderstandings. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of

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

) 02:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Perhaps that has been "explained countless times", but its relevance certainly hasn't. Why could he not be both an "ethnic German" and a "Jew"? Which one was

WP:RS that state that? Jayjg ^(talk)

01:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, its relevance was meant for the people insisting that he referred to nationality (citizenship). Nationality-wise he was Russian (Soviet), and currently is Dutch. His parents were both Soviet nationals. Ethnically, his parents are German. Your example makes sense when a person's half Jewish or more. If someone is 1/8th Jewish, how far do we go? (That's the main concern with this list, and title). There are only a handful RSs that state he is Jewish, and they do not go into the details. Anyone can write an article, make a mistake, and then that info. may be used by other authors.

Geim recently had another interview where he stated: "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you." No OR is needed to see that he's 1/8 Jewish. If his mother was Jewish he wouldn't say she was 1/4 Jewish. And the RS that claim he is, clearly misinterpreted the fact that he suffered from anti-semitism because his last name "sounds" Jewish, not because he was himself. (From: http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000600865) --Therexbanner (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, why do you say "ethnically his parents are German"? How is that relevant to whether or not they are Jewish? Please review my previous comment, these are not mutually exclusive. Also, as soon as you start trying to

explicitly state. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It's relevant in the sense that you can't be 100% of X ethnicity and 100% of Y ethnicity. You can be 75% X and 25% Y, or 50/50 or 95% X and 5% Y. Tons of RSs and several interviews confirm that they were ethnic Germans. That directly contradicts the ethnic Jewish argument. You may say he is Jewish religiously (he or his ethnic German parents may have practiced Judaism), but none of the sources state that explicitly. Therefore, he isn't Jewish. There is a difference between OR, and summarizing source information, I'm not adding any information that's not there. He said countless times: ethnic German, he feels 50%+ Russian himself, last name only sounds Jewish (for which he was made fun of), and a distant Jewish relative (great-grandmother). This was repeated in several interviews and no 3 inclusionist sources can change that.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I didn't understand what you just said. In any case, I have asked for some outside wisdom on this issue over at

WP:BLPN#List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates, if you want to express your own views on the discussion there. betsythedevine (talk

) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

WP policy also says that contentious material should be removed at once from biographies of living people -- and this talk page makes it clear that calling "Geim" Jewish is heavily disputed. But if

List of atheists for an example of a publicly stated rule. I agree that most list members probably have much more sensible reasons for being called "Jewish" here than Geim does, so maybe the explanation could also make it clear that contentious additions to the list are not the rule. betsythedevine (talk

) 22:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We need to stay away from our own

explicitly state. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela is certainly a Jew because he has never said that his parent were not Jewish. And he must be a vegetarian, because one of his great-grandmothers was a vegetarian; that is as clear as crystal. But – oh, let us also make a list of Nobel laureates with left-handed grandfathers, okay?

Seriously: No other WP contains such a strange list, only the English. --Gladsmile (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"No other WP contains such a strange list, only the English" I've noticed that too. English wiki seems to be the only wiki that maintains Wikiproject:Tag-a-Jew. Bulldog123 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Why not start with AfDs for much more egregious lists, e.g. List of Jewish American entertainers and List of Jewish actors? I'd certainly support that, there's far less justification for those lists, and months of trying to clean them up has made little headway. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(restarting indents) From

No, actually, that section of BLPCAT only and explicitly applies to "religious beliefs and sexual orientation"; ethnicity/culture is excluded. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That section of BLPCAT applies to all categories in BLP; the sentence that follows the one I quote is restricted in its application to religious beliefs etc.betsythedevine (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence notes that categories have no disclaimers and modifiers, and therefore must be supported in the text itself. It doesn't say that all such supports must have "disclaimers and modifiers", merely that categories must be supported by the text. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So how would you apply to this list the requirement "the case .. must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources"? It seems to me that making the case for this article requires explaining what meaning of Jewish is used here. I have suggested putting such an explanation at the beginning of the article; another possibility would be to explain case by case why each laureate was classified as Jewish. betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your ellipses left out the critical words: "so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources". This sentence is about categories: if you include a category, the reason why should be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. The List of Jewish Nobel laureates isn't a category being added to an article, nor are individual entries in the List such categories. Trying to stretch the plain words of policies to cover things they clearly exclude (and actually have nothing to do with) is not going to help your case here. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I ever discovered this list is that it was being used exactly like a category, to tag Andre Geim with a link to this list, thus labeling him as "Jewish" without any disclaimer or modifier. There can be no objection to explaining what "Jewish" means for the purpose of this list--either at the top of the list or else explaining for each person why that person is Jewish. As others have noted, most of the names on the list are much more legitimate sources of Jewish pride than Geim.betsythedevine (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence of

WP:BLPCAT says "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs [...]". The plain words of this policy can easily be read as covering this list, without any stretching of their meaning. (And yes, I'm aware that you maintain that Jewishness often does not relate to religious beliefs. I agree, but I'm not as sure as you are that this exempts the list from BLPCAT's requirements. I'm also concerned that readers of the list may not interpret the word "Jewish" that way.) --Avenue (talk

) 09:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

judaism is ethnicity (for the thousand time). the majority of the israelies are secular. probably 80% of the jews outside israel are secular. im israeli, jewish, atheist, my grand parents are holocaust survivors. and why youre so concerned?.. i hope youre sleeping well at nights. im also concerned about other peoples ignorance. and again, the big majority of the people on this list are jews from both sides (many of them talk about it on the nobel prize website. some of them religios people, some of them israelies. many of them mentioned in Encyclopaedia Judaica. and this list is not full). יניבפור (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"judaism is ethnicity (for the thousand time)" For the ten-thousandth time, everybody knows that. It's not our fault the more complex points made here seem to evade you. Bulldog123 16:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This list apparently used to agree with the idea that Judaism is ethnicity until about a month ago, when this edit, which removed the informative and clear statement "Jews are defined here as people who have at least half Jewish ancestry" and replacing it with no public information at all about how list-members were to be selected. And list enthusiasts have been battling since then to keep their own very definition of Jewish (from the edit summary) "A Jew is anyone that reliable sources say is a Jew," but keep that information off the article page. Having been described as "Jewish" is not an ethnicity. betsythedevine (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• People are Black because RSs say so. Not based on any other criteria. Not based on percentages. Same with all other manner of criteria. Same rationale applies here. And no -- we don't need the fact that they are Black, or British, or born on April 2 to impact their notability to reflect it. Same rationale here.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We can wiki lawyer this issue for ever but its clearly disrupting more than one article, Geim is never gong to be jewish ever, no matter what cites you can find from opinionated sources that suggest he is. Betty, thanks for pointing out that edit from Jayjg, that is reflective of the way the article is even being rewritten in a unexplained desperate desire to include Geim in it.

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The article's lede was changed so that it conformed with

WP:BLP. I don't care what Geim's ethnicity is. I also don't particularly care whether or not he's included in this article – but I do care deeply that Wikipedia articles conform to these guidelines and policies, and that the criteria used for adding or removing him reflect those policies. I'd appreciate it if would you redact your untrue comment. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

You altered the lede, fair enough, I accept your statement that you didn't do it in an effort to keep Geim in. You have made 26 edits to the talkpage since Geim was added to the article, none at all previous previous to that, all of them have been in support of keeping Geim in the article. All supporting the disputed claim that he has to be included because a couple of opinionated citations refer to him as jewish. Do you accept that?

Off2riorob (talk

) 10:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

And to conform with

talk

) 03:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No; that would only be true if being Jewish was simply a question of religious belief. --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's true because the term is ambiguous and BLP requires us to take the worst case scenario. Not every reader is educated enough to make the distinction, many will assume the reference is to religion. Therefore it falls under both

talk

) 22:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree. That ambiguity is a big part of the problem here. --Avenue (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add an additional column which clearly states (with an appropriate citation) the basis upon which each particular laureate is included in the List (e.g. "Both parents Jewish", "Jewish father only", etc). Accordingly, in cases when such person's "Jewishness" is contentious, the facts will be readily visible for all to view. The criteria for inclusion will thus become less important, since, in the relevant cases, a person's inclusion will appear with a qualification. Davshul (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

thats a very good idea יניבפור (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish sounding name..

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• According to Heyse's Nobel autobiography, his mother "came from a Jewish family." http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1910/heyse.html
• Bergson's Nobel biography describes him as "the son of a Jewish musician and an English woman." http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1927/bergson.html
• Pasternak was "born into a highly cultured Jewish family [but] Later in life he played down his Jewish origin" according to one scholarly biography, which adds that "not until Doctor Zhivago did Pasternak directly express his views on the condition of the Jews in Russia." Larissa Rudova, Understanding Boris Pasternak (1997) Univ of South Carolina Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=_bt0ZK8fekcC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=boris+pasternak+jewish&source=bl&ots=Bz07xn1gu4&sig=NLpR14VlPhz1m9AUwVd4Kss7IhU&hl=en&ei=UhD3TKqtGIa8lQfxvMjwBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=boris%20pasternak%20jewish&f=false

Do others think that this would be an improvement? betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a FR section for people to add more info, because the list is scarce on any analysis or discussion. For example, there doesn't seem to be much info on the proportion awarded versus the general population and why this is. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the seven "references" attached to Geim's name cited elsewhere as if they represented 7 conclusive pieces of evidence that Geim is Jewish, I have removed 4 items that do not provide any such evidence.

• 1) An article originally from PhysicsWeb.org talks about Geim's being taunted as a "bloody Jew"--but this is hardly evidence that Geim IS Jewish when we have Geim's own clear statement that he suffered from antisemitism because his name "sounds Jewish." I might add that would be a very odd way for somebody who sees himself as Jewish to talk about his experience with antisemitism.
• 2) The Moscow Times article link was to a partial article with more behind a paywall, but I found the full article elsewhere. There is no mention of anything about Geim's being Jewish in that article.
• 3) Similarly, I removed an article that describes his heritage as German and Russian. No mention of his being Jewish. The article says Geim faced discrimination in Russia because he was German.
• 4) [http://www.physorg.com/news205560354.html An article from physorg.com that describes Geim as suffering from discrimination in Russia because of his German heritage, and does not mention his being Jewish anywhere. This article includes a conversation with one of Geim's secondary school teachers and represents some actual enquiry into Geim's ethnic background.

This leaves 3 articles of which the first, easily Googlable, is likely the source of later claims. 1) An article in 2006 interpreted Geim's experience of antisemitism in Russia as meaning that Geim is Jewish. 2) An October 6 editorial in The Jewish Daily Forward rejoicing in Jewish achievement calls Geim a "Russian Jew." The idea that this offhand self-congratulatory claim reflects serious research about Geim's ethnicity, aside from perhaps a swift Google that turned up the mistaken claim from 2006, is laughable. This is not a quality independent "reference" for anybody's claim that Geim is Jewish. 3) Istvan Hargittai, whose claims directly contradict those of better sources in the direction of exaggerating previous claims of Geim's "Jewishness": "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." This is directly contradicted by the physorg paper previously "cited" here as if it said Geim was Jewish, which quoted Geim's former secondary-school teacher blaming Geim's German origins for discrimination against him. The article says, "In documents published by MFTI, Geim described himself as "German" in the practice of the time, when everyone had to describe themselves according to ethnic origin in official forms." This statement refers to actual documents made public after Geim's Nobel Prize win by his alma mater The Moscow Physics and Technology University (MFTI). It is far from clear that Hargittai did any independent work on researching Geim's ethnic heritage -- his blunder about Geim's identity papers and his description of Geim's ethnically German father and German but maybe one-half or (according to her son) one quarter Jewish mother as having "German Jewish heritage" vastly overstates the degree of Geim's Jewish connection. As does this article. betsythedevine (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Andre Geim IS Jewish, and it is Now sourced. According to the

I'm sorry, but I LoL'd. Since when do Jewish laws (you're talking about halakhic law in particular) apply to encyclopedias and the whole world? They don't, and until they do, keep them in the temple and in your head.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If he doesn't identify as Jewish, and it is clear from his statements that he does not, he is not Jewish. You are treating "Jewishness" as if it were race, it's not, it's ethnicity. Ethnicity requires cultural acceptance. If he was brought up and identifies as non-Jewish, no number of grandparents, parents, siblings, etc. make him so.

talk

) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What a good demonstration of the problem with selecting people (or not) to be on this list in the absence of clear and public criteria. First of all, the Forward editorial which triumphantly claims Geim as a Russian Jew on the day after his laureate was received shows zero evidence of having been based on careful research or anything but wishful thinking. It is notable that in the days and weeks following Geim's win, no Israeli newspapers have continued the claim made by the Forward. Two different Israeli papers did some research and both reached the same dead-end: Geim says he has a Jewish great-grandmother and he does not say he is Jewish.

The idea that we solve this problem by saying that any writer ever published any

WP:RS can define "Jewish" to his own taste, fail to inform his readers what his criterion was, and have that claim endorsed by Wikipedia is just wrong. betsythedevine (talk

) 17:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To further clarify, our rule for living persons is that we do not label them with a label that they themselves reject. The "Jewish mother" rule assumes that the person accepts the "Jewish mother" rule, which they only do if they identify as Jewish. If they don't identify as Jewish, the rule is meaningless to them and can't be applied to them. We don't impose the rules of a particular culture on a person who does not identify with that culture.

talk

) 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To add to that, I don't think ethnic/religious laws are relevant to an encyclopedia at all. Several Christian laws state that if the father of a person is Christian, then so is the son/daughter. That does not mean we should start labelling people based on that.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If we used both rules, a single person with a Christian father and a Jewish mother would misleadingly be labelled both Christian and Jewish, with neither label meaning anything unless the individual concerned chose to identify with the label.

talk

) 19:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Which bring up Niels Bohr, whom was Lutheran and identified as such, but still end up on a list of Jewish Nobel Laureates, because his mother was of Jewish descend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.43.208 (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

hi, the lists should be merged and sortable. Would be much more useful like this. regards, Philtime (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am reposting below what I thought was a useful offering by Tempered of a respected source for information about laureates who are "Jewish" in the halachic sense. I am not suggesting that this list be limited to such laureates, since many people are described as "Jewish" or having a Jewish family without meeting the strict criteria for this list. I am also including the rest of Tempered's post without necessarily agreeing with the beliefs about identity offered there. Thanks to Tempered for this suggestion. betsythedevine (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are certainly other major sources that list Jewish Nobel Prize winners, and that give clear criteria for inclusion, besides the Shengold list. The most significant, perhaps, is that maintained at the Israel Science and Technology website. See: https://www.science.co.il/nobel-prizes/ It states that the criteria there are halachic, that is, in accordance with Rabbinic Judaism's own criteria for Jewish identification, which are given on the webpage referenced. There are legitimate reasons for doubting the applicability of an individual's own refusal to assume Jewish identity, since, just as in the case of let us say American birth, African identity or Polish-speaking groups, whether or not an individual asserts their repudiation of such inclusion is irrelevant: they are justly included in those groupings as a matter of fact. In the same way, one may think that one is a bird, but to others one remains a human being and it is permissible to say so. Personal attribution is not the final word in such matters. Identity is not just a matter of personal choice, although no one would deny that that obviously is important. It is also a matter of birth, cultural background, social assignment and affiliation. Both in traditional Jewish law and in common usage, people may often be taken to be "Jewish" regardless of their personal affiliations. In the case of Rabbinic law, there is a complex and well-qualified interplay between objective birth identity/group membership and personal affirmation/conversion. So if the problem is with Shengold, the Israel Science and Technology website may give better guidelines. A second point: just the existence of individual questionable cases cannot be a justification for rejecting any list at all, as seems to be argued just above. As I point out in my earlier entry of 13:15 of 2 December, under the heading "Arbitrary Break 0," every article in Wikipedia has questionable items that can be challenged on the Talk page, but no one is suggesting the deletion of all articles in Wikipedia. The Talk page exists to provide space for discussion of such matters.Tempered (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (reposted from the List AfD by Betsy Devine

No that will not do, being jewish is everything but a matter of fact. The Halachic criteria are as problematic as using the nuremberg laws would be for defining who is a Jew - ethnic and religious identity is always a question of identity, not of belonging to a "natural kind".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of these definitions are problematic. No, ethnic and religious identity is not always simply a question of (personal) identity, as the Halachic criteria and Nuremburg laws make clear (as do many other situations of ethnic and religious conflict not involving Jews). Perhaps in a perfect world it would be. --Avenue (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I meant in the context of applying labels in an encyclopedia. We do not label someone as Jewish because any specific body of rules define them as such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Betsythedevine, for your reposting of my contribution. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and courtesy. Perhaps, if nothing else, this link to the www.science.co.il/nobel-prizes/ site might be added as a further "Reference" link at the bottom of the article.Tempered (talk) 04:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LIST (guideline): "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... In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies."

• WP:LSC is part of the guideline WP:Stand-alone lists
  : "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. This section, not the page's name, defines the subject of the list. Ideally, the selection criteria will be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." (emphasis mine)

Further to that, the lede needs to specifically state whether the criteria people are being included on is by ethnicity or faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Are there any laureates who are on the list solely due to a conversion to Judaism as a faith? If so, we should add that criterion. Of course, that might also fall under the other heading, self-identification. betsythedevine (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd think that converting to Judaism would qualify as self-identification under any circumstances I can imagine, unless there was strong evidence that this conversion had been renounced. As always, when you think about the details, things start getting awkward. It's also worth noting that the criteria for inclusion presently given in the lede needs to make clear that "... of Jewish descent" doesn't mean "...entirely of Jewish descent", or even "...of mostly Jewish descent". I'm not sure what the best wording would be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say, at least one reliably-sourced Jewish parent, specifically identified as such, w/o doing original research or making assumptions based on parent's parents or grandparents.

talk

) 01:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever criteria are used are going to be arbitrary, thinking about it, so unless the sole criteria is something we already use in Wikipedia (e.g. self-identified ethnicity, self identified faith), isn't creating our own criteria OR or synthesis? Shouldn't the criteria itself come from WP:RS? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The optimal solution would be self-identification for living people, reliable sources for non-living.

talk

) 01:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

(restart indents) I agree with Andy and Yworo that we shouldn't make secondary rules about who is or isn't Jewish, but I think that demanding our

My belief is that this list would emerge from such a process providing more impressive and meaningful info than it does now. Yes, I would like to see names off this list if BLP concerns or lack of good evidence would remove them. My guess is that such change would remove no more than a tiny, tiny few people. betsythedevine (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• We can not include people in a list of Jews (or any other ethnicity) based on knowledge of their parents. Listing in an ethnicity category requires knowledge about the individuals selfidentification as a member of that group. I have removed a few entries that had no source and whose wikipedia articles made no mention of Jewishness, There should be no entries in this list that does not have a source. I also removed Jelinek whose father was a non-practicing Jewish, but who was educated in a catholic school and about whose religious/ethnic selfidentification we know nothing. If the inclusion criteria is "having a parent described as a Jew in a source" Then we will have to rename the list to "Nobel Laureates with a Jewish parent".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered tackling List of Jewish American politicians too? That seems to have much more serious sourcing issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered tackling it yourself? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. There are probably a lot of the sources that aren't actually adequate because they don't show self ID. I left them in for good faith's sake, but someone should probably check them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bravo, Maunus! Of all the people who have claimed in this section to be concerned about policy, you're the only one who has actually demonstrated it by tackling a list other than this one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Say, would you be willing to take a stab at List of Jewish American entertainers too? Though I've managed to do some cleanup there recently, I have to tippy-toe around that one, because whenever I delete too much, I'm reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Its a lot more complicated in an article like thate which it has sources and I'd have to read and evaluate all the sources and give reasons for each deletion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Only the first section has lots of sources (although I'm sure many are of dubious quality). Most of the other sections have few or no sources. There are literally hundreds of names on that list without any source at all. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bloody hell. I didn't scroll all the way down - that list is immense!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup! I think the list would be even worse if it weren't so impossible to edit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AndytheGrump, I've tagged it, for starters, but I'm already involved in cleaning up (or keeping clean) at least a half dozen of these lists. Editors here stated they were extremely concerned about

WP:BLP and policy-violations, but as I pointed out then, they appeared to care about such issues on one list and one list only, this one. And more specifically, they only really cared that one individual, Geim, not be added to this list. I've challenged them on this many times, but they continue to prove me correct, by focusing solely on this list, apparently not caring at all about the many other lists that are far worse. Thus, there appears to be no visible evidence that their putative issues are their actual issues. Any one of them can prove me wrong, of course, by actually attempting to clean up some other list - I've provided excellent examples of horrible lists. So far, nada. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Regarding Geim, you are just plain wrong, at least in my case. I know very little about him, beyond the fact that (a) he has been added to this list, and (b) this has been contested. My objections to this list are essentially the same as

WP:OR being used as something close to propaganda - would a list of White male Nobel Laureates be acceptable? Or a list of Jewish embezzlers? I'd hope not. The simple fact is that, though the number of people of Jewish descent who have won Nobel prizes is probably significantly higher than a random selection from the population of the world might suggest, there is no reason whatsoever to assume that this is directly connected with their 'Jewishness' (whatever that is - since we don't define it here, it means little anyway). The Nobel Prize committee don't take ethnicity or faith into account when allocating prizes (at least, I hope not), so we shouldn't either. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize committee doesn't take ethnicity or faith into account when allocating prizes, but that's irrelevant, as are your theories about whether or not "Jewishness" is "directly connected" to winning Nobel Prizes. The only thing that matters is whether or not

reliable sources discuss this intersection: and, of course, they do. Now, nice sidestep, but back to the topic at hand; you (and other editors in this section) only seem to care about this list, not all the other lists that violate the policies much more egregiously. In just a few minutes Maunus was able to delete literally hundreds of unsourced names from other lists, yet you seem able only to complain about this list, or move it to disruptive names. Thus, there appears to be no visible evidence that your putative issues are your actual issues. Any one of you can prove me wrong, of course, by actually attempting to clean up some other list - I've provided excellent examples of horrible lists. So far, only Maunuus' actions are consistent with his words. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Jayjg, I see no reason to respond to conspiracy theories. If you choose not to believe what I wrote, that is your problem, not mine - and you still haven't explained why you didn't do anything about these troublesome lists yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If any "conspiracy theories" had been presented, your statement would make more sense. As it is, it's a non sequitur. If you've tried to remove unsourced items from other lists, please show me where. As for me, I have indeed been doing all sorts of things about these troublesome lists, tagging them, and removing literally hundreds of unsourced or improperly sourced names, in the face of considerable opposition, and with no assistance whatsoever from you or the other editors in this section (aside from Maunus) who claim to be concerned about them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I have 17 'list of X people' on my watchlist - I'm not going to look through the lot to see where I've removed unsourced entries, but this is the reason they are listed. For talk page discussions on this see for example [2] or [3] (I tried to get this list deleted entirely). You could also look at

take my word for it as you are expected to? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 22:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any examples of you removing content from other lists before my comments here. And, of course, while you did try to get this list deleted, you made no comment whatsoever at the simultaneous AfDs for far worse lists (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers), of which you were well aware.[4] On the contrary, you had all sorts of excuses as to why you could only focus on this specific list, and no others.[5][6] Nope, it was the same back then as it is now; all sorts of energy for trying to get this list deleted, moved, "fixed", whatever, but none whatsoever to devote to far worse lists. I'm not making any "insinuations" or "assumptions" here, I'm just describing the behavior I've witnessed for the past 10 months. It's a set pattern: 1) You complain that there are "no clear criteria" and BLP problems with this list, and argue it should be deleted. 2) I point out lists which are far worse examples of this problem, and note that editors only seem concerned with this specific list, not the actual problem ones. 3) You devote lots of energy to insisting that I am wrong or failing to assume good faith, or insist I apologize for making "ridiculous insinuations", but have no time whatsoever to actually go to those other articles and try to clean them up. 4) Rinse, repeat. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is really a very silly discussion. Nobody is required to be consistent in their editing patterns or arguments. It is acceptable to focus on one list if that is what one wishes - you could both have improved eight lists in the time you've spent on this personal quibble.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In the past I've encountered a significant amount of opposition to my attempts to remove unsourced/poorly sourced from these lists. I've had to take some lists off my watchlist entirely, in the face of determined opposition to removing any name, or even to providing proper sourcing. One article, for example, had/has approximately 150 citations to a book title, without even a page number. I commend you for tackling a couple of persistently problematic lists - I hope you don't encounter the opposition there that I did in the past. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that once again this discussion has got sidetracked by off-topic discussions about other lists. The fact is that this list contrary to guidelines, gives no criteria for inclusion in the lede. This is totally unacceptable, given the contentious nature of some of the inclusions. I therefore propose we do the following. (a) Write a simple definition of the criteria (based on self-identification for living persons, as any reasonable interpretation of current BLP policy would imply), and then (b) remove anyone on the list for whom adequate sourcing for meeting the defined criteria is not provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I second that for living persons, for non-living persons a reliable source mentioning that the person identified as Jewish would be required, not simply a statement that one of their parents or ancestors was jewish or that they were subjected to antisemitism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that criteria based solely on self-identification are ideal (especially for non-living persons). But I agree that setting out clear inclusion criteria based on the

WP:BLPCAT policy would be an improvement over the current version's lack of any explicit criteria. --Avenue (talk

) 21:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the article and its lede already comply with

trans-sexual or intersex

individuals etc.
In addition, it will continue to comply with

WP:LISTPEOPLE, which states "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources". That's all that is required, and we won't be imposing any additional, non policy or guideline based requirements for self-identification. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:EGRS clearly states that ethnic group and religious group membership requires sources for selfidentification for BLP's - it only makes sense to use the same criteria for dead people.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lists are not categories, and despite the best attempts of some to extend the

WP:RS, per standard Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:BLPCAT: "These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs...". Now clearly, 'Jewish' isn't only a category regarding religion, but one can hardly argue that religion has nothing to do with the concept of 'being Jewish'. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but Judaism quite often has nothing to do with the concept of 'being Jewish' (see, for example,

WP:BLPCAT would only apply if this list were List of Judaism practicing Nobel laureates. It's not. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Jews are an ethnicity". And if so, then one should follow

WP:RS on the subject of ethnicity - which is to say that it is a social construct, based on self-identification. Ethnicity is a complex subject, and not one where yes/no answers are likely to be forthcoming. Still if you are proposing that a person being ethnically Jewish should be a criteria for inclusion, why shouldn't we say so in the lede? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, gender, and many other things are "social construct[s], based on self-identification". We don't have to say so for the same reason we don't provide Wikipedia's "definition" of "female" in

List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients etc. (the latter all Feature lists, by the way); policy doesn't require (or even recommend) it, and it would be bad writing to do so. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? "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) - which Betsythedevine quoted at the start of this section. That seems clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And indeed, it is clear: It is a "List of

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.[7][8] If you can't do that, then you should consider simply letting go. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Shechtman Technion.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shechtman Technion.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot -- talk ) 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Improper sourcing

It came to my attention while looking at a recent edit [9] adding Peter Diamond to the list that there are several references to the Jewish Virtual Library (www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org) - and, as their article on Leonid Hurwicz states [10], they in turn cite Wikipedia as a source. This is of course circular referencing, and thus unacceptable. Can I ask that those adding individuals to the list at least do them the honour of finding proper references? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Peter Diamond

I added the economist Peter Diamond to the list with the following sources: 1) Leading Jewish Minds at MIT, This is an announcement of a lecture given by Dr. Peter A. Diamond within a series "Leading Jewish Minds at MIT" at Hillel; 2) Going to the head of the class, Stating that Peter A. Diamond had a Bar Mitzvah at Temple Beth El in Cedarhurst, NY; 3) Peter Diamond (NNDB); 4)Jewish Virtual Library (Peter Diamond). This was repeatedly reverted. Even if you've got doubts about the Jewish Virtual Library as a circular source (although a good chunk of the information in their entry clearly cannot be found in Wikipedia), there are 4 sources and consilience of their information on ethnicity. If you believe that all 4 are problematic, they definitely provide some support and based on that you may request an additional source, but why reverting the edit?64.251.32.254 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The first source does not explicitly state that Diamond is Jewish - and for that matter, neither does the second (though it implies he is). However, the 2nd source (www.liherald.com/fivetowns) seems to accept user-submitted content (see [11]), which also might be problematic. NNDB isn't remotely a reliable source (see here[12]: " Our standard is correctness over verifiability"), and as I stated above, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org cites Wikipedia as a source, so cannot be accepted. The only source that might be acceptable is the second - I have checked, and it seems to have been written by the website editor, rather than a reader. However, we should really be using better sources than this (preferably ones that actually state that Diamond is Jewish). One would have thought that Nobel laureates were sufficiently notable for such information to be readily available - and there is no hurry to make entries in the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What would then be explicit if 1) Diamond, 70, a native of Woodmere and 1957 graduate of Lawrence High School, who was a bar mitzvah at Temple Beth El in Cedarhurst and 2) his own invited lecture under the headline Leading Jewish Minds at MIT, are not explicit enough? Both clearly identify his ethnicity (which, BTW, is not the case with Igor Tamm and Andrew Schally, who are both in the list with flimsy sources at best).64.251.32.254 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we don't know whether Diamond was giving a lecture as a 'Jewish mind' or about 'Jewish minds', the MIT source isn't evidence of ethnicity. As for the second source, I'd like to see the opinion of others for this. You can take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you like - but finding a better source would be preferable. Regarding Tamm and Schally, I don't think that us using flimsy sources once is a justification for doing it again (and I'll look into these entries too). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We do actually know what he was lecturing on — "Unemployment and Debt In The United States" (p. 2), as a "leading Jewish mind".64.251.32.254 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you think that is sufficient, take it to the noticeboard. But is there really no better source than this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, I'll stumble on something else.64.251.32.254 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So you reverted the edit again. Well, to be consistent I hope you'll also remove a dozen of laureates with no sources cited whatsoever.64.251.32.254 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I asked you to take the sources you cite to the

WP:3RR, as you are liable to be blocked from editing if you revert again. As for other names on the list, can you tell us which ones you think are unsourced? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 20:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

NNDB is obviously inappropriate, and the Jewish Virtual Library source can't be used, because that article uses Wikipedia as a source. The MIT source is a bit ambiguous, though not nearly as confusing as it's being made out to be. The Five Town Herald article by Nassu Herald editor Jeff Bessen should be fine - no policy-based objection to it has yet been made. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want an objection, I'll make one. The source in question doesn't actually assert outright what it is being used to cite: that Diamond is Jewish. You might say that this is an unduly literal interpretation of policy, but given the fact that I did a fairly thorough search, and couldn't find a reliable source elsewhere that said the same thing - and Diamond isn't exactly an obscure individual. What I did find however, is a smattering of obviously unreliable sources - dubious conspiracy-theory websites - asserting that Diamond was part of a supposed 'Jewish cabal' running the U.S. economy (unoriginal, this lot), which suggests to me that maybe we should be a little more certain about this, rather than relying on a website for a local paper. I still think that this should be discussed at RS/N before being used as sole justification for including Diamond on the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The "Lunchtime Seminar Series for MIT Faculty, Staff, Alumni/ae, and Friends", on the subject of "Unemployment and Debt in the United States", is presented by "MIT Hillel".

The talk is given the title "LEADING JEWISH MINDS @ MIT".

Hillel

is a Jewish organization.

Hillel is presenting Peter A. Diamond as a "Jewish mind" in this source.

The source supports that the individual is Jewish. Do we have other sources suggesting the individual may not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, do you really think that it is other editor's responsibility to disprove things? All I am saying here is that, given the lack of evidence from more notable sources, for a prominent individual, we should seek further input at RS/N over this. Just what exactly is your problem here? (And, for the record, I do not think that the MIT source "supports that the individual is Jewish" - it doesn't say he is, and it is

WP:OR at best to assume otherwise). AndyTheGrump (talk

) 03:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's "unduly literal" to say that someone who had a Bar Mitzvah at a local temple isn't necessarily Jewish. The MIT source wouldn't be good enough on its own, but is definitely corroborative. Other sources indicating he's Jewish are not reliable, but not all antisemitic either - in addition to the ones mentioned, there's this and this. The fact that had a visiting appointment at Hebrew University and later received an Honorary doctorate from Hebrew University is also suggestive. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable analysis to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Jayjg for finding the additional sources. Now, how about doing what I proposed was appropriate, and discussing this at RS/N? Or are we going to go with 'suggestive' evidence here? Are we going to have to rename the article "List of people we've decided are Jewish" once again? This article is

WP:OR, and this discussion merely proves the point one more time... AndyTheGrump (talk

) 05:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, keep in mind that you rejected him as being Jewish based on your own

WP:OR"; not only is it not true, but the community has rejected that view. If that continues to be the basis for your editing this article, then, per our previous discussion, your contributions cannot help either you or Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk)

16:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't give a toss what you think the community says about the matter. I am stating a fact: this article is

WP:BLP in that they are making an unequivocal statement from questionable evidence. I see no reason whatsoever why I shouldn't start removing them. And don't give me lectures on 'helping Wikipedia' - your own motivations aren't exactly philanthropic, are they? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 16:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy -- it does sound a bit as though you believe your personal views are more important than the community's input.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Coming from you, that is laughable. And yes, the community's view regarding the need for articles to be properly sourced, and not based on our own research (or in this case, opinion, given that there is no definition of what 'Jewish' means in relation to to this list) is entirely in accord with mine. Incidentally, the last AfD closed as 'no consensus', which makes Jayjg's assertions about what the community's view is less than viable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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

And indeed, it is clear: It is a "List of

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.[13][14] If you can't do that, then you should consider simply letting go. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That applies as much today as it did a month ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of 'letting go' so the POV-pushers can extend this bit of dubious ethno-boosting even further. Unlike you, I actually care about such matters as reliability, neutrality, and not letting ones own personal interests determine which parts of Wikipedia policy one adheres to. And why the hell should I waste my time looking for sources to support a list I don't think complies with Wikipedia policy and objectives? Finally, where exactly do you get the idea that this list is the only one I care about? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you just saying this to confirm your own tired prejudices? I suggest you stick to finding sources, and cut out the insinuations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I have indeed been finding sources - lots of them. And, "unlike you, I actually care about such matters as reliability, neutrality, and not letting ones own personal interests determine which parts of Wikipedia policy one adheres to." If you're just here to continue to try to destroy this list because it fails to conform to your biases, despite the fact that it has survived two AfDs, then you really need to move on. Meanwhile, I'll stick to adding reliable sources and reliably sourced material to the list, as I've been consistently doing. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - I'm biased against editors using Wikipedia to boost their own ethnicity/faith or whatever. I'm biased against compiling lists with no clear criteria for inclusion. I'm biased against including individuals on such a list with no evidence. I'm biased against including individuals on such a list when the individuals concerned have made it abundantly clear that they don't wish to be included in such questionable material. If you don't think that someone with such biases should be contributing to Wikipedia, there are appropriate places to raise the matter. But until you do, I will do whatever I consider to be in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. So no, I'm not going to 'move on', just because you'd rather have the list to yourself. If you don't like it, you can always 'move on' yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Until you start working this hard on

List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients, or even on lists like List of British Jewish politicians it's all just empty words, and actions that don't match statements. Please try not to be too disruptive while I clean up this list. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That is an utterly infantile response. I'll work on whatever I choose to, as is my right. I don't take orders from idiots... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy, it strikes me that you are not respecting consensus. In addition, you are insulting other editors, which can perhaps be viewed as uncivil. Respecting consensus and being civil are core wp principles. I would hope that you would respect them. In addition, I note that you seem to focus on deleting references -- totally within policy -- to people being Jewish. Focusing on people in that religion. This also seems questionable -- while we are happy for editors to make sure that articles are within wp policy, which they should be, and happy for editors to improve articles of groups that fall within their area of interest (whether it be Zorastrians, or the NY Yankees, or people from country X or school Z), your focus seems to be not to improve articles but to do just the opposite for a specific religious group. I would think it would be a better course to pay heed to our community's views on consensus, and on civility. And, perhaps, not focus on a particular religious group, and seeking to against consensus impair its articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I suggest you either redact that immediately, or start preparing evidence to back it up at AN/I. I consider it a gross insult, and utterly without merit. I will of course present my editing history as evidence - no doubt we will have the opportunity to compare it with yours, and see whether a particular ethnicity and/or religion gets your particular attention. That should be good for a laugh... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Which part of what I said do you think is true? And which part do you not think is true?--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not much, and almost all. So are you going to redact your insulting insinuations, or not? Given that you've accused me of using wikipedia to attack a particular religious group (though I thought this list wasn't confined to those Jewish by religion? - oh well, whatever...), you had better produce some evidence to back it up. Not that you'll find any... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me which part you think is true. And which part you do not think is true. I made more than one statement, and would be interested in your clarification. And in addressing all the points that I made. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me what evidence you have that my "focus seems to be not to improve articles but to do just the opposite for a specific religious group". Or redact it. Unless and until this is done, I have nothing further to say to you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I apologize for not being clear. I made a number of statements. I am interested, as to each of them, as to your response. Whether you think they are true. Or not. And if not, why. I expect I do not have to re-state them for you, as they appear in my entry above in this string. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

My 'response', after some consideration, is to tell you to go fuck yourself. You make allegations that I am some sort of bigot, working against Wikipedia interests to 'impair' articles about a particular religious group, then refuse to either provide evidence, or take up what what would clearly be a serious allegation if true at the appropriate noticeboard. I'm sure any fair-minded reader can see you for what you are - a blustering coward, willing to make obnoxious allegations about those who seek to ensure that normal Wikipedia standards are adhered to in Wikipedia articles you seek to 'own', but totally unwilling to back them up. Feel free to raise this response at any appropriate place, but before you do, I suggest that you find the evidence required to back up your assertions (not that you will), or start thinking of a good defence for your own behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you have posed a question about the "MIT source" and that question has been answered, yet that is apparently not deterring you from rejecting that source as supportive of that Peter Diamond is Jewish. I am referring to the following, which you posted several days ago:

"Since we don't know whether Diamond was giving a lecture as a 'Jewish mind' or about 'Jewish minds', the MIT source isn't evidence of ethnicity."[15]

(The underlining in the above was added by me.)

But you have had that question answered. Another editor responded with the following:

"We do actually know what he was lecturing on — "Unemployment and Debt In The United States" (p. 2), as a "leading Jewish mind".

The above response is found here and here.

Are there any other possible interpretations of the wording found in the MIT source? The source indicates that Peter Diamond spoke at an event that had the title "LEADING JEWISH MINDS @ MIT".

(The event was sponsored by

Hillel

, an on-campus Jewish organization.)

I believe that your original posted question suggests that if he is not speaking about Jewish minds then he is speaking as a Jewish mind. Or are there other possible interpretations of the wording in that source? Are there other reasons you are apparently not accepting of this source as supportive of an assertion that that Peter Diamond is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If you use a source that you regard as being 'supportive of' an assertion as a citation for something you state as fact, that is

WP:OR. And in case you hadn't noticed, I suggested that the sources being used to state that Diamond is Jewish would merit further input from other contributors - at RS/N. That is all I said. Given the abysmal sourcing (or non-existent sourcing, though fortunately Jayjg seems to be tackling this) that the article suffered from, it seems reasonable to me that we should at least try to get one new addition to the list right. Strangely though, there seems to be a marked reluctance to actually ask for outside input, and 'contributors' evidently prefer to make unsubstantiated attacks on each other instead. If you want to contribute usefully, you could at least try looking for a reliable source that actually states that Diamond is Jewish, so we don't have to rely on 'interpretations' of circumstantial evidence. Or do you want to join in with the mud-slinging too? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 17:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "If you want to contribute usefully, you could at least try looking for a reliable source that actually states that Diamond is Jewish, so we don't have to rely on 'interpretations' of circumstantial evidence.'"

We do not need a statement "that Diamond is Jewish". That is not necessary. If an individual speaks as a Jew according to reliable sources, then he is Jewish.

The title of the lecture series is "LEADING JEWISH MINDS @ MIT". That leaves no room for interpretation. A Jewish mind belongs to a Jewish person. The

cranium

.

Hillel, a Jewish organization, also says at that source:

"Leading Jewish Minds @ MIT is an initiative to build and strengthen MIT’s Jewish community."[16]

We already know that the topic of the lecture delivered by Peter Diamond was not specifically about Jews. Peter Diamond is of interest to

Hillel's agenda because he is Jewish. This is straightforward. There is no interpretation involved. Bus stop (talk

) 17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia talk pages as a forum for your

WP:OR. If you think that the MIT source is adequate for an assertion that Diamond is Jewish, either add Diamond to the article and cite it, in which case I will take it to RS/N, or take it to RS/N yourself. I've no interest in reading yet more of your repetitive blather. AndyTheGrump (talk

) 18:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)