Talk:List of Jewish scientists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Other lists

Is someone trying to set up an alternative article and pinching all the names from this one? Wouldn't it be better to rename the article if there's something wrong with the name? RachelBrown 16:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:jinfo this list is copyrighted off his website and he demands immediate retractions. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science StabRule 21:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "This article and all its revisions are a blatant copyright infringement from the website of a commercial content provider: jinfo.org" is wrong. I cannot comment on recent revisions, but the revisions I made were not based on this web site, which I have never looked at. - RachelBrown 23:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That website is the only reference lifted on this page - surely you know of it. StabRule 02:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • As RachelBrown's first comment above indicates, the massive, virtually verbatim transfer of content from JINFO.ORG began towards the end of September. The "someone" that she refers to as the party responsible appears to have been LazarKr. The lists that had appeared on the webpage prior to that time did not seem to have been derived from JINFO.ORG. The list of Cognitive Scientists on the most recent versions of the webpage also appeared to have been independently generated. We do not believe RachelBrown was involved in the copying of our lists. Jinfo 06:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel I made it just a redirect because I don't want to be accused of recreating a deleted list. Although maybe this won't happen.--T. Anthony 17:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there has been a copyvio, I obviously dissociate myself from it completely. Can we just roll back to an edit before the mass-copying started? - RachelBrown 12:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful that lists of facts can be copyrighted actually, please explain why you think they can be and provide appropriate legal documentation. Arniep 22:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JINFO.ORG lists are unique in their extent, comprehensiveness, uniformity, and accuracy. There are no comparable lists extant anywhere in the fields covered. To formulate high-quality lists of this genre requires first that the list compiler understand what the particular field is all about and what the major discoveries, advances, inventions, etc. were. (In the sciences, this is no trivial matter.) It then requires knowing who did what and then figuring out and verifying which of these individuals were Jewish. Let's examine the last of these issues first.
  • Consider the Wikipedia "List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering (NAE)." This should have been a relatively easy list to compile in the sense that the compiler only needed to determine which names on the already existing membership list to include. An accurate list would have contained more than 500 names (approximately 18% of the ~3200 current and deceased members). What we find instead is a list of only 99 names, i.e. a list that is more than 80% incomplete. Furthermore, when we examine the names on the list, we find that 73 of them just happen to be names found on the JINFO.ORG website, which currently covers only one out of the twelve divisional areas of the NAE (Computer Science and Engineering). At least seven more of the names were listed on the JEWHOO.COM website. So Wikipedia was able to come up with no more than 19 names on its own, out of more than 500. According to you, such a list is simply a matter of "fact." One has a given set of Academy members and they're either Jewish or not Jewish. So why was Wikipedia only able to come up with less than 4% of the expected number on its own?
  • When we examine the Wikipedia "List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)," a similar pattern reappears. Although this list is only about 50% incomplete, we find that 95% of the names on it are names from the JINFO.ORG lists (without source attribution, of course). There are hundreds of additional names that belong on this list; so why was Wikipedia unable to get more than 5% of them? After all, according to you, these are just "facts"; one should simply be able to look them up - right? The point is that there is no central registry of Jews where one can simply look up whether someone is or isn't Jewish. Even the Jewish encyclopedias don't contain more than a small fraction of the information that would be required to compile reasonably complete and accurate lists of the Jewish members of the NAE and the NAS. The only way to do this is by extensive biographical research, i.e., by going through hundreds of interviews, biographies, autobiographies, oral histories, memoirs, obituaries, genealogical databases, obscure biographical dictionaries (many in foreign languages), and Festschriften. The information is out there, but it requires a massive amount of work to locate and compile.
  • Now let's consider the more challenging task of constructing a Jewish list where there is no initial list from which to down-select. The old Wikipedia "List of Jewish Scientists and Philosophers" can still be viewed on many mirror sites (Google search, e.g., on "answers.com list Jewish scientists"). Note that the first list on this webpage, "Biologists and Chemists," contains a grand total of ten names. Our lists, on the other hand, in these two areas contain the names of 81 Nobel Prize winners alone, and several hundred others of a similar caliber. In addition to being incomplete, the Wikipedia list is what I would describe as highly non-uniform. On this very short list one finds the names of the Nobel Prize winners Sir Hans Krebs and Sir Ernst Chain, two of the greatest biochemists of the twentieth century, along with the names of Israel Shahak and George Waldbott. Israel Shahak's principal claim to fame was that of being the Jew-haters' favorite self-hating Jew; he also happened to be a chemist. George Waldbott was a fluoridation critic back in the 1950s. So the Wikipedia list, despite being a mere 2% in size of the corresponding JINFO.ORG lists, nevertheless managed to span the gamut from the famous to the infamous to the obscure. Why this monumental discrepancy in both the quality and the extent of the two lists? What you are claiming is that the JINFO.ORG lists are merely lists of "facts." How does Wikipedia know these are "facts"? And if it does know them to be "facts," why didn't it use them in formulating its previous lists?
  • Furthermore, when we examine the annotations added by Wikipedia to the JINFO.ORG lists, it becomes clear that the editor or editors did not even understand how certain individuals could be considered economists, computer scientists, philosophers, etc. at all. For example, on the list of "Computer Scientists," Max Black is described as "linguistic philosopher," Georg Cantor as "father of set theory," Noam Chomsky as "cognitive psychology," Joel Engel as "father of cellular phone," Dennis Gabor as "hologram," Steven Strogatz as "chaos theory," Peter Swerling as "radar theoretician," and Leo Szilard as "nuclear fission reactor." These designations are correct, but relate to major contributions by these people having NOTHING directly to do with computer science. These people are on my list of "Computer and Information Scientists" because they did other work related to computer science or because their work was covered by the broader category that I defined as "computer and information science." Max Black is on the list because he invented fuzzy logic, Georg Cantor because he invented the diagonal proof method that was the basis of Turing's work, Noam Chomsky because he invented the basis for the BNF notation used to specify the syntax rules for computer programming languages, Joel Engel because he co-invented cellular networks, Dennis Gabor because he invented analytic signal theory, Steven Strogatz because of work on network theory (explaining "six degrees of separation"), Peter Swerling because he invented the Kalman filter in control theory, and Leo Szilard because he introduced the informational interpretation of thermodynamic entropy. The speciousness of the argument that my lists are just simple lists of facts is made self-evident by Wikipedia's own annotations, which clearly indicate that in many cases it couldn't even figure out why these "facts" are facts.
  • Attorneys inform me that content that has any form of creative originality to it is copyrightable. I respectfully submit that that more than applies to my lists, which are the product of thousands of hours of research and analysis. Jinfo 04:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what generic "attorneys" tell User:Jinfo, compilations of information are not in themselves copyrightable (in the US). That was the "sweat of the brow" doctrine which was thoroughly dismissed by the US Supreme Court case Feist, which basically held that a list of names, organized alphabetically and with intent to be comprehensive for the list, is not an "original work of authorship" and therefore is barred, by the US Constitution, from copyright protection. See
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Data compilations can get copyright for (a) originality of selection; but "comprehensive" and "complete" are not selective (Feist), nor is the idea of compiling lists by profession and ethnicity/race/gender/religion; and (b) original arrangements; but alphabetical is not an original arrangement. (Feist). --LQ 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

[1] for rest of this discussion. nadav 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] contains yet additional discussion. (In particular, the bottom third deals with Feist v. Rural.) Jinfo 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find the deletion log on this list. Instead of showing the Deletion log it says "This is the fucking ultimate in stupid lists. MUST EAT ITS BRAIN," which isn't very useful to me to understanding the vote.--T. Anthony 09:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The smartest thing to do with this list is just put links to List of Austrian Jews#Academic List of German Jews etc. for all the scientists and philosophers are accounted for in the country lists. Anything further is extraneous. Antidote 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why no British scientists?

Shouldn't there be a section for the United Kingdom? 20.138.246.89 16:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational Jews

I noticed Albert Einstein was listed under Germans, but not under any of his other later nationalities. Are we doing this by country of birth or residence or what? Would it be appropriate to include those who emmigrated to other countries and gained citizenship there in both countries? Titanium Dragon 09:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression we were doing it by country where the person is most recognizable. Most people associate Einstein with Germany, so it makes sense he should be on there even though he lived in many places. But what I don't understand why some Austrian immigrants are more representative for Great Britain than Austrian: Hermann Bondi, Karl Popper? That's a little bias. Smartest thing is to make them British-born, most people when they look up a BRITISH scientist, think of that.

Also, why does Israel have every single University professor listed on there? If anyone is going to look up an Israeli scientist quickly, its likely going to be someone like Avram Hershko or Robert Aumann. How is Ilya more Russian than Belgian? Or how is Georg Cantor and Richard Epstein the most "looked-up" German and American, respectively?

Also Otto Wienger, IMHO, isn't a great representative for the philosophers of Austria, given his history, but hey, thats just an opinion. 65.8.28.68 17:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this list categorise people solely by place of birth? Hermann Bondi lived to 85; while he was born in Austria, he lived in Britain from the time he was 18, well over 3/4 of his life. He was a Cambridge don (becoming master of a college) and a top British civil servant, and was knighted. He was vastly more British than Austrian. --20.138.246.89 10:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're denying Bondi his Austrian identity and German-language purely because he spent most of his life in the UK? No, we should categorise people fairly. Since these are quick-reference lists, isn't it smart to put people who are most recognizably associated with that country and make it fair to them? Who are we to say Bondi would rather be seen as British than Austrian? 65.11.245.10 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That begs the question. Who are we to say Bondi would rather be seen as Austrian than British? And where do we draw the line? What of Claus Moser, who came to Britain when he was a child, or Leon Mestel, who came as a baby? Are they excluded?--20.138.246.89 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain Quick Listers

Lets think up the best British-born Jewish academics to put here.

In my opinion, great representatives for this county would be:

Add more!

All were British-born, identified so, and are readily recognizable in association with that country. Meaning, anyone who happens to look up "British Jews" would likely think of people like Rosalind Franklin.

They would be at least as likely to think of Selig Brodetsky, President of B'nai B'rith Great Britain and President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, yet not born in Britain.--Brownlee 09:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see we both got usernames. Anyway, no, judging from Brodetsky's article, he doesn't look like the best entry. ...And Beyond! 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you're a sockpuppet? I have been using this username for months, making hundreds of edits on a wide variety of subjects, and am not editing anonymously.--Brownlee 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because he was undoubtedly a vey distinguished British Jew, yet was not born here?--Newport 09:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why. See details below for why it is the most fair and balanced way to proceed that way. ...And Beyond! 10:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me and to many others, any list of eminent British Jews confined to those born here would be unrepresentative. Few British scientists of the 20th century were as eminent as Bondi, and to refuse to allow him into this list would be a gross distortion.--Brownlee 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Herman Bondi

There is a very simple objective test here. If Sir Hermann Bondi had been regarded as Austrian while at the height of his career, the Royal Society would have made him a Foreign Member. In fact, they made him a Fellow. Also, if he were Austrian he wouldn't have been allowed to call himself "Sir Hermann".

Well, a lot of foreign-born people were knighted, and ones who spent a much longer time in their country of origin. Sir Ernst Boris Chain? Don't see your point. Does that automatically mean Chain is less of a German academic representative and more of a British one? I don't think I ever said that Bondi is more Austrian than British. He's on List of British Jews, isn't he? But why bother making him an entry on the quick-list? Just to prove a point that he's more British than Austrian? Look at the selection of US Jewish academics. It's exactly reflective of How Great Britain should be, considering both were massive immigrant hubs. I would be sorta for removing Oppenheimer, but whatever. You can't disagree that its the most neutral and fair method to simply not include foreign-borns on this list so that people don't start questioning national affliations. We've already developed that problem. Look at the user posting above. ...And Beyond! 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, by the logic being used above, why are Jews born in what is now the Czech Republic arbitrarily being re-labelled as Austrians? --Brownlee 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um..I don't know. Czech Republic didn't exist until circa 1920, so it was probably all Austria then. That's irrelevant and

WP:POINT material. ...And Beyond! 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It's very simple. We abide by
Encyclopaedia Britannica begins "British mathematician and cosmologist". There is also this link: [3]. If anyone has an equally reputable source that he was not British, we can discuss the issue. But to say that he was not British in the face of these sources, just because he was not born here, is original research.--Newport 10:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Please stop being difficult and try to understand what exactly is going on here, because you clearly don't. Not once has anyone said Hermann Bondi was not British. What was said, is that he's not exactly the most neutrally favorable representativie for Britain ON THIS SHORT LIST OF PEOPLE (please read) because he was also Austrian. Above, we have a user asking how these people are chosen as representatives. Nobody bothered to address his greivance though it has great validity. For most nations, it is very simple to choose representatives for these short lists: we simply choose well known Jews who were born in that country. But for the USA and Great Britain (plus a few others), a problem arises. These countries are immigrant hubs and have many foreign born people who have become famous in their new homelands. Instead of picking and choosing who's more XXian than XXian why not just make it nice an neutral and only include people who are BORN in that country? It is an easy and very simple solution.

Plus, why are we listing very random academics on the Israeli list when it is clear the whole purpose of having this quick-reference list is to make it easy for people looking up very well-known academics? Otherwise, we'd just leave the links for them to click to the whole Israeli academic list and thats it. If you want to start throwing out wikipedia policies, maybe you should check out

WP:OWN as I'm sure you've been told to before. Now either you can contribute to the formation of the new British list as I offered above, or you can stick with what I choose. Which way would you prefer? ...And Beyond! 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

The above has a strong POV: that people are only representative of britain if they were born here. WP:NPOV and WP:V say that anyone described as British in a reliable source are British.--Brownlee 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Peierls

I can't understand how original research is disallowed when the question of someone not being Jewish is posed, but perfectly ok when the question of someone being Jewish is posed. If it is going to be argued that we should still leave the question open of

WP:NOR. Personally, I would agree that the reliability of sources should come into play if someone presents a source that says Peierls mother is Jewish, and then the source saying his mother is Roman Catholic can be ignored. However, I doubt the same type of logic will be applied to the Ralph Benatzky article. 141.213.212.42 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Rudolf Peierls

The reason that Peierls doesn't explain why he believes that his mother's sister probably died in a concentration camp or why her two daughters had to flee Germany, one ending up in Great Britain and the other in America, is that it is understood that he is talking about the typical fates of Jews in Nazi Germany. Here are the first few lines of the article on Rudolf Peierls in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. The article was written by the late Prof. Richard Dalitz, FRS of Oxford, one of Peierls' former students: "Peierls, Sir Rudolf Ernst (1907–1995), theoretical physicist, was born on 5 June 1907 in Oberschöneweide, a suburb in the south-east of Berlin, the youngest of the three children (Alfred (b. 1899); Annie (b. 1901); and Rudolf) of Heinrich Peierls (1867–1945), an electrical engineer from Breslau (Wrocław) and managing director of a cable factory of the Allgemeine Elektrizitäts-Gesellschaft (AEG), and his first wife, Elisabeth (Elli; 1878–1921) , daughter of Alfred Weigert (1848–1896) and his wife, Olga Hamburger, both of Breslau. Rudolf's parents were first cousins through the Weigert line. The Peierls families were assimilated Jews." A second reference can be found in the November 1995 issue of Physics World magazine. On page 63, Jack Paton, also of Oxford University, writes "Born into an assimilated Jewish family, Peierls originally wanted to become an engineer..."Jinfo 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple - we have good sources that say that he was Jewish, and no sources that say explicitly that he wasn't. Discussing what his mother may or may not have been violates
WP:NOR. Anyway, even if it were relevant, these sources say unambiguously that he was of Jewish descent, not mixed Jewish-Catholic. "Rudolf's parents were first cousins through the Weigert line. The Peierls families were assimilated Jews." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. "Born in Berlin of Jewish descent": The Economist (London); Sep 30, 1995; p. 121.--217.46.192.195 12:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

George Cantor

Wow, I had no idea about the debate going on about him until I checked out his article. It seems that when there is that much wrangling over sources and background, one should not be included in categories and lists. Anyways, maybe this should continue on his talk page and if it can be resolved either way, this page can be adjusted accordingly. Thanks, --Tom 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed Heinrich Hertz since his father's father converted from Judaism to Lutheranism?? Again, is this a list of Jewish X or a listy of X's of Jewish descent? I would prefer to work this out on the individuals own article space and let that determine this list. Anyways --Tom 16:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hertz's father converted. Since Jews are an ethnicity as well as a religion, we make no distinction between Jews and people of Jewish descent.--Simul8 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So his father was born Jewish but converted. So that makes Hertz Jewish? ok, I am done editing here for now. --Tom 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced names

What about 'Jewish scientists by date of birth'?

I've a feeling that there were rather few Jews involved in science in the 17th and 18th centuries, and the numbers expanded vastly some time in the 19th century. Splitting the birth years of the listed scientists by decade and century should show this (or else show it's not true).

This could be done manually, but it ought to be possible for someone to write a software engine that would do it a lot faster. Most of them have their year of birth as a category. I've no idea how to do this, but someone must.--GwydionM (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Jewish_scientists&oldid=1208252528"