Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Nobel laureates by religion

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The discussion confirms the policy at

WP:NLIST, viz., that there is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists. It does seem, however, that sufficient sourcing has been presented to favor the keeping of List of Jewish Nobel laureates, despite the challenges involved in unambiguously determining whether one is Jewish. If there is indeed enough sourcing to write a prose article on the relationship between Judaism and Nobel prizes, then the acceptability of a list article on the same subject follows closely behind. I do not mean to suggest that such a prose article should be written in addition to the present list, however. As for the other lists, they may be individually nominated for AFD's, at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Lists of Nobel laureates by religion

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of Christian Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Muslim Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of nonreligious Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There might be something to be said about the very obviously systematically biased distribution of Nobel winners or something, but I don't see how this kind of listing of people by an unrelated characteristic (the religion of most of the winners has absolutely nothing to do with what they achieved) achieves anything encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place for

WP:OR
(as something first being published on Wikipedia, which is supposed to reflect existing sources, is OR pretty much by definition).

In short, fails

WP:NOR
.

Group nom since they all similarly fail

WP:NOT (this applies even more to the non-religious group: we don't generally list things or people by characteristics they don't have...), and many seem to based on a single work by Baruch Shalev. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Extended content

  1. "A remarkable week for Jewish Nobelהש Prize winners". The Jewish Chronicle. October 10, 2013. Jews have won more than 20 per cent of the 850-plus prizes awarded, despite making up just 0.2 per cent of world's population.
  2. "One-of-five Nobel Prize Laureates are Jewish". Israel High-Tech & Investment Report. December 2004. Retrieved 2010-02-15.
  3. Brooks, David (January 11, 2010). "The Tel Aviv Cluster". The New York Times
    . p. A23. Jews are a famously accomplished group. They make up 0.2 percent of the world population, but 54 percent of the world chess champions, 27 percent of the Nobel physics laureates and 31 percent of the medicine laureates. Jews make up 2 percent of the U.S. population, but 21 percent of the Ivy League student bodies, 26 percent of the Kennedy Center honorees, 37 percent of the Academy Award-winning directors, 38 percent of those on a recent Business Week list of leading philanthropists, 51 percent of the Pulitzer Prize winners for nonfiction.
  4. Dobbs, Stephen Mark (October 12, 2001). "As the Nobel Prize marks centennial, Jews constitute 1/5 of laureates". j. Retrieved January 23, 2009. Throughout the 20th century, Jews, more so than any other minority, ethnic or cultural group, have been recipients of the Nobel Prize – perhaps the most distinguished award for human endeavor in the six fields for which it is given. Remarkably, Jews constitute almost one-fifth of all Nobel laureates. This, in a world in which Jews number just a fraction of 1 percent of the population.
  5. "28". Judaism for dummies.
    John Wiley & Sons. 2001. Similarly, because Jews make up less than a quarter of one percent of the world's population, it's surprising that over 20 percent of Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews or people of Jewish descent. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help
    )
  6. Lawrence E. Harrison (2008). The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change a Culture and Save It. Oxford University Press. p. 102. That achievement is symbolized by the fact that 15 to 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews, who represent two tenths of one percent of the world's population.
  7. The History of the Jewish People: Ancient Israel to 1880s America. Behrman House, Inc. 2006. p. 1. These accomplishments account for 20 percent of the Nobel Prizes awarded since 1901. What a feat for a people who make up only .2 percent of the world's population! {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  8. Schuster, Ruth (2013-10-09). "Why do Jews win so many Nobels?". Retrieved 2018-03-17.
  9. "Why have Jews won Nobel Prizes disproportionately? - Prof. Robert Aumann (Nobel Prize Economist)". YouTube. 2017-04-17. Retrieved 2018-03-17.
  10. Pontz, Zach (2013-10-29). "Richard Dawkins Perplexed by High Number of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners". Algemeiner.com. Retrieved 2018-03-17.
  11. "Jews rank high among winners of Nobel, but why not Israelis", J. The Jewish News of Northern California, October 25, 2002. "There are three central theories given for Jewish academic achievement, according to Shulamit Volkov, professor of history at Tel Aviv University and author of "The Magic Circle: Germans, Jews and Anti-Semites." The first theory says that Jews are cleverer than others, a theory dismissed by Volkov and other serious academics. The second theory, proposed first by an American sociologist in 1919, holds that because Jews were on the margins of society they were forced to excel. The third and more common explanation, says Volkov, states that generations of Jewish Orthodox learning later translated brilliantly into secular learning."
  12. Noah Efron, "The Real Reason Why Jews Win So Many Nobel Prizes", Haaretz, October 21, 2013.
  13. Mark Mietkiewicz, "Nobel Prize and the Jews", Canadian Jewish News, December 10, 2018.
  14. Raphael Patai, The Jewish Mind, Wayne State University Press, 1996, pp. 339-371, 547-548.

Still fails
WP:NOT. Those sources might be useful to say something about the systematic bias (or the somehow otherwise biased distribution) of Nobel prizes, but they do not themselves support a listing like this (many of them barely name an example or two). Your comment doesn't address how this is also exactly the same issue with all the others, minus the additional lack of sources on those. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It also doesn't help that many of the sources above are opinion pieces, youtube videos, or even dead links which I can't verify... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic bias of Nobel prizes might be a valid topic (ex. [1]; [2]; [3]), but that doesn't mean a list of people by an otherwise unrelated characteristic (such as the ethnic / cultural / religious group from WP:NOT) is a valid encyclopedic entry. We don't have List of African-American members of the United States House of Representatives, even if Racism in the United States is a very valid topic). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, there is List of African-American United States representatives. Reywas92Talk 17:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, nevermind. That article still doesn't seem to be much better than this, either. The only sources which directly address the topic (as opposed to being there for some other factual biographical aspect) are a short paragraph on the US house website and a Huffpost article which is actually about the Senate and not the House... Coverage of individual members =/= NLIST. But that doesn't address the fact that, unlike even racism in the United States (which is a culturally significant phenomenon, and might yet not quite be up to par for a list here), "Nobel prizes and religion" is not a culturally significant phenomenon however you spin it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While not directly used as citations, further reading sources and ELs including America's Black Congressmen, Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress, 1870–1991, and African Americans In Congress: A Documentary History make that unambiguously notable for NLIST, and the tag was unwarranted. I don't yet have an opinion on the lists at hand. Reywas92Talk 19:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I wrote or implied. I mentioned two lists
List of Muslim Nobel Laureates and List of Indian Nobel laureates, with a handful of comparable entries, notably Ramachandran and Salam. I cannot materially see any difference between these lists; the idea of statistics for such a small but extraordinary sample does not make any sense. The Prod for List of Arab Nobel laureates is similar. I did also notice this and this, with Generalrelative's "important notice", which gave me pause for thought. Mathsci (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Otherwise featured articles like List of Indian Nobel laureates risk being deleted is pretty much "keep because I don't want other lists like this to be deleted". The sample being "extraordinary" does not mean that every possible factual intersection about it belongs on Wikipedia. We don't have List of US Presidents by birthday or List of British monarchs by age at accession or List of Oscar winners by religion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FAC process here. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
To suggest that we should not consider what religion our great thinkers engaged in is very frightening censorship. Religion is a topic that almost all great thinkers at some point engage in so how can we ignore this valuable data as we hope to understand the science of the brain and contributions of great humans over time.
Wikipedia is not the place for political or religious censorship and that is exactly what this would be. This information is not harmful, illegal or dangerous. Censorship can be. I could understand if this data was somehow an effort to convey how to build WMD's, harm life in any form or basically inaccurate or unimportant. This data is none of these things. Please do not turn Wikipedia into a political forum where activists attempt to suppress free speech and open sharing of non-harmful data. 2601:603:167E:2D0:41CE:DCCF:4D37:81D6 (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Incoherent rambling that has nothing to do with notability standards. Do try harder. Dronebogus (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:603:167E:2D0:41CE:DCCF:4D37:81D6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A textbook example of
WP:ITSIMPORTANT; and a non-sequitur on top: the pages being about religion does not mean an attempt to delete them is "religious censorship" (and even if it were, that would not be a valid reason to keep them). Otherwise utter nonsense: using such exaggerated language in an attempt at a rhetorical coup de force falls flat on its face without reference to reliable sources (upon which Wikipedia should be based on) or other more convincing arguments. Claiming that these pages somehow provide any insight into "the mechanisms of great thinkers" (despite the absolute lack of substantial prose) similarly goes against all existing evidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion would benefit from a policy related input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISSN 0065-8987
    .
  2. doi:10.1088/0031-9120/33/3/023
    .
  3. ^ Rice, Karen B. (1993). Review of The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. 7th ed. pp. 437–438. Also included is a list of Jewish winners of the Nobel prize. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)
FWIW Judaism is the religion; being Jewish doesn't make one religious. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RandomCanadian wrote: no credible source makes any mention of any link between "being Jewish" (or "being Muslim" or "being Christian") and "winning Nobel prizes".... nope, you're wrong.[1]

References

  1. ISSN 1565-1525
    . Three of the four very top Bolsheviks, after all, were Kamenev, Trotsky, and Zinoviev- three Jews who stood with Lenin in 1917. Then there were Radek, Sokolnikov, Sverdlov, and Uritskii. We need a non-Red-baiting mode to confront the pre eminence of Jews in Bolshevism, just as we need a non-antisemitic mode to confront the high percentage of billionaires who are Jews, and a non-ethnically chauvinistic mode to confront the over-representation of Jews among Nobel laureates. We need to find a way out of the booster-bigot trap, which quickly channels discussions of Jews in comparison to other groups into the booster's uncritical celebration of Jewish achievements or the bigot's malevolent complaint about Jewish conspiracies. The whole issue of the role of Diaspora Jews in world history needs to be demystified.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting myself, We expect some minimum amount of coverage from which to write a summary of knowledge (which is what an encyclopedia is). Except maybe for the Jewish list, there isn't remotely the necessary amount of coverage to justify these This still doesn't address any of the other groupings; hence is not a reason to keep all of them. Grouping very similar lists by what appeared like the same kind of criteria (i.e. intersection of "religion" and "Nobel laureates") is perfectly procedurally valid. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Misnamed, conflating Judaism with Jewish, easily identifiable reliable sourcing which demonstrates the notability of the list. To repeat: it's a bad nomination; it should be withdrawn and separated out. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As per Elmidae. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a very broad range of academic literature which examines the intersection between Nobel winners and X (choose your category). It's hardly surprising given that 20% of Nobel winners are Jewish there would be work examining that. I find many of the arguments being used for delete here are grand generalisations, ignoring the vast literature which examines why and who wins nobel prizes. Yes, List of green-eyed winners of the Ramon Magsaysay Award would fall afoul of our policies or guidelines; but I genuinely struggle to understand how the Jewish winners list made it here: firstly, the mistaken conflation with Judaism, and secondly, the simplest of checking reveals it to be a clearly notable topic of discussion with abundant sourcing available. So, I propose that this nomination be withdrawn, that list of Jewish winners not be renominated and the other three be nominated separately. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a perfect example of a
    WP:ILIKEIT so I hope these are discounted by the closer. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" except there's an encyclopedia entry with a list of Jewish winners ... this is "marginally compelling"? How is an encyclopedia entry OR or SYNTH? We can generally agree on where the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" line begins (List of Japanese restaurants in Bamako), but the core of the problem is that there is no generalised consensus on where it ends and acceptable encyclopedic cross-categorizations begins (ie what is a "culturally significant phenomenon"). I struggle to see any justification for the blanket "delete all" !votes in the face of reliable sourcing. There's a procedural problem with the nomination, it's been demonstrated. The qualified comments from the delete !votes essentially acknowledging that the list of Jewish winners is different only reinforces this. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider?. I have been asked on my talk page to reconsider my Delete all opinion, especially in relation to the Jewish listing. OK, I may have been poorly informed on the Jewish aspect, but my view is more general than that: I think all of these lists should go. Basically I agree with what Vladimir.copic says immediately above. Athel cb (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further opportunity to achieve a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because from where we are, it's the simplest thing to do. I'll explain: the intersection of religion and winning-the-Nobel-prize has clearly been written about (especially but not exclusively in relation to Judaism) and in some of the specific disciplines covered by the Nobel prize, the relationship between that discipline (e.g. the science) and religion is widely written-about (and since the Nobel prizes and their winners are the pinnacle of scientific success, it follows that the relationship between science and religion automatically overlaps with the relationship between being a Nobel prize winner and being a scientist). So the subject exists, is sourced, and deserves an article. I would have felt better if someone had written it in the form of an article. But instead, it's in the form of a list. Now even as a list, it has value: it is quite likely that our readers will be interested in the sorts of people of the Jewish faith who've won these prizes, and what they did, so it's a directory for them. But if we're to treat it as a directory-list rather than a subject-article, then there is no justification in keeping one list (Jewish winners) and deleting another (Moslem winners). So we must either delete the lot and instead write an article, which I'm not volunteering to do, or we keep the lot. Further, if anyone were to write an article on the interaction of the Jewish faith and Nobel prize-winning, then they'd undoubtedly add a list of Jewish winners, which would become too large for the article, and need to be farmed out into exactly the sort of list we're contemplating deleting. Basically, keep is the only long-term stable solution. Elemimele (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the relationship between that discipline (e.g. the science) and religion is widely written-about
    WP:ITSINTERESTING - unless there are sources which are as interested in it as our hypothetical readers, we'd be doing a disservice to those interested readers by having articles on them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all and salt, essentially per
    WP:SYNTH that appears required to construct these lists (which is why I suggest salting the titles). Beccaynr (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep plenty of sources discuss the religion of Nobel laureates 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1.
    WP:NOTINFO without knowledge Dronebogus (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all The discussion above makes pretty clear that these lists inevitably represent
    talk) 16:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all – per nom and David Fuchs, although I'm not surprised this one is so contentious. Needs to be a much more compelling connection between winning a Nobel Prize and adhering to a certain faith to warrant an article like this. Ovinus (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further sourcing. "Alphabetical List of the Jewish Nobel Prize Winners (1905-1959)",[1] "Includes 150 lists on such topics as ... Jewish Nobel Prize Winners", [2] "the sheer number of recipients of the Nobel Prize for Literature... more than a dozen, including ... " (list follows)[3]

References

  1. ^ Levitan, Tina (1960). The Laureates: Jewish Winners of the Nobel Prize. Twayne Publishers. p. 214.
  2. ISBN 978-0-8128-2839-9
    .
  3. ISBN 9780190076993.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link
    )
That's five different texts cited in this discussion that specifically contain lists of Jewish winners of the Nobel Prize. I see no basis by which claims that the Jewish list of winners is non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation or SYNTH/OR can be maintaiend. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn’t justify a list Dronebogus (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at those sources? They all discuss Jewish Nobel laureates as a category, and The Book of Jewish Lists presumably does so in list-format. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYNTH that otherwise appears necessary to develop standalone lists. Beccaynr (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I've now had a good look at the sources presented and agree that the sources only lend support to a prose article or a section with in another article. With a couple of exceptions, sources mainly give a passing mention about number of Jewish people winning the Nobel as a titbit or interesting fact. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." The discussion around cross-categorisation is utterly misplaced. Jewish Nobel prize winners is a grouping which has reliable sourcing. It's axiomatic and perfectly within policy. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As I said in our ongoing discussion on my Talk page, from my view, when we look at the scholarly sources discussing the grouping or set generally, i.e. the ones I highlight in my first comment in the discussion, these sources tell us that the connections are more complex than a straightforward list. I also think we have some
WP:NPOV concerns I have expressed apply to what appears to be a lack of objective standards for list inclusion as well as whether lists should exist despite scholarly sources telling us there is no reliable basis for making these connections, even if we can identify clear inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Two problems with this: (1) the scholarly, generalised discussion cited above about is about religion, not identity (2) complexifying the issue through generalisation rather than the specific instance at hand. Who is on the list is a content dispute to be resolved through analysis of sourcing, this does not invalidate the list. I disagree with the interpretation of Hollinger, it's not a caution against discussion of Jewish Nobel winners, but rather it's about the uses of that information (although more specifically it's a rejection of a particular thesis on Jewish achievement). When there's more than 100 winners, all of whom are notable in their own right, it's completely sensible that there would be a list. No reason why the absence of one (article) should preclude the other (the list). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far too many "other stuff exists" votes here. Taking existing statistics and repackaging them into a list doesn't appear to be a valid reason for this article to remain. I assume a category will be enough to direct readers to where they need to go. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Goldzstain. In many parts of the world, religion is an important identifier (just like nationality is in the West). There is no logical reason why these articles should be deleted when we have list of Nobel laureates by country. We shouldnt be overlooking the fact that the Eastern world considers religion to be an important demographic marker. CharlesWain (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet more
    WP:ITSIMPORTANT. In many parts of the world politics is an important demographic, and so is Caste, or a billion other weird identifiers that don’t honestly matter. However, almost everyone has a nationality and considers it important. Dronebogus (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Dronebogus I wouldn't be so quick to joke about List of Nobel laureates by caste. Someone might use these sources to justify another listicle: [7] [8] [9] [10]... Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn’t matter, I’ll still fight it. Dronebogus (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jewish & Weak keep Muslim on basis of NLIST:
I should also like to note that quite a few op-eds discuss this issue ([11]). Some might be
WP:RSOPINION, but, I guess that doesn't really fulfill NLIST. Ya'll know I'm not one for CRUFTY lists, but I do think there might actually be some meat to these topics. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
More: 6 Jewish women who won the Nobel Prize, Museum of the Jewish People, Tel Aviv University, 8 March 2017. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many good arguments that seem irreconciliable. I see this one as "No consensus". Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per the cogent policy based argument made by Ⓜ️hawk10.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_Nobel_laureates_by_religion&oldid=1154955913"