Who should be in a list of Jews?, Evidence from Lulu Options

[guy]

While checking up on Lulu's comments on the Jewish Year Book, I noticed the header on the List of Jewish jurists, an article that Lulu created and dominated. It says unequivocally

"This list included individuals as being Jewish either per ethnicity, culture or religion..."

I can't find who actually inserted that, but if Lulu didn't, he must have approved of it or he'd have reverted it pronto. All credit to him if it's his work; it maked excellent sense.

[vulchy]

Makes sense enough. Except "culture" is kind of weird. Converts or ethnic Jews are usually Jewish by culture. I'm sure there are some non-Jews that are a little bit culturally Jewish, maybe by marriage, but obviously they shouldn't be listed.

[blissyu2]

Well, just for an example, I'll just use me for an example.

On our family tree (or family history, whichever way you prefer) we found out that on my mother's side her maiden name is Franks, but this used to be called Frank, and it is the same Frank that Anne Frank, who wrote the holocaust diary, has. Therefore, she was my 4th cousin twice removed.

Tracing that line back further (as we know quite a lot about Anne Frank, since she was quite famous), we know that she was Jewish both through race and religion, and thus, whilst I am not Jewish per religion, I clearly must have some amount per race.

Should I say "I am a Jew"? Probably not. But the proportion, ironically, is roughly the same amount that I am Australian Aboriginal (Tasmanian Aboriginal to be precise - which actually makes it more significant since its an extinct race). Now, I do not say that I am Aboriginal, however I do not say that I am not either. I get quite offended if people call me whitey or make some other racial taunt based on that.

If I were famous (which of course I am not) and someone were to make a list of Aboriginals that permitted anyone with any proportion of race, then I should be included. And similarly, if they were to include a list of Jews, then it would be the same. But the ethnicity is under 5%.

As for cultural, what I presume this means is if say you live in Israel and live as a Jew, but you might be too young to have made a conscious choice religion wise and you may not have any ethnicity at all. This would be my interpretation.

And that definition, of course, is one which is widely accepted in the Jewish community, which exists above and beyond Wikipedia. Wikipedia can't make their own decisions on this, as they must accept what exists already.

[guy]

I don't think Wikipedia is making any decisions certain editors are, and avowedly only on Jewish lists, not other ethnic ones. And aren't they making Wikipedia a laughing stock by deleting Jews as famous as the Silkin family and Greville Janner?

[vulchy]

Actually, I don't think you should be included in either a list of Jews or of Aborigines. The cut-off point that I would have liked to pursue was just having a full grandparent of whichever group - just for completion. I don't think anyone has ever argued that anyone with a drop of whichever ethnicity's blood should be included.

Well, some of these "certain editors" have claimed that all lists should be based on that new proposal, which is mostly based on the word choice of media sources rather than common sense. It's just that apparently they don't consider the other lists violation enough of their idea of Wikipedia policy to care to change them... at the moment...

This is a complicated issue, admittedly, but the fact is no ethnic group out there really has a "criteria" for inclusion, for obvious reasons. Yes, the Jewish religion and its denominations do have rules, but again that is the Jewish religion and it does not even claim to apply to the Jewish ethnicity and culture.

I think the only group that does have rules are the Native Americans. I think they consider 1/16th eligible for getting a Native American card (this is in Canada and the U.S., I believe). But of course it still doesn't make one a "Native American", nor does it claim to. I've been using Israel's law of return in some arguments, because it lets anyone who is 1/4 in, which again, seems reasonable for any list, especially since we explicate the full background of a person.

But what I definitely think is that this is an issue that Wikipedia can make rules on, simply because there are no rules. Getting called a "Native American" in a media source when your great-grandfather was doesn't make you a Native American. If we followed the proposal of SlimVirgin, etc. then the list should really be called, say, "List of people who were called Jewish in media sources" or "List of people who were called Italian or Italian-Americans in media sources".

We should put the peoole in, put in the little notes explaining their background, and let everyone decide for themselves what they think based on their opinions.

[CDRome]

Wikipedia Jews typically don't like lists of Jews when the Jews in question are objectionable or controversial. For instance many of the Bolsheviks and Communists, or Jewish pornographers or American atheists, etc.

It is amazing to see how every Jewish scientist is listed as a Jew, but many of the controversial ones are "hidden" by Jewish editors on Wikipedia that watch pages for this very reason. In these negative cases they assert that the people are merely "Russian" or "American".

If the Jewish person is negative, they will say Jewish represents a religion, not an ethnicity, to get around listing that person. But it's clear in other cases they want to list Jewish ethnicity if they perceive it favorable.

[CDRome]

They are indentified and that is an accurate summary of their motivation and actions.

You could review the revert histories, and discussion pages. You will find members of the Wikiproject Judaism along with controversial Jewish editors like Jayjg involved in this practise.

1) How do you know that, if some self-identified Jewish Wikipedia editors edit as you say, they are typical of all Jewish editors at Wikipedia?

The Jewish Wikipedia editors that are "selective" and biased about the composition Jewish lists might not be typical of all Jewish Wikipedia editors, but on this particular issue they are highly confrontational and seek sole ownership of the content.

2) And if they are not self-identified as Jewish, how do you know their edits are not motivated by other reasons?

There are no non-Jewish editors that seek to distort the truthful compositions or hide negative Jewish names from the lists. On Wikipedia you can usually tell how Jewish-centric or Jewish-obsessed an editor is by reviewing their user contributions, for example you could review Jayjg's, who almost exclusively edits Jewish articles from a Zionist POV. It's not difficult to see when people are acting in a biased group manner.

[guy]

I suspect that one of the problems in the RachelBrown saga was that an avowed Methodist was editing and even starting Jewish articles, including lists of Jews. But I think we need firm evidence for CDRome's allegations.

[vulchy]

A lot of this is based on assumption. For instance, since there are no web bios of RachelBrown out there, how does anyone know that she's Methodist? (Aside from her friends, of course) It's not like it's out there or on her page. I for one thought she was Jewish.

I think the people who are against the lists just assume that the editors are not Jewish, because it helps their argument.

[guy]

I think the people who are against the lists just assume that the editors are not Jewish, because it helps their argument.

You're right there. They go round claiming that virtually all Jews are against the lists and hardly any of the people who add names to them are Jewish - but they have absolutely no evidence for their claims.

[CDRome]

I believe there should be a factual list of Bolshevik Jews. Does anyone disagree?

What would happen if this was put forward? Then you would see just who the "Wikipedia Jews" are, they would come out to censor it, fight it, defeat it, kill it, etc. all in the interest of maintaining their version of Jewish POV and ownership on Wikipedia.

Comments?

[guy]

I believe there should be a factual list of Bolshevik Jews. Does anyone disagree?

What would happen if this was put forward? Then you would see just who the "Wikipedia Jews" are, they would come out to censor it, fight it, defeat it, kill it, etc. all in the interest of maintaining their version of Jewish POV and ownership on Wikipedia.

Comments?

Look what's happening on the List of British Jews. Who is being deleted? Cabinet ministers of both parties (the three Silkins, Keith Joseph), showbusiness tycoons (Leslie Grade and Bernard Delfont) and pop stars (Elkie Brooks). How does that fit in with the "only get rid of bad Jews" theory?

As for scientists, there were repeated efforts to delete the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. Similar lists in other countries have been deleted.

Try creating a (properly documented and referenced) list of Bolshevik Jews and see what happens.

[Poetlister]

SlimVirgin asked Rachel if she was Jewish. When Rachel asked why this was relevant, SlimVirgin demanded a reply and of course Rachel wasn't going to lie about it.

But it is irrelevant, isn't it? You can have nominally Jewish people (Professor Steven Rose comes to mind - see his Wikipedia article) who are far from pro-Jewish. On the other hand, you can be a Christian or an atheist yet knowledgeable about and sympathetic to Judaism, and even Jayjg has conceded that Rachel is in that category. The SlimVirgin/Grace Note thesis that virtually all Jewish editors oppose these lists and that a host of non-Jewish editors are going around "outing" Jews is utterly surreal.

[vulchy]

Absolutely agreed that is irrelevant. Asking someone what ethnicity/religion they are is bordering on a personal attack. Who the editor is should have no effect on an article or the outcome of a discussion.

And again, this is an unfortunately "sensitive" topic for some reason, because no one's ever asked me if I was Italian/Polish/Irish/Catholic when I was working on their lists, and I doubt anyone would.

Rachel shouldn't have had to answer SlimVirgin (well, without demanding SlimVirgin's full family tree, 3 generations back, first (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif) )

[CDRome]

Look what's happening on the List of British Jews. Who is being deleted? Cabinet ministers of both parties (the three Silkins, Keith Joseph), showbusiness tycoons (Leslie Grade and Bernard Delfont) and pop stars (Elkie Brooks). How does that fit in with the "only get rid of bad Jews" theory?

As for scientists, there were repeated efforts to delete the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. Similar lists in other countries have been deleted.

Try creating a (properly documented and referenced) list of Bolshevik Jews and see what happens.

This below is a "WIKIPEDIA JEW" way of hiding factual information from people. The important censorship item to note is Number 2:

From wikipedia.org 'List of British Jews' talk page:

Note that the following criteria for inclusion have been agreed:
1) Someone is Jewish ONLY if there is a REPUTABLE source saying explicitly that they are Jews. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

2) There must be a source saying EXPLICITLY that they themselves are Jews.

3) It is NOT sufficient to cite a "source" saying they are of "Jewish ancestry".
4) It is NOT sufficient to cite a "source" saying a parent or grandparent was Jewish.
5) It is NOT sufficient to cite popular beliefs or stories (e.g. like belonging to the Kabbalah Centre) that could supposedly "make" anyone "Jewish".
6) Anything that does not meet the above criteria violates Wikipedia:No original research and should be deleted.

Therfore, one has to go back 100 years in time, to find a source that is tied to self-identification? Is that what they are trying to do? Of course, Bolsheviks didn't write down statements as to their Jewishness, but that doesn't negate the fact that most Bolsheviks were in fact of Jewish origin. It's presposterous, as if to require that Geronimo had to have provided us with a source "saying EXPLICITLY that he himself was an Indian".

It's pure Wikipedia Jew censorship and POV pushing. Nobody should be surprised to find SlimVirgin and Jayjg in the thick of this stuff. Controversy and Jewish POV is found everywhere they are.

Am I reading the Number 2 requirement correctly? If there is a self-identification test required for Jews, then doesn't that mean that Wikipedia must be consistent across the board for all articles? It's wrong what they are doing.

[Lir]

Who is a Jew?

[guy]

Who is a Jew?

A question that has been debated endlessly, on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

CDRome seem obsessed with the theory that people are trying to censor the fact that many Bolsheviks were Jews, but the censors are proud of Jewish scientists. If anything, the opposite is true. No Bolsheviks have been deleted from the List of British Jews (though no doubt Phil Piratin will be deleted if nobody gives a source that he was Jewish). Jewish fellows of the Royal Society are or were mostly eminent scientists.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) My 50th posting on the new site. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[CDRome]

That's paraphrasing just a bit.

I was refering to the articles of Jewish (Russian) Bolsheviks, most of which do not correctly list their Jewish backgrounds. I apologize for extrapolating off of the "British" subject.

The restrictions that SlimVirgin and Jayjg et al (aka Wikipedia Jews) have placed on the 'List of British Jews' page, contradict Wikipedia's own "Who is a Jew" page. Can anyone explain that?

They are arbitrary and POV pushers and controversy follows them everywhere they go, they simply are not honest people. Nobody should delete red-links either, Jayjg should start an article, not revert and delete -- to hide facts.

[vulchy]

Yeah, they're being jerks.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Selina]

If I see "Jewish POV-pushing" or "WIKIPEDIA JEWS" again I'm gonna drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice >_<