|
|
|
Jayjg in action, List of Jewish American journalists |
|
|
Somey |
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
|
Have they even formalized the criteria for inclusion? I'd have to assume so, but I've always studiously avoided this particular can o' worms, and they don't seem to have it in any of the obvious places...
I mean, I watch "Pardon the Interruption" almost every day, and if Tony Kornheiser says on a fairly regular basis that he's Jewish, and nobody so much as hints that this might not be true, then he's Jewish, right? I don't see why you have to provide a secondary or tertiary source for that - it falls within the realm of "common knowledge." As for whether or not he's a journalist, well yeah, he's more of a "columnist" than a "journalist" now, assuming one must insist on the distinction. But that wasn't always the case, and it seems wrong to "de-classify" someone like that... it's almost like saying that a former President, once his term in office is over, was never "a President" at all.
|
|
|
|
guy |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 23
|
QUOTE(Somey @ Sun 24th June 2007, 1:49pm) Have they even formalized the criteria for inclusion?
Of course they have. See Talk:List of British JewsQUOTE 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 most likely violates Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Verifiability and should be deleted. In fact, these criteria were only ever "agreed" for that article, in a highly dubious vote that was snowball closed prematurely after a flood of votes by people who had never edited the article, but SV and Jayjg pretend that they are of universal applicability. These are very restrictive; if taken literally, they debar someone "born to Russian-Jewish immigrants" or "born into the Liverpool Jewish community", say. Nevertheless, if there is a reliable source that someone is Jewish, they're Jewish. Full stop. Anything else is original research. SV did say at one point that if someone is incorrectly labelled as Jewish it could endanger them. (Evidently, she's not worried about the safety of someone correctly labelled as Jewish!) But this doesn't explain her deletion of people long dead, or of people whom everyone already knows they're Jewish, so that's just a cover. Anyway, that's not the issue here. Jayjg isn't pretending that there's any doubt that Art Buchwald was 100% Jewish; he's just claiming that because he wrote funny articles, he wasn't a journalist.
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
I think I mentioned this before, but journalist Mark Lawson's tribulations after being wrongly identified by wikipedia as Jewish tells a cautionary tale. QUOTE ...an anonymous contributor had amended my entry in Wikipedia, the communal online reference source, to advise (or, more sinisterly, warn?) of my "Jewish descent". QUOTE The Wikipedia mistake concerns me, not because I would have any objection to the identification - the work of Philip Roth, Jack Rosenthal, Mike Leigh, Arthur Miller, David Mamet, Harold Pinter and others has often made me wish, like a child dreaming of being secretly royal, that there was a mix-up in the maternity ward - but because you wonder why someone would have bothered suddenly to point the religious finger on the internet.
Let's be optimistic and pray that the Wikipedia contributor was pleased by the presence of another Jew in the media and so wished to share the good news. But experience makes me fear another reason. QUOTE The majority of the correspondence these misunderstandings prompt has been hostile. At first I wrote jovially back saying that the old Irish priest who sprinkled my head with holy water would have been quite surprised at my involvement in the terrible global media conspiracy the letter-writers alleged. But even angrier replies would arrive, warning that neither irony nor apostasy could allow me to deny what I truly was.
Accidental exposure to these bigots allows me to say what some Jewish commentators fear asserting: that anti-semitism still exists in Britain.
|
|
|
|
Chris Croy |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 128
Joined:
Member No.: 1,650
|
I think the major problem is that there are multiple kinds of Judaism. Someone could be an ethnic Jew without being a religious Jew or someone could be culturally Jewish without being an ethnic Jew. Thus, trying to make a single "List of Jews" is madness. For comparison, check out the various lists of non-believers. Some people might not see much of a difference between 'nontheist' and 'atheist', but such fine distinctions are made because they matter. Edit: Fixed links. This post has been edited by Chris Croy:
|
|
|
|
Chris Croy |
|
Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 128
Joined:
Member No.: 1,650
|
QUOTE(guy @ Sun 24th June 2007, 1:53pm) That's like saying that there is a problem with making a list of chemists because there are multiple kinds of chemists. If we have a good source that someone is a chemist, nobody would query that he or she belongs in a list of chemists. Why is being Jewish different?
List of chemists isn't the worst analogy you could use. Would you add everyone that received and used a chemistry set as a kid a chemist? Any sort of list of Jews has more in common with a generic 'List of Scientists'. Sure, you COULD - But why the hell would you? The concept of 'scientist' is so broad it leads to a useless list. The same goes with Jew. This discussion from the now-emptied "List of Jewish scientists and philosophers" aptly sums up what I think of this. 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) 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) 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) 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)
|
|
|
|
guy |
|
Postmaster General
Group: Inactive
Posts: 4,294
Joined:
From: London
Member No.: 23
|
No, I'd insist that everyone listed in a standard encyclopaedia or other reference work as a chemist was a chemist - that's the correct analogy. It is original research to ask why the reliable source calls them chemists.
The List of Jewish scientists and philosophers is indeed a good example of the problems on lists of Jews. The "debate" refers to Georg Cantor. He is described as Jewish in his only full-length biography in English (written by a non-Jew, E T Bell, before you ask), the Jewish Encyclopedia (published in his lifetime), the Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd edition 2007), the Jewish Chronicle (both during his lifetime and decades after his death) and the Jewish Year Book (both during his lifetime and decades after his death). So he was Jewish, right? No - someone's dug up an article from the 1970s that says he wasn't! Therefore some editors insist that he wasn't, despite the many references that he was, and indeed an article from the 1990s that rebuts the one from the 1970s. Can you imagine such a dispute about any other fact? It would be laughed out.
And the list wasn't emptied; it was primarily a list of cross-references to the scientist sections of the national lists but for some reason duplicated a few names; these duplicates have now been tidied up.
|
|
|
|
Kato |
|
dhd
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,521
Joined:
Member No.: 767
|
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 26th June 2007, 12:24pm) QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 26th June 2007, 12:09am) Being identified as French is a different prospect to being identified as Jewish.
I still don't understand. If you have a reliable source that someone is French, they're French. Same with Jewish. Are you saying that the real world consequences are different and therefore we shouldn't identify people as Jewish even if they themselves don't hide it? Nigella Lawson is a good example of someone who is undoubtedly and unashamedly Jewish. The absurdity came when editors were deleting people partly notable because they are Jewish, like Eric Moonman. Yes, removing Eric Moonman is ridiculous. And here is where Jayjg removes our Nigella - as does Slim Virgin. Curiously - and topically - Jayjg removes the controversial Jewish philanthropist Michael Levy, accused of cash for honors, and then tinkers with the entry for Levy's successor Ronald Cohen, also Jewish, also accused of cash for honors, and the latest "middle east envoy" for the Labour government. In this case it seems their zeal has simply pissed off a whole load of people for no reason. A common occurrence it seems. I think this zeal is in part due to ignorance, which illustrates another problem aspect of all wikipedia; people editing articles on subjects they are largely ignorant about. SV and Jayjg are clearly unaware of who most of these people are. Hence, by rights they should leave the article to the people who do., or at least show some grace towards those more knowledgeable. But Guy, as the Mark Lawson article illustrates, listing people by religion is far more problematic than listing people by nationality. Nationals have legal citizenship. According to reliable sources, Mark Lawson is not Jewish as claimed but Catholic. In reality he is neither.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |