QUOTE(jorge @ Tue 28th February 2006, 12:10pm)
GraceNote, why can you not see that the vast majority of people contributing to these lists are doing so for positive reasons.
One could reasonably ask why the editors in question seem unaware that those reasons are not seen as positive by some others. I think some of the editors are frankly insensitive. Others I am deeply suspicious of. It is hard to assume good faith of someone who insists that Jack Straw should be considered Jewish because he had a Jewish greatgrandparent. I am deeply suspicious of people who want to draw up lists of Jews and fight to maximise them.
I am deeply suspicious of editors who wish to include Matt Busby -- not identified as Jewish in any reputable source (and here is a man who has had a great deal written about him) -- in a list of Jews because he was of "Lithuanian Jewish origin". Deeply, deeply suspicious. Because how can those editors not be aware that "Jewishness" is not like "Lithuanianness"? Particularly when Jewish editors have pointed it out to them, more than once, and the article itself carries a link to an article that makes it absolutely explicit.
Above and beyond any discussion of who is or is not Jewish, Wikipedia outlaws original research. Any internal criteria for "deciding who's Jewish" are not allowed. That some editors want criteria that are looser than Hitler's is quite astonishing.
I don't see anything wrong with being described as a Jew. I don't mind it. Why would I? I don't have feelings about Jews any other than I do about any other human being. I get called all kinds of things anyway and none of it bothers me. Some of the trolls here seem to think it's "antisemitic" to oppose the listing of Jews though. I can only assume that they do not understand the reasons for opposition, and that the notion that it is positive in itself for people to be listed as Jews is not supported by some.
Do you really want a situation where we are not allowed to mention that anyone who did anything positive in history was Jewish?
I want a situation in which we simply report what our sources say, jorge. No more, no less. I recently edited the piece on Joseph Rotblat, a great man, and without question Jewish. I edited the piece to make clear that he was Jewish and not "of Jewish origin" (which is plain nonsense). I have absolutely no problem with our stating that he was Jewish, and if you insist on drawing up lists of people of one type or another, I would not strike him out of a List of Jewish Foos, although I dislike Lists of foos a great deal. It can readily be sourced that Rotblat was Jewish. I don't need to rely on some bullshit source or tenuous inquisitorial process. I don't either need to use myself as a source, although I knew Rotblat personally.
I have seen people attempting to edit the lists who are probably anti semitic but their edits are almost always completely inaccurate.
I saw what seemed almost like an inquest into Tom Baker.
The bottom line is, we should only say someone is Jewish if a reputable source says so. It doesn't matter whether Tom Baker's grandpa once went to a bar mitzvah or some website says Sharon Osbourne's dad was Jewish. Once you start working out whether someone is Jewish or not, you're doing original research -- using sources to support your thesis, not simply restating someone else's thesis. That is not allowed in Wikipedia and I think rightly so.
Personally I am interested in British jewish history because I discovered a Jewish connection in my family
Fine. I'm not disparaging an interest in British Jewish history. I'm saying, don't add people to the list unless a reputable source says they are Jewish. Not says they have a Jewish dad. Not says they were of Jewish origin. Says they are Jewish.
Your list is not a list of people who might have a Jewish skeleton in the cupboard, jorge. It's not a list of people who you personally consider Jewish. It should not go even close to being either of those things.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with listing Jewish people by occupation as I would have no problem with listing other ethnic groups who did or do not have a state of their own.
Whether there is anything wrong with the lists as objects in themselves is entirely moot. Let's say there is not. Let's say that the consensus is that there may be lists of people by ethnicity or whatever. Okay.
Now we are at the question. Who's in, who's out? In is anyone who is called the thing in question by a reputable source. Out is anyone who isn't. End of discussion. Any other discussion about who is of a particular ethnicity or nationality is simply original research and barred from Wikipedia. Now that policy -- one I strongly believe in and adhere to -- might be difficult to enforce on pages such as List of British Jews, because editors with differing motives oppose its enforcement fiercely, but it remains applicable to that page.
QUOTE(guy @ Tue 28th February 2006, 4:07pm)
It's a question of being encyclopaedic. If you know that someone is/was Jewish and refuse to add them to the appropriate list because "there are enough Jews listed already" or some such nonsense, is that appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia?
There is room for discussion about who counts as a Jew for this purpose, but there is a reasonably settled status quo on this at present, and we should abide by this unless and until there is agreement to change it. Lulu's view that a name can only be on a list of the article clearly says that the person is Jewish is obviously nonsense, as are the suggestions that only people who are 100% Jewish or practising Jews are eligible.
Unfortunately, there are editors who do not want these lists, and will use any ruse to delete names from them or indeed entire lists. Good examples are the attempt to convert the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society to a List of Fellows of the Royal Society, and the deletion of Max Born from the List of British Jews and Riesz from the List of Swedish Jews because they weren't born in Britain/Sweden (though Riesz lived in Sweden for over 60 years).
Next, I suppose we'll see swathes of articles about Jews flagged as non-notable.
This is close to too demented to answer. It's totally fucking simple. If you want to add Riesz to a "List of Swedish Jews" you find a reputable source that says he was a Swedish Jew. I don't suppose anyone would take umbrage if you found a separate source for each of "Swedish" and "Jewish", so long as both were reputable. There is no "room for discussion" whatsoever. Wikipedia simply restates what other sources state. It's an encyclopaedia not an inquisition.
No one is "flagging" anything as non-notable. No one is trying to exclude Jews from Wikipedia. The suggestion is absolutely ludicrous, particularly because you are making it of editors, such as SlimVirgin and IZAK, who have added many articles about Jews and Jewish issues, and are themselves Jews.