SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) added information about policy |
Quillercouch (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:Well add him then! It's a strange world if living here for decades, teaching at two top British universities and winning a Nobel Prize while living here doesn't qualify you for being British. He's more British than King George I. We're not talking about Sigmund Freud, who only lived here a short time. - [[User:Newport|Newport]] 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC) |
:Well add him then! It's a strange world if living here for decades, teaching at two top British universities and winning a Nobel Prize while living here doesn't qualify you for being British. He's more British than King George I. We're not talking about Sigmund Freud, who only lived here a short time. - [[User:Newport|Newport]] 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
If there's an edict that we can't add names here without credible references, shouldn't it also say that we can't remove names without credible references? Max Born is '''not''' listed under either East European Jews or Jewish Americans that I can see. He is listed as a Jewish member of the (American) National Academy of Sciences; that seems an odd reason to query his Britishness. - [[User:Poetlister|Poetlister]] 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Ethnic Criteria Discussion== |
==Ethnic Criteria Discussion== |
Revision as of 19:53, 4 December 2005
Please read before editing
Like all Wikipedia articles, this list is subject to our content policies. This means that a credible source must be provided for each name, showing that the person is or was of Jewish descent and a British citizen (subject). If the source is online, you can add an embedded link like this [1] after the name, or if it's a book, a Harvard reference like this (Smith 2005). Then ideally, a full citation should be added to a References section, but if you can't do that, do please at least add the source after the name. Any names added without a source are liable to be removed. For more information, see Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Cite sources.
For archived discussions, please see (oldest first): /Archive 1
Definition
What definition is being used for this list? I'm seeing names of people who had one Jewish parent but were raised as Christians, or Jack Straw, who had one Jewish grandparent. That's not what it is to be Jewish. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- We're doing this as mostly an ethnicity-based list, just like we do every other xxx-American or xxx-British list. The criteria we use for the lists and for the categories are 1/4 and no less. This is the standard for every ethnic group category or list and I really don't think that "Jewish" should be an exception. Thus, I am restoring Straw. I honestly urge you to go to the Italian-Americans list and start questioning the listing of Robert DeNiro, who has just one Italian grandparent since no doubt you would only ever question the Jewish lists. Vulturell 06:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Vulturell, when you say "we" use the 1/4 principle for every ethnicity-based list, who are "we"? I've never seen this written down anywhere as a standard. This is not how Jews define themselves, so in using this principle, you're adding names of people who do not consider themselves Jewish and who are not considered such by any of the Jewish denominations. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
By Slimvirgin's logic, Jack Straw should certainly be included; since his mother's mother was Jewish, he is considered Jewish by even the most orthodox Jews. - RachelBrown 14:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rachel, do you know why it says one grandparent was Jewish, if in fact his mother was? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can only find that one of his grandfathers was a Jew. What is your source, Rachel? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The source that is usually quoted is [2] - RachelBrown 15:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- That source says that he had a Jewish great-grandmother. So using the 1/4 principle Vulturell says WP ethnicity lists use, Straw should not be listed. This is a good example of what's wrong with these lists. No agreed criteria for entry, sources that contradict each other, inclusion of people who don't self-identify. It's not exactly encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Need for sources
I've just added an invisible note to the top of page saying that no further names should be added without supplying a credible source. The Jack Straw example, and the fact that an anon IP has just added three names without sources, convinces me that there's a need to be more rigorous about which names are added. These pages are subject to the same editorial polices as any other, and all edits have to conform to WP:NOR and WP:V. These policies are particularly important in the case of a page like this, which has the potential to cause someone a real-life problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Umm yeahhh if I hear the phrase "this is how Jews define themselves" etc. one more time I am going to puke. Excuse me, but you are not referring to ALL Jews, just certain religious denominations of Judaism. You are forgetting about secular Jews, etc. etc. AND we are not, I repeat, not using a special rule for Jewish people. We have to use the same standard for every ethnic group, otherwise it's POV. Are you sure that only his great-grandmother is Jewish? If that's the case than he should not be listed. But all news reports that mention his Jewish ancestry always mention a Jewish grandparent, not great-grandparent. Oh, and the whole "Self-Identify" thing is crap and not encyclopedic. How are we going to start measuring the degree to which people identify/not identify with something? What if some old hag actress doesn't "self-identify" herself as being born in 1900, and says she was born in 1910 despite it being a fact that she was born in 1900? Are we going to have to remove her from "1900 births" because she doesn't identify with being born that year? The only category where self-identification is important is religion. It's wrong to use it for ethnicity as ethnicity is a fact, regardless of what you think of yourself. Vulturell 19:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here is the cache version (the article itself seems to be gone) http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?p=%22Jack+straw%22+jewish+grandfather&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&u=www.jewishtelegraph.co.uk/nat_1.html&w=%22jack+straw%22+jewish+grandfather&d=H-Rk6Y6CLwSO&icp=1&.intl=us
of an article about Straw's grandparent. Says here his grandfather was a German Jewish refugee. Sounds to me like he's 1/4. If you can find me a good source that he only has a great-grandparent I would be glad to de-list him, since I hate politicians and would much rather list actors anyway. Sorry, I just re-read it and it sounds like his mother is 1/4. You're right (about Straw that is, not the standards we should use for listing), Straw has been mis-reported as being 1/4 by most forms of media, he doesn't fit the standard here and I will remove him if anyone else adds him. Thank you for bringing it up.Vulturell 19:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) First, there's no need to be aggressive. Second, you write as though you don't understand what ethnicity means. It's not the same as race. Third, the article Rachel linked to is by Nick Cohen, a reliable journalist who spoke directly to Straw about this, and who says he has one great-grandparent who was Jewish; the article you linked to is consistent with this, where Straw's mother says her paternal grandfather was a Jew. So the 1/4 principle that you're advocating doesn't apply, according to both sources. Also, can you please show me where the 1/4 principle was agreed to?
- As for whether Jews should be allowed to decide who is Jewish, Americans get to decide who is American, Brits get to decide who is British. Why should Jews be any different? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think you missed my correction about Straw. Again you used this phrase "Jews should be allowed to decide who is Jewish" which is WRONG, WRONG WRONG WRONG. It refers to CERTAIN RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS OF JUDAISM, not even all of them and certainly not secular Jews. It's a POV sentence which really means we should let you and a few of your Wikipedia buddies decide who is Jewish. Why doesn't anyone ever say "We should let Italians decide who is Italian" on the Italian-American page? "Americans get to decide who is American" is such a crap POV sentence that doesn't mean anything, just like "Jews should decide who is Jewish". "Jewish" is not a nationalitty but an ethnic and a religious group. We should use the SAME STANDARD for every ethnic group otherwise it is INCONSISTANT and POV. 1/4 always seemed reasonable. If you want it cut down to 1/2 go ahead and try and propose it somewhere, but we would have to use that standard for EVERY ETHNIC GROUP again, not just Jews.Vulturell 19:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, in your opinion, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. As I say, you're indicating that you don't know what ethnicity is. Are you arguing that someone with one Celtic grandparent, but who is otherwise African, should be categorized as a Celt? If yes, can you show me an example of this, or anything similar, on Wikipedia? I ask again: can you show me where this 1/4 principle was agreed to? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you trying to tell me that Jewish isn't an ethnicity, and neither is English/Irish/Swedish? That "ethnicity" is not a clearly-defined concept and only race - i.e. clear distinctions like black and white is verifiable? Are you thus trying to tell me that we should use a religious point of view because the Jewish ethnicity doesn't really exist on the level that I'm saying it is? I'm saying that person would be categorized under BOTH Celts AND Africans. If this was a list of Americans then certain people would be under a few (limited to 4) ethnic categories. I proposed this 1/4 thing on the List Of Jews in August and a few people found it reasonable. Since then I've cut down and cut up most of the ethnic-American (and the British Jews) categories and lists to fit this standard. This is not a formal policy but it s commonly accepted whenever I bring it up. If you don't like it, fine, but EVERY ETHNICITY BASED LIST AND GROUP would have to be altered, not just Jewish ones. And, are you also saying that it is only "my opinion" that the phrase "Jews should decide who is Jewish" is the worst piece of crap POV sentence ever said? Yes, it is. What does "Jews" in the context of that sentence refer to? Religious Orthodox Jews? Reform Jews? Secular ethnic Jews who don't practice the religion? You? Me?Vulturell 20:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, in your opinion, it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. As I say, you're indicating that you don't know what ethnicity is. Are you arguing that someone with one Celtic grandparent, but who is otherwise African, should be categorized as a Celt? If yes, can you show me an example of this, or anything similar, on Wikipedia? I ask again: can you show me where this 1/4 principle was agreed to? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say that most Jews regard themselves as members of a nation, which includes people who identify as Jews in virtue of ethnicity and in virtue of religious observance.
- Your having mentioned the 1/4 principle on a talk page in August isn't what's meant by it being a Wikipedia standard, I'm afraid. I'm sure there are people who would disagree with the phrase "Jews should decide who is Jewish," but you may be the only one who believes it's the "worst piece of crap POV sentence ever said." I suppose my argument is if I had to choose between you deciding who is a Jew, and the Jewish people deciding, the latter would be marginally preferable.
- I notice elsewhere you wrote that you are "sick, sick, sick, sick" of seeing the Jewish lists and categories singled out, which must mean you hear these objections a lot. You should therefore pay them some heed. Your argument here and elsewhere that "the same standard has to be used for every ethnicity and religion" is, again, an invention of yours. This is not written down anywhere. We publish what reputable sources publish, according to our editorial policies, particularly WP:NOR and WP:V. We don't publish your original research regarding what you believe membership of an ethnicity is. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Again you use this phrase "the Jewish people", but the problem is there is not a clear-cut defintion. You're saying we should use different standards for ethnicities? Isn't that POV? This isn't research, this is a statement. I am telling you that it's taking a particular point of view to use one standard for one ethnicity, and a different standard for another. Isn't that correct? If not, why is it incorrect? I never said that the 1/4 is an official Wikipedia policy, though it probably should be in order to avoid all this confusion and endless discussion. I'm saying that that is the standard that the editors who work on these and other category and ethnicity-based lists usually agree to, and those who don't know about it say it sounds like a good idea when I bring it up.Vulturell 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Different ethnic groups have different standards of membership, and we should reflect those, because all we're supposed to do on Wikipedia is publish what other published sources say. We're not allowed to insert our own opinions or make up our own definitions. The definitions used by the major denominations say you're Jewish if (a) your mother was a Jew and you don't practise any other religion, (b) either parent was a Jew and you practise Judaism or in some other way self-identify, or (c) you convert. There are other definitions: for example, those used by the Israeli government. My point is that we should use the definitions of third-party authoritative sources, not your definition or mine. Or else change the name of the page to "List of British people who have Jewish ancestry," then you can include someone who had a great-great-great-great grandparent who was a Jew (though you'd still have to include a source).
- As things stand, with your 1/4 principle for being a Jew and for being a Brit, a Muslim from Pakistan born and raised in Islamabad, whose parents were Muslims born and raised in Islamabad, could be entered onto this list if his father's father was Jewish and had briefly been married to a British woman giving him British nationality. And you know what? Adding that person's name to this list could get him killed. That's how, as you might say, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG this is. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, really? It's funny but what exactly is the rule for Armenian-Americans? Or Italian-Americans? I know the Italian mafia has a rule that you can only be made if you're 100% Italian, does that mean we're going to be using that rule from now on? The Italian mafia rule and the Jewish religion rule are both NOT ETHNIC RULES, they are either cultural (for the Italians) or religious (for religious Jews rule). Like I said this is ethnicity-based therefore NONE of the rules you just mentioned apply here because they are both DISTINCTLY religious rules. And if you're worried for that poor fellow's life than I am happy not to include him! (smiles) BUT THINK ABOUT IT LOGICALLY - if having a Jewish grandfather could get him killed WHY WOULD HE TELL ANYONE?? And if he doesn't tell anyone than HOW THE HECK DO WE KNOW ABOUT IT AND PUT IT ON THE LIST?? We only know about the 1/4 ancestry of whichever people because they've CHOSEN TO REVEAL IT TO THE PRESS. We don't hire private detectives to follow people around and find out their ancestry before we put it on. Every 1/4, 1/2 and 100% person on here is from a media source, and if they aren't I wish you would point someone out and I will be glad to see them removed if we can't confirm they are 1/4 Jewish or whichever, like Straw (who I thank you for). Vulturell 21:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Definition of a Jew?
If we use the definition that Orthodox Jews use, it's whether you have a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother or maternal great-grandmother or ... Thus you can have three grandparents or seven great-grandparents who are Jewish yet not be Jewish; conversely, you can be 1/8 Jewish and undoubtedly Jewish.
I believe that British Liberal Jews say that you have to have one Jewish parent and be brought up Jewish (whatever that means). Thus whereas Olivia Newton-John would be regarded as Jewish by Orthodox Jews because she had a Jewish mother's mother's mother (and mother's father), she would not be regarded as Jewish by Liberal Jews.
No doubt you could get many other definitions by doing a poll of different denominations or groups. - RachelBrown 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly, exactly right. And we can't use ANY of the above definitions if we are dealing with this as an ethnicity based list, because we don't use an Armenian-great grandmother law for Armenian-Americans. We have to use the same rule for every group. I think we need to pool together and write a policy that will be on every ethnicity based list and category, once and for all. I propose having a grandparent of whichever ethnicity for inclusion. 1/8th is too distant and 1/2 sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. 1/4 influences you, in some ways, ethnically, culturally, etc. How about it?Vulturell 20:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Where does it say we have to use the same rule for every group? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because we're not supposed to be POV. If we use a rule for one group different than the rest, wouldn't that be taking a particular POV?Vulturell 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Where does it say we have to use the same rule for every group? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, exactly the opposite. We're supposed to publish the published POVs of other people and groups. You, on the other hand, want to impose your POV on all ethnicities, regardless of what those communities say about themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
"The definitions used by the major denominations say you're Jewish if (a) your mother was a Jew and you don't practise any other religion, (b) either parent was a Jew and you practise Judaism or in some other way self-identify, or (c) you convert." This isn't the half of it. To an orthodox Jew, a Jew who practises another religion is still Jewish - just a sinner. Beyond doubt, different groups will have different rules, and of course they may not recognise each other's conversions. Do we need to put after each name "Recognised as Jewish by Orthodox/American Reform/British Liberal/B'nai B'rith" or whatever? - RachelBrown 21:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- We're supposed to be using particular group's POVS? That's news to me. Maybe in that case we should use particular Muslim groups' POVs on the Ariel Sharon article. The whole point of Wikipedia - or ANY encyclopedia - is that we don't use a POV for any group. We write articles, lists, categories, etc. from a neutral point of view. I propose a 1/4 for inclusion on ETHNICITY - not RELIGION - ETHNICITY based lists. If you agree great, if you disagree then you also disagree on using this rule for EVERY OTHER ethnic group.Vulturell 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't keep replying here because this conversation is too depressing. I'm starting to feel as though I'm in Nazi Germany. All I can do is encourage you to review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These state jointly that we publish majority and significant-minority views that have been published by reputable sources. We don't insert our own opinions. We don't invent our own definitions. We don't publish tiny-minority views. And any edit challenged by another editor has to be backed up by a reputable source or it may be deleted by anyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- What edit are you talking about? And again with this Nazi Germany crap. The problem here is that you're limiting this discussion to Jews only, while I am talking about EVERY ETHNIC GROUP, which you don't seem to care about. Don't you realize that Ethnic Jews have NO criteria for inclusion? That the Jewish mother/etc. rules are RELIGIOUS laws? That Armenian-Americans, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans and indeed secular ethnic Jewish Americans have NO previously-published press-released criteria for ETHNIC inclusion? I am saying this and other lists like it are primarily ethnicity based, in which case there are no press-released POV's by these groups on inclusion. We have to use the 'same standard' for every ethnic group and what I am trying to do is to make a decision - right here - right now - on a policy that we can copy-and-paste on every ethnic group list and category page once and for all. Help me make this decision if you want to - agree with my 1/4 proposal for every group or disagree with it - but don't pointlessly stir up trouble.Vulturell 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't keep replying here because this conversation is too depressing. I'm starting to feel as though I'm in Nazi Germany. All I can do is encourage you to review WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. These state jointly that we publish majority and significant-minority views that have been published by reputable sources. We don't insert our own opinions. We don't invent our own definitions. We don't publish tiny-minority views. And any edit challenged by another editor has to be backed up by a reputable source or it may be deleted by anyone. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
We need some definition. SlimVirgin's proposal to use the definition that Jews themselves use fails because she can't say what it is - there are several different definitions, depending on whom you ask. What is wrong with Vulturell's proposal? - RachelBrown 22:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- The criteria for right of settlement in Israel is one jewish grandparent. Arniep 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's the argument I used in August, it's Israel's own law of return for ethnic Jews - the 1/4 criteria. Same rule for every other ethnicity. I had no clue that SlimVirgin was a she. Also, I am going to be bold and try and alter the definition on List of British Jews. I am going to create a separate section for converts, in order to push the idea that it's an ethnicity-based list.Vulturell 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- There. Done. Only 3 converts! I am surprised there weren't more.Vulturell 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's the argument I used in August, it's Israel's own law of return for ethnic Jews - the 1/4 criteria. Same rule for every other ethnicity. I had no clue that SlimVirgin was a she. Also, I am going to be bold and try and alter the definition on List of British Jews. I am going to create a separate section for converts, in order to push the idea that it's an ethnicity-based list.Vulturell 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sources
Vulturell, regardless of which definition you're use, you have to abide by our policies. WP:V and WP:NOR, both of which are mandatory, say that reputable sources must be provided. I'm asking that you provide reputable sources from now on, or the edits will be removed. I've restored the disputed tag, as we're not allowed simply to delete it once someone has added it, and I've added the OR tag. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note on my talk page, but please post here so others can join in if they want to. I'm requesting sources. We may tag so long as we suggest changes that are consistent with our policies. Providing sources is consistent with, and in fact mandated by, our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. I'm not questioning the need for sources, but I am asking you sources for what, and in which way do you want to present them? I am also asking you what you are referring to specifically when you say "original research". Vulturell 08:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Original research is an unverified claim, opinion, or argument, or your own synthesis or analysis of verified information, put forth to create or bolster a particular position. For example, the claim that Jack Straw is a Jew is original research, because it had no source and because whoever added it was using their own made-up definition of "Jew" (in Straw's case, that he had one great-grandparent who had been Jewish). To avoid original research, you have to provide reputable sources for your edits in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:V, which are policy, and preferably also use one of the agreed definitions, rather than inventing one of your own; and then make clear what that definition is, and link to a reputable source supporting it, at the top of the page, so that all entries are consistent with it.
- As for how to present the sources, see WP:CITE for some guidelines. The easiest would be to provide an embedded link after the name to an online source, or a Harvard reference to an offline one, then add a full citation in a References section. Or you could use footnotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that's stretching it a bit. Whoever added Jack Straw did not claim that he was Jewish. They just claimed that he had a Jewish grandparent, and that was reported by a lot of media sources around the time they were writing about that anti-Semitic politician who claimed that Blair had a Jewish cabal or whatever. So Straw was neither original research nor even incorrect information, because a lot of reliable media sources made that mistake as well. And I still thank you for pointing it out but you can't claim it's all "original research" when all of it is reported in media sources. Next, are you saying that there has to be a footnote beside EVERY SINGLE PERSON LISTED HERE?? I hope you realize that the large majority of these people are mentioned as being Jewish in their Wikipedia entry. Click on any random section of names and you'll see that. It would be awkward and going too far to have a citation beside every person, and it would be singling out this article from all other lists, articles, etc. for such abuse. You can't just claim that this article is "original research" and "can't be verified" without citing specific examples. Otherwise people could just go around Wikipedia, pick any article that they don't like, and call it unverifiable since obviously there isn't a single Wiki article out there that cites every single fact that they mention about the person in the article. You have got to be specific. Vulturell 20:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- BTW, I just noticed you had reverted all my edits when you added the tags? Why on earth did you do that for? I didn't even add any names then, I took out red links and I tweaked the list a bit to make it better. Check before you revert, and don't revert it again or I'll just revert it back.Vulturell 20:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that's stretching it a bit. Whoever added Jack Straw did not claim that he was Jewish. They just claimed that he had a Jewish grandparent, and that was reported by a lot of media sources around the time they were writing about that anti-Semitic politician who claimed that Blair had a Jewish cabal or whatever. So Straw was neither original research nor even incorrect information, because a lot of reliable media sources made that mistake as well. And I still thank you for pointing it out but you can't claim it's all "original research" when all of it is reported in media sources. Next, are you saying that there has to be a footnote beside EVERY SINGLE PERSON LISTED HERE?? I hope you realize that the large majority of these people are mentioned as being Jewish in their Wikipedia entry. Click on any random section of names and you'll see that. It would be awkward and going too far to have a citation beside every person, and it would be singling out this article from all other lists, articles, etc. for such abuse. You can't just claim that this article is "original research" and "can't be verified" without citing specific examples. Otherwise people could just go around Wikipedia, pick any article that they don't like, and call it unverifiable since obviously there isn't a single Wiki article out there that cites every single fact that they mention about the person in the article. You have got to be specific. Vulturell 20:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- As for how to present the sources, see WP:CITE for some guidelines. The easiest would be to provide an embedded link after the name to an online source, or a Harvard reference to an offline one, then add a full citation in a References section. Or you could use footnotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Anyway
Ignoring this whole bloody mess, I was starting a discussion and proposed we use the 1/4 - granparent rule for all ethnicity-based categories and lists. Arniep and RachelBrown seemed to agree, I don't know what the heck SlimVirgin thinks since she only talks about religious Jewish laws that have got nothing to do with this. So, what does everyone else think? We need to have some sort of official, or at least commonly accepted, policy that we can paste around these kinda lists and cats.Vulturell 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- We can't make up rules for who is a Jew or who is not - that's original research, and we've already had this discussion at Talk:List of Jews, where you made the exact same proposal, to little agreement. Articles must follow Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE. The only people on these lists should be people who have either publicly identified themselves as Jews, or who have been publically identified by reputable sources as Jews. For now we could also include those people who are listed in their own articles as being Jews, but eventually those claims will need to follow Wikipedia rules as well. I think we're going to have to work through these lists person by person, removing the un-cited chaff. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand - these people do fit your criteria (i.e. reputable sources or publically identified, etc.). The proposal on List of Jews is the way that list has been managed from then on as far as I can tell, and the way all the other ethnicity-based lists and categories have been as well. Also, can we please stop discussing Jews specifically, I would like a common rule for all ethnic group lists.Vulturell 21:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Jay that "the only people on these lists should be people who have either publicly identified themselves as Jews, or who have been publically identified by reputable sources as Jews." However, we're not allowed to use other WP articles as sources, so if they're identified as Jews in their own articles, that isn't confirmation enough for these lists: whatever sources those articles used should be used here too. It's just a question of sticking to WP:NOR and WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Vulturell, you miss the point: in coming up with your own definition, you're engaged in original research. You can only call someone Celtic, Jewish, or whatever, if a credible publication has already done so, and then you cite that publication. There's no need for your own definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Vurturell, please don't move comments around on the page after people have responded. I've reverted your edits again, because you changed the invisible comment adding that people have to provide a source when removing an edit, which is absurd and not what the policies say, and also because you added your own definition to the intro, which is a violation of NOR. I strongly encourage to read our policies. If you want to change them, feel free to try to do that on the policy talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. What I am saying is that I've edited every list to include a person of 1/4 that ethnicity, and of course I've only used reliable sources. I'm not sure if you're aware of this. Are you challenging - the accuracy? Or the 1/4 rule? For Jewish people, that is Israel's own Law of Return. The rule seems reasonable for other ethnicities. I hardly think it's fair to list someone like Christina Ricci, who has an Italian great-great-grandfather, under Italian Americans even if that anestry has been acknowledged in an interview. Just tell me exactly what you're object/agreeing to here. And remember I'm talking about ethnicity based lists, not religion, so don't talk about any of the Jewish religious laws please.Vulturell 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Law of Return doesn't define who is Jewish, only who is entitled to citizenship under that piece of legislation. This page is for discussing List of British Jews, so please stick to that topic. You can't come up with your own definitions, religious or otherwise. You can only list someone as Jewish here if a reputable publication has named them as such regardless of the definition they use. Please understand and accept that. You can't claim policy exceptions for these pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- We've talked about the 1/4 rule before - even if it were relevant, it is not used by Israel to define who is a Jew, and it is a distortion to continually repeat that it is. More importantly, Wikipedia can't make up rules, 1/4 or anything else. I will repeat, it must cite reputable sources which state that a person is a Jew (including the person themselves). "1/4" is entirely POV. Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- "1/4" is an ethnic distinction. And again you've cornered this subject into Jews. We have to have the exact same rule for every ethnicity based list. I would like to hear what exactly is your definition for, say, "List of Italian-Americans"? What would be the criteria for inclusion?Vulturell 21:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You should discuss that on the appropriate page, but it should be the same i.e. if already published by a reputable publication. NOT your own preferred definition. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- "1/4" is an ethnic distinction. And again you've cornered this subject into Jews. We have to have the exact same rule for every ethnicity based list. I would like to hear what exactly is your definition for, say, "List of Italian-Americans"? What would be the criteria for inclusion?Vulturell 21:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- "1/4" is your own made-up rule, which goes against Wikipedia policy, and as this is the Talk: page for List of British Jews, it seems entirely reasonable to "corner this subject into Jews". However, in answer to your question, they should all follow Wikipedia policy, which insists on proper citation for claims. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, you haven't my question and frankly I don't care anymore. You two enjoy throwing various Wikipedia policies at me as if they directly support what you're saying, but they don't. "Original research" would involve claiming someone is Jewish or part Jewish based on private research i.e. information that doesn't appear in an online or written source, etc. I.e. if I said I know someone personallly and they're Jewish.
The whole point of this part of the discussion was to agree on a policy pretaining to EVERY SINGLE ETHNICITY BASED LIST, i.e. the SAME RULES for every list since that is the only fair way to do it, and making an exception for a particular ethnicity is POV, since it would be taking a particular point of view different than the ones we use for the other lists. I am making a new section for this discussion below and I am asking you to only answer it in general terms, not referring distinctly to British or Jews. We need to have a stable policy in order to avoid this kind of brain-numbing discussion.Vulturell 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I did answer your question. All Lists should follow the policies listed above, which is simply Wikipedia policy. Almost nothing on this list uses proper sources, it's all original research as far as I can tell. Jayjg (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed
I've removed "for reasons of completion, the list usually includes people who are of one quarter or half, but no less, Jewish ancestry, in which case that distinction is noted," from the intro, as a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. The list should include names already published as Jews, regardless of any preference individual editors may have for a particular definition.
I've also removed Ludwig Wittgenstein. Could anyone who wants to re-add him please supply a source showing he was (a) a Jew, and (b) British? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- The guy is not really British, but ethnically speaking he is 3/4 Jewish. Check his Wikipedia article under "Early Life".Vulturell 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Ethnically speaking"? Let's stick to Wikipedia policy; which encyclopedic source describes him as a "Jew"? How did he describe himself? Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- The people who worked on this page put in a lot of people who only lived in Britain for a few years, something I do not agree with doing. But ethnically speaking he is 3/4 Jewish. Yes, his parents converted, etc. etc. etc. but if he was Italian ANY and I mean ANY reasonable list of Italians would list him if he converted from, say, Catholicism to Islam - he would still have been an ethnic Italian. Ethnically speaking, he is Jewish and I would have restored him, and kept restoring his name to the list until my fingers bled dry, if he was actually British in a significant way. Who cares how he described himself? In an ethnicity-based list, only the facts matter. If I describe myself as "French", it doesn't make me French. If some old hag actress says she was born in 1928, it doesn't mean she still wasn't factually born in 1918. His religion no doubt is Christian and I would expect to see him on a list of Catholics (I believe) just as I would expect to see him on a list of ethnic Jews par his ethnicity. Ethnicity is fact, just like a birth date - and in fact it is a fact of birth. You don't have to identify with your birth date to be born on it. "Wikipedia policy" - well, if this is an ethnicity based list, than how is Wittgenstein incorrect since I can give you two dozen very reliable sources that he was an ethnic Jew? Vulturell 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you provide reliable sources which describe him that way? Great. But don't go on about how many of his ancestors were Jews, that's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Is this a good source? "He was the youngest of eight children in a wealthy secular Jewish family in Vienna." http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/ludwigwittgenstein.html
There were a lot more if you don't like it.Vulturell 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Knitting Circle? It looks like someone's personal webpage at a university. Could you produce one of his biographers, for example, saying he was a Jew? But as you're admitting you know he wasn't British, there's no point because he shouldn't be on this page anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have to find a credible source who calls Wittgenstein a "Jew," because that is the word you're using for him, and also one showing that he's British. If you know there are people on this list who aren't British, why aren't you removing them? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Gee, maybe I would be removing these (mostly mid-European refugees) from the list if I wasn't busy talking with you. I am not even answering that bloody stupid comment about Wittgenstein. I found you a solid source and frankly every in-depth article about Wittgenstein mentions his Jewish ethnicity. I am not going to waste my time looking for articles that match your particular word choice.Vulturell 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have to find a credible source who calls Wittgenstein a "Jew," because that is the word you're using for him, and also one showing that he's British. If you know there are people on this list who aren't British, why aren't you removing them? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- They don't say he was a Jew, which is what you are calling him. Nor that he was British. So the only place he was a British Jew is in your imagination. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK fine. He was an Irish Catholic from Belafast. You got me there. Real name was "Leroy Limerick".Vulturell 22:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Born and Haffkine removed
- Haffkine: Haffkine is about as British as he is Indian - plus he's not on the British list so what qualifies him for this list
- Born: This guy has already been on 3 other lists: American, German, and Czech - which in that case should put world-record holder for country visits on every single nationality page on Wikipedia -- having a position in a certain country makes you no more part of that nationality.
- Gabor: Dennis Gabor also lived in Germany and Hungary - I've seen the Hungarian list and he's in there but for some reason he's missing from the Germany list AND the British list ---- although he magically appears here. Seeing as he qualifies to being British as much as Sigmund Freud does and considering his Jewish ancestry is still in debate - he might be a valid candidate for removal. I'm keeping him though because of possible allegiances to Britain.
Antidote 21:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Born clearly deserves to be here and in the German list - he lived and worked in Germany and Britain for many years. There is no rule that says you can't be in more than one country list, is there? I can't see any reason why he should be in the Czech and American lists, so remove hom from those, but not here. - Newport 21:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- The rule is clearly unwritten when this person doesn't even exist on the main lists for the nationality. This list just tries to get as many people on it no matter how strenously thin their connection is. Antidote 19:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well add him then! It's a strange world if living here for decades, teaching at two top British universities and winning a Nobel Prize while living here doesn't qualify you for being British. He's more British than King George I. We're not talking about Sigmund Freud, who only lived here a short time. - Newport 19:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If there's an edict that we can't add names here without credible references, shouldn't it also say that we can't remove names without credible references? Max Born is not listed under either East European Jews or Jewish Americans that I can see. He is listed as a Jewish member of the (American) National Academy of Sciences; that seems an odd reason to query his Britishness. - Poetlister 19:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Ethnic Criteria Discussion
This section should only be used for GENERAL discussion about the criteria for inclusion in all ethnicity-based categories and lists. Any suggestions for criteria will apply to every ethnic group. Please do not bring up religion-based rules of various denominations, as this is an ethnicity-based discussion. Also, do not bring up policies of Verifiability, as it is implied that the information presented in these lists would obviously have to be factually correct in order to be presented in the first place. My proposal: "I propose having a grandparent of whichever ethnicity for inclusion. 1/8th is too distant and 1/2 sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. 1/4 influences you, in some ways, ethnically, culturally, etc. How about it?" Vulturell 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't the place for it, and your proposal violates policy, as it is original research. If some reputable source says someone is a Jew (or Italian, or Armenian-American), then Wikipedia can say so. If no reputable source says so, then Wikipedia cannot say so. You can't make up your own rules for deciding who is Greek and who is Nigerian and... Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- All pages must conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You're proposing original research. It's not allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nonononono I distinctly said don't bring these up. We know that if someone is listed as fully Italian on a list of Italians, then a reliable source said that they were Italian, etc. Jez...Vulturell 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Real Ethnic Criteria Discussion
This section should only be used for GENERAL discussion about the criteria for inclusion in all ethnicity-based categories and lists. Any suggestions for criteria will apply to every ethnic group. Please do not bring up religion-based rules of various denominations, as this is an ethnicity-based discussion. Also, do not bring up policies of Verifiability, as it is implied that the information presented in these lists would obviously have to be factually correct in order to be presented in the first place. My proposal: "I propose having a grandparent of whichever ethnicity for inclusion. 1/8th is too distant and 1/2 sometimes doesn't tell the whole story. 1/4 influences you, in some ways, ethnically, culturally, etc. How about it?" Vulturell 22:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't the place for it, and your proposal violates policy, as it is original research. If some reputable source says someone is a Jew (or Italian, or Armenian-American), then Wikipedia can say so. If no reputable source says so, then Wikipedia cannot say so. You can't make up your own rules for deciding who is Greek and who is Nigerian and... Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- All pages must conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You're proposing original research. It's not allowed. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nonononono I distinctly said don't bring these up. We know that if someone is listed as fully Italian on a list of Italians, then a reliable source said that they were Italian, etc. Jez...Vulturell 22:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You don't appear to understand these policies, though, since you keep on proposing criteria that violate them. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- How exactly do they violate them? I would looove to know.Vulturell 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're trying to decide who is a Jew (or whatever ethnicity) based on your own made-up critera, which is original research. Quote some reputable source which explicitly says they are a Jew. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, that's it. Bye.Vulturell 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you can't just say "I distinctly said don't bring these up" of our policies. ;-) What you're doing is inventing a definition of who is a Jew, one that you like (as opposed to one that I like, say) and compiling lists on the strength of it. In other words, you're inserting your own opinion into Wikipedia in violation of the policies we're not allowed to "bring up." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I told you, I'm not talking about this anymore. This is so incredibly dumb and you're just naming these policies that in no way seriously apply to this or any related discussion. I am not answering on here anymore but if you remove any accurate names (Wittgenstein was not British in any sense so I have no problem with that removal) I will restore them, with a citation if you insist.Vulturell 22:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you can't just say "I distinctly said don't bring these up" of our policies. ;-) What you're doing is inventing a definition of who is a Jew, one that you like (as opposed to one that I like, say) and compiling lists on the strength of it. In other words, you're inserting your own opinion into Wikipedia in violation of the policies we're not allowed to "bring up." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, that's it. Bye.Vulturell 22:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're trying to decide who is a Jew (or whatever ethnicity) based on your own made-up critera, which is original research. Quote some reputable source which explicitly says they are a Jew. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- How exactly do they violate them? I would looove to know.Vulturell 22:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You don't appear to understand these policies, though, since you keep on proposing criteria that violate them. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- These policies very definitely do apply here, and please review WP:NPA and WP:CIV. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Waitaminute here
Wouldn't ANY List of Jews be COMPLETELY original research unless we copy and pasted the whole bleedin thing from somewhere else? The way you and your buddy are using these terms like "Original Research" indicates that placing ANYONE, even the grand high Rabbi of Israel, on a List of Jews is wrong unless someone described the guy as a "Jew" or noted that he "belongs on a List of Jews". The whole concept of List of Jews is an ORIGINAL CONCEPT in a sense and obviously any good encyclopedia requires some private thought, i.e. obviously if Wittgenstein is descibred as having three Jewish grandparents than he is 3/4 an ethnic Jew. It might not be stated directly but obviously that's the case. Calling that or anything similar "Original Research" is out-right misleading and wrong. Either the whole list is Original Research, in which case you can nominate it for deletion or something under that claim, or none of it is if there's a source that mentions the ethnic Jewishness of a person, even if it doesn't call the person outright a "Jew".Vulturell 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You have misunderstood the original research policy. It is not original research to create lists of related items (though people do debate whether or not they are useful). However, it is original research to claim someone is a Jew when you don't have any reliable sources claiming that person is a Jew, and have instead decided to use your own unique criteria to make that determination. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are stretching the definition of Original Research to make your point. I gave you an article that said Wittgenstein was ethnically Jewish - this is a fact mentioned in every single in-depth profile of Wittgenstein. And yet you didn't seem to accept it unless I found something that outright went and called him a "Jew".Vulturell 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The article is called List of British Jews, not list of British people with Jewish ancestry. Why not take Arniep's suggestion up and change the titles, then perhaps these problems would disappear? Anyway, in the case of W, it's a moot point as you know, because he wasn't British either. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well ok, let's change the name to "List of British People of Jewish descent". Howabout it? We should still use the 1/4 criteria and not any less.Vulturell 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- By the way, I noticed you put "Citation needed" on Rosen and I cited it. I had no clue who Michael Rosen was and I still don't really care, but I cited it to make the point that you, that's right, you, can make this list better by doing the same thing I just did, which is going on Google and searching for "Michael Rosen"+Jewish and adding the citation. Why just criticize a page instead of making it better? I'm not saying I minded doing the research, I'm just saying you can do it, too in no great time.Vulturell 03:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The article is called List of British Jews, not list of British people with Jewish ancestry. Why not take Arniep's suggestion up and change the titles, then perhaps these problems would disappear? Anyway, in the case of W, it's a moot point as you know, because he wasn't British either. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The people who add it, or who want the name to stay, should be doing it, but thank you for adding it. I agree with the name change, but we can't limit it to 1/4, because that's us imposing our own POVs. However, the reality is that very few people with distant ancestory will have it mentioned in print, so in fact the 1/4 thing will be a de facto principle, if not de jure. BTW, how do we decide whether someone counts as British? Apart from W, I see another academic who didn't have British citizenship. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think it will be POV. It's our/my/your article, we decide on its name, description, inclusion criteria - that's the point of Wikipedia. What we don't decide on are the facts presented, nor the wording with which the information is presented. When I went over the list yesterday there were plenty of foreign-borns who didn't live in England for long. Maybe if they had British citizenship they're British, but otherwise they aren't? I'm sure we know for most of them if they became naturalized citizens.Vulturell 03:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The people who add it, or who want the name to stay, should be doing it, but thank you for adding it. I agree with the name change, but we can't limit it to 1/4, because that's us imposing our own POVs. However, the reality is that very few people with distant ancestory will have it mentioned in print, so in fact the 1/4 thing will be a de facto principle, if not de jure. BTW, how do we decide whether someone counts as British? Apart from W, I see another academic who didn't have British citizenship. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- If someone wasn't born in the UK and has no British citizenship, then it's hard to see in what sense they're British.
- Regarding the 1/4, we really can't restrict it, unless you call the article "List of British people who have mininum 1/4 Jewish ancestry" but you see how silly that starts to look. Why not just change the title, insist on good sources, and see what happens? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here's the thing though. If I can call it "List of British people who have minimum 1/4 Jewish ancestry" why couldn't I just call it "List of British people of Jewish descent" and have a 1/4 rule? See, both ways and in fact every list, category (yes, even something like People from New York City can be seen as POV in your sense because they are created by us/you/me and not some source - in fact, the very format, style, and language and every rule of Wikipedia falls under this too. It's all chosen, created and decided upon by Wikipedia or the people working on it, not by the sources they use. That's why I don't think you can call the 1/4 rule "Original Research" if, say, we have a vote on it and it is voted as Keep or something. However, forgetting all about that, indeed let's change the title (How? Btw? Do we have to nominate it for title change?), let's insist on good sources or find them ourselves, and let's see what happens, though if I accidentally take out Jack Straw or someone like him if he is added call it a Freudian slip.Vulturell 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- We can move the page ourselves because we seem to be in agreement. If others object, we can always move it back again. I take your point that it's impossible to be completely NPOV, but I think you'll see that we end up with very few people with distant ancestry, so it'll all be pretty academic in the end. List of British people with Jewish ancestry then? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Welllll that kinda seems to indicate the people have really distant ancestry. I was hoping for "List of British people of Jewish descent"?? Vulturell 04:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you. Go for it.Vulturell 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. Do you get to change page names because you're an administrator or something?Vulturell 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether everyone can do it or not. I can see a "move" button at the top of my page. I think non-admins see it too. Between history and watch? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh. Never mind. Just kidding. I can see that button too, I just didn't know that was the one. Now I do so if ever I need to use it, I know what is now. By the way, what now? Do we look up every person and put in a citation like the one I used for Rosen?Vulturell 04:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's a lot of work, which is why I put up the sign saying from now on, please add sources. We may have to just leave the ones that are there, unless you can be bothered going through them. I was thinking of taking a look tomorrow and looking up any that seem obviously questionable. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK. Well, maybe I'll start on some sections and we can eventually work through them all.Vulturell 05:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's a lot of work, which is why I put up the sign saying from now on, please add sources. We may have to just leave the ones that are there, unless you can be bothered going through them. I was thinking of taking a look tomorrow and looking up any that seem obviously questionable. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh. Never mind. Just kidding. I can see that button too, I just didn't know that was the one. Now I do so if ever I need to use it, I know what is now. By the way, what now? Do we look up every person and put in a citation like the one I used for Rosen?Vulturell 04:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure whether everyone can do it or not. I can see a "move" button at the top of my page. I think non-admins see it too. Between history and watch? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. Do you get to change page names because you're an administrator or something?Vulturell 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions
Lynne Featherstone - Is she Jewish? I just haven't found a source. She's still listed. And Stephen Lander of MI5 - all I've found is Anti-Semitic sites and Wikipedia mirrors. Anyone have a good source? Vulturell 07:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
How's this for Lynn Featherstone? [3] - 194.200.241.36 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- I can only see the first part of it as I don't have a subscription. The headline is suggestive but I'd prefer to see a clear reference in the text. Can you see the rest of it and if so can you quote what it says about her being Jewish? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It says "Linda Grant is trying to make up her mind between two Jewish women candidates" and states clearly that in the Hornsey and Wood Green election, both the then incumbent, Barbara Roche, and the Liberal Democrat, Lynne Featherstone, are Jewish. - 194.200.241.36 18:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Would you mind quoting the actual sentence that says she is Jewish, or any sentence that strongly implies it of her? Sorry to keep asking but most of the article is behind subscription, so the context of the headline isn't available, and a google search turned up nothing. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I can help - if it's OK for a Hindu to butt in - as I can see the whole article although I'm not a subscriber. It begins "Here in the north London constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green, I am looking forward to election day as the clash of the Jewish women candidates". She then talks about Barbara Roche and Lynne Featherstone, and nobody else. I'd call that a strong implication. - Taxwoman 20:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Name of the article
I have two problems with this new name, though I appreciate the strange politics that led to it. Firstly, the many practising Jews (including eminent Rabbis) on the list might find it rather insulting - they will regard themselves as Jewish, not people of Jewish descent, or don't their views matter? Secondly, converts are in general not of Jewish descent! - 194.200.241.36 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, point taken. The situation arose because Vulturell wanted the list to be about ethnicity only (as he understands it) and not religion, so converts shouldn't be listed. Calling it a list of "British Jews" included converts but should have excluded people who only had, for example, one Jewish paternal grandparent, who wouldn't be regarded as Jews by the Jewish community. It also meant we were naming as Jews people who didn't see themselves as such, which was inappropriate. So for all these reasons, List of British people of Jewish descent was seen as the least bad option. My own view is that it should be deleted entirely because of these inherent problems, but that's another issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This leads to the whole question of how people perceive themselves. Clement Freud doesn't see himself as Jewish either, though he can scarcely deny that both his parents were Jewish. [Cue long discussion?] - 194.200.241.36 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- There's a rule of thumb on WP that we don't call people things they don't call themselves, unless there's good reason to e.g. a public-interest reason, and/or lots of sources using the other name. For example, there's a debate on whether we should call white racists "white supremacists" (which is what they are) or "white nationalists" (which is what they call themselves). We usually call them supremacists, because to do otherwise is to accept their whitewash. But if it's a group that isn't controversial and nothing hangs on what they're called, we run with what they say about themselves. As nothing hangs on whether Clement Freud is a Jew, there's no reason to say it. But that speaks to the issue of whether these lists should exist. I find them inherently unencyclopedic and pointless, not to mention objectionable, but I'm not about to pursue it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Celebration of the Jewish people
This article/wiki page is a beautiful celebratory shrine that reminds the reader of the talent and passion for life gained after their miserable past history; that is of the great Jew. To delete this could be deemed as prejudice and I think the thought is utterly absurd.
- (A) Sign your posts
- (B) As quoted from another user 'Wikipedia is not a vehicle for boosting ethnic pride'
Antidote 20:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Sources
I see there's reverting over the inclusion of Max Born and Waldemar Haffkine. Could anyone wanting to add them please supply a good source saying they were British citizens? I can see why someone might think Born was British, but I can't see any reason to add Haffkine. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)