→List of Jewish Nobel laureates: that one too |
|||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
::'''Comment''' to all those that try to interpret my comment: seriously guys that is not a racist comment and I do not have a problem with any jew I know. What I do find disappointing though that users here do try to diverge the attention from the actual article by overly-interpreting the comments made. I think that any controversial AFD like this one '''should''' require users to reveal their COIs and my original comment was only meant to suggest that. I do not think separating by ethnicity is either encyclopedic or constructive for the project or to the humankind itself. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
::'''Comment''' to all those that try to interpret my comment: seriously guys that is not a racist comment and I do not have a problem with any jew I know. What I do find disappointing though that users here do try to diverge the attention from the actual article by overly-interpreting the comments made. I think that any controversial AFD like this one '''should''' require users to reveal their COIs and my original comment was only meant to suggest that. I do not think separating by ethnicity is either encyclopedic or constructive for the project or to the humankind itself. [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and that very user (what a surprise!) has no problems with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Jewish_American_businesspeople#Why_is_list_missing_so_many.3F that list, just the opposite]--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and that very user (what a surprise!) has no problems with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Jewish_American_businesspeople#Why_is_list_missing_so_many.3F that list, just the opposite]., and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::I can find no evidence that Nergaal (doesn't anyone spell names right? I see I got it wrong too...) contributed to the page linked. Your comments are once again a clear breach of [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
::::I can find no evidence that Nergaal (doesn't anyone spell names right? I see I got it wrong too...) contributed to the page linked. Your comments are once again a clear breach of [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::Huh? [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
::::Huh? [[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] ([[User talk:Nergaal|talk]]) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:04, 26 November 2010
List of Jewish Nobel laureates
- List of Jewish Nobel laureates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, The Nobel Prize is awarded without consideration of ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. There is no inherent connection between the topics. We do not have other lists of Nobel laureates by religion, no List of Christian Nobel laureates, no List of Hindu Nobel laureates, etc. There is no reason this could not be handled by a category, such that the regular editors of the biographical article could ensure accurate inclusion. Many of those editors may not even be aware of this article, and the repeated inclusion of Andre Geim despite being a living person who does not self-identify as Jewish shows the problem here. There may be many other invalid inclusions, better to use a category and let knowledgeable people about each subject maintain inclusion. Yworo (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: Yworo, I beg you to acknowledge that Jews are also an ethnicity before somebody comes on and says "!keep ethnicity is notable." Bulldog123 21:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: this article was deleted in 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination). I find no evidence that this deletion was ever officially overturned via process, so technically this is a recreation of a deleted article. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note This article was nominated on deletion and kept. Second nomination in less than a year is simply a waste of community time.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It is for the community to decide what it considers a 'waste of time'. Given the number of participants in this discussion, I'd suggest there is little evidence that your suggestion is of merit. Argue the case, not the history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe recreating articles is allowed unless expressly prohibited (except when done in a disruptive way). --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not true. Recreation of an article deleted via AfD must go through deletion review. Any article recreated after an AfD is subject to speedy deletion under G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy [...]" of a deleted article. As far as I know, no one has suggested this is a nearly identical copy of the deleted article, and the initial author of the current article has said she wrote it from scratch. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- How different can a list be? The content of a list will be basically the same regardless of how it's formatted. While the previous articles were said to be poorly sourced, that wasn't the major reason for the deletion. The primary reason for the deletion was that no influence was established between religion/ethnicity and the specific work for which the subject won the award. That's still not been established so the deletion reason still stands and the article should not have been recreated because it is impossible for it to have substantially different content. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the previous list, so I don't know how different they are. Perhaps an admin can enlighten us. But if they were nearly identical (which I think is unlikely), then the early 2010 AfD would have effectively been a review of the 2007 deletion of this list, and could be interpreted as having overturned it. --Avenue (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- How different can a list be? The content of a list will be basically the same regardless of how it's formatted. While the previous articles were said to be poorly sourced, that wasn't the major reason for the deletion. The primary reason for the deletion was that no influence was established between religion/ethnicity and the specific work for which the subject won the award. That's still not been established so the deletion reason still stands and the article should not have been recreated because it is impossible for it to have substantially different content. Yworo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, G4 refers to "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy [...]" of a deleted article. As far as I know, no one has suggested this is a nearly identical copy of the deleted article, and the initial author of the current article has said she wrote it from scratch. --Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not true. Recreation of an article deleted via AfD must go through deletion review. Any article recreated after an AfD is subject to speedy deletion under G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and categorise as Category:Jewish Nobel laureates. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 20:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- You realize the only reason this list exists is because a CATEGORY like this would be put up for CFD and deleted immediately per WP:Overcategorization. Bulldog123 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep There's enough secondary sources that discuss the topic. No reason not to have a list in addition to any categories. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No there's not. There's not a single link that documents the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Bulldog123 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there is. A simply check would have found them. I'm guessing you did check, but somehow didn't find them. Though I'm not sure why it isn't all in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the check was so simple, why not link to said WP:RS that academically document the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize? "There's a lot of them" is not an academic discussion. The fact that Charles Murray uses "Jewish Nobel Prize" winners as evidence that Jews value education more, etc... is also not reason enough to have this list because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is not Charles' Murray's Wikipedia. Bulldog123 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added a list of sources that discuss or document Jewish Nobel Prize winners. It was so easy for me to find that I can only conclude that you either didn't check or you did but still said there wasn't any. But simply repeatedly insisting that there isn't is disingenuous. There really is no debate here to have with regards to the notability of this list. I don't know why this discussion is being plastered with text. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're intentionally intending to ignore the point or you really don't understand. A LIST is not the same thing as a SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS. The information you're providing does little more than present a LIST (I should also note some of those refs are clearly vanity publications). If a header article cannot be written about the list, the list should not exist. It can't in this case, because there is not enough encyclopedic scholarly information to write about. Once again... "There's a lot of them" is not a sole qualification for notability. Yet again, Wikipedia is not a directory. Bulldog123 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lists and analyses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the FL criteria stipulate that lists must have sufficient explanatory prose, which does not have a size limit (except as set by unrelated article guidelines). Therefore I do not see a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The list has to have something encyclopedic to justify its existence. "The body social: symbolism, self, and society" By Anthony Synnott is an academic publication with a pretty thorough section on blonde celebrities. Yet, list of blonde actresses would still not be an eligible list on wikipedia. I'm not saying these lists are equivalent. I'm just giving an example. There's a reason other wikis don't have this list yet (nor are they pining for it). Bulldog123 15:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Lists and analyses are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the FL criteria stipulate that lists must have sufficient explanatory prose, which does not have a size limit (except as set by unrelated article guidelines). Therefore I do not see a problem. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can't tell if you're intentionally intending to ignore the point or you really don't understand. A LIST is not the same thing as a SCHOLARLY ANALYSIS. The information you're providing does little more than present a LIST (I should also note some of those refs are clearly vanity publications). If a header article cannot be written about the list, the list should not exist. It can't in this case, because there is not enough encyclopedic scholarly information to write about. Once again... "There's a lot of them" is not a sole qualification for notability. Yet again, Wikipedia is not a directory. Bulldog123 01:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added a list of sources that discuss or document Jewish Nobel Prize winners. It was so easy for me to find that I can only conclude that you either didn't check or you did but still said there wasn't any. But simply repeatedly insisting that there isn't is disingenuous. There really is no debate here to have with regards to the notability of this list. I don't know why this discussion is being plastered with text. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- If the check was so simple, why not link to said WP:RS that academically document the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize? "There's a lot of them" is not an academic discussion. The fact that Charles Murray uses "Jewish Nobel Prize" winners as evidence that Jews value education more, etc... is also not reason enough to have this list because Wikipedia is not a directory and this is not Charles' Murray's Wikipedia. Bulldog123 22:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- But there is. A simply check would have found them. I'm guessing you did check, but somehow didn't find them. Though I'm not sure why it isn't all in the article. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- No there's not. There's not a single link that documents the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Bulldog123 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment We may not have lists of Nobel laureates by religion, but we do have lists by ethnicity (List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates) and race (List of black Nobel Laureates). --Avenue (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can sometimes indicate that the other stuff also needs to be deleted. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'll happily nominate the Chinese lists. Bulldog123 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. Frankly, that list is even more ridiculous than this one. Bulldog123 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can sometimes indicate that the other stuff also needs to be deleted. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Info: This list has been through two previous AfDs, plus a VfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize Winners, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners. --Avenue (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was delete all, including List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Not sure how it got recreated. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe it was deleted even earlier too. Does anyone have a log? Bulldog123 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed a fourth discussion, sorry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates. The results of those four previous discussions were:
- 2005 VfD: No consensus
- June 2007 AfD: No consensus
- July 2007 AfD: Delete all
- Feb 2010 AfD: Keep
- The two AfD discussions in 2007 covered various belief- or disbelief-based lists of Nobel laureates (atheist (July only), Christian, Hindu, Humanist, Jewish, and Muslim). --Avenue (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I missed a fourth discussion, sorry: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanist Nobel laureates. The results of those four previous discussions were:
- I believe it was deleted even earlier too. Does anyone have a log? Bulldog123 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Nobel laureates (2nd nomination) was delete all, including List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Not sure how it got recreated. Yworo (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete It serves no purpose (and only creates WP:BATTLEGROUND issues) because the Nobel Prize committee explicitly states its prize is awarded without consideration to ethnicity, religion, or even nationality. Ethnicity, by itself, is not notable and the policy on lists states that a good way of judging whether something is listcruft is by seeing if an article can be written about its contents. List of Freemasons exists because of Freemasonry... but List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners doesn't have a Jews & The Nobel Prize article to substantiate it, and will never have such an article because there's nothing to say except "A good number of Nobel Prize winners had a Jewish parent." Furthermore having members of a distinct ethnic group win the prize often is also not a list-worthy characteristic. Nobody feels the need to make List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates, though if it were created on the same criteria as the Jewish list (having a recent ancestor of German ethnicity), there'd be just as many self-identifying candidates. Also I get the feeling that if List of ethnic German Nobel Prize laureates did exist, it'd be trolled into oblivion for being "racist." Furthermore, despite what's being said here, about 1/3rd of the list maintains various other ethnic ancestries in addition to Jewish, and many more have never outright stated they identify as being "Jewish." (e.g., It's never mentioned that Otto Wallach -- who is frequently listed as only Jewish -- is only approximately 1/4th Jewish by ethnic descent -- his Jewish grandfather having converted to Protestantism and the remainder of his ancestors being ethnic Germans) Bulldog123 21:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I also want to mention that this list is surreptitiously being used like a category by means of linking it into various See Also sections. See: Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates. Therefore, Wikipedia:OCAT#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_orientation applies here. Bulldog123 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd agree that most of those links seem unnecessary. But why do you believe this addition was surreptitious? It was raised shortly afterwards at Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates#Link from articles on laureates by the editor adding the links. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not just unnecessary, it's synthesizing false notions. These people are not famous for being JEWISH Nobel Prize winners. They're famous for being Nobel Prize winners. They happen to have Jewish ancestry also. As for the surreptitious comment - it's most regarding what's been happening on Andre Geim - and you may have not been around yet for when this happened with other lists. Category:Jewish mathematicians was deleted and List of Jewish mathematicians (which has been lingering around untouched for years now) started getting linked to all the former articles. Bulldog123 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I ended up seeing this list via the biography of Andre Geim, recent Nobel laureate in physics who describes himself as having a Jewish great-grandmother and a name that sounds Jewish. His name got stuck onto the list, which changed its rules in order to justify the addition of somebody who was briefly described in a 2006 computer journal as Jewish, with a few other sources picking up that info no doubt from the Googlable first one. List enthusiasts claim its methods need not be limited by WP:BLPCAT because it is a list not a category, although it gets used to tag articles like Geim's "See also: List of Jewish Nobel laureates' thus asserting "without disclaimers or modifiers" that Geim is Jewish. And if a curious reader clicks to the List, again there are no modifiers, and certainly no explanation that the rule in force, since it got changed after Geim's win, is only ""A Jew is anyone that reliable sources say is a Jew." The list is a magnet for POV-pushers who care less about the accuracy of information in Wikipedia than they do about stretching the length of the list by one name--even though putting fake names on the list serves to devalue the list's integrity. If the list fell under some Wikipedia rule for putting (or not) people on it, preferably including for living laureates a requirement for self-identification as Jewish, I would feel differently. But the list enthusiasts make up their own rules. betsythedevine (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously should be kept per Christopher Connor. Issue of the high proportion of Jewish Nobel Prize winners specifically discussed in several reliable secondary sources. Fortunately, WP:Notability is a guiding rule in Wikipedia, not WP:Political correctness. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep A very notable intersection. There's a fair number of sources about the oddly large size of this intersection. The intersection is thus naturally relevant and makes sense as a list. We may need to be careful about inclusion criteria but that's not a reason to delete. (edit conflicted with Plot Spoiler who said almost the exact same thing.) JoshuaZ (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have source for that proportion relative to say those of say British, French, and German ancestry? I'm sure at least one of those ancestries has as great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry. If so, are you arguing that those lists should be created as well? The problem is, this list isn't simply including people who self-identify as Jewish, it's including people by ancestry, even including people with one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether it was the maternal or paternal grandparent even if the individual has specifically indicated that they don't identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- CommentOne can imagine research on the intersection of Nobel Prizes with Jewish ethnic heritage, but is there any such interest in the intersection of Nobel Prizes with people who have been described as Jewish despite having minimal numbers of Jewish "genes"? I can see the potential interest of an article about "Nobel laureates who are ethnically Jewish" but NOT of what we have now, "Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." betsythedevine (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have source for that proportion relative to say those of say British, French, and German ancestry? I'm sure at least one of those ancestries has as great or greater proportion than those of Jewish ancestry. If so, are you arguing that those lists should be created as well? The problem is, this list isn't simply including people who self-identify as Jewish, it's including people by ancestry, even including people with one Jewish grandparent regardless of whether it was the maternal or paternal grandparent even if the individual has specifically indicated that they don't identify as Jewish. Yworo (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. This specific intersection is a notable topic due to its disproportionately. This is supported by the multitude of sourcing and scholarly material cited in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Disproportionality does not equal encyclopedic value. There's also a disproportionate amount of Jewish movie studio heads. I suppose List of Jewish Hollywood executives to be appropriate as well? And, despite what you say, there is no scholarly material cited in the article that's pertinent to the Nobel Prize. i.e., "Understanding Jewish Holidays and Customs: Historical and Contemporary" has nothing to do with the Nobel Prize. Once again, Wikipedia is NOT a directory Bulldog123 01:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete To quote from WP:OC#CATGRS "...people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently to a Lutheran or Methodist". And following logically, a Jewish Nobel Prize winner is presumably not treated differently from a Christian or Atheist one. If anyone wan't to suggest that a list isn't compiled by category, then I'd like to ask how else they would define the method used? It seems to me that any such method could only be either (a) meaningless, or (b) a blatent attempt to bypass Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Delete violates BLPCAT, NPOV, and WP:EGRS. Ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation is only important when directly related to article subject's activities. This (and similar lists) serves no valid purpose, and is only used for vanity and bragging. I'm not sure if any of the keep editors has ever seen a real encyclopedia, but this is not something that belongs in one.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
- what's the basis for a 'strong' delete" as opposed to a regular delete?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- A strong delete (in this case) is due to the fact that the list violates several Wiki policies (especially EGRS). It's not just this list, the Chinese one is up for a delete too, and there are more.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- so its a strong delete when it violates several wikipedia policies and a plain delete when it violates only one wikipedia policy?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- A strong delete (in this case) is due to the fact that the list violates several Wiki policies (especially EGRS). It's not just this list, the Chinese one is up for a delete too, and there are more.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- delete simply can't be done properly. I suppose we could have a list of uncontested Jews on such a list, but we are always going to have people trying to expand it into dubious areas of someone with a Jewish great-aunt. So delete all these lists based on religion and ethnicity - clear cut things like citizenship might work, but not this.--Scott Mac 00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. This is an unusual and notable intersection, as many reliable secondary sources point out (including those added by Christopher Connor). And I'm still baffled as to why this particular list was chosen, considering that it's one of the few of this type that is actually notable and properly sourced. I understand that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but why not start with List of Jewish American entertainers or List of Jewish anarchists or List of Jewish actors? I'm going to nominate a couple of those too, so we can address the larger issue here. Jayjg (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I've done it. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm moving towards the position that no 'list of persons' should be included in Wikipedia unless there is a verifiable singe external source which can be unambiguously used to indicate membership. 'List of Nobel Prize winners' can be sourced to the Nobel Committee, 'List of Bolivian citizens' can (in principle) be sourced to the relevant government department, and 'List of people born on 26th November' can be sourced to birth certificates (with the proviso that this only needs to be actually verified where less strict sourcing is under reasonable dispute, per normal Wikipedia policy). Since the Nobel Committe doesn't list Nobel Prize winners by ethnicity, we shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- And I've done it. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. Jayjg (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not a single one of the sources Connor added do anything but list Jewish Nobel laureates. Most of them spend less than two paragraphs on the subject and zero provide any sort of scholarly interpretation of the situation. Furthermore, nearly all online sources regarding Jewish Nobel Prize laureates are vanity pages. If external references are all that's needed to make a ethnicity + Nobel Prize list, we might as well get started on list of ethnic German Nobel laureates [1] with List of ethnic Swede Nobel laureates soon to follow. Just because there are more writers concerned with Jewish studies than other ethnic group studies, doesn't mean the intersection automatically fails to be an irrelevant intersection. There is no relevance provided in any single external reading anyone has linked here. (Perhaps with the exception of Charles Murray's book - which, ironically, nobody has bothered to cite - but that then becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue). Bulldog123 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump and Bulldog123, I understand what you're both saying, but your actions seem to me to be inconsistent with your points; so far you've both only !voted to delete this article, but not the other two. I find this confusing; is there something about this particular list that makes it far more deletion-worthy than the others? I haven't heard that argument yet. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I've !voted delete on all three, just for different reasons. Bulldog123 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I like to read AfDs before voting, and I was more concerned with the most pressing issues, as I see them. Since when has not participating in the debate over one article been relevant to another in any case? Even the most avid Wikipedian can't participate in every discussion, though I'm sure some try. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jayiq, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of making a WP:POINT by creating two new AfDs, which of course also serves to WP:CANVASS all the people who edit those other articles to read your one-sided denunciation of this AfD so they can come here and !vote. You might start by explaining your rule that anybody, living or dead, who was called Jewish by some cherry-picked WP:RS is Jewish, and that all the many more WP:RS discussions of the person's ancestry that don't say he's Jewish don't count against his inclusion.betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Betsy, how about you discuss the topic at hand, rather than making untrue personal attacks on other editors. I notice that you didn't make the same false complaints when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was created above in response to this AfD. This and related inconsistencies are troubling at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- There was a serious suggestion of a different AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. The nominator gave a clear and coherent explanation of his thinking about why the list should be deleted, making an effort to get people to vote with him to delete it. Now contrast that introduction with your minimal Afd statement: "Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. Also trying to address the larger issue here." Perhaps others will understand, even if you do not agree, why I thought that your two nominations were WP:POINTY and his was sincere.betsythedevine (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- My AfDs are entirely serious; I sincerely believe those lists are non-notable intersections and BLP-violation magnets that should be deleted. My explanation is perfectly clear, and policy based. Now, please redact your untrue personal comments about me, assume good faith, and act with more consistency in the future. Thanking you in advance. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- There was a serious suggestion of a different AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ethnic_Chinese_Nobel_laureates. The nominator gave a clear and coherent explanation of his thinking about why the list should be deleted, making an effort to get people to vote with him to delete it. Now contrast that introduction with your minimal Afd statement: "Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, which is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. Also trying to address the larger issue here." Perhaps others will understand, even if you do not agree, why I thought that your two nominations were WP:POINTY and his was sincere.betsythedevine (talk) 04:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Betsy, how about you discuss the topic at hand, rather than making untrue personal attacks on other editors. I notice that you didn't make the same false complaints when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was created above in response to this AfD. This and related inconsistencies are troubling at best. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Jayiq, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of making a WP:POINT by creating two new AfDs, which of course also serves to WP:CANVASS all the people who edit those other articles to read your one-sided denunciation of this AfD so they can come here and !vote. You might start by explaining your rule that anybody, living or dead, who was called Jewish by some cherry-picked WP:RS is Jewish, and that all the many more WP:RS discussions of the person's ancestry that don't say he's Jewish don't count against his inclusion.betsythedevine (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I like to read AfDs before voting, and I was more concerned with the most pressing issues, as I see them. Since when has not participating in the debate over one article been relevant to another in any case? Even the most avid Wikipedian can't participate in every discussion, though I'm sure some try. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- No, I've !voted delete on all three, just for different reasons. Bulldog123 02:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- AndyTheGrump and Bulldog123, I understand what you're both saying, but your actions seem to me to be inconsistent with your points; so far you've both only !voted to delete this article, but not the other two. I find this confusing; is there something about this particular list that makes it far more deletion-worthy than the others? I haven't heard that argument yet. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Not a single one of the sources Connor added do anything but list Jewish Nobel laureates. Most of them spend less than two paragraphs on the subject and zero provide any sort of scholarly interpretation of the situation. Furthermore, nearly all online sources regarding Jewish Nobel Prize laureates are vanity pages. If external references are all that's needed to make a ethnicity + Nobel Prize list, we might as well get started on list of ethnic German Nobel laureates [1] with List of ethnic Swede Nobel laureates soon to follow. Just because there are more writers concerned with Jewish studies than other ethnic group studies, doesn't mean the intersection automatically fails to be an irrelevant intersection. There is no relevance provided in any single external reading anyone has linked here. (Perhaps with the exception of Charles Murray's book - which, ironically, nobody has bothered to cite - but that then becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue). Bulldog123 02:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been listed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes.—Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - per Brewcrewer & Plot Spoiler. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 02:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can I point out that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can I point out that your claim here is a complete misrepresentation and invention of policy, as has already been proven on the article's Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go on then, point out where exactly on the talk page this has been 'proven'? If you've proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy (which you seem to be suggesting), why haven't you brought this to wider attention?AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- To begin with, please don't make claims on my behalf that I certainly haven't made or "suggested". I haven't "proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy", I've disproven your claims about Wikipedia policy. These are entirely different things. And there's no point in repeating that discussion here; a review of the article's talk page will rapidly reveal the necessary information. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, then, 'rapidly reveal it' then. Or if you like, take all night. I'm off to bed now, as I don't see much point in arguing with somebody who says something exists, but won't actually tell us where it is in sufficient detail to check. The article talk page is full of tendentious waffle, and very little discussion of what Wikipedia policy actually is, from what I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I haven't made all that many comments on the article's talk page, and they're pretty clear, and deal specifically and only with policy. If you can't be bothered to read them, it's not my issue. By the way, since you assert you as very concerned about BLP policy, have you had a chance to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, which discuss articles that actually and seriously violate policy? Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, then, 'rapidly reveal it' then. Or if you like, take all night. I'm off to bed now, as I don't see much point in arguing with somebody who says something exists, but won't actually tell us where it is in sufficient detail to check. The article talk page is full of tendentious waffle, and very little discussion of what Wikipedia policy actually is, from what I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- To begin with, please don't make claims on my behalf that I certainly haven't made or "suggested". I haven't "proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy", I've disproven your claims about Wikipedia policy. These are entirely different things. And there's no point in repeating that discussion here; a review of the article's talk page will rapidly reveal the necessary information. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Go on then, point out where exactly on the talk page this has been 'proven'? If you've proven a logical inconsistency in Wikipedia policy (which you seem to be suggesting), why haven't you brought this to wider attention?AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can I point out that your claim here is a complete misrepresentation and invention of policy, as has already been proven on the article's Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Can I point out that even if a decision to 'keep' is made, inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. Policy cannot be overridden for an article 'by consensus'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You know what's sad? One of the references in the "Further Reading" section of this book has the following footnote:
- A family member intervened, claiming that Otto Warburg would "turn in his grave" if he knew that he were presented as a "Jewish Nobel Laureate." - Jews and sciences in German contexts: case studies from the 19th and 20th ... By Ulrich Charpa, Ute Deichmann Pg 26
- This issue apparently extends to dead as well. Bulldog123 02:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And with that, can there be a reply? I think we'll not see a better reason why such listcruft shouldn't be permitted in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a stamp collector's album. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...Richard Feynman would have been another opt-out, as he was from a 1960s book on Jewish laureates, when he wrote to its author "requesting not to be included in your work. I am expecting that you will respect my wishes."betsythedevine (talk) 03:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- ...And with that, can there be a reply? I think we'll not see a better reason why such listcruft shouldn't be permitted in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a stamp collector's album. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You know what's sad? One of the references in the "Further Reading" section of this book has the following footnote:
Here you go:
- Richard P. Feynman to Tina Levitan, February 7, 1967
- Dear Miss Levitan:
- In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
- Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of an "Aryan" inheritance.
- It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their race.
- It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one element in my composition.
- At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all, but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general. Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
- Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
- I am expecting that you will respect my wishes.
- Sincerely yours,
- Richard Feynman
Concise, and to the point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep per brewcrewer.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete per Richard Feynman. One of the sources in the article says The figure for the total number of Jewish nobel Prize winners varies slightly, depending on the strictness of the "Who's a Jew?" definition. There is no need to create a list on a term that even the sources agree is not well defined. I think a list on Nobel Romance-speaking Nobel Laureates would be less controversial and better defined. Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per arguments articulated by Jayjg and JoshuaZ--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Note I cannot stop wondering how many of the keep votes are from people who see themselves Jewish. Nergaal (talk) 07:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe not, but you could have stopped yourself from saying it. --Avenue (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nergaal really didn't say anything uncivil, so I don't see why he has to keep himself from "mentioning that." The truth of the matter is none of the users who are so vehemently trying to keep this list alive have not even commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates -- which is an IDENTICAL situation. Bulldog123 13:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nergal said, in effect, you only did that because you're a Jew", which is highly inappropriate at best. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates is, in fact, a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT situation, primarily because we don't have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the intersection of "Chinese" and "Nobel laureates". On the other hand, we do have multiple, reliable secondary sources commenting on the notable intersection "Jewish" and "Nobel laureates". And here's the real "truth of the matter"; almost none of the users who are so vehemently trying trying to keep this list have even commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors -- which are FAR WORSE situations. It's clear the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates. This has become blindingly obvious; it's mostly an issue because 3 or 4 editors want to keep Geim off the list, and attempt to win an editing dispute by deleting the article. Thus, the reasons for advocating the deletion of this list have, in reality, nothing to do with policy (I exclude you from this, Bulldog123, since you are one of the few editors who has actually advanced a consistent position on this topic). Jayjg (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What Neergal said was unwarranted, and a breach of WP:NPA. However, I consider Jayjg's later response that "the issue is not that people are concerned with BLP per se, but are actually concerned that Jews in general, or perhaps specific individuals such as Geim or Feynmann, be associated with being Jewish Nobel laureates" to be a much more gross generalisation and a more grave breach of WP:NPA, giving a clear intimation of prejudice. I think it shows the weakness of some arguments presented here that such attacks are being resorted to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment to all those that try to interpret my comment: seriously guys that is not a racist comment and I do not have a problem with any jew I know. What I do find disappointing though that users here do try to diverge the attention from the actual article by overly-interpreting the comments made. I think that any controversial AFD like this one should require users to reveal their COIs and my original comment was only meant to suggest that. I do not think separating by ethnicity is either encyclopedic or constructive for the project or to the humankind itself. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and that very user (what a surprise!) has no problems with that list, just the opposite., and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I can find no evidence that Nergaal (doesn't anyone spell names right? I see I got it wrong too...) contributed to the page linked. Your comments are once again a clear breach of WP:NPA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Huh? Nergaal (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- What nergal said was an antisemitic comment that smells really bad, and that very user (what a surprise!) has no problems with that list, just the opposite., and BTW this comment "I do not have a problem with any jew I know" is an antisemitic comment too.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep - Per Christopher Connor this is a notable intersection covered in reliable secondary sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong delete - Wikipedia is NOT a directory - inclusion of any living person on the list (see WP:LISTPEOPLE) would violate WP:BLP, WP:COP and ultimately WP:EGRS. It all depends on what criteria you use, the recent disruption by users at this article and a BLP in an attempt to include someone that is clearly not Jewish, is an example of why this dubious list is a disrupted net loss. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ultra-Supremium Megatron-Softy Keep -- With sugar on top! - Serisouly, though. This is a keep. There is a disproportionate number of Jews who were awarded the prize, to the point where the Arab world speaks of it were a conspiracy. Last I heard, it were 22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population. I think brewcrewer and others iterated a similar point -- this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners -- this is why wikipedia was created -- to share knowledge between people. Several editors expressed concern regarding disruptive conduct, but we have those in many articles relating to Jewish people (see Jerusalem diff) and we can handle such issues without wiping out public-interest encyclopaedic content. Keep. JaakobouChalk Talk 08:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- > this subject is very noteworthy and anyone who reads material on it would be interested in checking out a list of Jewish winners
- There isn't going to be anybody curious about this because there is no material on it. I don't know how many times this can be stressed. I feel like a broken record. Not a single one of the provided secondary sources in this article academically probes the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize. Over half are vanity publications and the others spend less than two paragraphs remarking on Jewish overrepresentation in fields of academia. The one, only, singular source that briefly STUDIES the relationship between Jews and the Nobel Prize is Charles Murray's sociology article. This is not Charles Murray's wikipedia. If it were, we would also need to create List of black criminals as there's plenty of research of his that considers that too. Bulldog123 14:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- >22% of the nobel winners (maybe in certain categories) when Jews consist of approximately 0.2% of the global population
- It's a nice statistic, but it's also synthesis of unrelated information - 100% of the world population is not in the field of chemistry/physics/medicine/or literature and 100% of the world population is not eligible to be awarded the Nobel Prize even if they were. A statistic worth mentioning might be the population of eligible academics in Nobel committee approved institutions versus Nobel Prize winners. Which, given the Jewish faculty at places like UPenn, is probably not going to be overrepresented by much - if at all. The question of WHY Jews are overrepresented in eligible faculties is something of encyclopedic value (environmental? genetic? divine?), but this list is not. Bulldog123 15:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per Richard Feynman. His statement is a brilliant explanation of why this list is irrelevant. Unless someone can show in what way this intersection is notable, then this article has no purpose. Even if criteria were not being stretched, and the list abused (which some comments above suggest is happening), it would be unnecessary. I would take the same position regarding most of the lists above suggested either as positive or negative examples; though the List of Jewish anarchists mentioned by Jayjg may indeed (I haven't yet looked at it) reflect something more that ethnic knee-jerk listing. RolandR (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong keep Per RolandR, aside for Richard Feynman statement that overall is only one view (not necessarily a valid one) but I consider witty (yet wrong) by itself-all other reasons Roland counted actually sharpened why I should vote opposite than him. It's an encyclopedia and not a memorial site which follows desist people last willing.--Gilisa (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- You do understand you haven't provided a single reason detailing how this list is of encyclopedic value -- which is what the argument is. The argument is not "Delete this list because Feynman wouldn't like it." Bulldog123 14:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Titanium keep per Plot Spoiler, and actually per RolandR and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial, but that is his right. 'Jews' are a people. The religion is the traditions of this people. It is notable to show the disproportionate number not to prove they are better (certainly not to compare with some 'Aryan' people claims though they make good cars and their economy is one of the few that have export surplus), but in fact the importance of education is important to the Jewish people. --Shuki (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- None of which is a policy or even a guideline, whoever closes this AFD needs to read well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial You're not being very subtle. Bulldog123 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Actually "and Richard [Feynman] who is merely in denial" doesn't just lack subtlety, it is obnoxious POV-pushing drivel, from someone who can't even be bothered to spell his name right. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- and Richard Freyman who is merely in denial You're not being very subtle. Bulldog123 14:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- None of which is a policy or even a guideline, whoever closes this AFD needs to read well. Off2riorob (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- keep, there can be no serious doubt about the notability of this topic, instead the nomination appears to come from the difficulty some people are having with categorization -- and indeed the difficulties others are having in understanding anything much about Jews. I'm finding it tiresome to continually encounter this business: "oh, it's just too much of a hassle, let's just nuke it". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: "the difficulty some people are having with categorization" is exactly the point. Some people (including Feynman) think that dividing people into arbitrary categories on the basis of supposed 'ethnic' or 'religious' roots, rather than on what the people themselves consider appropriate, has a long and ugly history, and is not anything that Wikipedia should chose to engage in for the convenience of those who wish to compile lists. As for the comment about "others" having difficulties "understanding anything much about Jews" I'd ask exactly how you know which "others" are and are not Jewish themselves? Not that this is of the slightest consequence regarding the topic under discussion - it seems instead to be a mere insinuation of ulterior motives, and has no place on a Wikipedia talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Another who would agree with Feynman is Andre Geim. Here was response to an Israeli interviewer: "As for his decision to come to Israel, he said, 'My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you. Nonetheless, I don’t divide the world by religions or countries, but by stupid people and slightly less stupid people, and I hope that I am numbered among the second group. Israel has several cultural characteristics which result in an especially high proportion of the less stupid people.'"betsythedevine (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per the supporters above and Raphael Patai, who says: "While it would be giving too much credit to the Nobel Prize Committee to assume that, in selecting the recipients of the prizes, it infallibly comes up each time with a man of genius, there can be no doubt that in general the laureates are men of extraordinary accomplishments....In any case, the Nobel Prize winners constitute what is unquestionabley the most elite group among men of unsual intellecutal achievement. Hence there is at present no better yardstick for measuring Jewish intellectual preeminence that the record of Jews among the laureates. from The Jewish mind by Raphael Patai Wayne State University Press 1996 [2] If someone wishes to be excluded from this list for reasons such as Feynmen has iterated, we can either respect that and leave it out or we can make a clear note that a person wishes to opt out.KantElope (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment'Sadly, I'd not suggest that Raphael Patai can be taken as a neutral or reliable source on this question. Particularly given the way his book 'The Arab Mind' has be subject to criticism for its negative portrayal of Arabs, and for its use as a NeoCon guide to methods of repression in the Middle East. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)