Category talk:Jewish mathematicians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Category:Jewish mathematicians page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 May 4. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 September 12. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents 1 Aim? 2 Category of people, not of mathematics 3 General merit issues 4 Category Creation 5 Grigori Perelman 6 WP:CFD

[edit] Aim?

I wonder what the aim of this list is. There is certainly no such thing as "Jewish mathematics". The same goes for the newly created bottom-of-the-page category. Hasdrubal 23:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(Oh, and I do hope this page does not give rise to another unending discussion on definitions and inclusion. Incidentally, how is this better than a page on "Gentile mathematicians"?) Hasdrubal 23:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as British zoology? There is a category of British zoologists. Indeed, there are many similar categories, and some people find them useful. Why pick on this one? - 20.138.246.89 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, am no great fan of these national categories in general. However, styles of doing mathematics do tend to clump geographically (or, at least, they used to; fast communications are changing matters). For example, we may sensibly speak of the Italian school of algebraic geometers: we are not lumping together mathematicians by their presumed ethnicity or citizenship, but, rather, we are referring to a (somewhat ill-defined) school of thought, or style. Few would dispute that W. L. Edge was in some sense an Italian algebraic geometer, even though he spent almost all of his life in Scotland, and was presumably of so-called British stock. (I couldn't be less interested in this last matter, incidentally.)

Even speaking about "French mathematics", as such, is an iffy game unless you specify a period and specialty. Even so, if the category makes any sense, it is one that refers, as above, to a school that happens to have a geographical centre in a given region. If there is such a thing as a "French mathematician", who would be a better example than Grothendieck? Who would contradict this? Yet Grothendieck was state-less for much of his life; he may still be so now, for all that I know or anyone cares.

The category discussed in this page does not lend itself to the above current use. As far as I know, the only people who believe in "Jewish mathematics" are those who believe in "Aryan mathematics" (and "French mathematics" as part of the same overall category as the former, d'après Bieberbach). Of course, I am not accusing the person who created this page of holding such beliefs. However, it is hard to divine its purpose it does not contribute to our knowledge of mathematics, it conveys no clear information about the formation, career or work (or personality) of any of these mathematicians. It seems difficult not to conclude that this is simply an attempt to classify mathematicians by their descent. (A classification by confession would hardly be any more informative.) Hasdrubal 20:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We are encouraged to sub divide categories. As category Jews or Jewish Americans would be too large we need some way of sub dividing it and occupation doesn't seem such a ridiculous way of doing that. Arniep 15:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a very long "list of Jews" elsewhere; if you are involved in keeping it up (I am not), surely you can divide it by occupation? As a subdivision of *mathematicians*, "Jewish mathematicians" makes no sense. Or is it now Wikipedia policy that every biographical page should have a tag telling the reader whether the subject is (supposed to be) Jewish or Gentile? There seems to be no other good reason to keep the category. Hasdrubal 13:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. Wikipedia is not censored. Is Hasdrubal proposing that we omit or censor anything? Will Hasdrubal repeat these remarks on every similar category, such as British zoologists, and if not, why not? - Newport 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category of people, not of mathematics

I think, Hasdrubal, is slightly missing the point of the category (as I describe on the CfD). Of course there's nothing about any particular branch or style of mathematics that is "Jewish". But as a biographical fact about the person, religion/ethnicity is sometimes interesting. For example, I clicked on Hausdorff's article—I had known about Hausdorff dimension, naturally, but nothing about his actual biography. I read there:

When the Nazis came to power, Hausdorff, who was Jewish, felt that as a respected university professor he would be spared from persecution. However, his abstract mathematics was denounced as "Jewish", useless, and "un-German" and he lost his position in 1935. When in 1942 he could no longer avoid being sent to a concentration camp, Hausdorff committed suicide together with his wife and sister-in-law on the 26th of January.

This fact is interesting (and tragic). From the description, Hausdorff's ethnicity had a very notable effect on his biography; I don't think it's unreasonable for readers of a general encyclopedia to be curious about this sort of personal detail... even though a mathematics text would have no reason to mention this. LotLE×talk 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course the fact that Hausdorff was classified as Jewish by the Nazis played a crucial role in his life (and death). This is why his fate is described in the text of his biography. Marking every mathematician as a Jew or not is not remotely necessary to this purpose.

Without something called "Jewish mathematics", what sense can there be in a category called "Jewish mathematicians", as opposed to, quite simply "Jews"? Editors might just as well mark every page they judge worthy with a yellow star, or with whatever other sign they choose for those they judge meritorious of Jewish status; in fact, the current policy seems to play much the same role as this. Hasdrubal 02:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I really think you're way, way overreaching to try to find some sort of antisemitic subtext where none exists. Apparently these is also a category of Muslim mathematicians, which also seems fine to me (and no, there's also no "Islamic mathematics"). I would have nothing against categories for English mathematicians or Japanese mathematicians either (nor any particular stake in them existing). Or female mathematicians, for that matter, since it's a distinct minority of all the important mathematicians, and perhaps interesting as such. And again, no there isn't "feminine mathematics" either. LotLE×talk 02:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I neither accuse nor suspect whoever created this category of being antisemitic. As for the other categories: "Muslim mathematicians" seems to me to be nonsense; in any case, it would have to be a new concoction, as "Jewish mathematicians" is the only classification by faith I have seen (though it truly seems to be used as a classification by descent). The same goes for "Female mathematicians", which would, for that matter, be redundant, since most mathematicians are not called Hilary. (An article on women in academia would be a different thing.) As for English mathematicians or Japanese mathematicians: this is overdone, but see my comments above for why the present classification is more absurd than either. Hasdrubal 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

And, for that matter: no, there seems to be *no* category of Muslim mathematicians, and I would certainly vote to delete such a category if it were created. There is a *list* of Muslim mathematicians, but it does not even attempt to list all mathematicians who happened to be Muslim according to X or Y; rather, it seems to be some sort of stub of a timeline for historical figures who lived in the Muslim world from the 9th to the 15th centuries. That is a different thing entirely, though arguably it might be replaced by an outline of how Greek mathematics was passed on and elaborated upon in the Arab world and Persia while Europe passed through the Middle Ages. Hasdrubal 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is in fact a category of "Muslim mathematicians", created in the last few days. (For some reason I failed to find it when first checking.) It seems to have a grand total of one member. I shall nominate it for deletion. Hasdrubal 03:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General merit issues

I read the above discussion and I think it misses the point. Before I explain, let me state that I am strongly against removal of this category. My reasoning is simple: readers want to know about famous people, how they got to be whoever they are, what is their geographical, economical, political (whatever) background, what do they have in common with other famous people, etc. Wikipedia is essentially "people's encyclopedia" which reflects to a large degree not the general merit idea or whatever official importance (like Britannica), but "popular importance". For example, the architectural merit of Green Building (MIT) is doubtful, but clearly a sufficiently large number of MIT students want it included, se here we have it. Similarly, the number of people who contributed to Jewish mathematicians, Jewish scientists, etc. is quite large. With sole Hasdrubal believing this is pontless, I think the popular inclination is clear. Do we even need to vote? Mhym 22:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This category was nominated for deletion or renaming on 2006 May 4. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

...(so it wasn't quite as clear cut at Mhym suggested) --Syrthiss 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category Creation

Well, as the creator of this category, I think anyone who has looked at my wiki-history can rest assured that I am not anti-semetic (or self-hating for that matter). My purpose was simple; when doing some research for a related project, I became astounded at the number of mathematicians (and physicists for that matter) who were Jewish or of Jewish extraction. People whom I had wrongfully assumed were gentiles for years were actually Jewish. So, it occurred to me that if I was under such a misconception, and my job is related to mathematics, so too must a whole host of other people be. The easiest way on wikipedia to redress this was to create a category.

Unfortunately, throughout our history, we have been singled out for ill, what is the issue in taking pride in our communal achievments? -- Avi 13:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An issue, I suppose, is that you may be forcing your sense of "us" and "ours" on historical figures or living persons who wish not to be classified as such. There are people who may not see themselves as Jewish because, for example, they belong to another religion; there are others who simply might not want to be catalogued according to the categories you are using: namely, Jews as opposed to Gentiles, instead of Jews as opposed to Christians (say).

On another, very general note - how is an individual achievement a communal achievement? If an individual scientist is formed by a country's institutions, perhaps those institutions deserve some "communal" credit - or perhaps not. But how can a line of descent be credited? 132.204.53.185 21:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

We're just reporting facts. If there's a good source saying that someone is or was Jewish, that should be noted. Unless there is a competing source that they were not Jewish, it is original research to speculate on whether they might not want to be called Jewish. Nobody is calling this a communal achievement; it is no more than a statement that a source says that someone is Jewish. --Newport 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grigori Perelman

Grigori Perelman should be in this category, but User:Bellbird keeps removing him.--Brownlee 13:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

- not because I wish to assert that he is a non-Jew (meaning what? and what do I care?), but rather because living people should not be put into this category to begin with. There are enough liminal cases that that very fact constitutes yet another reason why this category shouldn't exist: inclusion is often an untruth in some way, and non-inclusion is apparently taken by some to be a statement of exclusion (itself perhaps in some ways untrue). Bellbird 16:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you believe that living people should not be placed in this category? -- Avi 17:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Bellbird may not come up with "rules" regarding who is placed in this category. If a person is in this category, they need to have been described as "Jewish" and a "mathematician" in a reputable source. Unless we're changing the name to "Dead Jewish mathematicians", we can not come up with rules on who is or is not included. Only that they match the category title. In Perelman's case we certainly have these sources cited that say Perelman is "Jewish". I don't know or care what meaning of Jewish that is, but if a source (reliable) says it, Wikipedia can say it. If a particular editor or reader has a problem with it or questions its meaning, they need to file their complaint to the source, not us. We're just the messenger. (and please, no long lecture-like responses about "listing by blood", etc. I've read 'em before. We list by reliable sources. What that source meant or what standards they use is above our control) Mad Jack 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There may be a misinterpretation of WP:BLP. It says

"Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question

The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life"

However, Judaism is generally an ethnic tag so this does not apply. It can only be regarded as a purely religious, rather than ethnic, tag if the person is a convert, but obviously conversion is a public self-identification.--Runcorn 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The basic notion still would apply. They must identify as Jewish, in any sense including culturally or ethnically, and that the identification should be relevant to their public life. I believe going by those rules this category would still have many names and a purpose. Perelman I imagine would still fit, but I don't know his story well.--T. Anthony 09:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In Russia, it's a no-brainer. Everyone has their ethnicity on their official papers, so Perelman's will say Yid.--20.138.246.89 15:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe "Yid" is an ethnic slur or close to it. If you're Jewish that might be okay, just as African-Americans can use some terms and I can call myself cripple, but probably best avoided.--T. Anthony 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What? "Yid" is the Russian for Jew and is the word that appears on Jews' papers. To accuse me of perpetrating an ethnic slur may violate WP:NPA; please withdraw.--20.138.246.89 09:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh, forgetting Judaism and Jewishness, which obviously is an ethnicity/culture among other things, and moving on to say, Catholicism - this is how I see that policy - and the religion part sticks out in what is otherwise a really good policy pretaining to unsourced negative content. Anyway - if a reliable source reported that someone is Catholic then presumably they self-identify, obviously because otherwise how would that source (New York Times?) know? As for relevant, everyone has their own opinion of what is relevant so again, subjective. Surely if we can report that someone is a convicted felon, we can report that they are Catholic (i.e. both pieces of info being sourced). The basis for all of Wikipedia, encompassing all of its policies is really simple and can be summarized in two sentences - A. If there's a piece of info that one wishes to include in an article, it must be sourced to a good source that says exactly that and B. any piece of info without a source simply can not be included. It's as simple as that. The problems we get are from people who either want to A. add material that is unsourced (and can not be sometimes for obvious reasons) or B. remove material that is indeed sourced but does not fit their perception of whatever Mad Jack 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Jewishness is not separate from Judaism. If X has a mother whose mother happened to practise Judaism, then Judaism states that X is truly of the Jewish religion, and is obligated thereto; any other religious allegiances are simply false.

When a statement is made in public that X is Jewish, it is assumed by the general population that X is of the Jewish religion, though he or she may not practice it assiduously. By Jewish law, this is not just a misconception in the minds of the masses, but, actually, a correct opinion.

What we have here is an "ethnicity" that is inextricably tied to a religion; thus, the rules on religious privacy apply. Moreover, on the subject of "ethnicity": the view of "Jewishness" as an "ethnicity" may do as a way of vaguely describing large swaths of New York City in the mid-1920s, say. Ethnicity, as a sociological category, is a catch-all category involving one's culture, language and country of origin.

Of course, one could probably point out that (a) most truly ethnic traits disappear after the immigrant generation dies out, (b) there would have to be separate tags for Sephardic, Ashkenazic and German immigrants, say, with many of the latter fitting most comfortably in a general German category covering all religions; (c) ethnicity is by its nature vague, and one cannot tag anybody as belonging to it or not belonging to it fully.

That is not the point, however. The point is that "Jewishness", as a yes-or-no tag put on individuals (as opposed to, say, the supposed Jewishness of bagels, whatever it consists in!) is no ethnicity. Either it is a category of religion (in which case, by the policy cited above, it should involve only the dead or the rather publicly religious, if anybody at all) or it is a strict binary division of humanity by bloodlines. In this latter case - the case that seems to hold here - things are made worse precisely because this division is supposed to be richly meaningful.

If somebody were to put up a webpage on "Great Men of Pure White Blood" or "Great Women of Sufficient Black Blood", this would be bad enough, and we should certainly not use this classification, no matter how reliable the source may be. However, this is worse, in that automatic membership in a nation (not the term I would myself use; see the viewpoints in Jew) is automatically implied. What we have here is the gang-pressing of the living and the dead into a category with rather rich connotations. If these connotations are all positive, so much the worse. Bellbird 11:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you wrote an impassioned lecture. I don't view Wikipedia as a debate society. I view it as a merging of reliable sources. If someone has a source, they are in the right. You have reverted sourced info on many pages, which is a no-no. Mad Jack 15:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, Jewishness is now as much an ethnicity as a religion--look at the number of self-identifying Jewish atheists for example. As such, in my opinion, your arguments referencing WP:BLP do not apply, and expecially not on the deceased people you have edited. -- Avi 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, for the majority of living people, we know they are Jewish because they have chosen to say so in a public avenue. We don't have private detectives knocking down their doors to get this info. Just saying. Mad Jack 16:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CFD

I'm sorry if my note was offensive. It's just that this almost got deleted so I thought paraphrasing the guidelines would not be offensive or POV and might be a helpful reminder of who belongs here.--T. Anthony 19:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)