Talk:List of Jewish jurists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

For a version that may be considered free of POV problems, see List of Jewish jurists/temp (unsigned comment by User:RachelBrown)

In fact, this comment was placed by User:RachelBrown on the main article, and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has moved it here, hoping that nobody will see it. Nor has he signed his comment. - Poetlister 20:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea what comment of mine was allegedly unsigned, but I'm sure I've occassionally failed to do so. Please remedy any such error. However, "meta-commentary" on articles is absolutely and categorically prohibited from WP articles. That's what talk pages like this are for. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr Lulu has a short memory and has not looked very carefully; his comment at the top was unsigned. The removed comment was similar in spirit to ones frequently found at the top of articles to avoid confusion, such as this one from John Edwards: This article is about the American politician, former Senator, and 2004 Vice Presidential candidate. For other uses, see John Edwards (disambiguation).

Contents

[edit] Styles

Advice: You may not be aware of it, but Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which defines house styles here, has specific rules on the use of honorifics or styles in articles. Styles such as Majesty, Royal Highness, Holiness and others, and their acronyms (eg, HM, HRH, HH, etc) are no longer used in articles. Instead, a specific template called an infobox is added into articles to list the relevant style. Please do not use these styles in the text of articles. They will simply be deleted. If you see any in an article, please remove them. Thank you.

[edit] Evidence for inclusions

I just happened to notice some recent edits around styles, so clicked a couple names. I noticed two, Carlile and Goldsmith, where neither the WP articles nor the linked external bios made any mention whatsoever of the person being Jewish. I'm tempted to yank out names that are apparently unsupported by the corresponding pages... I haven't clicked on most of the others yet, so I'm not sure what the number of questionable entries is.

Can editors please provide some support for names on list? Carlile and Goldsmith are both support as "jurists", just not currently as "Jewish". Numberous others are not supported either. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you added any names? Have you provided any evidence for names you've added? The ones I added are all fron the List of British Jews and are already well-checked. - RachelBrown 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope, I haven't. Probably I won't. Followup: I've been working on the much more important task of commented out those names without any evidenced support for inclusion
I'm a lot more interested in verifiable accuracy than I am in the sheer number of names listed. It's a problem, unfortunately, I've encounted in a lot of places: editors want to add names to lists (and categories) just for the sake of having more names. Usually because they somehow identify with the list/category, and somehow feel vindicated by having people listed as "like themselves"... for example, on several LGBT lists, and on List of born-again Christian laypeople; both of which I've had a lot of trouble bringing up to remotely encyclopedic standards.
Too many editors on WP want it to be their personal blog, or some kind of support group for them. It's not either thing. Please just don't make this list into another example of that nonsense! Just add something to the Carlile and Goldsmith articles (and any other lacking any suggestion) that show why you believe they are Jewish and/or jurists. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, I did see that List of British Jews, but it did not seem to provide any additional evidence for Carlile and Goldsmith (I think verbatim the same descriptions). I suspect that list has the same "feel good but don't think about evidence" problem that this one seems to; I just stumbled on this list via its AfD. Still, I can't really work on fixing every WP article at the same time, so I'll start here (well, and some other unrelated places). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

For the information of all editors of the list, the Jewish Year Book is the standard reference on Anglo-Jewry. It includes among other things a list of every Jewish Nobel Prize winner, living or dead, and of all current Jewish MPs and lords. If anyone wants to add a note to that effect against Asserson, Carlile and Goldsmith, or amend their Wiki articles, fine. For Brian Green, I have spoken to two people who were at school with him. What more is needed - a signed statement from his mother? - RachelBrown 09:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rachel, that is completely unacceptable original research. Please review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this a print-only source, or is it available online? How reliable/neutral is it? Not everything in print is necessarily true, y'know.... or more importantly, not everything is reliable. I guess if it is a recognized source, we could make it a footnote to the page as a whole, and use that footnote wherever other sources cannot be found. Still, it is very weird to claim such an external source, but be unable to support the claim in the WP article about a person (and for official bios not to have it; though they're not required to, of course).
As to "spoken with people who were at school" with Brian Green, those are absolutely not usable or relevant as WP sources. That's hearsay evidence that is not verififiable by other editors or readers. In fact, if you have in your possession such a note from his mother, it is equally irrelevent, unless that note was published in a verifiable source that other editors can check. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Look, for your own good, stop making yourself ridiculous. The Jewish Year Book is not online that I know of, but it has been published every year since 1896 and is one of the most respected reference works in Britain. If you won't trust that, what would you trust? What do you mean, "unable to support the claim in the WP article"? I could easily edit these articles, referencing the Jewish Year Book or not, but see no need to. And if people I know and trust tell me that they were at Brian Green's bar mitzvah in an orthodox synagogue, that's quite good enough for me. If you want to go around questioning the credentials of everyone in every list of Jews in Wikipedia, there are far more fruitful areas. - RachelBrown 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Please edit those articles on individuals to include the Jewish reference. I have no interest in removing any name whose article provides WP:V standards. But if you add something that says "Judge Foobar is an observant Jew", and all the other editors take it back out, that will indicate something to me. If you add that statement, and everyone over there is fine with it, I'm fine with it.
I don't care one whit if you are Brian Green's Rabbi, and he attends your service every single week. Your personal knowledge has exactly zero relevance to WP. What we need are verifiable sources. "People you know" are absolutely and categorically not good enough for me (nor for WP as an encyclopedia)! I need an idependent and verifiable source. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it appears that the British version of Jewish Year Book is a similarly sectarian publication of Vallentine Mitchell Publishers. I had not hear of them, but their web site makes them seem approximately equally reliable as the American Jewish Committee (i.e. very low, but non-zero). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Have it your own way. I have no time to waste on this rubbish. Certainly Valentine Mitchell are a Jewish-owned firm, but if that's the only reason you think that their information is unreliable, you're a believer in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. - RachelBrown 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Yearbook

From what I can determine in some searches, at least in the USA, the American Jewish Yearbook is a vanity publication of the American Jewish Committee, which is a sectarian right-wing organization. I'd put very low credit in this as a source of information, enough that I'd object to inclusion of a name if this was the only reference. It's apparently obscure enough that Amazon has only partial information, and no user reviews (just about everything, even small circulation stuff, seems to have at least a couple Amazon reviews). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I never said anything about the American Jewish Yearbook. This is the Jewish Year Book - RachelBrown 17:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple standard

As I unfortunately suspected, RachelBrown restored a number of names without adding citational evidence or appropriately modifying the corresponding WP articles. It's the exact same thing we went through over with the born-again Christians: lots of editors are happy to cite "it's common knowledge" or "I know a friend of so-and-so", but are less willing to put in a link or evidence on WP articles for the religious belief.

Here's the standard I propose: If Judge Foobar is Jewish (in whatever sense), put that information on her WP article!. (I'm assuming that since it is Judge Foobar, we get the jurist part). It need not be anything obtrusive, but at least a supportable sentence or clause. And if the assertion is disputed or little know, probably an accompanying source in the "references" or "see also" of that article. If necessary, give context for the sense of "Jewish" at issue. If the added assertion cannot stand up to the consensus of editors of Judge Foobar's page (who have some expertise about Judge Foobar), that's pretty strong reason not to include her on this list either. If the edit is unobjectionable to editors of the Judge Foobar page, I find it unobjectionble to include Judge Foobar on this list (I wholly defer to those who are expert, or at least interested, in each individual jurist). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Had anyone read the Tobias Asser article, they would have seen that it had a "See also" pointing to lists of Jews. If that isn't an explicit enough suggestion that he might be Jewish, I've added the word Jewish after Dutch. - RachelBrown 17:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a circularity problem here. Adding a name to one list without citational evidence doesn't really create ex nihilo evidence for inclusion on another list. However, I guess a spirit of generosity would say that if a link to a list has been on a page for a while w/o editors removing it, that's some support. The real problem is something RachelBrown writes on this talk page: she thinks being Jewish is a "credential" and that it's a slight to someone to deny that they are so. It's a silly and absurd conceit; for WP it's neither good nor bad that someone is Jewish, it's just a neutral fact that might be notable (if verifiable). I'd be equally happy with a list of "left-handed jurists", assuming each included name could be verified as such (it would be neither an insult nor a compliment to suggest they might actually be right-handed). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notables

If jurists are sufficiently notable for inclusion in list, they should be notable enough for WP articles. I've commented out those names lacking such evidence of noteriety (and thereby also lacking specific evidence of "Jewish" or "jurists", since there's nothing linked). Let's get articles on those people, and assuming they indicate list eligibility, uncomment those names. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A list that doesn't suck

There's actually a pretty good list of people floating around: List of atheists. Unlike List of born-again Christian laypeople and a number of the LGBT lists that I've looked at (and tried to fix), the atheists one provides clear explanation and evidence for pretty much everyone listed, and even some context of the particular sense in which each person is/was an athiest.

Unfortunately, this narrow one, like the general List of Jews and the xtians and LGBT things, seems to be largely at the level of rumor and FOAF stories. It seems like some Jewish-identified editors just want to feel good about themselves by listing names on these lists (presumably those of "good people", ones the editors like). I've tried to clean this list up a bit... but please, please, please help me improve the encyclopedic quality here rather than get into an edit war over inserting unevidenced names. I could not care less which jurists are or are not Jewish; but if they are to be included, the fact should ideally be mentioned in the corresponding WP article—or failing that, let's put in a link to an external citation. Think WP:V here: a reader should be able to verify the factuality of any inclusion claim, not "just trust" whichever editor added a name. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Lulu's talk (encyclopedic standards)

I really can't fathom what you are trying to do. There are many lists of Jews, and some have quite a few dubious entries that you would more usefully be employed querying. Why make such an offensive song and dance about my carefully researched entries? And it's absurd to say that official biographies of British people don't mention that they're Jewish; we don't work like that here. For example, the official biography of Professor Leon Mestel says nothing about his religion, although his father was a Rabbi (as I noted on Wikipedia) and he is orthodox enough to have refused the presidency of the Royal Astronomical Society because it would involve attending Friday night meetings. RachelBrown 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Which lists do you feel have particular problems? I might go make an effort on those, if you think they are particularly unreliable. What I am trying to do is amazingly simple: make lists/categories on Wikipedia meet the same encyclopedic standards that articles need to. A lot of people try to sneak in facts that cannot stand up to article scrutiny by putting them (in sneaky indirect form) on lists/categories. I find that wholly unacceptable. You have pointedly not carefully researched any entries that I can see... you've baldly asserted facts without providing citations (if you have a big stack of citations in your top drawer, which you well may for all I know, that is of no value to WP readers).
I started paying attention to List of Jewish jurists mostly because I accidentally stumbled upon it on AfD. Actually, first thing is that I saw the old name "List of Jews in law" was named in an ugly way that was inconsistent with (most) other WP naming. So I moved the list to its current better name. And then in the AfD discussion I realized that other similar jurist lists would make sense, so I created List of African American jurists. Notice, BTW, how much more careful I am in my descriptions of names there than most lists are. The African American part is less often questioned or disputed (but sometimes); but on the other aspect, I made a careful effort to articulate why the individual is important as a jurist in the one-line description of what they did. Some people who are just kinda incidentally lawyers I left off, because it's not informative. Not to say the Jewish list has much problem there, the large majority of names (once the spurious Wiesenthal entry was removed) are well known for legal accomplishments.
Anyway, while I'm sure other lists have problems, even other Jewish lists, I happen to have some interest in law, so improving this one appeals to me. FWIW, I'm happy to accept circumlocutions in jurists WP articles. If it says Judge Foobar was bar mitzvah'd at so-and-so synogogue, I can make a reasonable inference even if the word "Jewish" doesn't appear verbatim. Or if someone "took citizenship in Israel". Or had a parent who was a rabbi. Or a few other obvious things (but not if they were simply, e.g., born in Long Island, which is largely Jewish).

I would have hoped we were on the same side. All that you are doing is providing ammunition for those who would want this and other similar lists deleted.
RachelBrown 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the side of bringing WP to the best encyclopedic standards. You can either be on that side, or hopefully find somewhere better suited to sectarian inclinations. I voted keep for the list of Jewish jurists; and will do so in general for "List of <ethno/religious>ish <Foo>ers" where the categories are somewhat, but not excessively, specific. But it would be a lot better for a list to not exist at all than to have it contain a lot of unverifiable content. And again, no "verifiable" is not what your personal friends tell you, it's what can be cited with URLs and ISBNs (and moreover, non-partisan ones, or at least multiple partisan ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To set the record straight

As Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has just said two things about me that are untrue, I'm setting the record straight. He will be pleased to hear that this is the last edit I'm ever making to this article - I have better things to do with my time than subject myself to his tirades.

  • Everything I say on Wikipedia is carefully researched. Unfortunately, my research fails to meet his unusual standards. For example, he rejects the Jewish Year Book, a respected reference source for over 100 years, solely on the grounds that it is published by a "sectarian" (i.e. Jewish-owned) firm.
  • He alleges that I think being Jewish is a "credential". Obviously, that is not what I said, which was "If you want to go around questioning the credentials of everyone in every list of Jews in Wikipedia", meaning of course their credentials for being regarded as Jewish.
    RachelBrown 18:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

PS: I note that he does not apply the same standards to the List of African American jurists. Someone noted that he has supplied no evidence that Johnnie Cochran was an African American and there is no mention of it in the WP article - exactly the charge he threw against me. He has just reverted the amendment without comment. I hope he does not just say that there is a photo of Mr Cochran and he looks black - that's no evidence; he might be an Australian aborigine.

Was someone forging the comment on this talk page, on 17:17, 19 November 2005, that was signed by you, RachelBrown: If you want to go around questioning the credentials of everyone in every list of Jews in Wikipedia, there are far more fruitful areas.? If so, I apologize for not having verified the edit history.
Also, of course I apply the same standards to AA jurists. Despite Poetlister's vandalism, the Cochran page provides far more than the amount of verifiable evidence that I would ask of any name on this list. FWIW, I don't "reject" the Jewish Year Book as a source... but I also (like most readers) don't have a copy of it open in front of me while I read WP. Sources need to be listed on WP, not exist only in the mind or bookshelf of RachelBrown. I do find the publication to be a weak source, given the very partisan tone of its publisher's web page; but not a non-source. Multiple weak sources can more-or-less add up to one strong source. You'd think that if the Queen's Council, for example, is Jewish, The Times of London or The Guardian might have mentioned it in passing at some point, rather than only occurring in some obscure in-house publication. And maybe major sources do mention it, but readers can't know that if they aren't given links. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Yes, I said "If you want to go around questioning the credentials of everyone in every list of Jews in Wikipedia". No rational person could misunderstand that, especially after I explained what I meant. I invite sensible, rational people to view Valentine Mitchell's web site [1] for themselves and judge whether it is partisan. Some editors clearly have no idea whatsoever of British society if they think that The Guardian of all papers would bother to mention that someone was Jewish unless it suited the Guardian's agenda to say so. The Jewish Year Book is neither obscure in Britain nor an in-house publication, and his constant denunciations of a book he admits he has never seen or heard of before are increasingly ridiculous. Finally, I invite sensible, rational people to view Johnnie Cochran and see what evidence it offers that he is African-American. By Mr Lulu's standards, it does not say that he is. There is the photo, which shows he is black but not necessarily African. There is the category African Americans; Mr Lulu clearly would not accept that, as he refuses to accept Tobias Asser as Jewish although there are two links to lists of Jews in that article.

I had not meant to reply to any more of Mr Lulu's unusual arguments, and I shall certainly not waste time replying again. I urge everyone to vote for deletion. - RachelBrown 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad if RachelBrown chooses not to respond further, or further edit this page. It seems disruptive what she's done so far. Or maybe she could take a breather, and return later. In any case, if anyone has any real question of the evidentiary support for any name listed over at List of African American jurists I definitely encourage them to express the concerns on the talk page over there. Not some WP:POINT grandstanding, of course; but if there is some real question.
For example, I had a slight hesitation about including Barbara Jordan—she's extremely notable, was clearly a lawyer, is well known as African American, but her reason for repute isn't unambiguously as a "jurist", but as a Congresswoman. However, since some of her most notable activity in the House was on the Judiciary Committee, I felt that merited inclusion. But if you disagree, discuss it on the talk page. Or likewise if anyone has any actual question about Cochran, not just a cynical bit of sarcasm.
Whatever RachelBrown might think of the relative repute of the Jewish Year Book and The Guardian, it's a bit moot if neither one of them is cited as support at all (as is the case so far). Something that may be on RachelBrown's shelf may be citable, but readers can't just guess what might occupy that shelf without being told in a footnote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rachel Brown disruptive? For copying in well-attested names that have been in List of British Jews (a very closely monitored list) for some time? Surely the disruptive person is the one who keeps objecting. Obviously, the other points aren't worth replying to. - Poetlister 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolved disputed

The tag {{NPOV}} was recently added to this article. Please state the POV dispute in this section.

People who are undoubtedly Jewish are being commented out (Tobias Asser) or having their status queried unwarrantably - see above for the evidence. - RachelBrown 19:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like an {{accuracy}} issue rather than a NPOV one, AFAICT. I think it doesn't really amount to that either, since the claim doesn't seem to be that someone is included counter-factually, but simply that something is omitted that might be included. But IMO, changing the template tag would be closer to the issue you actually have. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the exclusion or querying of valid entries for NPOV reasons makes this NPOV. I'll add accuracy as well if you insist. - Poetlister 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll leave the NPOV tag for a bit longer, but it would really help if those placing it would be willing to state what POV dispute they feel the article suffers from. Just not liking one of its editors isn't a POV issue. Nor, for that matter, is an alleged factual error. Please read WP:NPOV for information on what NPOV means. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
For the benefit of those who did not understand my last posting: if certain entries on a list are deleted, concealed or queried, and the reasons for doing so are POV, this is a POV issue. It is contended that to dismiss a well-respected reference work (which the editor admits he has not seen), to be found in literally hundreds of public and university libraries in Britain, as "some obscure in-house publication" or the work of a "sectarian" publisher is POV. - Poetlister 11:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Since no POV claim has yet been asserted, I changed the tag to {{accuracy}}, which seems to describe the dispute in question. (Just typing the letters P-O-V doesn't make a point-of-view dispute, you need to state what is allegedly violating NPOV). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr Lulu has now twice removed the NPOV tag before the dispute has been resolved. I have restored it, but as he has put an accuracy tag on, I shall leave it. I have twice given my reasons for NPOV. He is entitled to disagree with the reasons, but not to pretend that I have not given them. The matter has now been referred to mediation by administrator User:NLU, and I hope that Mr Lulu will await the outcome of that. - Poetlister 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sequence of events

User:Nlu wrote (at RfM):

I am late on the scene, and I don't understand all the intricacies involving this article and a former "competing" article (List of Jewish lawyers) that is now awaiting merger and currently at List of Jewish jurists/temp. However, it appears to be escalating (the edit summaries are getting nasty), and I think someone needs to step in. The parties are RachelBrown and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (and, to a much lesser extent, Poetlister). One of the parties asked me by e-mail to intervene, but I am not sure that I have the skills to at the moment, so I am making this RfM. I've posted notice of my request for mediation on all of their talk pages. --Nlu 16:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the sequence of events:

  1. An existing page, List of Jews in law was placed on AfD.
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (LotLE), and also RachelBrown and Poetlister, voted "keep" on the AfD.
  3. While AfD voting was underway, LotLE decided to be bold and move List of Jews in law to the name more consistent with WP naming standards, List of Jewish jurists. No one has ever complained about this name change, AFAIK.
  4. LotLE also copied the AfD votes on the prior name over to the current name and redirected the original AfD to the new name. All the votes on AfD were preserved.
  5. LotLE created the analogous article List of African American jurists, and started to populate it with annotated names.
  6. LotLE began editing List of Jewish jurists. In most cases, these edits consisted of commenting out names of individuals whose WP articles and obvious linked bios either did not say they are/were Jewish, or did not say they were jurists. In fewer cases, names were left and supporting external links were provided to verify the list inclusion.
  7. RachelBrown complained of the removal of names from the list. She claimed that she knew some individuals to be Jewish by "personal acquaintaince" (and equated their removal with endorsing the famous racist text Protocols of the Elders of Zion). LotLE stated on the talk page that included names should meet WP:V standards, and the ethnic/religious background of listed individuals should be consensus on the corresponding WP pages and/or cited in linked external references.
  8. Poetlister vandalized List of African American jurists by removing the name of Johnnie Cochran with the spurious edit history claim that Cochran was not evidenced as African American (despite such evidence on his WP article).
  9. RachelBrown and Poetlister changed their "keep" votes on the AfD for List of Jewish jurists to "delete", stating that they wanted the article kept, but didn't like LotLEs edits there. While they have every right to vote on AfD in whatever manner they wish, it seems suspiciously close to WP:POINT to vote on an editor rather than on an article.
  10. RachelBrown created List of Jewish lawyers as an exact copy of an earlier version of List of Jewish jurists. Some uninvolved editor nominated that new one for AfD, changed to speedy delete; some other uninvolved editor moved it to List of Jewish jurists/temp.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I shall comment on the above as part of the mediation process. However, readers may wish to compare the summary with the rest of the talk page and draw their own conclusions. - Poetlister 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Which entries are currently in dispute?

Can the entries that are currently in dispute please be listed here, outlining why there is a dispute? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Sure... all the names that I have put in comments currently lack evidence for list membership on their WP articles. Some others, however, I have not yet had the opportunity to check, so I cannot specifically claim that all the others are OK.
Btw, despite RachelBrown's huge resistence to doing so, I would probably be OK with a specific citation to this "Jewish Year Book" thing (i.e. give an ISBN and page number; perhaps as a footnote on this list article). However, much better would be an addition of such a reference to the article on the particular individual. If this one publication claims that "Judge Foobar" is Jewish, but editors of the Judge Foobar page feel that citation is unreliable... well, I defer to that set of WP editors.
To Jayjg: you added a few names that have these ugly redlinks. Saying someone is on the supreme court of Israel indeed means that they are both Jewish and a jurist, but it doesn't per se mean they are notable. If the person doesn't merit a WP article, they probably don't merit being on this list. Why don't you work on creating pages so readers can actually see why these individuals are notable (and that they really exist, for that matter). The Israeli supreme court has certainly had more than 2-3 people on it during its history, what's special about these ones?
Also, this redlinked M. Jerome Diamond is claimed to be president of the Nat. Assoc. of AGs. That seems notable, but the external reference doesn't support that claim to notability, it just says he was a local AG, which is probably not quite notable as "jurist". But we don't really know since it's a redlink. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
M. Jerome Diamond Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll add that external link, if you haven't. But still, if he's notable, maybe we can get rid of the redlink. It always bugs me to see redlinks in "List of Foos"... if someone is worth listing, why don't WP readers have an article to learn about the person? But that's a "nice to have" kind of standard, not an abolute requirement like WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Painfully explicit instructions on WP:V

I must confess my annoyance and exasperation at the obstructionist editing by User:RachelBrown. While I haven't accused her of basing her edits on hate tracts (an accusation she might learn to avoid making casually and indiscriminantly, see WP:PA), my tone has not been particularly deferential (not that it need be, but I guess it might help).

So let me just try to make WP standards as clear as possible. Suppose that an editor believes that "Judge Foobar" is Jewish, but the article Judge Foobar does not say so (nor say anything sufficiently inferentially connected with that). Suppose also that an editor believes Judge Foobar is Jewish. Here is what to do:

  1. Edit the Judge Foobar page to say something about the sense in which Judge Foobar is Jewish. Ideally, please provide some description of what sense of "Jewish" is intended. "Has Jewish ancestors" isn't quite the same as "An observant, practicing Jew".
  2. Provide a specific citation for the claim that is added. E.g. "According to the Jewish Year Book, 2003 edition, page 347, 'Judge Foobar's mother was a practicing Jew while her father was Hindu; Judge Foobar has not followed any religious practice personally.'" (or whatever).
  3. Finally, and only now, add Judge Foobar to this list. Describe briefly both her contributions to jurisprudence, and if the sense in which she is Jewish if a more borderline sense, give a brief description of that sense.

The main problem at this point is that if RachelBrown claims the Jewish Year Book supports this, I give exactly zero credence to that claim. This editor's resistence to WP:V makes me believe that she would be perfectly happy to invent such non-specific evidence whole cloth (or even honestly believe that she "dimly remembers" reading such a claim). Her behavior is way past the point where WP:FAITH is reasonable. However, a specific ISBN and page number is presumably verifiable; and if it proves fabricated, that is a good sign about the reliability of similar pseudo-citations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith. The Jewish Year Book is a perfectly reasonable encyclopedic citation, as good as 80% of the stuff cited on Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
But if it's cited, it needs to be cited specifically (especially if by RachelBrown). It's especially questionable when multiple other sources provide either no information, or even contradictory information ("Jewish" has a lot of difference senses, y'know). Just adding an edit history comment that this book allegedly says something, without even putting a link for readers to follow, isn't even remotely close to good faith. Especially given that in other cases, RachelBrown thinks that the claim that "a friend of mine went to Foo's Bar Mitzvah" meets WP:V.

[edit] Can we cross break this list

I see three logical categories.

  1. Jewish Justices (being judges and related officials including NLRB members (Administrative law judges).)
  2. Jewish Lawyers
  3. Dayans -- Rabbinic judges in a Beth Din (jewish religious court.)

Klonimus 03:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hazel Cosgrove

There can't possibly be any problem here. On the article about Lady Cosgrove, I say explicitly that one of my sources was the Jewish Year Book. Anyone can click on the link and find out exactly what this book is. Alas, it is not a web site, but since when do we refuse to acept information unless it's on a web site? And since when does every entry on a list of Jews, or every biography of someone Jewish, need to be accompanied by a detailed critique of how observant they are or their parents are/were? - RachelBrown 13:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's simple, RachelBrown: if you claim that Cosgrove is listed in Jewish Year Book, I simply do not believe you. Your editing history has been so thoroughly contemptuous of WP:V (and of other editors) that I cannot put any weight in this. I've never previously heard of this Cosgrove person, so trying to pretend I have any agenda/POV about whether she is or is not Jewish is utterly daft. But I want some evidence to be provided, and I cannot trust your bald assertion as evidence. If Cosgrove really is in the Jewish Year Book, simply annotate the Cosgrove article with a specific page number where she is mentioned (and ideally a quoted clause or something, if it gives context on religious/ancestry/etc), and that will reach verifiability... if, as I suspect, you merely "vaguely recall" that you saw her listed (or are simply lying), you obviously will not be able to do so. Or better still, give some link in the Cosgrove article to something readers can check themselves w/o buying an expensive book for that single purpose. Hopefully the claim isn't a secret, so should be available elsewhere too. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I will leave readers to draw their own conclusions from the above. To which editors (plural) have I been other than polite and courteous? I have never been in any way contemptuous of anyone who was not previously thoroughly obnoxious and rude to me. But for the avoidance of doubt, I've added the page numbers to her article. For the record, page 212 includes her in a list of Jewish members of the Privy Council, and page 232 is her entry in a Who's Who of British Jewry. The Jewish Year Book is not a particularly expensive book, and in any case is available in many public libraries in London, so all anyone has to do is visit London or phone a friend. - RachelBrown 21:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't so hard, was it?!
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just add information to articles to meet WP:V, like you finally did on the Cosgrove article, rather than to launch all sorts of spurious administrative procedures, create bogus articles for mysterious reasons, engage in long edit warring, randomly change AfD votes back and forth, post long belligerent notes all over WP, and so on? Btw. you may not know this, but some people don't live in London. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this illustrates the origin of the problem - Mr Lulu never reads what I write. I never said or suggested that everyone lives in London, but "all anyone has to do is visit London or phone a friend". Readers can come to their own conclusions about the rest of this, including the alleged "bogus articles". - RachelBrown 22:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

what is this supposed bogus article Rachel is meant to have created, let me guess... Jewish Year Book? The Jewish year book is published annually so there are numerous oppurtunities if there were any mistakes (which I doubt) to be corrected. Also I am sure the book would be availiable through the American library loan system. Arniep 22:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Bogus article == List of Jewish lawyers. It was created only as a cynical game to try to get around cleaning up this article. Jewish Year Book seems like a perfectly good article that deserves to exist. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd that Mr Lulu likes the article on the Jewish Year Book. You'd expect him to consider an article about some obscure in-house publication from a sectarian publisher to be non-notable. If he has changed his mind about the book, it would make the discussion far more sensible if he'd admit to it. - Poetlister 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A book publication, whether or not it is from a sectrarian publisher, is notable if it has a circulation of over 5000 copies and an ISBN, per WP notability standards. I think The Turner Diaries is notable and should have an article, for example, even though I certainly do not personally endorse any of the content of that book. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Jewish Year Book

Hazel Cosgrove is indeed Jewish (see for example [2]). However, I fully agree with Lulu's comment regarding the Jewish Year Book. I doubt, for example, that Lord Goldsmith is Jewish – apart from some neo-nazi sites, no online source mentions any Jewish ancestry, and given his involvement in the UK government's decision to invade Iraq, one would really expect someone to (Tam Dalyell, at the very least...). Maybe Goldsmith is indeed listed in the Jewish Year Book (I have no way of finding out), but even if he is, why should we assume, without more specific information, that the listing is accurate, rather than a journalist's guess based on Goldsmith's surname? 82.35.45.214 21:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

no one assumes Oliver Goldsmith is jewish, I don't think they would be that stupid or subject themselves to possible ridicule by publishing something without verifying it first. Arniep 22:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do you reckon RachelBrown has repeatedly inserted Lord Goldsmith into the list while refusing to provide any supporting evidence? She's done so about four or five times. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC) ... oh, are you confused, Arniep, about your Goldsmith's. Oliver Goldsmith is not Lord Goldsmith (the former has never come up in this article).

OK, I've put a supporting link on the Lord Goldsmith page and I'm restoring his name to the article. I'm constantly intrigued by the lack of comprehension shown in this discussion - Arniep is not saying that Oliver Goldsmith is Lord Goldsmith; on the contrary, he is saying that while people say that Lord Goldsmith is Jewish, nobody says that Oliver Goldsmith was, so it's not just his name. - Poetlister 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I figured out what Poetlister was trying to do. This is absurdly bad as evidence. First, she snuck in a reference at bottom without describing what it was there for (presumably because the Lord Goldsmith editors would not allow a wrong description). But the article linked does not say Lord Goldsmith is Jewish. It says that Melanie Phillips believes that Faisal Bodi assumes Goldsmith (out of attributed anti-semitic motives) is Jewish. It doesn't even make any comment on whether Phillips believes that claim herself.
Look, if this claim has any plausibility, put it on the Lord Goldsmith page! If, as I suspect, the regular editors pull it back out, it probably means that Poetlister is engaging in a flight of fancy. But if the regular editors of the Goldsmith page are happy with it (say, for a day or two), then fine, add it back here. Obstructionism and obnoxiousness are not going to win out here... just follow WP:V, and all will be happy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I "snuck in a reference"? You can't do that on Wikipedia - anyone watching the page will see it. The linked article, as anyone who reads it will see, makes it clear that Melanie Phillips believes that Lord Goldsmith and Richard Desmond are both Jewish. I note that Mr Lulu also tried to delete the references to the Jewish Year Book. I'm glad that Mr Lulu has finally admitted that "Obstructionism and obnoxiousness are not going to win out here."

And Mr Lulu says in the note to his last edit "At least one editor on the talk page to this says Goldsmith is NOT Jewish". (Not quite right; the quote is "I doubt, for example, that Lord Goldsmith is Jewish"). Is that evidence? Will Mr Lulu apply the same standards to the anonymous User:82.35.45.214 as he claims to demand from everyone else and ask him or her for a reference? - Poetlister 23:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that Melanie Phillips thinks Lord Goldsmith is Jewish based on the link you gave. It just simply does not say that. If you believe Lord Goldsmith is Jewish, put the claim on the Lord Goldsmith page! Why are you so afraid of what editors of that page will do with the claim?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... let's see if we can find sources. Radio Islam: Blair's Jewish paymasters; Stormfront Town Hall & Webradio with David Duke. Notably missing from google search of "Peter Goldsmith"+Jewish: any non-anti-semitic sources. (there are some clearly different Peter Goldsmiths who are Jewish, i.e. Oberlin University's Dean of Students. However, according to http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.ex-cult/messages/36777.html:
(nb Peter Goldsmith is referred to by British neo-Nazis as the ‘Jew Goldsmith' http://www.stormfront.org/archive/t-154378Let's_get_the_BBC.html)
AFAICT, even most neo-nazi sites don't bother to claim that Lord Goldsmith is Jewish, but simply that he is sympathetic with "Jewish interests". But I guess Poetlister needs much less evidence than the neo-nazis do to "know that someone is Jewish". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goldsmith

Lulu, I've clarified Goldsmith's Jewish status in a reasonable way in the text. Your Talk: comments in general, and in particular as directed to Rachel Brown and Poetlister are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. Please desist. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This looks much better, but still needs some kind of citation. The best place for such a thing would be on the Lord Goldsmith page. I can easily believe that he commented as you describe, but "easily believe" isn't the same as WP:V. Can't we just please put something on the article for the individual that says, e.g. (purely hypothetically): "In his interview with The Observer on January 12, 2004, Goldsmith, who has a Jewish father and Catholic mother, and was raised Catholic, said he 'felt Jewish'". Or whatever the actual citation.
You're right that I am entirely unable to assume WP:FAITH for RachelBrown or Poetlister in the face of their persistent and self-evident bad faith in editing, and their consistent violations of WP:CIVIL and basic respect don't help matters. That said, my comments have all been far more respectful (and perhaps more importantly, honest rather than dissimulative) than anything either of them has written on this page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I have given the citation by quoting the article in the comment - that is certainly good enough for this article. There are a number of sources which point out his Jewish father, Catholic mother, and being raised Catholic, etc, and one could certainly quote this in the Goldsmith article. And please don't justify policy violation; rather, it would be better to simply adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH going forward. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I stumbled across the hidden comment just after I wrote my comment. As you well know, text that is not visible to ordinary readers is only for discussion of planned editorial changes, and even then is better placed on talk pages. However, the citation you provide looks quite usable, and I have added it to the Lord Goldsmith page. I don't know what those other "number of sources" are (not obvious in Google), but providing them is certainly helpful in advancing WP:V. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I got confused that was a different Goldsmith. However, the Jewish Yearbook cite is good enough. Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
If there's info on the right Goldsmith, please put it in his article. So far, the only sources I have been able to find are hard line anti-semites who seem to assume Goldsmith is Jewish solely based on his policy opinions (and maybe his last name). The harder it seems to be to find any verifiable evidence, the less confidence I have in the conclusion. Btw. Who is the Goldsmith you found the quote about? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
The Jewish Yearbook says he is, that's cite enough. The information I found was about Sir James Goldsmith. Contrary to the information you inserted in the article, there is no who "disputes" Peter Goldsmith's status as a Jew. Jayjg (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This still isn't definite proof, but Goldsmith appears on Brian Friedman's geneaology website, which traces Friedman's family back to its Lithuanian Jewish roots, and Goldsmith's ancestors appear to have mostly 'Jewish' names. Someone could always email Friedman and ask. 82.35.45.214 10:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC) PS I'm guessing Jayjg's quote was about Sir James Goldsmith.

[edit] "According to some Wikipedia editors, Goldsmith is Jewish; whether by ethnicity, cultural association, or religious practice is not known at this time"

Lulu, inserting this kind of comment into article text is obstructionist and WP:POINT. Please avoid this in the future. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, huh? What about: however, this is irrelevant to his inclusion in lists of Jews, and this information is not given for others in this list (Poetlister [3])?
Not least in light of the fact that such information is given for all legitimately listed individuals on this list, including at least most of those actually listed. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Information about how individuals view themselves is rarely given in Wikipedia articles, and this seems to be the objection you have raised on more than one occasion. Regarding poetlister's comment, it was in the article for 3 minutes I believe, and was in response to a section you added a day or so ago that was an obvious WP:POINT. It would be best if everyone avoided WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw. Editors might want to look at List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. Both Poetlister and RachelBrown's "flatmate" (who happens to have the same account name as RachelBrown), along with some IP addresses that resolve to London, repeatedly inserted the same rather unencyclopedic commentary in the article itself (accompanied by rather disrepectful edit summaries, e.g., Why do these childish people keep deleting my edits?):

!!! This is appalling. This article very recently had an AfD and it was decided to keep it. Isn't there a double jeopardy rule?

There's something distinctly unreliable when it comes to those two editors and lists of Jewish <whatever>. Identity politics on steroids, or something. To the point of vandalizing AfD notices and the like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's still in doubt?

If I read the list correctly, there are still three English jurists commented out:

Alex Carlile
Brian Green
Dame Rose Heilbron

I know Dame Rose is Jewish, as we're distantly related, but I see that some editors would reject that as evidence. I can't see why personal information is good enough for the Dictionary of National Biography but not Wikipedia, but in any case she's clearly listed in the Jewish Year Book 2005 (pages 214 & 253), as is Lord Carlile (page 210).

It's not only anti-Semites who think Lord Goldsmith is Jewish; so does Melanie Phillips (I cannot see how anyone could interpret that web link otherwise). While she's pretty right-wing, she's the last person you'd accuse of anti-Semitism. And for what it's worth, Lord Goldsmith's mother's name is Myra Nurick, which is unlikely not to be a Jewish name.

And to save anyone checking, yes, I'm in London (like several million other people), which according to some editors seems to make me suspect. - 194.200.241.36 13:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who this anon Londoner is, but several things:
  1. Anything you know by "personal acquantance" is completely irrelevant to WP. We need WP:V, not "might well be true".
  2. Melanie Phillips does not state that she believes Lord Goldsmith is Jewish in the article provided. There's simply no way anyone can intelligently read it that way. She does not say she believes its contrary either; but can't we do better than vague "X says that Y thinks the Z believes that maybe..."?!
  3. The more I hear about this Jewish Year Book the less good it sounds as a source. Apparently it includes lots of names that are contradicted by all other sources.
  4. Don't pretend that putting information on talk page or in comments satisfies WP:V. The proper place for information is visible to readers in article space.

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You have cited no contradictions of the Jewish Year Book whatsoever, nor have you given any rationale as to why it might not be a good source. Citations in comments or on the Talk: page are not a violation of WP:V, and your edits are looking increasingly obstructionist. Please desist. Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more on WP:V

Please read WP:V. For example:

Sometimes a particular statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, then just remove it — don't waste words on statements of limited interest and dubious truth. However, if you must keep it, then attribute it to the source in question. For example:
According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun, the average American has 3.8 cousins and 7.4 nephews and nieces.

I believe Jewish Year Book is highly dubious as a source. Certainly less reliable than The Sun. In any case, WP:V exists to allow regular article readers to verify information, not for editors who have closely followed a page to do a lot of guesswork about what "might be true". You're an admin for g*d sake, Jayjg, I know you know better than this! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, you have stated no sources which contradict the Jewish Year Book, despite claims to have found some. As well, it is not a tabloid newspaper, and you have not given any indication that it is unreliable in any way, aside from your claim that it is. I state this based on a rather good knowledge of policy. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No reference to the Jewish Year Book has been provided for Alex Carlile, Brian Green, Rose Heilbron, or a number of others who are listed. After all this struggle, we finally managed to get one for Goldsmith, but for none of the others. It's true that I put little faith in the source, but failing to even cite the source at all is still worse. All we get is talk comments of "I'm not lying", "She's a distant relative of mine, so I know", "an acquaintance of mine went to his bar mitzvah", and other utterly unverifiable tripe.
I think the most serious misunderstanding of these identity politics editors is that they think an encyclopedia is some sort of wager system. I don't doubt that it's "plausible" that Goldsmith is Jewish, or even "likely". But the goal must not be to list people because you might win a bet by guessing they're Jewish. Something isn't listed because someone is "more likely than not" Jewish, but because some specific verifiable source(s) are cited that state the claim. And NOT some obscure place outside article space, but right in either this article or in the jurist's own article.
Just a thought, maybe I'll start a List of non-Jewish jurists, and list whoever I want... demanding firm refutation on anyone included, and assert that someone (say, Green, Carlile, or Hielbron) "might well not be Jewish". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Specific references have indeed been provided; a publication, an ISBN, and page numbers. That is all that is required. Have you not seen them? I'm sure you must have, since you've deleted them more than once. As for WP:POINT, it's not recommended. Jayjg (talk) 05:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I'm still waiting for evidence to back up your claims that there are sources which contradict the Jewish Year Book. Please provide them. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Where are these references?! I just looked on the main page, and they are still not there. I know that there really is such a book called Jewish Year Book, but readers can't know what it might contain without anyone telling them (i.e. that Judge Foo is listed there specifically, not "names on this list might be in it, for all readers know). As to contradict it... well, the complete absence of anything on Google that says Goldsmith is Jewish, other than some extreme anti-semitic sites, is sure a heck of a strong suggestion. It's not exactly like articles on a person are going to start of "Noted non-Jew Judge Foo...".
But even given the amazingly craptastic standard of evidence provided, I'm not even really complaining about the suckitude of the Goldsmith listing where a tiny thread of plausibility is given in actual citation. All the names without even a sliver of verifiable citation are the most glaring remaining problems. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
All references are now visible on the page. And a lack of Google references to Goldsmith being Jewish (aside from dubious sources) is a far cry from your claim that there is anything at all that contradicts that claim. Jayjg (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Much better. Now, finally, readers can examine the basis for the listing of individuals on this page, at least those with the footnotes (and those with external references—mostly added by me—or where the articles themself lend support are clearly fine). Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law

I decided not to do it as a user-conduct RfC right off the bat. But frankly, I think it's just about time for one of those too. These violations of WP:V are getting pretty darn outrageous at this point. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Year Book

I was asked to comment here. So far as I know, the British Jewish Year Book is a reliable source, though if it's being used a lot as a WP source, it might be worth e-mailing them to ask how they compile their information, and in fact I think I'll do that. For the time being, if Peter Goldsmith is listed in it, that counts as a good-enough source for inclusion. Having said that, I don't believe any of these lists should exist, and I also seem to recall that a decision was made, perhaps on List of Jews, to include people only if they self-identified and fitted one of the standard definitions. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "some editors dispute the claim", note that I am now satisfied (from Jewish Year Book and family names) that Goldsmith is indeed Jewish. Brian Green sounds believable too (his mother's maiden name, Rinsler, is a Jewish Galician surname). Rose Heilbron is definitely Jewish (source: the 2002 Times obituary of Myrella Cohen describes Cohen as "the second Jewish woman to [take silk] following Rose Heilbron"). Thanks to everyone. 82.35.45.214 23:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

If Rose Heilbron is Jewish, put that fact in her article! I had never heard of Heilbron until a couple days ago, so I have no opinion whatsoever on whether she might be Jewish. But if she is not, she should not be included on this list. And if she is, readers should be able to see that fact in the Rose Heilbron article... not have to ponder and guess what might have been the motives or motivation of whatever editor added her to this list.
Moreover, since "Jewish" is a somewhat special term—meaning several distinct things depending on context—it is worth putting in the articles on individual jurists something about what sense in which they're Jewish. If it's a matter that they actually publicly practice the religion, that's pretty unambivalent, and can just be stated flatly as "is Jewish". But if it's one of those more indirect things like "her mother's father was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism", it's better to give some context (e.g. "has Jewish ancestry").
For some other categories one might have of people, there's less need for this. I.e. if there is or comes to be a List of Catholic jurists, I think it's pretty much limited to self-identified Catholics. Or at least it should be. I don't really care if someone's mother's father was Catholic, if the person herself doesn't practice that religion. Actually, my own inclination is to treat "Jewish" in mostly the same way; but I know some "pseudo-ethnic identity politics" editors like to pretend there's a Jewish ethnicity or nationality (and I'll live with that). Even, for e.g. African Americans and List of African American jurists, it's really a matter of self-identification. It's not for Wikipedia to decide on some "racial (im)purity" test for who is really African American (generally, if someone says they are AA with no African ancestors, that's a bit odd; but with various mixed ancestry, individuals identify in different ways). All the African American jurists listed self-identify with that community (and were/are identified as such by most of the people they interacted with).
But again, the main thing is that readers must not be required to make wild, unverifiable guesses about what WP editors might have had in mind in listing someone as a "Jewish jurist"... the facts, whatever they are, should be right there in evidence. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
David, that someone is Jewish doesn't have to go into their WP article. It should do so only if relevant and the rule of thumb a lot of editors use is only if they also self-identify, in addition to there being good third-party sources. That someone is Jewish might be relevant to this list (because Jewishness is only one of two relevant criteria: being a jurist and being a Jew) and yet it might not be relevant to their public lives and therefore not appropriate for the article about them.
However, I agree that there should be consistent criteria for inclusion across all these lists. My suggestion would be that someone is a Jew if regarded as such by any of the major denominations, though I'd like to add that they should also self-identify, but that might make researching the list too hard. We should also only add names that already have WP articles, so no red-linked names. And we should use sources that conform to WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily say that in the jurist's article is the only place the verification might go, but it seems like the most obvious place. However, I added external links for, e.g. William Kunstler and Hazel Cosgrove. The problem is the editors who stubbornly resist any way for readers to verify the information, insisting upon anecdotal stories (or pseudo-citations) that only exist in edit comments or talk pages. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creating facts from thin air

It's a pity that Mr Lulu didn't look at the Rose Heilbron article before he wrote the above comment. I have stated clearly in that article that she is on both this list and the List of British Jews. - Poetlister 13:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr Lulu is scarcely consistent. He has invented a novel rule that people can only be included in this list if it states overtly in their article that they are Jewish. What better way of stating it than to put them in this list and give a link from the article? Then if anyone has any rational reason to believe that they're not Jewish, they can be deleted from the list and the link removed from the article.
RachelBrown 14:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The only point is that RachelBrown thinks she can create a new fact ex nihilo by the following procedure:
  1. Put a link to "List of Jewish Bazes" in the article on "Joe Foobar"
  2. Add Joe Foobar to the List of Jewish Bazes
According to this style of thinking, the evidence that Joe Foobar is Jewish is that he is included in the List of Jewish Bazes, and the evidence for including him is that the Joe Foobar page now says that he's Jewish (via the reference to the list). This was the exact procedure followed to create a fact for Hazel Cosgrove (though subsequently someone else found a usable external reference, that is now in the List of Jewish jurists).
There's a joke that bears frequent repeating. A man reads a shocking fact in a newspaper headline. Unable to believe its veracity, he goes out to buy all the rest of the copies of the same newspaper from his newstand to make sure they confirm the headline.
If you can lie twice rather than just once, that doesn't automatically turn it into the truth. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

But I'm not lying about Dame Rose Heilbron - she is Jewish. Even the one editor who previously sided with Mr Lulu by doubting that Lord Goldsmith was Jewish (and who has now changed his mind) has provided a reference for Dame Rose. - RachelBrown 17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original research tag?

Lulu, you've now added an Original research tag to the article, based on your claim that many of the names on the list are there based on personal knowledge. Can you list those names, please? Jayjg (talk) 06:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There are others, but at least Green and Hielbron are obvious examples. Look through this talk page for all the people claimed as "a distant relative" or "a FOAF was at his bar mitzvah" or "seems like a Jewish name" or the like.
I've barely made a scratch at trying to cleanup the list, nor even checked most of the listed names. As soon as I ask for WP:V to be met on a single name, I get volumes of argument against the need for evidence (or "just trust me" type "evidence"), and no citations. But based on the few so far, it seems likely that most of the others are WP:NOR violations also. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Green is not on the page, and Heilbron is explicitly cited. I'm removing the tag until you can come up with actual names that you dispute. Jayjg (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW Marcos Libedinsky is described as Jewish by the Chilean foreign minister in front of the American Jewish Committee [4]. Sidney Korshak is from a Ukrainian immigrant family [5] with very Jewish names (uncles Abraham, David, Reuben, Mendel and Max). The author of the link is a family member, so if anyone really cares, they can email him. 82.35.45.214 11:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing such precise templates for "original research": "very Jewish names", "the author is a family member". It's hard to imagine clearer examples of what constitutes original research on WP.
Incidentally, the link given for Korshak doesn't say anything about him being Jewish. Of course it's plausible that he might be. But a reference needs to state a fact, not simply fail to rule it out. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Relax. I never said that Korshak was Jewish. I just suggested a way of finding out. 82.35.45.214
"The author of the link is a family member". That helps a lot. We can e-mail him saying he comes highly recommended by an anon IP who has made four edits and who claims to be some kind of relative. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Umm... The author isn't my relative. He's a relative of Sidney Korshak. So he might know whether Korshak is Jewish or not. 82.35.45.214

[edit] afd result

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 November 2005. The result of the discussion was No Consensus - default to keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

[edit] Disputed (?)

If there is some current dispute as to NPOV or accuracy about this page, please place it here prior to adding any template tags to the article itself. These tags should not be used in violation of WP:POINT.

[edit] Different Julian Mack

Lulu, why do you think the Julian Mack cited is a different one from the Supreme Court justice? Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The citation given was to someone at the 1919 Versaille conference, as noted in edit history. The list doesn't claim this is a SC justice, but rather President of US Circuit Court of Appeals, FWIW. I guess maybe it meant president of CC/appeals in early 20th C, but I sort of supposed it meant more recently. Either way, we could use some clarification on who it is this is about. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Julian Mack was President of the US Circuit Court of Appeals in the early 20th century. I'll restore the source now; please let me know if you have any source which indicates they were two different Julian Macks. Jayjg (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Kaplan, Manuel Prutschi, and Nizkor.org

Lulu, Manuel Prutschi is the executive director of the Canadian Jewish Congress. In 1992 he wrote a lengthy article on the Zundel affair, in which he noted the well-known fact that Robert Kaplan is Jewish. This article, aside from being submitted to some newsgroups, is stored at www.nizkor.org, perhaps the world's most important anti Holocaust Denial website. Nizkor is not, as you seem to think, a Nazi website. If you have any further objection to this citation, please list it here first, rather than re-inserting the {{fact}} for something that is already adequately cited. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't we pretty, pretty please, with sugar on it, cite something other than alt.fan.ernst-zundel for a source?! We have a guideline at WP called Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I don't know who Manuel Prutschi is, but I'm happy to accept your word that he's a reliable source. But the report alleged to be by him is cited only as posted to a neo-Nazi newsgroup (i.e. the assumption that it is accurate is as good as the publication source). If this is a real report, it should have been published somewhere else, I would presume. It doesn't give me warm fuzzies to see that an anti-revisionist site reprints a report, complete with all the headers from a neo-Nazi Usenet group, rather than just publish the alleged report in its original form. Whatever the motives of Nizkor, the whole thing starts to look like a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend said... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.nizkor.org is being cited, and it is indeed a reliable source. It didn't reprint the article from the newsgroup; rather, it provided the article to the newsgroups. Please read this: [6], and please avoid WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please allow lists to obey WP:V

And see the proposed guidelines at WP:LISTS for some discussion of this. Identitarian lists are probably the worst of the worst offenders in violating WP:V and WP:NOR; this one has gotten slightly better through my hard work (and with the banning of the sockpuppet block), only three thousand identiarian lists to go for cleanup. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's gotten better through my hard work; slapping {{fact}} templates on obvious Jews is WP:POINT, not "hard work". Jayjg (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to improving this list. Hopefully, with similar efforts by many editors, all the poorly evidenced lists on WP can start to meet WP:V. I think eventual adoption of WP:LISTS as a formal guideline will also serve this goal. Please remember that our goal must be "as good quality as possible" not "as many items as possible". Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, while I appreciate your work, it is extremely offensive to comment as you do, Jayjg. There is no such thing as an "obvious Jew": what there is are names that are accompanied by verifiable evidence. It is utterly irrelevant to WP what you might believe to be true (or what I might believe to be true), all that matters is what readers can verify using WP:RS. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd take your concerns more seriously had you not created this almost entirely unsourced list: [7], and then reverted someone who removed an item pending addition of a reliable source.[8] Removing Meir Shamgar, Head of the Supreme Court of Israel, from a List of Jewish jurists is WP:POINT, no more. And please keep in mind that regardless of the issues you might have had with other editors, I am not them. Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
If you believe that there is an insufficiently evidenced name in the List of African American jurists, I would very much appreciate the addition of a {{fact}} tag next to their description. You are indeed correct that that AA list was created and largely maintained by me. Mind you (and this is extremely important), if a name is sufficiently evidenced by the long-standing consensus of editors of the underlying jurist's page, an external citation is not generally needed (this was the case with Johnnie Cochran, whom User:Poetlister removed spuriously, and as I carefully documented on the talk page at that time).
A while back, User:Zordrac, acting largely out of WP:POINT and as a self-appointed advocate of (now banned) User:Poetlister, made some modifications to List of African American jurists. Some of these were harmful, but one was extremely helpful: namely, adding {{fact}} tags next to a number of names. That helped point to names of concern, and either external citations or clarifications to the underlying articles were provided (mostly by me). Notice that I did not add a {{fact}} annotation next to any name whose underlying article indicated that jurist was Jewish (or where it could be reasonably inferred, for example from organizational board memberships; but just having a "Jewish sounding name" is definitely not sufficient). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Jewish_jurists_20dd.html"