Talk:List of Chilean Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Rodrigo Goldberg

Seems to be a lot of confusion... but according to several articles, Rodrigo Goldberg is NOT Jewish despite his name and having played soccer in Israel. Some articles say he's not Jewish, e.g.:

Others say he IS, e.g.:

This one has an interview from him saying directly that he IS NOT Jewish:

So.... should he be removed from the list? Moxfyre 22:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He said in a television program that he was a Catholic, but had Jewish ancestors. He may be ethnically Jewish, but not religiously. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hites

Hites is an arab surname. In fact, is a Palestinian surname. I don't understand that an Hites' family integrant be of Jewish origin. 200.50.57.39 17:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont know if he is Jewish or not, but the fact that he have a Palestinian surname doesnt matters coz there were several Palestinian Families who practiced Judaism between those who migrated to Chile not only Christian or Muslim families Faridsaavedra 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles

Savka Pollak? I knew that she was Catholic. In fact, she studied in the Villa Maria Academy School, a catholic school in Chile. Ah: I don't understand why Manuel Montt Balmaceda is in this list, if they are catholic and he has not jewish ancestors. 200.50.58.230 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
For any rabbis here, make sure to provide some sort of reference suggesting they are worth having on wikipedia. Not every rabbi in Chile is significant, even if there aren't that many. Usedup 20:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Large changes have been made to this article without explanation. These include the deletion of names not tagged with {{fact}} or a similar template and the insertion (in February) of templates suggesting that the names had been tagged since January.--Runcorn 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the unverified templates. Sorry, I'll change them. Did I delete a name? If so, it was by accident. Re-add it. Usedup 02:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, unflagged names were deleted. One was even of a rabbi with a reference proving that he is a rabbi. It is quite unacceptable to mess up an article and hope that others will fix it.--Runcorn 20:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Look. I already said that if I deleted somebody, it was by accident. If you already know who it is, then it really wouldn't take much more effort to move that person to the appropriate place. Everyone makes mistakes on wikipedia, and other people correct them. Its the system. Reverting back to the horrid mess that this list was isn't helping. Also, not every rabbi on the earth is notable. This one may be so I'll try to find out where I deleted it, but letting me go on this wild goose chase really wasn't necessary when you could just re-add him. Usedup 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Efram Rosenzweig? Usedup 20:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish to bite newbies, but surely it is not difficult to see, when you are removing a name, whether it is tagged.--Runcorn 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hi, I tried but couldn't make much sense of what happened from the edit history. It it justifiable to remove from a list names that are tagged with {{fact}} (especially if the names are subsequently moved to the talk page). Given that there may be living persons on this list, every red-linked name such be sourced (ideally, blue-linked names should be sourced as well but at least the blue-links can serve as temporary "soft" references). I do not wish to start or become involved in a revert dispute, so I suggest a compromise: move only those redlinked names without citations to the talk page (I'm not sure if the list in the section above is comprehensive) and re-add them to the list when sources are found. I would be glad to do this myself if you both agree. Cheers, Black Falcon 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't regard this as a content dispute; I am just trying to ensure that proper procedures are followed. If there are any names that people wish to query, please flag them, then if no reference is forthcoming within a few weeks, move them to talk. If anyone objects to such a procedure, I would be happy to support you. Why cite WP:BLP? Is it supposed to be defamatory to be called Jewish? --Runcorn 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Almost all of the redlinks without sources have been tagged with {{fact}} since January 28. I personally don't object to leaving them on a while longer (maybe a few days). However, as three weeks have already passed, User:Usedup (or anyone else) may justifiably remove them from the article and move them to the talk page. As for your other point, of course not. Although WP:BLP focuses on defamatory and/or controversial statements, the general principle is that all information about living individuals should be verified. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, every statement in every article ought to be referenced. I look forward to seeing you move the contents of many articles to their talk pages, not just on lists of Jews, in the interests of demonstrating your NPOV.--Runcorn 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Runcorn, I'm not sure whether your statement is addressed to me or to Usedup, but I will reply. Just because we can't fix everything doesn't mean we should fix nothing. There is no NPOV here. Even if Usedup focuses only on "Lists of Jews" that is not evidence of POV. Maybe he's just interested in the topic and wants to improve the quality of articles on the subject. Please assume good faith. Even if his intentions are malicious (which I highly doubt), moving unreferenced biographical information (which has been tagged with {{fact}} for several months) to the talk page is not an inappropriate action. Also, as I noted above, this article is unique from others because it falls under WP:BLP. Having possibly incorrect information about a battle between Rome and Carthage or about a species of bird is not the same as having such information about living persons. -- Black Falcon 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Lots of articles about living people have unsourced statements. The List of African American jurists has many names without references. Perhaps Usedup would like to tag every such name there.--Runcorn 22:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And by many you mean 9? First of all, all the articles on List of African American jurists have articles, while 90%+ of the articles on here didn't. Secondly, it is much easier to add a red link to an article and claim the person is Jewish than to add a blue link to a page and claim that the person is African-American. Finding out if someone is African-American is not difficult, especially if that person is notable and an article exists, while finding out if a non-notable red-link from some foreign country is Jewish, something way less obvious and not always publically known, is much harder. This is why many articles can get away with calling someone Jewish, and that is why I'm not too concerned about List of African American jurists. Interestingly, since you have found that list of African American jurists is missing sources, it really wouldn't have hurt if you added the fact tags instead of utilizing this to make a point here. Finally, if you want to get into a debate about POV, I would point out that many of your edits recently have been arguing over whether someone is Jewish or not (Lilienthal, Michael, Radcliffe, Storch) and the majority of the time, your attempts at "discussing" just means initiating your intents on the article, which some would say may illustrate evidence of a POV. Then again, the same argument could be used to say its just your fields of interest: an unusual one, but one nonetheless. Usedup 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, that is a list where all of the names are blue-linked, so at least it is possible that the sources might be in the articles themselves. And I will note again: just because we can't fix everything does't mean we shouldn't fix what we have found. Arguments based on the poor state of other articles are fallacious. -- Black Falcon 17:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually the redlinks have been tagged since September. Look: [1]. Runcorn, if you are reverting edits without legitimate reasons then you are participating in a content dispute whether you see it as that or not. Moving a sourced rabbi (who is not even confirmed as notable) to a talk page by accident does not merit a wholesale revert. Usedup 00:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Also, when you reverted my edit, you ended up removing {{fact}} tags from all the blue-links, which is equivalent to me accidentely removing the source you added (without mentioning) during your revert. Yet, you chose to warn me like a vandal when you yourself did vandal-like actions in your revert. Maybe now you'll see everyone makes mistakes. Usedup 00:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, most of these names can be sourced relatively easily. However, that does not justify leaving them on the article page for an extended period of while they are unsourced. I suggest the following course of action:

If one or more editors agrees to work on sourcing these names, then leave the names on the list for a brief period of time (a few days). After that time, any names that are still red-linked and without sources will be moved to the talk page, from where they can be re-added to the article when sources are provided.

I will try to source some of the names, but will not be able to do it all alone. By my count, 116 of the 144 redlinks are unsourced. Would you agree to this possible compromise (the names are given another chance to be sourced, but a relatively short deadline is set by which they must either be sourced or removed)? If you do, I think the immediate focus should be sourcing the fact that these individuals are Chileans, Jews, and occupy or occupied whatever profession the list states. Determining whether specific individuals should or should not be on the list or cleaning up the reference section are secondary concerns to verifying the information. -- Black Falcon 00:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I went through each name and looked them up for notability, Chilean-ness, and Jewishness. About 60% of the names I looked up barely showed up on any search engines in any languages. Usedup 07:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

The following source describes several of the people on this talk page as Jewish, but there seems to be nothing substantial written about these people outside of this page [2]. It appears somebody just copied and pasted the names from there onto here. Usedup 06:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_Chilean_Jews_13d1.html"