Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. freestylefrappe 02:32, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jews

I do not see the encyclopedic value of classifying people according to religion or ethnicity. This list strikes me as a black list of individuals that can be used in Anti jewish propaganda or reeks of prejudice. I can see the value of mentioning the ethnicity in articles when it has relevance to their work or career but to go as far as saying that an individual is classified as Jewish because an ancestor is believed to be Jewish or their name sounds Jewish is going too far. We are also introducing an element in Wikipedia of racial or ethnic discriminatory conduct. Any one with any sense can see that this is just wrong. 65.144.141.7

The above anonymous anon has made less than ten edits on Wikiepdia so far, see [1]. This is troubling, and indicates either complete lack of knowledge about Wikipedia and its methodology or that a cowardly troll is out to cause trouble. Why not identify yourself mister? This is a serious article you are nominating for deletion. IZAK 13:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But the ONLY and ONLY way this should be deleted would be if ALL "Lists of [insert ethnicity]" are deleted. And again - using phrases like "ancestor is believed to be Jewish or their name sounds Jewish is going too far" is just plain wrong - every person on this list has been individually confirmed as Jewish by reliable sources - and in fact it can stand as one of the sole accurate lists on the net - considering how wrong all the lists of all those stupid anti-Semitic sites usually are. And that was a Keep. 24.141.149.226
  • Delete see talk page for motivation. Freestylefrappe
  • Keep. David | Talk 14:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless criteria can be nailed down to something sensible (e.g. must have a Wikipedia article, and that article must reference status as a Jew in some substantive way). Jayjg (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Other lists *might* be ok, if they have a reasonable definition of the term, *and* cite sources for their information. Two bad lists don't make a right list. Based on seeing the list, and the talk page, there's no hope the list could become anything meaningful. --rob 03:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as other form --Sheynhertz-Unbayg 04:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (*o*)
  • Delete If you keep one list, you have to keep them all. That includes the anti-semitic ones, as well. Or, you toss out all the lists with no preference to any group.(IP:68.187.198.41)anon
Comment - the above anon has made one valid edit and vandalized the idiot article a large number of times. --Kizor 05:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The list has some issues but they can be fixed and definitions can be sharpened. This is complicated material, very different from the definitions of Christianity for example. I would like to get a shot at improving it. Why delete essentially good information? gidonb 07:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Remember McCarthyism - how is this any different. If you keep one list, you have to keep them all. That includes the anti-semitic ones, as well. Or, you toss out all the lists with no preference to any group.(IP:68.187.198.41) anon
COMMENT What on earth is going on here? Tomer TALK 07:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. As it stands this list apparently tries to list every Jewish person ever who is even slightly known. If that's all it does it should be a category, since there are almost no entries with a qualification why someone is considered Jewish, or why it should matter at all. I didn't know Michael Bolton was Jewish—and why should I care? It's not even mentioned in his article, or the biography that links to, and it's not like he's notable for being Jewish.
    There's no point to a huge list with zero references other than the articles themselves. (I notice some of the external links could conceivably have been used as references, but there's no way to know.) While not completely pointless and not something I'd outright vote to delete, this list as it stands has little added value. A very similar issue plagued list of atheists before the Great Reform. By contrast, that list is now one of the best I've seen. (And I'm not a major contributor, so I think I'm reasonably unbiased.) It's not perfect, but at least it tries. JRM · Talk 12:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any single List of [insert your favorite religion/sexual orientation/political party here] is relatively harmless. However, the information, unless the listing criterion is tied to the individuals listed in some substantive way, just doesn't belong in any encyclopedia. Information about any individual's religion, politics, etc. isn't encyclopedic, unless that information is part of what makes that person notable, a la Jerry Falwell and the like. It just doesn't matter that, for example, Cordwainer Smith was a non-observant Anglican, because it doesn't say anything about the man. And the same is true of almost everyone on every List of X here, where X is any label by which people have conventionally divided into "us" and "them". Ken talk|contribs 13:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We kept List of Roman Catholics, see Votes for deletion/List of Roman Catholics. For consistency, we should keep this one. This can be a useful article if done well. If there are problems with the current content, the solution is to improve the article and watch it to see that it remains good. NoSeptember 20:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks pretty decent to me. I wouldn't like to lose such an obviously well-researched article. And this is not mainly about religion, it is about ethnicity. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:21, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Uneasy Delete: 1) I don't like the section on victims; 2) we already have List of Jews by country & its friends; 3) the ratio of controversy / usability. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Firstly, a nomination to "delete" by an anonymous user is highly suspicious. It is not clear if the motivation is misplaced paranoia or back-handed Anti-Semitism that wants to "wipe out" a list of Jews. This is not a "black book", whatever that means. Furthermore, any legitimate concerns about lists that may tend to become genuinely silly or absurd can always be limited or discussed on talk pages. Secondly, Jews are undeniably and uniquely both an acknowledged and notable ethnicity and and religious group (see more about this in Jew) of major historic and cultural significance, no use denying it, so this list is largely valid. Thirdly, this is a long-standing well-monitered article/list, one of zillions in Wikipedia's Category:Lists and if anyone doesn't approve of an individual entry on it they are free to edit it as in any other article or lists on Wikipedia. Fourthly, if this list would be unfortunately deleted, does it then mean that List of Jews by country, its associated lists by country, and its related Template:JewsByCountry be destroyed as well? Finally, to repeat, the concerns of the one nominating this article are unfounded, and in fact sound very suspicious, and should not be allowed to function here as an anonymous troll causing mischief. IZAK 13:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Clearly this list has not been well-monitored as it is busting at the seams with entries like "Dr. Zoidberg". Although the recent edits by User:24 have removed all non-wikilinked people it is still incredibly long. This is not merely a troll causing mishief; if you look at the talkpage you will see this is being debated by several users. At the very least this page should be reduced, if not deleted. I would also like to point out once again that Jews are not an ethnicity. freestylefrappe 22:23, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks a lot for pointing that out. It's nice you feel that way. However, Wikipedia acknowledges that "Jewish" is, indeed, an ethnicity, whether you put your sentence in bold or not. It is widely recognized as an ethnicty (heck, otherwise a mis-directed phrase like "he doesn't look Jewish" would not exist) and is indeed a mediterranean-originated ethnicity, which is why most ethnic Ashkenazi Jews share similar facial characteristics to those of other mediterranean ethnicities - like Italians or the Spanish. Dr. Zoidberg was in a category which was obviously meant to be humorous. As for it being long - well, the plan is to split it up to sections - i.e. the separate list of actors. Also, someone has unfortunately reverted my edit and all those with no Wiki entry are back in.... not productive. -24.141.149.226

  • Keep. This list is just as valid as List of people. Consider a move to List of notable Jews however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Sjakk: By definition this is a list of notable Jews (ethnically or by religion). If they were not notable they would NOT be qualified to be on Wikipedia in any form. IZAK 13:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I know. But sometimes I think users are worried that such lists are made with the intent of mentioning absolutely everybody, and adding a "notable" may alleviate some of those fears. For example, there is a reason why the list of chess players is at List of notable chess players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, to me this sounds like semantics. Wikipedia is not about to become a data base about six billion humans on Earth...we must leave some work for our governments, no? IZAK 13:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of the subsections really aren't necessary, but as a journalist student I think this is a useful reference to look up which politicians/celebrities/whatever are Jewish. The more obscure sections aren't really necessary though. The claim that this is a blacklist is outrageous; anyone hellbent on discovering the identities of as many Jews as possible would, I'm sure, be able to find equally or more comprehensive lists elsewhere. Having the information in Wikipedia just makes it handier.
  • Strong Keep List needs some modifications & less ambiguous approach-but it doesnt deserve to be deleted. Mir Harven 09:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even among the delete votes, I'm mostly seeing things like "...unless criteria can be nailed down...." In other words, that this article can be appropriate doesn't really seem to be in question. As per JRM's comments regarding the Great Reform over at list of atheists, this list simply needs a stronger and clear-cut set of criteria for inclusion. In fact, it looks to me like that process had already been started on the article's talk page before this VfD was started...which makes this VfD listing look suspicious, imho. Let's let the articles editors see what they can do to quell objections to the list. The talk page is the first place the nominator should have gone to, not VfD. Func( t, c, e,  ) 17:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per IZAK and Func, except that while I'm not going to protend that the merit of the nomination is anything but dubious, however, I think some of the "Delete"-related comments demonstrate that there are some pretty serious flaws with the list. My main concern against deleting it outright is that my crystal ball says that if it's deleted, it will come back later, and in a much more horrific form. I have solicited assistance in reforming the article on the TALK page, and thus far, while there are clearly people watching the discussion, so far it's mostly just me and 24.anon looking into reforming the list. I may get to it Sunday, as I'll have a lot of time on my hands, sitting on my low stool... Tomer TALK 19:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete useless having it on an encyclopedia. Many Jews in the list were born and brought up in other countries other than Israel and carry mostly european names and europena and north-american cultures. In this sense being a Jew is only and question os religion. To be fair, it should be done a list of catholic notable people. This list is just not fair to other religions, ethnic groups or nations, once it makes people think Jews are 'better' or more 'inteligent', when actually they are from afluente families. Roger[2] 11:20, August 14, 2005
Sigh...
1.There are lists of Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Lutherans,..
2. Jews are a compound of historical memory, religion & ethnic identification. In short, they are a people characterized by specific cultural identity religion has been the crucial identifier of, but is not necessarily any more. As with other peoples- the identity is best described by participation in collective destiny. And here is the shortcoming of this list: it contains names of many individuals who are of Jewish heritage or extraction- but are not Jews in any rational meaning of the word. They have no Jewish identity of any kind. A part of Clint Eastwood's ancestors had been, I think, Dutch. But-it's a nonsense to count Eastwood among "Dutch Americans". Some half-forgotten ancestor is not enough for identity. So, this list needs to be rearranged, but not deleted. Mir Harven 17:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and it should treat facts as facts. Political correctness should not precede all other things. Some people say this list is "anti-semitic" - then jewhoo.com is also "anti-semitic"? If this list should be deleted, delete other articles too - "List of Armenians", "List of African Americans", "List of Arab Americans", "List of Roma people", "List of Cherokee", etc, etc. Isn't that absurd? --1523 01:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-This article, while techinically true is in pretty poor taste. Although I'm sure the author considers it important, I can't find any factual use for the information in this article other than as an roll call of Jews-including many ethnic Jews who would not consider themselves religiously so. Finally, there is not a clear criteria for the persons listed here other than their "Jewishness"-an article titled "List of Anglos-Saxon Christians" would probably be too long for any useful purpose whatsoever, and this article is already far past the point of serving as a reference source. If you find yourself perusing this article to for the names, you're either way too pro- or anti-Jewish.

Comment: Please see Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/List of Jews for new info. Tomer TALK 06:10, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Per 1523 --malathion talk 08:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There does not seem to be a concise or specific argument against this list other than disorderly squabbling about being "in poor taste" or "non encyclopedic". What makes something "Encyclopedic"? This is evidently information that people find interesting, is factual (for the most part). The only thing that is "poor taste" that I can think of about it, is people being upset by the idea of a list where the "accomplishments" of Jews can be found. What isn't encyclopedic about it? --208.228.103.165 04:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Why anyone should get upset at being identified as something that they are is quite beyond me. You can put me on a list of Anglo-Saxons, atheists, leftists, or beer drinkers if you like. An educational work such as an encyclopedia is no place for censorship of facts. Kelisi 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Why are Jews commonly afraid (ashamed?) of stating their nationality? They suffered more than many nations relative to their overall number, but otherwise are fine.
  • Strong keep Useful navigation CanadianCaesar 00:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, 'cause of this is the enter page. Crazy nomination by Nandesuka. 何ですか、これは? --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 22:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.