Talk:List of Jewish American journalists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on july 12 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

S/be List of Jewish American journalists per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). 24.17.48.241 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sources

I have sourced the list in accordance with Wikipedia's No Original Research and Verifiability policies. Basically, anyone described by a reliable source as "Jewish" or "Jewish-American" (i.e. as opposed to "of Jewish descent", "Jewish mother", etc.) is on the list. Here are the people I couldn't find anything for. If you have a reliable source that fits that please restore the names:

Mad Jack O'Lantern 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalists

I've removed these entries:

Because none of them are strictly speaking, journalists.--Isotope23 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course they're journalists, they control the content of our news... that's what a journalist is. Please put the entries back, or in the alternative, create the new category into which you feel they belong (as per your advice to me on my talk page.) Kirkswig 21:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, a journalist is someone who collects, writes, edits, or presents news or news articles in newspapers and magazines and in radio and television broadcasts. Reporters, Editors, Presenters, etc. If you are suggesting that the presidents/CEOs of the major networks and/or the news organizations of said networks are actively editing the content of the news on their networks, you need to have some sort of verifiable source for this. Somehow I just don't see Michael Eisner going down to the ABC news room and vetting every story scheduled to air that night.
Whether they are actively editing the content or not is not the point. They have the final say into what goes into the news stories we read each day, ergo they fit the definition of journalist and I am putting the entries back. Please do not delete again unless you can offer a legitimate reason for their omission from this list. (I also note for the benefit of others that it was Isotope who suggested I put these entries into this very list in the first place when he voted to delete the previous list containing these entries.) Kirkswig 20:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested you move all your entries from the List Jews in the Media list here... I'd love to see any evidence that I said that. I merely pointed this list out as an example of a list done correctly: narrow scope, entries that fit the definition of the subject, well cited. Unfortunately, this list is quickly devolving away from that due to your apparent misunderstanding of what constitutes a journalist. I again urge you to start a new article that is a List of Jewish Media Company CEOs and Presidents and enter non-journalist there. If you continue to interject people who do not fit the definition of a journalist, We will have to take this to RfC and let that process decide.--Isotope23 13:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is where you pointed me to this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jews_in_the_media and I will note that you acknowledged that CEOs were on the original list as you were pointing me to this list, indeed, that is the exact language you used: "I again point you to List of Jewish American journalists, which is an example of how a list should be done: defined scope and exhaustive citations sourcing every entry." Moreover, I am meeting your self-imposed demand that citations and sources be provided for every entry on this list, even though I can find no other list that requires the same. So please do take this to RfC, these people are clearly journalists and I have bent over backwards to meet your over-the-top demands for what may appear on this list and still you are not happy. Kirkswig 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I pointed you to a list as an example of how a list should be done... I didn't tell you to add non-journalists to the list, though it looks like you've inferred that. Regardless, it appears that RfC is the only way this will be solved.. I will initiate it tomorrow.--Isotope23 02:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yet the list which you voted to delete contained what you are now calling non-journalists and still you pointed me to this list, a list which you alone appear to make the rules for, rules that no other similar list need conform to. Frankly, I find your participation here to be contrary to the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Kirkswig 09:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the list that I opined should be deleted wasn't a list of journalists... I merely referenced this list as an example of a well done list, not as a destination for all the entries from the deleted list. I don't make the rules for this list or any other. I've referred this to RfC, which hopefully will garner a consensus solution.--Isotope23 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And on another point... Reliable Sources, your cite for Rick Kaplan is a Media Research Center reprint of a derogatory statement allegedly made by Ted Turner to Rick Kaplan. That doesn't exactly meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It obviously meets WP:RS, the perception of whether it is derogatory or not appears to be irrelevant. Please do bear in mind that I am putting these citations in despite being able to find no other list where it is required to do so, so just be happy with it or find an alternative source you find more appealing. Kirkswig 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I've moved all the entries here instead of just deleting them outright so you can create a new article and just cut and paste them over there easily.--Isotope23 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RfC

I listed this on Request for Comments. Essentially, the issue is whether or not the entries above could be construed as journalists. I won't rehash the arguments as you can read them above. Comments on this would be appreciated.--Isotope23 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The first line in the entry for journalist says it all: "A journalist is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people." It should be obvious that a person who captains a news organization fits this definition. The journalist entry also states that "various types of editors" are to be included in the category, so that even if the person doesn't actually do the writing, he or she still fits the definition of journalist. A President or CEO of a news organization like MSNBC or CNN is what a publisher is to an organization like The New York Times, in essense, an executive journalist, somebody who makes the decision as to who gets to do the reporting in much the same way an editor decides which story is reported on (it's worth noting that publishers weren't stricken from the list, so the striking of Presidents and CEO's seems capricious.) I think it is essential that people have the opportunity to know who makes the very important decisions that affect the news we read, and so the question really becomes one of what best serves Wikipedia's users: if a user wanted to know who was responsible for the content of the news he/she reads, wouldn't a list of journalists be the appropriate place to go to find that information. And while we're in RfC mode, I would also ask for a ruling on the requirement that entries require sources in order to make the list. It's not that I think it's necessarily a bad idea, I just note that it appears that only this list has this requirement, and at the behest of only one individual. Either all the lists should be made to have supporting citations, or none of them should. Thank you. Kirkswig 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/klein.jonathan.html Notice that CNN lists Jonathan Klein under the category "Anchors/Reporters". He is as much a journalist as anybody there at CNN... even CNN thinks so. This shouldn't be controversial at all. Kirkswig 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If people who have issues with executives being journalists could perhaps post on the talk page and see that we already have an RfC in progress, that would be marvelous. Nokilli 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Executives aren't journalists; typically, they're businesspeople. Not sure where the RfC is, besides here. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing Barbara Ehrenreich. See her discussion page for the reason why. Michael 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NNDB

The NNDB is a junky trivia gathering site, like the IMDB, though a bit better. I've moved Dan Abrams and Ira Glass here pending sources. Whenver creating a new entry, btw, NNDB usually uses info straight from the person's Wikipedia entry, which is flattering to us, but not useful if our info comes back to us. Mad Jack 16:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Junky trivia gathering site seems a bit subjective. Also, where are you getting the idea that NNDB uses Wikipedia info? Certainly not from Wikipedia. Unless you can state why the source fails WP:V I would ask you to put these entries back. Kirkswig 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
NNDB is not a first-hand source. It has no reason to be correct because it has no contact with its subjects. It picks up info on-line or elsewhere, just like Wikipedia does. Whether that info is correct or not we don't know for sure and have no way of knowing because they don't cite their sources, unlike us (though they have started some minor citations here and there). Oh, and for example, how would the NNDB know that Dan Abrams is Jewish? or Ira Glass? They have no contact with either one of them. They must have used some kind of source for that (If we're lucky and they didn't just assume), and that source is what we have to find and cite. Mad Jack 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking at WP:V and I don't see anything about "first-hand" sources. I do see this however: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It appears to me that with 18,500 entries and growing that NNDB fits this definition, that is, nobody is alleging that NNDB isn't accurate. Moreover, WP:V states the following: "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun..."" So even if we were to acknowledge that NNDB is of dubious credibility, we are within WP:V because we are attributing the source. Unless you can actually cite something from WP:V that disputes any of this I think you should put the entries back and let the readers decide for themselves. Thanks. Kirkswig 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to let the spread of junky info from IMDB, NNDB, and any other trivia-gathering sites. It's like sourcing Wikipedia articles with other Wikipedia articles. I could go to Dan Abrams' article right now, put in that he is not Jewish, and then use that as a source as to not include him. That's about of equal reliability. If you want to source someone to the NNDB, you'll have to answer how exactly would the NNDB know that someone is Jewish? Your welcome. Oh, and I'm sure there are good sources out there that state both Glass and Abrams are Jewish. What we need to do is find those. Mad Jack 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And here's a nice example of their reliablitiy. I went to their "Jewish" page and started at the bottom. They've got Stephanie Zimbalist's religion listed as "Jewish".[1] Well, she's a born-again Christian. Her Jewish father became a born-again Christian, and they list him as exactly that, but I guess they made a mistake and assumed she was Jewish (her mother is a CHristian, too.) Next, Conrad Veidt - German actor with a Jewish wife listed as Jewish[2], even though he wasn't. I could go on Mad Jack 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Then there's Leon Trotsky [3], who was obviously an atheist. But they list his religion as Jewish as well as his ethnicity - though obviously only one is correct. Now you know the difference between second-hand sources and first hand sources? First hand sources are right, second-hand ones may possibly be right, if we're lucky, or they might not be. We are a second-hand source ourselves and we don't use our fellow second-hand sources for info if we want to stay reliable and not become a third-hand source. Mad Jack 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
There isn't a single source in all of Wikipedia that doesn't occasionally get an entry wrong. That doesn't disqualify them however, moreover, I note that you are not basing your argument on anything found in WP:V. I note too that you do not provide any sources to back up your dispute over the validity of the examples you point to. I would also note that Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes states that rather deleting or reverting edits you should try to make the entry better. A better course of action would be for you to find a reference you feel is more reliable. Failing that, and failing to cite WP:V, I again would ask you to restore the entries. Kirkswig 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am simply not restoring anything from trivia web sites, and will revert up until my 3RR is up. These sites have caused so much misinformation on the net that we then have to fix. I have already made this page better, by sourcing all of it and insisting on reliable sources for any additional names, which I am doing. I am also, in fact, making Wikipedia better, by not sourcing to junky web sites. If Dan Abrams is Jewish, you should have no problem finding a reliable source that says so. My argument, as I've said, is based on this - how would the NNDB know? For example, an interview with Dan Abrams where he or the interviewer says that Abrams is Jewish would be a good source. Respected publications would be good sources. A second-hand trivia site is only reliable if we know where it gets its info. If not, it simply is not. Mad Jack 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, since you have already started a request for comment on this page on a different issue, I suggest you extend it to this issue as well. I mean, you might as well. Oh, and you quoted "If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question." Why is it important to note that Dan Abrams is Jewish? Mad Jack 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not start the RfC, that was another user, however, I am happy to see this issue resolved as well. It's not that I don't see your point, it's just that you are not following Wikipedia guidelines (or at least are failing to make that case.) NNDB appears to be an entirely reputable source, and you have not made the case otherwise. Moreover, your threat of an edit war is not the way for this issue to be resolved. Again, I point you to the rules, which states that you should improve entries rather than simply delete. So I will put Dan Abrams back, and, now understanding that your actions are not supported by any Wikipedia policy you can cite, you will then delete him anew. Nothing I can do about that. Kirkswig 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and why is Dan Abrams entry important? It's information, no different than any of the thousands of other entries in these lists. It has exactly the same importance as all of them. The real question is why it is so important to you that the entry be deleted. Kirkswig 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you have not replied why NNDB would be a reliable source. Why? How would they know? I have stated reasons why they aren't - they have no resources that we don't, so they are as reliable as we are when we don't cite our sources. Exactly, Dan Abrams is just information. It has not great importance and if we can't find a reliable source for it, it can be deleted with no great effect. It is very important to me that Wikipedia stop citing IMDB, NNDB, and any of these similar web sites for info. I have had just about enough with all of them and the junk they spread on the net. That's why I only use first-hand sources. Mad Jack 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You are free to restrict yourself to first-hand sources, however, I do not believe you are free to restrict others to first-hand sources, especially when you are unable to cite policy in support of your edits. Wikipedia policy indicates that your best course of action is to improve the entry, deleting it only if you can demonstrate that it is false. You have been advised that this is the policy, and yet you choose to ignore it. What is required here is a ruling on NNDB in general, and if and when such a ruling takes place and determines that NNDB is indeed not reliable or appropriate for Wikipedia then you would be correct to act as you are. Until then, you are not. Let the powers-that-be decide this too I guess. Kirkswig 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true - I can delete the entry if I can't prove it's correct, not if I can prove it's false. Since there is no ruling on NNDB, then we are free to discuss the NNDB, and my question to you is why would sourcing something to the NNDB be more reliable then sourcing it to Wikipedia? How would they know? Mad Jack 05:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this source for Abrams actually say that Dan Abrams himself is Jewish? It seems to be about his father. And "born in and loves Jerusalem" is a good source for a "List of People who were born in Jerusalem", not a list of Jews. Mad Jack 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Just a moment ago you were saying that your concern was solely about using NNDB as a source, now it seems that the problem really is about Dan Abrams and not NNDB after all. The article talks about not only his father but his mother too, even referring to her service in Israel's Air Force and actually calling her a Zionist. And please bear in mind that the requirement for sources appears to be completely arbitrary here, no other list I can find requires them. So just be happy it isn't NNDB and have a nice day. :) That said, there are better quotes from the article to put up there, I'll change that now. Kirkswig 08:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No, the source, besides being reliable, has to say that Dan Abrams is actually Jewish. Doesn't matter what standards it uses, as long as it says exactly that. See List of British Jews, List of Greeks, List of Catholic American entertainers for pages where this was outlined as being in line with Wikipedia policy. Yes, now most ethnicity-American lists also have this as a requirement. Check almost any one - Irish/Swedish/Dutch/etc. The quote for Abrams' mother says she is a Zionist - which would be good for listing her on a list of Zionists, but wouldn't be good for listing either her or her son on a List of Jews. Every other name on this list has a source that actually says the person is Jewish. Mad Jack 08:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The article in its entirety makes it abundently clear that he is Jewish, I mean, there's the bit about his mom being in the Israeli Air Force, being from a Zionist family, the various Jewish organizations they belong to, etc. Was I to quote the entire article? As for the other lists, no, most of the lists I come across do not have this as a requirement, let's not pretend otherwise. Kirkswig 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I seem to have found a source for Abrams myself. If this Boris Shusteff guy who wrote the article[4] is to be trusted. I'll add it. Mad Jack 09:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I would have passed on Shusteff. That said, as I see no reason why there shouldn't be multiple references, I'm putting back mine next to yours. Kirkswig 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Now that we've established that Abrams is actually Jewish, there's no reason why we can't have more details. Mad Jack 01:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Also - what other lists? I am right now actively working on all the ethnicity-American lists to bring them to this standard (that's why I sourced this one). Click on, say, List of Swedish Americans and then look around at almost any of the ethnicity lists linked from there - the majority are done the same way (i.e. a person has to actually be called "Irish-American" or "Irish") Mad Jack 01:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Start here List of Jews and work your way down... almost every list under this heading omits supporting references. Don't get me wrong, I think the references are great, I just want some acknowledgement that we're going above and beyond what appears to be the standard here; why I chafe at not counting NNDB as a verifiable source for instance (cause it's a helluvalot more than everybody else is providing.) Kirkswig 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah, no question that the majority of the Jewish lists are not sourced. They need to be, though. I've concentrated more so far on the other ethnicity-American lists - precisely because there are so many Jewish lists and they seem so time-consuming to source. However, once I do source a page - definitely good for it to stay properly sourced - and set an example for the other ones. :) Mad Jack 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD?

I am not sure what this article actually accomplishes. Please explain why it shouldn't be deleted. --Leifern 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I came down to the bottom of this talk page to question the existence of this article, to find Leifern has beaten me to it... and then "lost" an edit conflict to Jay. Anyway, what they said. Actually I think I know what this article "accomplishes," but I don't think it is a purpose for which Wikipedia is designed. I also really love the box at the top that says "This page is a list of Jews." Kind of creepy, isn't it? 6SJ7 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As I look at the list some more, it is really a list of journalists, media executives, various kinds of writers, and others. However, I am not inclined to correct flaws in the article as the whole thing seems like one big flaw to me. 6SJ7 00:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I can't see any reason for the existence of this list. The ongoing problems with accuracy contribute further to the lack of usefulness. Dbratton 14:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps one of you could then explain why this list should go, and not any of the others? Please note that we've already had a AfD for List of Jews, and the vote was keep. Also note that this list exceeds the standards used for the other lists, in that citations are provided for entries throughout. Nokilli 01:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, they should all go. I have come to the conclusion that all "List of <ethnic> <professions>" have no benefit. I realize I'm in the minority in this view, and there may be exceptions that might convince me. --Leifern 15:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Add me to your minority. Dbratton 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I listed it for deletion. There's been no convincing argument presented as to its utility, and it's clear that the accuracy problems are not going to be resolved. Dbratton 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreliable/irrelevant sources

I've removed a number of names which used unreliable sources (e.g. blogs), or didn't actually say the person was a Jew. Being married by a Rabbi, for example, is no guarantee that one is a Jew, since many Rabbis perform intermarriages. Similarly, coming from a Zionist family does not mean one is a Jew. Please ensure that all entries comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

While this may or may not be so, you are then taking the opportunity to delete a few entries and using it to delete entries which should be staying. And you are often simply incorrect, for instance, Ted Koppel is a columnist for The New York Times, whether you like to admit that or not is irrelevant. Until you calm down, I will continue reverting your changes as vandalism. Nokilli 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The claims that they are Jews are not verifiable, as the sources used are not reliable. The entries "should" only stay if the conform with policy. As for Koppel, he is best known as an ABC news anchor, not a NTY columnist. Please do not restore items that violate policy, and please do not edit-war - see [WP:3RR]]. Jayjg (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are now deleting entries beyond what you are describing in the edit comments. You are engaging in vandalism. I do not understand why you are doing this, since it will only bring attention to this matter. I assure you. Nokilli 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have now inserted comments directly in the text, explaining exactly what the issue with each item is. I welcome further attention to this matter. Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Leifern, you coulda said "Hi!" or something on the talk page before doing a baseless revert. Oh wait, is that _really_ Leifern? Ha! Nokilli 03:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The issues with each source have been clearly stated; can you respond to those specific issues, or find better sources? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on why this article bugs me

I've been brooding over this a while, and I think I've come to a realization that may be helpful. Let's compare this with, say, lists of Norwegian-Americans. There is such a list in Wikipedia, but it's a) very short, and b) not the least bit contentious. There is no need to scrupulously document that Peter Graves is Norwegian-American, because that aspect is of only passing interest. No doubt, hundreds if not thousands of notable people of Norwegian-American ancestry never get categorized that way on Wikipedia. It simply doesn't matter much. But for reasons that may be interesting in themselves, there is an obsession about lists such as these. Katie Couric, who is Jewish only in the most technical sense, is listed, as if it matters at all to her notability. But really, it shouldn't. Why should it? --Leifern 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Norwegian list is almost the last ethnicity-American list to go unsourced. I don't know why I haven't done it yet, though the other Scandinavian-American ones are done. All ethnicity-American lists shoulf be sourced. And no, there are't "thousands" of people missing from the Norwegian list. There are a few that I have not yet stumbled on, most likely, and then there are a few listed who only have scant Norwegian ancestry, and will most likely be removed when I get to sourcing that list. Katie Couric, by the way, is a lot more Jewish than a large number of people on the Norwegian list are "Norwegian-American". And at least she's been described as Jewish by a good source. Mad Jack 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and as for the dispute that seems to be going on around here - it's very simple. If a reliable source described someone as a "Journalist", they should be listed. If a reliable source hasn't, they can't be or else it's Original Research. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I kinda doubt all the media moguls certain users are trying to add have been described as journalists, but I suppose I am ready to be surprised. Mad Jack 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect, there is a correct and workable definition of what a Journalist is on Wikipedia, it requires only that the person be identified as working in a news organization in the chain of editorial control, which can be anything from executive/publisher to guy who writes stuff down. Nokilli 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means - "more Jewish" than someone is "Norwegian-American?" Karl Rove is Norwegian-American because his adoptive father was Norwegian-American. Does that make him more or less Norwegian-American than someone whose biological father was Norwegian-American? --Leifern 20:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It means there are people listed on the Norwegian page who have something like a Norwegian great-grandmother and have never been referred to as Norwegian-American by a reliable source. Yet, no one ever raised the issue of what's up with that. But regardless, I've put the Norwegian list on my "to do" list and I'll be getting rid of all such people before the day is out. Mad Jack 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Working for a news organization versus being a journalist

Someone here seems to be under the impression that everyone who works for a news organization is necessarily a journalist, but of course that isn't true. News organizations employ lawyers, advertising people, IT people, human-resources people, accountants, and, of course, journalists. Sometimes it's someone from the journalism side that is chosen to head the organization, and sometimes it's a lawyer or an advertising executive. Just because someone becomes the president doesn't mean s/he's a journalist. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course that isn't true, only people who are in a position to control the content of the news are journalists, which, necessarily, includes the publishers and executives who both make the decisions as to who is hired as well as whether to publish major or controversial stories. The fact that all of this activity comes after this page is linked to from the Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page, specifically that section that concerns itself with Jewish bias, is revealing of the motives of the editors who choose to censor this information. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these are then the same people who go on to accuse anyone who dares talk of Jewish prominence in the media of anti-Semitism. I will revert as necessary, and do everything I can to make this page, and this controversy, as visible as possible. This issue is simply too important to ignore, especially today. Nokilli 03:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a list of journalists, not an appendix to an argument that Jews control the media. General Electric owns NBC which operates NBC News - does that make the head of General Electric, Jack Welch, a journalist? Of course not, similarly, the president of a network that has a news division is not, by extension a journalist in the same way that he's not a comedian, talk show host, soap opera diva or cartoonist (if his network has Saturday morning cartoons.)

I suspect that most of the presidents or managing directors of news divisions eg NBC News are career journalists who have risen through the ranks and should be considered journalists in the same way that a newspaper editor is considered a journalist (though perhaps we should require proof from the individuals biography rather than making an assumption). However, the president of the network (or the CEO of the company that owns the network) cannot be considered a journalist unless he or she has had an earlier career as a reporter or news director. Similarly, publishers and/or proprietors of newspapers, generally, should not be considered journalists unless they have spent a significant part of their earlier career as reporters, editors or columnists and rose through the ranks. Homey 04:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jack Welch influenced the content of NBC News, ergo, according to the definition of journalist, i.e., a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information, Jack Welch is a journalist. Jack Welch practiced the dissemination of information. Lee Iococca was widely considered to be a car maker. Did Lee Iococca ever make a car in his life? Doesn't matter. He was an executive of a company that built cars.
And this may not be an appendix to the argument that Jews control the media, but it is also not the place to dispute that argument either. Why not allow us to list the names of Jewish American journalists, and let the reader decide for themselves? You know, let the truth decide. I appreciate the efforts at keeping the list accurate; it only makes it that much more credible of a list, and that's what I want to see. If at the end of the day the names aren't there, then there's nothing to be worried about, yes? Nokilli 08:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if its possible but I'd be more comfortable with a broader article called List of American journalists by religion or List of American journalists by ethnicity that doesn't take one group in isolation. Is there even a List of Irish-American journalists or List of Roman Catholic American journalists?Homey 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the tag at the top of the article, perhaps we should change it to:

This page is a list of Jews.
For more on who is considered Jewish, see Who is a Jew?.

Homey 05:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that was similar to my initial thought about this whole page, completely apart from the question of "who is a journalist." A few days I called the whole idea of this page, and particularly the box that says This is a List of Jews, "creepy." That image more than covers "creepy," but its the same idea. 6SJ7 20:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"i.e., a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information, Jack Welch is a journalist."

Read that definition again. Welch neither gathers nor disseminates information. Neither do the CEOs of companies that own news departments, nor those that own other companies that have news departments. Iacocca was an automotive engineer, sales person and then an auto designer before becoming an exec. Even as an exec he was intimately involved in the details around automaking. Homey 19:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course he does. Did you read the link above? He exercised editorial control over the journalistic content of NBC News, ergo, according to the definition of Journalist he is a journalist. Note that editors are Journalists too. An executive in this context is no different than a publisher in a newspaper context. Recall Katherine Grahams role in the Post's pursuing Watergate. That was an editorial decision. She was practicing journalism. She was making decisions as to what we read in the news. It really is a fantastic argument that you all are making here.
Would you really rather see a list of Jewish media executives? Is that what we want to do? Seriously? Nokilli 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For which stories has Welch gathered information? Which stories has he reported?Homey 00:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Link this now read you thank please Nokilli 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've already read it - yes, there is corporate interference, that doesn't make Welch a journalist. Media lawyers will often tell a news organization not to run a story or to change this or that or add this. Does that mean a media lawyer is also a journalist?Homey 01:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, actually yes, it does. That isn't the definition of journalism as we'd like it to be, but it is the definition that most accurately describes the state of the profession as it is today. Nokilli 02:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a definition of journalist that no one actually uses and reflects your particular POV. Homey 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, if is the definiton of Journalist as seen in Wikipedia. If you will bother to visit that page, you will see that there are many disciplines that fall under the umbrella of Journalism. I would also refer you to the bio page of Jonathan Klein. CNN describes its President as a journalist. If it's good enough for CNN, why isn't it good enough for you? Nokilli 02:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of Jack Welch or of the President of Disney in that article. I did say an argument can be made for the heads of news divisions being journalists and I would apply that to the heads of news channels such as CNN but not to CEOs of media conglomarates etc. Homey 02:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If NBC News was putting the check to government power and was set to air a story that would threaten the status quo you can bet they'd kick the decision whether to broadcast it or not all the way up to Jack Welch. He's playing the role of editor. Every CEO who sits atop a news organization has the last word on these matters. I don't like it any more than you do, but he's in the process. He fits the definition of the term journalist. It sucks, but there it is. Nokilli 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, he fits the definition of CEO. Anyway, this is circular and is becoming original research. Can you find a source that actually refers to Jack Welch, or any of the CEOs you're referred to, as journalists? Your source details Welch's interference but it does not call him a journalist. Do you have a source that explicitly refers to Katherine Graham as a journalist? Homey 03:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

ie I'd like you to come up with a sources that, for instance, says something like "Les Moonves, in his career as a journalist..." ie direct applications of the term "journalist" (or "reporter") to any or all of these individuals. If you can't do that claiming they are journalists is OR. Homey 03:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to add names to this list, they must have sources that the person is A. Jewish B. American and C. a journalist. Per page title. It's not required that they source every name to show they are American or a journalist, because most obviously are, but when it comes to these contested would-be "journalists", I will help "Homey" and remove any name that isn't sourced to something that explicitly says they are a journalist, not anything that in anyone here's opinion makes them a journalist. As for other groups, journalists are listed under every ethnicity-American list out there. Some are listed in "Media" and some are listed in the alpha-betical list with everyone else, when the lists are shorter. I supposed this was lengthened into its own lists because the Jewish American list was too big. Mad Jack 05:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I did reply to Jack above before rv immediately preceding but I guess it didn't take? Anyways, I'll just repeat myself...
WP:JACK is a red link. Notice that? As you say, it isn't required that every name be sourced if they are a journalist, because most obviously are. WP:V and WP:NOR have nothing to do with this. You can disagree that CEO's are journalists I suppose, but you do not get to create your own rules, nor abuse the meaning of existing rules. Now, if you will notice, a RfC was filed on just this very issue weeks ago. Why not let that process unfold? And why are you adamant about this specific list, when by your own admission there are so many other lists out there who go much further in violating your sensibilities in this regard? I'm happy to send these guys to Jewish Media Executives. But why not wait and see what the community has to say on the matter first? That's the Wikipedia way, is it not? Nokilli 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What is WP:Jack? Anyway, if you want to call someone a journalist, you must find a source that calls them a "Journalist" first. That's what Wikipedia does - report exactly what sources have said about every single person. Not anything that in your or mine or whoever's opinion makes that person a journalist. Only if a good source has called the person that. Mad Jack 08:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
So according to WP:JACK, if I find a source that only calls the guy a reporter, I can't list him as a journalist? That makes no sense. And that's why WP:JACK is a red link. Nokilli 08:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
And hey, what's the problem with leaving this to the RfC people? Nokilli 08:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the posts above, it seems every other editor on this page agrees with the fact that you can't put someone on a list of journalists who hasn't actually been called one. I am not making any judgments and express no opinions on whether the people they queried are journalists or not. But what I am saying is, if editors have challenged material on the basis, in this case, that several people listed are not journalists, then you must find sources that actually describe them as journalists, per WP:V. Mad Jack 08:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But none of that matters if we're going to RfC, right? And way to duck my other question... source says he's a reporter, so I can't list as a journalist? Of course that makes no sense, but that's WP:JACK. Nokilli 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense. Homey 14:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it doesn't make sense, your inability to present an argument underscores that. Obviously none of you are interested in letting the process work. This has been filed as a RfC, I am willing to let that process work. I will revert accordingly. Nokilli 19:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite simple - if your assertion that a particular CEO is a journalist is valid then you should be able to find a source that describes that specific individual as a journalist. If you cant then the claim is OR and the person doesn't belong on the list. Homey 21:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What's simple is that a CEO of a news organization is a journalist. I type define:journalist into Google and I get the following definition: "Journalist: Someone who works in the news gathering business, such as a photographer, editor or reporter." You're saying a CEO doesn't work in the news gathering business? That's absurd. Why have you created this burden? Censorship. It is simple. Nokilli 08:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and speaking of censorship, I alone appear to operate under WP:2RR as opposed to WP:3RR. Nokilli 08:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, other than the huge error of hanging your argument on the literal interpretation of a single dictionary definition, there's the fact that the single dictionary definition you're using doesn't even support your interpretation. To answer your no-doubt-intended-to-be-rhetorical question, no, a CEO doesn't work in the news gathering business, a CEO works in the managing-a-business business. A CEO is no more in the the news-gathering business than anybody in the HR department or the accounting department is: their duties do not involve the actual production, creation, or gathering of the news. Hence, no matter how you bend and twist, they ain't journalists. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the definition supported it 100%, you still couldn't use it. We can't connect A. the definition of a journalist with B. a person who fits that definition to make C. that person a journalist. That's what original research is. They gotta be called a journalist somewhere. Mad Jack 08:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to disagree. Once more, the definition laid out on Wikipedia supports the individual in question being a journalist. Michael 09:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but, it's already been explained to you that Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits us matching A. a definition of a term with B. a name that fits that definition, but has not been described as that term to create C. a person described as that term. Mad Jack 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the exception is Mortimer Zuckerman, not because he's a media proprietor and CEO but because he is also editor in chief of US News and World Report and one of the magazine's columnists. Homey 17:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions do exist to rules. There is no matching here. Mad Jack, that is the same as saying that if a source cites a person as an optomestrist that we cannot call them a doctor. It's a type of doctor, just as journalist fits the occupation held by Zuckerman. Michael 06:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
OK then. Go ahead and change the NOR policy. Or ignore it, and assume that it only applies to uses of the term "Plaigarism" and not anything else. :) No deductions based on mix-matching terms, and especially not when there is dispute on the meaning of the term and its use in specific cases - never, ever, then. Mad Jack 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
WP:OR has nothing to do with this. Michael states it correctly; it is a type of journalist, it goes without saying that a CEO who makes the final decision as to what gets aired/printed and moreover who otherwise gets to make those decisions is a journalist. Again, why can't we just wait for the RfC process to decide once and for all? Nokilli 22:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. You must cite a source that names the individual as a journalist. Homey 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It goes without saying that a CEO who makes the final decision as to what gets aired/printed and moreover who otherwise gets to make those decisions is a journalist. To steal from Wolfgang Pauli, that's not right, that's not even wrong. No, it does NOT go without saying -- unless (to start) you're claiming that the CEOs like Jack Welch are sitting in their offices at deadline time, green eyeshades on their heads and red pencils in hand, picking and choosing that day's front page -- and even if that fanciful notion were true, selection of that sort is the job of an editor or publisher, not a journalist. By your absurd logic, the CEO of GM is also an automotive design engineer, a marketing manager, a salesman, and head of security at Chevy Gear and Axle Plant #2. Sumner Redstone is, according to your reasoning, also a music-video producer, TV producer, filmmaker, chat-show host, and cable-TV installer. To be a journalist, you see, you actually have to practice journalism. Managing a media company is NOT practicing journalism, it's managing a company, a distinctly different and separate job. Capiche?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)
Sumner Redstone? Nokilli prefers to refer to him as "Murray Rothstein", though no-one else does. I wonder why? Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
"selection of that sort is the job of an editor or publisher, not a journalist" LOL! And yet, according to Journalist, these people are Journalists! Not that RfC is going to fix this, but when does this process begin? Nokilli 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Two things: 1) Bullshit. Have you read a single word anyone has written here? 2) You're using a Wikipedia article as proof of another Wikipedia article? Does the term "self-reference" ring a bell? --Calton | Talk 07:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's the definition the Wikipedia community has chosen for journalist. I'm sorry that upsets you, but I don't see why that should be any of our concern. Keep your tantrums to yourself, WP:CIVIL, etc. Nokilli 07:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I note that you fail to rebut either Calton's or Mad Jack's points. It would be original research for us, as Wikipedians, to choose a definition and apply it. In fact, off the top of my head, I can't think of a more textbook example of original research. Furthermore, Calton is quite right that other Wikipedia article have zero reliability or usefulness as cites, except occasionally in discussions of style. You don't appear to have a leg to stand on. Kasreyn 15:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not the one responsible for the Murray Rothstein appelation, that predates my involvement here, coming from when the list was called "jews in the media" or some such. So this is like the fourth time you've lied about my participation here. Nokilli 07:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you are responsible for the "Murray Rothstein appelation", which you added in your previous incarnation as User:Kirkswig. How many lies is that for you now? Jayjg (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, that's five lies for you now, I added the entry when reconstructing the original list. As I said. Nokilli 07:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Which "original list", the list that was deleted by AfD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in the media? The deleted article you recreated simply described him as Sumner Redstone. Anything else? Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a cute act you have going here. If you will recall, the list that was deleted by AfD was in fact deleted as a result of my re-entering names which had been "inexpicably" deleted many, many months ago. I restored the names from that original version of the list, the one that existed prior to the great realignment of "lists of Jews" and the "inexplicable" deletion of the names in question. Nokilli 20:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You're still not making sense; he was simply called "Sumner Redstone" on the original version of that list, here, and even in the original List of Jews, here. Where did that "aka Murray Rothstein" stuff come from? Jayjg (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)