Talk:Peter Sarnak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

--Newport 20:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Peter Sarnak is described as Jewish in a well-respected source, jinfo.org [1]. An anon editor alleges that this source is invalid because it gives no further source. This is absurd; if every source has to give another source, we get an infinite regression. Under WP:V, this source is valid unless and until alternative sources can be found to disprove it.--Brownlee 16:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well-respected? Where? 72.144.60.231 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

j-info falls under the category of dubious sources as given in WP:V. j-info gives no names as to who is behind the project or what qualifications they have to decide the listings which they do. It could easily be the personal website of one person of whom nothing is known. If j-info gives sources to support one of its claims or if the claim is verifiable elsewhere, then that is acceptable. If j-info is the only place which claims a certain member, then that is not. 128.148.123.6 10:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

J-info is run by an individual and is self-published. 72.144.60.231 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No, jinfo is generally accepted as a valid source on Wikipedia. To claim that it is not reliable violates WP:NOR. Please supply evidence that Sarnak is not Jewish.--Newport 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not list people because "no sources exist saying they're not this. You can't use the "why not" argument to the "why" questions. If another source thats not self-published states explicitly that Peter Sarnak is Jewish, then he can easily be given his corresponding categories. As stated before, anybody can make a website and list people without references. 72.144.60.231 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether it is "generally accepted" or not does not change the fact that it violates the guidelines for sourcing for precisely the reasons stated above. Popularity does not mean validity. 128.148.123.4 08:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source that it violates the guidelines. That is not my opinion, nor the opinion of other editors.--Newport 19:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Quoting WP:V: Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party news organizations or publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on a professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
Again, jinfo has given no evidence of being run by a professional researcher nor a journalist. Indeed, jinfo has no contact information whatsoever except for email. It is impossible to gauge its credentials for this reason. 128.148.123.43 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Without more information about jinfo it is impossible to ascertain whether it is a reliable source and evidence from it alone does not satisfy the requirements of WP:V. 24.196.91.209 05:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I know from a personal conversation that Peter Sarnak is Jewish. The jinfo doesn't seem reliable in general and it their duty to clarify on who they are. Until they do, we should just ignore their work. On the other hand, I doubt this is published anywhere else, so following Wikipedia guidelines it looks like we should NOT include the categories. I am confused. Mhym 10:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You probably know something that we don't. It wouldn't surprise me if Sarnak is indeed Jewish. Unfortunately, a fact has to be supported by a reliable source (beyond a conversation) before it can be put up on the article. 128.148.123.7 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mhym is indeed confused; he aserts that Jinfo is correct to say that Peter Sarnak is Jewish, then that it is unreliable. The point is that many Wikipedia editors have assesed Jinfo against the Wikipedia guidelines, and agreed that it meets them so is a valid source. One editor can't overturn this consensus.--Brownlee 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of the "many Wikipedia editors" claimed, not one has come forward to explain the questions about the reliability of Jinfo which I have put forward. There is no consensus, which means that the burden of proof is on the side which makes the claim. 128.148.123.7 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jinfo has ben examined by many editors, including some initially hostile to it. Nobody else has rejected it; what does Anon know that we don't? The evidence we have, from Jinfo and from Mhym (which, WP:AGF, should not be ignored even if it fails WP:V), is thet he is Jewish. Is there a shred of evidence against?--Newport 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, you claim this, but give no evidence. In any case, popularity does not grant validity. Either give evidence demonstrating that Jinfo is reliable or don't use it. Also, WP:AGF refers to treating other editors with respect in the editing process instead of reverting wholesale without explanation or ignoring questions from other editors about reliable sources. It does NOT mean that what any editor claims as a fact (even sincerely) can be placed into the article without further reference. 128.148.123.1 17:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Mhym's information would undoubtedly be seen as original research too. Furthermore, the Jinfo question is easy to solve. Self-published websites are not seen as favorable by WP:RS and furthermore the complete absence of many needed "references" for Jinfo claims can be seen as a little odd, considering Jinfo does reference some of its listings. Jew Watch is a self-published site too and they say everyone is Jewish (convenient). Why can't we use that? I think you see the point. Besides if someone IS Jewish then you should easily find another reference for that online - and if not and true it probably isn't relevant AT ALL anyway.72.144.136.179 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that jinfo.org doesn't have a page yet. If it is such a fine scholarly resource as you claim, surely it warrants an article? I think you would have a very hard time writing a good article about jinfo.org itself that satisfied WP:V. 165.189.91.148 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Statistics.gov.uk, the official web page of the British National Statistician, has no page either. So what? Wikipedia is not meant to be a catalogue of web sites. Oh - of course, it's self-published by the British National Statistician. And not everything is online. Leon Mestel is the son of a rabbi and a member of the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, so surely his Judaism matters to him. Is that online?--Newport 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

See Office for National Statistics, troll. It should be possible to write an encyclopedia article about any source that meets the requirements of WP:V and WP:RS. Do you deny this? What evidence do you have that jinfo.org is a reliable source? Put up or shut up. 66.188.100.79 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't accuse editors in good standing of being trolls - it violates WP:NPA. Quoting a web sit as an external link in an article isn't the same as an article about a web site; Jinfo is used as an external link in many articles. The onus is on whoever doubts that Jinfo is reliable, considering that several editors, including Arniep, Brownlee, Jack O'Lantern, Jmabel, Newport and Vulturell, have assessed it against the criteria and found it to pass. What do these anons know that they don't? As an anon myself, I'd like to know!--20.138.246.89 17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The main issue is whether jinfo.org is ethical. Most print sources will not claim "X is Jewish" unless X publicly identifies as of the Jewish religion or as of the Jewish people/nation (choose your favorite construct). Jinfo.org, on the other hand, lists people indiscriminately, based on its maintainer's prying into the bloodlines of the dead and the living.

Of course, jinfo.org also tries to err "on the side of Jewishness" (though is it truly beneficial to anyone?) by using unnamed oral sources, presuming a parent is Jewish when in doubt, labelling as Jews people such as (say) the eminent Dr. X, whose parents happened to be Christian and whose father's parents happened to be nominally Jewish, etc. Accuracy is a quibble, however, compared to whether this sort of list-making is ethically and intellectually acceptable to begin with. Bellbird 17:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny, he doesn't look Jewish.Lestrade (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade


[edit] citing sources

Would the people who created/edited this article please add source citations for the biographical info mentioned in the article, as per WP:CITE and WP:BLP? Thanks, Nsk92 18:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)