I think it's righteous, for several reasons: bragging rights about Jews' valuable contributions, clear evidence that Jews don't run everything, or even much, and links to interesting accomplished people. There are all kinds of ways to go wrong with this list, but I'm sure the article does not suffer from want of watchers.
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:19 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] Thoughts on naming people - article content, this time.
So, reading wikien-l in one window, and browsing random-article with the other, I came across:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jews_in_politics
"This List of Jews contains individuals who, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, have been identified as Jews by reliable sources."
Given the context of the ongoing discussion about wilfuly outing people... is it just me who finds that wording, hmm, a touch odd? Discuss.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 31/05/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I think it's righteous, for several reasons: bragging rights about Jews' valuable contributions, clear evidence that Jews don't run everything, or even much, and links to interesting accomplished people. There are all kinds of ways to go wrong with this list, but I'm sure the article does not suffer from want of watchers.
I fear my point got a little lost.
The list is just as legitimate as any other list of two intersecting groups is (we no doubt have "List of French mathematicians" around somewhere, same idea). It's just the *descriptive note* at the top that makes it seem... not quite right.
No?
Andrew Gray schreef:
The list is just as legitimate as any other list of two intersecting groups is (we no doubt have "List of French mathematicians" around somewhere, same idea). It's just the *descriptive note* at the top that makes it seem... not quite right.
Avoid self references?, you mean? That's what I thought when I read your mail.
Let's guess the abbreviation: [[WP:ASR]]? Yep :-)
Eugene
On 6/1/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
The list is just as legitimate as any other list of two intersecting groups is (we no doubt have "List of French mathematicians" around somewhere, same idea). It's just the *descriptive note* at the top that makes it seem... not quite right.
No?
It's a consequence of the endless debates about these various lists of Jews that have been raging since the dawn of wikitime. It's to counter the criticism that "how can you incontrovertibly declare that so-and-so is Jewish?"
On 6/1/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It's a consequence of the endless debates about these various lists of Jews that have been raging since the dawn of wikitime. It's to counter the criticism that "how can you incontrovertibly declare that so-and-so is Jewish?"
Yeah it's a strange sort of category. I don't know whether it's Jews in particular doing it, but there have been some pretty concerted efforts to go around labelling as many scientists as possible "Jewish scientists" etc. I assume the intent is to promote or recognise the religion in some way, rather than to "out" the people in question, as the first post suggested.
To me, reading that scientist X was of religion Y seems like a useful thing. But I think about all the possible uses for a "list of Y scientists", or category intersections of Y with Z, and, well, most of the uses seem unpleasant, bordering on scary.
Maybe someone can prove me wrong?
Steve
On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
It's a consequence of the endless debates about these various lists of Jews that have been raging since the dawn of wikitime. It's to counter the criticism that "how can you incontrovertibly declare that so-and-so is Jewish?"
Yeah it's a strange sort of category. I don't know whether it's Jews in particular doing it, but there have been some pretty concerted efforts to go around labelling as many scientists as possible "Jewish scientists" etc. I assume the intent is to promote or recognise the religion in some way, rather than to "out" the people in question, as the first post suggested.
I don't feel the intent is to out people - after all, the proect has a page thanking people for being so proud of their gay friends, I think we can assume well-meaning editors for actual content :-)
It's just that when read in conjunction with something about outing, it does seem a little... uh. Slightly not quite right, you know?
Imagine, hum, "The following list of people are cigar smokers. The list contains individuals who, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies, have been identified as cigar smokers by reliable sources."
Something about that sort of notice just oozes suspiciousness.
[I do *also* have issues with labelling people as Jewish or as "of Dutch origin" or whatever based on inferences from known relatives or the like, when they don't self-define as part of that grouping, but that's another matter, one to do with article content, and partly stems from an American/not-American cultural divide.]
On 01/06/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I don't feel the intent is to out people - after all, the proect has a page thanking people for being so proud of their gay friends, I think we can assume well-meaning editors for actual content :-)
(...)
Something about that sort of notice just oozes suspiciousness.
To clarify: the problem here isn't that we're deranged stalkers (though we do no doubt have some on board), it's that we now sound and feel like it.
On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah it's a strange sort of category. I don't know whether it's Jews in particular doing it, but there have been some pretty concerted efforts to go around labelling as many scientists as possible "Jewish scientists" etc. I assume the intent is to promote or recognise the religion in some way, rather than to "out" the people in question, as the first post suggested.
It appears to be ethnic promotion. Look at the wranging over which nationality makes it into an infobox.
Neutral point of view? What's that?
Why aren't these categories being removed as blatant NPOV violation and incitement to more? Is NPOV up for a vote at CFD or something?
- d.
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah it's a strange sort of category. I don't know whether it's Jews in particular doing it, but there have been some pretty concerted efforts to go around labelling as many scientists as possible "Jewish scientists" etc. I assume the intent is to promote or recognise the religion in some way, rather than to "out" the people in question, as the first post suggested.
It appears to be ethnic promotion. Look at the wranging over which nationality makes it into an infobox.
The two main reasons that people add to these lists are 1. Ethnicity boosting, and 2. Outing.
Thus, ironically, the interests of Judeophiles and antisemites coincide here, which is what makes these lists so hard to get rid of or even conform to policy. Of course, their interests don't always coincide; the former tend to be interested in populating lists of Jews scientists and Nobel prize winners, the latter lists of Jewish criminals. You'll also see this dynamic in articles, with Judeophiles tending to describe people they are proud of as "Jewish" in the lead, whereas antisemites like to describe criminals, or controversial political figures, or Russian oligarchs, as "Jewish" in the lead.
Why aren't these categories being removed as blatant NPOV violation and incitement to more? Is NPOV up for a vote at CFD or something?
Because it turns out to be very hard to get these things deleted, in practice. See, for example, this CfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Ap...
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/06/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah it's a strange sort of category. I don't know whether it's Jews in particular doing it, but there have been some pretty concerted efforts to go around labelling as many scientists as possible "Jewish scientists" etc. I assume the intent is to promote or recognise the religion in some way, rather than to "out" the people in question, as the first post suggested.
It appears to be ethnic promotion. Look at the wranging over which nationality makes it into an infobox.
The two main reasons that people add to these lists are
- Ethnicity boosting, and
- Outing.
Thus, ironically, the interests of Judeophiles and antisemites coincide here, which is what makes these lists so hard to get rid of or even conform to policy. Of course, their interests don't always coincide; the former tend to be interested in populating lists of Jews scientists and Nobel prize winners, the latter lists of Jewish criminals. You'll also see this dynamic in articles, with Judeophiles tending to describe people they are proud of as "Jewish" in the lead, whereas antisemites like to describe criminals, or controversial political figures, or Russian oligarchs, as "Jewish" in the lead.
Why aren't these categories being removed as blatant NPOV violation and incitement to more? Is NPOV up for a vote at CFD or something?
Because it turns out to be very hard to get these things deleted, in practice. See, for example, this CfD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Ap...
By the way, on the latter you will note that four of the Poetlister sockpuppets voted "keep".
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, on the latter you will note that four of the Poetlister sockpuppets voted "keep".
Curious that you should refer to her so, seeing as how the claim is that she doesn't exist.
On 6/1/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, on the latter you will note that four of the Poetlister sockpuppets voted "keep".
Curious that you should refer to her so, seeing as how the claim is that she doesn't exist.
Um, *somebody* was running that sockpuppet army. What name would you prefer to use for that person?
On 01/06/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, on the latter you will note that four of the Poetlister sockpuppets voted "keep".
Curious that you should refer to her so, seeing as how the claim is that she doesn't exist.
Don't be querulous.
- d.
And Madeleine Albright is categorized both as an "American Episcopalian" and a "Czech Jew", the latter claim being tenuous at best, seeing as how she actually started out Roman Catholic.
It's very hard to get rid of these. RfC has been hit with a lot of religious subcategorizations like this, and mostly they've been gotten rid of, except for the Jewish ones which are "ethnic" and thus OK, apparently. We're now having a run of LGBT subcats of the same ilk, and it seems that they may or may not be deleted. At least one doesn't have to look for records about Liberace's parents to categorize him accurately in that regard. Meanwhile Albright is in 20 subject categories, of which seven are these sort of ethnic/religious pride cats. She's also in four college cats.
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't these categories being removed as blatant NPOV violation and incitement to more? Is NPOV up for a vote at CFD or something?
Because it turns out to be very hard to get these things deleted, in practice.
For the list articles themselves, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish-American_politicians
I went one at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Gruening ...and not one mention of "Jew", "Jewish", or "Judaism" beside the infobox. The two online sources:
http://famousamericans.net/ernestgruening.com/ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000508
Also have nothing indicating his religiion. Why aren't these articles just hammered for BLP concerns? Let alone the general lack of sourcing? Less than half the names have any sources at all. I've seen people scrub lists that were infinitely more trivial for lack of sourcing than BLP-related lists like this...
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Why aren't these categories being removed as blatant NPOV violation and incitement to more? Is NPOV up for a vote at CFD or something?
Because it turns out to be very hard to get these things deleted, in practice.
For the list articles themselves, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish-American_politicians
I went one at random: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Gruening ...and not one mention of "Jew", "Jewish", or "Judaism" beside the infobox. The two online sources:
http://famousamericans.net/ernestgruening.com/ http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000508
Also have nothing indicating his religiion. Why aren't these articles just hammered for BLP concerns? Let alone the general lack of sourcing? Less than half the names have any sources at all. I've seen people scrub lists that were infinitely more trivial for lack of sourcing than BLP-related lists like this...
It's not so easy. In late January someone brought to my attention the [[List of Jewish American businesspeople]], pointing out that an IP editor had, for over a month, been adding dozens of names to the list without any sourcing. When he had removed a bunch of unsourced names, the IP editor simply reverted him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_American_businesspe...
I then went to the page, and removed the items several times, but the IP editor reverted me several times as well, insisting it was up to *me* to "prove they are not Jews":
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_American_businesspe...
and then went on to add even *more* unsourced names:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_American_businesspe...
At that point I warned him that if he did this again, I was going to take the article down to a stub, listing only the names that had proper sourcing Of course, he did it again, so I stubbed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_American_businesspe...
Of course, he reverted me, with the edit summary "What is this, a dictatorship? Fascistpedia? You should get some arbitration on this -- restoring page."
After the page was semiprotected, the IP editor eventually joined as [[User:Wassermann]], and has been adding literally thousands of "Jew categories" to articles, and ranting and raving ever since about "censorship"; take a look at his User: page to get more information.
Since then I've been working quite hard at insisting that all items on the list be properly sourced, in lieu of deleting it altogether, which would be the preferred course. Currently there are five names on it. Of course, that doesn't stop people from trying to restore the previous unsourced list, and add even more names, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_American_businesspe...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jewish_American_businesspe...
The latter person, Scifiintel got quite incensed when I stubbed the list again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jayjg&diff=prev&...
As to motivation? Well, I'll just note that Scifiintel has most recently been trying to add paragraphs about Jews having too much influence in America to the "Jewish lobby" article, based on the work of a Holocaust denial outfit, the Institute for Historical Review - and, of course, he insists that the IHR doesn't deny the Holocaust, it just question certain aspects of it, like whether millions of Jews were killed etc.
So, that's what I'm up against for *one* single article. Now imagine trying to do this on hundreds of them.
On 01/06/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
As to motivation? Well, I'll just note that Scifiintel has most recently been trying to add paragraphs about Jews having too much influence in America to the "Jewish lobby" article, based on the work of a Holocaust denial outfit, the Institute for Historical Review - and, of course, he insists that the IHR doesn't deny the Holocaust, it just question certain aspects of it, like whether millions of Jews were killed etc. So, that's what I'm up against for *one* single article. Now imagine trying to do this on hundreds of them.
Let's set Doc on 'em!
- d.
On 6/1/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Let's set Doc on 'em!
Indeed. We can joke, but I think these lists of people categorized for some attribute, which are useless except for serving the pov-pushing impulses of various parties, will drag on and on until one day we all just wake up because someone, perhaps not Doc but someone determined enough to cut throught he crap, will say "this whole class of article is so manifestly useless that it should be speediable on sight, or something else that will somehow gather enough consensus to enable us to get rid of them all.
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
It's not so easy.[....]
So, that's what I'm up against for *one* single article. Now imagine trying to do this on hundreds of them.
These lists, whatever they are about, are a sourcing nightmare. About a month ago we had a go-'round about a bunch of "List of [type of work] that break the fourth wall" articles -- that is, plays/films/etc. where one of the characters addresses the audience directly. These lists are *huge*-- because in our irony-addicted age, it's something that is done as a matter of course. Not surprisingly, the attempt to delete them failed, partly because of people trying to protect their work, partly because of the "seems useful" vote (which I'm beginning to think we should deprecate in a big way), and partly because the lists were serving as a cruft attractor to keep the stuff out of the main article. But of course, not a single entry of the hundreds was cited. And it's a problem because a real theater professional might have considered a lot of them as not true cases.
I'm guessing that as a rule these membership categorizations are frequently unsourced.
On 6/1/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
It's not so easy.[....]
So, that's what I'm up against for *one* single article. Now imagine trying to do this on hundreds of them.
These lists, whatever they are about, are a sourcing nightmare. About a month ago we had a go-'round about a bunch of "List of [type of work] that break the fourth wall" articles -- that is, plays/films/etc. where one of the characters addresses the audience directly. These lists are *huge*-- because in our irony-addicted age, it's something that is done as a matter of course. Not surprisingly, the attempt to delete them failed, partly because of people trying to protect their work, partly because of the "seems useful" vote (which I'm beginning to think we should deprecate in a big way), and partly because the lists were serving as a cruft attractor to keep the stuff out of the main article. But of course, not a single entry of the hundreds was cited. And it's a problem because a real theater professional might have considered a lot of them as not true cases.
I'm guessing that as a rule these membership categorizations are frequently unsourced.
And when they are sourced, the sourcing can be inconsistent, because there's often no agreed definition of the term. So with the Jew lists, any reliable source that has called someone a Jew means they're added to the list, even if they're clearly not Jewish according to most definitions, and don't self-identify. So all we''re doing is repeating the mistakes of sources. Of course, we do this in articles too, but in articles you can produce another source that says something else, and you can discuss the nuances. But with the lists and categories, the entry is either in or out.
On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
And when they are sourced, the sourcing can be inconsistent, because there's often no agreed definition of the term. So with the Jew lists, any reliable source that has called someone a Jew means they're added to the list, even if they're clearly not Jewish according to most definitions, and don't self-identify. So all we''re doing is repeating the mistakes of sources. Of course, we do this in articles too, but in articles you can produce another source that says something else, and you can discuss the nuances. But with the lists and categories, the entry is either in or out.
But with lists, it should be subject to the exact same thresholds of informational notability. First, if they aren't notable enough for an article, get them off the list. No red links or flat black text for BLPs on lists. Next, why on earth isn't there a rule that they can only be on the list based on the proven sourcing from the articles? That's going to be a trick, yes, because of possible errors on sourcing--but that's not our decision to make, because that would be OR. We can't decide who's a Jew or Christian or Wiccan; that's all just RS. If three or four RS say, "He's Jewish!" even if know *know* it's wrong, but no source contradicts that information, we can't justifiably keep it out. But, nothing should be in a list except based on what's sourced on the articles themselves.
Ditto for categories, and I don't see why lists aren't just enforced as slightly wordy/verbose categories.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
And when they are sourced, the sourcing can be inconsistent, because there's often no agreed definition of the term. So with the Jew lists, any reliable source that has called someone a Jew means they're added to the list, even if they're clearly not Jewish according to most definitions, and don't self-identify. So all we''re doing is repeating the mistakes of sources. Of course, we do this in articles too, but in articles you can produce another source that says something else, and you can discuss the nuances. But with the lists and categories, the entry is either in or out.
But with lists, it should be subject to the exact same thresholds of informational notability.
It *should* be, but in practise it's been a nightmare to enforce. There was a small group of accounts (some of them now proven sockpuppets) that was determined to maintain these lists (speaking now about the Jew lists), and usually not with sources. Attempts to oppose them were often met with personal attacks. In fact, that is one of the early reasons I ended up being attacked on Wikpedia Review: they decided I was removing unsourced names from lists of Jews because I was an antisemite who wanted the lists to be very accurate, so that when the names on them were attacked, no innocent non-Jews would be caught up in it. I kid you not.
There's only so much of this people can take, so they dip their toes into the dispute but withdraw when they see the silliness. Plus you have lots of anon additions, because it's an easy and fast way to make a contribution.
Every attempt that I know of to put them up for deletion has failed because people hate to see what they think is information disappearing, even if it's useless, unsourced, and they're not themselves willing to maintain it.
Try looking after any of the lists yourself for a couple of weeks. It's soul-destroying.
First, if they aren't notable enough for an article, get them off the list. No red links or flat black text for BLPs on lists. Next, why on earth isn't there a rule that they can only be on the list based on the proven sourcing from the articles? That's going to be a trick, yes, because of possible errors on sourcing--but that's not our decision to make, because that would be OR. We can't decide who's a Jew or Christian or Wiccan; that's all just RS. If three or four RS say, "He's Jewish!" even if know *know* it's wrong, but no source contradicts that information, we can't justifiably keep it out. But, nothing should be in a list except based on what's sourced on the articles themselves.
It's been tried. When we did it, we were accused of WP:POINT, because it did leave us with some absurdities i.e. having to decide whether to remove people we *knew* were Jewish and everyone knew were Jewish, but where no reliable source had ever actually said or implied it. If we did remove them = WP:POINT. If we didn't remove them = other unsourced names must be allowed in too.
On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
But with lists, it should be subject to the exact same thresholds of informational notability.
It *should* be, but in practise it's been a nightmare to enforce. There was a small group of accounts (some of them now proven sockpuppets) that was determined to maintain these lists (speaking now about the Jew lists), and usually not with sources. Attempts to oppose them were often met with personal attacks.
Honestly, that's when the semi-protection for vandalism (because that's what it is) should come on, and other non-involved admins be asked in from a public ANI post to get it looked at and NPA blocks dished out.
Every attempt that I know of to put them up for deletion has failed because people hate to see what they think is information disappearing, even if it's useless, unsourced, and they're not themselves willing to maintain it.
Unsourced + BLP, however, should be a sure-fire way to get something removed. But, deleting them outright isn't the best thing, since Lists of X aren't a bad thing. It's just unsourced BLP stuff that is. Wasn't it Doc that nuked that Internet article last year? Brought it down from about 200 items to like 10? Do the same on one of these. If anyone reintroduces unsourced BLP material, it's a free RV for whomever to take it out. Put it back in 3 times, 3RR vio. Wash, rinse repeat. Seriously. Anons war? Same thing, slap on semi-protection.
Try looking after any of the lists yourself for a couple of weeks.
Maybe some day, sure, in the future. ;)
It's been tried. When we did it, we were accused of WP:POINT, because
it did leave us with some absurdities i.e. having to decide whether to remove people we *knew* were Jewish and everyone knew were Jewish, but where no reliable source had ever actually said or implied it. If we did remove them = WP:POINT. If we didn't remove them = other unsourced names must be allowed in too.
That looks and feels like a catch-22, but it really isn't. If something doesn't qualify as BLP compliant, it needs to come out. Someone's religion may or may not be contentious, but perhaps a better way to get around this is to simply do this slight tweak addition to BLP:
* All information on BLPs must be sourced per ATT/RS/V. * Unsourced, and non-contentious information, if added, may be optionally removed by anyone, not subject to 3rr.
In other words, people can add stuff and always will, and most of it isn't controversial. But there's no reason any unsourced info on a BLP should be in. If it's a notable fact, it can be sourced. Make that BLP change, and the gun needed to end the problem exists.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com
On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Unsourced + BLP, however, should be a sure-fire way to get something removed. But, deleting them outright isn't the best thing, since Lists of X aren't a bad thing. It's just unsourced BLP stuff that is. Wasn't it Doc that nuked that Internet article last year? Brought it down from about 200 items to like 10? Do the same on one of these. If anyone reintroduces unsourced BLP material, it's a free RV for whomever to take it out. Put it back in 3 times, 3RR vio. Wash, rinse repeat. Seriously. Anons war? Same thing, slap on semi-protection.
That's the sort of thing that makes admins targets on Wikipedia Review. :-)
I don't disagree. It's just that everyone who has tried to cope with these lists has burned out because of the personal attacks and the pointlessness of the whole thing. I found myself last year googling pop singers to see whether their mothers, or only their fathers, or was it their grandfathers, were Jewish, or had Jewish names, or had ever referred to their rabbis or lighting candles. This is not a happy way to spend one's time.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia Review held a poll to decide whether I was an anti-semite, threatened to report me to the Jewish Council of Australia, and discussed whether the Mossad would kill or imprison me if they knew what I was "up to." Frankly, during my googling sessions to find out how much Jewish blood people had, I was starting to wonder what I was "up to" myself.
Try looking after any of the lists yourself for a couple of weeks.
Maybe some day, sure, in the future. ;)
Yeah, exactly. :-)
There is another possible approach -- that Jewish politicians are not simple those politicians who are in fact Jewish, but politicians who themselves consider that they are Jewish and say so themselves--politicians who think of themselves as Jewish politicians. I'd use the same approach with all similar categories. An Irish-American politician is not an American politician with Irish ancestry, but one who considers himself of Irish identity in the political context.
There are several unmentioned problems in the background: 1/ people self-identify a Jewish but are not considered to be so by some large portion of Jews, for example Messianic Jews ; some so identify but are not considered Jewish by a s,a;l portion of Jews, such as those who have been converted to Judaism by a non- Orthodox rabbi. 2/ The desire of some people, usually Jews, to claim Jewish identity for anyone famous who has Jewish background or ancestry regardless of whether of not they so identify themselves. 3/ The desire of some people, usually anti-Semites, to consider people they dislike, especially capitalists and left-wing politicians, to be Jewish and--if apparently not Jewish--to be secret Jews and hiding the fact. 4/ The fact that Jewish identity often has been and in some places still is, a serious handicap or even a personal danger.
Similar things are true of other ethnic or religious or LGBT or other group membership. A gay author is an author who wishes to be known as gay. Whether or not he is is not relevant, regardless of RSs about his sexual behavior; --what we need RSs for, is his own statements of identity.
David Goodman DGG
On 6/1/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
And when they are sourced, the sourcing can be inconsistent, because there's often no agreed definition of the term. So with the Jew lists, any reliable source that has called someone a Jew means they're added to the list, even if they're clearly not Jewish according to most definitions, and don't self-identify. So all we''re doing is repeating the mistakes of sources. Of course, we do this in articles too, but in articles you can produce another source that says something else, and you can discuss the nuances. But with the lists and categories, the entry is either in or out.
But with lists, it should be subject to the exact same thresholds of informational notability. First, if they aren't notable enough for an article, get them off the list. No red links or flat black text for BLPs on lists. Next, why on earth isn't there a rule that they can only be on the list based on the proven sourcing from the articles? That's going to be a trick, yes, because of possible errors on sourcing--but that's not our decision to make, because that would be OR. We can't decide who's a Jew or Christian or Wiccan; that's all just RS. If three or four RS say, "He's Jewish!" even if know *know* it's wrong, but no source contradicts that information, we can't justifiably keep it out. But, nothing should be in a list except based on what's sourced on the articles themselves.
Ditto for categories, and I don't see why lists aren't just enforced as slightly wordy/verbose categories.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list
One of the curious things that happens with LGBT people is that they tend towards the theory that homosexuality is notable, whereas articles about social impact tend to be pushed towards the POV that homosexuality is normal and largely accepted-- implying that homosexuality is not per se notable.
On 6/4/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
One of the curious things that happens with LGBT people is that they tend towards the theory that homosexuality is notable, whereas articles about social impact tend to be pushed towards the POV that homosexuality is normal and largely accepted-- implying that homosexuality is not per se notable.
One of the most confusing paradoxes of NPOV is the dubious concept that norms exist for all personal attributes. There are no categories or lists of "straight" people or "white" people because either of these is actually perceived as the *absence" of a defining characteristic, or in short, "the norm" (even in specialized contexts where being "straight" or "white" would seem unusual to the "average reader").
Maybe something doesn't seem quite right about this? I'm not sure what could reasonably be done, other than a general de-emphasis of people's sexuality, race, religion, etc.
Of course the average reader who sees a random name like "Pat McFoo" could automatically assume it refers to a straight white male, possibly of Irish heritage (and they might be right or wrong or have mixed results), so this might actually be a bad idea.
I guess the best rule of thumb is to assume "average readers" don't exist.
—C.W.
On Mon, June 4, 2007 9:13 am, Charlotte Webb wrote:
One of the most confusing paradoxes of NPOV is the dubious concept that norms exist for all personal attributes. There are no categories or lists of "straight" people or "white" people because either of these is actually perceived as the *absence" of a defining characteristic, or in short, "the norm" (even in specialized contexts where being "straight" or "white" would seem unusual to the "average reader").
Maybe something doesn't seem quite right about this? I'm not sure what could reasonably be done, other than a general de-emphasis of people's sexuality, race, religion, etc.
Well, except that it's society that's not NPOV in this direction. There's "LBGT studies" and "African American studies" and "gay cinema" and whatever else, which is just as much a reaction to the POV way society handled those groups previously.
To de-emphasize these things would probably be more POV than to note them properly. Do we overdo it sometimes? Probably. But is there no place for it?
-Jeff
On 6/4/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Well, except that it's society that's not NPOV in this direction. There's "LBGT studies" and "African American studies" and "gay cinema" and whatever else, which is just as much a reaction to the POV way society handled those groups previously.
Well, part of the point of those various "studies" is to "own" those topics away from the "oppressing" majority. YMMV, of course.
I think there is a simple notability standard which could be applied: has the religion/race/sexuality/whatever come up in public discourse about the person? It seems to me that a lot of people are being tagged whose ethnicity/etc. is at best a trivia point. Of course, that takes us to all the "alumni" categories. Or the "from" categories: according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Kittleman
Robert H. Kittleman was "from" Nebraska and from Howard and Carroll Counties, Maryland. (If you believe the article, he was actually born in Omaha.) I suppose if you believe any of these kinds of categories are legitimate, you can pretty well argue that all of them are legitimate.
To de-emphasize these things would probably be more POV than to note them properly. Do we overdo it sometimes? Probably. But is there no place for it?
-Jeff
-- If you can read this, I'm not at home.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/4/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
To de-emphasize these things would probably be more POV than to note them properly. Do we overdo it sometimes? Probably. But is there no place for it?
I'm not advocating any of this, just making random observations and asking rhetorical questions, to see what other people think about the ironic and unwritten general practice:
If the subject is Black, or Asian, or Pacific Islander, or American Indian, or Alaska Native, or Hispanic, we say so. We add them to categories and to lists.
If they are white, rather than saying so, we look for a photo.
If we can't find a photo, we assume that the reader assumes the subject is white, because we haven't stated otherwise, because white is the default skin tone.{{fact}}
If the person knows which boat their ancestors arrived on, we might say they identify as "Norwegian American" or as "Irish American", then the reader can conclude the subject is white, but only if they know the demographics of Norway or Ireland.
Failing that, we assume that the person's race is irrelevant, and drop the issue completely [1].
Disable images and try reading [[The Streets]] or [[Brent Barry]] [2], then think about the blind people who might be listening to a recorded or synthesized reading of the article.
Likewise if a subject identifies as "gay" or "bisexual" we say so, we back it up with reliable sources, we put them in a category, we add them to a list, we put a big LGBT project banner on the talk page.
If they identify as "straight", again, we explain it by example rather than statement. We give a thorough account of the person's various heterosexual relationships and marriages and the children which resulted, possibly invading families' privacy along the way.
Again I'm not pushing for any changes. I'm just wondering if others actually think this is the most neutral way to write, or if it is just what we have conveniently decided to settle upon.
—C.W.
[1] For the record I'm about 37.5% "white". [2] "Trivia", really?
G'day Charlotte,
<snip/>
If the subject is Black, or Asian, or Pacific Islander, or American Indian, or Alaska Native, or Hispanic, we say so. We add them to categories and to lists.
If they are white, rather than saying so, we look for a photo.
If we can't find a photo, we assume that the reader assumes the subject is white, because we haven't stated otherwise, because white is the default skin tone.{{fact}}
If the person knows which boat their ancestors arrived on, we might say they identify as "Norwegian American" or as "Irish American", then the reader can conclude the subject is white, but only if they know the demographics of Norway or Ireland.
Failing that, we assume that the person's race is irrelevant, and drop the issue completely [1].
I agree with you, but I feel like pointing out one little issue. Of course, here you've assumed every subject is American. This is not a criticism of you; it just means you're in the majority, 37.5% white or not.
A white actor is simply an actor, unless he's French. Sometimes he's from "San Francisco, CA", but rarely "San Francisco, California, United States of America". An actor from Paris is never just an actor, or even an actor from Paris --- he's a French actor, or an actor from Paris, France. This is because Americans realise that not everyone knows where Paris is, or which Paris is meant. The possibility that someone might not say "San Francisco? That means he's American!", however, is not worth discussing.
We all have our biases ...
<snip/>
On 6/14/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
A white actor is simply an actor, unless he's French. Sometimes he's from "San Francisco, CA", but rarely "San Francisco, California, United States of America". An actor from Paris is never just an actor, or even an actor from Paris --- he's a French actor, or an actor from Paris, France. This is because Americans realise that not everyone knows where Paris is, or which Paris is meant. The possibility that someone might not say "San Francisco? That means he's American!", however, is not worth discussing.
People actually do add ", [[United States]]" to the end of American place names, but they get reverted for pedantry more often than not, which upsets me just as well.
—C.W.
"Paris, France" is also a bit pedantic. When we refer to Paris in normal speech, the French capital is assumed. For less prominent place names, the country or state name helps to jog the memory and remove ambiguity.
On 14/06/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
"Paris, France" is also a bit pedantic. When we refer to Paris in normal speech, the French capital is assumed.
Hence [[Paris]], not [[Paris, France]]. My personal standard is to avoid piped links in place names.
G'day Tony,
"Paris, France" is also a bit pedantic. When we refer to Paris in normal speech, the French capital is assumed. For less prominent place names, the country or state name helps to jog the memory and remove ambiguity.
Tony Sidaway (born 1873) is a French actor. He is best-known today for his role in /They're Old Hat/, as the sexy manager of the boy band The Flailing Hairnets.
Sidaway was born in Paris, France, at the tender age of twenty three. He climbed to fame doing commercials for the Eiffel Tower. In 1921 he earned the Nobel Prize for nude mountaineering, becoming the first redhead to do so. Blah blah blah blah ...
=====
Tony Sidaway (born 1873) is an actor. He is best-known today for his role in /They're Old Hat/, as the sexy manager of the boy band The Flailing Hairnets.
Sidaway was born in San Francisco, at the tender age of twenty three. He climbed to fame doing commercials for the Statue of Liberty. In 1921 he earned the Nobel Prize for nude mountaineering, becoming the first redhead to do so. Blah blah blah blah ...
My point is: spot the difference. Personally, I'll take the top one every time; the Pope is Catholic. I'm interested to know why, however, it's always just actor and San Francisco, but Russian actor and Moscow.
On 6/14/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
"Paris, France" is also a bit pedantic. When we refer to Paris in normal speech, the French capital is assumed. For less prominent place names, the country or state name helps to jog the memory and remove ambiguity.
In the previous post I was referring to the practice of adding both the state name and country name at the end, such as "Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States", which I believe would be helpful for at least a portion of non-U.S. readers, and redundant but not harmful to the everyone else.
If a paragraph said "Shaftesbury, Dorset" or "Dartford, Kent" it would only raise more questions than it answered, for a typical American reader.
Sometimes it depends on the context. If the subject of the biography (the actor in this case) is crossing the pond for a notable, life-changing event, I think the article would be more likely to completely spell out place names. Doing so might even be considered a necessity rather than a concern.
—C.W.
This is a problem with more than place names. A practice of routinely adding the birthdate to the name for articles on people would also help context (so would words like "chemist" etc. but birthdate is sometimes considerably easier to figure out) ~~~~
On 6/14/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/14/07, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
"Paris, France" is also a bit pedantic. When we refer to Paris in normal speech, the French capital is assumed. For less prominent place names, the country or state name helps to jog the memory and remove ambiguity.
In the previous post I was referring to the practice of adding both the state name and country name at the end, such as "Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States", which I believe would be helpful for at least a portion of non-U.S. readers, and redundant but not harmful to the everyone else.
If a paragraph said "Shaftesbury, Dorset" or "Dartford, Kent" it would only raise more questions than it answered, for a typical American reader.
Sometimes it depends on the context. If the subject of the biography (the actor in this case) is crossing the pond for a notable, life-changing event, I think the article would be more likely to completely spell out place names. Doing so might even be considered a necessity rather than a concern.
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/1/07, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
These lists, whatever they are about, are a sourcing nightmare. About a month ago we had a go-'round about a bunch of "List of [type of work] that break the fourth wall" articles -- that is, plays/films/etc. where one of the characters addresses the audience directly. These lists are *huge*-- because in our irony-addicted age, it's something that is done as a matter of course. Not surprisingly, the attempt to delete them failed, partly because of people trying to protect their work, partly because of the "seems useful" vote (which I'm beginning to think we should deprecate in a big way), and partly because the lists were serving as a cruft attractor to keep the stuff out of the main article. But of course, not a single entry of the hundreds was cited. And it's a problem because a real theater professional might have considered a lot of them as not true cases.
Deleting every unsourced entry in [[List of banned books]] worked quite well.
On 6/1/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Deleting every unsourced entry in [[List of banned books]] worked quite well.
I don't know about that: there are only twelve citations in that article at present.
On 6/1/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
So, that's what I'm up against for *one* single article. Now imagine trying to do this on hundreds of them.
Maybe one of these--that one, that you mentioned specifically--should be used as an example. Link it on both the BLPN and AN/I, and here; draw attention to it, and atom bomb it into compliance with BLP. If anyone trolls or fights back outside of what is policy compliant with BLP/ATT/RS, the hordes now drawn there will beat them with the rv stick, and it will be done with. Since BLP-protecting reversions shouldn't be subject to 3RR (unless that's changed?) then anyone causing crap is on the outside looking in. Move in, clean it, beat it, secure it, and then do another list article days or a week later. Same thing. Action becomes practice becomes policy, and done.
Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com