[WikiEN-l] Thoughts on naming people - article content, this time.

[David Goodman]

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 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at 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