Jump to content

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 162: Line 162:
Just for the record, I only left the fact most of those Jews are Ashkenazi and removed all references to the controversial theory, and you still revert me, which shows it's just about edit warring. Yes, in an article about Jewish Nobel laureates, the fact most of them are Ashkenazi is relevant. For example, the mention the dominance of African-Americans in the article about the NBA, because it's a fact. [[User:Maxim.il89|Maxim.il89]] ([[User talk:Maxim.il89|talk]]) 11:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Just for the record, I only left the fact most of those Jews are Ashkenazi and removed all references to the controversial theory, and you still revert me, which shows it's just about edit warring. Yes, in an article about Jewish Nobel laureates, the fact most of them are Ashkenazi is relevant. For example, the mention the dominance of African-Americans in the article about the NBA, because it's a fact. [[User:Maxim.il89|Maxim.il89]] ([[User talk:Maxim.il89|talk]]) 11:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:You changed one bad formulation to another, and the text I removed introduced sources that, for the reasons {{u|Grayfell}} explained, are terrible. Moreover, [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia]]. Even if a fact is true, it only belongs if it is demonstrably ''significant,'' according to the reliable sources that indicate the context of the subject. Please, consider the possibility that when multiple people disagree with you, you might be going about things in the wrong way. I believe you when you say you are willing to compromise, but you seemingly have not yet digested the objections that others have raised about your contributions, and that is a poor foundation for building compromises. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
:You changed one bad formulation to another, and the text I removed introduced sources that, for the reasons {{u|Grayfell}} explained, are terrible. Moreover, [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia]]. Even if a fact is true, it only belongs if it is demonstrably ''significant,'' according to the reliable sources that indicate the context of the subject. Please, consider the possibility that when multiple people disagree with you, you might be going about things in the wrong way. I believe you when you say you are willing to compromise, but you seemingly have not yet digested the objections that others have raised about your contributions, and that is a poor foundation for building compromises. [[User:XOR'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'easter|talk]]) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
*Again, many of these sources are '''really bad'''. They are bad enough that they should never be cited on Wikipedia. You need to use [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. If you want to cite these sources, you need to defend why you think they are reliable. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 21:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:15, 14 October 2020

Former FLCList of Jewish Nobel laureates is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2004Articles for deletionNo consensus
July 22, 2007Articles for deletionDeleted
March 7, 2010Articles for deletionKept
April 27, 2010Featured list candidateNot promoted
December 3, 2010Articles for deletionNo consensus
March 23, 2012Articles for deletionNo consensus
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 10, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that of the 802 individual Nobel Prize winners, at least 162 (20%) were of Jewish ethnicity?
Current status: Former featured list candidate


Niels Bohr

Niels Bohr, who had a Jewish mother, is missing from this list.2405:205:C865:989:D3C3:A678:29FF:886D (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three missing in Economy

1. Robert C. Merton - 1997 2. Elinor Ostrom - 2009 3. William Nordhaus - 2018. עמירם פאל (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bloger (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed again. Please ensure that all names included have inline citations from reliable sources specifically indicating that they are Jewish. I suspect that will be quite difficult in the case of most/all of these individuals. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Their wiki pages all say that they are with sources. Bloger (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Sources are required in this article; Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. I also note that none of those biographies state that the subject is Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so this doesn’t go back and forth, are you saying that if I put the info back with the sources that should suffice? Bloger (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure there aren't any reliable sources for these claims; I'd be willing to bet that any you bring will either a) not be reliable, or b) not specifically state that the individual is Jewish. This is a well-edited, mature list, and if they existed, the sources would have been found already, and the individuals included. So it's best if you bring the sources here first. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t really look yet, but the first search gave me a Forward article on Robert Merton, is that good enough? https://forward.com/schmooze/132156/wizardly-weaver-who-invented-role-models/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs)
To my surprise, that's actually a decent source. The book Robert K. Merton Sociology of Science and Sociology as Science that it refers to would be even better. Do you have access to it? Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

עמירם פאל, the source only mentioned Robert Merton. Why did you restore Ostrom and Nordhaus too? Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, please observe their articles. Also, what about the two missing in Physiology or medicine: John Vane - 1982 and Edmond H. Fischer - 1992? עמירם פאל (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
עמירם פאל, what may or not be in other articles is irrelevant. Where are the valid sources in this article that indicate they are Jewish? Why have you added information to this article that is unsourced? This is a serious WP:BLP issue; people have been restricted and banned for doing this, including in this year. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, sources added from their personal articles. עמירם פאל (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
עמירם פאל, that's a start. As far as I can tell, none of those sources specifically state that the individual is Jewish (please review my comment of 22:45, 3 March 2020 above). They seem to be saying that Ostrom's father was Jewish, and that at Nordhaus' ancestors on his father's side were Jews, but none of them state that the subjects themselves are Jewish. Can you please find and quote sources that explicitly state this? Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, both of them had a Jewish father. That should suffice. Here is another source for that fact. עמירם פאל (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
עמירם פאל no, as has been explained already, that does not "suffice". We need reliable sources that explicitly state someone is a Jew. jinfo.org is certainly not a reliable source. Can you please remove the names until you find reliable sourcing? It has been 6 months since you put this unsourced information into the article, so the time for you to act is really now. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I beg to differ, unless some more editors will support your view. עמירם פאל (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
עמירם פאל, you can differ with policy all you like, but as this is a WP:BLP issue, you should remove it immediately, before administrative action is required. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please review WP:INDENT, so I don't have to keep reformatting for you. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, I think you shouldn't use threats like that in an arguement between editors. My position was stated above. עמירם פאל (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

עמירם פאל Please review WP:BLPREMOVE, particularly the part that says Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. Please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to violate WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Religion and/or ethnicity need explicit reliable sourcing that the subject is <insert religion, ethnicity etc here>. Sources that reference their parents are not sufficient on this article. However on their own biography you could phrase it as 'Subject was born to a Jewish father' etc. This however is a list with a clearly defined scope, and the sources must explicitly support that scope. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources that reference their parents are not sufficient" - This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Of course it's sufficient! If someone's parent is Jewish, they are, duh, part Jewish, ethnically. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what is this nonsense? Both Elinor Ostrom and William Nordhaus there are sources pointing out to them being part Jewish. What's going on here. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed

Literally someone removing the information about the overwhelming majority of those Jews being Ashkenazi, and saying "it's irrelevant." The fact here is very relevant, because there are historical reasons for that, it's a lot to do with them being Ashkenazi and going through that particular history in Europe and North America. It's not just "Jews win many Nobel prizes," it's Ashkenazi Jews win many Nobel prizes. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this revert].
Do not lie, nobody is saying "it's irrelivant".
I have made several significant changes to the article, only one of which you have actually explained here on in edit summaries.
An IP, likely you editing while logged-out, has added this paragraph to the lead:
The overwhelming majority of the Jewish Nobel laureates are Ashkenazi Jews, which has prompted the controversial theory of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190562/
  2. ^ https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.aei.org/articles/the-2011-nobel-prize-and-the-debate-over-jewish-iq/
None of these sources use the term overwhelming, and all sources must be evaluated in context. I dispute that these source are reliable for this specific point, since none of them directly say this is "overwhelming". Further, none of them say that the Nobel prize discrepancy prompted this controversy.
More significantly, it's clear you have not read each of these sources carefully.
The cited Cochran et al paper which supposedly started this "controversy" mentions the Nobel prize once, in passing.
The first source you cite was "Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else?" This monograph very directly challenges the entire premise. In other words, it does not support this point. To include a single tid-bit from this source without any of the context it provides would be misrepresenting a source for editorializing purposes.
There are several other problems with the sources used in this article, which is why I removed some of them. Please discuss before reverting again. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you for real? Those sources confirm, obviously, that the majority of those Jews are Ashkenazi, overwhelmingly, that is the bit you removed.
I never said the theory about Jews being smarter is true, hence why I used "controversial". Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is all original research, then. As I said, sources do not say it's "overwhelming", nor do they say it "prompted" this fringe theory. Ignoring what sources are saying and adding this anyway is WP:SYNTH. Further, "controversial" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Sure it's "controversial", but this is obvious and uninformative. It is not up to you or me to decide that it's controversial, it's up to reliable sources, and we would use those sources to decide if and how to explain this. Using these flimsy sources to imply something is inappropriate and misleading, and violates WP:OR. Summarize what sources actually say, not what you personally think they imply. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not "original research"... you can throw links to Wikipedia rules articles as much as you want, clearly you haven't read them yourself.
What do you mean "this is obvious and uninformative"? To someone who doesn't even know about the fact Jews are actually ethnically divided and stuff it's not obvious at all, and as a result, very informative. Obvious to whom?
If you have a better formulation or source, go for it, edits are welcome. Point is, the fact most of those Jews were Ashkenazi (in fact, all except like 3-4) is very relevant (and informative to those who wish to look at the topic).
Want to edit it, go for it, but you're just edit warring. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are attaching a reference to a claim which is not supported by that source. That is WP:OR. Ignoring this problem doesn't make it go away.
Please read my comments more carefully. That the theory is "controversial" is extremely vague and obvious, therefore it's uninformative. I am not saying the entire thing is obvious. As an encyclopedia, we should use precise, formal language. Your edits are too vague and too conversational.
It is not up to you to decide which information is relevant, it's up to sources, and the sources you have chosen are very poor in this context. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes per WP:BRD, and you must use reliable sources. Using unreliable sources, or misusing reliable ones out-of-context, is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim.il89: With this edit you have added a source by Richard Lynn. Please read the Wikipedia article on Lynn if you haven't already. Per many, many past discussions, including the one I raised recently (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence) Lynn is a WP:FRINGE source and is not reliable for claims about race and intelligence, and should not be cited without attribution and context from more reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My edits are not vague, that theory exists, but it's controversial - hence, controversial.
If you want to edit it in a way that mentions the percentage of Ashkenazis winning Nobel prize without mentioning the theory or changing sources... go for it, I'm always pro-compromise, but you can't just erase that information completely.
If you wanted to edit it, I'd be pro, but you just remove it. You're clearly only in for the edit war. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, you are the problem editor. You approach every subject as a battleground since the first time I ran into you. This is just further insanity, with a very long established editor telling you that you are posting OR (which you are) and you declaring back that they are somehow only here to be disruptive. No, it's just that you do not have consensus for the change and you are being told very politely what the issues are, and you are not listening. Again. Koncorde (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Him being "long established" doesn't change the fact he's edit warring over something that's relevant to the article, so keep the "long established editor" solidarity to yourself. It's about adding relevant information to make the article better.
I told the "long established editor" that I'm pro changing the formulation and compromising, but the "long established editor" clearly only understands reverts and edit warring, which is what he does.
He was already told on the Jews page this information is relevant by another long established editor, but still continues edit warring rather than working on improving the formulation, etc. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case Maxim. You do not read. You do not process. You just explode. The fact the formulation is currently OR is the reason it is removed. It is not up to Greyfell to remedy your original research when he has clearly made his point, a point you are refusing to acknowledge in favour of forcing your desired outcome. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence doesn't belong at all; there isn't really a half-measure or happy medium here. Nobody is "only in [it] for the edit war" — I'm sure that everyone objecting to it has a dozen other articles they'd rather be working on instead. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the formulation and the links, why do I have a feeling he'll still be edit warring over it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, stop making this personal. Failure to follow this can lead to being blocked or banned from editing. You've made changes to the article and now the burden is on you to gain consensus for those changes.

So, sorry, but you're going to have to work harder and defend these changes, because I still see serious problems. The three sources you've added are:

  • A page from a website called "La Griffe de Lion".

What is La Griffe de Lion? Is this WP:RELIABLE? Who wrote this? It looks like a blog pushing scientific racism. I cannot find much about it, but Steve Sailer is a fan, and it has a short entry in Metapedia. These are all yet more signs FRINGE, and I cannot believe this would pass muster at WP:RSN for any factual claims.

Another blog, and this one is somehow even worse. The about page says they are not Jews, and that article includes young-earth creationist assumptions. Further it actually cites the neo-Nazi website Metapedia! That's a strange one, but it's not reliable at all and should be removed ASAP.

This one might be usable, but only in context. The relevant subsection is titled MYTH: ASHKENAZI JEWS HAVE HIGHER IQS - MAYBE

The source's speculations are based entirely on Henry Harpending's study: The implication that Jews have a higher IQ than other groups is bolstered by the disproportionate number of Ashkenazi Jews who are Nobel Prize winners and world chess champions, say Harpending and the rest of the Utah team.

The concluding paragraph of the section is worth quoting in full:

“It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is,” Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist at Harvard, told The New York Times when the study was published. Nonetheless, he said, “it’s certainly a thorough and well-argued paper.” Others disagree, saying that the study, which contained no footnotes and was written in an impassioned tone not typical of academic literature, was not scientifically rigorous enough. “It’s bad science,” Harry Ostrer, medical geneticist at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, toldNew York magazine. “It’s bad genetics and bad epidemiology.” Some of the mutations the study discusses can even lead to mental retardation, says Risch, who adds, “In my view, there is currently no scientific evidence that Jewish achievement or intelligence has a genetic basis.”

Any use of this source would have to include context such as this, and this article is unlikely to be the place for this information. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Grayfell's evaluation. This article is called "List of Jewish Nobel laureates", not "every speculation about Jewish Nobel laureates made by random blowhards". XOR'easter (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? It's not a speculation that most of those Jews are Ashkenazi, does some research, they are mostly Ashkenazi, it's a fact. I removed all mention of the theory and just left the fact it's mostly Ashkenazis, that's all, and you still edit war. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I only left the fact most of those Jews are Ashkenazi and removed all references to the controversial theory, and you still revert me, which shows it's just about edit warring. Yes, in an article about Jewish Nobel laureates, the fact most of them are Ashkenazi is relevant. For example, the mention the dominance of African-Americans in the article about the NBA, because it's a fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You changed one bad formulation to another, and the text I removed introduced sources that, for the reasons Grayfell explained, are terrible. Moreover, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Even if a fact is true, it only belongs if it is demonstrably significant, according to the reliable sources that indicate the context of the subject. Please, consider the possibility that when multiple people disagree with you, you might be going about things in the wrong way. I believe you when you say you are willing to compromise, but you seemingly have not yet digested the objections that others have raised about your contributions, and that is a poor foundation for building compromises. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates&oldid=983547945"