Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession/Archive -lists by religion-ethnicity and profession debate

message: When I was drafting the proposal I almost gave two examples of sports figures whose religion was relevant to their profession.  One was Sandy Koufax, a baseball player who missed the opening game of the World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur.  Another was Muhammad Ali whose conversion to Islam received prominent media attention.  So a List of Jewish athletes and a List of Muslim athletes would include each of them respectively while not necessarily attempting to catalogue every athlete who shares the same religion.  
Are examples like these necessary?  And if they are, then could an editor suggest a substitute from somewhere other than the United States? Durova 17:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such examples are certainly necessary because they show the unintended consequences of the implementation of the proposal. Should the proposal receive a green light, people who practice their religion quietly will not make it onto the lists, while the more vociferous folks will all be there. The proposed volubility criterion makes no sense to me. And what about obsevant Jewish baseball players who never had a chance of missing a World Series game because it fell on a religious holiday or missed a lower-profile game?--Pecher 14:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the proposal include examples? 

message: For 2 good reasons: (1) They are of encyclopedic interest.  I think it interesting, for example, that we can see the huge number of prominent Jews on lists other than Jewish Rabbis (say), knowing that this group (call it ethnic, religious, or whatever), never numerous, has been the target of some of the worst discrimination for such a long period. (2) Who is to say what is related or what relationship is demonstrable? (3) The proposal is both arbitrary and majoritarianist (read: racist). The Wiki audience will vote their stereotypes to call attention to what is related: Black Abolitionists or Black Civil Rights Leaders? Jewish Rabbis? Italian Popes? Male Generals? however, Jewish Scientists, Latino Boxers, Black CEOs will all be deemed irrelevant and Wiki will whitewash its pages (pun intended). Carlossuarez46 22:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from inflammatory words such as racist and assume good faith.  This proposal would offer consistent reasoning to retain more lists, which often lean toward deletion at AfD.  Specific suggestions are welcome if you think things should be more inclusionist. Durova 00:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was irritated by the deletions, but it does say that names on lists should relate to the topic. I accepted it is good to be a bit stricter. In least requiring sources and that both things matter to the person. I really should be gone though as I have to wake up early today, bye!--T. Anthony 08:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  These lists should be kept 

message: There was a dispute about a week ago at Talk:List of Deists about how to define by faith.  Maybe that deserves mention in these guidelines.  I lean toward suggesting that a someone may qualify for more than one list.  A person's beliefs may change over time.  As applied to ethnicity, some people such as Tiger Woods have more than one heritage. Durova 20:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is what? 

message: I really think that the proposal should not be adopted.  However, at Durova's resquest, I am putting forth a requested modification of the proposal, using Durova’s proposal as a template:
1. Keep the list when there's an inherent inclusion of historical figures: e.g., list of Catholic U.S. Presidents, list of Jewish heads of Governments, list of women Nobel laureates, list of gay Oscar winners, etc....
2. Keep when in doubt whether there may be a possible relationship: list of Catholic artists, list of Jewish physicists, list of black authors; but not those which fall into #4 (e.g., Swedish blondes, or Jewish brunettes.)
3. Keep the list if (a significant portion of) its members faced discrimination: List of women Nobel laureates; list of black Olympic athletes (even those from Zaire, where there may have been no such discrimination); list of Catholic elected officials in the UK, or list of Protestant elected officials in Italy.
4. Delete lists that can have no hope of being comprehensive, where such lists consist of people who are inherently not noteworthy but for inclusion on the list: List of Methodist dentists, list of Germans with the given name 'Hans', list of Swedish blondes, list of Greek airline pilots, list of Albanian firefighters, etc...
===Modifications and comments===
A. Edit for relevance: situations may do well to rename the list to a restrictive title and/or include an introductory paragraph to inform future editors. Source citations, which are always a good idea, become particularly desirable to avoid possible disputes.  I agree, but see the change to section C below.
B. Gender based lists could use basically the same guidelines. 
C. Any attributions that might be contested should be sourced: no difference for race, nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.  Why was sexual orientation singled out? I will assume good faith and that was done with no discriminatory intent so I will generalize the comment.  By the way, I note that Wiki has no problem including mixed-race/religion/ethnicity individuals in the category of their minority component whether or not they self-identify with that inclusion; some segments of society’s discomfort with respect to homosexuality is just the vestige of society's more widespread discomfort with racial/ethnic/religious minorities in the past and we need not be a vehicle of its perpetuation.
D.Overlapping definitions of religion and ethnicity have been known to cause Wikipedian disputes. These guidelines treat ethnicity and religion as functionally equivalent. If List of Jewish XYZ gets nominated for deletion, voters can reach a consensus about its encyclopedic value without necessarily agreeing on whether the subject represents a religion, an ethnicity, or both; provided that the bias should be toward keeping any list which fits the guidelines 1, 2, or 3 above under either ethnicity or religion, in those cases especially where discrimination was based differently on ethnicity than on religion.
E. Citizenship is similar. A relationship can be encyclopedic for a country's citizens should be presumed to be encyclopedic for a related ethnic/religious group. Wiki has endorsed inclusion of Belgians who lived/died before Belgium existed. Ditto Germans.  We would be hard pressed to say that Martin Luther wasn't German (to our sensibilities) although the nation-state of Germany did not exist for hundreds of years after his death.  So 'citizenship' is really no different.  A list of German authors is encyclopedic whether one interprets it as citizens of the nation-states called Germany (Reich, BRD and DDR), writers in the (modern?) German language, or writers who are/were ethnically German (which might include citizens of Austria and Switzerland, and subjects of the Kingdom of Saxony, the Free & Hanseatic City of Hamburg, etc.  All are encyclopedic.
F. Minority status may not be in itself encyclopedic, but we should resolve significant doubts toward keeping lists.  Perhaps left-handed people have been subjected to discrimination (although one may argue that they are treated more favorably than right-handed people in sporting circles), however even if not, lists of left handed people should be kept; as should list of people with epilepsy; list of people living with AIDS (even those in countries where discrimination against them is prohibited by law) -- all of which are 'minority' populations.
G. Majority status is rarely encyclopedic, and such lists end up being deleted from Wikipedia anyway: (yes, this is somewhat arbitrary but is not meant as racist, just as a fact).  Often the noteworthiness of the list is that the people differed from majoritarian composition in some way. A list of white Nobel laureates; a list of male mayors in the US, a list of Islamic Emirs, Shahs, and Sultans, ought to be considered for deletion.  A list of Nobel laureates, mayors in the US, or Emirs, Shahs, and Sultans without the majority racial, religious, sexual or ethnic label should be the list Wikipedia should endeavor to present.
So these are where Durova & I differ.  I think the policy is most difficult of enforcement; democracy is a wonderful thing, and Wikipedia’s is not different, but majoritarian elements will use the power of the majority to silence the minority, so the bias should be to keep virtually ALL lists (I could even concede on point G, even though most of the authors who propose those lists are the ones who keep putting in pro-Hitler POV material so I suspect their motives).  Carlossuarez46 00:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested modification of the proposal

message: A. Edit for relevance: situations may do well to rename the list to a restrictive title and/or include an introductory paragraph to inform future editors. Source citations, which are always a good idea, become particularly desirable to avoid possible disputes.  I agree, but see the change to section C below.
B. Gender based lists could use basically the same guidelines. 
C. Any attributions that might be contested should be sourced: no difference for race, nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.  Why was sexual orientation singled out? I will assume good faith and that was done with no discriminatory intent so I will generalize the comment.  By the way, I note that Wiki has no problem including mixed-race/religion/ethnicity individuals in the category of their minority component whether or not they self-identify with that inclusion; some segments of society’s discomfort with respect to homosexuality is just the vestige of society's more widespread discomfort with racial/ethnic/religious minorities in the past and we need not be a vehicle of its perpetuation.
D.Overlapping definitions of religion and ethnicity have been known to cause Wikipedian disputes. These guidelines treat ethnicity and religion as functionally equivalent. If List of Jewish XYZ gets nominated for deletion, voters can reach a consensus about its encyclopedic value without necessarily agreeing on whether the subject represents a religion, an ethnicity, or both; provided that the bias should be toward keeping any list which fits the guidelines 1, 2, or 3 above under either ethnicity or religion, in those cases especially where discrimination was based differently on ethnicity than on religion.
E. Citizenship is similar. A relationship can be encyclopedic for a country's citizens should be presumed to be encyclopedic for a related ethnic/religious group. Wiki has endorsed inclusion of Belgians who lived/died before Belgium existed. Ditto Germans.  We would be hard pressed to say that Martin Luther wasn't German (to our sensibilities) although the nation-state of Germany did not exist for hundreds of years after his death.  So 'citizenship' is really no different.  A list of German authors is encyclopedic whether one interprets it as citizens of the nation-states called Germany (Reich, BRD and DDR), writers in the (modern?) German language, or writers who are/were ethnically German (which might include citizens of Austria and Switzerland, and subjects of the Kingdom of Saxony, the Free & Hanseatic City of Hamburg, etc.  All are encyclopedic.
F. Minority status may not be in itself encyclopedic, but we should resolve significant doubts toward keeping lists.  Perhaps left-handed people have been subjected to discrimination (although one may argue that they are treated more favorably than right-handed people in sporting circles), however even if not, lists of left handed people should be kept; as should list of people with epilepsy; list of people living with AIDS (even those in countries where discrimination against them is prohibited by law) -- all of which are 'minority' populations.
G. Majority status is rarely encyclopedic, and such lists end up being deleted from Wikipedia anyway: (yes, this is somewhat arbitrary but is not meant as racist, just as a fact).  Often the noteworthiness of the list is that the people differed from majoritarian composition in some way. A list of white Nobel laureates; a list of male mayors in the US, a list of Islamic Emirs, Shahs, and Sultans, ought to be considered for deletion.  A list of Nobel laureates, mayors in the US, or Emirs, Shahs, and Sultans without the majority racial, religious, sexual or ethnic label should be the list Wikipedia should endeavor to present.
So these are where Durova & I differ.  I think the policy is most difficult of enforcement; democracy is a wonderful thing, and Wikipedia’s is not different, but majoritarian elements will use the power of the majority to silence the minority, so the bias should be to keep virtually ALL lists (I could even concede on point G, even though most of the authors who propose those lists are the ones who keep putting in pro-Hitler POV material so I suspect their motives).  Carlossuarez46 00:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications and comments

message: *El_C: It's no good and it's part of the problem! The so-called "Law of Return" has allowed over 300,000 non-Jews to enter Israel in the last twenty years. While it may work for filling Israel's immigration quotas, it's neither a good religious definition (i.e by the standards of Jewish law), nor is it helpful in PROTECTING similar types of human beings who may NOT wish to be identfied as Jews. So for example, a formerly persecuted and presently impoverished Russian with one Jewish grandparent may be desperate for a better standard of life in Israel and will do anything (including presenting false claims) to get there, BUT there are millions of people in the West (many very wealthy and comfortable being out of the "Jewish" limelight) with one Jewish grandparent (not to mention with a Jewish great-grandparent) who are RUNNING fast from being identified as Jews and would strongly resent being "outed" as being "Jewish" when they have never identified as such and have no desire to do so either now or in the forseeable future. So your solution is no good. We are not running the Jewish Agency here and we are not looking to recruit potential Olim ("emigrants to Israel"). We are trying to get out of the business of tagging thousands of people with a cyber-Yellow badge which will not have happy results for them or for Wikipedia given from what see on such sites as Jew Watch, as just one example. IZAK 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of the lists existing in the first place, only self-identified Jews should be in them at all.  If someone repudiates a religion, why should they be identified as a member of it through some other definition? These categorisations are open to abuse from both sides: those who assert the "taint" of Jewish blood, and those who seek to claim as Jewish people who are not and have never been either practicing Jews, or active members of the Jewish community. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May I point this discussion to the original proposal?  The basic guideline would restrict lists to people whose ethnicity or religion bears a relationship to their work.  That takes care of "snooping dogs" of all types. Durova 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew Wikipedia model 

message: In the interest of advancing productive discussion I'm linking to some well composed lists of people.  Some of these aren't lists by religion/ethnicity and profession.  The presentation means more than the content for the purpose of this discussion.
Please add new lists above the dashed line and add responses below the dashed line.
*List of atheists - Addresses definition issues in the introduction.  Subheadings organize the names into several groupings: active advocates of atheism receive separate listing from people who were notable for other reasons and also happened to be atheists.  Each name includes life dates and a short description. Durova 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People should put more care into these lists. It is tempting to get lazy with them and just throw out names. I think studying Wikipedia:Featured lists is a pretty good idea as it gave me good ideas on how to fix lists I did that got put on AfD. Of the lists you mentioned the only one I did much work on was List of Catholic authors, but I did enough on that I thank you for the compliment as I'm sure the others who worked there would.--T. Anthony 22:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add others that are worth emulating. Durova 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of well presented people lists 

message: :All discussions taking place here should have in mind the concurrent formulation of policy that is taking place at the page indicated below. Thank you. IZAK 11:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Important policies about lists on Wikipedia

message: Looking back on the discussions on the list of Jews it looks like it was agreed to list people whose parent was Jewish under the Reform Judaism principles. However, now we have User:IZAK and User:Vulturell who are both very vocal as can be seen on this page who are trying to pull apart this compromise that was reached. User:IZAK only thinks people whose mother was Jewish (under Orthodox traditions) should be listed, whereas User:Vulturell wants to list all people who only had one grandparent who was Jewish. To say that because we have two users with these opposing viewpoints we cannot list or categorize Jewish people in history is completely unreasonable. Arniep 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this summary. On this basis, it all looks like much ado about nothing. IZAK's orthodox standpoint is of comparatively recent origin (i.e. only about 2000 years old), since 'Jewishness by the mother' seems to be post-Biblical (vide Old Testament passim). On his terms, Ephraim and Manasseh, for example, wouldn't get a look-in. Vulturell is perhaps going for a bridge too far. So why don't we just stick with the 'one Jewish parent' as the best we are likely to come up with.  - Smerus 15:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, someone just tried to change my password from ip 68.58.23.4 (a server located at Columbus, Indiana operated by Comcast Cable Communications). If someone has something to say please say it on here. Thanks Arniep 17:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't fully read the new responses by IZAK up above, and frankly I have no real interest in doing so, but I've noticed we've somehow come back exclusively to Jews. I am asking, again, that we come up with a solution that would work for every ethnic group, unless you plan on using terms like Reform and Orthodox Armenianism. I was just using "Jewish actresses" as one of a few examples up above. The same method of listing - i.e. chronological - is something I think would be a good idea for all of these lists, as it would certainly help to show the evolution of members of these varying ethnic and religious groups. Vulturell 17:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vulturell the problem is you are just ignoring the views of everyone else. I don't think there is anyone here that agrees on listing everyone with a Jewish grandparent in lists of Jews and this is a great cause of the controversy that arisen over them. Arniep 22:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual (and as expected) you addressed the issue just now to the very limited topic of Jews. What you should have said was I don't think there is anyone here that agrees on listing everyone with a grandparent of whichever ethnic group in a list of that ethnic group. That is how I am going to intrepret that statement, because that's the only way we can talk about this, the same standards for every group. In that case, I have zero problems with listing only people with a parent instead of grandparent, but again this would apply to every group. Having an Italian grandma doesn't make Hayden Christensen any more Italian than Freddie Prinze, Jr. having a Jewish grandpa makes him Jewish. Vulturell 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, Arniep, there might be some Jewish lists that would use this standard.  Nazi laws lumped Christians who had one Jewish paternal grandfather into the same category as devout Orthodox Jews.  And respectfully, Vulturell, I doubt this discussion could achieve your goal.  As Wikipedia grows it will include more cultures, religions, and ethnicities.  The editors can agree on NPOV guidelines in accordance with the subjects they know best.  Given Wikipedia's current demographic, any attempt to write those guidelines in advance would probably face eventual rejection as cultural imperialism.  I'm in no position to determine who is a Shinto or who is a Sikh, who is a Maori or who is a Yoruba. Durova 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: IZAK, numerous sites run by Jewish and Israeli organizations list notable Jewish people in history- are you contacting these sites to get them removed? You stated on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote#User:IZAK that the only categories or lists that should exist are :Category:Rabbis and :Category:Israeli people. Why do you not want notable Jewish people in secular culture to be listed? Arniep 13:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arniep: So what? All you are saying is that "two wrongs should make a right". We cannot do anything about other sites, but Wikipedia is trying to be a responsible encyclopedia. How serious are those other sites? They are just seeking sensationalism and who knows what else. As for your last comment, may I remind you that I am making a "99%" suggesting and that I do think that a few lists, such as the List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is great and one of my favorites because it is about verifiable fields and about very notable people. I also exclude Israelis because they are a nationality that includes over a million Israeli Arabs and many non-Jews, such as the over 300,000 from the former Soviet Union who provably and openly are not Jewish. So since Israel itself has not accepted a definition KeHalachah (i.e. according to Jewish law), so saying that one is Israeli does not mean that they are Jewish. Sad but true. IZAK 14:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, why are you posting this here?  Wikipedia already has an article on your subject.  The original proposal respectfully avoids the question of Jewish identity and seeks consensus on a separate subject. Durova 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova: I was responding to "Summary of the problem" above. IZAK 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, were you refering to myself when you said "film critics"? (if so, then thank you, I am flattered). But the point is, all the various Jewish lists do not claim to definitively decide "who is a Jew", they claim to list, liberally, all people who may be considered Jewish, either through religion (Orthodox or Reform) or ethnicity. As such the lists do not strictly follow an Orthodox point of view, or a Reform point of view, or an ethnicity point of view (i.e. they list honest converts, who aren't ethnic Jews), because indeed every one of those is a point of view and obviously Wikipedia can't pick one of the above - the only NPOV way of doing it is listing a person and putting in a note beside them if they wouldn't be considered Jewish by every view (i.e. "Jewish father; raised Jewish" or "Jewish mother; raised Christian"). The pages would not be neutral if they just listed the names as is, but the notes let the viewers know the subject's "story" if they aren't "just Jewish", and thus the viewers can make up their own minds based on their own points of view; thus, the lists are just information; of course you can say that the information is unnecessary, etc. but that's another story. I think if there is a problem it would be with the definition at the top of every page - right now it links to the Who is a Jew page, maybe it needs to have more detail in it. There is nothing that any of the editors you linked us to can really do, beyond repeating whichever denomination's (or secular) description of a "Jew", but Wikipedia obviously can't follow either of those. As for your suggestion on the other lists, problem is ethnic groups don't usually have rules to decide who is a Greek or who is an Italian, because ethnicities don't usually have rules anyway, only religions do. I was having a big argument with a Greek-American editor who wanted to put in every single person with a drop of Greek blood, however distant, under "Greek Americans", and not even put in a note like the ones we have in the Jewish lists. I know Italian gangsters have the "100% Italian to be made" rule. By the way, when you mentioned the "300,000" non-Jewish Israelis, were you referring to people who were simply not practising religously, or people who were just not ethnically Jewish at all? Because, as I'm sure you know, some of the founders of Israel were not practising Jews, but obviously felt Jewish by ethnicity and culture, which is what many non-religious, ethnic, Jews do. Ariel Sharon's entry even mentions that his parents were socialists with a secular worldview.Vulturell 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vulturell: At least you see the depth of the problem in defining who and what Jews are. The 300,000 Israelis who are not Jews refers to the recent arrivals (over the past thirty years) from the former Soviet Union, and is according to Halakha ("Jewish law"), and additionally a large number of them practice Christianity. They are not Jewish for various reasons, because their mothers were not Jewish, or they claim to be "Jewish" by dint of being married to a Jew, or a claim to having one Jewish grandparent or great-parent. Israel let these people in because in most cases they were related to others who claimed complete Jewish parentage. It's a mess. It's in no way like the people who came from Russia in the day's of Ariel Sharon's parents in the early twentieth century who, while they may have been 100% secular, were nevertheless not intermarried and came from homes where both parents were often religious Jews. The times they surely have a' changed. In the USA presently, the confusion is even greater where you have a religious denomination (Reform Judaism) that has changed the over two thousand year old ground-rules, and that now accepts people who want to be Jewish whose father was a Jew and mother is not just not Jewish, but could also be a practicing Christian. It's pretty chaotic, and by now Wikipedia is reflecting that chaos instead of tightening up it's lists and categories (by trying to limit them) it's opening them up to all and sundry, making the definitions of the Jewishness of the people on the lists and categories meaningless. IZAK 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK. The fact is most Reform Jews still have a Jewish family background, and in that background there is an inherited cultural identity. Vulturell has already explained to you that on the Jewish lists, if a person is not Jewish under Halakah it is explained what connection they have with Jewish culture, i.e. whether it is through paternal lineage or through conversion. Arniep 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of the problem

message: Ok, hi guys, let me just point out a few very important matters: 
#Wikipedia is not in the business of endorsing any religion's or denomination's criteria or definitions for who and what constitutes a true and unquestioned "member of the flock". 
#Thus to claim as User:Arniep says above that "on the list of Jews it looks like it was agreed to list people whose parent was Jewish under the Reform Judaism principles" is a just a major POV statement, because 
#There are, and will always be, other serious Jewish denominations in play here all the time. 
#It is also factually incorrect to say that the Reform definition is the implied acceptable one, because Wikipedia does not follow or endorse Reform Judaism or any brand of Judaism -- in order to remain a NPOV resource that reflects reality and not as a mirror of some people's imaginations or of their wishful thinking. 
#My contention is very simple, that any usage of the word "Jew" or "Jewish" on Wikipedia is essentially, willy-nilly, governed according to Wikipedia's own three close-to-definitive NPOV articles: 1) Jew; 2) Judaism; and 3) Who is a Jew? 
#It is thus NOT possible at the present time to have only one definition to use as some sort of hidden "premise" or "axiom", especially not from the Reformer theologians who changed the definition to accept patrilineal descent less than THIRTY years ago, in the late 1970s, after they had agreed with matrilinial descent for most of their two hundred year history. To say that Orthodoxy taught something new -- also a false and ignorant statement --  as "recently" as 2,000 years ago is a joke (based on obvious ignorance of Judaism and Jewish history) not worth responding to. 
#Thus since Wikipedia CANNOT endorse any religious stream's criteria it is impossible to arrive at a so-called definition of anyone's status as a Jew on Wikipedia, which is why it is a mistake to create any lists and categories of Jews since Wikipedia's NEUTRAL articles on the subject inform us that in the present day there is no one consensus of who is and is not a Jew. 
#The problem we are discussing cannot be "cut off at the pass" by talking into the air and saying "let's just be ethnic" ("like everyone else -- as if humanity is one huge mass of only similarities") as flippantly done by User:Vuturell who, it seems, would like to resurrect a sort of pseudo-anthropology as a subject to haunt everyone. Neither is the solution as the more focused User:Arniep would like to present it here that pretends that Wikipedia "endorses" Reform Judaism definitions when it does not, and it cannot even be done with User:Durova's diplomatic dexterity trying to bridge some impossible and impassable barriers. 
#In conclusion, may I say, that Wikipedia is neither the World Court nor is it a Jewishly-recognized court and cannot set itself up as a "judge" of who is or is not Jewish or partially Jewish. (Needless to say, Wikipedia should NOT appear to be doing, nor give the appearance of doing, the latter-day work of the Nazi Nuremberg Laws, deciding who are the latter-day Mischlings -- as the wicked Jew Watch does today, and by implication land up handing out fake cyber-"German Blood Certificates" to many people unwittingly caught up in this mad rush to classify, categorize, and list Jews on Wikipedia.) 
#As for other religions and ethnicities, I leave it to people familar with those religions and people to speak up, but I can only speak from the perspecticve of a subject I know about, and I am cautioning everyone here not to make either yourselves or Wikipedia look foolish in the eyes of the world (i.e the Internet) by coming up with so-called "solutions" that in the end will make it all a laughingstock for any readers out there who know something about the questions relating to Who is a Jew? 
As a plea: I strongly suggest that the following Wikipedia admins who know a lot about Judaism and Jews and their interface with Jewish law, should be urgently consulted and asked for their DETAILED input, and what THEY say be incorporated here: User:Danny; User:Jayjg; User:Tshilo12; User:Jfdwolff; User:Eliezer. (There may be others who can help, based on their proven knowledge in these areas.) It's no use consulting "film critics" about matters that pertain to the Jewish religion and the Jewish people. It's like consulting a shoemaker about astrophysics. Thank you. IZAK 13:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, numerous sites run by Jewish and Israeli organizations list notable Jewish people in history- are you contacting these sites to get them removed? You stated on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote#User:IZAK that the only categories or lists that should exist are :Category:Rabbis and :Category:Israeli people. Why do you not want notable Jewish people in secular culture to be listed? Arniep 13:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arniep: So what? All you are saying is that "two wrongs should make a right". We cannot do anything about other sites, but Wikipedia is trying to be a responsible encyclopedia. How serious are those other sites? They are just seeking sensationalism and who knows what else. As for your last comment, may I remind you that I am making a "99%" suggesting and that I do think that a few lists, such as the List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is great and one of my favorites because it is about verifiable fields and about very notable people. I also exclude Israelis because they are a nationality that includes over a million Israeli Arabs and many non-Jews, such as the over 300,000 from the former Soviet Union who provably and openly are not Jewish. So since Israel itself has not accepted a definition KeHalachah (i.e. according to Jewish law), so saying that one is Israeli does not mean that they are Jewish. Sad but true. IZAK 14:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, why are you posting this here?  Wikipedia already has an article on your subject.  The original proposal respectfully avoids the question of Jewish identity and seeks consensus on a separate subject. Durova 16:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova: I was responding to "Summary of the problem" above. IZAK 16:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK, were you refering to myself when you said "film critics"? (if so, then thank you, I am flattered). But the point is, all the various Jewish lists do not claim to definitively decide "who is a Jew", they claim to list, liberally, all people who may be considered Jewish, either through religion (Orthodox or Reform) or ethnicity. As such the lists do not strictly follow an Orthodox point of view, or a Reform point of view, or an ethnicity point of view (i.e. they list honest converts, who aren't ethnic Jews), because indeed every one of those is a point of view and obviously Wikipedia can't pick one of the above - the only NPOV way of doing it is listing a person and putting in a note beside them if they wouldn't be considered Jewish by every view (i.e. "Jewish father; raised Jewish" or "Jewish mother; raised Christian"). The pages would not be neutral if they just listed the names as is, but the notes let the viewers know the subject's "story" if they aren't "just Jewish", and thus the viewers can make up their own minds based on their own points of view; thus, the lists are just information; of course you can say that the information is unnecessary, etc. but that's another story. I think if there is a problem it would be with the definition at the top of every page - right now it links to the Who is a Jew page, maybe it needs to have more detail in it. There is nothing that any of the editors you linked us to can really do, beyond repeating whichever denomination's (or secular) description of a "Jew", but Wikipedia obviously can't follow either of those. As for your suggestion on the other lists, problem is ethnic groups don't usually have rules to decide who is a Greek or who is an Italian, because ethnicities don't usually have rules anyway, only religions do. I was having a big argument with a Greek-American editor who wanted to put in every single person with a drop of Greek blood, however distant, under "Greek Americans", and not even put in a note like the ones we have in the Jewish lists. I know Italian gangsters have the "100% Italian to be made" rule. By the way, when you mentioned the "300,000" non-Jewish Israelis, were you referring to people who were simply not practising religously, or people who were just not ethnically Jewish at all? Because, as I'm sure you know, some of the founders of Israel were not practising Jews, but obviously felt Jewish by ethnicity and culture, which is what many non-religious, ethnic, Jews do. Ariel Sharon's entry even mentions that his parents were socialists with a secular worldview.Vulturell 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vulturell: At least you see the depth of the problem in defining who and what Jews are. The 300,000 Israelis who are not Jews refers to the recent arrivals (over the past thirty years) from the former Soviet Union, and is according to Halakha ("Jewish law"), and additionally a large number of them practice Christianity. They are not Jewish for various reasons, because their mothers were not Jewish, or they claim to be "Jewish" by dint of being married to a Jew, or a claim to having one Jewish grandparent or great-parent. Israel let these people in because in most cases they were related to others who claimed complete Jewish parentage. It's a mess. It's in no way like the people who came from Russia in the day's of Ariel Sharon's parents in the early twentieth century who, while they may have been 100% secular, were nevertheless not intermarried and came from homes where both parents were often religious Jews. The times they surely have a' changed. In the USA presently, the confusion is even greater where you have a religious denomination (Reform Judaism) that has changed the over two thousand year old ground-rules, and that now accepts people who want to be Jewish whose father was a Jew and mother is not just not Jewish, but could also be a practicing Christian. It's pretty chaotic, and by now Wikipedia is reflecting that chaos instead of tightening up it's lists and categories (by trying to limit them) it's opening them up to all and sundry, making the definitions of the Jewishness of the people on the lists and categories meaningless. IZAK 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IZAK. The fact is most Reform Jews still have a Jewish family background, and in that background there is an inherited cultural identity. Vulturell has already explained to you that on the Jewish lists, if a person is not Jewish under Halakah it is explained what connection they have with Jewish culture, i.e. whether it is through paternal lineage or through conversion. Arniep 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia cannot endorse any definition of Jews: A possible solution

message: Simple. We list 1. any person at all who is "fully" of that ethnicity 2. any person at all who has a parent of that ethnicity 3. any person with a grandparent of that ethnicity who has explicitly identified with that ethnic group above others (so any person with a random grandparent, like Yul Brynner, would not be listed because he didn't explicitly identify with Swiss/Jewish in his background). I would, as such, include "people with a grandparent only" such as Robert DeNiro in Italian-Americans, Tyrone Power and Harrison Ford (feels "Irish as a person and Jewish as an actor", despite only having an Irish grandfather) in Irish-Americans, Kate Hudson (raised Jewish) and Robert Downey, Jr. (identifies self as "half Jewish" despite only having a Jewish grandparent). Howabout it? Your reponse should not have any references to any possible religious rules, as they do not apply (and frankly do not even claim to apply) to the ethnic and cultural backgrounds of individuals. Thank you. Vulturell 00:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that of DeNiro. That said I think I'd only do the grandparent thing if the grandparent was significant to the person's life. Totally disqualifying having one grandparent I'd agree is probably a bad idea on reflection as some people were partly raised by a grandparent. I think there are way to many proposals here though. It's starting to become the proposal of a million sub-proposals and not in a gradual accumulation way. In the last week we've had how many new proposals suggested on this discussion page? I've never been involved in these before though so maybe that's normal.--T. Anthony 01:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad I could inform you in some way of DeNiro; this is, in my opinion, the #1 reason these lists are useful. They teach you that not all Italian-Americans look like DeNiro (who isn't really all that Italian either) and not all Jews are like Woody Allen. There are way too many proposals here, agreed, but I hope that by keeping this one simple and to the point it could be easier to discuss. See, "grandparent" pretty much translates to "parent" if said grandparent was influential (i.e. Downey, Jr. says that "his father is Jewish" despite it only being a paternal grandfather, so you can see that Jewish identity had influence on that side of the family). We can only really know how much influence a grandparent had through the person themselves, and this proposal acknowledges that, so you wouldn't get people like, say, Hayden Christensen on an Italian list or Yul Brynner on a Jewish or Swiss list, since they've never really claimed a major influence or called themselves "Swiss" or "Italian" or "Jewish". Vulturell 01:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I just did. But thanks for noticing. Do you agree or disgaree with it yourself? Vulturell 02:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the way you're presenting it.  It's useful for many identities, especially in North America, but in the wrong situation it becomes inflammatory.  I'm surprised to see you present this as a proposal after all the discussion this page has already seen.  You've validated some of IZAK's accusations.  What I suggest is to withdraw this as a blanket proposal and offer it instead as one of several possible guidelines, sort of like the "related article test," and include caveats that it may not apply to every list.  I'd like to gather a list of suggested guidelines that editors can adapt as appropriate to their particular articles. Durova 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this mean IZAK is going to come back here in a couple of hours with an angry speech, type in BIG FONT and use wikilinks to random terms like goldfish or magic carpet? Anyway, I don't see what's particularly off-putting with this proposal, since it takes into account a subject's own self-identification, which is certainly more important in the case of someone with a "grandparent" only, and would exclude people whose Jewish (and Swiss) grandparent's heritage wasn't important to them, like Yul Brynner. Vulturell 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt IZAK will rejoin us until his sabbath ends.  In the meantime it isn't fair to put words in his mouth. Durova 03:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova: Thank you for your understanding. It is now early Sunday morning and I have responded above. Best wishes. IZAK 16:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for all ethnicity-based lists (and by "ethnic groups" I do also means Jews)

message: This was a quiet and harmonious page for two weeks until some very contentious proposals arrived and changed the focus.  This was not about Jewish identity.  Since the initial proposal hasn't had a poll, I'll hold it here.  What do you think of the initial proposal on the project page?  Support or Oppose below with a one line explanation, please. Durova 16:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please set out your proposal again here (or better move the whole thing to a new page) so everyone can be perfectly clear what they are voting for or against - Smerus 17:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Durova is asking for a poll on this Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Initial_proposal Arniep 17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Arniep, please reread the proposal.  The proposal is about ethnicity, not nationality.  This really doesn't concern geography. Durova 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read and fully understood your proposal. I think you misunderstood what I said, which was, basically that lists by ethnicity should not be treated differently to lists by nationality. Arniep 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citizens can represent their country in international competitions.  That's the difference. Durova 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is your only reasoning to regard them differently, it is very weak, especially as it would only normally apply to sports. Arniep 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Durova, you have given as an example in your proposal that the category of 'Jewish chess players' serves no purpose, whereas 'Israeli chess players' does, because they could represent their country in a team. Because it is true that Israeli chess players can make a team, it does not logically follow from that, in any way, that a list of Jewish chess players serves no purpose. One could put forward a case that the number of leading Jewish chess players in the 19th century assisted consciousness of Jewish identity, provided role models and encouraged chess-education amongst Jews such that there is still a relatively high proportion of Jews amongst champions. These are historical items (I would call them facts) which surely have an encyclopaedic validity. - Smerus 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone made a serious argument along those lines then the subject could become encyclopedic.  I based the example on the idea that there is no Jewish theory of chess. Durova 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: one thing I don't really understand about the proposal is if the lists created are obviously stupid (like Methodist dentists) why can't we just rely on afd to get rid of them? Arniep 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an extreme example that I don't think is even meant to be representative. There wasn't even any kind of list of dentists until I created List of dentists, largely as a response to the example. Likewise there is no List of Methodists. I think what's meant is that when the two things have no real connection they shouldn't be a list, even if neither thing is silly. For example there is a rather large List of photographers, but having say a List of Christian photographers would be deemed disconnected. Likewise the athlete section of List of Latter-day Saints is huge, but to spin it off into its own list would likely be deemed connecting to unconnected things.--T. Anthony 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that the example was extreme, but I think arniep is right. If someone has a problem with a particular list they can A. edit it themselves or B. AFD it and see what happens. A lot more people have access to the decision making process in that situation than they do to this place. Vulturell 04:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these Centralized Discussions are intended to make policy to make AFD easier in borderline cases, and that's what I've always thought we were discussing. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing is, these discussions do become contentious and inconsistent at AfD because of the middle group: the relevant-if-edited lists.  When things don't go as far as AfD things can still be difficult for the editors because some Wikipedians plaster them with flags and threaten to AfD them.  A consistent policy would head off this sort of problem. (BTW I support the idea to move the discussions of Jewish identity to another page.  Could a more seasoned Wikipedian do that please?)  Durova 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is, do we need the discussion on Jewish identity at all? Because A. IZAK's proposal was to delete all Jewish lists, it had nothing to do with "who is a Jew" B. I thought we were using the same standard for every ethnic group, and that standard is what this page was trying to decide? and C. We already have a page, Who is a Jew?, so what is there to discuss? Vulturell 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't need the discussion of Jewish identity.  That's what hijacked the dialogue about dual category lists.  Durova 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant to your proposal, see my point above. As to applying relevance criteria, in my opinion, that would just be a recipe for endless edit warring. Unless the list is patently frivolous and is factual and verifiable I don't see a problem. Arniep 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal leaves individual list entries up to the list editors and it handles ethnicity and religion as functional equivalents.  My proposal would remain unchanged no matter how the Jewish identity debate resolves itself.  Also, WP:NOT establishes a relevance requirement.  Durova 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note WP:NOT states "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic.". Arniep 12:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does support my point, doesn't it? Durova 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can't vote until we agree what we're talking about. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on the original proposal.