Talk:List of Jewish American journalists

message: S/be List of Jewish American journalists per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). 24.17.48.241 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

message: I listed this on Request for Comments.  Essentially, the issue is whether or not the entries above could be construed as journalists.  I won't rehash the arguments as you can read them above.  Comments on this would be appreciated.--Isotope23 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first line in the entry for journalist says it all: "A journalist is a person who practises journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people."  It should be obvious that a person who captains a news organization fits this definition.  The journalist entry also states that "various types of editors" are to be included in the category, so that even if the person doesn't actually do the writing, he or she still fits the definition of journalist.  A President or CEO of a news organization like MSNBC or CNN is what a publisher is to an organization like The New York Times, in essense, an executive journalist, somebody who makes the decision as to who gets to do the reporting in much the same way an editor decides which story is reported on (it's worth noting that publishers weren't stricken from the list, so the striking of Presidents and CEO's seems capricious.)  I think it is essential that people have the opportunity to know who makes the very important decisions that affect the news we read, and so the question really becomes one of what best serves Wikipedia's users: if a user wanted to know who was responsible for the content of the news he/she reads, wouldn't a list of journalists be the appropriate place to go to find that information.  And while we're in RfC mode, I would also ask for a ruling on the requirement that entries require sources in order to make the list.  It's not that I think it's necessarily a bad idea, I just note that it appears that only this list has this requirement, and at the behest of only one individual.  Either all the lists should be made to have supporting citations, or none of them should.  Thank you. Kirkswig 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/klein.jonathan.html  Notice that CNN lists Jonathan Klein under the category "Anchors/Reporters".  He is as much a journalist as anybody there at CNN... even CNN thinks so.  This shouldn't be controversial at all.  Kirkswig 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Executives aren't journalists; typically, they're businesspeople.  Not sure where the RfC is, besides here. Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm removing Barbara Ehrenreich.  See her discussion page for the reason why. Michael 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: The NNDB is a junky trivia gathering site, like the IMDB, though a bit better. I've moved Dan Abrams and Ira Glass here pending sources. Whenver creating a new entry, btw, NNDB usually uses info straight from the person's Wikipedia entry, which is flattering to us, but not useful if our info comes back to us. Mad Jack 16:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Junky trivia gathering site seems a bit subjective.  Also, where are you getting the idea that NNDB uses Wikipedia info?  Certainly not from Wikipedia.  Unless you can state why the source fails WP:V I would ask you to put these entries back. Kirkswig 20:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NNDB is not a first-hand source. It has no reason to be correct because it has no contact with its subjects. It picks up info on-line or elsewhere, just like Wikipedia does. Whether that info is correct or not we don't know for sure and have no way of knowing because they don't cite their sources, unlike us (though they have started some minor citations here and there). Oh, and for example, how would the NNDB know that Dan Abrams is Jewish? or Ira Glass? They have no contact with either one of them. They must have used some kind of source for that (If we're lucky and they didn't just assume), and that source is what we have to find and cite. Mad Jack 21:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at WP:V and I don't see anything about "first-hand" sources.  I do see this however: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  It appears to me that with 18,500 entries and growing that NNDB fits this definition, that is, nobody is alleging that NNDB isn't accurate.  Moreover, WP:V states the following: "Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun...""  So even if we were to acknowledge that NNDB is of dubious credibility, we are within WP:V because we are attributing the source.  Unless you can actually cite something from WP:V that disputes any of this I think you should put the entries back and let the readers decide for themselves.  Thanks.  Kirkswig 21:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not going to let the spread of junky info from IMDB, NNDB, and any other trivia-gathering sites. It's like sourcing Wikipedia articles with other Wikipedia articles. I could go to Dan Abrams' article right now, put in that he is not Jewish, and then use that as a source as to not include him. That's about of equal reliability. If you want to source someone to the NNDB, you'll have to answer how exactly would the NNDB know that someone is Jewish? Your welcome. Oh, and I'm sure there are good sources out there that state both Glass and Abrams are Jewish. What we need to do is find those. Mad Jack 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's a nice example of their reliablitiy. I went to their "Jewish" page and started at the bottom. They've got Stephanie Zimbalist's religion listed as "Jewish". Well, she's a born-again Christian. Her Jewish father became a born-again Christian, and they list him as exactly that, but I guess they made a mistake and assumed she was Jewish (her mother is a CHristian, too.) Next, Conrad Veidt - German actor with a Jewish wife listed as Jewish, even though he wasn't. I could go on Mad Jack 21:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there's Leon Trotsky , who was obviously an atheist. But they list his religion as Jewish as well as his ethnicity - though obviously only one is correct. Now you know the difference between second-hand sources and first hand sources? First hand sources are right, second-hand ones may possibly be right, if we're lucky, or they might not be. We are a second-hand source ourselves and we don't use our fellow second-hand sources for info if we want to stay reliable and not become a third-hand source. Mad Jack 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a single source in all of Wikipedia that doesn't occasionally get an entry wrong. That doesn't disqualify them however, moreover, I note that you are not basing your argument on anything found in WP:V. I note too that you do not provide any sources to back up your dispute over the validity of the examples you point to.  I would also note that Wikipedia:Resolving Disputes states that rather deleting or reverting edits you should try to make the entry better. A better course of action would be for you to find a reference you feel is more reliable. Failing that, and failing to cite WP:V, I again would ask you to restore the entries. Kirkswig 21:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and by the way, since you have already started a request for comment on this page on a different issue, I suggest you extend it to this issue as well. I mean, you might as well. Oh, and you quoted "If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question." Why is it important to note that Dan Abrams is Jewish? Mad Jack 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not start the RfC, that was another user, however, I am happy to see this issue resolved as well.  It's not that I don't see your point, it's just that you are not following Wikipedia guidelines (or at least are failing to make that case.)  NNDB appears to be an entirely reputable source, and you have not made the case otherwise.  Moreover, your threat of an edit war is not the way for this issue to be resolved.  Again, I point you to the rules, which states that you should improve entries rather than simply delete.  So I will put Dan Abrams back, and, now understanding that your actions are not supported by any Wikipedia policy you can cite, you will then delete him anew.  Nothing I can do about that.  Kirkswig 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and why is Dan Abrams entry important?  It's information, no different than any of the thousands of other entries in these lists.  It has exactly the same importance as all of them.  The real question is why it is so important to you that the entry be deleted. Kirkswig 22:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have not replied why NNDB would be a reliable source. Why? How would they know? I have stated reasons why they aren't - they have no resources that we don't, so they are as reliable as we are when we don't cite our sources. Exactly, Dan Abrams is just information. It has not great importance and if we can't find a reliable source for it, it can be deleted with no great effect. It is very important to me that Wikipedia stop citing IMDB, NNDB, and any of these similar web sites for info. I have had just about enough with all of them and the junk they spread on the net. That's why I only use first-hand sources. Mad Jack 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to restrict yourself to first-hand sources, however, I do not believe you are free to restrict others to first-hand sources, especially when you are unable to cite policy in support of your edits.  Wikipedia policy indicates that your best course of action is to improve the entry, deleting it only if you can demonstrate that it is false.  You have been advised that this is the policy, and yet you choose to ignore it.  What is required here is a ruling on NNDB in general, and if and when such a ruling takes place and determines that NNDB is indeed not reliable or appropriate for Wikipedia then you would be correct to act as you are.  Until then, you are not.  Let the powers-that-be decide this too I guess.  Kirkswig 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Does this source for Abrams actually say that Dan Abrams himself is Jewish? It seems to be about his father. And "born in and loves Jerusalem" is a good source for a "List of People who were born in Jerusalem", not a list of Jews. Mad Jack 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a moment ago you were saying that your concern was solely about using NNDB as a source, now it seems that the problem really is about Dan Abrams and not NNDB after all.  The article talks about not only his father but his mother too, even referring to her service in Israel's Air Force and actually calling her a Zionist.  And please bear in mind that the requirement for sources appears to be completely arbitrary here, no other list I can find requires them.  So just be happy it isn't NNDB and have a nice day. :)  That said, there are better quotes from the article to put up there, I'll change that now. Kirkswig 08:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the source, besides being reliable, has to say that Dan Abrams is actually Jewish. Doesn't matter what standards it uses, as long as it says exactly that. See List of British Jews, List of Greeks, List of Catholic American entertainers for pages where this was outlined as being in line with Wikipedia policy. Yes, now most ethnicity-American lists also have this as a requirement. Check almost any one - Irish/Swedish/Dutch/etc. The quote for Abrams' mother says she is a Zionist - which would be good for listing her on a list of Zionists, but wouldn't be good for listing either her or her son on a List of Jews. Every other name on this list has a source that actually says the person is Jewish. Mad Jack 08:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article in its entirety makes it abundently clear that he is Jewish, I mean, there's the bit about his mom being in the Israeli Air Force, being from a Zionist family, the various Jewish organizations they belong to, etc.  Was I to quote the entire article?  As for the other lists, no, most of the lists I come across do not have this as a requirement, let's not pretend otherwise. Kirkswig 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I seem to have found a source for Abrams myself. If this Boris Shusteff guy who wrote the article is to be trusted. I'll add it. Mad Jack 09:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  I would have passed on Shusteff.  That said, as I see no reason why there shouldn't be multiple references, I'm putting back mine next to yours.  Kirkswig 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NNDB

message: I am not sure what this article actually accomplishes. Please explain why it shouldn't be deleted. --Leifern 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably should be.  Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came down to the bottom of this talk page to question the existence of this article, to find Leifern has beaten me to it... and then "lost" an edit conflict to Jay.  Anyway, what they said.  Actually I think I know what this article "accomplishes," but I don't think it is a purpose for which Wikipedia is designed.  I also really love the box at the top that says "This page is a list of Jews."  Kind of creepy, isn't it?  6SJ7 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I look at the list some more, it is really a list of journalists, media executives, various kinds of writers, and others.  However, I am not inclined to correct flaws in the article as the whole thing seems like one big flaw to me.  6SJ7 00:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I can't see any reason for the existence of this list. The ongoing problems with accuracy contribute further to the lack of usefulness. Dbratton 14:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, they should all go. I have come to the conclusion that all "List of <ethnic> <professions>" have no benefit. I realize I'm in the minority in this view, and there may be exceptions that might convince me. --Leifern 15:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add me to your minority. Dbratton 11:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD? 

message: I've removed a number of names which used unreliable sources (e.g. blogs), or didn't actually say the person was a Jew.  Being married by a Rabbi, for example, is no guarantee that one is a Jew, since many Rabbis perform intermarriages.  Similarly, coming from a Zionist family does not mean one is a Jew.  Please ensure that all entries comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While this may or may not be so, you are then taking the opportunity to delete a few entries and using it to delete entries which should be staying.  And you are often simply incorrect, for instance, Ted Koppel is a columnist for The New York Times, whether you like to admit that or not is irrelevant.  Until you calm down, I will continue reverting your changes as vandalism. Nokilli 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are now deleting entries beyond what you are describing in the edit comments.  You are engaging in vandalism.  I do not understand why you are doing this, since it will only bring attention to this matter.  I assure you. Nokilli 01:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The issues with each source have been clearly stated; can you respond to those specific issues, or find better sources?  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable/irrelevant sources 

message: I've been brooding over this a while, and I think I've come to a realization that may be helpful. Let's compare this with, say, lists of Norwegian-Americans. There is such a list in Wikipedia, but it's a) very short, and b) not the least bit contentious. There is no need to scrupulously document that Peter Graves is Norwegian-American, because that aspect is of only passing interest. No doubt, hundreds if not thousands of notable people of Norwegian-American ancestry never get categorized that way on Wikipedia. It simply doesn't matter much. But for reasons that may be interesting in themselves, there is an obsession about lists such as these.  Katie Couric, who is Jewish only in the most technical sense, is listed, as if it matters at all to her notability. But really, it shouldn't. Why should it? --Leifern 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Norwegian list is almost the last ethnicity-American list to go unsourced. I don't know why I haven't done it yet, though the other Scandinavian-American ones are done. All ethnicity-American lists shoulf be sourced. And no, there are't "thousands" of people missing from the Norwegian list. There are a few that I have not yet stumbled on, most likely, and then there are a few listed who only have scant Norwegian ancestry, and will most likely be removed when I get to sourcing that list. Katie Couric, by the way, is a lot more Jewish than a large number of people on the Norwegian list are "Norwegian-American". And at least she's been described as Jewish by a good source. Mad Jack 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and as for the dispute that seems to be going on around here - it's very simple. If a reliable source described someone as a "Journalist", they should be listed. If a reliable source hasn't, they can't be or else it's Original Research. It doesn't get any simpler than that. I kinda doubt all the media moguls certain users are trying to add have been described as journalists, but I suppose I am ready to be surprised. Mad Jack 20:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect, there is a correct and workable definition of what a Journalist is on Wikipedia, it requires only that the person be identified as working in a news organization in the chain of editorial control, which can be anything from executive/publisher to guy who writes stuff down. Nokilli 03:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It means there are people listed on the Norwegian page who have something like a Norwegian great-grandmother and have never been referred to as Norwegian-American by a reliable source. Yet, no one ever raised the issue of what's up with that. But regardless, I've put the Norwegian list on my "to do" list and I'll be getting rid of all such people before the day is out. Mad Jack 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on why this article bugs me 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on List of Jewish American journalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060721054818/http://www.jwmag.org/articles/12Fall04/p15.asp to http://www.jwmag.org/articles/12Fall04/p15.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717191818/http://www.juf.org/tweens/new_cel.asp?ID=58 to http://www.juf.org/tweens/new_cel.asp?ID=58
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060602182024/http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20050712.asp to http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2005/col20050712.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116091046/http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1204/Prochnau/Prochnau.html to http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1204/Prochnau/Prochnau.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203071058/http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/design/menkes/index.html to http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/design/menkes/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505135656/http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3562&search=richard to http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3562&search=richard
*Added  tag to http://www.usaweekend.com/05_issues/051218/051218pope.html
*Added  tag to http://www.alligator.org/edit/issues/01-spring/010302/b02siegel2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It would seem to make far more sense to list the category automatically, if that's possible. If not, maybe this page could just redirect to the category. Franzboas (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be somehow merged with the category "Jewish American journalists"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Jewish American journalists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070116153511/http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/Interviews/thompson_pearl_paterson.html to http://oralhistory.rutgers.edu/Interviews/thompson_pearl_paterson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does this list even exist?  Antisemitism is the answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1100:13d5:b044:bc57:2a09:c5b1 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like List of American print journalists?If your concern is specifically with listing journalists who are Jewish American, can you explain why? If your concern is with having any lists of Jewish Americans at all (or Jewish people more generally?) you may wish to start a discussion in a broader venue, because there are quite a few articles like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there no list of <Non Jewish> American Journalists