Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders with Jewish background

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious leaders with Jewish background

List of religious leaders with Jewish background (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Highly arbitrary and unusual list. Jesus of Nazareth in the same list as Edith Stein? Should we split these lists into every possible ethnic division? What is "background"? A father? A mother? A convert? No discernable criteria or point. Bulldog123 04:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Since the list means "religious" = "not rabbinic Judaism" then shouldn't the list Note or Title clarify this as a List for "leaders of religions other than Judaism" with Jewish background?
  2. Do we want to delimit the list by timeframe? If we don't exclude the first generation(s) of Christianity, then we'd have to add the apostles and many other early Christians. Well, I suppose if there's a quick bio tag line for each entry, then it won't overwhelm the data. Please ask for the approx bio dates to the entries.
Granted, Jewish readers may be troubled to see the list include, say, Jews for Jesus leaders. But are articles to be deleted based on making people feel uncomfortable? If somebody would point me to the WP criteria to be cited for deletion, then I would find it easier to cast my vote. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please state criteria and how it applies to the article. "Silly" is not helpful here. HG | Talk 13:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. —gorgan_almighty 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HG: Firstly it's a list not an "article" and there is nothing "fascinating" about it. Secondly, take a look, does it make sense that "Mary, mother of Jesus" (listed here as "Miriam") or that Mary Magdalene (listed here as "Miriam of Magdala) "a follower and, perhaps, friend of Jesus" are termed "religious leaders"? And of "Jewish" background? Just how "Jewish" was their "background"? (As an aside, the double usage of "Miriam" here is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NEO.) Thirdly, you then have a hodge-podge of people, mostly Karaites and Christians who are totally disconnected from normative Judaism, so what does that say about their "Jewish backround/s"? Fourthly, as the nominator has correctly pointed out, this list does NOT state what criteria it uses. Is it the same as those on Who is a Jew? and does it include Judaism as a religion or being Jewish as an ethnicity -- one, some, all or none? Finally, based on the inherent errors of organization and simple logic, this list easily violates WP:NONSENSE in its incorrect collection of names and its inherently flawed presentation. IZAK 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Izak -- thanks for your numbered response. #2: If specific entries do not belong on the list, e.g. not a leader, that does not disqualify the list itself. #3: Jews disconnecting from the norm and started or led other religions -- that is not a hodge-podge, I'd say, but rather a cultural process of significant interest in religious studies departments. #4: I agree that the criteria need to be clarified. See my comment, above. Still, clarification is quite feasible and not grounds for deleting the list.
  • Izak: I agree that the inclusion criteria is not well defined. My suggestion of convert to category below would probably use somewhat different criteria to what the list's author had in mind, but it's much better defined so will fix the problem raised by #4, your only valid point. —gorgan_almighty 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge to Religious conversion, splitting the list to put each person under the appropriate sub-heading. All these people appear to be notable, so there's no problems there. —gorgan_almighty 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Changed my opinion, see below. —gorgan_almighty 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But this doesn't deal with Jewish identity and, more importantly, the list presumably deals not merely with routine converts, but people who sought out and/or were given leadership roles. HG | Talk 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Category [[Category:Converts from Judaism]]. Seems to go hand-in-hand with categories like [[Category:Converts to Anglicanism]]. Converting lists to categories is normally a very awkward task, but this list is short so it wouldn't take long. —gorgan_almighty 15:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gorgan: Your sugggestions are not new and have been discussed and indeed there have been such categories or lists that were eventually deleted due to their controversial or offensive nature as well as how to really determine what the definitive status of a Jew who renounces his faith is according to Jewish law, I seem to recall, (this goes back some years, so a search for the old discussions/votes would be required.) At any rate, we don't need the new category you mention here because we could simply attach the list of names on this list to the Jewish heretics article since they are mostly all excellent examples of such heresy according to classical Judaism. IZAK 18:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Izak, your counter-proposal to list as heretics won't work. (1) Many such people have never been called heretics by reliable sources, so to do so would be original research. (2) If you are saying, I'll list them as heretics but I won't list them as former Jews, you will sound naughtily prejudicial and POV. Tsk. :) HG | Talk 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to these people as heretics is biased and POV. Whereas the phrase "Converts from Judaism" is NPOV. It is completely neutral of bias as it is simply sticking to the cold hard facts. As for the argument that the categories existed but were deleted, WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus can change. I say convert the list to acategory and see what happens. I may do that anyway, since it doesn't need AfD approval. —gorgan_almighty 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the main question one must always ask in an AFD is "has there been notable coverage on this issue". The answer is no. There has been no newspaper articles, journals, or books published about which leaders are Jewish (not necessarily Jews but Jew-ish). Jon513 16:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's absurd. Most/all of these people are historical characters and the fact that they were once Jews, then became religious leaders is well documented throughout history. Do you really want to argue that there's no reliable secondary sources stating that Jesus Christ was once a Jew? They all have their own Wikipedia articles, which cite these facts, so there's no need to duplicate the citations. I agree that this list isn't the best way to present the information, and the criteria for inclusion isn't well defined / well thought out, but converting it to a category as above would fix that. —gorgan_almighty 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but the Jew-ish-ness of many, maybe all these leaders is a factor in much scholarly and popular analysis. Karaites? Frank, Shabtai Tzvi? Edith Stein? Jesus? Catholic clergy? Notability is not the issue.HG | Talk 16:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let me explain. There is scholarly research if an individual is Jewish. But there is no real concern about what percentage of leaders are Jewish. Or what do Jewish leaders have in common. Or how do Jewish leaders compare to their gentile counterparts. In other words has there been any sources that view "Jewish Leaders" as a significant group in any real way. Jon513 10:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good to clarify. Yes, there is certainly research on how Jewish leaders compare to gentiles. (Eg, early Jewish-origin vs Pagan Christians, medieval clerics). Yes, I think there is some analysis of what various sets of Jewish leaders have in common. So, yes I think maybe studies look at "Jewish leaders" as a group, though academics alway focus on little sets not encyclopedic swaths. No, not percentages, though that's a red herring and not generated by the list anyway. Granted, I concede that I'm now aware of sources that already list this entire group . However, Wikipedia policies don't demand that we work off an existing list. In fact, without having to involve any original research, this list would put together in one place some data that I think would make wikipedia useful. Many such wikipedia lists are like this, that's my impression. Thanks. HG | Talk 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Jewishness and the religious leadership of these people are connected in so many different ways that the list is hopelessly POV--and also very incomplete. DGG (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DGG -- incompleteness of a list is not grounds for deleting, only for improving the list. The fact that people are connected in diverse ways... doesn't that enrich the value of the list? Jewish scientists are also connected as biologists or South Africans. Jewish-background religious leaders may be connected as Catholic clerics, as heretics, as NRM leaders, etc. We can do subheadings, which only improves and strengthens the list. HG | Talk 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the list is talking not about Religious figures with a Jewish background, but about non-Jewish religious figures with a Jewish background, or those Jews who became religious figures in another religion. But almost all of this is POV and controverted, and in different ways. Every Christian figure in the Gospels --and in the NT generally except those Gentile who Paul converted--had a Jewish background, and many early Christians subsequently. And except for the ones who may have considered themselves as primarily Jews, and that is a matter of considerable and obvious controversy, and the listing of Jesus/Yeshua indicates this, because the name Yeshua would be regarded by almost all Jews as very much a small minority POV. There is no need to get into this here, and the list cannot avoid doing so. Whether the Karaites are jews is avery different questions, and by no means a settled one. So the connections are so different and so disputable t hat the list is not a good idea. Leave these matters to the articles on the individual people and groups. There is no way to do this list. DGG (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the list concerns a notable set of people, sharing a common characteristic that is noteworthy -- admittedly controversial, even offensive -- in both scholarship, religious circles and popular culture. Jon513 raises notability but I hope he will modify his vote based on discussion above. Others have mainly focused on the criteria as vague or POV. However, terms like "religious" "leader" and "Jewish" are not vague. Yes, "Jewish" is always a controversial identity, but we deal with that all over wikipedia. We've got some good ways to clarify Jewish. More importantly, each leader is notable, so their Jewish background can be dealt with (if nec, on a case by case basis) in their main article. I think there is an underlying concern here that the list will help publicize people who many of us find objectionable, e.g. heretics, anti-Semites, "traitors to Judaism" and proselytizers. I concede that the list will include unsavory characters, but I am convinced that this list can work with feasible criteria and exceed notability requirements. HG | Talk 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not changed my mind. The list lumps together different groups in a haphazard manner. If it was a List of Karaites (about a third of the list is Karaites) that would make sense. The rest of the list is early Christian figures (a List of early Christian figures - would be fine) and random Christian leaders with Jewish backgrounds and then a few who don't really have anything to do with anything. Lumping them altogether doesn't shed light on any topic or even make much sense. It seems like a list of rejects (those who did not quite make the criteria) from List of rabbis and is therefore a borderline POV fork. Jon513 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jon513, thanks for taking time to respond. While you did not address our different assessments of notability, your comment is very helpful in clarifying the POV objections. A WP:POV fork is a violation of neutrality. (1) One way to detect POV forking is thru the history of edits on the main article. But it would be a somewhat odd to establish POV forking from a list. If entries don't qualify for a list, they may qualify for another list. You yourself give a plausible example (List of Karaites). Whether to put them into a more broadly defined list may be a questionable editorial judgment, but it doesn't strike me as a POV fork. (2) Second way to detect a POV fork is by the POV bias in the Article Name. E.g., a fork would be "List of people claimed to be Rabbis." Besides, a remedy for POV forking is to ensure an NPOV title, as here. I've heard assertions that the Title is vague, the criteria hard to apply, the list will be too full of early Christians (DGG); however, the Title (Article Name) seems overtly neutral in language and hence scope. Arguably, one may infer that the List Title was chosen to avoid even the appearance of a POV fork, which demonstrates respect for our policies. Can you find sources to support the claim that "Jewish background" wording reflects a one-sided point of view? Thanks! HG | Talk 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. From POV fork guideline:"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner." HG | Talk 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put my objection another way: if there was a List of Karaites and a List of early Christian figures and someone created this article and redirect it to this list, would anyone support such an action? Why is the world are two vaguely related groups in the same list. It just make much more sense for them to be separate. Jon513 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jon513, it seems like you have identified two subheadings or sublists for this List. Both of the subheadings or lists you name would satisfy neutrality. So does the overall article. Thank you. HG | Talk 21:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NO NO NO. This article is as stupid as combining List of African athletes, List of African birds, and List of African countries into List of African things and have athletes, birds and countries as subheadings! List just doesn't make sense. There is value in separate lists for separate significant groups. There is no value in a List of 'List of Rabbis' rejects that lumps completely different people together in a haphazard WP:OR way. Jon513 15:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edith Stein is not a reject from a rabbis list. 'Stupid' is not a counter-argument to NPOV or WP:N.HG | Talk 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edith Stein has as little to do with Aaron ben Moses ben Asher as two people can get! Yet they are lump together in the same list as if they are both part of some group. Is there anything to learn from comparing and contracting them?! Granted there is some relationship between them (a religious leader with Jewish background) but the fact that these two people are on the same list show how meaningless the list is. That is what I mean by stupid. Jon513 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal to vagueness and NOR concern. I understand that we "can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination." Accordingly, I have provided a concrete definition, mainly to demonstrate that reliable sources can define these terms. "Jewish background" is defined here to include people who, regardless of their later status in life, had been verifiably considered or self-identified as a Jew or as a "Person of Jewish Background" (PJB), as defined by the National Jewish Population Survey 2000-01, United Jewish Communities (UJC), 2003. Jew is used here in its broad meaning to include people from non-rabbinic Jewish movements (e.g., Hellenistic and Karaite Jews), secular and non-practicing Jews. Further refinement of the specific definition can be done in editing. HG | Talk 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the fear of "disputes over definitions" (ChrisO) -- yes, it is clear that this could be a controverial article, hey, it's already gotten an AfD. But the name and topic are well-defined, neutral so as not to prejudice the outcome of such WP disputes, so fear of internal WP disputes is not sufficient grounds for deletion here. Regards. HG | Talk 04:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.