Jump to content

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Proposal for deletion/addition of names

The discussions are not going anywhere and there can never be consensus in this issue when people start saying Jewish can be taken as a culture, fashion and who knows what else too. Proposal: each individual scientist discussed rather than continuing discussion for consensus for the whole article and jewish/judaism issue. Scientist with verifiable sources should be kept other wise deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HasperHunter (talk • contribs) 14:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

HasperHunter—can you show me where "...people start saying Jewish can be taken as a culture, fashion and who knows what else too"?
You say "Scientist with verifiable sources should be kept other wise deleted." Indeed every entry on this List is reliably sourced. I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
See the talk above. This Jewish list- supportes claim as ethnic jews not jews by religion. So totally different things.
No sources for many scientists sorry. Being born into a jew family does not mean anything. Most of human ancestors may come from africa or china, so do you want a ethnic african nobel laureate list now? This is a joke list, no less than supporting it.HasperHunter (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have a multiplicity of Lists with each List being for Jews of a different level of observance and we are not necessarily privy to the reasoning employed by each reliable source. You say "Being born into a jew family does not mean anything". In fact a Jew has that identity as a consequence of either birth or conversion. Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you a serious editor? Do you even know who can be identified as a jew is a huge huge controversy? Your argument here makes your own POV, nothing else. Unless a person identifies self, you just dont tag him with a certain criteria. A simple example, if someone had a nazism follower (Nasci germany one) in his family, can you tag him/her as one although he is not one? C'mon who are you fooling here? Yourself?HasperHunter (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
VIERECK: “Is this a Jewish concept of God?”
EINSTEIN: “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”
http://www.feelguide.com/2011/06/11/the-fascinating-story-of-einsteins-childhood-his-rebellious-youth-and-his-definition-of-god/ Even Einstein has multiple views on what a jew is. So how do you define jewism again user Bus stop?HasperHunter (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


That isn't fact, it is opinion. It is also demonstrably false. Nobody 'has an identity' unless they chose to identify themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Could not have agreed more! HasperHunter (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tags explained

There was a revert questioning that there was no problems in verification. I am giving explanations before I tag the verifiability again.
Number 1: Steven Weinberg- a declared atheist/and also not affiliated with any culture ethnicity : http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/sep/25/without-god/?pagination=false References are made to his biography outside and inside wikipedia as well. More to follow...
Before anyone makes some repetitive comment, even if you consider the ethnic jewish part, weinberg has clearly explained he does not identify himself with any cultural group.HasperHunter (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Number 2: Richard Feynman: self identified as an avowed atheist/no ethnic identity: http://physics.about.com/od/richardpfeynman/gr/WhatDoYouCare.htm & http://www.nndb.com/people/584/000026506/. (please not in the book in page 25, he has strictly refused affiliation with any ethnicity as well.)
Note: The need for what jewish we are talking in this article is extreme. Most scientists here only have jews as their ancestors and they dont even identify themseleves as any group specific. Wikipedia should stop giving a hypocritical joke list like this article without explaining what Jews here means.HasperHunter (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it is not only unethical but also stupid to include people in these lists who we know would not have put themselves on them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Point to note for all: While I am ok to agree with explaining the criteria and keeping the list including ethnic related, birth in a jew family and all this nonsense (makes me look a fool to disrespect this scientists (esp. physicists) and their hard work by tagging with some race or ethnicity); you all should note that, inclusion criteria will make matter more controversial as who can be identified as a jew is a big controversy in itself. HasperHunter (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Number 3 Alber Einstein

VIERECK: “Is this a Jewish concept of God?”
EINSTEIN: “I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”

http://www.feelguide.com/2011/06/11/the-fascinating-story-of-einsteins-childhood-his-rebellious-youth-and-his-definition-of-god/ Even Einstein has multiple views on what a jew is. So how do you define jewism again user Bus stop?HasperHunter (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

  • I put this template here because the article is locked for editing. I think a lot of time and effort is being wasted on deciding the religion of Nobel laureates when religion plays absolutely no part in the decision to award the prize. If there is ever a Nobel prize for being Jewish or Muslim or black, then lists like these make sense. Green Giant (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree I totally support the view, religion, ethnicity or culture plays no part in awards. Also, no one has a right to tag anyone when that anyone has not tagged himself/herself as belonging to any specific group.HasperHunter (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This template is in the wrong namespace, so I have removed it. If you'd like to nominate this article for deletion, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Since the article is protected, you may need to use the {{editprotected}} template to request that an admin help you with this, or you can just wait until the article is unprotected after the dispute is resolved (which would be preferable, as an AfD would just complicate things). —SW— squeal 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Note Please see the misleadingly named Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates - this in fact calls for the deletion of other lists of Nobel laureates, including this one. On that basis, there must be an appropriate template notifying of the AfD added to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please add an {{Article for deletion/dated}} template to this article, to indicate that it is part of the bundled AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Nobel Laureates. Thanks. —SW— yak 18:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 23:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree In fact, I saw this page linked from another, and I came to this page specifically in disbelief that it exists, and wanted to nominate it for deletion, for reasons others stated above. DAID (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

'Israeli' = 'Jewish'?

Having just deleted yet another name from the list as lacking any citation for being Jewish, I note that we have several more. Can someone please explain whether it is sufficient to assume they must be Jewish if they are Israeli? That seems to be the implication - if so, I'd like to see the policy and/or evidence by which this assumption is made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

"Roger D. Kornberg is an American Jewish recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2006, for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription."[1] Tom Harrison Talk 17:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Er, yes, but "FAU is very pleased to continue to provide access to the site as a service to interested researchers, but does not update the site and makes no representation as to its accuracy and completeness". [2] Not the best of sources - and I'm sure that if Roger Kornberg is Arthur Kornberg's son, there ought to be a better reference.
Any thoughts on the 'Israeli' = 'Jewish' issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've provided several easily found sources for Kornberg being Jewish, which he quite obviously is. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It may well be obvious. Once one sees the evidence. There wasn't any. Given the insistence that we rely on 'reliable sources' to determine who belongs on the list, it seems entirely reasonable to ask that they be provided. Actually, this is a requirement, whether it is reasonable on not. Now, what about the other issue: Israeli Nobel laureates with no source for them being Jewish. Or are we going to rely on the 'obvious' (which actually isn't anything of the kind) again? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's generally fairly obvious which Israelis are Jews and which aren't, but are there any specific names on this list that are of concern? Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes - the ones that aren't weren't sourced as being Jewish. 'Fairly obvious' isn't a reliable source... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I see they have now been sourced. Why not say so? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added or improved literally hundreds of sources in this article; that's most of what I've done here. I've never announced on the talk page which ones, nor has anyone expected it of me. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

File:George de Hevesy.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:George de Hevesy.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:George de Hevesy.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Igor' Tamm actually was not of a Jewish but of a German decent.

To the best of my knowledge, Igor' Tamm was not of a Jewish but of a German decent. So I would recommend to remove his name from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.39.77 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

Quite surprised to have found Niels Bohr's name here, when even the corresponding Wikipedia article says he was a baptised Lutheran (or some other Protestant sect). Ok, technically, from a halakhic point of view he might be Jewish but I think his inclusion on this list is a bit of a stretch.

And btw, why not have a List of Nobel laureates who are fans of Iggy Pop? It would make about as much sense as this one and would appeal a lot more to Wikipedia's user base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.146.255 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If Richard Feynman was still alive...

He would ask you to remove his name from this list. This very topic has been discussed in his book/letter collection of: Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track

Since he is not alive, may I request his removal in his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomji (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In the letter you cite, he requested his removal from a very similar list in his own name.

Incidentally, I have made some points at [[3]] that I believe are relevant to this page (and in particular to its statements about percentages). Feketekave (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Myron Scholes

I'm surprised to find Myron Scholes on this list. In his autobiography on the nobelprize.org website, he makes no mention of a Jewish background. Besides, one of the sources given, "100 Years of Nobel Prizes" is not a work that is dedicated to Jewish laureates in particular, nor does it state that Mr Scholes is Jewish, so I'm having a hard time understanding why that is used as a reference for his supposed Jewishness.

From what I've seen, I don't believe there is any reliable evidence to support this claim, nor do I think there is any circumstantial basis for it either, besides him being a Nobel laureate in economics. Scholes (pronounced Skoles) is an English name, and Myron is Greek, whilst it could never be said that Timmins, Ontario (Schole's birthplace) is a spring well of the Canadian Jewish community. However, I don't want to be hasty and cause an edit war, so rather than go ahead and delete it, I'd first like to hear if there any reasonable objections to doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.58.107 (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've now removed the entry for Mr Scholes. However, after looking through the history of this article, it seems this isn't the first time Scholes has been removed and then reverted back again. I therefore kindly ask that in future, should anyone feel obliged to put his name back on the list, to first argue their case here, along with providing a more credible citation. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.58.107 (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Scholes presence in this list is supported by four (4!) reliable secondary sources. Not only was he active in the local Jewish community as a boy, and honored by it on his return to his hometown as an adult, but he was also apparently active in Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life while in college there. In the future please don't remove reliably sourced information based on your own WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Odd removal -- please don't delete entries such as this, based on multiple RSs. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Eugene P. Wigner and Christian B. Anfinsen

Eugene P. Wigner (1902-1995, physics prize 1963) was born into a Hungarian Jewish family which converted to Lutheranism some time around 1919. Christian B. Anfinsen (1916-1995, chemistry prize 1972) was born into a Norwegian-American family, and thus most probably Lutheran, and converted to Orthodox Judaism in 1979, that is after he got the Nobel Prize. Should either of them also be included in a hypothetical list of Lutheran Nobel Prize winners? Roufu (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparisons

"Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals,[2] of whom at least 25% were Jews, although Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population.[3]"

The fact that jews comprise X% of the world's population is completely irrelevant as the Nobel Prize is an award given to persons who have achieved something in a certain science. THat means if a fifth of the world's population is Chinese, that doesn't necessarily mean that a fifth of the Nobel Laureates should be from China. It would be more relevant to check how large portion of the world's scientists are jewish!

If for instance 50% of the world's scientist were jews, then the number of jews among the Nobel Prize laureates would be very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.160.250.14 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems quite relevant to me. For the obvious reasons -- if we had the same stats for Chinese table tennis players, for example, it would be relevant for the same reasons ... we wouldn't require info as to how many of the world's table tennis players are Chinese.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Concealing the exact numbers

My edit , revealing the exact numbers and ratio of Jews receiving the Nobel, was erased by User:Jayjg for Template:Uw-nor2, though it was duly sourced. I need help against this unjustified delete. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The proper way to go about this isn't to ask for help from others, but rather to create an argument that supports why your edit should exist, and then gain consensus for it. --Jethro B 18:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The stated reason was not about the content but lack of a source. This reason was clearly unjustified, since there was a source and it was fully cited. עמירם פאל (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I think Jayjg meant the lack of a reliable source, not the lack of a source. I can't say for sure, he'll know better than I do. --Jethro B 21:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
He said - NOR, meaning No Oroginal Research. Nothing about reliability. And anyway, what is unreliable with the source braught there? I honestly don't understand the deletion. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
In my edit summary I also wrote "you must rely on reliable secondary sources". jinfo.org does not meet the requirements of WP:RS - why would you imagine it did? On the contrary, it is a classic WP:SPS - please click on the link I've provided to understand what that is. Jayjg (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand why would you imagine this website being a SPS website. This definition usually refers to a book which was self published by the author. How do you connect the site to this definition? עמירם פאל (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, one of the sources in this article itself brings some of those same numbers - http://www.ishitech.co.il/1204ar3.htm - See the last paragraph. עמירם פאל (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The very first words of WP:SPS are "Anyone can create a personal web page etc.". If jinfo.org is not a WP:SPS, then please explain who publishes it, and what sort of editorial oversight it has. Regarding the other source in the article, it's pretty old already, it doesn't say what jinfo.org says, and what it does say is captured in the article alrady. Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Let's leave that site alone. They watch this conversation and will interfere if they wish to. Why conceal the facts about the exact numbers of Jewish Nobel laureates? Even if it's a bit old? This is the one we got so far, as you've disqualified the one I had provided. So, let's write it down and continue the search for a more up to date source. עמירם פאל (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you keep using the word "conceal"? It's highly pejorative, and hardly conducive to collaborative editing. Various sources come to slightly different counts regarding this, so there's no definitive number. The article already summarizes as "over 20%", about which the sources agree. What else is required? Jayjg (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

O.K. To my paranoid Jewish brain it seemed you were following me and erasing every mention of good thing I had edited about Jewish persona. Let's start from scratch and work TOGETHER at the three relevant articles. Here for one - The exact numbers are all in the source I've tried to use, in vain - jinfo. I'm trying now to find those numbers in other sources. Will you help me? עמירם פאל (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the need to find "exact numbers". As I've said, various sources are inevitably going to come to slightly different counts regarding this, so there's no definitive number. The article already summarizes as "over 20%", about which the sources agree. What else is required? Jayjg (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I meant the other numbers brought by the source you've disqualified. Look at the stuff you've erased! There're so many impressive numbers there. It will be a shame not to reveal them to the whole world! עמירם פאל (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I get the feeling we're still not communicating here. There are no "exact numbers" on these matters, regardless of how "impressive" you feel they are. Is there a specific number you think should be included? If so, upon which reliable sources would you base it? Jayjg (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The numbers I refer to are those in the source I had cited -
a. 36% of all US recipients.
b. In the research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding US percentage is 39%.
c. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 38% and 50%, respectively.
etc.
Alas, without help, and specifically with your objection I don't think I can do further.
עמירם פאל (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to find reliable, up-to-date, secondary sources that indicate this, and it will likely be quite difficult to do so. Jayjg (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Alferov

Generally, are you sure that he is Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikhgeoboch (talk • contribs) 18:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Christian B. Anfinsen

Christian B. Anfinsen is an interesting case, in that he converted to Judaism in 1979, but received his Nobel Prize in 1972, when he wasn't Jewish. Should some kind of note be made of this by his entry? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sourcing to that effect, you could put it in a footnote. Jayjg (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I am just perusing this site but the question that strikes me as I read this page is: What is meant by the word "Jew"? This should be in a sentence in the header of the page. I think different religions approach this differently, but isn't Jewishness defined by heritage/maternal inheritance and only after that by actual belief? Can someone clarify this? I don't see how Christian Anfinsen qualifies here as none of this is relevant to him at the time of his Nobel Prize (which is what this article is about). The inclusion of a small number of other people here is also questionable/misleading unless we have criteria of relevance set out at the beginning.--2.124.67.73 (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Schally

Schally being Jewish appears to be an error. He himself makes no mention of any Jewish ancestry here. Are we sure about this one? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As with all the names here, Schally's inclusion is supported by multiple reliable sources. He himself is somewhat ambiguous on the topic; he lists multiple nationalities as ancestral, yet also states he "was fortunate to survive the holocaust while living among the Jewish-Polish Community in Roumania" - something that was done almost exclusively by Polish Jews. In the end, it's hard to know for sure, so we can only rely on what the reliable sources say. Jayjg (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
His long genealogy here is clearly non-Jewish Polish (i.e. grandparents Andrzej Schally, Stanisława Śniadowska h. Jastrzębiec - a Polish noblewoman - Karol Ryszard Aleksander Łącki z Łąki h. Jelita - a Polish nobleman - Helena Kaulbersz, and so on). I know there is debate about people of mixed background, converts away from Judaism, etc., and I leave those to the debaters, but since Schally has no Jewish ancestry, and didn't (as far as I know) convert to Judaism, he should be removed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
There are many RSs that say he is Jewish. That is the test -- not whether one editor doesn't (admittedly) know whether Schally perhaps converted to Judaism, or has other OR musings.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You can find plenty of "RS" that describe a whole lot of people as Jewish. Many of these are lists of names, and lists of names are inherently unreliable. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
We follow what the RSs say. In lieu of following one wp editor, who says "as far as I know ... he didn't convert" ... but who doesn't know, and is engaging in OR speculation. We're not an OR blog. We follow the RSs, not editor speculation. BTW -- we have another editor on Schally's talkpage who says he is related to Schally, and that Schally is Jewish ... and we don't follow his OR say-so any more than we follow yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Many non-Jewish people are described as Jewish by a reliable source for one reason or the other. Lists of names are not reliable sources. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW, Jinfo, which used to list Schally, has removed him, and states: "We had also previously listed Andrew Schally (1977), based on i) his statement that "I was fortunate to survive the holocaust while living among the Jewish-Polish Community in Roumania. I used to speak Polish, Roumanian, Yiddish..." (the term "the holocaust" being generally understood to refer specifically to the Nazi extermination of European Jewry); ii) his membership in the World Jewish Academy of Sciences; and iii) several published references [e.g., The Timetables of Jewish History by Judah Gribetz (Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1993, p.634 ) and Jews and Medicine, by Frank Heynick (KTAV, Hoboken, NJ, 2002, p. 574)]. This genealogy, however, clearly shows Schally's background to be predominantly Polish, and not Jewish." All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is a perfect example of what I mean by lists of names. Just this month, the JTA referred to both Elon Musk and Marissa Mayer as Jewish in this article. Other sources repeated this claim. Neither one is Jewish/of Jewish heritage. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's simple. We seek verifiability in RSs -- not truth -- and base our edits on those. And we certainly do not base our edits on what one editor says, based on OR ... in essence "as far as I know he didn't convert, but then again I don't know." Many RSs say he is Jewish. On the other side we have you -- saying you don't know (but have your speculation). An easy one.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it is an easy one. He's not Jewish and so there's no point in saying he is, and creating circular references on the internet forever. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we still have to abide by WP:V, regardless of our own personal views on a matter. So far we have a number of reliable sources stating he was Jewish, and an unreliable source stating he was not. I suggest that you take www.jinfo.org to WP:RSN, and see if that board views it as reliable. If it does, then it opens up a whole new source for this list, which would be quite valuable to have. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I would add to the above post -- unless a list asserts that it lists ALL people with certain characteristics, the list can only be relied on for the fact that a person listed has those characteristics. But not for a negative -- the synth supposition that someone not listed does not have those characteristics.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To Jayjg: When you say "RS": why is this website a more reliable source than JInfo? It's just a website with a list of names. It has no credited author or source. Similarly, this is just a list of names, albeit in book-published form. Is KTAV Publishing House a reliable source? Now that I look at it, it also lists Herbert Spencer Gasser, who also wasn't Jewish and also is listed on this page and also should be removed. Another source is this list of names. The author, J. Rogers Hollingsworth, seems to state that his source for Schally being Jewish is Nicholas Wade's 1981 book about him, The Nobel duel: two scientists' 21-year race to win the world's most coveted research prize. But the book makes no mention of Schally being Jewish. The book backs up Hollingsworth's claim that Schally's father was a professional soldier, but not that he was Jewish. In short, why are any of these authors and sources reliable? None of them are biographers of Schally. They're all lists of names. Lists of names are not reliable sources, and if JInfo is unreliable (which it perhaps is), these writers are no more reliable. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you dispute the reliability of other sources, then WP:RSN is also the place for the discussion. science.co.il does have a statement by the site's editor on it, and a list of various awards that it has won - but even if it were not reliable, that wouldn't make jinfo.org reliable. KTAV publishing house has been around for decades, focusing on Jewish topics, and publishes many textbooks and scholarly works. Books it has published are cited in at least 400 Wikipedia articles, so if it's not reliable, we need a broader discussion on that too. Regarding Hollingsworth, he appears to cite Acker (1991) and Wade (1981), but not necessarily for the claim that Schally is Jewish. A list is as reliable as anything else published; that is, it depends on whether the source in general meets WP:RS/N. Jayjg (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that Wikipedia is obligated to replicate everything included on a list of names? Like I said, there is a JTA source that states Marissa Mayer and Elon Musk are Jewish. Should Wikipedia now list them both as Jewish, even though there is information to the contrary? An alleged "reliable source" that is also a list of names does not exist in a vacuum. There is no obligation to repeat claims that are clearly wrong, just because there is an RS that makes them. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is how Wikipedia makes a determination that a WP:RS is "clearly wrong". Policy generally indicates that one needs a second WP:RS to refute a first one, rather than WP:OR done by Wikipedia editors. Jayjg (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is Einstein in this list if he was an Agnostic?

Is this just a list of Jewish descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.137.64 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"Jew" is an ethno-religious designation. Being Jewish and agnostic (or even atheist) are not incompatible. See also Category:Jewish atheists. Jayjg (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Misleading statistic in lede

One has to imagine the anti-semitic conspiracy theorist will have a 'field day' with this wikipedia page! (Half)-kidding aside, and putting aside that the list includes a relative of mine (Meyerhof)...I don't want to get into a big debate; I'll state the issue, and I doubt I'll return soon to this page (so contact me by email or my Talk page if you really must; otherwise I'll let more frequent editors, discuss amongst yourselves)

But there really is an issue, so please hear me out:

The opening is somewhat statistically misleading. It states: "Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population." However, is it not the case that for very clear reasons, people who do not live in extremely impoverished countries are going to be over-represented, and secondly, that while there are certainly Jews living in some very poor countries (in Ethiopia, a country listed as 168th out of 180 at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita for example) that nevertheless the percent of Jews in the world who live in "developed" countries (western europe, canada, USA, etc) is much higher than the percentage of all human beings on earth, who live in those countries. See e.g. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country and this is even if we exclude israel. Notice that even Eastern Europe, and souther (e.g. Spain) are countries whose per capita gdp is higher than (a lot higher than) the median per capita gdp in the world.

Thus a more reasonable statistic might look at how many of the Nobel Prizes where given to people living in developed countries and what percent of those went to Jewish people living in developed countries, compared to what percent of people living in developed countries, are Jewish.

To make random numbers up (just for clarify), let's say that you have 850 Nobel prize recipients, of which 800 (I don't know the number off hand, but it will be the majority) went to people living in developed countries (by some reasonable definition; just because there is more than one reasonable definition, is no excuse to ignore the point being made here) Now imagine out of those, 150 were Jewish. Then you have 150 out of 800, or 18.75% were Jewish people living in developed countries. Now you compare that 18.75% to what you'd "expect" if there was no over-representation; namely you'd compare that to the answer to the question, "what percent of all people living in developed countries, are Jewish?"

(yes, another complication, this percent is not constant over time; also not an excuse to ignore that far less than 50% of human beings on Earth live in developed countries and far more than 50% of Jews (see wikipedia page cited earlier) do live in developed countries ("developed" means either "first world," so called, or at the level of Greece/Israel/similar).

That would be a much more honest statistic, more representative. My guess is you'd still have quite significant noticeable over-representation, but, a lower number than 100 (the ratio of 20% to 0.2% being 100 to 1). So the number will likely be less than 100 but more than 1. Again, see Jewish population by country

By the way, I am not calling for deleting the original statistic; in my view it's ok to keep it, but put it into context, clarification, etc, by juxtaposing it with a statistic (roughly) along the lines suggested here. As noted earlier it will be a while (if ever) before time permits me to revisit this page, so unless you wish to contact me by user/talk page to clarify something, I've made the case clearly as I can and I'll trust that consensus from discussions among more frequent editors will give this point a fair hearing, and as appropriate, amend the article. Peace Harel (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

(Excuse my English. I'm not a fluent speaker) Another reason the statement is misleading is the fact that the list includes all people of Jewish descent who often have multiple descent. What if we add up all the lureates of German descent (tracing back many generations like it's done when establishing Jewish ancestry) from all continents in the World? The percentage would be even more impressive.
I don't agree the sentence should be left to stay though. I think these kind of statements deprived of context are a form of chauvinism. It's scandalous to keep it on Wikipedia. 83.7.152.114 (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
The article includes all people that reliable secondary sources have indicated are Jewish and are Noble laureates. The context provided is that provided by the reliable sources themselves. Do you have other reliable secondary sources that provide additional context on this specific subject? Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I believe the main issue here is with the phrasing and the position of this statement. By comparison, the fact that women have won only 5% of Nobel prizes although they comprise 50% of the world's population may also have dozens of reliable secondary sources, but it would likely be considered POV to include that 'context' in the first paragraph of the lede at List of female Nobel laureates. And not to rehash what's pointed out above, but comparing Jewish population by country with List of Nobel laureates by country gives much more appropriate context, and is far less notable statistically. AveVeritas (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, reliable secondary sources comment prominently on this specific intersection and statistic. Wikipedia must reflect the prominence given to this in those sources. Arguments about whether or not the statistic is in an "appropriate context" or "notable statistically" are WP:OR. If reliable secondary sources comment on this though, then we should definitely include them. Do they? Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Sources could be biased as well, if something is cited by reliable sources it doesn't mean it is necessarily neutral, see wp:RS. Discussing phrasing of articles on Wikipedia is essential for gaining neutrality, if that's an OR then why would we discuss anything? --aad_Dira (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC).
The statement "Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 800 individuals of whom at least 20% were Jews, although Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population" is a definitely misleading statistic and is chauvinistic. It should be removed.ComtedeMonteCristo (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree as well to the comments above. It doesn't feel like a wikipedia article with this type of "promotional" writing -- regardless of whether it's sourced... there is a lot of material that is inaccurate that can be sourced -- that's why editors exist, for their discretion. If we're going to include something like this, it might as well be accurate: Another problem is that the 0.2% refers to the Jewish population now... while the Nobel Prizes have been awarded for 100 years. The percentage of Jewish population has changed drastically -- as we all know -- over the course of 100 years (as has the world population). Secondly, the 0.2% number is by self-identified Jewish peoples. The majority of so-called "Jewish Nobel Prize laureates" wouldn't even register as Jewish on such a census, especially those with non-Jewish parents. 24.44.68.110 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Otto Wallach

He wasn't jewish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.67.211.215 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The article has five reliable sources indicating that he was. Jayjg (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Country?

I guess the 'country' column has quite a number of errors in this list. For example, Felix Bloch was Swiss, Otto Stern and Max Born were Germans, Eugene Wigner or Dennis Gábor were Hungarians, and I am sure there are a couple of more. Yet, almost all of them are listed as if they were British or American. Even though they all received second citizenships during their lives, shouldn't they be listed according to their nationalities? AdamSiska (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Wigner was Lutheran

Wigner was a Lutheran. Going back in to people's records to check "what they used to be" before converting, or to determine "what their ancestors were", is no better than what the Third Reich did poring over German and Austrian census records to determine which Lutherans and Catholics they could send to the concentration camps - of which there were millions. Don't buy in to Hitlerism. Show respect to the will of individuals to make their own choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.35.57.62 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Pasternak Apparently Converted to Christianity

Which is apparent from his poetry and Doctor Zhivago, as well as the fact that he received a Christian burial. (Specifics are lacking. Who's going to admit to such a thing under Stalinism.) That said, during and after the Nobel Prize fiasco, he was insulted with anti-semitic remarks. I'm sure his passport likely listed him as a Jew.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Otto Wallach was not Jewish

Otto Wallach, may have had Jewish heritage on his father's side but he was born a Protestant and never identified as Jewish. Here the definition of a Jewish Nobel Prize winner has to be someone who idenifies as Jewish. This is why someone such as Christian Arnfinsen, who was a Norwegian-American but who converted to Judaism as an adult is included in this list but not the one of Norwegian winners of the prize. Remove Wallach. Bobbythemazarin (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You're saying this with good faith but you're mistaken. A person automatically becomes Jewish either by official convertion (religion) or by being born to a Jewish mother (ethnicity), therefore Wallach is and forever will be Jewish by birth/ethnicity, even if he's an atheist and a convert to Christianity. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not bound by Halachic law. Though I note that Bobbythemazarin suggests that Wallach's Jewish heritage is on his father's side... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I meant to say father too, and I add that different forms in Judaism go by the father. So this debate doesn't have a one absolute answer... Shalom11111 (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this article gives readers a very strong impression that it does. To the discredit of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Then the same thing can be said about the List of Muslim Nobel Laureates, where I'm sure there's at least one person who hasn't been to a mosque in years or who publicly identifies as Muslim. As disputed as it may be, we need to take into consideration one's parents. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This article isn't about Muslim Nobel laureates. And what we "need to take into consideration" here is the fact that the article entirely fails to make clear to readers that since there is no agreed definition of who is a Jew, there cannot possibly be a definitive list of Jewish Nobel laureates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I understand where you're coming from. Don't forget that the majority of the people in this list are full Jews and identify themselves as so. Anyway, to solve your concern, I welcome you to add a sentence in the article's lead section about what you just said, something like "some of these Jewish Nobel laureates are only half Jewish or may not identify themselves as Jewish", with a citation, of course. Shalom11111 (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Splitting list in three lists or adding extra information

It is difficult to understand what does word "jewish" means. Is it about religion or halachic jews or ethnic? 92.55.17.59 (talk) 08:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Yes, this is not an article to distinguish between Judaism, Zionism and Jewishness, but as the article tries to list the "Jewish " Nobel laureates, it helps to clarify the meaning.Pinocchio3000 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This article uses the same criteria as all WP articles; it follows the views of reliable sources. It cannot use original research to create a special "Disambiguation" of Jew for this article. It also can't talk about itself (see WP:NAVEL). This issue has already been discussed at length and concluded; please review the Talk: page archives. By the way, Wikipedia has dozens (perhaps hundreds) of Lists of Jews; were you planning to add a "Disambiguation" section to each one? If not, why not? Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it makes sense to clarify what Jewish means here when it encompasses a very wide range of meanings. As far as I can see through the talk pages, the matter has been brought up and discussed, but not decided on. So, could you please arrange a voting to see what other users opine? Alternatively, I can add a column to the lists explaining how exactly "Jewish" each were/are.Pinocchio3000 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If the article says a person is x -- whether a religion, or a nationality, or a race -- then we reflect it. We don't "measure how much they are" ... that was something done in Germany once upon a time, but is not our remit. If an RS says a person is Jewish, or American, or black, we don't list them as "American but not really patriotic," or "1/8th black." BTW -- you seem familiar -- have you edited here under a different user name? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a huge difference. American means having American nationality. To know if someone is black you just look at their skin. But your x=Jewish here mixes up religion, nationality and race together. That is why I'm asking for a clarification. So what do you think of those two propositions of me? As for familiarity, yes, I have a couple of accounts on other languages. Have we met before?Pinocchio3000 (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If the reliable source states that a person is Jewish, then Wikipedia will reflect that. It is not up to users to categorize who is Jewish, or how Jewish they supposedly are.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC))
Exactly! If the source explains how Jewish they were Wikipedia will reflect it, too. And yes again, it's not up to users to categorize, It's up to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for smattering.Pinocchio3000 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Elfriede Jelinek is not Jewish

It is part of her shpiel against the Austrian cultural and political establishment to pose as a Jew in an country with a history and tradition of anti-Semitism (but also with a history and tradition of great Jewish artists and scientists) but the fact remains that only her father was Jewish and that makes her a non-Jew according to halakha. In the last month, several IPs have added and re-added her, but she should be removed every time. --Insert coins (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As AndyTheGrump says above, "Wikipedia is not bound by Halachic law". Wikipedia only cares what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say Jelinek (and Wallach above) are Jews. And (not that it makes a difference on Wikipedia) you should remember that both Reform and Reconstructionist Judaism accept that one can be a Jew based on the father or the mother. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have yet to see a reliable source in German (Jelinek's own language) saying she is Jewish. Could you provide some? If she claims it herself, it doesn't count (I dont swallow the "Bradley Manning is a woman because he now says so" line either.) Cheers, Insert coins (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have restored the content regarding Jelinek as it looks well-sourced. The source is the book Keepers of the Motherland: German texts by Jewish women writers, a book by Dagmar C. G. Lorenz. Lorenz has an academic pedigree that would make her perfectly well-qualified to be writing about and taken as an authoritative source on this, and the book is published by an independent academic publisher. Wikipedia has no requirement that a source for such content be in German (in fact on en.WP it's preferable if it's not). Zad68 14:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

She is half Jewish. Ethnicity is more important than religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.143.192 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC) This is - pardon my French - racist nonsense. Either you are a Jew - in a religious or secular sense, by your own admission - or you are not, regardless of who you parents or grandparents were. There is no such thing as a fraction Jew - any more than there are "One Sixteenth Buddhists", "One Quarter Welshmen" or "Half Liverpool Supporters". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit. I myself am half Jewish. And of course there is such thing as a quarter Welshman. Welsh are an ethnicity just like Jews. It sounds like you are posting socialist propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.143.192 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Before you add/remove a person from the list...

Looking at a few discussions from above, I would like to clarify something. Jews are and ethnoreligious group. The vast majority of the laureates included in the article are not only Jewish by birth, but they also identified themselves as Jews (many actively practiced Judaism). There are also a few on the list who are half-Jewish, by the father. Those of you arguing that they shouldn't be included in the list are wrong because there's no halachic law requirement here or anything of the kind (and the same thing applies for others from Template:Nobel Prizes, see "by criterion") - if reliable sources say the are partially Jewish, then they are of Jewish descent, and therefore should be included in this article. I made it even more clear with this edit.

Also, some of the names do not currently have a photo displayed next to them. It would be appreciated if someone could spend a few minutes and add a photo for each one of the 'missing' people. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Would Shalom11111 please explain the rational meaning of the term "half-Jewish", in a non-racist sense? (I am of course aware of its having been used in the past, by Nazis and others). In what sense can you be a fraction Jew - and not, f.inst. "one quarter Buddhist", "one eighth Liverpool supporter", or "three quarter Welsh" ? To me it seems like nonsense - potentially racist, although perhaps not intended as such. I do appreciate Y's civil tone, though, as opposed to an anonymous comment above. For a fair analysis, see the German Wikipedia article "Halbjude". Hafniensis, 21.6. '14

What Hafniensis said. Incidentally, the use of "reliable sources" in this sense is specious. Sources are there to establish material facts, not to resolve arguments on how we use terms, or which lists are encyclopaedic. To give an extreme example - the fact that, say, people call each other "terrorists" in print, but that does not resolve the dispute as to whether the term is encyclopaedic. Incidentally, no source is given for the "vast majority" claim given above (and neither is "Jewish by birth" defined), nor are the implications of conflating "descending from Jews" and "Jews" examined. Feketekave (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

AFD

All these lists of people with "absolutely common characteristic"+"interesting characteristic" articles should IMO be deleted because they are ridiculous. Otherwise WP will consist predominately of such brilliancies as "List of short sighted world circumnavigators" "List of women comedians beyond 40" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.90.14.91 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think your two examples are an exaggerated attempt to make a point. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, which says "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information. Lists may be found within the body of a prose article, or as a stand-alone article" Shalom11111 (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Great, Mr. IP. You are entitled to your opinion. It's not, as Yam indicates, the consensus wikipedia view. Nor would it seem to be a view shared by the general population -- 100,000 views of this article in the past 90 days suggests. Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
If a list with Jewish bankers (or, worse, Jewish fraudsters) got as many hits, would that be an argument to keep it? Feketekave (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think statistics should be a bit more precise: My attention has been drawn to the following statement:

-20% were Jews OR of Jewish descent, although -Jews comprise less than 0.2% of the world's population

In such a comparison it would be correct to show how much of the world's population do "Jews OR OF JEWISH DESCENT" comprise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.155.58 (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Niels Bohr was not Jewish

It seems the article could do with some factual check - for one thing, the Danish nuclear and theoretical physicist Niels Bohr was not Jewish, although his family had been.

I suggest someone take a look at the names and weed out persons with merely ancestors, or close or distant family backgrounds. A Jew, by any reasonable definition, is someone who professes or acknowledges to be one - in either a religious or a secular sense. Having a Jewish surname -or not - is itself irrelevant, except to racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Anfinsen was not Jewish when he received the prize, in 1972. According to his biography he only converted to judaism in 1978, after divorcing his first wife and marrying an orthodox jewish woman. So should he not be deleted from the list? As should Niels Bohr, whose family was Lutheran Protestant, although his mother came from a prominent jewish family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hafniensis, please stop posting anti-Jewish propaganda. Jews are an ethnicity as well as a religion. Someone can still be Jewish even if they are not religious. If someone has Jewish ancestry, they are Jewish even if they don't identify as Jewish. Denying this is racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.143.192 (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A reply to some recent comments: I should think simple logic would classify the following statement as racist : "If someone has Jewish ancestry, they are Jewish even if they don't identify as Jewish" - and not the other way round? etc etc .... Hafniensis, 22.6. '14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafniensis (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


Gasser, Schally, Geim have nothing to do with Jews, neither ethnically no religious: http://www.jinfo.org/Nobels_Medicine.html Anfinsen only after convertion. Hertz? No good data on Wallach, Erlanger, Fire and some ohter! So you should be more accurate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.73.165 (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates from jewish descent

make it simple. change the name of this page to List of Nobel laureates from jewish descent or something like that, and u wont have eny more problems. מי-נהר (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Then you'd have even more problems, since reliable sources don't actually discuss that topic. Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
first, you don't right, there is good sources for that and in most cases u have the information allready in the article off the person in wikipedia.
second if they are some cases which will have the problem you said, so we dael with it like we dael allways whith missing information. מי-נהר (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Which "good sources" do you mean? Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
What's good for categories such as Category:American Jews of European descent is good also here. and there is more good information in Hebrew. מי-נהר (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
So you don't actually have any "good sources"? Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Jewish Ancestry is Jewish

To anyone saying that simply having Jewish ancestry does not make a person Jewish, that might be true in a religious or a cultural sense, but not in an ethnic sense. Anyone with Jewish ancestry is ethnically Jewish (or part), regardless of their religious or cultural identifications, and it is racist to suggest otherwise. It would be like saying that merely having black ancestry does not make you black if you don't celebrate Kwanzaa or listen to hip hop music. Racist, right? Right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.36.253 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014‎

I'm not sure what you're saying; are you proposing that anyone with any Jewish ancestry at all is Jewish? A one-drop rule for Jews? That would indeed be racist. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, not a one-drop rule, that's not what I meant at all. I only meant to address this absurd notion that atheist and agnostic Jews (i.e. ethnic Jews who do not believe in Judaism) are somehow not Jewish. Cultural and religious identifications do not encapsulate Jewishness; it is also ethnic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.36.253 (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Racist is actually the idea that there is such a thing as human races (or "ethnicities"), implying they have different value. This idea has been proven wrong long ago by genetics, but unfortunately en.wikipedia hasn't adopted this yet, that's why lists like this still exist. A jew is someone who practices judaism, that's the only scientifically accurate definition. 194.94.44.220 (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Science cannot possibly determine who 'practices Judaism' - that is something that only practising Jews can do, and they often seem to disagree about that. Jewishness is a social construct, nothing more, nothing less. Which is to say that it is a matter of opinion (even if the opinion is widely-held and sometimes undisputed) - and accordingly whether Wikipedia should be asserting opinion as fact as it does in this article is highly questionable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, as with all religions judaism is a social construct. Therefore only people who identify themselves as practitioners of judaism via reliable sources should be labeled as jews. Racial categories like this are a relic of the late 19th century and should have no place on wikipedia. That does not only apply to this category of course. 194.94.44.220 (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Economics?

Economics was not a Nobel prize.

189.130.243.98 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC) baden k.

Discussion about religion and ancestry

I've talked to Epeefleche, and he/she do for some reason feel that we shouldn't mention that many of these Nobel laureates don't only have Jewish ancestry and that some don't follow the Jewish religion at all. This is usefull inforation for anyone reading this article. I dubt that many of these people with shared ancestry would agree to be called purely Jews, that's silly. Olehal09 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

You've been warned by (at least three different editors, including me) about adding OR. But seem to not like those rules. Please read them. You argue also, for example, that people who are Jewish atheists aren't Jews. Of course saying someone is Jewish is not the same as saying that they practice Judaism. And of course, as is obvious as we have an entire article on them, we have Jewish atheists). But that's not a subject we need get into, as you are just adding unsourced OR, which is verboten. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I know, I know. You can be a Jew by blood and by religion. Therefore I meantioned both. Many of this people are not purly Jews by any of these defenitions. I as a Norwegian know that I have some French and Samii in me, and we usually are Christian. I don't like that people just look away from my ancestry, it is probably the same with these men and women. And both of us know many of these people have shared ancestry, and you do probably have it too. Olehal09 (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
These people are all sourced to reliable sources as being Jewish. Your assertions that "but ... some are atheists" ... etc. miss the point. They can be both. Please stop, as three editors have requested of you, adding your personal OR and synthesis to articles. If any of these people belong in more than one "category", add them to the other RS-supported categories as well in their individual articles if you like. But as they are sourced to RSs as Jewish, don't start adding your OR and synthesis - that's not allowed. Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I've learned something today, about Jewish Supremacism and I can see you are one, but I'll continue to discuss with you. I've just written that some of these people are not purely Jewish by blood and many aren't followers of the Jewish religion. If you want I can mention a couple of examples in the text as evidence and with a reference that state their mixed origin and different belief systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olehal09 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
^Muslim idiot detected. How much does Hamas pay you? Or do you work for Abbas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD07:E900:497D:D40E:FED6:2DB3 (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_3&oldid=1136919183"