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 of the debate was no consensus. (There was a stronger preference to keep the list.) Mindmatrix 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for AFD, with a result of no consensus. All appropriate entries have been put into category:Jewish historians, so this list is now redundant. The only parallel to this is list of Irish historians, and there is no other list of historians in wikipedia categorised by either religion or ethnicity. Therefore, this list should be deleted, along with most other lists of Jews in particular occupations. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, because Wikipedia should not do the dirty work of, and is not a branch of, the despicable Jew Watch. IZAK 09:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Lists provide info that a category doesn't and allow anoms to add and edit info. Discussion has also been ongoing to improve this list, although I don't recall the nom participating. The category from what I can tell was created today and could be up on cfd tomorrow. Finally, thanks for choosing the first day of hanukkah for a debate on deleting most Jewish lists. -- JJay 10:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anons are able to work on categories, too, you know. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do they add a new article to a category? -- JJay 10:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By typing the following: [[Category:Jewish historians]] in the category section of the historian's article. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • How does an anom add Ben Zion Dinur to a category with a short description? -- JJay 10:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or any of the other historians, for whom we lack pages? How does someone quickly find a historian for a given period with a category, since it lacks a description? In short, a category can complement, but not replace a list -- JJay 10:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • The same way an anon writes anything else on articles that don't exist: he uses articles for creation, or he registers an account. Perhaps you could post a notice on your userpage offering your assistance in this process, or lobby Jimbo to change his mind about anon article creation. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or we could keep lists that serve a valuable purpose. -- JJay 10:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There don't seem to be many people complaining about adding non-articled people to Wikipedia because of all the dreadful (sarcasm) categories --- since, you know, they could just go to any of the infinite amount of country lists and put them there under the historians or social scientists sections. Antidote 11:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus there's a massive List of Jews by country where anyone can put any Jewish historian easily, and Ben Zion Dinur can find his way into List of Israelis under the historians section. Antidote 11:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until we delete reform those lists too. And spare me your sarcasm. -- JJay 11:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So your reason for keeping this list is because you think eventually all Jewish lists will be deleted from Wikipedia? Hmm - Odd logic. I guess every ethnic group should fear for their lists on Wikipedia when articles with their name in it get nominated for deletion. Antidote 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you are doing the maintenance they should. Let me know when StabRule and the rest of the Atlanta boys get here. -- JJay 13:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Everything has been said about this list already. It is one of the infinite creations of the same users, from which spawned List of Jewish heads of High Schools List of Jewish Trapeze Artists and the like. Can't see whats wrong with this being a category, considering every other ethnic group has been maintained fine with categories. Antidote 13:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 13:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change Vote: Keep per Endomion below. The pros of having a list outweigh the cons of having it. Red links are an invitation to create new articles.

• Strong Keep. Categories and lists are not the same, and they do not substitute each other. We must stop this assault on Jewish lists.--Pecher 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should at least back up your statements - in my humble opinion, categories and lists are indeed exactly the same. Madman 15:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the very least, lists can serve a development purpose by including items for which articles are yet to be created. Categories do not have such a feature.--Pecher 13:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the same point as Endomion made below.--Pecher 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is there such an urgent need for "Jewish lists"? Only the Nazis thought that "lists of Jews" were very important, and we know what that led to. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - strong or otherwise. It should be a category. Should there be an article on List of Spanish bakers or List of Japanese poets?? Would the Encyclopedia Britannica have such an entry? Nope. Madman 15:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia does. See List of Japanese language poets. That's why we are better than Britannica. -- JJay 03:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Neither lists nor categories of Jews, bloated out of all proportion, are needed. Just citing few examples in articles is enough. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nationality should not be a factor for a historian. List of Jewish polititians or Jewish actors - good. Jewish historians or Jewish airline pilots - not. Flyboy Will 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does not make sense. Why is nationality a factor for an actor, but not for an airline pilot?--Pecher 13:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see what's wrong with having both a list and a category. (Personally I'm amazed we don't have a list for ancient Greek and Roman historians/playwrights/etc.) The list of Irish historians organizes them into time periods, which is information you couldn't get with a category. It's also easier to add info to a list (don't have to create an article). I would love it if every contributor spent the time to create an article, but the reality is that most people won't. If a name is added to a list then at least a seed is planted. --Fang Aili 17:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether it should be or not, nationality and ethnicity are important factors for historians. u p p l a n d 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am changing to abstain, agreeing with the argument that a list such as this should probably be limited to historians studying Jewish history. u p p l a n d 11:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Lists are good starting points for new articles, people see a red link and break out the books. Endomion 18:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observe that we already have a List of historians, which any name on this list could be included on. I'm not impressed by this argument. --- Charles Stewart 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all the above. Jcuk 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a relevant field of history and or segment of historians that can use expansion. That there isn't say a List of ecclesiastical historians or List of African-American historians is just because Wiki still lags a bit with history and the humanities. Doesn't it even say somewhere that Wikipedia is trying to expand in those fields somewhere? Also there is the recently created List of Islamic historians so even some analogies there are off.--T. Anthony 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the list got created alongside with new category Category:Jewish historians, being mostly copy. My general opinion is that in such cases only one entity should exist (preferrably a list) to avoid redundancy and maintenance headaches. Pavel Vozenilek 04:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've got nothing against having both categories and lists, since lists allow for more structure, though this list does not make use of this. However, this list doesn't say how one gets to be a Jewish historian: is one a histoiran who is jewish (apparently), or a scholar of jewish history. The latter list makes more sense to me. I don't like this list, but I'll think a bit more before deciding. --- Charles Stewart 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a template on the top of the page that says something along the lines of: "This is a list of Jews". Pepsidrinka 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. There should also/instead be a plain text lead paragraph that states the scope of the list. --- Charles Stewart 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep nominated by proxy by user obsessed with deleting Jewish lists who has voted up to six times on each afd, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting, User_talk:Pianoman87#An_OLD_afd. Arniep 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I don't like this list, as I don't like arbitrary conjunctions of lists of ethnicity with professions unrelated to ethnicity. However, I think that some policy along these lines should emerge before deleting, or that point should be properly discussed in the AfD. --- Charles Stewart 15:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Cf. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists by religion-ethnicity and profession, which has been open since 15 December. --- Charles Stewart 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postscript - The talk page of that article suggests the criteria "would the list make a viable article without the list of" prefix. --- Charles Stewart 17:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would appreciate some clarification from our nom (a proxy for Antidote- as shown by User_talk:Pianoman87#An_OLD_afd) regarding his statement that "this list should be deleted, along with most other lists of Jews in particular occupations". Which list of Jewish occupations would he find acceptable? Does he deny that the classification is routinely applied by the world at large? Why is Jewish historian- which gets 134,000 googles not valid for list classification? In comparison, Catholic historian, muslim historian, Christian historian, Buddhist historian, and Methodist historian, a favorite here, are far less widely used. I wonder how our nom proposes to reflect historical realities such as the lack of citizenship for Jews throughout much of European history, forced conversions, statelessness, self-identification,etc. without the context and explanation that a list can provide? -- JJay 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC

list of Catholic historians; List of Buddhist historians; list of Muslim historians --????? This is not a list of historians who conduct history on Judaism -- I attempted to push for that on the TALK page. I was refused without any viable reason. This is a list of historians who are Jewish -- which is HUGELY different. Antidote 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Observe the ambiguity I noted earlier. There isn't much research value that I can see to a list that covers Karl Marx (with the inaccurate information that he converted), Benny Morris and Thomas Kuhn. Now a list of historians of Judaism, ancient and modern Israel and the Shoah would be interesting. --- Charles Stewart 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I tried to push for on the talk page, but was refused because of some people "obsessed" with keeping Jewish lists the way they are. Antidote 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well I agree that for many occupations nationality or ethnicity is a bit irrelevant, such as opera singer, classical musician, travel writer among others. But as Jews did not have their own state until the creation of Israel and were often denied citizenship or worse in countries in which they lived and most certainly had an identifiable culture of their own it is as justified to allow the Jewish people to have their own categories or lists as it is any other state. Arniep 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never disagreed with that. I believe completely that Jews should have their own lists and categories, but I think that some users a while back seriously OVERDID the listing - and I know others have noticed that too. As a matter of fact, I think the categories for Jews are underrepresented when they shouldn't be. Jews should be treated as an ancestry and should have it's own category under people by ancestry. But the listing is truly overkill. Many other ethnic groups function fine with their own country lists, and Jews have the most country lists of anyone. If a Jewish historian with no article was to be added to Wikipedia, then it takes just as much effort to find out if the historian is Jewish than to find out if the historian is Jewish-German (List of German Jews) or Jewish-Hungarian (list of Hungarian Jews). I can see the rationale behind a list of Jewish historians who profess their Judaism in their writings in some form. That makes sense. The list as it is DOES NOT. If you truly agree with me on the fact that Judaism and being a historian have a connection than you will see that the way they are listed here will not work. If the majoriy of Wikipedian ethnic groups HAD lists of historians, then this list is completely fine, but they don't. Unless it is changed to reflect those who profess their religion in their works, it is truly overkill. I can't see how you can disagree with me. If you do, then please please help me understand because I seriously don't. My efforts here are not to "delete" all Jewish lists as User:JJay and you believe, it is to delete ALL lists that are overkill. Jewish lists, anyone will agree, have been the most overmade. I think LGBT lists are a problem too, but there are less of those. Anyway, please help me understand your vote for keep. Antidote 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE this and ALL "Lists" and "Categories" of Jews. They are beginning to look like allies of Jew Watch. IZAK 08:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the intent. Many of those working on these lists are Jewish. That Category:Lists of Jews is so much larger than Category:Lists of Christians or Category:Lists of Japanese people I'll admit is a bit odd. I think it's probably more overeagerness to show Jewish accomplishments than an effort to justify idea "Jews run everything." In fact the fear it was turning into that I think is part of why List of Jewish bankers was removed.--T. Anthony 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I tend to agree with user:antidote that lists should only be created when a person's ethnicity/religion is relevant to their occupation. If list of Jewish historians only contained historians whose Judaism was relevant to their work, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Also, the articles that the list links to should justify their inclusion on the list. To take an example from list of Jewish historians, the article for Eugen Weber only hints that he is Jewish in the works section, and does not make any other connections between his Judaism and his work, so he should not be in the list. I'd probably support the inclusion of this list if it only contained historians whose Judaism is relevant to their work. Or maybe it could be moved to list of historians of Judaism and modified accordingly. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• So when he wrote "Reflections on the Jews in France" from The Jews in Modern France, what was he writing about? Or that his "The Hollow Years" extensively examines anti-semitism? Do you actually know anything about the historians on this list? -- JJay 11:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I didn't notice that. I'll take back the statement about Eugen Weber. I don't know much about the historians on the list. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. If you don't know much about them you should try to learn more. Most if not all the Jewish historians on the list will have addressed the Jewish condition in their work. In all cases, their relationship to Judaism is relevant. The list, if properly expanded and annotated, can provide context in a way that a category never can. Instead of continually nominating the list, you should help try to improve it. -- JJay 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't at all clear that the connection to Judaism is relevant from the description of the list. To cite one of the three examples I picked above, how is Thomas Kuhn (history of science) cogent in this respect? --- Charles Stewart 02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s relatively facile to cherrypick names from a list until you manage to prove a point. Given the theological impact of Kuhn’s paradigm, I think his relationship to Judaism is relevant. I would also note that a google for Thomas Kuhn + Judaism gives 28,000 hits. Despite the hysterical reaction of IZAK (should we delete African-American lists because the Klan exists?), I'm still waiting for an explanation for the google results I listed above. Either a disproportionate number of Jews are historians, or we should acknowledge that the world at large routinely indicates religion for Jewish historians, despite their focus. -- JJay 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No cherry-picking involved. I picked three names I know well from the list: one is a historian of Israel, one did little historical work explicitly on the Jewish people, but is clearly relevant, and one looked to me entirely irrelevant. What theological relevance is there to Kuhn's work? He's a relevant name to invoke on the question of whether science and religion could be counted as having incommensurable domains of expertise, but to say that this says something about Jewish theology is rather strained. Is there more that can be said?--- Charles Stewart 19:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you already forgotten Marx? We could also debate whether Kuhn is a historian or philosopher. These are secondary issues. Why don't you edit the list? Furthermore, when Jewish nobel prize winners are listed, as is routinely the case, what does that say about Jewish theology?-- JJay 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of these historians are NOT scholars of Judaism in any way, it is a mistake to think that they merit any connection with the word Jewish=Judaism to many people. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:05, 1 January 2006 (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.