Jump to content

Talk:List of Jewish Nobel laureates/Archive 4

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

How many?

Since it is a list, I think the article would gain in quality if the number of recipients was stated. The amount for each category should be noted as well, due to the different characteristics of each one. Thoughts? BenjaminKay (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

I removed a large number of references to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, self-published by Baruch A. Shalev. PepperBeast (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pepperbeast, I saw you removed Baruch Shalev's book. I have to kindly disagree with you since the book is not a self-published book and also Baruch is a well established geneticist with +200 research publications, and his study even has endorsements from two Nobel laureates such as Henry Kissinger and Shimon Peres. On top of that the numbers in the book do reflect similar findings to other resources such as the University of Nebraska-Lincoln study in 1998, 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background and the Jewish Virtual Library listsing that 22% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Jews. It does not violate any wikipedia policy.Mayan1990 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Many don't fit the religious definition of a Jew

(Mother is a Jew) Warburg being an example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Heinrich_Warburg

I agree with the above. One of the reasons why there are so many Jewish noble price winners compared to the number of Jews in Europe and Usa is partly that they count every noble price winner who has the slightest Jewish ancestry and 2 that the percentage of Jews in the world used to be higher. I am myself part Jewish. In the place where I work there are three more people out of 12 that have partly Jewish ancestry. As long as we don't do anything remarkable we will remain non Jews, but if we win the noble price, or become famous in some other way then we will surely be on one of those lists.

Wikipedia doesn't follow Jewish orthodox Halakhic law. Infantom (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Then this should be stated in the lead since some readers may assume it does.
2. The definition of "Jew" for the purpose of this article should be clearly stated in the lead.
Contact Basemetal here 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with above. A look through the list shows that each laureate does indeed have some connection with Judaism but the definition is so wide as to include almost anybody with a Jewish ancestor. I shall therefore include this proviso in the head of the article (and I see that there have been several discussions over this in the past but somebody repeatedly sets the archive setting to remove them so that subsequent editors are in ignorance of them and presumably are hindered from obtaining consensus to fix the ambiguous and misleading impression that the article is fostering here.)--Mevagiss (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Partial Jews

Since we're not using a religious categorization, shouldn't it be mentioned that pretty much a third or more of all the people on this list are only of partial Jewish origin? Most of them wouldn't even be listed as Jewish on the census. 172.88.81.217 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic Jewish

The list should add that list include the ethnic Jews, and the people of Jewish descent, most of the Nobel laureates who mentioned here were Irreligion, also there are several Nobel laureates who mentioned converted to Christianity, and there are at least 20 Nobel laureates here raised as Christians. The article should mention that. If you want to keep the Christians of Jewish descent, at least mention that the article consider the Jewish as ethnic group.--Mario-mardini (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

But what i found it interesting that several articles refouse to add or to count the Jewish who convert to Christianity or Christians of Jewish descent as Jewish, as American Jews article, While here the Jewish who convert to Christianity are count as Jewish, Can we we have a one rule that we can applay for all articles?. I can't understant this selectively?. What is the standard which makes the Jew who converted to Christianity Jews here, and in other non-Jewish. Any way the list should explian that it's include ethnic as well as religious Jews in the list and include also Jewish who convert to Christianity or the Christians of Jewish descent (since all the Jewish Nobel laureates who are aherents to other religion belong to Christianity). --Mario-mardini (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The article already states that "Nobel Prizes have been awarded to over 850 individuals,[2] of whom at least 20% were Jewish or people of Jewish descent ". this is sufficient, no need for further details about their religious beliefs. Infantom (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be added and to clear that many of the pople who included here were rasied as Christians or convert to chritianity, Since in other articles refuse to count the Jewish who convert to Christianity or Jewish who raised as Christians -as Jewish -. I mean you can't play in two sides. It should be noted that many names mentioned in the articles were Irreligion, or convert or raised in the Christian tradition. Espeacilly that article treat Jews as religious group too.
A number of Nobel laureates mentioned in article were raised as Christians or Convert to Christianity such as Boris Pasternak,[1] Adolf von Baeyer,[2] Otto Wallach,[3] George de Hevesy,[4][5] Fritz Haber,[6]: 33  Max Perutz,[7][8][9] Karl Landsteiner,[10] Elfriede Jelinek,[11][12] Otto Heinrich Warburg,[13] Gerty Cori,[14][15] Paul Greengard,[16] Niels Bohr,[17] Gustav Ludwig Hertz,[18] Wolfgang Ernst Pauli,[19] Max Born,[20] Hans Bethe,[21] Eugene Wigner,[22], John Harsanyi and other.[23] That without mention that ateist one. I will add it note.
Richard Feynman should not be listed here t declined to be labelled Jewish. So why he listed here?.-Mario-mardini (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
It shouldn't be clear about nothing but the fact that the listed people are of Jewish ancestry. No list by ethnicity\race\nationality mentions religion. If you have problems with other articles you should deal it with that in their talk pages, not here. Infantom (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Jews definition does not change based on the content of the article. It is agreed here that the Jews definition includes religious and ethnic sides, and since it included the religious aspect it must be mentioned that many of the nameshere were atheist and Irreligion and other were Christian (did not even rarised as Jew) or converted to Christianity later. Jews as a group are different from others, The difference between the Jews and the list of the Germans or the Arabs is that the Jewish is an ethnic religious groups, while the Arabs or the French or the Germans are only ethnic group. The fact that the list approved on religious and ethnic definition as noted previously, it must be mentioned that numbers of names here were not religious Jews. By the way the of template Nobel Prizes was putting Jews in religious lists, until you change the article site.
Bottom line: Jewish is a different case since it is both a religious and ethnic group that why it should be mentioned that the list, since many of the names were not religious Jews (Did saied before that the Jews are a special case, why you compare the list with other ethnic articles).--Mario-mardini (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
There are selective in the criteria, there are more than 20 names on the list of people converted to Christianity and raised as Christians (second or third generation of Jews converted to Christianity), and thus on the list should to clear that they include Jews from the ethnic and cultural terms, not religious aspect. While other article now treat Jews mean ethnic and religion (and rejects to count the Jewish who converts to Christianity or who grew up as Christians, as Jews).--Mario-mardini (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Mario-mardini, listen i'm not gonna waste my time about this again. If you make those edits again without a consensus you will be reported. You made a "suggestion" and it was denied, deal with it! Infantom (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

See History Before, in the beginning I delete Christians or converts to Christianity from the list. Users revert it and said that the article include Jewish as religious and ethnic group, then i added note the list includes the names of Jews and people of Jewish background or Christians which is rejected only by you, till now.--Mario-mardini (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Did'nt you said befor that most of Jews reject the notion of a Jew who has another religion, and it is highly controversial and unaccepted by most Jews??. Oh I forgot that when a Jews grew up as Christians or converts to Christianity is not considered as a Jew, Unless in the case of receiving a Nobel, then you will fight with all your strength, to convince they are Jews.--Mario-mardini (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ivinskaya (1978), p 332.
  2. ^ source Jew Ashkenaz: The German Jewish Heritage - Pagina 146
  3. ^ Frank Northen Magill (1990). 1901–1937. Salem Press. ISBN 978-0-89356-562-6.
  4. ^ http://www.geni.com/people/George-Charles-de-Havesey/6000000013761368687
  5. ^ Levi, Hilde (1985), George de Hevesy : life and work : a biography, Bristol: A. Hilger, p. 14, ISBN 9780852745557
  6. ^ Stoltzenberg, Dietrich (2004). Fritz Haber : Chemist, Nobel laureate, German, Jew. Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation. ISBN 0-941901-24-6. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  7. ^ This Day in Jewish History / Death of a Nobel chemist
  8. ^ Max Perutz and the secret of life, by Georgina Ferry
  9. ^ Max Perutz OM
  10. ^ Anna L. Staudacher: "… meldet den Austritt aus dem mosaischen Glauben". 18000 Austritte aus dem Judentum in Wien, 1868–1914: Namen – Quellen – Daten. Peter Lang, Frankfurt, 2009, ISBN 978-3-631-55832-4, p. 349
  11. ^ "Elfriede Jelinek: Introduction". eNotes. 15 June 2002.
  12. ^ Elfriede Jelinek profile, The Poetry Foundation website; retrieved 7 September 2013.
  13. ^ Germany without Jews; Bernt Engelmann, la University of Michigan - Pagina 45
  14. ^ http://www.csupomona.edu/~nova/scientists/articles/cori.html
  15. ^ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/cori.html
  16. ^ Profile of Paul Greengard, nobelprize.org; accessed December 28, 2013.
  17. ^ Pais 1991, pp. 133–134.
  18. ^ [Stefan L. Wolff: Juden wider Willen – Wie es den Nachkommen des Physikers Heinrich Hertz im NS-Wissenschaftsbetrieb erging. Jüdische Allgemeine] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). 2008-01-04. ([1]).
  19. ^ "Jewish Physicists". Retrieved 2006-09-30.
  20. ^ Greenspan 2005, pp. 61–62.
  21. ^ Schweber 2012, pp. 32–34.
  22. ^ Szanton 1992, p. 38.
  23. ^ http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/jharsanyi.pdf

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Missing Five

עמירם פאל (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Controversial numbers explained

As pointed out thrice in this talk page, the definition of who is a Jew varies a lot. I tried my best to do a thorral explanation in the ref note. Mr. Dodo'sss (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Jewish Nobel laureates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Picture

No picture of Boris Pasternak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs)

One has been provided. Jayjg (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Richard Feynman does not belong in this list

Richard Feynman declared that he wasn't Jewish, and he refused to appear on a list of Jewish scientist. I find it quite insulting (and to be fair racist) that he is included in this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.107.31 (talk • contribs)

It's hardly racist, however I agree: it's easy to source that he did not consider himself Jewish. If we allow religious rules of membership to override a person's own wishes, then we would also have to mark many Jews as Mormon based on Baptism for the dead otherwise we're picking which religious rules to follow and it's not resolvable. Lexlex (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The article relies on what reliable sources say, per Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Should the economics prize count for the purposes of this list?

Same as for the other lists of laureates, if they happen to include it.

As far as I know it is not a real Nobel Prize, but merely a separate prize which is also in memory of Alfred Nobel. 177.45.240.188 (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's generally considered to be a Nobel Prize, even if it isn't technically a Nobel Prize, and all other Noble Prize lists include it. Jayjg (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Original Research

This list is weird OR. How about a list of goy Nobel laureates? Or white, or Catholic, Caucasian or Nordic? Totally racist. --Lysytalk 12:24, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

John Polanyi

John Polanyi who won the 1986 Nobel Prize in Chemistry should be included too. עמירם פאל (talk) 10:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources indicating that he is Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course, see in the article itself, and also here, here, here, here, here and in wikiquote. Also, in the book Reconsidering Michael Polanyi’s Philosophy, by Stefania Ruzsits, p. 19 etc. עמירם פאל (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see why wouldn't all those numerous sources be reliable, nevertheless, what about this source [Knepper, P. (2005). "Michael Polanyi and Jewish Identity". Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 35 (3): 263–293. doi:10.1177/0048393105277986.] taken from the article? Based on the above mentioned source the article says: Polanyi's family moved from Germany to Britain in 1933, partly as a result of the persecution of Jews under Adolf Hitler (Polanyi's father, who converted to Catholicism, was born Jewish), and that goes to your other comment, Michel was John's father. עמירם פאל (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If you don't see why those "numerous sources" aren't reliable, then you need to seriously review WP:RS before editing. Regarding your new source, I point out again that Michael and John Polanyi are different people. Please find a source referring specifically to John. Jayjg (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If the father was Jewish, what does that do to him? He's not Jewish according the Halacha, the Jewish religious rules, but he's half Jewish genetically, and would have been persecuted by the Nazis, which makes him enough Jewish to my taste. עמירם פאל (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I think the Wikipedia policy has always been that a Jewish father is sufficient to be considered Jewish. Bloger (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
That may be enough for you, but not for Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't decide someone is a Jew based on whether they "would have been persecuted by the Nazis", or state that "a Jewish father is sufficient". Instead, Wikipedia relies on its standard WP:V policy and WP:RS guideline. If reliable sources describe an individual as Jewish, then so does Wikipedia. That's it. Jayjg (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
OK then, let’s put it this way. Outside of strict Halachic circles someone with one Jewish parent is considered Jewish. So in “reliable sources” this is what one would find. Making it essentially “Wikipedia policy”. Bloger (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
That is not correct by any means. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
“By any means”? Literally, it may not be correct, but it sure is correct technically. Bloger (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Two missing in Physiology or medicine

John Vane - 1982, Edmond H. Fischer - 1992. עמירם פאל (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

Niels Bohr, who had a Jewish mother, is missing from this list.2405:205:C865:989:D3C3:A678:29FF:886D (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Three missing in Economy

1. Robert C. Merton - 1997 2. Elinor Ostrom - 2009 3. William Nordhaus - 2018. עמירם פאל (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Done Bloger (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Removed again. Please ensure that all names included have inline citations from reliable sources specifically indicating that they are Jewish. I suspect that will be quite difficult in the case of most/all of these individuals. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Their wiki pages all say that they are with sources. Bloger (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Reliable Sources are required in this article; Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source. I also note that none of those biographies state that the subject is Jewish. Jayjg (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Just so this doesn’t go back and forth, are you saying that if I put the info back with the sources that should suffice? Bloger (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there aren't any reliable sources for these claims; I'd be willing to bet that any you bring will either a) not be reliable, or b) not specifically state that the individual is Jewish. This is a well-edited, mature list, and if they existed, the sources would have been found already, and the individuals included. So it's best if you bring the sources here first. Jayjg (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn’t really look yet, but the first search gave me a Forward article on Robert Merton, is that good enough? https://forward.com/schmooze/132156/wizardly-weaver-who-invented-role-models/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs)
To my surprise, that's actually a decent source. The book Robert K. Merton Sociology of Science and Sociology as Science that it refers to would be even better. Do you have access to it? Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done. עמירם פאל (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

עמירם פאל, the source only mentioned Robert Merton. Why did you restore Ostrom and Nordhaus too? Jayjg (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Jayjg, please observe their articles. Also, what about the two missing in Physiology or medicine: John Vane - 1982 and Edmond H. Fischer - 1992? עמירם פאל (talk) 09:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
עמירם פאל, what may or not be in other articles is irrelevant. Where are the valid sources in this article that indicate they are Jewish? Why have you added information to this article that is unsourced? This is a serious WP:BLP issue; people have been restricted and banned for doing this, including in this year. Jayjg (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg, sources added from their personal articles. עמירם פאל (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
עמירם פאל, that's a start. As far as I can tell, none of those sources specifically state that the individual is Jewish (please review my comment of 22:45, 3 March 2020 above). They seem to be saying that Ostrom's father was Jewish, and that at Nordhaus' ancestors on his father's side were Jews, but none of them state that the subjects themselves are Jewish. Can you please find and quote sources that explicitly state this? Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg, both of them had a Jewish father. That should suffice. Here is another source for that fact. עמירם פאל (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
עמירם פאל no, as has been explained already, that does not "suffice". We need reliable sources that explicitly state someone is a Jew. jinfo.org is certainly not a reliable source. Can you please remove the names until you find reliable sourcing? It has been 6 months since you put this unsourced information into the article, so the time for you to act is really now. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg, I beg to differ, unless some more editors will support your view. עמירם פאל (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
עמירם פאל, you can differ with policy all you like, but as this is a WP:BLP issue, you should remove it immediately, before administrative action is required. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, please review WP:INDENT, so I don't have to keep reformatting for you. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Jayjg, I think you shouldn't use threats like that in an arguement between editors. My position was stated above. עמירם פאל (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

עמירם פאל Please review WP:BLPREMOVE, particularly the part that says Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. Please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to violate WP:BLP. Jayjg (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Religion and/or ethnicity need explicit reliable sourcing that the subject is <insert religion, ethnicity etc here>. Sources that reference their parents are not sufficient on this article. However on their own biography you could phrase it as 'Subject was born to a Jewish father' etc. This however is a list with a clearly defined scope, and the sources must explicitly support that scope. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
"Sources that reference their parents are not sufficient" - This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Of course it's sufficient! If someone's parent is Jewish, they are, duh, part Jewish, ethnically. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, what is this nonsense? Both Elinor Ostrom and William Nordhaus there are sources pointing out to them being part Jewish. What's going on here. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed

Literally someone removing the information about the overwhelming majority of those Jews being Ashkenazi, and saying "it's irrelevant." The fact here is very relevant, because there are historical reasons for that, it's a lot to do with them being Ashkenazi and going through that particular history in Europe and North America. It's not just "Jews win many Nobel prizes," it's Ashkenazi Jews win many Nobel prizes. Maxim.il89 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is regarding this revert].
Do not lie, nobody is saying "it's irrelivant".
I have made several significant changes to the article, only one of which you have actually explained here on in edit summaries.
An IP, likely you editing while logged-out, has added this paragraph to the lead:
The overwhelming majority of the Jewish Nobel laureates are Ashkenazi Jews, which has prompted the controversial theory of Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence.[1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3190562/
  2. ^ https://web.mit.edu/fustflum/documents/papers/AshkenaziIQ.jbiosocsci.pdf
  3. ^ https://www.aei.org/articles/the-2011-nobel-prize-and-the-debate-over-jewish-iq/
None of these sources use the term overwhelming, and all sources must be evaluated in context. I dispute that these source are reliable for this specific point, since none of them directly say this is "overwhelming". Further, none of them say that the Nobel prize discrepancy prompted this controversy.
More significantly, it's clear you have not read each of these sources carefully.
The cited Cochran et al paper which supposedly started this "controversy" mentions the Nobel prize once, in passing.
The first source you cite was "Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else?" This monograph very directly challenges the entire premise. In other words, it does not support this point. To include a single tid-bit from this source without any of the context it provides would be misrepresenting a source for editorializing purposes.
There are several other problems with the sources used in this article, which is why I removed some of them. Please discuss before reverting again. Grayfell (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you for real? Those sources confirm, obviously, that the majority of those Jews are Ashkenazi, overwhelmingly, that is the bit you removed.
I never said the theory about Jews being smarter is true, hence why I used "controversial". Maxim.il89 (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
This is all original research, then. As I said, sources do not say it's "overwhelming", nor do they say it "prompted" this fringe theory. Ignoring what sources are saying and adding this anyway is WP:SYNTH. Further, "controversial" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Sure it's "controversial", but this is obvious and uninformative. It is not up to you or me to decide that it's controversial, it's up to reliable sources, and we would use those sources to decide if and how to explain this. Using these flimsy sources to imply something is inappropriate and misleading, and violates WP:OR. Summarize what sources actually say, not what you personally think they imply. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not "original research"... you can throw links to Wikipedia rules articles as much as you want, clearly you haven't read them yourself.
What do you mean "this is obvious and uninformative"? To someone who doesn't even know about the fact Jews are actually ethnically divided and stuff it's not obvious at all, and as a result, very informative. Obvious to whom?
If you have a better formulation or source, go for it, edits are welcome. Point is, the fact most of those Jews were Ashkenazi (in fact, all except like 3-4) is very relevant (and informative to those who wish to look at the topic).
Want to edit it, go for it, but you're just edit warring. Maxim.il89 (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
You are attaching a reference to a claim which is not supported by that source. That is WP:OR. Ignoring this problem doesn't make it go away.
Please read my comments more carefully. That the theory is "controversial" is extremely vague and obvious, therefore it's uninformative. I am not saying the entire thing is obvious. As an encyclopedia, we should use precise, formal language. Your edits are too vague and too conversational.
It is not up to you to decide which information is relevant, it's up to sources, and the sources you have chosen are very poor in this context. The burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes per WP:BRD, and you must use reliable sources. Using unreliable sources, or misusing reliable ones out-of-context, is not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Maxim.il89: With this edit you have added a source by Richard Lynn. Please read the Wikipedia article on Lynn if you haven't already. Per many, many past discussions, including the one I raised recently (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence) Lynn is a WP:FRINGE source and is not reliable for claims about race and intelligence, and should not be cited without attribution and context from more reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
My edits are not vague, that theory exists, but it's controversial - hence, controversial.
If you want to edit it in a way that mentions the percentage of Ashkenazis winning Nobel prize without mentioning the theory or changing sources... go for it, I'm always pro-compromise, but you can't just erase that information completely.
If you wanted to edit it, I'd be pro, but you just remove it. You're clearly only in for the edit war. Maxim.il89 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Maxim, you are the problem editor. You approach every subject as a battleground since the first time I ran into you. This is just further insanity, with a very long established editor telling you that you are posting OR (which you are) and you declaring back that they are somehow only here to be disruptive. No, it's just that you do not have consensus for the change and you are being told very politely what the issues are, and you are not listening. Again. Koncorde (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Him being "long established" doesn't change the fact he's edit warring over something that's relevant to the article, so keep the "long established editor" solidarity to yourself. It's about adding relevant information to make the article better.
I told the "long established editor" that I'm pro changing the formulation and compromising, but the "long established editor" clearly only understands reverts and edit warring, which is what he does.
He was already told on the Jews page this information is relevant by another long established editor, but still continues edit warring rather than working on improving the formulation, etc. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I rest my case Maxim. You do not read. You do not process. You just explode. The fact the formulation is currently OR is the reason it is removed. It is not up to Greyfell to remedy your original research when he has clearly made his point, a point you are refusing to acknowledge in favour of forcing your desired outcome. Koncorde (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The sentence doesn't belong at all; there isn't really a half-measure or happy medium here. Nobody is "only in [it] for the edit war" — I'm sure that everyone objecting to it has a dozen other articles they'd rather be working on instead. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I've changed the formulation and the links, why do I have a feeling he'll still be edit warring over it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

As I've said before, stop making this personal. Failure to follow this can lead to being blocked or banned from editing. You've made changes to the article and now the burden is on you to gain consensus for those changes.

So, sorry, but you're going to have to work harder and defend these changes, because I still see serious problems. The three sources you've added are:

  • A page from a website called "La Griffe de Lion".

What is La Griffe de Lion? Is this WP:RELIABLE? Who wrote this? It looks like a blog pushing scientific racism. I cannot find much about it, but Steve Sailer is a fan, and it has a short entry in Metapedia. These are all yet more signs FRINGE, and I cannot believe this would pass muster at WP:RSN for any factual claims.

Another blog, and this one is somehow even worse. The about page says they are not Jews, and that article includes young-earth creationist assumptions. Further it actually cites the neo-Nazi website Metapedia! That's a strange one, but it's not reliable at all and should be removed ASAP.

This one might be usable, but only in context. The relevant subsection is titled MYTH: ASHKENAZI JEWS HAVE HIGHER IQS - MAYBE

The source's speculations are based entirely on Henry Harpending's study: The implication that Jews have a higher IQ than other groups is bolstered by the disproportionate number of Ashkenazi Jews who are Nobel Prize winners and world chess champions, say Harpending and the rest of the Utah team.

The concluding paragraph of the section is worth quoting in full:

“It would be hard to overstate how politically incorrect this paper is,” Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist at Harvard, told The New York Times when the study was published. Nonetheless, he said, “it’s certainly a thorough and well-argued paper.” Others disagree, saying that the study, which contained no footnotes and was written in an impassioned tone not typical of academic literature, was not scientifically rigorous enough. “It’s bad science,” Harry Ostrer, medical geneticist at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, toldNew York magazine. “It’s bad genetics and bad epidemiology.” Some of the mutations the study discusses can even lead to mental retardation, says Risch, who adds, “In my view, there is currently no scientific evidence that Jewish achievement or intelligence has a genetic basis.”

Any use of this source would have to include context such as this, and this article is unlikely to be the place for this information. Grayfell (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Grayfell's evaluation. This article is called "List of Jewish Nobel laureates", not "every speculation about Jewish Nobel laureates made by random blowhards". XOR'easter (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What are you on about? It's not a speculation that most of those Jews are Ashkenazi, does some research, they are mostly Ashkenazi, it's a fact. I removed all mention of the theory and just left the fact it's mostly Ashkenazis, that's all, and you still edit war. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Just for the record, I only left the fact most of those Jews are Ashkenazi and removed all references to the controversial theory, and you still revert me, which shows it's just about edit warring. Yes, in an article about Jewish Nobel laureates, the fact most of them are Ashkenazi is relevant. For example, the mention the dominance of African-Americans in the article about the NBA, because it's a fact. Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You changed one bad formulation to another, and the text I removed introduced sources that, for the reasons Grayfell explained, are terrible. Moreover, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Even if a fact is true, it only belongs if it is demonstrably significant, according to the reliable sources that indicate the context of the subject. Please, consider the possibility that when multiple people disagree with you, you might be going about things in the wrong way. I believe you when you say you are willing to compromise, but you seemingly have not yet digested the objections that others have raised about your contributions, and that is a poor foundation for building compromises. XOR'easter (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course it's significant, I mean, not all Jews are the same, and the overwhelming majority of Nobel Prize winning Jews are Ashkenazi. As this article talks about Jews and Nobel Prize, this is literally the article to place this into now.
Again, the NBA article has a section talking about Afro-Americans in the NBA, so how is that different?
There have been many people defending this information, especially on the Jews talk page, by the way... again, simply "removing" info is not the way to go, and Grayfell has been explained this by User:Debresser, User:General Iroh, the Dragon of the West, and many others users.
Simply removing information is not "editing" and definitely not contribution. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
And again, as you've been explained by User:Debresser, removing everything because some of the sources are bad is simply stupid. Remove the bad sources, and we have a debate going. Simply removing everything is just your ego. Maxim.il89 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
When the vast majority of the sources are bad, and what remains is insufficient to make a case that including a remark on the topic would be due weight, then the appropriate thing to do is to remove the whole text. Sometimes, the appropriate percentage really is 0. I fail to see how your comparison with African-Americans in the NBA contributes to your point; race in sports has been a massive topic for generations, whereas the ratio of Ashkenazim among Nobel laureates is trivia. Moreover, accusing another editor of acting out of "ego" and calling their actions "really stupid" is hardly civil. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the sources aren't bad, and the information is relevant, at least the fact most of the list are Ashkenaz ones. If you really wanted to help, you'd edit out what you didn't like, but just removing it, nope.
The ration of Ashkenazi Jews amongst Nobel winners is not "trivia," it's as relevant to this article as the presence of Afro-American plays in the NBA is relevant to the basketball one.
The reason Ashkenazi Jews have been so successful is to do with a few factors, the Enlightenment movement (that for Jews took the form of the Haskalah movement), the fact that for most history Ashkenazi Jews weren't allowed to own and work land, and the fact at some point, most Ashkenazi Jews became desperate to leave the ghetto and accomplish something outside their community.
If you think Ashkenazi success is just "trivia" and not a result of both oppression and circumstances, stay away from the topic. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you think pinging other sympathetic editors will help your cause, but it's only making things worse. Also, again, if you cannot assume good faith, you will be blocked from editing. To summarize in simple terms, you added bad sources, so you need to defend them. There are serious problems with the content you added according to multiple editors. You keep restoring these sources without addressing the issues. If you want to defend these sources, defend them. If you cannot defend these sources, these offers of "compromise" are just false compromise. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's not canvassing, it's stating facts, they already told you what they think in other pages.
You're not even an admin, but throw threats lol.
I assume good faith when someone disagrees with me but works towards improving formulations, analysing what is relevant and what is not, and so on. You're not doing that, you simply remove everything.
Yes, the fact most of those winners are Ashkenazi Jews is definitely relevant to an article about Jewish Nobel prize winners. This particular piece of information is definitely relevant, but you don't just remove the pseudo-scientific theory, you remove that as well. Maxim.il89 (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
It is not up to us to fix your broken input. Koncorde (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
And reverted again, where you continue to insert the same unreliable sources. 2 blogs, and one reliable one that doesn't say "most" and you then segue into the next sentence which is talking about Jews as a whole, not Ashkenazi which has been levered into the first paragraph. Plus, once again, Mr Murray's piece is included despite concerns being raised. Koncorde (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Six links. Maxim.il89 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Koncorde which links are blogs? Maybe instead of edit warring just remove the bad links, the blogs? Easier than just being obnoxious. Maxim.il89 (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This proves you haven't read what Grayfell said to you days ago, or checked your sources. Koncorde (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I did, they seem regular websites, some of them go into specific statistics. Well, which is a blog? You said a reference is a blog, say which one. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It's simple, tell me which sources you have an issue with, I'm happy to remove them. Maxim.il89 (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I am frankly a bit dumbfounded. You have been told. You have ignored, obfuscated, and now pretend to care. FactsAboutIsrael is a blatant self published source[2] published on WordPress. Meanwhile La Griffe is at best described as a personal website / blog[3]. MomentMag does not say the word "Most".[4] Neither does Gilman.[5] Neither does AEI.[6] Nor does MIT.[7] and all of the reliable (?) articles are at pain to explain that the significance is fundamentally irrelevant - there is no causal link to IQ as you seem to wish to infer through the use of those sources. Koncorde (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Koncorde. I have restored what seems to me to be more balanced wording and removed problematic sourcing. jps (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Article protected

So while the article is protected, here is some issues with the proposed content:

  • As already mentioned, [8] and [9] are completely unreliable and should not be cited at all. [10] may or may not be reliable, but it can only be summarizes in context (which applies to all sources). Again, do not cite unreliable sources. Multiple unreliable sources are not a replacement for reliable sources, and those reliable sources will need context.
  • It is not enough to add "most are Ashkenazi" as trivia. Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate info. The way to prevent this is by using reliable, independent sources to provide context. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Being factual is not sufficient for inclusions. In other words, we need explain why this is significant, and we need reliable sources to do this for us. Not merely relevant, but significant.
  • Sources which do not indicate that this is significant cannot be used to imply that it is significant. This is a form of original research. We must look at the context of sources and reflect that context. It doesn't matter if it seems obvious that this is significant. This is disputed, so we have to follow sources.
  • If reliable sources mention this as a response to the WP:FRINGE theories of Cochran and Harpending, then we need to include that context. We cannot gloss-over fringe theories, and it's not enough to merely say this is "controversial". At this point we have to ask whether or not this list article is the appropriate place to go into this detail, or whether or not this is WP:UNDUE.

From this, my proposal is to remove the Charles Murray opinion as unhelpful. It is not a scholarly work, and he is not reliable for this topic. The American Enterprise Institute source (archive due to technical problems) cites both the pseudoscientific Cochran and Harpending source, and the same Charles Murray column. It also cites Richard Lynn, who is even less reliable. It might be usable in some contexts with attribution, but not for bland details. Further, a David Brooks column from 2010 is relatively weak for this. The raw statistic is not disputed, so this seems like filler. We should stick to more reliable sources here. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Are Jews Smarter Than Everyone Else? by Sander L. Gilman, it's worth a read, but Gilman helpfully includes a TL:DR at the end. Take Home Message: Don't confuse racial categories with scientific ones. Don't assume that making “positive” comments about a group is necessarily a good thing.
Good advice! Using this source here to indicate this is significant would be almost an insult to the source's author. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Grayfell. Sources used are substandard. Most are sources for entirely different things being used as the basis for a statement that none of them actually say, and few discuss "it" in the same way as is being framed. The idea that Ashkenazism is a monolith like structure of hyper intelligence is not scientific, and most of the articles are at pains to say "don't lump us all together".
On discussing the prevalence of Jewish success and Ashkenazi as a subset, it serves little purpose in a lede on a list where no significant context can be provided. The lede is for summarising the article. The article is a list of Nobel prize winning Jews. Not a list of Nobel prize winning Jewish subsets, or list of speculative reasons why certain groups may be successful. While some basic statistics may be pertinent (quantity, proportion of winners etc) talking about 0.02% of the world population is fundamentally an irrelevance and reads like peacocking. Koncorde (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

And again, I need to explain the obvious that the fact that most of those on the list are Ashkenazi Jews is very relevant to the article. And no, it's not "trivia" like someone here suggested (I assume someone who knows nothing about the history of Ashkenazi Jews), but very important, just like the information about Afro-Americans in the NBA article.

You're trying on purpose to ruin the discussion by trying to connect it to the "Ashkenazi intelligence" theory (which is pseudo-scientific), and by that discredit it, but that's just stupid.

In an article about Jewish prize winners, it is relevant that most of them are Ashkenazi. Does it mean Ashkenazi Jews are smarter than others or genetically superior? Of course not, and stop trying to make it look like stating the statistical fact somehow implies the second.

If you knew some history you'd understand that Ashkenazi academic success is a result of historical circumstances, and that's it. A mixture of desire to escape the poor life of the ghetto, the Enlightenment movement, and the fact very few Ashkenazi Jews were farmers, which allowed them to be more mobile, it's the fact conservative/agricultural society rejected them (which made the world of education a logical choice). Not genes, it's history.

When this guy here said how it's just "trivia," clearly you know nothing of the topic. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't know my (or anyone else here's) religious or ethnic background, or breadth of knowledge on this topic. Casting aspersions (again) is yet more evidence of your battleground mentality. You can't accept that the criticism is because the content is both irrelevant and needless because it's for some reason personal to you. Koncorde (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Maxim.il89, did you just copy/paste your comment from Talk:Jews? Please address my actual points.
Let's start with this one: We agree that the theory of genetic Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is pseudoscience.
Therefore, we should remove it from the article. This starts with removing the Murray source, since it is based on this theory and he is not reliable anyway. If you want to propose a change which explains Ashkenazi achievements start with reliable sources that explain this as it relates to Nobel laureates. Even with sources, this article might not be the best place for a detailed explanation. Ashkenazi Jews still seems like a better place, but again, only with direct support from reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2020

Michael-Kremer.gif has been deleted from Commons. Can someone please remove it from this page? - Sumanuil (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Who is a Jew?

This article is severely compromised by not clearly defining what qualifies someone for this list. As it stands, it is a hodgepodge of people who have any sort of Jewish ancestry, even if they do not identify as Jewish and would not be considered Jewish by Jewish law. If it's to be that broad, the title should be changed to List of Jewish Nobel Laureates with Jewish ancestry. Either way, the parameters of the list must be defined if the list is to be a) useful and b) not endlessly fought over by people with different conceptions of what the title "should" include. JudahH (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

1986 John Charles Polanyi missing in Chemistry

1986 John Charles Polanyi missing in ChemistryЧтогдекогдазнающий (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done.Bloger (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over Cochran et al

Regarding this revert:

Per #The overwhelming majority of those Jews are Asheknazi ones, why is that being removed, the cited Cochran source is neither reliable, not does it support this content. It barely mentions the Nobel Prize at all, and doesn't support the specific numbers being included here. As has already been explained to death, this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR based on garbage sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

I agree that the Cochran reference is controversial. We can remove it but presenting these statistics does make sense and is not at all off topic. We can leave it as such:

Jews have won a large number of the Nobel awards.[1][2] While they make up about 2% of the U.S. population and 0.1% of the world population, Jews have earned 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2020. This constitutes 36% of all US recipients during the same period. [3] 109.88.66.151 (talk) 08:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. So what? Even if cited, the statistics imply that somehow Jewish people are somehow superior compared to the rest of the population. It's misleading and unencyclopedic. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I know I'm about a year late, but this is a pretty remarkable fact, and as far as I'm aware there's no additional context to this fact (although I'd be open to hearing it). It seems like something that'd be worth mentioning as long as we break down nobel laureates by race, I'm not sure how it's misleading or "unencyclopedic" although I'd be interested to hear your logic behind that. 2600:1700:12D0:A970:CD99:9D30:8F3C:A716 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Jewish Nobel Prize Winners". Jinfo.org. Retrieved 16 March 2016. At least 194 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize, accounting for 22% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2015, and constituting 36% of all US recipients during the same period. In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and US percentages are 26% and 38%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 33% and 50%, respectively. Of organizations awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, 22% were founded principally by Jews or by people of half-Jewish descent. Since the turn of the century (i.e., since the year 2000), Jews have been awarded 25% of all Nobel Prizes and 28% of those in the scientific research fields.
  2. ^ Pinker, Steven (17 June 2006). "The Lessons of the Ashkenazim: Groups and Genes". The New Republic. Archived from the original on 5 January 2008. Retrieved 23 December 2007. Though never exceeding 3 percent of the American population, Jews account for 37 percent of the winners of the U.S. National Medal of Science, 25 percent of the American Nobel Prize winners in literature, 40 percent of the American Nobel Prize winners in science and economics, and so on.
  3. ^ http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

what do you mean by Jew?

how do you define Jews? the title Jew can refer to either an ethnic group or a religious denomination (or sometimes their union or intersection). as this list is part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Nobel_laureates_by_religion, i guess this refer to the religious denomination. however the list includes e.g. Lev Landau which to my understanding was non-religious and also appears in the appropriate list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nonreligious_Nobel_laureates. therefore if we are not interested in opening here the discussion of "who is a Jew" (we are not), i suggest this list be taken out of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Nobel_laureates_by_religion, and add a clarification that this list does not necessarily include only people of jewish faith or ethnicity. otherwise we need to remove all those appearing in one of the other religious lists including the non-religious one and check the faith of each one of the remaining laureates. by the way the corresponding Hebrew wiki explicitly refers to Jewish descendence i.e. ethnicity.

--איל גרוּס הסוס (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Obviously this list can't be based on religious Jewish courts or religious affiliations. Your premise isn't sensical. "by the way the corresponding hebrew wiki explicitly refers to jewish descendence i.e. ethnicity. " makes sense.

When you click on the link for Jews you get : "Jews or Jewish people are members of an ethnoreligious group[10] and a nation...". --Vanlister (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is Richard Feynman on this list?

Feynman's Wikipedia page contains a reference to Feynman specifically declining to provide information for a book on Jewish Nobel laureates being compiled by Tina Levitan. He was an avowed atheist, uninterested in Jewish sociology, and found the concept of linking Jewish-ness to academic worth or professional achievement as opening "the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory". While he was certainly born into a Jewish family, given his public stated atheism and a particular instruction to not be included on any lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, it seems actively perverse to include him.

This article needs serious editing. 214.9.101.8 (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Baeyer just deleted. --Dioskorides (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove comparative section

"Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population, meaning their share of winners is 110 times their proportion of the world's population."

I don't think this "evaluation" belongs in a factual article. 2601:600:8F81:E080:B125:E819:2B45:7F68 (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You haven't provided a reason to remove this statement, which has approx. 17 sources. Scare quotes are not persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with him. That statement violates WP:NPOV. It sounds like something that would be written in a jewish-supremacist blog. In reality, the nobel prize is eurocentric with over half of laureates being from Europe (54%). Using statistics in a biased manner to suggest inherent superiority in comparison to the entire rest of the world is not neutral point of view. Greenlion88 (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
That's not what WP:NPOV is. And that statement has been repeated over years in WP:RS that aren't Jewish supremacist blogs (whatever those are). Longhornsg (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Googling it extensively I only found 3 sources talking about "110x" their proportion of the world's population - this article, a reddit post, and a blog website run by an individual called romanjews.com. If you claim that something is repeated over the years by reliable sources - you should actually name the alleged reliable sources.
The problem however is not that it is necessarily statistically false - the problem is that it's not WP:NPOV because a wikipedia editor created it (again only seen here, on a reddit post, and presumably copied to the blog website from this article) and then misused it to imply something that is misrepresenting. Again - 88% of nobel prizes are given to someone in Europe or USA. (source). And the nobel's eurocentric status is well known and discussed in reliable sources like The Guardian and The Economist.
That statistic effectively implies that everyone everywhere in the world has equal access to the nobel prize and one group beat them all by getting 110x their share. Wikipedia editors should not themselves create statistics that misrepresent ideas to heap laudatory praise on one group over another. Greenlion88 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, your opinion certainly may be shared here, to a point (WP:NOTFORUM), but it sounds like there is a consensus to retain the information as written. The sources are linked in footnotes 4 and 5. Andre🚐 22:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely none of the sources in footnotes 4 or 5 include the "110x" statistic. "0.2% of the world population" and "27% of Nobel prizes" is not the problem. The problem is that a Wikipedia editor created the 110x statistic themselves.
Surely we can't be advocating for editors to create statistics themselves that are misrepresenting? Greenlion88 (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Simple calculation is allowed under Wikipedia's policies; see WP:CALC Andre🚐 22:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Biased misrepresenting calculations w/o context? Why not crunch up the numbers of the homicide rate per capita of Black Americans vs all other Americans and present it w/o context too in a wiki? Or how about the deaths per capita by government actors of Palestinians vs Israelis? A creative person can think of a million calculations that while factual are misrepresentative. Greenlion88 (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see what's biased or misrepresentative about it. Regardless, it's been around for a long time and there's a consensus to retain it. Andre🚐 18:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Well like I said earlier - the misrepresentative part is that the statistic implies that everyone everywhere in the world has equal access to the nobel prize and one group beat everyone else in the world by a huge amount. That's probably why none of the reliable sources calculated it that way. But I concede that the consensus is against me so I'll accept it now.
Would it be acceptable to at least add a sentence of context after it? For example: "Jews comprise only 0.2% of the world's population, meaning their share of winners is 110 times their proportion of the world's population. However, 88% of Nobel prizes have been awarded to persons from either Europe or USA and the prize has faced criticism for being euro-centric. [source of stat][sources of euro-centric criticism]" Greenlion88 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Read WP:NOR. Longhornsg (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That seems irrelevant anyhow. There are Jews in many countries in the world, many of them for example in Israel, which is not in Europe but West Asia, Argentina which is South America, Canada, which is not the USA but North America, Russia, which well, I doubt you meant Russia when you said Europe even though it's Eurasia. See Jewish population by country. You can separately add something about the Nobel Prize's Eurocentricism if you have sources, to a different article, but unless you have a source that talks about both that, and the Jewish Nobel laureates, it's WP:SYNTH on this article. See why? Andre🚐 20:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The "110 times" calculation is not factual and trivially wrong from the statistical point of view (and this is the reason why Wikipedia editors must be extremely cautious in creating statistics by themselves). The reason is simple: the Editor that wrote that number was not correctly considering the ratio of Jews vs world population along the entire period during which the Nobel prize has been awarded since 1901. In 1939, for example, Jews were the 0.7% of the population, and not the 0.2% (source: third paragraph in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews ). A better calculation would imply integrating properly the ratio (Jews award winners/total winners per year)/(Jews with 30+ years/world population 30+ per year) in the period 1901-2023 (the 30+ comes of course from the fact that Nobel prize is not awarded to newborn). This should be enough for considering cancelling that sentence. 130.251.218.6 (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Jewish_Nobel_laureates/Archive_4&oldid=1260250729"