User talk:Beccaynr/Archives/2022/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
June events from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Thank you for your work on List of gender identities. Are you interested in having a look at List of sexual orientations? This was deleted via PROD around the same time but I've had it restored and then it was promptly nominated for deletion again. ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know, Kvng - I have not had a lot of time or focus to work on this, but finally added my thoughts to the discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The teacher
|
Acharya |
| Thank you for being an awesome guide. Amitized (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
- My humble thanks to you, Amitized - I am happy to share my perspective when I can. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Review Request
Two of the articles I edited [1] and [2] are being nominated for deletion. Can you please review and advise on the same and possibly add your vote/comment in the nomination process. Thank you Amitized (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- Hi Amitized, I already !voted in both deletion discussions, and made small edits to both the Karan Acharya and Ashwini Upadhyay articles. I think both articles, similar to all articles, can continue to be developed, and the Ashwini Upadhyay article likely will take more work due to how much coverage there is about his legal career. Do you have a specific question about the articles? Beccaynr (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I missed it, thank you for guiding me, one question thought Karan Acharya is a genuine article but every now and then someone keeps nominating it for deletion. Where does it stop finally? I mean there has to be a conclusive end to it. Amitized (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for following up, Amitized - one broad reason it is possible for articles to be renominated for deletion is because consensus is a fundamental Wikipedia policy for decisionmaking, and consensus can change. Article deletion discussions are decided by rough consensus, and are generally considered to be non-binding precedent. I have seen previously-kept articles nominated more than once, usually with the nominator explaining why they disagree with the outcome of a previous discussion, or explaining what has changed since the previous discussion. Sometimes past deletion discussions are not well-attended, and sometimes there may be procedural concerns or other issues with a past discussion. Also, editors can have good faith disagreements about how our guidelines and policies apply to a particular article. However, my general sense is that a well-developed deletion discussion can either help deter repeated nominations or make the development of rough consensus easier in future deletion discussions. Even though it is not possible to completely prevent a new nomination for deletion, continuing to develop the article can also help; this includes using reputable sources and removing questionable ones. For example, in the Karan Acharya article, I suggest removing the News18 reference and using more reliable sources to verify information. Sometimes improvements to the article structure may also help demonstrate notability, and this could be applied to the Ashwini Upadhyay article by creating subsections for the various topic areas of litigation he has focused on during his career. Other issues that can be addressed generally to help reduce new deletion discussions are improvements to encyclopedic tone, and the removal of promotional content, because articles that look like advertisements are likely to be nominated for deletion. Please note that these are my views on the process, and additional resources for questions include the Help Desk, and there are a variety of resources and information at the dispute resolution policy page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wow thank you for your guidance @Beccaynr I will work to optimize the articles as you suggested. And while we if I may ask for guidance on 2 more articles that were moved to draftspace, that would be great. Isha Ambani <Draft:Isha Ambani> and G23 leaders <Draft:G23 leaders> thank you again for your continued support. Amitized (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Amitized, I spent some time reviewing the sources in Draft:Isha Ambani and it looks like there are not enough independent and reliable secondary sources to support the article, and there are also WP:PROMO issues, because that policy emphasizes how articles cannot be an extension of promotional efforts by the article subject. For example, in the 2022 article Rise of Isha Ambani in The Hindu Business Line, what might otherwise be the type of secondary commentary that could help support her notability is instead credited to "Reliance insiders say" and "Mukesh Ambani has often said", and is therefore not independent while also appearing to be an effort to promote her. Similarly, the 2020 article How the Ambani kids’ upbringing was stricter than you’d expect – Indian billionaire children Isha, Akash and Anant took the bus to school and had 7 US cents for lunch money each day in the South China Morning Post is based on what her mother "told women’s lifestyle network iDiva", "The Tribune India quoted Isha", "In an interview with Entertainment Times, Nita has said", "Isha says", "Nita also told iDiva", without clear independent reporting about her and very limited independent commentary about her family. The 2018 article Ivy League, high-society galas, and Jio: Isha Ambani is more than just the Reliance heiress in The Economic Times also appears to be promotional, because what might otherwise be secondary commentary that could help support her notability is instead credited to "Ambani recently revealed" and "He said", and the article otherwise includes an overview of her education and career, as well as her fashion highlights and "rumours" related to her upcoming wedding. The brief 2021 article Isha Ambani, Akash Ambani: Twin faces of the future in India Today does not include secondary commentary or much context, and summarizes her education and career. The brief 2016 Firstpost blog post does not have a byline and appears promotional, including because it announces a new venture by the company, includes the website, and notes her presence at an event. The 2020 Vogue India article about her wedding begins by referencing an interview, and then reviews Instagram content, various events related to their engagement and wedding with fashion and celebrity sightings, information "According to Isha", and many pictures. This does not add a lot of independent or in-depth content to help support notability. The 2022 article from Business Today (India) also appears promotional because it lacks a byline, and is based on "Reliance Retail said" and "Isha Ambani, Director, Reliance Retail Ventures said", instead of clearly independent content. While there is coverage in a variety of sources over time, it does not appear that an encyclopedia article can be supported with what is available at this time, based on the guidelines and policies. Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wow thank you for your guidance @Beccaynr I will work to optimize the articles as you suggested. And while we if I may ask for guidance on 2 more articles that were moved to draftspace, that would be great. Isha Ambani <Draft:Isha Ambani> and G23 leaders <Draft:G23 leaders> thank you again for your continued support. Amitized (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for following up, Amitized - one broad reason it is possible for articles to be renominated for deletion is because consensus is a fundamental Wikipedia policy for decisionmaking, and consensus can change. Article deletion discussions are decided by rough consensus, and are generally considered to be non-binding precedent. I have seen previously-kept articles nominated more than once, usually with the nominator explaining why they disagree with the outcome of a previous discussion, or explaining what has changed since the previous discussion. Sometimes past deletion discussions are not well-attended, and sometimes there may be procedural concerns or other issues with a past discussion. Also, editors can have good faith disagreements about how our guidelines and policies apply to a particular article. However, my general sense is that a well-developed deletion discussion can either help deter repeated nominations or make the development of rough consensus easier in future deletion discussions. Even though it is not possible to completely prevent a new nomination for deletion, continuing to develop the article can also help; this includes using reputable sources and removing questionable ones. For example, in the Karan Acharya article, I suggest removing the News18 reference and using more reliable sources to verify information. Sometimes improvements to the article structure may also help demonstrate notability, and this could be applied to the Ashwini Upadhyay article by creating subsections for the various topic areas of litigation he has focused on during his career. Other issues that can be addressed generally to help reduce new deletion discussions are improvements to encyclopedic tone, and the removal of promotional content, because articles that look like advertisements are likely to be nominated for deletion. Please note that these are my views on the process, and additional resources for questions include the Help Desk, and there are a variety of resources and information at the dispute resolution policy page. Beccaynr (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I missed it, thank you for guiding me, one question thought Karan Acharya is a genuine article but every now and then someone keeps nominating it for deletion. Where does it stop finally? I mean there has to be a conclusive end to it. Amitized (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Lauren Silberman
Thanks for your comments and research for List of female American football players. I just realized I had cut some content you had added to the page, right as I had started trying to cut the page down, first by deleting the redundant prose section at the top. I noticed you had added a quote about Lauren Silberman, and just wanted to make sure you were aware that she is generally viewed as having pulled a publicity stunt for no good reason. She had zero experience in gridiron football and apparently did very little to seriously prepare for the NFL tryout, and embarrassed everyone who was watching. She was even turning to other players at the trial, asking them how she should go about kicking the ball. Her publicity stunt may have very well spoiled the chances for other women – women who actually do have experience playing the sport – to try out for the NFL. You can read more about in this USA Today article interviewing Katie Hnida (please search for it if this link doesn't work), and in other articles. Obviously this is a sensitive issue and the list page needs to include Lauren Silberman, but I don't think we should try to pretend it was a viable attempt to try out for the NFL. I am planning to go back and edit that section further, once the rest of the list is in a better state. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Cielquiparle, thank you for following up - this is a WP:BLP issue, and I removed unsourced disparaging content for which I could not find reliable support, and instead found a source stating the opposite, so I added that. I also removed what seemed to be a WP:WIKIVOICE issue when it appeared you removed factual information and instead described her tryout as a "failure", so I restored the facts from the source about what happened. Please note that if you add the USA Today article as a source for the statement that she "apparently did very little to seriously prepare for the NFL tryout, and embarrassed everyone who was watching", and/or that "she is generally viewed as having pulled a publicity stunt for no good reason", I will plan on removing it as unsourced and contrary to WP:BLP policy. I think we should be mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and stay as close as possible to the sources, without editorializing in Wikipedia's voice. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not planning to editorialize. I actually thought "failure" is objective – you take a test, you apply for a job, you pass or fail. It wasn't intended as a judgment. Actually it's standard sports language – you win or lose, you succeed in your campaign or you fail. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for following up again, Cielquiparle - I think in this context, per the source I added, "failure" does not adequately summarize what happened during the tryout. She did not complete the tryout, after consulting with medics, so generalizing this as a failure does not appear to be objectively supported by the sources that add details about her attempt. For example, a student who attempts a test but leaves before it is completed because they sought medical attention would likely get an 'incomplete' grade instead of a 'fail'. We have sourced facts about what happened, so we can present them in a neutral manner and let the reader decide. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The other point is – when I made that edit, I was deliberately trying to summarize, because the bulletpoint in the section below already included all the detail about what happened. I thought it was repetitive. That's all. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out, Cielquiparle, I had definitely missed that, and instead focused on what appeared to be unsourced information. Also, nice work in cleaning up the article, it seems to be much improved thanks to your efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just thought you should know: The only reason I ever stumbled on ARS was because of your User page, as I wondered what those icons meant. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Cielquiparle, I just spent some time reviewing deletion-related policy, information, and essay pages because I had recalled ARS at some point being linked somewhere as a suggestion (I have also been trying to recall how I initially found the project when I was new to AfD), but have not been able to find it. I am curious as to how the flotation device icons on my userpage, which link to articles, not ARS, resulted in someone otherwise unfamiliar with ARS making the association. And I am asking this sincerely, because if you think my use of the icons is a problem, I would like to consider how I can address it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it! I probably should have just asked (I think I read it on one of your Talk pages). I had no idea it was going to lead to such drama. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Cielquiparle, I just spent some time reviewing deletion-related policy, information, and essay pages because I had recalled ARS at some point being linked somewhere as a suggestion (I have also been trying to recall how I initially found the project when I was new to AfD), but have not been able to find it. I am curious as to how the flotation device icons on my userpage, which link to articles, not ARS, resulted in someone otherwise unfamiliar with ARS making the association. And I am asking this sincerely, because if you think my use of the icons is a problem, I would like to consider how I can address it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just thought you should know: The only reason I ever stumbled on ARS was because of your User page, as I wondered what those icons meant. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing that out, Cielquiparle, I had definitely missed that, and instead focused on what appeared to be unsourced information. Also, nice work in cleaning up the article, it seems to be much improved thanks to your efforts. Beccaynr (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The other point is – when I made that edit, I was deliberately trying to summarize, because the bulletpoint in the section below already included all the detail about what happened. I thought it was repetitive. That's all. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for following up again, Cielquiparle - I think in this context, per the source I added, "failure" does not adequately summarize what happened during the tryout. She did not complete the tryout, after consulting with medics, so generalizing this as a failure does not appear to be objectively supported by the sources that add details about her attempt. For example, a student who attempts a test but leaves before it is completed because they sought medical attention would likely get an 'incomplete' grade instead of a 'fail'. We have sourced facts about what happened, so we can present them in a neutral manner and let the reader decide. Beccaynr (talk) 04:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not planning to editorialize. I actually thought "failure" is objective – you take a test, you apply for a job, you pass or fail. It wasn't intended as a judgment. Actually it's standard sports language – you win or lose, you succeed in your campaign or you fail. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Genuine question, given the reliable sourcing presented at the AfD, why do you see the list of Jewish winners of the Nobel prize as original research? Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course, Goldsztajn - part of my thinking was influenced by the Hollinger (2002) source you posted, i.e.
We need to find a way out of the booster-bigot trap, which quickly channels discussions of Jews in comparison to other groups into the booster's uncritical celebration of Jewish achievements or the bigot's malevolent complaint about Jewish conspiracies.
The only way it seems possible to avoid the 'quick channel' a list creates is to create a prose article that adds what I think is the depth needed to avoid the WP:SYNTH required to make judgements about who should be included in the list. In my comment before my !vote, I also added scholarly sources that complicated the connections and from my view, render a simple list unencyclopedic, essentially indicating that it would be WP:SYNTH to present a straightforward connection. I also do not believe this can be solved be redefining Judaism only as a faith, and I think attempts to do so would be a form of WP:OR, because sources do not seem to support this and spotchecking laureates shows Jewish identity is more complex than this. Some of the sources I identified in the discussion also discuss nonreligious laureates, which seems to add to the complexity and further supports the need for a well-developed article on this topic generally, with various prose subsections. I had a much easier time finding sources and !voting keep in the other recent laureate discussions, but this bundle of lists did not have the same kind of support I had relied on to support my position in those discussions. Please do let me know if it would be helpful for me to further explain my thoughts. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)- Hi @Beccaynr - thanks for the reply, and I guess we see things very differently. :) I think you are overly complicating matters and I see much of the discussion as a product of the very poorly constructed nomination which conflates identity with religion. Hollinger is making a point about what conclusions we would draw from a list of Jewish winners (or billionaires or Bolsheviks) not the list, per se - that would be a content matter, but not a matter that reflects upon the notability of the list (he's actually acknowledging these are notable issues for discussion!). Who to include on the list can be done on the basis of sourcing, again a content matter. As for the nomination, list of Jewish winners is about identity, there are actually two about religion and, I would argue, one is not actually about religion. There's multiple reliable sources which specifically list Jewish winners; in this, I fail to see as relevant any discourse about the influence of religion on winning the Nobel prize. It's a simple question - are there reliable sources which demonstrate the "cultural phenomenon" of Jewish winners of the Nobel? I cannot see how one can answer no on the basis of the sourcing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, Goldsztajn, and I think for list construction purposes, the available sourcing will lead us to WP:SYNTH because of how Jewish identity can be defined. What if someone converts to a religion other than Judaism? or becomes nonreligious? are they still included because they were once Jewish (this applies to all of the religion lists)? I think determining who qualifies for the list is more than a content issue because I don't expect sources to give us a clear answer, so I think a prose article is needed to address the cultural phenomenon, and help clarify what conclusions can reasonably be drawn about the significance of the various connections. I read the Hollinger quote as urging caution about how information is presented, e.g. to be wary of WP:SYNTH, so I favor developing context for the topic generally and specifically. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi - Who is a Jew? .... LOL, that discussion is thousands of years old. FWIW, there's multiple sources which list Jewish winners, the vast preponderance are simply not controversial, those few which are unclear (eg John Polyani) can be determined by discussion. I still see your response as missing the forest for the trees, so to speak, you're engaged in a debate about the subject of the AfD, while not assessing the contents, quality or validity of the sources I've mentioned. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oy, Goldsztajn, that article, thank you for sharing it, and as to the sources, I think the scholarly ones I point to in the discussion have a higher quality than lists and general commentary. I perceive multiple problems that are related but distinct - including the sourcing for how to define inclusion, as well as the sourcing to support whether this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization - from my view, we have sources supporting a prose article but warning us away from lists, and WP:LISTN tells us
There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")
, so I think you are correct to focus on the quality/validity of the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)- I've honestly struggled to understand your interpretation, because to me, the way in which you frame cross-categorisation, there's no actual threshold point for notability. But in any debate LISTN implicitly requires us to propose a threshold for the discussion - "no consensus" doesn't mean defining notability is impossible, it just means no generalised one in the community exists. FWIW, you analysed sources specifically around religion, my apologies for reiterating this, however, the list of Jewish winners is not about religion, but rather identity. However, this is my last point: the basis of my argument is LISTN:
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."
(my emphasis) The debate about cross-categorisation is a red-herring, the grouping itself is backed by sources. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- Hi Goldsztajn, from my view, when we look at the scholarly sources discussing the grouping or set generally, i.e. the ones I highlight in my first comment in the discussion, these sources tell us that the connections are more complex than a straightforward list. I also think we have some WP:NPOV issues if we attempt to develop a list, as the Who is a Jew? article helps emphasize, as well as the non-RS sources that have not been cited in the discussion but are at the top of some online search results and reflect the polarity identified by Hollinger (2002). Based on core policies, it appears that this material should be developed as a prose article that can articulate the nuances of the subject matter as expressed by reliable scholarly sources. List inclusion criteria
should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources
, and the scholarly sources in particular seem to show that we do not have unambiguous criteria available, and the WP:OR/WP:NPOV concerns I have expressed apply to what appears to be a lack of objective standards for list inclusion as well as whether lists should exist despite scholarly sources telling us there is no reliable basis for making these connections, even if we can identify clear inclusion criteria. Beccaynr (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- It's interesting, at least to me, that we have such different opinions in this debate. Nevertheless, I hope none of my contributions have strayed from civility. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Goldsztajn, I am happy to discuss this with you, it is just a little bit challenging while there is a parallel discussion happening during the AfD, although we would have swamped the discussion if we had tried to fully discuss it over there. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and consider mine. I am concerned about what some of my research found and it influences my thoughts on how we as an encyclopedia can do better, and what format will best present complex topics about people in the most encyclopedic manner (and without what may be potentially endless debates about inclusion). All that said, my best guess is a 'no consensus' close at this point, and in the future, I hope an article that explores the nuances is developed so it can be linked to the lists. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll try to keep my reply separate from the explicit issues of the AfD - agreed, it is better not to create (too much of) a parallel discussion here. Let me emphasise, I definitely hear what you are saying and agree that there are relevant topic-specific issues that are larger than the immediate article at hand (and extend into issues related to Wikipedia's coverage of a whole range of historical and contemporary matters). Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Goldsztajn, I am happy to discuss this with you, it is just a little bit challenging while there is a parallel discussion happening during the AfD, although we would have swamped the discussion if we had tried to fully discuss it over there. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and consider mine. I am concerned about what some of my research found and it influences my thoughts on how we as an encyclopedia can do better, and what format will best present complex topics about people in the most encyclopedic manner (and without what may be potentially endless debates about inclusion). All that said, my best guess is a 'no consensus' close at this point, and in the future, I hope an article that explores the nuances is developed so it can be linked to the lists. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's interesting, at least to me, that we have such different opinions in this debate. Nevertheless, I hope none of my contributions have strayed from civility. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Goldsztajn, from my view, when we look at the scholarly sources discussing the grouping or set generally, i.e. the ones I highlight in my first comment in the discussion, these sources tell us that the connections are more complex than a straightforward list. I also think we have some WP:NPOV issues if we attempt to develop a list, as the Who is a Jew? article helps emphasize, as well as the non-RS sources that have not been cited in the discussion but are at the top of some online search results and reflect the polarity identified by Hollinger (2002). Based on core policies, it appears that this material should be developed as a prose article that can articulate the nuances of the subject matter as expressed by reliable scholarly sources. List inclusion criteria
- I've honestly struggled to understand your interpretation, because to me, the way in which you frame cross-categorisation, there's no actual threshold point for notability. But in any debate LISTN implicitly requires us to propose a threshold for the discussion - "no consensus" doesn't mean defining notability is impossible, it just means no generalised one in the community exists. FWIW, you analysed sources specifically around religion, my apologies for reiterating this, however, the list of Jewish winners is not about religion, but rather identity. However, this is my last point: the basis of my argument is LISTN:
- Oy, Goldsztajn, that article, thank you for sharing it, and as to the sources, I think the scholarly ones I point to in the discussion have a higher quality than lists and general commentary. I perceive multiple problems that are related but distinct - including the sourcing for how to define inclusion, as well as the sourcing to support whether this is an encyclopedic cross-categorization - from my view, we have sources supporting a prose article but warning us away from lists, and WP:LISTN tells us
- Hi - Who is a Jew? .... LOL, that discussion is thousands of years old. FWIW, there's multiple sources which list Jewish winners, the vast preponderance are simply not controversial, those few which are unclear (eg John Polyani) can be determined by discussion. I still see your response as missing the forest for the trees, so to speak, you're engaged in a debate about the subject of the AfD, while not assessing the contents, quality or validity of the sources I've mentioned. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, Goldsztajn, and I think for list construction purposes, the available sourcing will lead us to WP:SYNTH because of how Jewish identity can be defined. What if someone converts to a religion other than Judaism? or becomes nonreligious? are they still included because they were once Jewish (this applies to all of the religion lists)? I think determining who qualifies for the list is more than a content issue because I don't expect sources to give us a clear answer, so I think a prose article is needed to address the cultural phenomenon, and help clarify what conclusions can reasonably be drawn about the significance of the various connections. I read the Hollinger quote as urging caution about how information is presented, e.g. to be wary of WP:SYNTH, so I favor developing context for the topic generally and specifically. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Beccaynr - thanks for the reply, and I guess we see things very differently. :) I think you are overly complicating matters and I see much of the discussion as a product of the very poorly constructed nomination which conflates identity with religion. Hollinger is making a point about what conclusions we would draw from a list of Jewish winners (or billionaires or Bolsheviks) not the list, per se - that would be a content matter, but not a matter that reflects upon the notability of the list (he's actually acknowledging these are notable issues for discussion!). Who to include on the list can be done on the basis of sourcing, again a content matter. As for the nomination, list of Jewish winners is about identity, there are actually two about religion and, I would argue, one is not actually about religion. There's multiple reliable sources which specifically list Jewish winners; in this, I fail to see as relevant any discourse about the influence of religion on winning the Nobel prize. It's a simple question - are there reliable sources which demonstrate the "cultural phenomenon" of Jewish winners of the Nobel? I cannot see how one can answer no on the basis of the sourcing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Judith Ehrlich
Thanks for your work on Judith Ehrlich. I nominated it for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Judith Ehrlich. I hope you don't mind. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cheers, SL93, and thank you! I have not quite gotten the hang of DYK and I appreciate the nomination :) Beccaynr (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
This lawyer has been involved in some interesting cases and events. I started Draft:Amy Jeffress on her but feel free to start fresh if she interests you. FloridaArmy (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi FloridaArmy, thank you very much for letting me know - I conducted some preliminary research and got a ton of hits from the WP Library that helped with finding additional sources, and I have started working on the draft. Due to her wide-ranging career and the corresponding coverage, I think it will take some time to develop the article, but I plan to continue working on it. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
|
Great job on Amy Jeffress. ––FormalDude talk 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC) |
- Yum and thank you, FormalDude - I'm glad to see the article move to mainspace, and the sustenance is appreciated :) Beccaynr (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in July 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging