Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews

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

The result was no consensus.

This discussion is interesting in that it does not focus on one of the standard reasons for deletion (notability, verifiability, etc.). Rather, editors disagree about whether such a categorization of people is at all appropriate or even possible. As usual, I begin with the rough headcount, which is 20 to 14 (41% to 59%) in favor of keeping. Even if a higher proportion of "keep" than "delete" opinions would be invalid for some reason, this would not provide us with the required consensus for deletion.

I must still examine, however, whether there is a "delete" argument that is so compelling that it mandates deletion regardless of consensus (e.g., a copyright violation). I do not find any such argument being made here.

Finally, I must examine whether the "delete" arguments are, in aggregate, so much more persuasive in the light of policies, guidelines and precedents than the "keep" arguments, that I would nonetheless be justified in finding a consensus for deletion. That is also not so:

  • Precedent is inconclusive; some similar categories and lists appear to have previously been kept; others deleted.
  • It has been pointed out that the lists may violate WP:SAL#Lists of people, which would require the inclusion of only people notable for being a former member of the religion, but if so, that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion.
  • One person thinks that such a categorization is WP:OR, but that issue has not been discussed further.
  • Many other "delete" opinions concern the broader perceived merits of such lists, often in terms such as "arbitrary and selective", "selective and unencyclopedic", "hard to see any positive purpose or need" or "never on the level, straightforward, and neutral". Whether or not one agrees with these assessments, they are not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or they address issues such as neutrality that can be corrected by editing rather than deletion.

For these reasons, these arguments do not outweigh the "keep" arguments, or at least not strongly enough for me to find a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Jews[edit]

List of former Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating these articles for deletion since they seem to me to violate the spirit of several important WP policies. One is neutral point of view WP:NPOV since out of the millions of people in history who have changed or left their religion only a few will ever be listed here, and the ones listed seem to be so (in many cases) to push various points of view. Another is no fringe theories WP:Fringe since it is not at all established that a Jew who leaves his religion is a “former Jew” (most people, Jewish or not, would not say so), or that being a member of a church makes a person a Christian or leaving one a “former Christian”, and Muslims (if I understand correctly) do not consider a person who renounces Islam a “former Muslim” but a lapsed one. Another issue is with WP’s policies on living people WP:BLP. Not everyone on the lists is living but for those who are being listed could cause problems, which is one thing WP tries to avoid if possible. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

List of former Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of former Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I don't see that these lists are inherently POV in nature. If some current entires are included to advocate some particular point of view then by all means remove them, but why delete the whole lists? It should be possible to restrict them to entries for which reliable sourcing supports inclusion. Likewise BLP is a reason to take extra care with the inclusion of living people but where sourcing does exist there's no reason not to include them. As for your other point, I wouldn't have thought it particularly controversial to say that someone who once professed belief in Christianity but no longer does is a 'former Christian'; likewise Muslims. Whether Muslims prefer the term 'lapsed' to 'former' is surely not the relevant question: what matters is whether general English useage and reliable sources use the term and I'm pretty sure they do. I'm on less certain ground with the other list since 'Jew' does not refer solely to religious persuasion, but your argument would seem to justify at the very most a rename to 'list of formerly religious Jews' or something similar. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close: You did read all the previous AfD discussions on these articles, right? If you did not, I suggest you read them now and then if your objections havent been dealt with there, keep the AfD otherwise withdraw it right away. I'm not going to bother responding to your arguments as they have all been dealt with in previous AfDs. Since you seem to not have investigated this fully, here's a good starting point for you: Lists of people by belief which links to atleast 20 different lists. You should look into nominating all of them. Your AfD isnt valid unless it does that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating all of them might be a good idea. I nominated these because they seemed the most "high profile."Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you find former AfDs? I know sometimes they are listed on the talk page but I didn't see any for these.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Who says what list is high profile and whats not? Thats a subjective criteria. 2) Look again and this time a little bit more carefully: Talk:List of former Muslims. There were 3 AfD's for this page alone. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"High profile" = "easy targets" ;-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW I am smarter than the previous nominators.:-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – On the condition it is renamed “List of notable Jews who converted to other religions”. As it now stands, any individual who converts from Judaism would be included in the list. That is not only impracticable but would be unattainable to upkeep. If inclusion in the list requires that the individual already having gained notability by our current standards I see no problem. JAAGTalk 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fairly usual to have pages called 'list of X' with the implicit assumption that it actual means 'list of X which are notable' but without actually stating so in the title - see for example the pages listed at Lists of Jews. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These articles can never do more than scratch the surface, and no argument is ever made as to why such lists would ever be notable. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is never on the level, straightforward, and neutral. Its parameters are extremely poorly defined, and unfortunately that is taken advantage of. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Bus Stop said. Also, in regard to the "former Jew" in particular, Groucho Marx indicated there is no such thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and close if a person has publicly stated that they no longer consider themselves of the jewish faith, and they meet WP notability, then they can be described that way, even if the jewish faith still claims them. and if there are more than 2 such people, a list is appropriate for these people. there is no violation that i can see of any WP policy for such a list, as long as it is well maintained (as all articles must be). saying that we cannot have a list of people because it either excludes nonnotable people or is too long, is simply absurd. WP is ONLY about notable subjects. and we have "dynamic list" tags to remind readers when lists are not complete, and may never be. the lists dont have to be notable, the individuals listed must be, and their conversion a matter of public record. the requirement for lists at WP is different than articles. we need such things as objective inclusion criteria, and they must either sourced or have articles for each item listed. they also cant be a random collection of facts. this list seems to meet all criteria for a good list at wp. im frankly baffled why this isnt patently obvious.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To SlimVirgin, Bustop and others who think these lists should be deleted: do you think all articles linked in Lists of people by belief should be deleted? Why should we delete a few and leave the rest? Anyone care to answer that question? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those kinds of lists smack of ethnicism. And this AFD is about a list of "former"-whatevers. Who decides that so-and-so is a "former"? And where does it stop? Former Zen-Buddhists? Former believers in the Church of Baseball? And as I said, there is no such thing as a "former Jew". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does Christianity or Islam have to do with ethnicism? Who decides that they are former? Reliable sources, surely - if we can say that Tony Blair is a Christian based on RS we can say that Richard Dawkins was one. As for Zen-Buddhists and Baseballists - show me some RSes discussing their apostates and I'll start up a list. Why not? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baseball, so is it now 'ethnicistic' to call a person a Muslim or a Christian too? Category:Muslims. Who decides whether a person is a Muslim or not? Should we go then deleting the List of Muslims articles and its sub-articles too? Why not? Could you please apply your arguments to all the religion list articles and not have me do it for you? You've heard the case of Rifqa Bary, right? Are you going to say "there's no such as a former Muslim" too? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mercurywoodrose. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The names are unexplainable in this list, also if living people are to be included which they are one of the problems imo is that for example a person becomes a Buddhist, OK..we have the citation..harry has become a Buddhist, he was a Christian, but this doesn't make him an ex Christian unless we have a clear citation from him saying explicitly that he denounces the previous religion, taking a new religion does not reflect a guaranteed rejection of the previous one, so you need very strong citations to claim that john is an ex anything. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, it is not a list. It is a semi-list. If it were a list none of the comments next to each name would be necessary, yet they are de rigueur. Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be arguments about particular individuals on or not on the list; but presence on the list is clearly verifiable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic cross-categorization of notability and former jewishness. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists_of_people states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". This is in keeping with the WP:NOTDIRECTORY prohibition of unencyclopedic cross-categorizations; in particular, it is unencyclopedic to have a list that crosscategorizes the set of people who are former jews with the set of people who are notable for an unrelated reason. Thus, only a list of former jews known for their conversion could be an appropriate topic for a list even in principle. This list does not satisfy that requirement in any way, as it consists mainly of people notable for any number of other reasons. Locke9k (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the conflict, but I think that the problem might stand with the guideline itself. That is, if I were to arrive at a page called "List of Atheists", I would not expect to receive a presentation of individuals limited to those notable for their faith as opposed to a page whose content works best to reflect the title. I also question the suggestion for the inclusion of non-notable individuals when considered in light of the aforementioned guideline. This combination would seem to put an unnecessary gaping whole in the information provided. Then again, this probably isn't the place to argue over the validity of the guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received significant coverage in secondary WP:RS sources. It is possible and not difficult to find sources to make it a requirement that each entry on each list be properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lists are equally notable and noteworthy to List of converts to Judaism, List of converts to Christianity and List of converts to Islam, which can be seen as the flip side of these lists. Since religious conversion is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, the list is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization in the way that, say, List of Portugese ballerinas would be. As for the Groucho objection, I think that concern is addressed by the link to Who is a Jew? in the first paragraph of List of former Jews, but if that is inadequate a name change to List of former adherents of Judaism could help. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that this suggestion for a change of name is a good one.--C.Logan (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Ignoring the possibility that these lists are superfluous to their respective "Conversion to" lists, I would have to move towards keeping these articles. We have to remember that the outright deletion of information should not come as a result of agenda-pushing; rather, we should make more of an effort to neutralize the inevitable tampering by some editors (which so often comes with the emotional investment that religious topics tend to inspire). Stricter source-checking, and for the living, a requirement of self-identification, is needed. There should really be a more exclusive attitude toward the information presented. So far as the question of what defines an "ex"-anything, I feel that it would be wise to take more space in the article to explain the possibility of syncretism, and possibly concerning the intrinsic limitation of this style of article. I do not feel that there is enough of a case for deletion, but it might be good to consider the possibility of re-examining the purpose and style of these articles.--C.Logan (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All 3 Besides the mean spiritedness and potential problems for living people and their families already mentioned, these lists (and others on WP) try to reduce the complexity of human spritiuality, belief, or whatever to an entry on a list. For instance here is a quote from the first citation on List of former Christians (I earlier made some comments on its talk page as well), from an interview with Omar Sharif which is supposed to establish his atheism:
I have none that I can prove. I believe in everything and in nothing. I don’t disbelieve in anything. I mean everything is possible. As far as my brain tells me I don’t believe because I believe that God is justice. The first thing that I was taught at catechist, catechism was that God is justice and I don’t see justice in the world. I see terrible injustice. I saw my mother when on her deathbed, she just died four years ago, she was a great believer and I sat next to her fifteen days while she suffered terribly before she died and I saw what relief she got from believing, from calling the Virgin Mary, from calling Jesus Christ to her help. From calling Saint Anthony of Padua who was our Saint, favourite Saint. It relieved her pain and I use to think what shall I say on my deathbed or who shall I call for help? And I decided that I will call my mother for help. That’s what I’ll say, I’ll say “mother come and get me wherever you are”.

Sorry it's so long but I think it illustrates the problem with these lists. I also noticed on the List of former Muslims many people were minor criminals/terrorists, people not usually noted for their religious beliefs. Who cares if a criminal in prison adopts a new religion? (God cares, but He does not need WP to tell Him.) At least limit the lists to people noted for their faith, but prefer delete all.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A question: would you for the same reason be against classification of people by their current religion? If not, what's the fundamental difference? That seems equally hard to me as this. Perhaps we can't definitively say that Sharif is or isn't Christian, but we can certainly do so for the Pope: the existence of difficult cases does not mean we should ignore the easy ones. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the pope would obviously be an important person to read about in the study of Christianity. Not so a famous ax murderer who converted while in prison, unless of course he later became notable as a Christian. Also "converts to..." lists could take up the slack if "former..." lists were gotten rid of.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Reform Judaism considers any Jew who converts to another religion to be a former Jew. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have to agree with A Sniper on this one. Reform Judaism makes a strong claim for a person who turns their back on the religion to be "former". This makes sense to me. Jim Steele (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well then maybe for the sake of clarity it should be stated somewhere — in the title, or in an introductory paragraph — that the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion are the criteria that are held by Reform Judaism. There is no sense in leaving the reader guessing what sort of guidelines are being followed. The standards of the article need to be articulated somewhere. Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is not Wiki-reform-judaism-opedia.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOR, what are "former Jews" EXACTLY since according to Judaism being Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity. This is also directly similar to violations of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. See also Wikipedia:Listcruft IZAK (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So could you explain your deletion reason there? —Preceding comment added 12:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC) to my talk page. Transferred here. Handschuh-talk to me 12:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take AfD discussions onto user talk pages. WP:LISTCRUFT may not be policy, but WP:NOT is. These lists are massive and frankly, unencyclopaedic. What possible encyclopaedic use could there be for a list of all former jews/christians/muslims or any other religion? Handschuh-talk to me 12:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Lists (which is a style guideline as opposed to this WP:Listcruft which is a disputed essay), Lists can have standalone articles when they get big enough. I'm not sure what your "these lists are massive" argument is about. And what possible encyclopaedic use could there be for all the other lists on Wikipedia? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other lists that you feel are not eligible for inclusion in the project, nominate them for deletion. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep this crap. Lists can have standalone pages if they warrant it, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list and others like it violate that policy. Handschuh-talk to me 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me one example of a list that is OK to you and I'll tell you the reasons why these lists dont violate policy. And no, these lists dont violate any policy. You have failed to point out exactly what policy these lists violate even though I've given you a link to WP:Lists. I've had enough of this "delete these list of religion thing" thing. To deal with this for once and for all, I will create something similiar to WP:Listcruft later to put a stop to this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not failed to point to a policy that these lists violate. You have just failed to read it. WP:IINFO is violated. I'm not going to go through the project with you, list by list and tell you what is worthy of inclusion and what is not. I'm not the supreme arbiter of such things and I don't claim to be. The lists in question exist in violation of clear-cut policy as defined by a consensus of editors. Handschuh-talk to me 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Lists which is a direct style guideline related to lists holds precedence over WP:INFO and WP:NOT and whatever WP you're linking to. These lists are perfectly in line with WP:Lists. Please check that page out and tell me which policy these lists violate according to WP:Lists. I've already rebutted your objection of the lists being 'massive'. According to WP:Lists, when lists get massive, they actually get their own article. Could you now tell me why or how these lists violate WP:Lists? And no, there is also no consensus to delete these lists. Please dont make claims that are not true. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you're getting the idea from that a "direct style guideline" takes "precedence over WP:INFO"(which, by the way is not what I cited). Style guidelines, as the name suggests tell you how to format and present an article. Policies, like WP:IINFO, contain information about accepted standards that should normally be followed. Policy has been set by consensus. Your "rebuttal" to my objection to these massive and unmanagable lists is moot, since the point still stands that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Handschuh-talk to me 14:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As requested earlier, please explain how these lists specifically violate WP:Lists. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't violate WP:L. I never claimed that they did. If they did, it would just be a matter of fixing up stylistic issues. These lists violate policy. Specifically, WP:IINFO. That is why the remedy is deletion; because they violate policy. Handschuh-talk to me 15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? There is an article titled Apostasy in Judaism and the list could relate to that, but be too long to fit the article. ("List of apostates from Judaism" might be better then)--T. Anthony (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby, no, I'm afraid you're wrong. I've WP:checked and these WP:specific lists do WP:not violate WP:INFO. Seriously, they do not. Please provide evidence of the specific violation of WP:INFO rather than just linking to the page and making unsupported generalized claims. As you're incorrectly alleging, these certain lists are not "indiscriminate collections of information". Why do you think they are? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I can be anymore specific than to point out that these lists are indiscriminate collections of information. They simply compile information about apostasy in Judasism without reference to whether or not that information is notable or relevant or has any encylcopaedic value to the topic at hand. In their current form they are incredibly vague with respect to exactly who falls into this arbitrary catagory (as others have detailed above). I don't see what evidence you could possibly expect me to present; you obviously know where the list is found. Anyway, I'm tired of this. I'm going to let the closing admin wade through this nonsense. Handschuh-talk to me 15:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)In my opinion, they don't violate policy. An encyclopedic use: if someone is looking for a notable person whose name they can't quite remember but whom they remember as having been in a particular religion or having converted, they can refer to the list. "Lists contain internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology,..." (WP:LIST) People might just be interested to just read the list and add to their knowledge of names they recognize. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Handschuh, if you look at the lists and looked at the references you'll see they're all well-defined. If we cant be sure whether two certain people can be included in the list or not, that discussion belongs on the talk page of the list article. It doesnt mean we should delete the lists. Just because we're not sure where we should put a sofa in the room doesnt mean we just get rid of the room completely. If you look at List of former Muslims for example, that list is well-defined and well-referenced. In some cases there are multiple references. Nice talking to you too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for the Jewish one. Possibly "People who converted from Judaism" or something less awkward if that's at all possible. The idea of "former Jews" is arguable as being Jewish can also be an ethnic or cultural identifier. I guess keep the others as long as they're restrained in the way required of lists. Meaning the people's former Christianity or former Islam needs to relate to their notability. Finally "Listcruft" is a bumper-sticker, it's not a good reason to do or not do anything. Lists have certain functions categories don't and on something like this I think lists are inherently better than categories because they can be sourced. (You put Category:Former Christians on a lesser-known individual who died before 1980 and it could stay there practically forever)--T. Anthony (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the term is a problem then rename it to "former", "lapsed", "secular", "converted" or whatever. // Liftarn (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria used for inclusion or exclusion are never articulated. The more liberal end of the spectrum of legitimate Jewish thinking would guide the list to a different composition than would the more conservative end of the spectrum of legitimate Jewish thinking. Which criteria are being used to compile this list? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OK. I think that in general on Wikipedia, we go by whether the person has self-identified as being in a given religion; so someone is stilled called a Jew on Wikipedia if they consider themselves to be a Jew, even if some other Jews don't consider them one because they're not following stricter practices. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, no name is listed on List of former Jews because they are "not following stricter practices."
And if we "go by whether someone has self-identified as being in a given religion" then why isn't that articulated in the title or in an introductory paragraph?
Criteria have to be articulated otherwise a list like this would seem to be sloppy scholarship. Where are the criteria for what gets included and what gets excluded from a list such as this? Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is clearly stated at the top of the list: "people of Jewish ethnicity and adherents of Judaism who have converted to another religion". Whether someone meets this criterion must be verifiable per WP:V. I was simply stating my understanding of what the usual WP:V criterion is for things like this, for example whether a category such as Category:Israeli Orthodox Jews can be added to a biography; it's not part of the criterion itself, but part of whether the inclusion of the person in the category has been sufficiently verified. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, can you please tell me what you are you referring to by "not following stricter practices." Is that applicable to anything? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) That certain people are included on these lists because of particular editors' POV motivations is irrelevant, so long as it is reliably documented that such people are indeed former adherents of one of these religions, and so long as the lists reflect contributions by people of various P'sOV. In my experience with similar lists, particularly the List of nontheists, editors often add or delete people out of a POV motivation (some atheist editors like to add well-respected people and delete infamous people; while some anti-atheist/pro-theist editors like to add infamous people and delete well-respected people). Were the lists the exclusive product of one or the other of these camps, a deletion on NPOV grounds might be justified. But as long as editors with varied motivations contribute well-sourced material, and likewise base deletions on well-sourced material, the end result is a neutral list of verifiable information. (2) Fringe theories should indeed be avoided as a basis for such lists. However, I see no evidence that the idea that one may become a former (religious) Jew is a fringe view. There are documented cases of people renouncing their Judaism, or saying that they used to be a Jew. True, many regard someone born a Jew to always be a Jew, but that is a matter of ethnic and/or cultural identity, rather than of religious identity, which is what the former Jews list addresses. As another contributor to this discussion mentioned, a renaming of the list could address ethnic or cultural identity concerns with regards to the "former Jew" label. Something like "List of former adherents of Judaism" would leave it open as to whether those listed are or are not in some sense still Jewish. Whether a religious group regards someone who renounces their religion as a "former" adherent, or a "lapsed" adherent is something trumped by that person's own self-identity. If someone says they're an ex-Catholic, then WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP require that we identify them as such, even if the Catholic church does not regard them as an ex-Catholic, but as a lapsed Catholic. (3) WP:BLP concerns are best addressed by reliable sourcing of material, and from a quick survey of the nominated lists, I see that the vast majority of material is well-sourced. I noticed that there were some entries on the former Christians list that lacked sources, but such lapses are best addressed by deletion of the individual unsourced entries, rather than deletion of the entire list. (4) I don't think a combined nomination of such lists for deletion is appropriate, since many such lists vary widely in the quality of their sourcing and inclusion criteria, despite their other similarities. Also, there are unique circumstances to certain subjects that require us to consider certain lists separately. For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity. Nick Graves (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nick Graves, You say that, "For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." My question to you would be, do Jewish children emerge from Christian families? No, they do not, except rarely. So why isn't Christianity an "ethnic identity," to use your words? I am fully aware of matrilineal and patrilineal descent among Jews. But while codified in Judaism, is the phenomenon much different in Christianity? Obviously children follow parents. This is the general trend, regardless of whether considering Jews or Christians. A child of Christian parents is likely to grow up to be a Christian, because his/her upbringing was one steeped in traditions of a "Christian" nature. Why do you consider Judaism an ethnicity and Christianity not an ethnicity? And as for the "cultural components" part of your assertion, — I fail to see how "Christmas," for instance, would not be something "cultural" of particular meaning to Christians. Christians and Jews live side by side and are not unaware of one another's holidays and other practices, and even practice them. But why wouldn't some such entities have specifically Christian significance? Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Christians rarely become Jewish doesn't mean they rarely leave Christianity. And Christianity is not an ethnicity for reasons that should be obvious.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Jews also leave Judaism. What I said was that a child of Christian parents is likely to grow up to be a Christian. It should be obvious that there are exceptions. Jewish children, like Christian children, tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents. It probably wouldn't occur to me to make a case for Christianity being an ethnicity. But then again nor would it occur to me to make the case that Judaism is an ethnicity. Obviously "religion" is one of several possible components of the concept of ethnicity. I am questioning the above assertion that, "…being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." Don't Christians also have cultural components to their identity? Don't the children of Christians tend to be Christians themselves? Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I'm not going to get into the discussion about whether there is an ethnic component to Jewish identity, because it is not directly relevant to whether these lists should be deleted. You may disagree with the example I gave, but the point remains that the differences in the quality of inclusion criteria and sources, as well as other differences in the list subjects, make it more appropriate to nominate them individually. Our disagreement about the ethnicity issue with regards to the former Jews list should be evidence enough that the merits of these lists ought to be considered individually. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding is fine. But the question you are not responding to is a question I did not ask. I didn't ask if there was an "ethnic component to Jewish identity," as you say above. I asked why you didn't see similar components applicable to Christian identity? Again, this was your assertion: "For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many comments above would be better used on the article talk page. There has been no serious question that people who have left the Jewish faith are "former Jews", so that part does not carry water. Nor is the routine deprecation of all lists a valid grounds for deletion. Nor is the fact that it is not 100% complete important (else almost all lists would be deletable). What are we left with? Precedent on WP that such lists are properly encyclopedic, a precedent I am loath to overturn. As for using BLP as a rationale to delete the list -- BLP is properly used to delete contentious material about living people, and that can be done without deleting the article. We are left with no actual policy grounds for deletion, hence default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample entry: "Bob Dylan - popular musician who converted to Christianity in 1979.[12] He later began studying with Chabad, a branch of Hasidic Judaism,[13] though his current religious affiliation is uncertain." How does that make him a "former Jew"?Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you investigated a bit and saw Dylan's main article it says he was born in a jewish family and now "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion" (according to a reporter who interviewed him). If you have issues with a certain entry, take it to the talk page as said before. The problem is that you didnt investigate anything. You didnt even read the previous AfDs as I pointed out before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on working on the articles if they are kept. Here is a link that is supposed to show a person is a "former Muslim": 1. The point being that inclusion on the lists is very sloppy. I also know many Jews who do not subscribe to an organized religion, and everyone thinks they are still Jewish. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt57, Dylan need not subscribe to any organized religion, to be a Jew. Most Jews in America and in the world are not religious. That does not make them not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the evidence that Madonna (entertainer) was ever a Christian or now a "fomer Christian"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you're not bothering to investigate anything. For example you could go visit that person's WP page: Wong Ah Kiu says she converted from Islam to Buddhism. If you have issues with Madonnna, take it to the talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her own family disputed it, as the article made clear but not the list. And WP:BLP says that poorly sourced controversial material should be removed at once, not taken to the talk page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious right thing to do then is to mention it in the entry. Its clear that she personally converted. The courts also confirmed that. You're picking out a tough entry and using it to question the whole list. Why dont you bring up good names that have no problems too. Be a little fair. The issue you're bringing up applies to the categories too. Its an individual issue as I've said multiple times. Its not a problem in the list itself. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone address the issue I raised above, namely that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists_of_people states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". The people in this list are not notable for being former jews; they are notable for other things entirely. Thus this list is in complete conflict with that guideline. If kept, everyone presently in the list would have to be deleted and the article would have to be essentially recreated including only persons specifically notable for being converts. Locke9k (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the people on the list is highly notable for having converted, Sabbatai Zevi, a former messianic figure who converted to islam. i think he could stay. While i agree that we dont serve people well by including them in the list if its a minor fact of who they are, but if they have made a public issue of it, and they are notable, and there is any public discourse about it, then they are important in that category. i dont see an inherent conflict with the guideline. people can be notable in more than one category on WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so "At least one of the people on the list is highly notable for having converted," according to Mercurywoodrose. The one cited is "Sabbatai Zevi." Are there any others? Or is it a list of "one?" The guideline says, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". If none of the other names are "selected for importance/notability in that category" then why are they on the list, and why does the list exist in the first place? "Sabbatai Zevi" is not a reason for a list. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would also be notable with Ram Dass, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Moishe Rosen, Joseph Wolff, and Israel Zolli.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to list converts by the religion they converted to. Of course a convert very important in the history of his/her former religion (Martin Luther for instance) would be discussed in articles on that faith, but no special reason to list all former Roman Catholics together. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Locke9k, I suggest you raise that excellent point on the talk pages of the lists, as it seems to concern what the content of the list should be, not whether the entire list should be deleted. Based on the guideline you mention, I'm changing my comment above to "keep". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the cats are enough. These lists specifically are selective and unencyclopedic. --Shuki (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are not categories. Please check out WP:Lists which says "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm with Bus Stop, IZAK, and Groucho Marx. To the extent Jews are an ethnoreligious group, "former member" is ill-defined, at best. Also hard to see any positive purpose or need for the list. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately other lists are also being nominated, its not just the Jews list. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep; nominations of valid categories that are Jewish-related continues to be a serious and ongoing problem at our project. Of a person has publicly stated that they no longer consider themselves of the Jewish faith, and they meet WP notability, then they can be described that way. Badagnani (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most prominent people on the "former Jews" list is Saint Paul(one of two pictures). I've read his letters and I'm pretty sure he never said he left the Jewish faith or was a "former Jew." Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking out some of the deleted Jewish related categories and I saw that I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians. I didn't think it was a problem. I thought the category was properly deleted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the debate is focusing on the "former Jews" list, yet the other two have much the same kind of problems. The "former Christians" list tends to assume that if a person grew up in a family that went to church he or she was a Christian. This is not how most Christians would define it. See Christian. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should delete even the 'current' religion categories. Why put somoene in the Christian or Muslim category? Are they really one? How do we know? And so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A positive list is much better than a negative one. I don't think we need lists like "List of people who don't go to church/synagogue." Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should List of former Protestants, List of former Roman Catholics, List of former Latter Day Saints, and my creation List of former atheists and agnostics be on AfD?--T. Anthony (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of "former" XYZ are negative then there's also: List of former German colonies, List of former United States senators and so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitfoxxe, if the former Christians list makes erroneous assumptions with regards to anyone's supposed former Christian identity, then that is grounds for improvement of the inclusion criteria, and deletion of particular people whose alleged prior religious identity is inadequately supported by reliable sources. It is not grounds for deletion of the entire list. There are those whose renunciation of Christianity is well-documented, and such information ought to be retained. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the articles are kept I plan to go through them and remove anything poorly sourced about living people. It is usually not looked open well if an AfD nominator edits the article while the AfD is still open. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These lists are useful, but should be limited to people who are notable for their religon, or conversion. Martin451 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Joyson Konkani and Martin451 seem to be affirming that, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category," found at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people when they say that "These lists are useful, but should be limited to people who are notable for their religion, or conversion." Concerning the List of former Jews, that would limit the list to Sabbatai Zevi. I would just like to confirm that I am correctly understanding the intent of the two posts of the above two editors. Bus stop (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all A person who stops following Judaism is not a "former Jew", for instance famous atheist Isaac Asimov remained a Jew regardless of his religious beliefs. The others are also poorly constructed, although not as blatently, since they lump together people who converted to a new religion and became notable in that, George Harrison, and people who just lost interest and stopped going to church or mosque.Northwestgnome (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We need to be careful about the wording and the sourcing. But there's no reason not to include them. It may make sense to include only people who actively converted to another religion or publically renounced their own religion but that's more of an editorial decision. For the majority of the people in these lists there is not only good sourcing for their status but that status is related to their notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these unmaintainable lists. If only we could do the same with the unmaintainable directory listings of non-notable software too. JBsupreme (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are such lists unmaintainable? It seems clear to me that lists of this type can be quite easily maintained by stating the inclusion criteria (that is, those who used to be a member of a certain religion) and adding or removing people based on whether reliable sources confirm that they fit that description. I've been maintaining similar lists of people for years now, and one of them (List of Telecaster players) is even a featured list. No, these lists are maintainable. Whether one is completely satisfied with how they've been maintained up to this point is a different matter... Nick Graves (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you define "member of a certain religion"?Steve Dufour (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lists are as easy to maintain as any other article. Another funny argument here (by SlimVirgin) was "no argument is ever made as to why such lists would ever be notable", and I pointed out "do lists have to be notable? Really?" to which I didnt get any reply. It looks like people dont know enough about lists or dont see the WP:Lists page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Rename to List of formerly Jewish persons. "Jews", while technically correct, isn't really a super awesome way to refer to Jewish people. I do prefer deletion however, I think the argument is stronger.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 02:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Jew" is a fine word. It's just that in the USA we think it is more polite to use a multi-sylable expression to refer to people. Hence "African American" or "colored person" rather than "black" or, as is sometimes heard, "Caucasian" rather than "white." Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Black" is the preferred term. But if someone calls someone in my Dad's (Jewish) family a "Jew", I'd have to consider punching them in the face.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with "Black." It's just that some people think a longer expression is more polite. Also many Jewish editors here use the word "Jew." I don't think you would find "Jewish person" in many WP articles. (What is funny is a lot of bios saying the person "was born into a Jewish [or African American] family" without saying they are that. Michelle Obama's did this for a while.)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_former_Jews&oldid=1099731538"