Talk:Jewish lawyer stereotype

Sections
The length and scope of a lead sections needs to be determined; Possible other sections could be Stereotypes, Notable lawyers, Jewish  lawyers in popular culture, etc.--Kudpung (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sections of the article seems to border on an attack such as "and the quintessential pale skin, brown hair and Ashkenazic nose of the typical American Jew".—Sandahl (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What you call an "attack" actually appears in an article in The Forward, a Jewish-American newspaper that counts as a reliable source. Its author is Jay Michaelson, a noted Jewish academic. This is not something I lifted from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See also section
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate article for Wikipedia, but in any event "See also" sections should never include red links, and particularly not red links to articles that have been deleted at AfD more than once. Since this article is purportedly about an ethnic stereotype, appropriate "See also" items are to similar stereotypes. In addition, even if such a list existed, since the article is about a stereotype, it shouldn't link to lists of real people; that's an obvious WP:BLP problem. Jayjg (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that the article did not exist but thought it would be notable enough for creation. There are for example a category of such lists and there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between them and this one. For example, there is a List of Jewish anarchists on a much more obscure occupation. Also, there strangely exists List of Jewish American jurists but its parent article List of Jewish jurists was deleted by AfD. Please don't dismiss this as an OTHERCRAP argument as I think this is a valid point. Does anyone think it's worth recreating the list? Christopher Connor (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it does look a lot like an Other stuff exists argument. And no, the list isn't worth recreating, for a number of reasons, but that's not an issue relevant to this article. Jayjg (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing examples section
I'm not sure what you mean by this section being an attack page and why you deleted it? The topic area consists of a number of issues (what is written about in RS), not just one, and some only loosely related: the stereotype, the stock character in popular culture, the history of Jewish lawyers in the US, in Nazi Germany, and it gives examples of some notable Jewish lawyers. Are you saying by putting a section of BLPs in an article that might contain negative information elsewhere could be a BLP violation? Since this article is called "Jewish lawyer", it seems to me relevant to include examples of such in real life, especially when they hold prominent positions like on the supreme court in major countries. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is about a stereotype, not real people. Linking stereotypes to real people is an obvious WP:BLP problem. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it definitely is a BLP violation to link stereotypes to living people. —Sandahl (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at it from that point of view, I think I can see how it would be disparaging to anyone in that section if they were appearing next to stereotypes of their occupation and religion/ethnicity. But there was nothing "bad" said about anyone in that section or any unsourced info. However, in the absence of a general article like List of Jewish lawyers, the information ended up here. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Invidious indeed. It does seem a bit surprising since you say you are a Jewish lawyer yourself.—Sandahl (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish lawyers doesn't exist because it's a shitty intersection. If the article is about the invidious stereotype, then listing actual real Jewish lawyers is an attack. I wish I knew why you would write on so troublesome a topic, when there are some many other good ones still available - e.g., Stupid Negro, Arab Bestiality, Mexican body odor - all very important stereotypes to be explored, and examples brought. I'm guessing I won't ever find out. -- Y not? 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Name change?
I find the title of this article confusing and at least bordering on inappropriate. When I clicked on it I was not quite sure what I would find. An article about lawyers who are Jewish, like for example these folks? As opposed to, say, lawyers of other religions or ethnicities/nationalities such as Christian lawyers, Pakistani lawyers, African-American lawyers, Canadian lawyers, etc.? No. It's about the stereotype of the "Jewish laywer." So maybe it should have a title that says so. Jewish lawyer stereotype? "Jewish lawyer" stereotype? I would prefer the latter, though I have seen some commentary that quotes are discouraged in article titles. I'm also not so sure that some of the material in the article really belongs in an article about a stereotype, but that's a different issue. Neutron (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not averse to a renaming. What would you propose doing with the similar Jewish-American princess, Nice Jewish boy, and particularly Jewish mother. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * X to X stereotype . -- Y not? 13:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of these other three articles. I really think Nice Jewish boy is pointless and probably should be deleted.  I think the concept it is trying to be about is so amorphous and undefined that it just doesn't belong as an article.  I am not sure Jewish-American princess necessarily needs to be renamed, as the whole name refers only to a stereotype, and therefore does not create the same kind of confusion that Jewish lawyer and Jewish mother do.  (Interestingly, Jewish mother stereotype already exists, as a redirect to Jewish mother.)  So, for between two and four of these articles, the options seem to (using Y's formula and the current names being X), X stereotype, "X" stereotype or X (stereotype) .  I am indifferent to which one is chosen, as any of them would be better than what the names are now, certainly for "lawyer" and "mother."  Neutron (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Parallel discussion
A discussion of this article, including the "name" issue, is taking place at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I have left a note there about the discussions taking place here, in hopes that there might be a joinder of the discussions somewhere. Neutron (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two articles
This strikes me as two separate articles. Half of it is about Jewish lawyers in reality (in the U.S. and Nazi Germany). Half is about the stereotype. I'm not certain whether it makes sense for both to exist, and if so whether it make sense for them to exist in the same article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think everything not about the stereotype should be removed... and then a good hard look needs to be given to whether what is left is worth keeping. The alleged examples of the stereotype are unconvincing, in my view - Shylock wasn't a lawyer, and Markowitz from L.A. Law was a nice guy character and doesn't fit the description, in my view.  If there are no convincing examples of the stereotype that are well known, the question of whether the stereotype is widespread is open for debate.  EdChem (talk) 08:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the two real life sections per the rename (they can go to a new article if necessary). The topic is clearly notable, however, and I've made the article better since when I created it in my early days. As for Shylock, some of the sources say he's a Jewish lawyer. I think the example of Stuart Markowitz may have been given to show that not all the characterisations fit the stereotype. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Article in search of a reason
This article IMHO lacks a notable, encyclopedic topic, and has been in search of one as it drifted from "Jewish lawyer" to "Jewish lawyer stereotype". In its current incarnation, it is a collection of "lawyer characters on TV who happen to be Jewish", rather than an analysis of a stereotype as it claims. It is functionally the same as an article "Quaker stereotypes" which says "1. X says he found few stereotypes about Quakers in contemporary culture and 2. television character Y happens to be a Quaker." The fact that the LA Law character was one of the more ethical characters in the show illustrates the difficulties here. Even if there were notable examples of Jewish lawyer stereotypes in contemporary or recent culture, I don't believe it is encyclopedic to have articles on stereotypes, as opposed to giving some stereotype examples in an article on racism or antisemitism. I have never been so tempted to nominate an article for deletion as this one, as I am not sure it can be saved.Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed some material that was not about Jewish lawyer stereotypes but essentially list-cruft about nonsteroetypical Jewish characters. I also removed a statement that there aren't many Jewish lawyer jokes as of uncertain relevance to the topic, unless it can be recharacterized as a well-sourced statement that "Jewish lawyer stereotypes have declined" or "are not prevalent" or some such. In short, this is still a really inadequate article, which would probably survive an AFD based on a few serious sources which are not adequately discussed in the text. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

List of stock characters proposed merge
I've been cleaning up a handful of stock character articles, that were in a state of perma microstub, by merging them into List of stock characters. (following from a discussion at Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_18). Partially because that list needs more referenced content, and partially to clean out that nav-template (and partially because merging is better than the inevitable "afd for WP:DICTDEF" grumbles).

Given that there would be no problem at all with a resplit in the future if someone wants to expand this into a real article, would there be any strong objections to my merging this page into that list, at this time? (I would boldly do so, but the semi-protection leads me to sensibly hesitate!) Thanks for any feedback. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)