Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious affiliations of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve of the United States


 * 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 G10 deleting  this for two reasons: 1) While WP:AGF applies for a good long ways, this addition is beyond the pale.  This article instantiation is essentially poisoned by the racist propaganda underlying its creation, and I've blocked its author accordingly. 2) Having said that, there are some arguments below that an article on the topic could be researched, and if we continue this debate to its logical conclusion that would be foreclosed by the resounding delete outcome. If editors believe that a compliant, fully-sourced, neutral list could be made, I will be happy to email the text to anyone who wants to start over, and we can have a debate that isn't doomed by the overt anti-semitism that makes deletion of the topic a foregone conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious affiliations of the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve of the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable list; religious affiliation is not particularly relevant to the to the position of chairman of the Fed. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep - This article nominated for deletion is no different from these articles. If this article is deleted then these articles (given below) should be deleted as well:

Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States

Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States

Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

Prachursharma (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's different in one respect: those positions are all elected positions, so the religion of the candidate could (and frequently does) become significant in their election. The Fed chairman is appointed by the President, not elected, so his religion isn't really relevant. That said, I wouldn't oppose the deletion of any of those lists as well (particularly the Vice President's list).  Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Being elected is hardly different from being appointed. If you are elected, it means that you were appointed by the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachursharma (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Are there reliable sources about the religious affiliations of the Fed Chair? None are cited in the article. That could be the relevant difference between this article and the others you mention. Lady  of  Shalott  17:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The religious affiliation of each of the Fed Chairmen is clearly mentioned in each of their respective Wikipedia articles.

Read these articles for yourself: Charles S. Hamlin,William P. G. Harding,Daniel R. Crissinger,Roy A. Young,Eugene Meyer,Eugene R. Black,Marriner S. Eccles,Thomas B. McCabe,William McChesney Martin, Jr.,Arthur F. Burns,G. William Miller,Paul A. Volcker,Alan Greenspan,Ben S. Bernanke

(It is interesting to note that for some of them, their religious affiliation has been edited out of their articles in recent edits.)

And in any case, it is better to find and add the missing sources to the article than to delete it.

Prachursharma (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether each individual's religious affiliation has been documented, but whether there are reliable sources (not zionistjewfedreserve) regarding the topic as a whole. Lady  of  Shalott  17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lists are treated differently — we don't demand a comprehensive list of Albanians in order to keep List of Albanians from deletion, for example. We need reliable sources proving that entries on a list fit the scope of the list, and we need to be sure that the list isn't trivial intersection (which really can't be determined without discussion), but other than that the only valid reasons to delete a list are non-topical issues such as copyvio or attack page.  Prachursharma, I looked at the article histories for all of the men on the list, and I couldn't find any in which religion was removed, except an unsourced portion of Hamlin's article.  About which of the others were you thinking? Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is borderline speedy for me (G10). Did anyone notice that the only source is "zionistjewfedreserve.com"? --BDD (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was added after I tagged it as unreferenced and this AfD was started. Lady  of  Shalott  17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  17:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Lady  of  Shalott  17:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously (to those of us not taking a too strict interpretation of WP:Assume good faith) the purpose of the list is to point out that most of the Chairmen have been Jewish.  Of course not every Jewish person is religious.  Overall the article is WP:Original research since secondary sources have not said that the religion or ethnicity of the person holding this job is something of importance, in contrast to the case of the President of the United States.  The article on the Vice Presidents should go too. Borock (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about this article? Prachursharma (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you asked, delete Religious affiliation in the United States Senate too. It is just raw data about the current Senate, in violation of a couple of WP policies. Borock (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is not Original Research. The article about Ben Bernanke already mentions that he is Jewish and the same is true for other Fed Chairmen's articles. Therefore this article does not introduce any new information. Prachursharma (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Borock (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete This page was created for the sole purpose of serving as anti-Semitic propaganda. This is clearly demonstrated by the links included by the original creator, as found here. But, regardless, this topic doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. I have not seen this topic discussed outside of in the context of hate pamphlets, neoNazi websites, etc. But, if you have a reliable source discussing this in a context not dealing with conspiracy theories how the evil Jews run the world banks, etc, I would be happy to change my vote.    Joel Why?  talk  18:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to say that this article is merely anti-Protestant/anti-Presbyterian/anti-Episcopalian propaganda? Prachursharma (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - subject is not itself of demonstrable notability, so the article fails notability. I also agree with editors above that there seems to be not only, perhaps, some driving purpose, but also, as per Borock, that there are serious potential OR problems in saying ethnic Jews are necessarily religious Jews. I am not so sure I agree with him on the article on Vice Presidents, however. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - list of a non-notable subject; seems to be trying to advance a POV. A request for sources has only resulted in very inappropriate links. Lady  of  Shalott  18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, simply listing the religious affiliations of these men does not make it an attack page, and we could easily rework it by changing the non-Jews to "Christian" or something like that. Listing a specific group of prominent people by a central defining topic such as religion is more substantive than pages such as List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair, which survived AFD — it would be absurd to delete this list as a trivial intersection when consensus has supported the existence of another list with substantially less defining of an intersection.  Nyttend (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nyttend. There are far more ridiculous articles on Wikipedia than this one.

For example:

Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates Handedness of Presidents of the United States

Prachursharma (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I dunno, that sounds more like an argument to make Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure (2nd nomination) a bluelink to me. The key is that, however ridiculous presidential facial hair may seem, there are reliable sources that discuss presidents in terms of facial hair; I know of no reliable sources that discuss Fed chairmen in terms of their religion.  Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're free to, but until/unless consensus changes, that article stays and is a good basis for keeping other articles. Some months ago there was a discussion about mandating that lists themselves have sources of the sort you demand, and that concept was solidly rejected.  Nyttend (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Was it? I didn't know.  Could you link me to the discussion? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The substantive issue here is obviously notability; all else aside, we have zero references indicating this is a notable topic. But, the underlying issue is a bit more troubling. Saying that this page is the same as the religions of our VPs is naive. I really mean no offense -- I am simply pointing out that it is ignoring the very real fact that, in the context of the Federal Reserve, the only time religion becomes a factor is in anti-Semitic propaganda. This is not some innocuous list that serves at least some small purpose (e.g. How does religious affiliation impact voting patterns, etc.) This page has absolutely no purpose other than to try to link Jews to the control of money. You can't view this page in the bubble of 'well, it's not overtly attacking Jews, and therefore, the page is ok.' It's an attack page, pure and simple. But, even if you disagree with me on this point, it doesn't matter -- unless there are sources demonstrating notability, there's really nothing to discuss here.    Joel Why? (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why aren't these articles attack pages?

Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States

Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States

Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates (Isn't this article an attack page for short Presidents?)

Religious affiliation in the United States Senate

Prachursharma (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. (Plus, I suspect those pages didn't include links to propaganda that would have made Hitler giggle with glee.) In any case, provide reliable sources, or there's nothing to discuss. Joel Why? (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there are no genocidal hate groups out there making a big stink for decades over purported Jewish control of the Vice-Presidency, Presidency, or the U.S. Senate; and because the above articles have never cited bigoted hate websites like zionistjewfedreserve.com! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article about Ben Bernanke already mentions that he is Jewish and the same is true for other Fed Chairmen's articles. Therefore this article does not introduce any new information. Prachursharma (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reluctant keep if reliable sources added. There's something about deleting a Wikipedia article because of the use people think it might be put to that bothers me.  The list appears to be accurate, so far as I know.  I find all these articles very trivial.  But if it's good enough for vice presidents, it is good enough for Fed Chairs.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * reply to sensible point - because it's clearly here as a WP:COATRACK for antisemitic haters; and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an valid argument for retention. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why aren't these articles a WP:COATRACK for antisemitic haters? Perhaps these articles should be deleted as well?

List of Jewish Nobel laureates

List of Jewish American businesspeople

List of Jewish economists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachursharma (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Jewish American sportspeople

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients

Prachursharma (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per LadyofShalott and JoelWhy. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per JoelWhy: no reliable sources have been cited, and I can find none, that treat this issue as notable.   And I further doubt whether there is reliable sourcing for some of the people on the list; for example, I have been unable to find any reliable source to substantiating the assertion, repeated often in anti-Semitic literature (but as far as I can find, not elsewhere), that Charles Hamlin was Jewish.  --19:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete due to lack of reliable sources covering the notability of the intersection of persons who are chairmen of the Fed and religion. All the sources that were being used by this article were correctly deleted as failing WP:RS, leaving the article entirely unsourced.  I spent a few minutes doing good-faith searches on scholar.google.com, news.google.com and JSTOR and came up with nothing.  Making no comment here about other articles except to say that if I saw, for example, Religious affiliations of Vice Presidents of the United States AFD'd I'd apply the same criteria and do the same research.  Making no comment about the article creator's motivations as it's not necessary to do so; a simple application of Wikipedia notability policy results in Delete.    19:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I'd like to address one of the many other articles Prachursharma has brought forward as justification for keeping this article: Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates. The enormous difference between that article and this article is that the subject of "Heights of Presidents of the United States and presidential candidates" has been the subject of serious (and sometimes lighthearted) coverage in reliable sources--take a look at the references list for the article, including Is Presidential Greatness Related to Height?, Is presidential race a simple matter of standing tall?, Presidential Timber Tends To Be Tall and Time-tested formulas suggest both Bush and Kerry will win on Nov. 2.  That article even has a see-also link to a general article about Heightism in politics.  Even if the religious affiliation of each Fed Chairman in this article were meticulously documented, that still does not justify keeping it, as the the intersection of being a Fed Chariman and a member of a religion is a trivial intersection, unless it can be shown that the subject of the intersection itself has been covered by reliable sources.     19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about this article? Prachursharma (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at that article's list of references. The article provides several reliable sources that cover the subject of handedness of presidents.  Where are the reliable sources that cover the religious affiliations of Fed chairmen?    20:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on Prachursharma's comments, I'm concerned now that Prachursharma may have created this article to make a point, as a lot of the arguments brought forward are textbook WP:OTHERSTUFF.   19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Nyttend . Edison (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment if you look at the AFD Nyttend referenced, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_United_states_presidents_with_facial_hair_during_their_tenure, the closing admin wrote that the reason for the keep was because an editor "provided multiple sources that demonstrate the notability of the topic": "The topic is covered in numerous sources including Media literacy: thinking critically about visual culture, Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House, Encyclopedia of hair: a cultural history, Predicting Elections from Biographical Information About Candidates, The American Presidency, etc."  Such sources have not yet been brought for this article and I wasn't able to find them.  Maybe someone with better research skills can bring them?  But if not, the article should be deleted.    20:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep if and only if it can be referenced. I see nothing wrong with listing information such as this. If anti-semites want to use it for their own ends, so be it. We don't censor information just because it could be used for purposes of which we may disapprove. In fact, if properly referenced, it could be used for the opposite purpose. Like other editors here, I was somewhat surprised to find that the archetypal "Boston Brahmin" Charles S. Hamlin was Jewish. A little digging, produced this, a speech he gave about his childhood, which includes reminiscences of local chuches and pastors. Not a rabbi to be seen. Instead we learn of "dear old Dr. Putnam — and what Roxbury man can ever forget the powerful influence for good that he wielded?' There was also St. James,’ where I went to church, under the rector, the Reverend Percy Browne, now, alas, gathered to his Fathers...." And then he goes on to describe his memories of the church etc etc. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Unless sources can be found specifically discussing the topic and not from an antisemitic point of view then I'd consider this exactly what it was created for. The author created it using anti-Jewish sources as a hate page and it should've been deleted as a hate page.  Allow recreation if sources are found that arn't anti-Jew centered.--v/r - TP 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete -- it will be virtually impossible to have sources for this article that meet the conditions of WP:BLPCAT (please note those conditions carefully). As things stand, without sources we've got some pretty significant BLP violations here (hence the speedy).  Apart from that, the topic is simply not notable -- we would need sources that show us not only the religious affiliations but why they are a significant/encyclopedic matter.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per LadyofShallott. And some of those other lists should be deleted, too. At least the presidents one has some commentary and analysis so it isn't just another list. I do think it's lovely that we can now argue about Jewish lists in addition to Jewish categories. BTW, I should note that based on the tally in the article the Jews win, although I'm not sure which way that cuts on the antisemitism arguments. We should create a list along the lines of offices that have had more Jews than other religions. Of course, putting aside my obvious sarcasm, that would get into the "what does being Jewish mean" issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note, your sarcasm might be a legitimate idea. "List of offices traditionally held by a specific religion" could be a list of all major world-relevant offices that have been predominately held by a specific religion.  For example, the President of the United States has for a long time been protestant (I think).  I think your on to a good idea.--v/r - TP 20:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Afraid to sign your note, TP? Two comments. One, I have a big mouth. Two, we should have a guideline/policy called WP:NOTASTATISTICIAN.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even have to be a list. It could be an article discussing why some offices have fallen along religious lines.--v/r - TP 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That...actually sounds really interesting. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If it could be reliably sourced and its notability established, I would be interested in such a list as well. Certain offices, of course, are both political and religious, like the Dalai Lama, for instance, but for other offices if there is a clear indicator of preference for adherents of specific groups, and possibly comments in RS as to why they are such, that could be interesting and useful. Not sure if it's really relevant to this discussion, though. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, a magnet for WP:OR and controversy - fodder for administrative intervention, including edit-warring, vandalism, and topic bans (religiously construed). Relevance is hardly a requirement for AfDs, John.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "a magnet for WP:OR and controversy - fodder for administrative intervention, including edit-warring, vandalism, and topic bans (religiously construed)" - Isn't that the definition of "Wikipedia"?--v/r - TP 20:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I started making up titles for the article in my head, and the degree of OR implied by my suggestions nearly made me gag. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to live in the real world, TP, not just the world of problems. There are quite a few Wikipedia articles that are uncontroversial. I'm sure someone could do a study on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a hate page. If kept, remove the religious information which is currently unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on my reasons for declining a G10 speedy on this. If we are to take a purely factual list (assuming it to be accurate and sourced) as intended to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass... and serve no other purpose" we can only do that by making assumptions about the article author's motives. That is not a good basis for deletion decisions - we should consider the content, not the contributor. I have no doubt that Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States shows a majority of protestant Christians - does that make it an anti-protestant hate page? JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * delete on WP:SNOWBALL. And as far as G10 speedy, you would have to completely ignore hundreds of years of (deadly) persecution based on the stereotypes perpetuated by these types of claims to say that it was not intended to "disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass... and serve no other purpose". Although letting it go to its conclusion so that it can just be G4 speedied in the future has its merits as well.--  The Red Pen of Doom  00:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - President and Vice-President I can see, as these are the leaders of the country and much of what those who have held the office do is noteworthy, albeit sometimes silly (the handedness and facial hair articles. The Fed Chief is just an appointed position, not even considered a government employee, no significant or special notability regarding their religious views. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.