Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive306

Edward Kosner
There is disagreement whether to note Edward Kosner's religion (Judaism) in his article. It was added in August 2019 and removed in December 2019 by following an email request by Kosner at WP:OTRS. Kosner wrote about this experience in Commentary (magazine). There is a lot more background on both why it should and shouldn't be included which can be found on the talk page. At the moment no consensus about how to apply our BLP policy can be found at that talk page and at least a couple of us felt that this noticeboard might help us achieve consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As I have stated at that talkpage, it is my opinion and experience, that ethnicity and religion are almost always noteworthy, both because they are usually mentioned in almost all in-depth coverage of people and because they are indeed important aspects of the lives of the subjects of the biographies themselves in their own eyes (and these two reasons are obviously logically connected). The same is true in this case: it is well-sourced that Edward Kosner is Jewish and that being Jewish is something that is important to him. Ergo, we should have it. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * On a sidenote, which I nevertheless feel that needs to be added, I would like to say that the OTRS ticket and the magazine article are IMHO not worthy of consideration, as Wikipedia operates based on its own, community established, principles.
 * Another sidenote, which I am even more reluctant to add, but feel that must be taken into consideration, is that the removing editor, Coffee, has not so long ago been reported at WP:AN for mass removal of Jewish categories. Debresser (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support inclusion in this case but think your link to the AN thread is not helpful; we're here to discuss content not conduct by particular editors. The issue there was the mass removal of such information not this removal (or any other individual removal). In fact a proposal to revert his changes did not have consensus. The close even noted the limited scope of AN in this matter. So AN has not weighed in on whether Kosner's page should or shouldn't have this article and it would be beyond the scope of that forum to do so in anycase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * While a common underhanded tactic used in political campaigns, poisoning the well does not strengthen your argument here. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's just a quick selection of all of the newspapers covering this notable man (most are in-depth too), without once discussing his religious background (and this is not nearly all there is, I just require sleep and can't devote literally all of my time to this task): The Los Angeles Times - 2006 "A media memoir", The New York Times - 2003 "Editor of Daily News to Retire in March", The Herald-News (AP) - 1997 "Editor Kosner Leaving Esquire", Daily News - 1997 "Kosner Cashes In", Hartford Courant - 2002 "Pagnozzi", Rutland Daily Herald 2002 "Newpaper's undercover exploits raise ethics issues", The Los Angeles Times - 1979 "Editor of Newsweek Fired; Conflicts, Decisions Cited" part 1-part 2, Journal and Courier - 1975 "Time, Newsweek duplicate cover stories on rock star", The Brattleboro Reformer (AP) - 1999 "Mike Barnicle to Write for Sunday Daily News", The Honolulu Advertiser - 1979 "Editor of Newsweek Gets Walking Papers", Daily News - 1985 "Update", The Times Recorder (AP) - 1993, The Charlotte Observer - 1976 "Newsweek's New Editor After More Scoops", The San Francisco Examiner - 1980 "Time Keeps Marching On", The Ithaca Journal - 1975, Daily News - 2000 "Daily News circulation is on the rise", Austin American-Statesman - 1997 "Esquire's editor in chief leaving", Rutland Daily Herald - 1996 "Esquire Magazine Struggles to Find Role in the 1990s", Daily News - 1998 "Edward Kosner to edit Sunday News", The Los Angeles Times - 1998 "Magazines Feel Increased Pressure From Advertisers"... And then there's these two, which are particularily interesting: 1. The Honolulu Advertiser - 1982 "Wrong color?" where Kosner is discussed regarding an issue of sending journalists to cover geographies that relate to ethinic backgrounds (specifically his choice to not send black reporters into Africa). While in it Kosner discusses sending Jewish reporters to Israel (without once mentioning he is Jewish), the reporter who wrote the article does not once bring up the fact that Kosner is Jewish (something one would think if it were a notable part of his life, would be worth noting in this case) 2. Daily News - 1989 "Publisher Kosner backs what Simon says" wherein Kosner specifically addresses the nature of anti-Semetic remarks made by drama critic John Simon, stating "There is no place for anti-Semitism, racism or anti-homosexual attitudes in New York magazine, and you won't find any there." Yet, the news article does not once mention that Kosner is himself Jewish. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The evidence here is clear: Kosner was raised Jewish, but he does not wish to be publicly known as such. He finds the descriptor of "Jewish" to be regarding his religious background. So, our standard consensus that we not include such information unless the subject wishes to self-identify, in my view applies. It is verifiable that he is a non-observant Jew, but WP:ONUS specifically notates that not all verifiable information need be included in an article. On a BLP, I would think ONUS should apply more often than not. The fact that this discussion solely began because Kosner wrote an op-ed about how much he disagreed with the description's initial inclusion, brings forward ethical implications of our potential actions that I feel are being under-considered currently. (It wasn't a commentary in Commentary about how much he wants the world to know he's Jewish, it was quite the opposite.) While I understand the side of discussion that 'because we're an encyclopedia we should try to report as much data as we can', in this case I (the article subject, Jimbo Wales and several others) fail to see how this is truly relevant to Wikipedia's coverage of Kosner's life (especially when the article subject has implored us, in the highest degree, not to include it). I plead with those who participate in this discussion to consider not just whether this would be the most accurate thing for us to do, but also whether we find ourselves to be acting ethically (a standard that is oftentimes lacking here) when dealing with the effects our actions can have on our fellow living human beings. With sincerity and hope, — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 03:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosner has seen fit to write about his Jewish identity in both his autobiography and again, after this very incident, in Commentary. There are verifiable facts that are not in the article and should not be in the article respecting Kosner's privacy. However, we have both Kosner himself, as well as reliable sources (WSJ and New York Times) noting this fact. It is my contention that our BLP policy does not say that Kosner can decide which places he's OK having the information (again in an autobiography and an influential journal) and which places he's not OK; if he'd changed his mind since his autobiography we could also respect that but Commentary makes clear that he hasn't changed his mind about publicly discussing this topic. We should, instead, characterize the facts as he does that he is . These six words, if placed in the body, are not undue and self-identifies him exactly the way he wishes to be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not believe an article subject writing an op-ed about how they were covered in Wikipedia, including a minor statement about how their actual religious beliefs are not important to their public life, rises to the threshold of notability so far that we have to include it (if anything, I continue to believe it furthers the notion that we should not). The most important facts of his life are already duly covered in his article. To me, this suggested addition simply does not appear to warrant inclusion. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 04:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That his Jewish identity is mentioned in sources such as the New York Times, Wall St Journal, and his own autobiography, and that he's mentioned in three additional sources about prominent Jews in the media, all suggest to me that it is an important-enough detail to include in our biography of him, too. And those sources were all published long before the Commentary piece. Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 05:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We are WP:NOTNEWS. Everything that occurs in a minority of news coverage about a persons life (and it is the clear minority here, given how much of this man's life has been covered by reliable sources) does not need to be covered here. That is especially the case when it comes to religion. Kosner has stated clearly he considers the description to be of his religious affiliation, and so our clear consensus requiring self-identification of religion (regardless of how many sources state it) should stand (see WP:BLPCAT/WP:CAT/R). Kosner, in the Commentary piece, clearly and quite logically explains how his religious upbringing has not affected his notability. Using his statement that he does not wish his religion to be considered as part of his public life/notability, as some sort of loophole to that policy, is beyond the realms of how we should act here in my view... as is attempting to use him bringing up his upbringing as a form of self-identification of his current beliefs. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Those six sources are not "a minority of news coverage about a persons life". Two of them are from newspapers. One is his autobiography. One is an academic paper. The other two are books. So WP:NOTNEWS is WP:NOTAPPLICABLEHERE.
 * Kosner's own view of what does and does not affect his notability is irrelevant. First, the standard for inclusion is set out in WP:V and WP:NPOV (significance); it's not "notability" (WP:N, which has nothing to do with this content dispute). Second, the BLP subject's views are not what dictate inclusion in the BLP.
 * My entire argument has, throughout, been that the weight of reliable sources suggest inclusion, because they include it. You have, so far, over four months, brought zero sources forward. You just keep hammering away at what Edward Kosner wants. Who cares what Edward Kosner wants? That's not how we right an encyclopedia.
 * At long last, Coffee, do you have any sources to share that suggest that "Jewish" is not a significant part of his biography? What biographies of Kosner or other sources should we be looking at besides "the six" and Commentary (all of which include "Jewish")? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just what Kosner wants that matters when it comes to discussing his religious beliefs, it matters what every article subject thinks when it comes to religion. What the BLP policy states on this is very clear: Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources. ... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation... — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * BLP policy is 100% completely satisfied here because the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) when he wrote his autobiography years ago, and again this month when he wrote "a proud if non-observant Jew".
 * Again: any sources that suggest "Jewish" is not important enough to include in this guy's biography? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the one Kosner himself wrote here. If you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wha--seriously, you want me to ask you one more time? OK, fine. Yes, please share whatever sources you think support excluding "Jewish" from Edward Kosner. Links would be great if possible. Don't need them all; the best two or three or however-many would be fine. (It might be better to post them at the article talk page in addition to or instead of here.) Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm way more than happy to do so, as I've already discovered a few dozen within the past few minutes. I will be listing them here once I've decided I've found enough (and have clipped them all so everyone here can read them without a newspapers.com subscription), since you've made this the locus of your dispute. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK great. But, I have not made this the locus of my dispute. I don't know why there's a need to make things so personal. It's not "my" dispute. This is a content dispute involving a lot of editors. Don't post things here, or there, because of anything I have said or done, OK? Just... help resolve the content dispute. Post whatever sources are helpful, not to prove something to me, but to educate all the editors who are participating in this discussion, so that we can all be informed, and we can all arrive at consensus. OK? Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 07:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the one Kosner himself wrote here. If you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wha--seriously, you want me to ask you one more time? OK, fine. Yes, please share whatever sources you think support excluding "Jewish" from Edward Kosner. Links would be great if possible. Don't need them all; the best two or three or however-many would be fine. (It might be better to post them at the article talk page in addition to or instead of here.) Levivich&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm way more than happy to do so, as I've already discovered a few dozen within the past few minutes. I will be listing them here once I've decided I've found enough (and have clipped them all so everyone here can read them without a newspapers.com subscription), since you've made this the locus of your dispute. — Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK great. But, I have not made this the locus of my dispute. I don't know why there's a need to make things so personal. It's not "my" dispute. This is a content dispute involving a lot of editors. Don't post things here, or there, because of anything I have said or done, OK? Just... help resolve the content dispute. Post whatever sources are helpful, not to prove something to me, but to educate all the editors who are participating in this discussion, so that we can all be informed, and we can all arrive at consensus. OK? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 07:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Including every mention of him in the media doesn't persuade me. I looked at the first three and the two you highlighted and none are a biography of Kosner's life. Any that discuss his early life or personal life that don't mention he's Jewish? I wouldn't expect an announcement that he is leaving one employer to join another to include information about his identity, and I especially wouldn't expect the last two you highlighted to include that information. It's not like when an editor sends a reporter to Israel, they're going to mention that the editor is Jewish. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not "include every mention of him". But, that is besides the point. You asked for sources that covered Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish, there are a litany provided and even more I can provide. To now say none of those count because they aren't a "biography of his life" is a clear instance of moving the goalposts and simply not accurate. The very first LA times story you state you have read is titled "A media memoir", if a memoir isn't biographical I don't know what is. Regardless, all of those combined give a clear picture of his biographical tale and yet never mention his religious beliefs (or lack of such). In my view that is more than enough to show the weighting of sources do not cover Kosner in this way. So, I think at this point we will have to agree to disagree. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 16:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did not move goalposts or ask for . I know better than to ask for something like that. Of course there are tons of sources that mention Kosner without bringing up he is Jewish–he was an editor at several major publications for decades, obviously there is going to be a ton of newspaper articles mentioning him, particularly surrounding his high-profile departures from various employers. Those aren't biographies. (And weren't you just saying NOTNEWS, yet all your sources are contemporaneous news reports...) I kinda figured you were going to WP:REFBOMB, which is why I specifically wrote,
 * What I asked for was: Thank you for doing that, but if these sources are what you consider "biographies of Kosner", then yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. Note that the "A media memoir" article is not, despite its title, a memoir, nor a biography of Kosner. It's an interview with Kosner about Kosner writing his memoir, which does include some biographical details, but isn't what I'd call a biography (it doesn't mention his childhood or family at all, for example). Kosner's actual memoir – which I agree is a good source to look at – spends like 10 pages discussing his Jewish upbringing, and is one of "the six" sources supporting inclusion (now we're up to eight with recent publications). BTW, I noticed that none of the newspaper articles you posted were written after Kosner released his autobiography, which is another reason I don't find them as presuasive as more-recent sources ("the six eight"). Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't have to mention one's children or family to be considered a biographical source. If the only sources we permitted for BLPs discussed those facets, we'd have a lot less BLPs on this site altogether. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And it is worth mentioning I specifically asked you if "you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so". You directly and emphatically said "yes", without all these extra stipulations you're now adding. That is what I did, and this is where we are. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And it is worth mentioning I specifically asked you if "you also want me to list the myriad of sources from newspaper archives discussing this man's life that do not find his religion a relevant part of his notability, I will gladly do so". You directly and emphatically said "yes", without all these extra stipulations you're now adding. That is what I did, and this is where we are. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Copied from Talk:Edward Kosner as relevant here as well (diff):"I very much agree with and on this. WP:ONUS states  and I quote  'While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.'. As Jimbo Wales has stated, I too have been concerned for some time with Sir Joseph's editing history on topics like this. This is further compounded by an apparent lack of understanding around the core site principle of consensus; Sir Joseph's insinuation that one (or two) editors is a strong consensus for inclusion of material that has already proven itself quite contentious is extremely troubling and disruptive, as his participation in a discussion that clearly falls under his topic ban: 'Sir Joseph is topic-banned from the Holocaust and from anti-Semitism, both broadly construed.'" -- The SandDoctor  Talk 03:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is this relevant here as well? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 04:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that is quite obvious. This discussion is about Edward Kosner's article including a descriptor of him being Jewish, the discussion where TheSandDoctor copied that from was the exact same topic. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This quoted excerpt is about the conduct of an editor and doesn't seem relevant to the content dispute at issue. And what's a bit puzzling is that the editor at issue stopped participating in the discussion shortly after TSD posted the above quote on the article talk page, and yet a week later, TSD posts it again here. To what purpose? TSD already got what he wanted. This is unnecessary mudslinging. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 06:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the ethics of all this. I mean we're not talking about doxing or victim shaming here.  If Kosner was notable for being Jewish, then the info should be in the article (regardless of OTRS, OpEd, or Jimmy's opinion). However, in this case I agree that his Jewishness (or degree thereof) is not tied to his notability, so it shouldn't be included.  Ditch &#8733;  03:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , we frequently include information that is not directly tied to their source of notability. For instance Laura Bush is not notable for having twins and yet we note it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Both twins you mention have their own Wikipedia articles, and, by the way, nowhere in the Laura Bush article does it give mention the religion/nationalism she was raised in. Regards. Ditch &#8733;  05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)  I am wrong, sorry.  It's been a long 3 weeks.  Ditch &#8733;  05:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Kosner gave up any claim to a right to object to his Jewish identity being discussed in his Wikipedia biography when he wrote his essay published recently in the Jewish intellectual journal Commentary where he talked at length about his Jewish identity, including several Jewish literary references in the article while simultaneously praising . Had Kosner not spoken up so openly, I would have no objection to leaving out the Jewish bit, but he has shifted the debate in favor of inclusion by his own actions. Four months ago, Coffee took Kosner's specific complaint, and set off on a bot-like campaign of erasure of hundreds of non-controversial entries on Jewish lists, removing, for example, many highly notable Jewish writers and poets from the appropriate lists rather than showing even a modicum of discretion or editorial judgment. It is not contentious to be a Jew, no matter what Kosner and Coffee claim, and bot-like tagging or untagging of Jews is not useful. Every such edit should be thoughtful and carefully considered. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, there was no consensus to undo a single one of those removals. Some were added back with appropriate references, but that should have been done before those names were added to the lists to begin with (as WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly required). Suggesting we should state something in an article specifically because we know (from them publishing a commentary on the ordeal) that they don't want it in their article... that's bordering on retribution, and would appear to be because you didn't like what Kosner had to say (which clearly conflicted with your statements at the earlier AN thread). If it shouldn't have been in the article before Kosner spoke up "so openly", it shouldn't be in the article now. The SandDoctor  Talk 05:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of accuracy,, I never mentioned Kosner in the AN discussion and repeatedly said that each person should be individually evaluated using editorial judgment, rather than formulaic bot-like editing. I will continue to argue that it is not contentious to be Jewish until the day I die, and that Jewish identity is much broader than formal religious beliefs. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to mass-revert the removals. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts still does not change the fact that at no time was there consensus against the removals that had already occured. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but anyone who wants to can read the thread and/or the closing statement and judge for themselves. There really isn't much point to arguing at BLPN about an AN thread from months ago. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 05:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely it's not worth bringing up here, but I'm not the individuals who decided to bring it up. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be seen as retribution by any entity external to Wikipedia. Kosner stated quite clearly how his religious beliefs are not a notable facet of his life. Even though Cullen has now agreed it wasn't necessary to include before, now that Kosner wrote a commentary that disagreed with Cullen's own assertions at AN (that being described as a Jew cannot be contentious) it somehow needs to be now included? Hogwash. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, you can cast thinly veiled aspersions about my character all day if you must (I'm not one to run from bullets), but suggesting we should deliberately go against the wishes of an article subject merely because they opined publicly about their tiresome ordeal? That I am not remotely okay with. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 05:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * History of the content dispute – Some of the comments above are inaccurate with regards to the history of this content dispute. For the sake of a clear and (I think) complete record: the content at issue was added Aug 25, 2019 at 6:01, reverted by an IP with no edit summary at 6:02, and reinstated at 6:14. It was removed by Coffee, citing to an OTRS ticket, on Dec 18, 2019. The was the second of about 340 removals of "Jewish" from articles Dec. 18 – Jan 1. Those removals were discussed at an AN thread Dec 31 – Jan 15; the Edward Kosner article was mentioned in that thread. It was also mentioned (by me) at an AE thread Mar. 3 – 19. I shared six sources supporting inclusion of "Jewish" in Edward Kosner on Coffee's talk page on Mar 12. Kosner's Commentary piece about his OTRS ticket that Coffee handled was published about Apr 15 (archive). The content was added again, in different form, on Apr 17, along with a talk page discussion. It was removed Apr 21, readded, and removed again. Category:Jewish American journalists was added today (Apr 28) and removed. I hope we can solidify consensus on this content dispute. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm split on this. On the one hand, it isn't usually necessary to mention a person's religion in their BLP article. People have said "If X is a Roman Catholic/Protestant, it isn't usually mentioned." On the other hand, it is difficult for Wikipedia to ignore things that have been in reliable sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's obvious that attempts at persuasion will not lead to consensus -- so, I have started an RfC on the article talk page: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree that an RFC is needed to gain more participants to a discussion that already has many participants, and I doubt anyone can know what will come of any discussion that has only been allowed to transpire 12 hours before being ran to another forum. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "other forum" works out to be -- the article talk page! Good luck peddling the notion that this is forum-shopping...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From the policy on forum shopping: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It being on a talk page of the article does not absolve you of clear forum shopping. Disgraceful behavior on your part. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So take it to ANI. Not sure why this is causing you such grief -- it's a good-faith attempt on my part to get a resolution to the dispute.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because 1. While here there were several discussion participants who had made themselves aware of the underlying issues, and a robust discussion between us was taking place, you've now created a second place everyone who has participated here will have to pay attention to if they want their voice included in the consensus. 2. I've still not slept because the ethics of this initial issue were disturbing me to no end. 3. You have attempted to state an RFC has to happen because you think it needs to, as if everyone participating here can't have made that decision up for themselves when the time was deemed necessary. 4. This is presenting unneeded stress to an already heated issue. - I will not be taking this to ANI, because I do not see a need for a third place to have this exact same discussion. If this is truly good-faith on your part, I implore you to suspend the RFC until this discussion thread concludes. There is no absolute urgency to have two discussions about the same issue right now. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 10:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Launching an RfC was considered and instead I decided to come here. That might have been the wrong way to resolve this dispute but starting an RfC so soon after the discussion started here is definitely the wrong way in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In a sense, launching an RFC did help bring about agreement... that launching the RFC was premature. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to who has closed the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Not controversial? With respect to this article, it seems beyond debate that there is controversy. Wikipedia's experience is that Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality tends to controversial. It seems hardly surprising that such text in articles would also lead to controversy. With respect to Jewish identity, such controversy seems to reflect the state of the world beyond Wikipedia, examples in no particular order (to begin with, notice all the question marks?): -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Who Is A Jew? What Is A Jew? 23 Rabbis Respond
 * Who is a Jew?
 * What are Jews?
 * Jews: A religious group, people or race?
 * Members of Whose Tribe?
 * Judge rules that Judaism is not a race but Jewish people can be targeted for racism . ..
 * Are Jews a Race? . ..
 * What-does-it-mean-to-be-genetically-jewish
 * Are Jews an ethnic minority?
 * While "who is a Jew" might be a controversial question in theory, whether or not Kosner is Jewish is not controversial. Nobody controverts it. Nobody says Kosner is not Jewish (including Kosner himself). So his identity isn't controversial. What's controversial is whether it's DUE, but that doesn't make the underlying fact controversial. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 13:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The questions, who is a Jew, what are Jews, etc seem manifestly controversial, not just in theory. So, the concrete question 'What do we put in Kosner's article about Jewishness if anything?' also seems manifestly controversial. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems uncontroversial. But it probably isn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The person can't have it both ways. They can't say at Commentary that they are proud to be a Jew but at the same time maintain the untenable position that Wikipedia should not say that they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I find that argument decisive in this case. Cullen said the same above. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The individual is not articulating a stance similar to Feynman. The individual is articulating a stance approximately similar to 50% of American Jews—not observant but to varying degrees prideful. And of course we do delve into Feynman's relationship to Jewish identity even though his notability is not related to Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break 1 (Kosner)
Hello all. Edward Kosner has, via OTRS, requested that the following be pasted in this section:

For those who have access to the OTRS sytem, the relevant ticket is 2020042910010551. I hold no view on the subject of this comment or the validity of the claims therein. Regards, Vermont (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about the term "Jew-tagging". Could the person writing the above tell us about that choice of wording? Some people are Jews. Some encyclopedia articles say that some people are Jews. What is the impetus for calling that "Jew-tagging"? I'm interested to know if the writer of the above finds that choice of wording defensible? Isn't that choice of wording a little bit slangy? Bus stop (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr. Kosner seeks to frame this matter around the phrase "Jew-tagging", but we might say instead that this is really about "Jew-scraping" Wikipedia. Why is that any less contentious or malevolent? StonyBrook (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —the salient point is that his comments including references to "Jew-tagging" pertain to Wikipedia in general. If he wanted to get the word "Jewish" out of his article the way to accomplish that is straightforward. He could simply distance himself from that identity by for instance saying "I don't consider myself Jewish"—or anything approximating that. I've asked others to articulate the basis for removing this information. I think I detect a disinclination to have such a conversation. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What would be more helpful from Ed Kosner is sharing with us what he thinks are the three best biographies of him that we should use as sources for this article. The NYT and WSJ pieces might be 14 years old, but they're the most recent that I can find. His autobiography is also 14 years old, but those three are the best three available AFAIK. The sources posted by Coffee above are as old or older. If there are newer or better sources, we all want to know about them, they will help settle this dispute. BTW, someone should tell Kosner he needn't communicate through OTRS; it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit; he is welcome to join here directly (subject to WP:COI procedures). Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 01:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you'll pardon my bluntness: quite frankly, I don't give a wooden nickel about what Mr. Kosner thinks. Having said that, however, I find that this is certainly a strange conundrum we're in: could we not simply that "Kosner has written about his conception of his identity in Commentary," and be done with it? &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, it is Wikipedia BLP policy: "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * True, though on the other hand it's tough to show kindness to someone who calls you an anti-Semitic Jew-tagger, repeatedly, in public. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If we might set aside my cantankerousness (which is due to my being sleep-deprived), I fear we're missing the more substantive point of my earlier comment: couldn't this be resolved with a sentence about Kosner and his conception of identity, and leave it at that? &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Javert2113—you said could we not simply that "Kosner has written about his conception of his identity in Commentary," and be done with it? That should be "Kosner has written about his conception of his Jewish identity in Commentary", shouldn't it? Why omit the word "Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct; I should have been more clear in my original statement, and I'd like to plead exhaustion, but it was actually a deliberate omission in a misguided attempt to forge a poor compromise. Sorry. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nary a problem. Bus stop (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern with that approach is that he doesn't really say much about his conception of his identity in the Commentary piece; I think he says more in the email to OTRS above, but that's unpublished and thus uncitable; I also think he says more about it in his autobiography. Also, when it comes to what's WP:DUE, it's not up to the subject, it's up to the sources. In this case, the subject is a source, but only one source. As counterintuitive as this may sound, I don't think we have much of a decision to make about whether or how to include this content. I think the decision we have is what are the leading sources. Once we identify those, following the sources is easy: we include it if they include it, and we include how they include it. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that approach. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Kosner, I think in his Commentary piece he suggested that 'jew-tagging' could also be the result of working to claim an article subject, not for anti-Semitism too, like 'see all the greats who are'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * But they are writing "I fear I’m going to have to have a big fat paragraph or more about this issue". So why not keep it simple: he is Jewish. That is all that needs to be said. 50% of American Jews are nonobservant but proud of being Jews (approximately). I don't see how this situation pertaining to this individual is special in any way. The issue raised is about so-called Wikipedia Jew-tagging. I am not sure but that may be a separate issue from the subject's individual article. Bus stop (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But he seems to say Jewish is a religion to him, so his phrase 'non-observant Jew' would just reinforce how little it matters. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Religion" or "religious" is mentioned 18 times in the Commentary magazine article so I'm not sure which occurrence you are referring to. The reference that I have in mind is "I'm a proud if non-observant Jew, but my religious origin had never been mentioned in the many articles that have been written about me over the years." I could ask you a simple question: what is the object of the referred-to pride? Of course it is Jewish identity. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He explicitly says he views it as a religious origin, not an identity, a religion he does not observe. One can take pride in being non-observant and not be ashamed of something that's not an identity.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Alanscottwalker—I'm struggling to understand what you are saying but not making any headway. The first thing you have to understand is what an "ethnic Jew" is. You say "And saying that someone is a proud ethnic Jew, makes no sense when they don't view it as ethnic to begin with." Even out of context, words and phrases have a degree of intrinsic meaning. An "ethnic Jew" is a person who is Jewish by dint of birth. This is in contrast to a person who is Jewish by dint of conversion. Such a person is not ethnically Jewish. They are Jewish nevertheless. They are Jewish by dint of having converted to Judaism. The terminology "ethnic Jew" does not at all equate to the terminology "nonobservant Jew" though our Who is a Jew? article states otherwise without a citation. Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your struggle is not with me, you are struggling against the subject of this article. His points include the rather well established concept that claimed ethnicity for someone else that he and others cannot even see as one ethnicity, so it's not an ethnicity at all, is bound to present problems for that person. Then too, arguing with him about his identity, makes this whole thing exceedingly fraught with personal controversy.  Do you or anyone else really want an argument about your personal identity. He says it's religious origin, he objects to it being ethnicity, he says it does not matter. None of that hardly seems unfathomable, especially when actually trying to understand someone else. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My "struggle" cannot be "against the subject of this article". The subject of the article is one voice among many and all participants including the subject of the article require support in reliable sources for all assertions under consideration for inclusion in the article or even for the omission of this area of material from the article. This isn't formless palaver. The question is always: what do the sources say? On that we will make our decision as to whether to include or not and if to include, in what language? Bus stop (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This is an important discussion and controversy that Mr. Kosner, through his OTRS ticket and Commentary article (and Coffee's subsequent interventions) might finally help solve. It has a lot more to do than just the simple horse-trading over policies and sources. Much of the underlying issues boil down to perception and opinion. Mr. Kosner himself has portrayed this debate as one about whether being called Jewish means as part of a religious group or as an ethnicity. He stated his opinion that the ethnicity option is incorrect, on two counts: one, because Hitler considered the Jews an ethnicity, a nation within a nation so to speak, that therefore had to be opposed from a nationalist point of view. This is a cogent observation, because it has been at the heart of much Jewish suffering over two millennia of exile. Secondly, Mr. Kosner points out that Jews couldn't be an ethnicity because some are fair, some look Middle-Eastern etc. I believe that it is not about one or the other (religion vs. ethnicity), but really a little bit of both. Yes, I am one of those Wikipedia editors that Mr. Kosner says believes Jews are an ethnicity, and that in turn, a minority of those Jews are also religious. There is a Jewish look too, and I believe that Mr. Kosner has it. As far as there being "Nordic-looking" Jews or whatever, they will either intermarry with gentiles and have Jewishness disappear from their descendants entirely, or otherwise intermingle with other Jews, with their descendants eventually acquiring that look. As Mr. Kosner himself tells it, he stumbled upon his Wikipedia article one day and 'discovered' that he is Jewish. What this probably means is, like many other Jewish people before him throughout history, he had been spending his entire life trying to escape his Jewish identity, only to have Wikipedia (or whomever else, it doesn't really matter) remind him of it. For the record, I believe we should mention that Mr. Kosner is a proud (ethnic) but unpracticing (religious) Jew; as Cullen and others have stated, there is nothing shameful about Jewishnes; not only is it valid biographical information, much the same as when we state that so-and-so American writer has Lithuanian heritage, I believe it is simply wrong on a deeper level for any famous or infamous person to try to deny or cover up from whence they came, and with it the influence that that background inevitably played in making them who they are. I don't think it is fair for Mr. Kosner to characterize this as being about how Wikipedia editors will "show this smart ass who's in charge". Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, whether it is about Jewishness or criminal convictions (no, those two aren't the same), and, per Wikipedia policy, none of it can be censored. As far as advice on how to Jewishly disappear from Wikipedia, I agree with Mr. Kosner that the absolute wrong way to go about it is writing about it in a highly visible magazine.  StonyBrook (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially a highly visible Jewish magazine like Commentary. Kosner is certainly entitled to his opinion that being Jewish is a religious identity but not an ethnic one. However, that does not jibe with his statement he considers himself proudly Jewish despite not observing religious rituals. Scholars of ethnicity certainly recognize a Jewish ethnic group broad enough to encompass Ethiopian Jews, Mexican Jews, Yemeni Jews, Argentinian Jews, British Jews, Iranian Jews, Moroccan Jews, Turkish Jews as well as all the varieties of Israeli Jews and the Ashkenazi American Jews who speak several dialects of Hebrew and Yiddish, and love bagels and lox and falafel and hummus, and all those people interact mostly happily as part of their shared Jewish identity. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let us just bear in mind that you could be mistaken when you say "What this probably means is, like many other Jewish people before him throughout history, he had been spending his entire life trying to escape his Jewish identity, only to have Wikipedia (or whomever else, it doesn't really matter) remind him of it." Unless they say this it should not be accepted. Bus stop (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That is why I said "probably". I don't know anything of Mr. Kosner except what he himself has written on this subject; using a little "Talmudic" logic, I think that some of that might lead a person to this conclusion, that's all. StonyBrook (talk) 04:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think they are mistaken when they say above "The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity." They don't know Wikipedia. I regard "Jewish" as an identity. There are implications to words. "Judaism" tends to evoke religious practice. There are "religious" Jews and "nonobservant" Jews. Except in articles devoted to this purpose, context tells us the implications of words and phrases. There is too much hangup on pigeonholing "Jewish" into "ethnicity" and "religion". Anything can be further subdivided but simply pointing out that someone is "Jewish" goes a moderate distance in shedding some light on that person's identity. If they didn't identify as a Jew their way to articulate that is simple. They can say "I don't consider myself a Jew." But this is at odds with "I'm a proud if non-observant Jew". Bus stop (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is another point to be made here: If Mr. Kosner is stating that he is a proud Jew, what could possibly be the hangup with having his background mentioned here? I don't believe that it has much to do with possibly being confused with a religious person; I do fear it has more to do with the all-too-familiar refrain that the Jews control the media. If my suspicion is correct, it puts Mr. Kosner's problem with Wikipedia in a clearer light, meaning he might be uncomfortable with possibly having this canard being bolstered through him. Maybe admirable in some respects, but as I've said above, I concur with those above who assert that being Jewish is not a liability. Jews don't control Wikipedia either. StonyBrook (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In no way would he have to be suspiciously ashamed of his religious origin. To him at 82, it's a distant religious origin, one that he does not observe, perhaps almost never observed, and according to him has nothing to do with his life's work. And saying that someone is a proud ethnic Jew, makes no sense when they don't view it as ethnic to begin with. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All this is so strange to me. His parents were Jewish, he was bar mitzvahed, he was married by a rabbi in a synagogue (I think multiple times), he writes in a Jewish magazine that he's a proud Jew, yet he's going to great lengths to keep this word out of his WP biography. I wonder if he asked the Times and Journal for a retraction when they wrote that he was Jewish? Did he threaten to cancel his subscription? Or is this special treatment just for Wikipedia? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 15:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Life is strange and living people are regularly unwilling to be boxed. Regardless, when I examine his underlying assumptions and arguments in good faith, I find it within normal human reason. (Just one example, if an NYT reviewer says about me something like 'ham eating Jew', one reasonable reaction is 'WTF does that mean, it means nothing, nothing but snark').-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"WTF does that mean" might be a reasonable reaction to "ham eating Jew" for some, but not in this case, not for Kosner. "Ham-eating Jew" is a reference to a Jew who doesn't keep kosher (pork is forbidden). It is a way of saying "a non-observant Jew", or at least a Jew who is not so devout as to keep kosher. One might think this was some kind of slur, or at least criticism–i.e. a "ham eating Jew" is not a real Jew–but actually it's not. Most Jews don't keep kosher; I am also a ham-eating Jew. It's not really the most polite phraseology–I wouldn't suggest we write that in the encyclopedia–but it's not a criticism or an attack, as Kosner seems to suggest. Here's what he wrote in the Commentary piece about it:

But that's not really truthful. For one thing, he didn't write in his autobiography that his mother "occasionally" served ham, the word he used was "often". More importantly, it was Kosner himself who used the "ham eating" to illustrate his and his family's Jewish identity. Here's what he wrote in his autobiography about it, starting at p. 17:

The autobiography goes on for several pages from there, describing in some detail his Jewish upbringing and his parents' Jewish identity. Kosner himself is using ham eating to show that they didn't keep kosher. I'm not sure why he objects to the NYT review echoing his own words, or why he objects to "Jewish" being mentioned at all in his Wikipedia biography. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That would appear to be because, as Kosner stated directly above, "I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career.". <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * But we know that we include material that is relevant to a subject's life, not just to a subject's career. Wouldn't that be why we delve into Feynman's distancing himself from Jewish identity? Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's not relevant, then why did he write about it for pages and pages in his autobiography? Why did the NYT and WSJ mention it? It doesn't matter if it's relevant to his career, because we're not writing a LinkedIn page or a resume; we're writing a biography. It is relevant to his biography; that's why he wrote about it in his autobiography, and why we should mention it in ours. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I take from this line of Kosner's above "For some Jews, religion is central to their identity; for others, it's an accident of birth irrelevant in any meaningful way to their experiences and careers" and this line "This is clear evidence of how little my faith has mattered in my experience and career" that he also finds his religion (or lack of such) irrelevant to his life, including and excluding his career. Talking about how one was raised in a religion in his autobiography, doesn't mean he has to be identified by what his parents believed in his Wikipedia entry. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * His email to OTRS is not a source that we can cite. It doesn't matter if the subject thinks it's important or not. We are not writing an article entitled "What Ed Kosner Thinks About Stuff". It matters what the reliable sources say. In all things. I think you continue to place way too much importance on the subjects own views and desires. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot insist that he experience these things the way we do, and therefore find him not understandable. It seems almost impossible he would be the only person to go through religious ceremony in youth or later life or not participate in cultural practice (of the something that has somewhere to do with religious food law) and not see it as just religious, of no personal import. But even if he were, when you see something is of no import, it doesn't mean it is relevant. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He described himself as a proud Jew in public, so this isn't a case where someone was raised Jewish but renounces their Jewish identity later in life. This is not, and never was, about whether or not Kosner is "Jewish". He is Jewish, even he himself says he is Jewish (a proud if non observant Jew). The question is whether this should be mentioned in his WP article. He thinks that, although he is Jewish, that shouldn't be mentioned. But he's not saying "I'm not Jewish anymore" or anything like that. He says the opposite. And personally I don't understand how one can say "I'm a proud Jew but don't mention that in my biography because it's irrelevant." Huh? Seems totally contradictory to me. I can't square "proud but irrelevant" in my head. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At present the article does not contain any reference to the subject being Jewish. Is anyone opposed to this version which simply says "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife" and it includes the person in Category:Jewish American journalists. Bus stop (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It would seem there are several of us who are clearly opposed to that here and at other pages discussing this (myself, Kosner,, yet also several in favor (yourself, ), one person who is essentially undecided , and one person who has expressed takes on both sides . If I'm leaving anyone out, feel free to mention them. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked myself but assuming that list is complete, and not counting Jimbo or Kosner, and counting wally below, I think that's a 7-7 split, assuming all arguments given equal weight. Shall we now discuss a neutral RFC question? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's Zaereth who also just lent their opinion, and I don't think it neccesairly fair to discount Jimbo (although I get the community's penchant for not listening to him, in this case I think his arguments had decent weight as well). However, I would propose that whomever closes this thread recommend whether an RFC should be the next step. If it is decided that is the most reasonable step to go with, the RFC should sum up all of the discussion here and should neutrally present the question in the same way Barkeep49 did when he opened this thread. Either way, we should definitely wait until conversation stops here before moving to the next step - (48 hours after no comments have been made, perhaps) - but I would highly recommend we get an uninvolved admin to close this at that time before we move forward... for the sake of ensuring fairness. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm agreeable to that. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I should just post that I am still, as previously stated and for the same reasons opposed to this detail being included. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Govindaharihari here. I admit that I don't have nearly enough time to read through this entire discussion, but what I mainly see here are a lot of inferences being made based upon vague implications. We're basically drawing conclusions about this person's private life based on passing statements, hints, and outwardly conflicting comments. If anything is included it should probably be a direct quote, but then again, how do we choose. If we even have to argue about it, then it seems apparent that how he identifies himself is unclear. Personally, I see it as none of my business, so I think leaving it out is likely best. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No there are no inferences or vague implications. We have seven sources explicitly and directly stating he is Jewish. They are on the article talk page. The autobiography spends I think 10+ pages on it; nothing vague about that. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Coffee (and Govindaharihari too)—I would be interested in seeing reliably-sourced reasons for not including that he is Jewish as well as reliably-sourced reasons for not including him in the "Category" of Jewish American journalists. Can you present such sources? Consensus as you know is not just voting. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already done that at length above (and on Kosner's talk page), and do not find it necessary to repeat myself. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should be very careful with adding religious identity and other similar personal information such as ethnicity to articles, and I do not think the sources show that Jewish identity is important to Kosner's notability. I also do not think we should use autobiographies or other articles about oneself to include information when the individual specifically objects, especially the recent article in Commentary where he is only discussing the information to point out a problem with its inclusion. I think that gets too close to punishing someone for speaking up about potential problems with Wikipedia. The autobiography would be more relevant, but I am still generally opposed to including information written about oneself that one has expressed they do not want included in encyclopedic biographies about themselves when is not significant to why they are notable. I am not sure how that plays out with the balance of the other sources, but they seem to largely be passing mentions or inclusions on lists, which I do not find very persuasive for establishing significance for inclusion. If his Jewish identity is eventually included, I think it needs to have a disclosure that he is "non-observant" and also include something about his statements regarding its inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that he is Jewish does not need to add to his notability in order to be included in the article. Once a subject is notable, we write all kinds of things about them, basically anything that there is not specific reason to leave out. So if he is Jewish, we can have it. And since he has stated that being Jewish is important for him, how can we leave this out? Debresser (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the subject doesn't want it in the article is irrelevant since he used the occasion of his request to have it removed to write about just how important the very fact he wanted removed is in a reliable source. So we give him what he wants...does he then write another editorial on how he manipulated our contents? This is folly. John from Idegon (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote this before but after the last comment I will write it again. we added it and he didn't like it, complained about it to us and then and wrote that he didn't like it,  so we can include it, that doesn't seem to me to be a great way to include content in regard to living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, he "complained about it", but on what basis, ? Subjects of biographies don't write articles about themselves. Editors in general write articles, and assertions are based on reliable sources. Mere complaint should not carry the day. The assertion that he is Jewish was reliably sourced long before the Commentary magazine article. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm going to agree that people are too focused on religion or ethnicity even when it does not contribute to notability. These include reliable sources. This sort of information is traditional in a biography, but we have editorial discretion not to include that. The arguments for ignoring his wishes can be reduced to "Well, you're a Jew. We have plenty of people that say so, even you. Deal with it". If he says he doesn't want to be labeled as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or religion, then we should respect that.  We shouldn't be trying to parse his words otherwise, and we shouldn't use the Commentary article as some kind of gotcha justification to retain this information. We may not see the "Jew tagging" as a perjorative, diminishing his career, or putting a target on his back but he does and that is a type of harm.  Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Two thumbs up for this. I couldn't have said it better. Zaereth (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, this version of the article is not "in terms of ethnicity or religion". It says "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so? I was trying to cover the bases of why he objects to the label. However he reads it, he doesn't like it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Morbidthoughts—you are saying "If he says he doesn't want to be labeled as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or religion, then we should respect that". But we are not saying that he was born Jewish or that he is religious. Again this is what the article said "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." That wording does not explicitly or implicitly say that he was born Jewish. And that wording does not explicitly or implicitly say that he is religious. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't matter if we're explicit in defining Jews as a race or religion when we label someone as a Jew. Enough with the parsing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts—in this version we are not "defining Jews as a race or religion". It reads "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in New York City, the son of Sidney Kosner, a salesman for a men’s and boy’s outerwear manufacturer, and Annalee Fisher Kosner, a housewife." Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCKSEASON: "However he reads it, he doesn't like it." Words have meaning. What you see as not implying anything can be perceived as a microagression because of people's implicit biases. You are focusing on the wrong thing. See WP:RACIALISM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the ambiguous wording is significantly worse than stating that he describes himself as a non-observant Jew. We should respect BLP's preference for how they want to be religiously defined. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * @Morbidthoughts I liked the "Well, you're a Jew. We have plenty of people that say so, even you. Deal with it" part! True, that is how Wikipedia works. It is sourced, we'll have it.
 * @Govindaharihari Precisely! That is precisely how it works. It may not seem a great way, but it is the only way to be a good encyclopedia. Disregard the wishes of the subjects of your articles, and just tell your readers the truth. Put this way, it sounds even better to me... Debresser (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Naw.WP:VNOTSUFFWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY It doesn't improve the encyclopedia here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Disregarding your clear misinterpretation of what Morbidthoughts and Govindaharihari said, we have a long-standing consensus to consider article subject's wishes. WP:BLPREQUESTDEL even says that we can delete entire articles from the site (amazingly enough, even if there are reliable sources stating their existence), at the behest of article subjects (given certain conditions). We've listened to those wishes a myriad times, and have not somehow decreseased our encyclopedic integrity. Your suggestion that we should treat an article subject with such disrespect - that you think it is okay to tell them to essentially screw themselves and we'll do whatever we want without care for the impact it may have on their lives - simply flies in the face of how we're supposed to handle BLPs. It is indeed not how Wikipedia works. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what BLPREQDEL says. It applies very narrowly, to "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus". I agree with Debresser, how Wikipedia works is that we write an encyclopedia by summarizing reliable sources. The wishes of biography subjects are, and should continue to be, irrelevant. We are not a vanity press. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I second what Morbidthoughts said as well, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:NOTBURO are encyclopedic standards that are highly applicable here. They literally permit us to not cover everything in our articles just because it happens to be verifiable. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 22:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Coffee—there is nothing shameful about being Jewish and we are not limited to only that material that has bearing on his career. As I've asked you before please articulate with reference to reliable sources why it is your opinion that this material should be omitted from this article. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , reliable sources are not needed to show why something shouldn't be included. Reliable sources are the onus for inclusion, but information being included in reliable sources is not the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia, and less so for BLPs. Unless content is simply unsourced, discussion about exclusion is more often about reasoned discussion and consideration of other factors, and it certainly is when it comes to BLP policies, where we do consider living person's opinions, especially for personal topics like religion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, who has said anything about Kosner being ashamed? I don't think anyone has made that argument as a reason for exclusion. Privacy is not only an issue of shame. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * —please provide one or more reliable sources in support of your argument that this material should be removed from this article. Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is not how Wikipedia policies work. They are based on discussion between editors. Please see my above comment if you still do not understand. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't you conceding that you don't have any sources to support your argument? Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Your argument is a fallacious one. You can't prove a negative. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "I don't consider myself a Jew" be a "negative", ? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are conceding that you have no source asserting that Kosner might not be Jewish. On what basis should we remove this material? Has anyone, including the subject himself, suggested that Kosner might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey man, have you stopped beating your wife yet? You're ignoring WP:ONUS by insisting the lithmus for inclusion is verification. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And my answer to your question to me is, no. For example, a person can find all kinds of proof that God, or the Higgs boson, or whatever you believe in exists. You'll never be able to produce a single ounce of proof that they don't. You can prove a man's guilt, but he can't prove his innocence by lack of evidence. Lack of evidence is not proof. Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no one is disputing that he is Jewish. The issue is whether the content is appropriate or significant enough to include. That is a decision that is made between editors based on our policies, and a reliable source wouldn't be able to prove the content wasn't significant enough to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —please present your argument in support of omitting the information. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have already done that here. You should refer to that: . – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Subjects of articles don't control the content of their biographies, . Reliable sources play a large role in determining content. Wikipedia should reflect sources. This isn't about your opinions on topics—"I think we should be very careful with adding religious identity and other similar personal information such as ethnicity to articles". We are not in the role of dictating to the world the proper or recommended way to cover a topic. It would be more correct to say that reliable sources are in the role of dictating to us how a topic should be covered. Wikipedia isn't censored. I know that you know that. But you sound like you are imposing your opinions on an uncensored project under the guise of filtering out some material that you feel would be improper for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we don't simply include anything because it is published in a reliable source. We use our editorial discretion based on our reasons and established policies. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I want to say we are dealing with two different problems here that as a net result, a conservative approach would be leave out these details in ethnicity and religion unless they are a central facet to the person's notability or importance. Not just oft-repeated.
 * Point one is the "Jewish" confusion between the religion and the ethnicity which has been a long-standing problem on WP. (I think the last big issue came up around Bernie Sanders around last election cycle). I am neither by-ethnic nor by-faith Jewish but I know there's so many different levels of subtlity involved in there based on past WP discussions that its almost a problem we want to avoid unless for the BLP or topic that has BLP connotations it is essential to discuss, and when that comes up, we want to be using what the BLP has said themselves avoid the accidental implications, in the case that "Jewish" may give.
 * The second point is that are some ethnicities and religions that gain undue attention for better or worse. There are editors who I am sure that they are a proud person of ethnic/religion X and would love to make sure that BLPs of X are highlighted when they can be identified; that's human nature. I also do believe that there's a far rarer set of editors that are a bit more malicious that would like to call out certain ethnics or religions (something akin to calling out people aligned with the old Nazi Germany state). Either way, this leads editors to focus on trying to prove these details out, and that might lead to poor source choices, or digging beyond what we'd want them to.
 * For a combination of these reasons, I'd rather us not include either ethnicity or religion unless you cannot talk about the person without that being core to their importance. --M asem (t) 00:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly the point; ethnic or national backgrounds make up the core of every person who has an article here. It tells us a lot about them, and we are seeking knowledge here after all. And a person cannot deny their upbringing as surely as a leopard cannot hide its spots. StonyBrook (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What are the policies or guidelines that necessitates this background information for a "good" biography? Closest thing I can find is MOS:ETHNICITY, and even then it tells us not to emphasise ethnicity or religion if it's not pertinent to their notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly, I think this is one of those cases where more than a little editorial judgment is required. In sensitive cases such as this, I would usually lean hard toward respecting the subject's own wishes. Ethnicity is really a very subjective matter; almost as much as religion. Go back 30 generations and you can count millions of people that you can call great, great grandparents. We're all a little bit of everything. But in the case where the subject specifically requests not to be labeled anything, then I would want to honor that request out of basic human kindness. It doesn't seem to me to alter the person he is one way or the other. You can't possibly write a policy for every possible situation, nor would it be a good idea. Guidelines are just that, guides to use our editorial judgment wisely.Zaereth (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —this isn't the forum for you to wax eloquent about "grandparents", "generations" and "kindness". Perhaps a User Talk page would be a more suitable place. Bus stop (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude, WP:Battleground. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * a fair point about people being a little bit of everything, but we are talking here about a full-fledged Jewish person by all accounts. StonyBrook (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It also might be worthwhile to review the discussion around the removal of the religion field from the infobox, there's a lot of overlap there. --M asem (t) 02:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:ETHNICITY only says to keep ethnicity out of the lead section, not the article body itself. StonyBrook (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ... and nowhere does it say it's necessary to a good biography if known. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Necessary" isn't the applicable standard. If we reduced the biography to just what was "necessary", it would be a stub, or perhaps not exist at all. Better questions are: does it improve the reader's understanding of the subject? Is the reader's understanding incomplete without it? I'm hard pressed to imagine a biography that doesn't discuss the person's childhood and family. To me, if a person was raised in a particular religious or cultural or ethnic or whatever tradition, that's important information for a biography of the person. You wouldn't have a complete understanding of the biography subject if you didn't know that they went to church every Sunday, or temple, or not, or that they were bar mitvahed or Christened or baptized or similar. That might not be an important part of someone's career, but it is an important part of someone's life, and a biography (unlike a resume) is about a person's life, not just their career. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 16:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do have standards for determining good articles, that states good articles should stay "focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Kosner has repeatedly said this part of his life is not important, and this back and forth about necessary and important falls under WP:ITSIMPORTANT. From reading his objections and the excerpts of his autobiography that you provided, he is concerned that being labeled Jewish or raised in a Jewish family would feed into implicit stereotypes and invalidate his life and work, and your comments about "complete understanding" makes his concerns valid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which GAR criteria, or other WP policy/guideline, says that we should exclude that which the subject thinks is unimportant. You'll also have to explain that last part to me about my comment validating his concerns. You don't think someone's childhood, family, or cultural background are important parts of their biography? Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Read up on microinvalidation: "communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group" You are arguing that background information like ethnicity or religion gives us insight into the person (how so?) when the subject says it doesn't. This is classic microinvalidation. I don't believe childhood, family, or cultural background is important for EVERY biography, and no standard or guideline mandates them. In fact, MOS:IDENTITY warns us not to label people carelessly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Believing that a person's cultural background is an important part of their biography is not a microaggression or anything like that. Disagreement is not invalidation. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 19:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is microagression to impose a label onto Posner and his family that he says doesn't apply. Your attempt to reframe this as a general best practice for biographies does not excuse this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In his autobiography he wrote that his parents are American Jews, and in the Commentary piece, he wrote that he is a proud if non-observant Jew, so I'm not seeing how that is "imposing a label...that he says doesn't apply". He never said the label doesn't apply–he is not saying he's not Jewish; he says the exact opposite, that he is a proud Jew. He doesn't say the label doesn't apply, what he says is it's not important enough to include in his biography. And my belief that it is important enough to include in his biography is not a microaggression or any kind of aggression or misconduct; it's rather ridiculous to suggest otherwise. And nobody is "imposing" anything on anybody here. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 20:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite the seeming contradictions, he believes it's a misleading label the way it's presented.. That his upbringing was Jewish when he has written that his family wasn't very Jewish in its practices. He also clearly has an issue with being labeled, Jewish American journalist, which was inserted as a category. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're entirely missing the point that we're not just doing this because the article subject wants it, there are currently a majority of Wikipedia editors who do not want this added to the page. While not a consensus yet, I would definitely say there isn't a consensus that this has to be added. WP:VNOTSUFF specifically states: While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. Nowhere in there does it state editors have to prove there's an additional policy that says we don't have to include something for it to be excluded. If there is no consensus to add disputed content or consensus deems something unworthy of inclusion, it is simply omitted (regardless of how passionately some disagree). That's all the policy there is, and that's all the policy that need be. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure where you're going with this. Nobody is saying we don't make decisions by consensus. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 18:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —Please be so kind as to present your argument for why we should filter content in this instance. Alternatively, you could initiate a community-wide discussion, for instance at the Village Pump, to omit related content in related circumstances. I would like to have a civil discussion, so please compose your thoughts carefully, and I promise I will do the same. Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already done that at extreme and exaustive length in the preceeding parts of this thread. I will not be participating in repetition ad naseum. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —you may think you have presented a cogent argument but you have not. You can engage in dialogue with me or not. You can't claim there is consensus to omit information that is standardly included in biographies, both at Wikipedia and virtually anywhere else. You are not going to slip through a practice in this instance which obviously is not practiced community-wide. The subject of this article literally said they are proud to be a Jew in a recent article in Commentary (magazine) so we're not "outing" this person in a facet of their identity in which they would rather remain "closeted". Discussion is the lifeblood of Wikipedia in cases of dispute. You can tell me one good reason this material should be omitted and I can try to match your reasoning with reasoning of my own. In the absence of dialogue you can't claim any kind if legitimate consensus. Consensus at Wikipedia is based on the quality and strength of the arguments on the different sides of an issue. As I've suggested, you can also present your argument on a community-wide basis at the Village Pump. Your refusal to engage in dialogue I think forfeits any solidity of ground that you may think you stand on in this issue. Bus stop (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors don't have to agree with your opinions for there to be a consensus, nor have you been appointed the 'arbiter of logical soundness'. I don't think any impartial soul could possibly think I have not discussed this matter to the fullest extent possible. To your statment "which obviously is not practiced community-wide"... that is flat out wrong, and empirically so. There clearly is such community-wide consensus, and I already quoted where it is documented above (in WP:VNOTSUFF). As far as stating religion specifically, our current encyclopedic standard is also documented at WP:BLPCAT, which requires that if we're to include a religion, the subject must self-identify that way, and such "beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability". Even if we're to make the troubling step of pretending his statement about being Jewish in Commentary as self-identification (a form of "gotcha" action that could be expected of a shit tabloid, not a reputable encyclopedia), it remains clear this is not relevant to Kosner's public life or notability. You're free to disagree, but I'm in no way required to keep explaining this to you. Good day, <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to believe that your statement above he is concerned that being labeled Jewish or raised in a Jewish family would feed into implicit stereotypes and invalidate his life and work gets to the crux of Mr. Kosner's objection to the Jewish content in his own article, but his comments below demonstrate that he has instead embarked on a much larger crusade to make systematic changes to this encyclopedia, which began with his collaboration with Coffee. So let us not make this as if it is only about him. It clearly is not. StonyBrook (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We're only discussing his issues with respect to his article. Good luck to Mr. Kosner on trying to impose his issues onto all articles involving Jewish Americans or American Jews or Americans that practice Judaism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Arb Break 2 (Kosner)
This message was requested by Kosner to be posted here, relevant OTRS ticket is 2020050110006632. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI: I merged the ticket to the earlier ticket (2020042910010551). --MrClog (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Mr. Kosner seems to think that he can use his own article as a crowbar to work his own political views into the encyclopedia. This is highly inappropriate, because the weighty issues he raises, should simply not be discussed in connection with an editorial debate about his own article. I will not take the bait and tangle with some of the issues he has raised, nor, I believe, should anyone else. StonyBrook (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything he stated is evidence that he wants to "work his own political views into the encyclopedia", much of what he proposed is already part of our system as documented at WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R. I find your disrespectful tone to be inappropriate to this forum, and entirely out of line with the WMF's resolution on how we're to respond to BLP subject's complaints (specifically note 4: Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are described in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same). <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —the subject of the article is primarily addressing Wikipedia as a whole. They are not primarily addressing their article. Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * respect is not a one-way street. In his Commentary article Mr. Kosner saw fit to characterize Wikipedia "editors" he doesn't agree with in scare quotes. In this way he has potentially offended many Wikipedians and he ought to apologize or at least clarify what he meant before trying to get something changed. And my comment about this not really being about him but rather a broader agenda still stands. StonyBrook (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * your response to Kosner crossed a line. Attacking article subjects and casting aspersions for merely proposing ideas is not appropriate conduct becoming of an editor. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly not my intention to offend or attack. I am the only editor addressing our subject with an honorific. StonyBrook (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also don't see a "don't piss off wikipedia editors" exception to WP:BLPKIND. I agree it's not helpful, but we shouldn't be carrying grudges into discussions on how to improve the encyclopedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying an honorific before someone's name does not then somehow give a "free pass" or "get out of jail free" card to then disparage them anyways. That is fallacious. -- The SandDoctor Talk 23:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think his stance "Jewish is not an ethnicity" is a point of debate - or in that, its a statement that Wikipedia will never state in wikivoice; we can talk to that debate of course but WP isn't going to take sides in it. But that points to the end of the day that a person being Jewish-by-ethnicity or Jewish-by-religion is a very personal thing, and thus something we should keep out (as Kosney points out and in agreement with the NYTimes standard) of our BLPs unless relevant to the person's life. --M asem (t) 20:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a point of debate. To quote one reliable source, Pew Research Center: Alan posted a whole bunch more sources that address this question at the beginning of this thread. BTW, Kosner is also wrong about most Americans not accepting being Jewish is an ethnicity. According to the American Jewish Committee's 2019 Survey of American Jewish Opinion, 59% of American Jews think being Jewish is "mostly a matter of ethnicity or culture"; 24% think it's "mostly a matter of religion". Surveys in Israel find the same thing ; in Israel, 51% of Jews think it's mostly ethnicity or culture; 24% mostly religion. The truth is the opposite of what Kosner is claiming. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How do surveys of Jews in America and other countries prove Kosner wrong?! His argument rests on Americans in general and their views, not specifically Jews? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with Masem that it is unlikely we will find an end to all the multiple related issues of 'What is a Jew?' per the number of source links I put in my first comment above. Also agree, with Masem's result for the Kosner article. Kosner has certainly done nothing wrong, here. It's regularly Wikipedia's process and often hope that article level issues lead to thoughts about improvements to Wikipedia policy or guidelines, but I just don't see these issues being worked-out by us for improved guidelines, at this time, maybe down the line where there are several similar circumstances to talk about.


 * On a more prosaic note, and certainly not addressed to Mr. Kosner who has only commented twice as people avidly discuss his person, but to the rest of us, it is time to really look at the advice in WP:BLUDGEON, especially its words on such personal matters as religion/ethnicity/nationality, etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, this this entire discussion is circular. The one side is never going to convince the other, and visa versa. Outsiders to this whole debate like Masem and I, who have frequented this page for a long time, have tried to give our opinions, to no avail. I really don't understand the passionate need to push something like this into an article, but it is prevalent wherever people are so passionate about some specific trait, such as religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and so many other things which for many are very private and personal things. I personally think that when I get this passionate about something then I've likely lost the ability to see or handle it with any objectivity, and perhaps it would be time for me to step back.


 * At any rate, someone here suggested RFC, and I think that's a great idea at this point. Those like me with no dog in this fight probably don't have all day and night to leave more than one or two comments a day, so they're just getting drowned out by the fray, so I think this forum has outlived it's usefulness here. The RFC format I think should help, because then it's more or less one comment per person, and thus is more manageable. But there is no point in everybody repeating themselves over and over here. This is already long past spiraling out of control. I think it's best just to close this down, everybody step back and take a few breaths, and take it to RFC. Then listen to what the outsiders to this conflict have to say instead of circling the same old wagons. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)


 * —speaking only for myself I am "passionate about" opposing censorship. The subject of this article is not a participant in this discussion like you and I are. I cannot directly address the subject of this article. The subject of the article cannot directly address me. The subject of the article primarily addresses issues other than the Edward Kosner article. For instance we are not entertaining the propriety of the purpose-built notion of "Jew-tagging". Our purpose is writing biographies. They're are meant to be informative. They are not meant to be censored. We don't need filters screening out "micro-aggressions". We are not discussing nationalities. We are not discussing hyphenated Americans. "Jewish" need not be pigeonholed into a slot of religion, ethnicity, and so forth just to say in a biography that someone is Jewish. The sources say it. The subject himself says it. The subject of the article is addressing a wide range of issues but not necessarily the one article that we are discussing. A month ago they wrote in Commentary (magazine) that they are proud to be Jewish. Just because they have other things to talk about doesn't mean the article in question should not say he is Jewish. This isn't the Madoff article or the Epstein article or the Boesky article—all of which say the subject is Jewish. The Kosner article is an article on an erudite writer who last month publicized his pride in being a Jew. Wikipedia should not be turned on its head by this incident. Wikipedia should continue to be uncensored. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is zero censorship going on here, and to suggest there is is disruptive. (Censorship would be an outright ban on any mention of "Jewish" or any religion altogether across the border. --M asem (t) 23:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —you reference an outright ban on any mention of "Jewish" or any religion—but we aren't talking about "religion". Do you see the word "religion" in this version of the article? Of course not. It says "Kosner, who is Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no one has claimed that Kosner is not Jewish, no one has claimed that being Jewish is shameful, and no one has argued for "censorship" (unless you are using your own idiosyncratic meaning). If you are going to respond to every comment thread, then I believe you need to be more careful with characterizing others' arguments. If you genuinely are unable to understand the arguments others are making, then you may want to limit your responses to them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ^^^^^ This. Every discussion I've seen Bus stop in seems to degrade into this. They should know better. --M asem (t) 00:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur 100%. Their arguments are often flawed and fail to convince, which inevitably leads to aspersions, deflections, repetitions, more repetitions, and finally cries of censorship; the last-ditch resort of desperation (short of personal attacks). I gave my opinion and that hasn't changed, so I feel no need to repeat myself, and Bus Stop's arguments have only served to reinforce them, so I'm out. The only thing I'm convinced of is that feeding this discussion isn't going to help solve anything. And, please, everyone look up the definition of "censorship". That's a far cry from this. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize to, and . I was too forceful in my argument. I obviously disagree. But a more low keyed approach would have been preferable and I regret my shrill tone. I hope for a reset, meaning that I hope you all will accept my apology at face value. Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology, but we're not trying to hurt your feelings. You don't get to be a writer without facing a hell of a lot of criticism, so I tend to be blunt. As a writer, you learn that it is meant to help you, not hurt, but there's no point beating around the bush. My advice is to slow down for a second and seriously consider other points of view. Only then can you really understand your own, and realize why this is important to you. (See: Theory of mind) The hardest person to see clearly is ourselves, by a long shot, and in seeking all knowledge, we're really only seeking to learn about ourselves. You'll be able to formulate a much better argument that way, but in the process you may also see that other's may have points worth considering. My mind is always open to change, but I strongly feel that race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc., have absolutely no bearing on who a person is on the inside, and that's what is important to me.


 * That's what I love about this place. It doesn't matter who any of us are in the real world. All that matters is what we do here. We are here to provide a summary of all information, not all information, and Wikipedia has rules and guidelines about lots of things that are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. But in the end those can only guide our editorial judgment on what is necessary and what is fluff. That involves two things you can't put into rules, consciousness and a conscience. We have to whittle it down to the nitty gritty, and my conscience leans hard toward following the subjects wishes on publishing information that has little significance in telling us who they are as a person, you know, just a human being. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * A quote from Harold Rosenberg: "Whoever undertakes to create soon finds himself engaged in creating himself." Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Include Many people never make public mention of, or don't even know, their ethnic ancestry. So for many articles about Americans it is omitted, and for less multi-ethnic nationalities it may just be assumed by their nationality - but neither omitted or included on any different standard than any other BLP (although I am not sure we are consistent about one significant and fundamentally multi-ethnic country, the UK). Once a subject self-declares it in public and it is covered in RSs at all, it becomes somewhat relevant to their biography. Kosner has created a Streisand Effect scenario by publishing anything about it and that only adds to the significance. I think both the Jewish-tagging and Jewish-detagging camps are disruptive and we should handle it on an individual basis sourced to statements by the subject themself, or DNA testing, that sort of thing. If someone published DNA testing results or analysis about themselves it would potentially become significant for the article, and the more of a big deal they make about it (like going to the point of writing an op-ed about it) the more relevant it becomes. Let me put it simply: if you are writing a biography of someone and know that they were "born to Jewish parents" or are a "proud but non-observant Jew", that is relevant to a certain degree. If I want to understand the background/childhood/whatever of an American one of the first things I'm going to wonder is what their ethnic background is. Am I alone in that? Lots of BLP subjects have wishes about what should be included or not. Lots of people wish they could undo Streisand Effect situations. We're here to be informative and publish any relevant cited information. If Kosner did not want to be identified as Jewish he should've said he is not a Jew or entirely ignored the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I find the idea that we should require (or even suggest) that article subjects release DNA tests to prove or disprove ethnicity, to be one of the most abhorrent ideas I've seen in my 13+ years on this site. I am seriously aghast that anyone would think that is okay. Kosner has already made clear his ethnicity is "all-American", not Jewish. It is absolutely not our place to ask for his DNA to attempt to prove or disprove that statement (nor to please your personal curiosities). The line he wrote in Commentary about being a "proud but non-observant Jew" is in an article that discusses how little relevance that religious description is to his life, and notability. Context is important here; the context doesn't show an attempt to censor out facts of his life, it shows him plainly stating this isn't a relevant fact (and he doesn't want his life work to be boxed in by the description). Saying an editor of four major news publications should have kept silent or else we implement some form of Streisand effect, is also completely irrational. The Streisand effect is not a Wikipedia policy, nor is it a required outcome of any situation regarding personal privacy. We aren’t mandated to post every verifiable fact about subjects (per WP:VNOTSUFF), and we certainly aren’t required to do so purely because they publicly complained about our actions. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Point well taken on DNA. But I read that Mr. Kosner asserts that he is an "American journalist and editor" and also that he is "All-American", but not that his ethnicity is American. He never said that. Is "American" an ethnicity? I don't believe it ever was, although there was a running chance for it to happen in the first half of the 19th century. Certainly not after 1965. StonyBrook (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I took that indication from this statement "The answer is because some Wikipedians consider Judaism as a nationality or ethnicity. I am an American journalist and editor. I am not a Jewish-American journalist and editor. Wouldn’t it look odd if one of your Jew-tagging editors identified me as a Jewish-American journaist? If I were an Israeli-American journalist and editor, that would be a valid description. But I’m not—I’m all-American and my religion or lack of it is irrelevant to my career." - It honestly isn't up to me what he considers his ethnicity, I'm merely relaying what he considers it to be. (It would seem per Race and ethnicity in the United States and White Americans [albeit I don't know if he would consider himself white or not] that one can certainly call themselves simply American if they want, as you can write in such a descrtiption directly onto the census. There isn't a requirement to choose some other group if the respondent doesn't want to.) <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 07:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)'
 * It's clear to me now that Kosner labels himself Jewish in terms of religion only. Even though he doesn't practice the religion, he considers himself Jewish just like there plenty of people that identify as Christian even though they don't really practice the religion. Note that he uses the term to describe his parents, American Jews rather than Jewish Americans. To expand on the Christian analogy, the popular term to describe Americans who are Christians is American Christians, not Christian Americans. Kosner has been rather consistent in rejecting the label of Jewish as an ethnicity and the attempted parsing by multiple editors to argue ethnicity had detracted the discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was more broadly speculating about this topic. If he is a Jew by religion only then let us label him has he identifies himself. As for a more generalized or analogous example and answer to your example, can someone who is a WASP not be a Christian? Is there a difference between an Anglo-Saxon Protestant and a Protestant Anglo-Saxon? I've heard WASP applied to people who are not even ostensibly Anglo-Saxon. Like Jew it is sort of an ethno-religious label that means less about the religion than the ethnic identity. If someone says they are a WASP but we know (for some reason) that they are neither Anglo-Saxon nor Protestant, well, I guess we just pass on the misstatement as a fact? —DIYeditor (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not following the analogy and I'm not interested in parsing the meaning or why people describe themselves WASPs when they're not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * A Christian who "does not really practice the religion" to quote you is not a Christian any more than a person is a WASP by merely being white and having Protestant ancestors. Again, while possibly tangential, this situation has implications for other articles since it is garnering so much attention. I understand that Wikipedia precedent (probably rightly so) is that self-identification for things like gender, race, religion, sexual preference is what we use - but we state these things as facts. Further, do we let the subjects of BLP dictate the meanings of those terms? Maybe I should form my thoughts more cohesively and start a separate thread? I guess where I am going with this tangent is that maybe we should use "so-and-so identifies as" rather than "so-and-so is" for anything like race, religion, gender, sexual orientation. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know plenty of people do, but I don't like to second guess people's religious identities against their practices. People can believe in the Christian god and Jesus yet do not go to church or live the way their religion expects them to. They consider themselves Christian and the label is not based on ancestors so I didn't understand the WASP analogy. I don't know if that applies to Kosner with respect to Judaism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosner identifies as a "proud if non-observant Jew" but stated he does not wish to be described as Jewish in his Wikipedia biography. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support that, . (I wish I would have thought of it myself.) Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes me a little nervous because I don't think going around looking for people to flag as Jewish is a reasonable use of volunteer time (POINTy at best) and I seem to remember that it has been an issue for you. In this case it seems clear that he has tagged himself though. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes you "nervous" that I endorse your suggestion? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know if you are Jewish or not and I don't know the details of the arguments about Jew-tagging, I just remember that you were involved in some drama regarding that and I don't see any reason why it would be a good idea to make a mission out of identifying people as Jewish. So I don't want any part of that. I also don't want to see special treatment because someone starts throwing punches about their BLP. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —you say "it seems clear that he has tagged himself" I don't agree with that. We don't "tag" anybody. He hasn't "tagged himself". Wikipedia doesn't "tag". We convey identities of all sorts that are reliably sourced. We convey to readers that which is adequately supported in sources. These "identities" can include tons of things, including nationality, ethnicity, gender orientation, gender itself, religion... Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that if someone is editing a BLP and they know someone identifies as Jewish it is one of the identities you would want to include for the information of the reader. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Morbidthoughts you are correct in pointing out that Mr. Kostner views Jewishness as being indicative of religious observance only; he has made this abundantly clear (does the term "Christianness", i.e. expressing one's fealty for that religious background, exist as well?) But your second point is lost on me; in discussing his parents, wouldn't the term "American Jews" be indicative of the primary stress being on Jews, with American being the qualifier, that is to say an American kind of Jew? Jewish American OTOH would seem to be the way to go if one wishes to place more importance on Americanism. Regardless, Mr. Kostner himself is only interested in being called an American. StonyBrook (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason linguistically, ethnicity usually precedes nationality (Black Americans vs. American Blacks) while ethnicity or nationality usually comes before religion (Thai Buddhists vs Buddhist Thais). I don't know if importance has anything to do with the order. Following that linguistic order, you can see why Kosner might object to using Jewish American (ethnicity nationality)  vs  American Jew (nationality religion) Morbidthoughts (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what on earth made you take away that I thought we should require DNA tests or ask him for a DNA test. It was just an example. If he says he is Jewish that is fine. The Streisend Effect is effectively policy because if you cause some kind of coverage in RSs or even in an op-ed you have created the grounds for inclusion. Should this pick up any more coverage it will almost certainly be grounds for inclusion of the fact that he has made an issue of being Jewish. The bigger of a deal he makes and the more attention it gets, the more it is relevant. He should've kept it private between him and WMF rather than publishing an op-ed if he didn't want to create public attention to the topic. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have "no idea what on earth" made me see that's what you said? Let me quote directly what you suggested above: "we should handle it on an individual basis sourced to statements by the subject themself, or DNA testing". If you're not willing to stand up for your own words, perhaps you should have never suggested something so ludicrously abhorrent to begin with. The rest of my comment stands as well. Good day, <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 08:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I certainly did not intend to suggest anything in particular about requiring or asking for DNA tests I was just exploring this topic in a general sense and thinking of possibilities. If you think suggesting that we could allow inclusion of published DNA results is abhorrent I have no idea where you are coming from but it is increasingly off topic in this thread. Perhaps this is more about religion. It is not clear whether being Jewish is more of a religion or an ethnic identity and in many cases it doesn't matter. At this point since he chose to use his public standing to publish an op-ed to the whole world, rather than for example coming to the noticeboard like regular folks do, should it pick up any more coverage it would definitely be relevant to the article to say "Kosner published an opinion piece stating he did not wish to be identified in his Wikipedia biography as Jewish but that he is a proud if non-observant Jew." It looks like one more publisher has picked up the op-ed so it is heading in that direction for sure in my opinion. If someone twice-published an opinion piece stating they were Catholic or bisexual or etc. would we not include that in their biography? It's a primary source yes, and primary sources are perfectly reliable for statements of a BLP subject about themself. How we handle this has implications for a lot of articles. What prerogative does this subject have to censor his biography of information he has himself published? —DIYeditor (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also think that Coffee misunderstood what you meant regarding DNA tests. Let's close this part of the discussion, ok? Debresser (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're free to think whatever you like, but I completely comprehended what they wrote. The suggestion, example, *insert euphemism here*, was entirely a bad one. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude: I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the GDPR or article 6 of the French law n° 78-17 (6 janvier 1978), which are very clear about the automatic treatment of ethnicity & religion. Now the usual caveats apply, a publisher will not be taken to court in France for saying a rabbi is Jewish (cf.  WP:DEFINING), but the court would object to someone with a perceivedly Jewish surname being categorized as Jewish in an on-line database (as happens from time to time at en.wp).  This case is somewhere in between those two poles, obviously.  Were Kosner European, he would have grounds for complaint because he was included in the ad-hoc category Jewish-American journalists until Coffee removed the category (here).  I think in cases like this people should respect the wishes of the entry subject. Still, there is no GDPR in the US.  Disclosure:  I am no more Jewish than I am Charlie (or Bravo, for that matter).--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, French law does not really apply here. In any case, this is not "someone with a perceivedly Jewish surname being categorized as Jewish". That Kosner is Jewish is something that he has stated himself and which is reliably sourced. An encyclopedia should not cater to the whims of people who want information removed from their biography, whatever information that would be. That is censoring. Debresser (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. A great many BLPs, particularly about actors and the like, include information like religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation even when it has not had a significant impact on what they are notable for. These sorts of information are I think fundamental to a biography. Once disclosed by the subject I don't see how this can just be swept under the rug. It's a slippery slope and bad precedent. This article should not get special treatment. —DIYeditor (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's make a difference between "fully disclosed" compared to "alluded to", in terms of a facet of his life that has no relevance on his importance. From what I've seen of Kosner's statements to "Jewish" in the published material, even his own words, this I would call "alluded to", and thus something to avoid inclusion. If and only he had said, in as so many words "I am of the Jewish faith", then we could include that as full disclosure. As soon we consider any language less than a direct disclsoure as acceptable, we may be second guessing meaning and violating BLP. --M asem  (t) 16:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "I’m a proud if non-observant Jew" is the direct statement he made. So we could quote him. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He says he's a non-observant, so that's a good reason to exclude, unless for some reason there was a need to address his faith. Then we could quote him. --M asem (t) 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Masem—you refer to "the Jewish faith". I don't think the slicing and dicing of the word "Jewish" into ethnicity, religion, faith, et cetera, is necessarily relevant to this discussion or even necessarily knowable. (You write If and only he had said, in as so many words "I am of the Jewish faith", then we could include that as full disclosure.) Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So we should only say someone is "Jewish" or put them in a "Jewish" category if they're an observant Jew? That would be treating "Jewish" as solely or primarily a religious belief, which is a minority view, not the mainstream view of reliable sources and Jews (the mainstream view being that it is primarily ethnicity or culture, not as primarily a religion, see e.g. the Pew and AJC sources I posted above). That Kosner views Jewish as primarily or solely a religious belief is no reason for Wikipedia to do the same, particularly when that's the minority and not the mainstream view. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what Masem said; this is not a black or white choice. The crux of the matter is that 1. he does not consider himself to be devoutly religious, 2. his religious background has come up in a minority of sources (NYT's singular reference to his upbringing as a ham-eating Jew, does not declare in any way what his beliefs were as a notable adult), 3. there is no evidence this is in any way key to his notability (that matters because the entire reason we have an article on him is the notability of his career), and 4. we are in no way required to cover irrelevant (or minor) facets of living people's lives on this encyclopedia. It is simply not our position to force Kosner to accept he is of an ethnicity he resoundingly states he is not, regardless of what the "mainstream" view is. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are suggesting could have far-reaching implications. For instance you say "we are in no way required to cover irrelevant (or minor) facets of living people's lives on this encyclopedia". Would it then follow that we should remove mention that people like Ivan Boesky and David Berkowitz are Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I hold no opinion on those articles, I have not reviewed them, and they are not what is being discussed here. This discussion should not (and in my opinion, does not) have "far-reaching implications"; what is included or excluded is determined on a case by case basis (per WP:VNOTSUFF). <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe it doesn't have "far-reaching implications". I can accept that. But do you think Kosner is primarily speaking about his article? I don't think so. They are primarily addressing the project as a whole. For instance one thing they say is "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously." (It is found at the top of "Arb Break 2 (Kosner)". ) Bus stop (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coffee, 2 points: Mr. Kosner has stated in reliable sources that he is Jewish, even proud of it. We are not forcing anything upon him that he has not willingly placed upon himself. We can simply state that he is Jewish without getting into exactly what that means. Secondly, you say that we are under no obligation to report minor facts, but we are reporting that his father was a clothing salesman and his mother was a housewife. Not only is it appropriate to mention facets such as these, it also goes a long way in preventing this bio from looking like a resume. StonyBrook (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Read what Kosner has said above: his point, and several others have said here, is that there is that is information that may be widely published in news sources that is still not appropriate for inclusion an encyclopedia that is meant to be about enduring long-term coverage. Because he is a journalist with absolutely no work involved in any area where his past ethnicity or religion would come up, he should not have to worry about discussing this in his own writings and having it appear in reputable biographies of his that follow the NYTimes standard for biographies (which we should be reasonably following as well). As a journalist, I *would* expect that where he went to school, where he worked before, etc. would be 100% relevant. If his journalism work focused on the Jewish community in New York City, then that also may his Jewish background relevant, but that's not the case here. --M asem (t) 22:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem 100%. People continuing to take Kosner's statement in Commentary out of context, simply to suit their arguments, is getting incredibly tiresome. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is not clear to me why is referring to the individual's "past ethnicity or religion" when the individual confirmed approximately 1 month ago that they were Jewish. One month ago is hardly the distant past. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear: in my opinion, whether Kosner wrote in to OTRS or not... his bio should never have been tagged with Category: Jewish-American journalists .  As for the text in the entry, prior to his OTRS request I would not have seen a problem with it being included.  However, all things being equal I see no encyclopedic grounds for doing so against his will.  So, IMO, the categorization was wrong-headed from the get-go (albeit common practice on en.wp, if not on fr.wp or de.wp), whereas the inclusion of the label in the text of the entry only became so after his request.  I also would note that the Commentary article came after attempts to deal with the situation quietly via OTRS. (That said, I'm somewhat sympathetic to Levivich's comments above about hell-raising / name-calling in the press as a means of pressure.)
 * Also, Mr. Kosner seems to have two WikiData entries (Q16104700,Q22998227), though I'm pleased to report that (at least for now) neither one of them includes ethnic or religious tags (property-value statements).-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , what about Category:American people of Jewish descent? The inclusion statement for that category is "Listed are American people for whom reliable sources have been found indicating partial Jewish ancestry, but who are not considered Jews. For Americans who are, see Category:American Jews." Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 17:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that that category, in its entirety, falls afoul of the guideline WP:CATDEFINING. A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), [...].  --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @SashiRolls I don't understand why you are so happy that his WikiData entries don't include "ethnic or religious tags". I see nothing good about this encyclopedia lacking information about its subjects, and unequivocally support inclusion of relevant information regarding ethnicity, including in categories. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably understanding why BLP makes Wikipedia different from a typical encyclopedia. If we were talking someone who died 20 years ago, we'd not have this concern, but BLP is a higher principle over "completeness" of data even if that data is available. --M asem (t) 18:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that BLP has anything to do with this. Debresser (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You "don't think" how we cover a biography of a living person on this site "has anything" to do with our Biographies of living persons policy? That is clearly a fallacious special pleading: "Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception)." <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't think that there is anything in BLP that says that we should honor a person's request to remove information which is neutral and well-sourced. Please don't use cheap rhetoric. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Logic is not "cheap rhetoric". Regardless, the BLP policy applies across the board in this case (and it clearly states we should consider and respect complaints by article subjects). Let me quote an area of the policy that has been left out thus far, but is entirely applicable (emphasis added): Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. ... Also beware of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit. This is something I and many others find irrelevant to include (his notability does not hinge on his religious affiliation), and the argument presented by those proposing inclusion has relied heavily on the circular reporting of Kosner's Commentary piece. You may believe we shouldn't treat BLPs differently than other article topics, but our long-standing consensus says otherwise. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 20:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Entirely separately from this discussion but related to this last comment, BLP should discussion avoiding material that has been the subject of a Streisand effect, unless that does become a factor towards the person's importance (such as, the fact that the Streisand effect is named after what happened with Barbara Streisand). What's happened with Kosner here - definitely falls into this area. --M asem (t) 21:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coffee, in reference to the quoted policy, I do believe that the biographical data we are discussing absolutely belongs in a disinterested appraisal of the subject. As for the circular reporting, I do not see the correlation; it is not as if a journal picked up on some unsourced assertion placed in WP. Patapsco introduced it with a source, it was deleted, then a new source appeared which corroborated Patapsco's inclusion even more strongly, this time with Mr. Kosner stating in his own voice that he is Jewish and even proud of it. It matters not how it came about, and it is not a circular reference as the policy is delineating it. StonyBrook (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The source used the second time was a Commentary piece about the edit being made on Wikipedia, that is clearly circular reporting. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not how I understand WP:CIRCULAR, which is all about using a journal or mirror that uses an unsourced fact that appeared in WP at some point; I get it that you recoil from considering the Commentary piece as a source, but the assertion being made therein is not depending upon something only found in WP and nowhere else; there are plenty of sources backing it up. StonyBrook (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Coffee, I still see nothing in your quotes from BLP that has any bearing on this discussion, so I am sorry to say, that I still view your invoking BLP as cheap rhetoric. Others have explained this in more detail, like StonyBrook in his word right above mine, but the point we are both trying to get across to you is, that there are no BLP issues involved. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Your inability to perceive how that policy applies does not affect the reality that it does. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 23:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless of course it doesn't. "The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I don't understand you." Debresser (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * if you click on the wikidata entries above and have a look at his VIAF entry or his LOC entry there is no mention of ethnicity / religion. I don't believe international databases list ethnicity as a general rule because of the differing cultural and legal frameworks concerning such labeling.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Good to see we're getting closer to consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Funny because I was coming here to close the thread because it's apparent there is no consensus here. What we do with no consensus in this case is clear (exclude). What are you seeing that is getting closer? I see largely the same arguments being trotted out for and against over and over again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that Nomo's post was sarcasm. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think Barkeep49 was joking too since they've been involved in the debate and can't really close it. Since Debresser added the empty ref-list talk template below, I guess I'll fill it up with the relevant reference for what I was saying above about ad-hoc categories and the GDPR (one of the differing cultural & legal frameworks I mentioned above).  Actually, this gives the "includes" a boost because of  e). Also FWIW, I (automatically) merged the two wikidata entries back down to the original pre-excitement entry.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do still think Coffee was right to remove these items for all of the internal reasons (guidelines/policies cited above) and general data-publisher "best practices". (+ being congenial) There is a tendency to categorize here in clerk-land, as everywhere.  I understand the Chinese do a lot of classifying of people, too.--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 19:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually my post was not sarcasm. I opened this thread and so I was going to make a bold "It's clear there's no consensus here" close; I sought feedback about how the community thinks and it's clear the community (like me) cares about this and also clear that we don't agree on whether it should be included. Our policies on what to do are clear in that instance (omit the information until there is consensus to include it). At this point I am not going to do that but i do think it's the right close to this thread at this moment and I hope someone does it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "No consensus - Exclude" seems reasonable at this point, an Rfc can always be opened sometime in the future if someone feels the need. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The theme, and possibly the consensus, that has emerged from this thread, is that the subject should be described not simply as "Jewish" but rather as a "nonobservant Jew" or similar wording. As several of us are supporting the inclusion of that further modifier—"nonobservant" or "non-practicing"—that could be a resolution to this massive discussion over what in my opinion should be a minor blip in an article on an erudite individual for whom I have unbridled respect, admittedly gathered from watching YouTube video interviews. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is not better to allow some uninvolved person to assess consensus rather than users that have been major contributors to the discussion? Govindaharihari (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Govindaharihari—I accept that an uninvolved editor should ultimately decide how to close this thread. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * and to include in that consideration, the projects high level of editing quality as regards WP:BLP including the subjects expressed concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But we should not misconstrue "the subjects expressed concerns", Govindaharihari. Their expressed concerns are not primarily about this one article. They are clear that the underlying reason they have pursued this matter is to bring about an adoption at Wikipedia of standards found at the New York Times for both living and dead subjects. Please see their above OTRS post. This thread is largely an irrelevancy. To institute their recommendation would appropriately call for a discussion at Village Pump and of course an outcome of such a discussion would apply to other articles as well. Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You should not misconstrue the word underlying to mean primarily. "Underlying" in this context refers to what has motivated him, it does not necessarily reflect what his primary concerns are at any given time. Saying we can't take his concerns about his own article into account, because he has discussed other articles, I find to be a red herring. What we're discussing here, primarily, is Edward Kosner's article. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 19:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * He has not "discussed other articles" and I have not said that he has "discussed other articles". Bus stop (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

As I understand it this is just the sort of thing (a throw away line in a review) that BLP is supposed to be about. The subject has objected to it [].Slatersteven (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you tell the difference between a throw away line in a source and a keeper? FWIW, it's a throwaway line in two reviews, plus several pages (I guess throwaway pages) in his autobiography, and the three other sources that list him as a notable Jewish journalist (I guess those are throwaway entries). Not that I'm trying to give you a hard time Slater, but I think calling the sources "throwaway lines" is rather dismissive, and I beseech upon you not to believe or repeat the falsehood that this dispute is based on a single mention in a single source. I wouldn't have argued for inclusion if it were; none of us would have. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 22:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe BLP is designed to protect people from throw away lines being included here. I 100% believe that. I believe that so strongly that I implement that in OTRS tickets I respond to. I don't believe it's supposed to be about BLP subjects being able to write about a topic in influential thought periodicals and in significant detail in their autobiography but also say we're not supposed to write about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is really all so simple. It is sourced. It is "self-identified". Discussion over. He likes it, he doesn't like it, he wrote an article about it, he corresponded with Coffee about it; it is all irrelevant. Debresser (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The individual is primarily addressing Wikipedia as a whole. Why should only their article be affected by their suggestions? Their argument does not pertain primarily to their article. They are suggesting a standard based on what the New York Times uses, that they argue should be applied to Wikipedia as a whole. They reference their own article at points in their OTRS posts but they make clear that "the underlying reason [they] have pursued this matter" is to cause Wikipedia to adopt the "commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries". Consider for example: "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously". Bus stop (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because discussing something, and self identifying are not the same thing (after all they self identify as a non observant Jew, so why not actually call him what he has called himself?). I could say "I am a nonpracticing musician (by the way I am nonpracticing because I cannot play)", does that mean I have self identified as a musician. Moreover he has explicitly said he does not wish to be identified as a jew at least partly out of fear. We have to take that into account as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For someone to convey that they cannot play at all, they would say "I am not a musician"; to convey that they can only play a few chords but not professionally or even regularly, they would say "I am not a practicing musician," but they are a musician nonetheless. As an aside, a bar mitzva boy (such as the young Mr. Kosner) who read the Torah (not clear if he did) is a kind of musician too. StonyBrook (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven I suggest calling Kosner exactly what he has called himself "a proud if non-observant Jew". If you were notable and RS had taken note of your musical skills and you called yourself proud if non-practicing musician I would suggest we could note that as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven—you say "Moreover he has explicitly said he does not wish to be identified as a jew at least partly out of fear." I have looked in the "Commentary" source and their OTRS posts but I'm not finding that. If you could post an excerpt that might help. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The eighth paragraph of the Commentary article is where you will find that answer. Along with Kosner's statements here (and their initial statments conveyed via OTRS that have not been released) there is a clear picture of someone who does not want their religion to be noted in their Wikipedia entry out of a fear (a word Kosner himself used in his first comment on this thread) of their life (and work) being stigmatized. I'm growing quite tired of rehashing this discussion. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Kosner's "Jewishness" should be excluded. First, we have no obligation to mention someone's ethnicity, even it it's written somewhere. Second, Kosner is correct that we have put him in a strange situation: the description in his wiki bio might have been excluded, but Kosner's objections to inclusion, and a published critique, are being used against him. The implication is that the subject of a BLP can do little to defend themselves. This is particularly troubling since there was and remains, throughout the world and in history, a problem of "Jew-tagging," however you want to understand that. Third, More or less all the "controversy" of Kosner's ethnicity first arises not from published sources, but from our own actions. Kudos to Kosner and to for the patience and persistence to put up with this nonsense. To the highly capable editors who have argued for inclusion, with all due respect, I disagree with you. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that he wrote the article, there is no way we can not have it. :) Jew-tagging may be a problem, but since the arguments of the editors who favor inclusion are policy and guideline based, this is not relevant. I woud have prefered it if you would have left the word "nonsense" at home. It kind of strikes against the hairs of people who disagree with you, like me, with respect, of course. Debresser (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi no offense intended, and if it helps, you can mentally substitute my word "nonsense" with Kosner's phrase, with which I agree: "...the modern equivalent of the medieval scholastics arguing over how many angels would fit on a pinhead." -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Although that expressing I think refers to a scholarly discussion of not too much practical import, while in this case you do have an opinion regarding the practical issue at hand. Debresser (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * —how is anything is "being used against him"? They wrote that they are proudly Jewish. Had they written that they were not Jewish or that they did not consider themselves Jewish, the descriptor would have been immediately and uncontestedly removed from the article. But instead they chose to say that they are proudly Jewish. How is anything being "used against him"? Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * your comment seems to prove Kosner's point that common sense is being ignored. Put yourself in Kosner's shoes. He wrote, "I felt that the introduction of my religion in Wikipedia was intrusive... I rarely if ever came across religious affiliation noted in Wikipedia biographies of other secular journalists and writers. So I set about stripping the reference from my entry, only to find that I’d been barred by Wikipedia from editing my own biography." Now, his attempt to remove what he felt was an inappropriate reference to his ethnicity or religion is being used to argue against his request, i.e., is being "used against him." If you want to argue that his wishes are irrelevant that's fine, but don't pretend he hasn't contacted us multiple times now asking to remove the "jew tag." -Darouet (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this point might go to the heart of this dispute. The deletionists assume that the passage is being used against the subject and the inclusionists do not. Is the editing community as a whole against our founder because we kept certain inconvenient truths in his own bio, something that the founder himself unsuccessfully tried to remove? We couldn't possibly be. And those facts could reasonably be described as putting our founder in a negative light, while here it is a really long stretch to claim this, no matter how passionately it is argued for. StonyBrook (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * is the fact that one is born Jewish an "inconvenient truth?" And since we're representing a publishing house here, what in your editorial judgement is the public interest in putting that tidbit in? -Darouet (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I am just trying to illustrate a point. There is stuff in Jimbo's page that anyone can find because it was placed there and allowed to remain, and yet that doesn't translate into "Wikipedians are against their founder" because that is not a correct thing to say; here that is surely not even remotely correct. Of course being Jewish isn't an inconvenient truth; but some editors, and Mr. Kosner himself, seem to think that it is. StonyBrook (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * my apologies, my question was unclear. What is the public interest in adding Kosner's Jewish ancestry? Something more substantive than, "it was placed there"? And if being Jewish isn't an inconvenient truth, maybe your comparison wasn't, in fact, apt? -Darouet (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The interest is quite simply: Knowledge. As to your second question, the unevenness itself is the proof; the Jimbo case is using argumentum a fortiori. StonyBrook (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this discussion is to achieve consensus, then my views align with Coffee, Masem and Darouet...and I think Levivitch is in there, too. Considering the possibility that I may have inadvertently missed a few arguments that may also align, the rest is, well...if I may say...not kosher.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 20:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * —the subject of the article does not primarily want to have "Jewish" removed from their article. They primarily wish to bring about a change at Wikipedia. You should read their OTRS posts. For instance: "This is the fair and commonsensical standard used by the New York Times in its obituaries. It is the standard I would like to see Wikipedia adopt for both living and dead subjects and it is the underlying reason I have pursued this matter so strenuously.". Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this discussion would advance a lot faster without the red herrings ad nauseam. Kosner clearly wants to have "Jewish" removed from his article, and that is primarily what we're discussing here. Kosner's musings about the site overall do not change that we're only talking about removing the religious descriptor from one article (Kosner's) currently. If that one line in his posts referring to the whole site is all you wish to focus on, please feel free to open up a broader discussion about the issue of jew-tagging overall at the Village Pump. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Kosner's statements don't have any impact on site policy overall: we're discussing his bio. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While framing this discussion to deal with his bio is correct, it is valuable to consider his point re: the NYtimes policy that avoids mention of ethnicity and religion on obits as a rational basis to consider for our own BLP. Whether to include that would need to be a policy discussion there, and treated as a suggested brought by a WP editor to be reviewed as per any other suggestion, but from the discussion here, it certainly has enough weight to consider having an RFC about it with some thought to make sure its framed right. But this discussion only will touch Kosney's bio, nothing else immediately. --M asem (t) 06:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * —you ask "What is the public interest in adding Kosner's Jewish ancestry?" Let me ask you a similar question—what is the public interest in adding the Jewish ancestry of Boesky, Madoff, Berkowitz, and Epstein? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whataboutism is a poor argument to use when dealing with BLPs. We aren't discussing those articles here, and no one has to jump through the various loops you're constructing to hold an opinion on whether to include or exclude the information on Kosner's article. If you think a discussion needs to be held on those articles, please open one up at the relevant talk pages. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with, and while I'm not an expert in those cases, a quick investigation of scholarly sources shows that Madoff's relationship with the Jewish community has received a lot of attention, with references to his own heritage prominently placed in the titles of articles on the topic. There's no comparison here with Kosner. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * —let us bear in mind that I am just responding to you. Surely you don't think your points should go unchallenged. You say "we have put him [Kosner] in a strange situation". I do not accept that assertion. Presumably Kosner spoke of their own free will when they asserted that they were proudly Jewish—in lieu of for instance an assertion that they did not consider themselves Jewish. I find it difficult to accept your characterization that "we have put him in a strange situation". Bus stop (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Exclude: the subject does not want to identify with the Jewish faith in his biography, considering the recent examples of anti-Jewish violence in the US. It's unclear who it's going to hurt to leave it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedia is going to get hurt. It is reliably sourced and there is no policy or guideline-based reason not to have it. If we start leaving out such information, we might as well close up shop. Debresser (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The subject wants to be identified as an American in his wiki bio. Yes, some sources mention his Jewish background, but it's a minor detail that is not critical to readers' understanding. It's not like Kostner is asking us to remove a major scandal; causing distress to a BLP subject is not the purpose of the project. It's common decency. I appreciate 's efforts in this regard. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak include, reliably sourced, subject self identifies as such. If there are broader issues with Jew-tagging this needs to be brought up elsewhere, this discussion is way overblown for such a minor issue of a person's biography, and everybody involved probably needs to cool off. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Off the topic of Kosner, but interested editors may want to take a look at this, is it Jew-tagging? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely Jew-tagging his father. The information about how he describes himself half-Jewish and not getting to decide whether he's Jewish or not is more appropriate in his personal life section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "my father's Jewish, my mother's not. I don't identify as Jewish in a religious way." Definite Jew tagging. Jews wouldn't consider him Jewish ethnically since his mother is not. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an overstatement; only some Jews subscribe to matrilineal descent. Levivich&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 03:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Note - Reverted bot-archival as this still needs closure. <small style="color:#999;text-shadow:#D3D3D3 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em">— Coffee  //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 21:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Asked for at WP:RFCLOSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)