Talk:Edward Kosner

Sources for BLP inclusion

As per the OTRS above and BLP issues I am posting sources that are WP worthy.

1. [1] clearly show subject is a proud Jew and that is also notable and due, considering the article.

This was from @Levivich::

1. Kosner's autobiography (already in the article), pp. 5-9, 17-19, 31, 50, 59. Examples: p. 17: As my bar mitzvah approached ... Like other assimilating second-generation American Jews, my parents were observant in the most idiosyncratic way.; p. 18: When the big Saturday of the bar mitvah finally came, I sang like a little Jewish prince and my mother kvelled with pleasure.
2. New York Times "No buccaneer, Kosner, born in 1937, grew up a ham-eating, third-generation assimilating Jew in Washington Heights." (this source was removed by your edit)
3. Wall St Journal "Mr. Kosner grew up as the precocious only child of a marginally middle-class Jewish family."
4. Jews in American Politics, p. 134, lists him among "Jewish practitioners ... dealing with a Jewish heritage."
5. American Space, Jewish Time, p. 135, lists him among "Jews who have occupied pivotal positions in the media"
6. The author of American Space, Jewish Time also wrote a report published by Oxford U Press and available at policyarchive.org, The American Jew as Journalist, pp. 165–166, which lists him among Jews "conspicuously at the top" (this source was removed by your edit

All in all, it clearly shows that the subject of this article has passed BLP concerns. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• This comment by Levivich was posted to my talkpage, and I had this response that somehow has been skipped over by Sir Joseph:

I hope all is well with you too, and hope you had a good Purim. Unfortunately, I have to bounce this to the talk page of the article per WP:ONUS (feel free to copy over my comment). While it may be verifiable, I personally do not think it improves the article, and it is clear the article subject does not either. I know that's not the response you were looking for, but I cannot in good conscience support this addition at this time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

So, until consensus is reached this should not be on the article, per WP:ONUS. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, Does Wikipedia censor itself to the subject of the article? While at one point in time your concern may have been valid, perhaps, at this point in time the BLP concerns are indeed covered and more than that, the notability of the subject's religion is worthy for inclusion in the article. He specifically wrote about it for his magazine. He wrote, "I am a proud Jew." That, and all the sources above meet Wikipedia guidelines. If he didn't want it mentioned, he shouldn't have written about it. We don't censor Wikipedia based on what the subject wants. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Coffee, the ONUS is on you to exclude. Kosner made this into a deal by writing about this in a national magazine. We don't censor our encyclopedia based on what Kosner wants. Had he not written about it, it might never had gotten into the encyclopedia. Further, you claim that I don't equal consensus, but @Levivich: and myself both posted sources that satisfy BLP and ONUS. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should, in the personal life section quote Kosner. Specifically Kosner describes himself as, "a proud if non-observant Jew". and cite to commentary. This combined with the other RS that have made note of this fact is more than sufficient for me to warrant inclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, my original wording was simply, "Kosner, who is Jewish, was born in NYC".... and that's it. If others want to expand, that is fine as well, but I think as a biography, we should include the bare minimum. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not ride or die by the language I'm proposing. I do draw a line at it being in the personal section and not the LEAD but it seems like we're in agreement there. For me the virtue of sourcing to commentary is two fold: one it's recent, two it gets around BLP issues. Arguably so does the autobiography. Either way it more that satisfies WP:BLPSELFPUB. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• Of course I agree with SJ and BK and think some mention should be included, though I'm flexible as to how exactly. Both SJ's original edit and BK's suggestion look good to me. When the NYT wrote about him, they mentioned that he's Jewish. So did WSJ. His autobiography included pages on the topic. We have a clear recent statement from the subject in the Commentary piece. Basically I think this BLP is incomplete if we don't include it, since it's significant enough of a detail to have been included by multiple RS, and we should follow the sources as always. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think Barkeep49's suggestion is the more accurate and thus preferable one per WP:BLP. After all, "X is Y" is not strictly the same as "X is non-observant Y", the latter including additional vital information. Regards SoWhy 07:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with BK's suggestion but I want to express my disagreement with the notion that whether a Jew is "observant" or not is vital information or even important information (and thus preferable under BLP policy). Being Jewish doesn't mean holding a set of religious beliefs-it's more of an ethnicity than a religion-and this distinction underpins the entire question of "who is a Jew". Case in point: Kosner considers himself Jewish even though he's non-observant. I only say this to point out that we shouldn't sort biographies on Wikipedia into "observant Jews" and "non-observant Jews". Most sources just say "Jewish", they don't make the distinction between observant and non-observant, and even if Kosner himself makes the distinction, it doesn't mean the encyclopedia has to, or even should. (I say this as a non-observant Jew myself. "Non-observant" is the default position when it comes to Judaism.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: That was my point though. Since being Jewish mixes religion and ethnicity in a way many other religions and ethnicities don't, someone who is referring to themselves as Jewish might be referring to their ethnicity, their religious beliefs or both. As such, clarifying that the subject only refers to the ethnicity part, seems to me (a non-Jewish atheist) more precise than saying they are Jewish. I don't think "Non-observant" is the default position when it comes to Judaism is sufficiently well-known to all readers of all backgrounds so that we can assume that anyone reading "X is Jewish" will infer that this only refers to ethnicity and not religious beliefs. Regards SoWhy 07:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  SoWhy, you're right, I have no objection to including "non-observant" in the article, in this instance it's the more-accurate formulation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I was reading the comments in the thread on Jimbo's talk page - link - and it seems clear to me that this detail should remaim excluded for the bio through WP:BLP concerns, regards. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, which specific BLP concerns are those? I argue that it easily meets all five criteria of WP:BLPSELFPUB so my argument for inclusion is based firmly on BLP policy. He literally just wrote an article in a prominent publication about his Jewish identity and Wikipedia so he can't be too concerned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would say that's a complete understatement and misrepresentation of Kosner's article and the clear concern he has about having this be such a key part of his Wikipedia entry. I continue to maintain my view that this should not be re-added to the article. I don't think us using a commentary by someone about how they don't publicly self-identify as Jewish (while noting they are Jewish) is a proper understanding of BLP or BLPCAT, and such arguments do not sway me in this matter. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, how can you say they don't publicly self-identify as Jewish? He just wrote an article in a national magazine publicly self-identifying as Jewish? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Except I think we have RS showing that they do publicly identify as a Jew. They wrote about it in their autobiography. They wrote about it in an op ed. I can think of at least a dozen journalists who are Jewish but who have not written about it and for whom I would, and have, supported such removals. We need to be respectful of the people we write about. But respect does not mean that they get to decide what information is included here when they themselves include it in other places. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee would this assuage you? In a May 2020 commentary article Kosner notes he does not publicly identify as a Jew though he does describe himself as "a proud if non-observant Jew". I find this a second choice to the original language I proposed but would accept it if you felt it a reasonable compromise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  It is just not an importantant enough aspect of his life story notability to be focussing on, also, that article was created in response to his objections to this inclusion in his article in the first place, so there are still indeed WP:BLP concerns, it was those concerns that caused the article to be written in the first place. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, he wrote about it in a nationally circulated magazine. That's important enough. Think about it, we're all talking about it. Last week there was no discussion about his religion anywhere on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  edit conflict - The comment in support of inclusion here seem to say that 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) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Sir Joseph: Given this line in the Commentary story you linked to, and clearly have read at this point, I'm a bit surprised you think you should be commenting on this topic at all: "He was right. It’s possible, I wrote back, that the “editor” who introduced Jewish identity into my and many other entries was so proud of the Jewish contribution to journalism and literature that he wanted the world to know about all these accomplished Jews. But, given the recent spate of overt anti-Semitism here and in Europe, it was certainly plausible that the intruder was trying to stigmatize Jewish “notables,” in the Wikipedia term of art. It seemed to me possible that Wikipedia was naively invoking a valid standard—reliable citation—to enable its material to be doctored by a stealth anti-Semite." — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  The allegations you quoted are, in my view, defamatory. The suggestion that any of the editors who added the content or supported its inclusion are antisemitic is deeply offensive and inappropriate. This has no relation to antisemitism whatsoever. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  They aren't my words. I'm pointing out that Sir Joseph is clearly topic-banned from antisemitic discussions broadly construed, and this definitely falls under that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  This definitely does not fall under that. This discussion has nothing, nothing at all, to do with antisemitism. Not everything involving Jews has to do with antisemitism. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  We're not just dealing with concerns of Jewish identity, we're dealing with concerns of an article subject about masked and rampant antisemitism. This therefore certainly does fall under SJ's topic ban, even without the "broadly construed" modifier. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  This entire discussion is about whether to restore content added in two edits, both of which you removed: Special:Diff/912384397 and Special:Diff/951408808. Which of those two edits concerns masked and rampant antisemitism? If the answer is "neither", then that's how we know this has nothing to do with masked and rampant antisemitism. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Specifically the second link, Special:Diff/951408808, which uses the commentary as a reference. In that commentary the author relays clear concerns about Antisemtism (which I quoted above) being a potential motivator for the actions to his article (and others). This isn't difficult to comprehend. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Barkeep49, what would assuage me is if someone could show that this is actually a part of his inherent notability. As in, show that him being Jewish has directly impacted his overall notability. So far, I'm not seeing that case (and that includes his coverage of his childhood background in the autobiography). At this stage it feels like we're trying to find a way to include something someone doesn't want in their article, simply because they released an opinion piece in Commentary about their experience in trying to remove this from their article. That doesn't sit right to me on an ethical level, and I'm resoundingly in opposition to such behavior. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Coffee, what about the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Jews in American Politics, American Space, Jewish Time, and The American Jew as Journalist? If "Jewish" is important enough for the NYT and WSJ (and those are short pieces), why not for our article? If he's important enough to include in the latter three sources, as an example of a prominent Jewish journalist, then why isn't that significant enough to include in our article? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, further, is his being from NYC an important part of his biography? What about the fact that his father was a salesman for underwear? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Regarding having this be such a key part of his Wikipedia entry, I don't see the proposed edits as being "a key part" of the article. SJ's edit was literally three words, "who is Jewish". That's not "key", that's a brief mention. As SJ said above, it's no different than mentioning what city he's from or what his father did for a living. None of it is "key". Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be better to say that he was born to jewish parents, as in the Jeffrey Epstein article? I feel that a mention of his jewishness should be included in the article in some capacity, as this is standard in most biographies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That was the original formulation that was removed by Coffee, and I also support that formulation, as well as the other two. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I very much agree with Coffee and Jimbo Wales 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." --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  TheSandDoctor, What is my editing history? I haven't really edited much by adding "Jews" to articles or tagging much, or similar. If you're trying to insinuate something, please provide diffs. As we saw in the AN, Coffee was told to stop his mass removals. So please cease your insinuations. This article has nothing to do with my TBAN and your implication as such is just trying to stop me from editing and trying to stop criticism of the process. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Dispute resolution reminds us to focus on content not editors. If you have conduct concerns TSD (and Coffee) there are venues where those could be discussed. This should stay focused on the content at hand not the identities of the editors participating in the discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  That is something I agree with, because if we are here to raise personal issues, then I think that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Coffee_removing_Categories_and_Lists_Inappropriately raises some concerns as well. Debresser (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• I find myself to be in agreement with those in favor of mentioning the subject's Jewish heritage in some form, simply due to the preponderance of sources noting same. But on a side note, I came across the following sentence in the Alex Azar article while generally looking into this matter:

His father is of Maronite Lebanese descent, while his maternal grandfather was a Jewish immigrant from the Russian Empire.

Now, can someone please explain how the minor Jewish angle for this high-profile person is relevant, especially that it is sourced only to an issu site that is difficult to verify? It is a case like this that I find more troubling than the one at hand. StonyBrook (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That is the kind of mention that I don't think should be included so I removed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@StonyBrook I see at least 6 sources right at the start of this thread. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are not for Alex Azar. StonyBrook (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales' thoughts on the matter at hand

While Jimbo does not speak for the community as a whole, I find these comments from the relevant discussion at his talk page (link) to be worth noting (see below). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I only have a general comment as I can't really speak to the specifics of this example, not knowing anything about Edward Kosner, who I believe I only ever heard of just now. In the past when I have done a quick spot check, I believe that for many prominent people (Nobel Prize winners and business people come to mind immediately) we are more likely to mention Jewish heritage than we are to mention other heritages. This is only my impression, but it should be noted that many other prominent people have commented to me that they have the same impression. I think the reasons are two-fold and contradictory. First, there may be a problem with anti-semites wanting to make sure that everyone associates people like Jeffrey Epstein and Bernie Madoff with being Jewish. Second, there may be a problem with pro-Jewish people feeling a certain amount of pride in Nobel Prize winners or successful people generally and wanting to include their Jewishness. Neither of those is good, although obviously the former is more problematic from a BLP point of view.

There is also a further complication in that Jewishness is both an ethnic identity and a religion in a way that, say, Roman Catholicism isn't. I full agree with ianmacm up above: "This is an area where care is needed and it has to be notable to say that someone is Jewish."

What I'd love to see is some (casual, doesn't have to be super formal, but should follow a reasonable methodology) basic research into the question: are we more likely to over-emphasize Jewishness than other religions/ethnicities?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, some good points, but my comments were specific to this example. In this case, even with impeccable sourcing, the religion was not included because the subject did not want it on his page. He then wrote about it in a national magazine, where he said he threatened to withhold WMF funding unless it was removed. He also said that he was a proud Jew. And he also said, he investigated one of the editors of his article and tried to find out the identity of that person. I was more interested in the WMF/withholding funds and threatening editors aspects. I know once he writes about his religion and that he's a proud Jew, he tripped the Streisand effect and ironically it's now notable for inclusion. I was though wondering if while OTRS was deleting all these tags, should they also have mentioned that the WMF was threatened with funds withholding (even if it would never happen or if it was minor), and I was also wondering if you've ever seen or dealt with someone threatening an editor of an article, as Kosner did. Since people might now be a bit more hesitant to edit BLP's if powerful people can track them down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I very much don't agree with you. WP:NAVEL almost certainly applies here. This absolutely does not rise to the level that makes the fact relevant to his biography. Remember, we are writing a biography of him which means that it should contain the most important facts about him. If anything, he's established in a RS that being Jewish is not an important fact about him. The bit about withholding funds - I think you putting it that way is plainly ridiculous. He says that he answered a fund raising email saying that he'd be more inclined to give if he saw a better way to solve what he regarded (quite rightly) as a BLP issue. That hardly amounts to a "threat to withhold funds". Such an approach makes me feel inclined to review your edit history - others are likely to - just to be sure you aren't some kind of POV pusher on this topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

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. I have to admit that the addition ", a Jew" is not how I would add this information. Perhaps something a bit more subtle in the Early life section, is the way this is usually done. Such subtlety may help to assuage the WP:UNDUE concerns, by making the mention less pronounced. Something along the lines of Barkeep49's proposal at the (non-)Rfc below. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC Proposal

Given the concerns and vehemence of positions raised by multiple editors above, I do not think we are going to find consensus by discussion. As such I think the right next step is to choose a different kind of dispute resolution. I propose the following RfC and hope we can at least reach consensus about this format:

==Request for Comment==

Categories: Biography and Religion ( {{rfc|bio|reli|rfcid=D623144}}}} )

Should the following be included in in the Personal life section:

Kosner describes himself as, "a proud if non-observant Jew"

References

===Discussion===

Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• To quote you Barkeep, I do not think we are going to find consensus by discussion - Just because you can't see consensus for your desired inclusion is no excuse to start an RFC. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Govindaharihari, you do realize the numbers show more people want it included in one way or another? Only Coffee and yourself on this page are against inclusion, everyone else is for inclusion. So there is consensus of editors who commented. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  In fairness I do not see consensus in the discussion above to include it. I also don't see consensus not to include it. I see no consensus, hence as I noted below, why I'm suggesting this as a way to (hopefully) find consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  What do you mean an "excuse" to start an RfC? I am trying to use our designated dispute resolution process. In this case multiple editors feel strongly. And so, to help resolve the dispute, we invite broader participation through an RfC in order to find consensus. If you think there's a better method of dispute resolution I would welcome the suggestion and is part of the reason why I proposed this RfC rather than just launching it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me but I'll ask whether any additional references should be added, such as to his autobiography, e.g. in a bundled cite. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• I get the idea, but disagree with the implementation. And considering there is a very new discussion happening above (still very much in progress), I think it's a bit of a jump to run for an RFC here. If an RFC is run (and I do not agree that we need one this second or this day), I think it would definitely need to include the very real concerns of the article subject... not just a one sided unethical approach to blasting this onto his article regardless of how careful we're supposed to be with BLPs. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough on timing. I don't see you accepting it being included and I don't see myself changing my mind that it should be included (and that's setting aside other participants) but I respect that you think more discussion might lead to consensus. That said, I welcome you to propose an alternate format if you think what I proposed is not the best format if/when we reach the RfC stage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, FWIW I don't think we've tried BLPN yet. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

  Levivich, since conversation seems to have plateaued which path do you think is better, BLPN or RfC? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, I think BLPN is the more incremental step. Maybe a few more editors weighing in here from BLPN will help establish consensus on this talk page (which, frankly, I think already exists, but that's not up to me) without a full blown RFC. If not, they can help formulate a neutrally worded RFC question. Either way, more voices won't hurt (usually 🙂). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• If and when this Rfc will be officially opened, please notify all editors who participated in the discussion above. Debresser (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Our article should probably derive its text from his May 2020 assertion that "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."[2] The phrase "proud if non-observant Jew" would seem to be appropriate for inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

• In this specific case, I am struggling to see an intrinsic connection between his Jewishness and his notability. For that matter, I don't see how that he lives in New York and Florida has anything to do with anything either. Ditch ∝ 03:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion posted at BLP Noticeboard

I have as suggested by Levivich posted about this disagreement, in what I believe to be a neutral (though intentionally incomplete) manner, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Edward_Kosner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Question: should this BLP include the information that the subject is Jewish? 09:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Views

There is currently a consensus finding discussion underway at WP:BLPN which was opened no less than 12 hours ago by Barkeep49 above. I fail to see why we should have two concurrent discussions on this matter where everyone has to state thrice (including the original discussion here) what their opinions are. I ask that this be at the very least temporarily suspended, if not entirely cancelled. BLPN is more than an adequate forum for such a discussion to take place, and there's more than an adequate level of discussion already occuring. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to do this regardless of the damage this does to the consensus building process, I find it necessary to restate my prior views on this subject (I've copied what everyone else had said thus far at BLPN below [for consistency's sake], but given the weird seperation by the RFC originator of views vs. discussion... it is necessary to replace my original view here):

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)

• Just noting for the closer that I lay out my reasons for inclusion in the hatted discussion below so I will not repeat here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Nomoskedasticity: please just delete this RFC before Legobot circulates it and people start responding. The question is poorly worded and I agree with others that launching an RFC in this way and at this time is disruptive. I know your intention is to help bring this closer to resolution but this RFC has the opposite effect. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Nomoskedasticity: I second the motion that this RFC is premature, poorly worded, arguably forum shopping, a failure to get the point, and the optics of opening it while another discussion is ongoing — especially with this current wording — are not good. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

This content [below] has been copied from the BLPN thread, which started 12 hours before this RFC was hastily begun. (Previous note from Coffee. Nomoskedasticity adds: that BLPN discussion can be viewed here (or at BLPN), but it doesn't work to portray it as a discussion happening in response to the RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 Coffee 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) 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 a proud if non-observant Jew. 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 [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 [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 {{Infobox}} 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 [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 [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 [dubious – discuss] 07:05, 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) Copied from Talk:Edward Kosner as relevant here as well (diff): I very much agree with Coffee and Jimbo Wales 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." --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC) TheSandDoctor, how is this relevant here as well? Levivich [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. — 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 [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 ∝ 03:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Ditch Fisher, 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 ∝ 05:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC) I am wrong, sorry. It's been a long 3 weeks. Ditch ∝ 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 Coffee. 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. Cullen328 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC) In the spirit of accuracy, TheSandDoctor, 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. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC) There was no consensus to mass-revert the removals. Levivich [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. — 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 [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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) 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. — 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. — 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 [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.--♦IanMacM♦ (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: [3]. 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More coverage of this article, but paywalled

So I haven't read it: The Mystery of the Wikipedia Editor Who Obsessively Keeps Track of Jews Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång: As its Wikipedia page states, Mosaic (magazine) "offers daily summaries and links to stories around the web." That is the case here. The URL you provided does not lead to original coverage, but merely to a teaser for Edward Kosner's Commentary piece, including a fully functional link thereto. Mosaic′s prominent sign-up box is for email, not subscription. There is nothing to see here. Just move along, folks. NedFausa (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at BLPN closed

The discussion regarding Kosner's religious background, and whether it should be included/excluded, has been closed by Drmies. Following is what the closing administrator wrote:

I am going to chop right through this Gordian knot, at the risk of displeasing half or more of the participants here. My general comments are derived from the discussion below, but there is too much here to ascribe each viewpoint to the various editors who have argued (mostly very reasonable and courteously) for them. a. If something is verified, that does not necessarily mean it should be included. b. Religious, national, and cultural identities are important and can sometimes conflict, in that for similar people one weighs more than the other. c. "Jewishness" is a category that is difficult to identify; it is not the only one that's difficult, but it is one that frequently causes dispute in Wikipedia and elsewhere; the subject mentioned the term "Jew-tagging", but editors cannot agree on how to take that. d. Some reliable sources mention it; it does not appear, though, that many of them discuss it as an important part of the subject's work. (And now to the point:) e. We cannot easily agree and the subject doesn't want it in here. When in doubt in BLP cases, err on the side of caution and give proper weight to the Living Person's wishes--the UTRS post shouldn't be cited, but that is irrelevant: the subject spoke and we have no reason to doubt it. The article in its current "non-Jewish" condition makes no mention elsewhere of work for which "Jewishness", one way or another, is important; we have a responsibility toward the Living Person that their wishes (and let's not forget that to a great extent we often rely on identification and self-identification as mentioned in reliable sources) be respected at least within reasonable bounds: I find that excluding it here is supported by a significant enough number of participants to make it a reasonable response to the request, and that BLP concerns tip it over the edge. In case you are wondering to which extent I'm just performing a supervote here: I actually do not agree with some important points the Living Person made in their UTRS post, but I cherish the BLP above many other things.

My dear Wikipedia colleagues, this may well be something we will never agree on, and I suppose that is fine. Thank you all for this informative and respectful discussion. Drmies 17:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The link to the close is located here. Cheers, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Coffee—I think an important correction to what you say above is called for. The discussion was not about "Kosner's religious background". You are misconstruing the nature of the discussion. No editor ever argued that Kosner was "religious" and Kosner does not present himself as "religious". He presents himself as a "non-observant Jew". This is important because it applies to about fifty percent of American Jews. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in splitting hairs about this with you. I'll simply note that (as anyone can see by clicking on the link) Barkeep49 stated in the opening of the BLPN discussion "There is disagreement whether to note Edward Kosner's religion (Judaism) in his article" which clearly shows the discussion was about... his "religion". The discussions about this have dragged on for weeks, and further discussion of the same matter is incredibly tiresome. If you want to beat a dead horse, feel free too. There are plenty of other more useful ways I wish to spend my time. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was about whether or not to mention in our biography that Kosner is Jewish. An admin named Drmies closed the discussion. That discussion is over. The result of that discussion is that there is no need to mention in our biography that Kosner is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a black day for Wikipedia, now that an admin decided that a person's wishes supersede factual reporting. We are an encyclopedia, and that is what should have been the main consideration here, not how people prefer to be perpetuated. A black day indeed. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that this person is a Jew. Does Wikipedia no longer include simple facts? 50.89.97.148 (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)