Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:23, 27 June 2011 [1].

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients[edit]

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Kumioko, WP:MILHIST, WP:BIO

I anticipate this to be a problematic candidate but here are the issues I found:

  • the intro is completely inadequate; not only it is short, but it talks about racial discrimination... when being Jewish has nothing to do with race
Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first two sections are curiously not very well linked with eachother, which points towards the real problem:
Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • this list is OR, because while it lists individuals who received the award, the Jewish part is debatable at least. There have been some AfDs a few months ago with regards to "list of Jews" type ones, and the major issue was that while somebody may be able to show their ancestry, there is nothing in terms of references to show that these people practice Jewish customs, or eve care about their ancestry.
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Race is a more clear-cut division, but ethnicity, and especially Jewish ones, are extremely tricky. Yeah, such a list could be featured, but this one in specific is nowhere near close at not raising some eyebrows.

Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nergaal correctly identifies his nomination as problematic. He would do well, if in his personal subjective opinion is that the lede would be better if made longer (his very first bullet), to follow wp:sofixit, as long as his edits conform with consensus. I'll be happy to work with him in that regard. His second bullet is not an issue for here either. His third bullet is baseless -- if he were right, we would not have any references to Jews on wikipedia at all ... whether or not that is his preference, that is not how wp operates, as he may be aware if he has been involved in discussion of these issues elsewhere. His fourth bullet -- Tricky, tricky ... -- fails for the same reason as the third bullet. The third and fourth bullets are reminiscent of the arguments he raised that were rejected in his failed deletion effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and should fail here for the same reason that they failed there.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's put it blunt then: how is this list featured, when for there is absolutely no reference provided for either of the entires that these people actually identify themselves as Jewish. Who declares them Jewish? Wikipedia? Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For all but three of the recipients this source [2] lists them as Jewish recipients of the medal of honour, so I don't think its OR. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that source authoritative enough to declare them Jewish? Nergaal (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Kumioko

While I disagree that this list lacks the qualities necessary to be a Featured list I think some of your comments have some merit and I will work to improve the list over the next couple days. I do disagree that its OR. There are references for each of the individuals that identify them as being Jewish and I will try and incorporate them. I will also try to make the sections flow a little better as is the case of some of the other recipient lists. I partially disagree about the comments relating to the race and ethnicity. There has been quite a lot of documentation regarding persecution and prejudice towards Jews and regardless of whether its a racial issue or not I think the separation into its own list is fair. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some work for FA - Will this help??Moxy (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brody, Seymour (2003), Jewish heroes & heroines of America: 151 true stories of Jewish American heroism, Frederick Fell Publishers, ISBN 0883910268 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
  • Scharfstein, Sol (1997), Chronicle of Jewish History: From the Patriarchs to the 21st Century, KTAV Pub. House, p. 320, ISBN 0881255602 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
  • McTernan, John P (2008), As America Has Done to Israel, Xulon Press, p. 72, ISBN 9781600345456 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthor= (help)
Thanks that helps a lot. I also noticed there are a couple dead links for census info so I will get those fixed as well. --Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get an update on this nomination please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say update, what would you like to know. I have already made a few fixes and I just got the Book by Brody in the Mail so I can start looking through that for referencable material. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're doing what you need to do which is good, I wanted to know from the nominator how he felt too. We can't have an FLRC hanging around for too long. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - rightyho, been another couple of weeks, no further feedback from Nergaal or Kumioko. If I hear nothing in the next day or so, I'll close this as no consensus to demote (i.e. keep). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – I'd like to see some more work on this list before the FLRC closes. There are a few issues that should at least be looked at, the one tag in particular. I'm very uncomfortable letting a list with a tag keep FL status.
  • Obviously the dead link must be addressed. The good news is that a replacement for old Census statistics shouldn't be too hard to locate.
done --Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested in knowing if there are any copyright concerns from the size of some of these quotes in the table. A couple of them go for 8–10 sentences. I like the idea of having quotes, but how much is too much?
There are no copyright issues. All are in the Govt domain. I will shorten some though. --Kumioko (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The direct quote in the second first paragraph needs a cite.
Done - I removed this completely as I saw it as unnecessary and removing it did not adversely affect the article. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still see it. It's in the second sentence of the lead. Was this in reference to the comment below? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think I got it. I also added it to the body since it shouldn't be in the lede if its not in the body somewhere. Let me know if you see anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind citing the quote in the lead? I don't insist on people using references in the lead too often, but a direct quote is one of the things that should be cited in a lead section. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph of the American Jews section also needs citations.
  • The lead says "at least 18 American Jews" received the medal, but the Medal of Honor section says 21. What's with the difference? By the way, I count only 20 in the table. Is anyone missing?
Done The 18 represents the fact that the exact number of recipients is unsure. Different refs state different numbers between 18 and 20 as reflected in the notes. I have clarified and corrected the numbers in the article.--Kumioko (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator that the lead is short. Two small paragraphs is quite thin for an FL nowadays. It should be possible to beef it up with some more info from the two sections of prose, or some summary details from the table.
  • Note 3: Why is "Household" capitalized? Also, the book title should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delist

  • "This along with the *..." reads poorly and is very unclear
Can you clarify what your saying here I don't understand. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • intro is entirely insufficient: far too short and not very well written
Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • American Jews: choppy (However, it may be as high as 6,444,000 (2.2%).) Why is US contrasted with Israel? Why not Canada or another demographically similar country. Last half is missing refs.
Comment: the US is contrasted with Isreal only because they have the highest number of Jews. If Russia or Canada had the most I would have used them. Thats the only reason. Even then I only did it to emphasize the point about the size of the Jewish population in America as ademographic percentage as compared to the rest of the world. I might be able to locate some stats on some of the others, maybe who's next behind the US or something but I'm not sure if this article would benefit from that level of granularity. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandman888 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, there's a lot of good comments here. Still trying to get all the refs together. Sorry its taking so long. I have some of them now and should be able to start making some of the mentioned improvements soon. I understand though if it gets delisted. I've got a lot on my plate at the moment and I don't know exactly how long it will take to make all the changes.
One question though. Can someone take a look at this reference and tell me if its suitable. If nothing else it has a lot of refs listed that I can use...books and such. --Kumioko (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as Kumioko is still working on this, I'm prepared to keep the nomination going a little longer. Please, if you can help, do help. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so patient. Sorry its taking so long. I also sent out a couple of requests for some photos so hopefully Ill get those back sometime soon. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should be done in another day or so. I just need t add more details to the WWII and American Civil War sections. Then I can expand the lede and rewrite the American Jew and MOH sections a bit. I should be done by Friday at the latest. --Kumioko (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comments: this list has been improved considerably, IMO, since the beginning of this review. Good work. I would like to make the following comments/suggestions for improvement (most are minor style issues, which are suggestions only):
    • the lead needs work. It seems a bit choppy, i.e. one sentence doesn't seem to flow into the next. My suggestion would be to start by describing what the MoH is and then talk about how many Jewish Americans have received it. You might include a lit bit more detail here too, for instance maybe list the first and last recipients to represent the spread;
Your right. I hadn't really gotten to this yet. I was building up the rest of it and then I will expand the lede. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the second paragraph in the "American Jews and the Medal of Honor" section probably needs a citation: "the ultra-Orthodox Haredi communities to Jews who live a secular lifestyle";
Your right here. I am going to do some other work on this section too. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think this is done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the American Civil War section, this sentence possibly needs to be rewritten: "After the Medal of Honor was created through the present 1522 Received the Medal for actions during the American Civil War...";
Your right here. I am going to do some other work on this section too. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Kumioko (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the Notes fields in the tables, some of the sentences end in full stops, but others don't. Should this be consistent?
    • there seems like a bit of overlinking. For instance in the Korean War section Tibor Rubin is linked three times (four if you include the table). Also in the citations "United States Center for Military History" is linked a lot. Is that necessary?;
    • Citation # 1 "Thornton, 1990" - is there a page number?
On this one the whole book discusses the various wars and campaigns and the effects of them from the time columbus landed until the early 1900s. With the statement I made about it be a series of wars throughout that time period I couldn't think of a way to show hte page numbers without showing 10 or 12 different page numbers. --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. My understanding is that it is okay to quote a whole work in this way. Another possibility might be to provide a large page range, but either is probably fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 16 "Brands, 1997, pp.756" - is there a second page number (i.e the "pp" makes it look like it should be a page range);
Done - thanks. Its just the one page number as far as I can tell --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citation # 28 "Rausch, 1996" - is there a page number?
    • in the General references, are there publisher, location and ISBN details for the Boritt work;
Done --Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • in the General references section, should the works be organised alphabetically by author's surname? Currently they are not;
done --Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Hermes work?
done there was an LCCN. --Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • is there a location of publishing for the Hermes work?
done Washington DC --Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the titles of the References or the titles of the people (ie Sergeant, SSgt, etc.)--Kumioko (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I mean the titles of the References (books). Sorry, I realise now that my comment was a bit indistinct. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the caps are fixed now too. --Kumioko (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not especially familair with Judaism, the MoH or FL, but I was just passing by. I tightened a sentence and removed a pair of square brackets that had gone astray and thought I'd make the briefest of comments here. I would think there's room for expansion of the lead a little and the brief mention of the MoH and religious discrimination left me wanting—it would be nice if there were more to say, perhaps examples of other Jews who are thought to have been denied the MoH because of their religion. Perhaps something on anti-Semitism in the US military (without getting too distracted from the topic of the MoH). This is just a drive-by comment, not a real review, but if you need me to revisit it, ping my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to comment and your absolutely right. I intend to expand the lede some more and add a couple more things in the next couple days. I am trying to get some of the missing images and am looking through some references to see if there are any more missing or if they are mentioned anywhere else. I hope to wrap this FL up by this weekend. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I have a passing personal knowledge of MoH. The article seems to speculate or emphasize the view that low number of Jewish MoHs was related to anti-Semitism, but this is really not well proven or established scholarship. We should be more neutral here. Also the Jewish Virtual Library (webpage) is a poor source.TCO (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I am in favor of a list on Jewish MoHs, think there are enough of them, glad they are honored for their heroism, think we can work around definitional kvetches on ethnicity versus religion by use of appropriate notes and/or discussion in article. Just don't like the implicit Wiki-editorializing. We should play it more down the middle. If someone really wants to make a structured, argument that the MoH was systematically unfair, then write it up to professional standards and put it in a historical journal. We are not the right place for that sort of thing and peer review will look at it more thoughtfully anyway and allow debate at a high level. (And no, Jewish Virtual Library webpage is not what I mean by an academic journal.) TCO (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and tone it down a bit. I still need to expand the lede a bit and fix a few other minor things. I am also going to try and replace some of the lesser grade references like the one you mention and the Mishelov one. I don't really even like the home of Heroes so I will probably move that to external links. With that said I do think that there have been a couple specific cases of anti semitism such as the case of Tibor Rubin. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If Rubin was noteworthy for his late medal (and it sounds it) then we should definitely cover this aspect. I would clean up the "who many believe" (which who? vagueness is used to allow making an implicit statement by the writer). I would not generalize from that case to some general view that Jews are poorly treated in US Military for medal awards unless this is well established and agreed on. TCO (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like that much work has been done on the list in the last couple of weeks. Given that this has been at FLRC for almost two months now, we need to see some progress soon or this will have to be closed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - I do have some concerns about using race in the context of this list, and I would definitely like to see an actual link to the 1993 Army study that's mentioned in at least two places (in line with TCO's comments above). In the historical period covered by the list, discrimination existed against a number of groups, some based on race and in other cases based on national origin (I'm thinking here of the Irish, but the focus changed with each wave of immigration). At this point I just don't think the case for a separate list is strong enough.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently in the process of trying to get the 1993 and 1996 surveys because I agree. They are not available online as far as I can find but I have been asking around for them. I understand if you need to delist it although it would be very disappointing. Aside from these surveys I will try and get in and expand the lead a bit in the next couple days. --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to some information on the study (sorry if you've seen it already): http://www.history.army.mil/html/moh/mohb.html. The study seems to focus mostly on African-American stuff. And a link to a preview of the study as published in 1997: link Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, yes there were actually 2 different studies. One targetted Jewish and Asian Americans and the second targetted African Americans. --Kumioko (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from personal feelings and concerns about the a race/religion associated list and aside from the fact that I still have not been able to get the actual studies (I'm still working on it) I think I have addressed all the concerns identified above. The list has been massively rewritten even locating references with recipients that weren't there before and have now been added. Comparing the Current version to the version before we started here I feel like we have improved the article/list to the point were it can maintain its FL status. --Kumioko (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_Jewish_Medal_of_Honor_recipients/archive1&oldid=1089075482"