Jump to content

Talk:List of Jewish atheists and agnostics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced names

[edit]

Is there any reason why all of the names on this list that are unsourced shouldn't just be removed without further discussion? Especially for those who are living persons. I don't even think articles like this should exist, but I am not going to nominate it myself because that is probably a lost cause. The names really do need to be sourced, though. Neutron (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that I was outpaced in my intentions to start this thread. Yes, Neutron, you touched an important issue. I'm determined to elaborate now each aspect thereof in full length and adequacy.
First, the “existence” question. You will need to consult the following thread: Talk:Jewish atheism#List of Jewish atheists. It will explain you the context in which it was decided to create this list.
At the beginning I drew from the “Jewish atheists” category heavily, hoping to add sources later along the way—which I have begun doing—but, as you pointed out, this is problematic in relation to Wikipedia's policy on living persons. What it tells me is that now that I work on providing sources, sources on living persons should get the privilege of being add earlier at this stage. I have seen cases when articles about persons hadn't been added to the “Jewish atheists” category before a verifying source was added first in the talk page, so all one has to do is to take those citations from there and add them here.
Now, here's a thought: this list has entries on individuals each of whom is both an atheists and a Jew, so are sources needed to certify both? My 0.02$ is “No, they aren't.” In articles that deal with individuals who are Jewish, especially if they are listed in the “Jewish atheists” category, it's normally well-established that they are Jewish and it's mentioned somewhere in their biographies; however, the subject's beliefs about God or gods are identified clearly only in some articles.
Lastly, after completion of our sourcing, I propose that we add the following notice—!--IMPORTANT: New entries must included a reference confirming that the added person is or was an [atheist]. Entries without references will be deleted.-->—as was done in the List of agnostics. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ninmacer20's contribution

[edit]

Hi, Ninmacer20. Thank you for your contribution. I was looking what famous individuals could be added to the list, and your contribution certainly aided in this respect.

Concerning the pictures, my original intention was to align each portrait approximately on the same level as the section in which the displayed person is named. I'm going to rearrange them now so as to fit this plan, but should you object, I'm willing to revert the contemporary order.

By the way, do you happen do be aware of Max Weber's personal position on theism? Everything Is Numbers (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Everything is Numbers. Anyway, I'd have no objections to your decision. I understand that I tend to include a superfluous amount of portraits on lists (such as this) than required. By all means, go ahead with your plans.

In regards to Weber's views, (from the sources that I've gathered) Weber's has claimed to be "amusical" in terms of religion. Sources: 1.) "It is well known that in his teens and student days Weber, although he called himself "amusical" in matters religious, read much theological literature, especially with his mother Helene, his aunt Ida Baumgarten (Helene's sister), and his cousin Otto Baumgarten, the young theologian." - Hartmut Lehmann and Guenther Roth, Weber's Protestant Ethic: Origins, Evidence, Contexts, Page 94.

2.)"In a letter of 1909 Weber had written, "I am a-musical as far as religion is concerned, and I have neither the desire nor the capacity to build religious architectures in myself." However, he added, "after a careful scrutiny, I may say that I am neither anti-nor a-religious."" - Klemens Von Klemperer, German Incertitudes, 1914-1945: The Stones and the Cathedral, Page 145. In regards of Weber's views on theism, I do not have a conclusive answer for Weber. Ninmacer20 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know we're standing on common ground.
Max Weber was very influential as a social scientist, so I'm extra interested in including him, but he's a hard nut to crack. Apparently, he never announced his view on God's existence or absence, despite his extensive writings on these sorts of religious topics. But—if I were to take a more permissive approach, I would argue that, given the sources that you had gathered, combined with Wikipedia's palpably less strict policy on deceased persons, it were sufficient to give Weber the verdict of at least a negative atheist. This is rather dilemmatic (is rain wet?). Everything Is Numbers (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On second thought, Weber might qualify as an apatheist. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added a lot of new entries. Where are you getting all these people? lol. I think I'll mostly leave the pictures alone at this point, except for a few minor changes, like cropping Paul Erdos' pic to match the other pictures' size. Also, if I'm not breaking any rules, I want to put a collage at the top such as the ones you find on pages about specific national groups (e.g., Israelis, Italian people). Everything Is Numbers (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before, by all means, go ahead with your plans. I trust your decision. Ninmacer20 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Good. I won't bother you with any more “announcements” then. Peace. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Nobel laureates stay marked?

[edit]

It goes back to when there had been a “Nobel laureates” section, which was later dissolved in the course of a structure reform. Vestigially it may be, I marked the laureates with an asterisk. We can do without it. But sure, I guess, the Jewish population does have a very high concentration of Nobel Prizes per capita, and some may find it useful or at least entertaining to have this reference. I just don't want to overemphasize the importance of the award. In the meantime, I will leave it as it is. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Jewish atheists

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Jewish atheists's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "daily":

  • From Mark Zuckerberg: Boggan, Steve (May 21, 2010). "The Billionaire Facebook Founder making a fortune from your secrets (though you probably don't know he's doing it)". Daily Mail. UK. Archived from the original on 2012-07-24. Retrieved August 30, 2010.
  • From Stephen Fry: "Stephen Fry dumps long-term partner for young actor as love life becomes Quite Interesting" Daily Mail 14 July 2010. Retrieved 14 July 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. checkY Everything Is Numbers (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Maher is not a JEWISH atheist

[edit]

Bill Maher said a million times that he is NOT JEWISH but raised catholic. Jewish is not a race. Maher is not a jew, culturally or religiously --Autismal (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ethnicity. You can call it a race, I guess, but I can't remember the last time I heard a Jew call it a race, and the Jewish people can't be any more of a race than the Romani people. Anyway, can you link to a recording or a text where Bill Maher explicitly states, “I am not Jewish”? EIN (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...people think we're Jewish and we're not. We were both raised Catholic", quoted here. However, as mentioned at the Jewish atheism article, an atheist born to a Jewish mother is generally considered a Jewish atheist, and Maher's mother was a Jew. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

[edit]

Wikipedia's inclusion standard on articles such as these are WP:V (and WP:BLP). The article's lede apparently attempts to create a special "definition" of what "Jewish" means, that is "Jewish ancestry from either lineage regardless of religious adherence". It also apprently attempts to create a special definition of what "atheist" is, that is "the absence of belief that any deities exist and, to a lesser extent, nontheism". On the other hand, Wikipedia's actual definition of "Jewish" is "an individual who is identified by reliable sources as Jewish", and its actual definition of "atheist" is "an individual who is identified by reliable sources as atheist" - the same way everything else is defined on Wikipedia. I wanted to open up the issue for discussion, before I brought the list into conformance with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be "special definitions" pertaining to Jews at articles such as this. Jews should be defined as those identified by reliable sources as being Jews. And there should not be "special definitions" pertaining to atheists at articles such as this. Atheists should be defined as those identified by reliable sources as being atheists. Therefore I am in agreement with the above. Bus stop (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, let's go to the Jews article and redefine the Jewish people as “individuals who are identified by reliable sources as Jewish.” Haha, sorry, couldn't resist it. But I'm sure I got my point across. EIN (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EIN—at the "Jews article" we would utilize reliable sources that are pertinent to the material that they are meant to support. Note in the two posts above the wording "on articles such as these"[1] (Jayjg) and "at articles such as this"[2] (me). Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now on the more serious side, I'm all ears. what specific changes to the article are you proposing? Do you consider the sources utilized in this article to be unreliable, or are you simply opposed to the inclusion of any definitions in the lead section? I've seen other lists on Wikipedia—I'm positive that you have as well—and many of them certainly do offer definitions in their lead sections. EIN (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EIN—the phrase "This list includes individuals who have Jewish ancestry from either lineage regardless of religious adherence, unlike the tradition within Orthodox Judaism, which accepts only maternal lineage" is not the definition of a Jew used in this list. Similarly the sentence "Here atheism is understood in its most inclusive sense as the absence of belief that any deities exist and, to a lesser extent, nontheism" is not the definition of an atheist used in this list. For the purposes of this list a Jew is a person supported by reliable sources as being a Jew, and for the purposes of this list an atheist is person supported by reliable sources as being an atheist. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the second sentence defines “atheism,” not “atheist,” though I would remove the “nontheism” part. As for the first sentence, what if we make the following changes (marked in bold)?

This list includes individuals who are confirmed by external sources to have Jewish ancestry from either lineage, regardless of religious adherence, unlike the tradition within Orthodox Judaism, which accepts only maternal lineage.

EIN (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you simply follow WP:V and WP:NOR and make the following change:

This list includes individuals who are confirmed by external sources to be both Jewish and atheists.

— Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every ethnicity list have basically the same criteria. It's simply policy, it seems redundant to have to state policy at the top of an article, as if it were unique here. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a bigger problem in that it includes many agnostics, which can be a very different identity than atheists, and also people who just define themselves as secular Jews, based on sources. So it seems problematic to include such people in this list, and maybe only those who actually say they are "atheist" and not just "non-religious" (again, which doesn't equal "atheist" to many people) should stay. Yuvn86 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I haven't seen any argument yet for keeping the material not supported by reliable secondary sources. I'll wait a few more days before removing the non-compliant items – which, unfortunately, are most of the ones here. Jayjg (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the WP:OR that characterized the opening paragraph for now. Again, it's not up to Wikipedia to decide whether or not an individual is a Jewish atheist or Jewish agnostic; Wikipedia relies solely on the determination of reliable sources, and not the determinations of Wikipedia editors. Jayjg (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mahler

[edit]

Including Gustav Mahler on a list of athiests is really ridiculous! He could just as well - actually much better - fit into a page "List of religious Jews", where "religious" is defined (defiantly - in mirror image to the way this page defines atheism) "in the most inclusive terms", as any form of deeply spiritual approach, beyond just Judaic dogmas. He's the most mystical, yearning, "God" obsessed, meaning-of-life obsessed composer of "classical music" there has ever been, even though the source here, perhaps correctly, describes him as professing agnosticism ("He was a confirmed agnostic, a doubter and seeker, never a soul at rest or at peace." - ie. not at peace in a complacent agnosticism either, let alone atheism!). He was well read in western philosophy, and so his cited profession of agnosticism fits in with his wide ranging appreciation (meaning the resulting indecision, and openess to non-personal, naturalistic, Monist and Pantheistic/Panentheistic mystical philosophies) caused by that. (NB. Some scholars on Spinoza see Spinoza advocating Panentheism, not Pantheism. So regarding him there is debate whether he can be related to atheism. However, he did not have Mahler's emotionalism and relentless mystical-personal confrontation with the crisis of existence.) However, for typical example, in Mahler's 2nd symphony - "the Resurrection" he sets a text of Nietzsche besides this:

"With wings I have won,
In love’s fierce striving,
I shall soar upwards to the light
to which no eye has penetrated!
I shall die in order to live!
Rise again, yes, thou shalt rise again,
my heart, in the twinkling of an eye!
What thou hast fought for
shall lead thee to God!"

Harold Schonberg writes of Mahler: "Inspires a frenzy". "Soul states, inner crises, ecstasy, transfiguration". "Mystical..Nature with a capital N". "Mahler's cosmic movements are hysterical. A frightened and anxious Mahler shrinks before the Infinite". "Disturbing to the type of person who prefers manliness to anguish". "Metaphysical search. Martydom". When Mahler was a young child and was asked what he wanted to become, he replied "a martyr"! Once as a young child, his father absently left him in the forest. When he returned, he found Gustav sitting entranced. The first symphony opens with a substained A, this sound of the wind in the treetops. His music is the most autobiographical of any composer. When asked what should be on his grave, he replied just his name - those who would go would know who he was.

I suspect a number of others on the list - of which Mahler is the most extremely inappropriate - are similarly shoe-horned into the anemic, impoverished, reductionist materialism "atheist" category viewpoint of the page's compiler. April8 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying problem, as outlined in the section above, is that editors have attempted to create their own definitions of "Jewish" and "atheist", rather than relying on reliable sources to make those determinations. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The first source is ridiculous; "When Mahler was asked why he never composed a Mass, he answered bluntly that he could never, with any degree of artistic or spiritual integrity, voice the Credo" does not make one an atheist/agnostic, and the article's author omits to mention the texts that Mahler used in his Symphonies Nos. 2 & 8. Nobody forced him to use those in his music, which is a claim regularly made with regard to his conversion. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title of this article to include agnostics?

[edit]

Should this article be titled "List of Jewish atheists or agnostics" or "List of Jewish atheists/agnostics?" It appears that quite a few people are already identified as being agnostic, and yet they remain on this list. This problem has already been mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. Because of this, I think the best solution would be to change the title and definition of the article to either of the two forms I suggested. Based on the current list of names, it appears (in my view) that the purpose of this article would be to identify people that are not devoted or practicing Jews (although I don't suggest to use these terms in the article's definition), rather than simply being Jewish atheists. Also, I think that a broader definition would be more interesting than just identifying pure Jewish atheists. Additionally, sometimes people don't even know how they define themselves and may alternately at times use either atheist or agnostic. Because of this I think it makes more sense to have the article try to be inclusive, rather than to exclude people, which possibly should be done if the title remains unchanged. Hence I believe a title change is both necessary and appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.120.186 (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. I'll wait for others to see their response before changing the title. Ninmacer20 (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wittgenstein

[edit]

Ludwig Wittgenstein's beliefs were complicated, but I don't think it's appropriate to designate him as being either an "atheist" or an "agnostic." Sadly, he read some Tolstoy thing, which was apparently the only book in some bombed out bookshop that he took refuge in during WW1, and thereafter became something of a mystic. He certainly did believe in "God," and not in the metaphorical sense of Einstein's "God." Speaking as a semi-fan of Wittgenstein and an atheist, it pains me to point out that Wittgenstein shouldn't really be included in this list -- the citations to his "agnosticism" are very misleading... Bertrand Russell (a genuine atheist) was much dismayed at his former pupil's turn to the supernatural.

They were complicated indeed. You could even say he was more "spitiritual" than most agnostics and atheists. But to say he "centainly did believe in God" is an exaggeration. We have 4 sources in the article that confirm he was not interested in religion and didn't show signs of believing in any god. Clausgroi (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The front collage.

[edit]

The collage at the beginning of the article displays Mark Zuckerberg, who, as I'm sure most you know, renounced his atheism a couple months back. I reckon that his portrait ought to be replaced with another but there are scores of other prominent Jewish atheists so I'll leave that to others to debate, I suppose.

LaunchOctopus (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collage image needs to be updated

[edit]

Some of these people, such as Mark Zuckerberg and Nina Hartley, no longer identify as atheists. Dpm12 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Dpm12 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of Jewish atheists and agnostics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article exist?

[edit]

I'm not sure why this article is needed. I'm not entirely opposed to it, especially if the Jewish community as a whole isn't, but I can't help but wonder if most people who stumble on this list might be antisemites finding out who their "enemies" are. 223.29.216.138 (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate on your argument? I find it difficult to follow.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that atheists and Jewish people are both hated by certain extremist groups (for example, the Ku Klux Klan), and a title like "List of Jewish atheists and agnostics" reads to me like an alt-right hitlist. I'm sure that isn't the intention, but I'm just not sure why else the list needs to exist. Besides my concerns about the list looking like a hitlist, it can by no means be exhaustive, and it isn't clear to me what the threshold of fame should be to include someone on the list. If my neighbor is an atheist of Jewish descent, then should she be included?
An article like "List of Jewish actors and actresses", on the other hand, seems much easier to justify. Being an actor at least implies being a public and notable figure. 223.29.216.138 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your concern.
Only self-identified, documented atheists who are also otherwise prominent in some way, appear in any of the Wikipedia lists of atheists.
Thus persons on any of those lists are essentially self-selected. No non-prominent persons appear.
Some atheists of the Jewish faith might actually object to finding themselves delisted.
And should they prefer not to be listed, they need only declare themselves no longer atheist.
I hope this information is helpful.
Best regards, Nihil novi (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David ben Avigor Grun's lasting legacy

[edit]

https://dev.matzav.com/the-true-source-of-religious-secular-tension-in-israel-the-arrogance-of-ben-gurion-and-now-naftali-bennett/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.142.38 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Monroe?

[edit]

It is just absurd. If you join a tennis club and not actually play the sport, you are not a 'non-active tennis player', or to be a non-active member of a political party and call yourself apolitical, would you be mentioned in its history? According to Marilyn Monroe, she converted because of Miller and after the divorce kept some things associated with the religion, which is probably more nostalgic than anything. She wasn't born or educated as a jew and didn't practise it. It might be kept as trivia, because it is not without interest (beside the glamour), but to feature her with an image here, is trivialising the lemma. There are so many others, who could be honoured with a picture here. MenkinAlRire 17:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

Looking at the list as a whole, if it weren't somewhat random in the first place, the structure is bad. Public figures between the 'hard and soft' sciences? Music is entertainment, but literature not. The old-school term humanities doesn't anymore (since most of the listed were born in the 20th ct. They should be listed in part with the social sciences as human sciences. The others under Arts and entertainment - cinema is considered an art form since at least the 50s and some of their staff also work in theatre, and since recently comics are, too. They are all just mediums of expression. What distinguishes the novelists from the ones listed above? And Hannah Arendt was not an activist, as is Gordimer (hint: Nobel Prize for Literature); "activism" here quite hard to determine since most people did other things for a living, that defines all others listed here. ... MenkinAlRire 18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Jewish_atheists_and_agnostics&oldid=1208252935"