this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

General Discussion

12912 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules and Policies

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Regardless of your standing with regards to the Israel-Palestine war, this is an unexpected development as now legacy networks are finally paying serious attention to criticisms of Wikipedia after years of neglect.

Any observers who've been following Wikipedia-related rabbit holes long enough would know that criticism of Wikipedia is for a long time dominated by the political fringes (i.e. far-right) and many Wikipedia critics normally gets ridiculed out of the room as they're been characterized as "fascists" and "anti-knowledge". Now it's like a dream come true for those critics as they seemingly get vindicated on television networks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Re: the "Early Life" section, we actually have a guideline about that. Discussion of the subject's religion is allowed only under specific circumstances, namely when "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Unlike Christianity, which is far and away the prevailing religion in the US, religious minorities like Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. are more likely to receive coverage of said religion because it stands out more (for example, Eight Crazy Nights by Adam Sandler is way more noteworthy than some Christian director making a by-the-books Christmas film; religious minorities are more likely to talk at length about how their difference in religion impacts their work and identity; etc.) This is also why you're more likely to see a mention that an individual is gay, trans, etc. than "Jimmy Carter was cis and straight."

For example, Natalie Portman is frequently interviewed about subjects like her Jewish heritage, and her 'Early life' section brings up her Jewish heritage. Penn Jillette frequently advocates for atheism, and his 'Early life' page talks about how he became an atheist in his early teens. Mehmet Oz ("Dr. Oz") has talked about his Muslim faith in the past and was the first Muslim ever nominated by the GOP for the US Senate, so his 'Early life' section brings up Islam.

TL;DR: This happens on articles about famous people who are Jewish at a far higher rate than it happens with Christians (at least ones in the US and other areas where Christianity is the dominant religion), but 1) it happens for a reason within guidelines, 2) for that reason, you're always welcome to challenge that it falls within those guidelines, and 3) as you note, the same thing happens with other religious minorities.