User talk:Threeafterthree

Welcome.......

Tom's Archives
March 31st, 2006 – May 16th, 2006 May 17th, 2006 – July 24th, 2006 July 25th, 2006 – August 31st, 2006 Sept 1st, 2006 – April 19th, 2007 x/x/x – x/x/x

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. I will respond to you in here AND copy and paste the thread onto your talk page as well. Thank you.

My RfA

Hello Threeafterthree, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński

There is no requirement that sources have to be in English. The fact that this site includes this biography means that they are asserting that he was Jewish.--Runcorn 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Runcom, English sites are preffered per WP:V. Also, my Polish is very weak, but I don't even see that this person is mention on that site. Anyways, can we keep that material out until we have some reliable sources in English? Thanks, --Tom 23:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources have to be in English. I now ask you formally, please, do not delete properly sourced material.--Runcorn 08:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Krzysztof Kamil Baczyński‎. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Runcorn 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but asking for sources for material in question in not vandalism/ Please stop pushing your agenda here. --Tom 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Spielberg

Hi, Finally, an editor with the same "allergy" to "fluff" writing in Wikipedia. Like you, I am tired of "fluff" writing, especially in music and arts articles, when we hear that so-and-so band is "the most influential and important rock band in the history of music" and that so-and-so rock singer "is widely considered to have the greatest voice in all of rock history." Whenever I see this style of writing, I purge it!Nazamo 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually believe that there are "others" of "us" out there :). Seriously, I have been only removing material from the project lately since at least 90% if not more, of the material in here is without sources. The project has exploded in content over the last 18 months. Good and bad imho. Most of the material is probably correct or added in good faith, but without references, who should believe it? I surely would not. Anyways, best of luck and let me know if you need assistance with "fluff removal". Cheers! --Tom 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In such circumstances, a better approach--even if only a first step--is to put in an indication that support for the unsourced statement is lacking. If after a period of time none is added, deletion is appropriate.

If there is reliable evidence that supports the notion that the entry is incorrect, or if it is disparaging information--especially of a living person--immediate deletion can well be appropriate.

Otherwise, if one's agenda is to improve Wiki, premature deletion (rather than citation tagging) fails to help us towards our goal IMHO. Epeefleche 23:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"_____ actress"/"actress from _____"

Sorry, I don't really see the difference here in terms of Kidman being born in the USA(?) The only reason I prefer "actress from Australia" is simply because it is unusual (and I think ugly) to have footnotes in the middle of sentences, and the fn obviously needs to come straight after "Australia". Grant | Talk 16:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article says "from", a reader might wrongly think she was born there. Anyways, no biggie, cheers!--Tom 18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

MMM

Please stop edit warring over your apparent wish to delete accurate and verified content from the article, thanks. Gwen Gale 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please advise what your agenda is here? Thanks --Tom 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you revert the article again within the next 24 hours or so you will be in violation of 3rr. Please stop edit warring. If you feel so strongly about this you might want to consider an RfC. Gwen Gale 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

dido to you. --Tom 18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

inaccurate media reports article

What you removed is a summary of the main page on inaccurate media reports of the VT massacre. Not all of them were unsourced. Don't remove them unless you know for sure. If you want to note that sources are needed or that any of the claims are under specualtion that's fine with me, but please don't delete them. -Youngidealist 20:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Samaha's Lebanese descent

You said: "That material should be removed ASAP. Unless we are going to go into EVERYBODIES ethnic background, it's offensive and unnecessary. --Tom 00:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)"

It's a stretch to call it offensive when the information is widely circulated: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Reema+Lebanese&btnG=Search WhisperToMe 01:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are adding ethnic background info to ALL victims, then its prefectly OK. If not, then I still think its offensive. Just because its widely published means little. --Tom 12:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no position on your dispute, but would point out that the fact that it is widely published is of great importance under a Wiki notability analysis. In fact, it is more important than whether either of you in your subjective POV believe it to be notable. Epeefleche 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

You've now twice removed the word "controversial" on the grounds it is POV, and now that it's unsourced. Please read the article itself, which contains multiple sources (as does the sub article). Read before asserting.  ;-) /Blaxthos 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Do ANY of those sources SAY that Fox's slogan is "controversial" or are you summizing that on your own? --Tom 12:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And you've now reverted a third time. Please be aware that if you revert again, you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Doing so leaves you vulnerable to being blocked for disruption. Please discuss without continuing to revert. - auburnpilot talk 20:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA Warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Fox News Channel: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You might also want to consider going easy on the profanity and other behavior that could be construed as incivility. /Blaxthos 22:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

yadda, yadda, yadda --Tom 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Page Article Vandalism

Hello. I've been watching the Larry Page article over a few months. The "jewish" references have been bouncing in and out nearly every day lately, and at least 2-3 times each week over that entire period. At one point someone had a not-very-authoritative reference, but otherwise they have typically been unreferenced. Anyhow, can we safely assume that this is vandalism, or might some people be adding this with good intentions? I'm wondering if you might be willing to help me research this, and set a solid answer, or do something to curtail this. Any ideas? Jrmski 23:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jrmski, the key point is when you use the word "intentions" above. Some people would like to add this material out of ethnic pride. Some people would like to add this material to prove some anti-semetic theory. Whatever the case, only SOURCED, RELIABLE, RELEVANT material should be added to improve the article and NOT based on anybodies intentions. People from BOTH sides dislike the edits I make so I know I am doing good work :). Bottom line, ANY material that is added to this project should have a reliable source provided AND be relevant to the article. Is this easy? Big no. Thanks for your comment and best of luck with your editing experiences here. Cheers! --Tom 14:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom on many of his above points. As he says, no doubt some people seek to insert these references out of ethnic pride (I would add that some try to prevent them out of hostility towards the ethnicity--the opposite side of the coin). And, as he points out, some wosh to "prove" an anti-semitic theory (I would add here as well that some are seeking to provide evidence weighing against any antisemitic theory--this, for example, is one of the avowed purposes of one of the Jewish Sports Halls of Fame).

I also agree with Tom's suggestions that information should be sourced and reliable. This is the same point that applies to all information added to Wiki, however. It does not mean that every reference to the fact that someone is Jewish must be individually footnoted. Any more than there is a requirement to the fact that they are German must be footnoted. But the same level of support is required. And, I would suggest, if there is good faith controversy as to whether the person is Jewish (or German), one might wish to make certain that the external links, at minimum, support that notion. If someone calls for a footnote for each such reference, without any apparent reason to quwstion it, it may well be that the person wishes to quash the appearance of the information for a reason other than their belief it its being accurate.

The last point Tom makes is the only one that I differ on. There is no requirement that, to reflect that a person is Jewish, one need make a case for how that is relevant. That might, perhaps, be the focus of an argument as to whether mention properly belongs in the first para. But I have not seen any Wiki support for the notion, presented by Tom, that that must be proven for reflection within the text of the article. Wiki doesn't require it for saying one is German, or born on a certain date. Nor does Wiki policy require it for reference to the fact that they are Jews. Moreover, repeated references to the fact that a person is Jewish on multuiple sources supports the fact that they are notable for it, as notability is defined on Wiki.

Cheers. Epeefleche 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:Original research

I will explain a crucial response to this:

"This is sort of like the nationality issue. Are we going to go into detail about where EVERYBODY was when they were shot. If so, fine, otherwise, does this really needed to be added to a few folks "bios" or whatever we are calling their listing? Just adking for now and will not remove. Thanks, --Tom 20:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

Here's mine: I-do-not-have-the-information-for-the-others. I-would-gladly-supply-it-if-I-had-the-information. There.

See, the argument above is invalidated by WP:OR and the fact that we have limited information at the moment. Instead of asking for some of the details to be excised, wait patiently for more information to trickle about the fates of the people. See, I can tolerate the reaction with the descents since the details were fairly trivial. With death locations, they are directly relevant to the V-Tech massacre.

I would gladly add the other death positions if I had information for everybody (I.E. maps of the dead) - Until then, deleting the information on the people we have would cheapen the quality of this article.

If you can find a document with the information for the others, I would be glad to have it and thank you endlessly :)

WhisperToMe 03:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Zivb2006's stray comment

Do YOU know what the word outwith means???

Hello Tom, how are you? in continue to the message you sent me i have created myself a username that is called "zivb2006" and i hope i am able to edit wikipedia again.If there is something i would like to ask than i would do so. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zivb2006 (talk • contribs)

Good or evil?

Thanks for letting me know. He created the category as an attempt to do an end-run around the deletion of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_19#Category:People_who_have_renounced_Judaism. However, the category he created has also been deleted: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_8#Category:Jews_who_converted_to_Christianity Please let me know if he attempts to re-create it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I would welcome your input at Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Meadows Massacre

You're very welcome. I don't know why Friday is believed to be significant. I've seen several "fate freeks" who try to get significance that this massacre also happened on Sept. 11. But not the day of the week. But this article has been nothing but a series of edit wars. Unfortunate, it's just one of those subjects people cannot discuss without passion. With that said, I think at this time to convince people one way or the other is pointless and would advise backing off until calmer heads prevail.Davemeistermoab 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just add that while I think the article's marginally better off without mentioning "Friday", it's not going to suffer greatly if the word stays in the lead while we sort it out on the talk page. I think we can come to a consensus fairly quickly if we let the edit war die down. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you believe in the tooth fairy as well :). The owners of this article will NEVER EVER EVER allow "Friday" to be removed from the lead. All I want to know is WHY!! Thanks! --Tom 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User to keep an eye on

One who is evidently pushing some sort of pro-German or German-American agenda, most recently edited at [1] and [2]. Mainly on the article German American, where he has added stuff like "Others are prominent celebrities and complete the impressive list of famous German Americans", and List of famous German Americans, where he is using a lot of unreliable websites with no credited authors. Cheers, Mad Jack 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Those pesky Germans :). I actually have my hands full with two totally ridiculous edit wars that I can't let go, but I must. This place can be SO dam frustrating sometimes. Anyways, thanks for the note and I will check it out. I could use a PRODUCTIVE distraction from my current nonsense :) Cheers MAdJ! --Tom 17:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You were reported at 3RR for edit warring on Fox News Channel. Although I am not blocking you at this time, I strongly recommend you take an active role in the discussion on the talk page. Your position may have merit, but edit warring is not the way to get it done. Kafziel ^Talk 17:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel. Thanks for not blocking me. The last edit was just to add a fact tag. I will try to discuss but some folks are very militant and have a real bias/agenda. Anyways, thanks again! --Tom 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kafziel, justed wanted to let you know I'm also done editing Fox News for now and responding to Blaxthos. It really has gotten childish. Thanks, --Tom 14:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear. I think everyone could use a break from that article for a little while. Kafziel ^Talk 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

Why did you revert me? I added a category to the article, together with a good reference to substantiate the category.--20.138.246.89 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Per wp:blp, the individual must self-identify and it must be relevant to the article. don't see either. Please stop with this. --Tom 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP; it says nothing about ethnic categories.--20.138.246.89 16:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, cut the crap. You have made some good additions, but you have also made some very questionable ones that points to some type of agenda. You are an anon IP that is obviously interested in Jewish issues. Nothing wrong with that except it will raise a BIG red flag around here to certain editors. Anyways, --Tom 16:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't listen to threats. I have made a properly sourced addition 100% in conformity with Wikipedia policies. If you don't like it, please ask for mediation.--20.138.246.89 16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

mediation? The only thing I am going to ask for is a good stiff drink. ENOUGH!!--Tom 16:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Sorry to barge into your talk page (Larry Sanger is on my watchlist), but I'm confused about your post above, and feel it may be taken the worng way. Would you be willing to clarfiy what you meant by editors interested in Jewish issues raising a big red flag for certain other editors? IronDuke 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, please, no need to apologize, as you can see I've got my hands full with way to many editors dealing with ridulous issues(full moon you know). Alot of time I type responses very quickly and what I'm thinking in my head doesn't come out right in print. What I meant above, is that if an editor, works on say Lists of Jewish folks, or Jewish issues type articles, ect. alot of good faith editors,like yourself and others, will see them because they are on their watch list. I have no idea what this person's INTENTIONS are but I'm pretty sure he has them, be they good faith or more sinister. I was actually blocked by, my now friend, Jayjg because I had been removing "Jewish-American" from the lead sentence of many bios where it had been added out of questionable motivations. Bottom line, when an anon IP, only edits cetain article relating to Jewish persons or topics, its not bad that the community take a look and make sure things are on the up and up. All I ask for is sources. Sources, sources, sources. I hope this helps a little and also please feel free to e-mail me if you would like to take this off line as it were. Regards! --Tom 16:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. No need to go offline, I think. While I have no opinion on the matter you and the anon are discussing, I wanted to be sure that it was clear to him/her that having an interest in Jewish issues on AP was in no way a bad or suspicious thing. Sometimes editors who get a little too specific, e.g., an editor who only tries to insert negative material into the Donovan McNabb article and makes no other edits, can be looked at askance. But there are plenty of WP specialists in a host of areas, as I'm sure you know. Cheers. IronDuke 16:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having a specific area of interest is prefectly acceptable and very understandable. I actually find biographies of living persons to be of interest. As you said, its more an "editing" pattern, if you will. The way I got into this whole thing, a number of editors added "Jewish-American" to the lead sentence of approximately 300-400 bios about 18 months ago. Their intentions?? Not sure, but it didn't really matter since it didn't appear to conform to Wiki standardizations. I reverted literally 100s of these and ended up being blocked for a month for "creepy anti-Jewish feel to edits" editing . Anyways, --Tom 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I can really say on this issue is that there is so much unsourced info on Wikipedia that I wouldn't go around deleting sourced info (well, unless it violated WP:MOSBIO or some other style guide, etc.) Mad Jack 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to be more specific, you should ask the anon exactly what the reference says about Sanger being Jewish. I'd guess it to be a full-length article from the title. Mad Jack 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Brought to this page only because I saw that just made another unhelpful RV, where the Wiki policy refers only to placement of the information, rather than make a helpful move of the information, I see from the above that this is something you say you have done hundreds of times. My thoughts on that are below.

I must say I also share some concern about your reference to those interested in Jewish bios. I read all of your comments here, twice in fact, and other than your reference to drinking and sending out comments that do not reflect your thoughts, is see little to clarify it for me in a way that is comforting. Perhaps you could help us all out and take a moment before hitting the enter button, to make sure that it both reflects your thoughts and does not have a tone that one could read as personally insulting? That would be appreciated, and helpful I would think.

I see nothing in Wiki policy, including that that you have pointed to, to suggest that you should delete references to the fact that the subject of the bio is Jewish. There is no need to gather support for the impact of this fact on their life. Just as we often indicate that a person was born on, say, june 3, or that they are American, without any felt need to support inclusion of that information based on its impact on their life. Same here.

There is a discussion that can be had as to whether the fact that a person is Jewish is properly placed if it appears in the first paragraph of, say, an article about all of the following: Sandy Koufax, Angela Buxton, and Marty Glickman, or only some of them--with that information being more properly presented lower down in the article. But that is the limit of any Wiki-based policy discussion on this issue.

Finally, when the anon made what I thought was a perfectly good point, backed by a (linked, for your ease of reference) reference to Wiki policy, for you to respond by simply saying "cut the crap"--and then fail to engage him in a thoughtful intellectual discussion of the issue, does little to advance your cause. Nor does it match your self-description as one who is only interested in sources. He provided a source. You tried to shout him down. That is not, I would suggest, the most courteous or helpful response. Even anon's can make helpful revisions and thoughtful, accurate, and polite arguments.

Let's all work together here to make this a better product. Epeefleche 22:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll make it perfectly clear. THEIR ARE ANTI-SEMITES IN HERE. ARE YOU ONE? I CAN'T TELL ANYMORE. --Tom 13:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I am not an anti-semite. Not in the least. My longest discussions of late have been my attempt to stop one user from RVing the fact that certain chess players are Jewish (he seems to be against people knowing this ... Look at the discussion on the Reuben Fine talk page if this interests you),fending off an attempt to delete "Jewish fencers" as a category by editors who had previously failed to delete Jewish sportspeople as a category (their deletion effort failed), and seeking to stop their effort then to delete "Jewish figure skaters as a category--their effort to my surprise has initially been succeddful, though I am hopeful that its current deletion review will come up with a non-delete conclusion consistent with prior decisions.

Anti-semites don't tend to have a hankering to reflect the fact that accomplished Jewish sportspeople are Jewish. And I'm certainly not one.

I don't know whether you are an antisemite or not, but I am willing to work with everyone as long as they work within the Wiki rules. The effort to make Wiki Judenrein is not supported by Wiki policy, so I'm willong to just work with Wiki policy without bringing into play whether people on the other side of the discussion are anti-semitic or not.

Why are people so emotional on the issue of Jewish sportspeople? Well, all the books and articles about them suggest an interest that I would guess largely stems from pride. Why would others take the opposite view? Can't think of many great reasons, but as Wiki policy suggests that they should not prevail, I guess I don't need to know in order to suggest that their view sgould not prevail.

Have a great weekend!Epeefleche 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, as long as sources can be provided for your additions and SOME effort is made to incorporate the material into the article so it "flows" and has some relevance, I have no problem with that. Anyways, have a great weekend yourself! Cheers, --Tom 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. "Sources can be provided" is the same requirement as we have for mention of nationality. Makes sense. As to it flowing, that is of course the goal. If it doesn't flow, a "fix the flow" approach does far less damage to the article IMHO than a "delete the accurate material for flow reasons.". At minimum (worst case), it can always go into a Miscellaneous section.

There is no greater requirement for a cite to how being Jewish impacted their life, btw, than there is that there be a cite to how being Russian, say, impacted their life.

Deletion of good material that could be better placed or presented serves only to degrade the quality of the bio.

Btw--any thoughts on this issue? Some editors, for whatever reason, RV edits that x is Jewish, insisting on only saying that x's parents were Jewish. I think this is wrong-headed for a few reasons. 1-the article is about x, not the parents, so the fact that x is jewish should be of greater interest and relevance. And 2-the child usually is the same religion as the parent, but not always (as they grow older and exercise choice). Thoughts?

Test2 warning

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Baxter. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Runcorn 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not vandalism. Its called removing unsourced material from the biography of a living person. Please take it to the article's talk page. Thanks, --Tom 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not unsourced. It is sourced to Who's Who in the World.--Runcorn 20:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Helpful revisions

Hello. I think it would be much more helpful if you would, when you run into text that you believe Wiki policy suggests should not be part of the initial paragraph of a bio, move that information to a location in the bio that strikes you as more appropriate. For you to instead take the somewhat draconian step of deleting the information from the bio, because of your understanding of an issue of form that speaks only to the proper location of the information, is decidedly less helpful and has a deletirious effect on the article.

Surely, you would not delete information due to a typo, and then point to the fact that the spellin was wrong. It would be great if you would take the same helpful step here that you would with a typo, and "fix" it rather than delete it.

Thanks much. Epeefleche 22:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest Epee, we have crossed swords before as it were :) about this. My big problem is that I see bios where a person's "Jewishness" is inserted into the article in a way that, oh course, imho, looks, feels very awkward. Inserting that material for no other sake than it's own doesn't improve the article. If its a full blown bio, ok, it makes sense, but like I said, I see bios where it looks totally out of place. Anyways, I try to stick to the LEAD sentence of bios per Wiki's manual of style. I am in NO way trying to ethnically cleanse articles ect. In fact, I am trying to battle what I feel are some people's negative agenda of pushing some type of Jewish conspiracy theory about everybody being of Jewish decent, ect. If there are RELIABLE, easily checked sources, fine, whatever, I'm done battling folks over this. Look at the note below. I have NO idea what is up with that but will have to check it out. I'm actually getting VERY tired of editing this project because it just has gotten to be too much battling over what? I really think this project is amazing and enjoy alot of folks around here but I'm closing to leaving for awhile. I took some time of befoe and it might be time to do that again. Anyways, take care and thanks for your note. Cheers, --Tom 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you help please

I am delighted to see that you wish to stop users with an agenda. There are a few editors who appear (WP:AGF, I may be misunderstanding) to have an agenda to remove references to Jewishness from biographical articles and to delete names from lists of Jews. They often make incorrect references to WP:BLP (which does not cover ethnic categories). I am sure that you will wish to oppose any such moves.--Brownlee 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No I can't help. I'm very close to the edge right now. --Tom 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Schlesinger

Tom, thank you for your message. Schlesinger is an interesting guy for many reasons. One of them -not necessarily the most important - is that he was Jewish, known to be so, and provoked reactions from notable people (including Beethoven) as a consequence. I don't have any agenda in pushing this, it just happens to be a fact. I get the message that you don't like this fact, although I have not yet understood your reasons. But then I am just a WP editor, not a sociologist or psychiatrist. Actually to be perfectly honest I have enough on my plate without even wanting to understand your reasons. It just happens that I know a fair amount about Schlesinger and I had a desire to put in on WP. When I have time I will fill out more stuff about him, which is nothing to do with his Jewishness. But that won't stop him from having been Jewish, and relevantly so for WP purposes. --Smerus 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't give a rat's ass about this guy or his ethnicity. Its about people's agenda pushing in here and Wiki's manual of style when it comes to biographies. Unforetunately anti-semitic editors like to mess with bios of Jewish folks so the best thing to do to aviod this is to standardize the way the bios are treated to minimize this. Please look at the bulk of bios out there. Thanks, --Tom 13:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to but in, but I agree that it shouldn't be mentioned that someone is Jewish in the introduction unless it is the essence of their notoriety, i.e. in Moses Mendelsohn's case. Regarding your opposition to my Category:Jewish converts to Christianity, User:JJay pointed out that there was an exact such list published in the Jewish Encyclopedia here and even statistics on the numbers converted and to what branch of Christianity. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gustav, I never made ANY opinion as to the category you mentioned above. Regards, --Tom 14:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you did post a message on the categories talkpage asking if it was "good or evil" and then reported the category to Jayjg which resulting in him deleting the entire category so I assumed you were opposed to it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I posted that because I wasn't sure what the intentions were, though I felt there might be some. Anyways, I am sort of bonked right now so I really don't have an opinion right now. Er, what was the question :). Anyways, carry on :) --Tom 12:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO if he is Jewsish, and the same support for that fact exists as for the fact of his nationality, it is appropriate for it to go in.

As to whether there are antisemites who wish to stress that bad people are jewish, that may be. Just as they may wish to de-stress that accomplished people are jewish.

All we need to do, I think, is follow the rules, and let the chips fall as they may.

See my discussion above with Tom. Thanks.

Epeefleche 17:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Furniss deletions

Tom, would you be so kind as to email me when you get a spare moment... I'm at [email protected], cheers

Hello Tom, why delete the links on the Harry Furniss page to external sites? He was an illustrator, so a link to a site that shows his illustrations seems useful. You've deleted all of my other links. Can you let me know why? EC4 19:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi EC4, per wp:el, blogs are not allowed around here. Nothing personal. Cheers! --Tom 19:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tom

Me again, couldn't work out how to add to the above post! Thanks for the reply. I've got it now. Is this site definitely classed as a blog? Anyway, I'll defer to your better judgement. I won't put the links back. Thanks again, and apologies for being such a beginner. EC4 19:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi EC4, absolutely NO need to apologize. Everybody was new here once. I have over 3,000 edits and I still have a ton to learn :). I saw "blog" in the url so I think its safe to assume its some type of blog. Also, please try to use the "edit summary" when editing. This allows other editors to view the article history and see what or why you did what you did and your thinking. Keep editing but be aware this can become addicting :). Most folks are very friendly and willing to help. If I can help just drop a line like you did above. Cheers! --Tom 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What do I do with an editor who deletes my comments?

Hi Tom. Given your experience, perhaps you have a suggestion as to how I might best address this issue.

In a discussion on a review of a category deletion decision, a person with views contrary to mine has deleted my comments (without my permission) from the discussion page, and moved them to another page.

I've asked him to RV his change. But he hasn't.

We all dislike edit wars.

What is the most effective way for me to address this, procedurally?

Thanks much. Epeefleche 08:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epee, the first thing to do is take a DEEP breath :). Seriously, I like to get other eyes involved, as you have done. Can you provide a link to where he "moved" your comments? The only time that is remotely appropriate is if their was some type of personal attack, ect which I would be VERY surprised knowing you or if you posted comments in the "wrong" place ect. There are many places like WP:AIV or WP:RFC to report disruption/problem editors. I usually don't do that because if the person is hell bent on being a jerk, I doubt they will listen to anybody, and I am lazy :) I usually just stay at them and ask for assistance from other knowledgeable editors. You sort of have to pick your battles and decide how much effort is it really worth. Again, if you provide a link I would be happy to review it and add my opinion or revert as appropriate. Cheers! --Tom 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom regarding your opposition to Jewish categories please think about this. Jews did not have their own state until the 1940s after 2000 years of being denied one by the Romans and the Ottomans. The idea that categories related to state and occupation are only related to the geographic area and have nothing to with self identification or a sense of belonging to a people is wrong. If you get what you want in deleting these categories there will seem to have been no Jews who did anything throughout history because they were always citizens (often not even full citizens) of various states. Is that what you want? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Where have I said that I want to delete these categories? I just left a comment about the many other like categories out there. My friend User:Jack O'Lantern, is a voice of reason and very tuned into these issues. I would get his imput. Bottom line, we should only call/list/categorize folks the way they have ALREADY been classified by established, peer reviewed sources. We shouldn't decide or think anything, we should sort of be like mushrooms :). Seriously, just provide sources that back up our material EXACTLY as we want to present it. Cheers! --Tom 14:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC) ps, for the umptenth time, its not about denying Jewish history or accomplishments, ect. I myself am of Polish Jewish descent. Its about standardization of presenting material, not doing original research, and reaching consenus in a forum open to 6 BILLION editors :) Cheers! --Tom 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the url that you requested ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_3 any advice as to how I might most appropriately address the problem of his deleting my comment from the discussion page (and moving it to another page) would be much appreciated. Thanks. Epeefleche 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gustav-as to your above point, just to muddy your impression of Tom, I've actually asked for his advice here where the fellow on the other side is taking a "let's delete this Jewish category" approach. But is doing so in a, let's say "heavy handed" manner. And if u look at thurl I provide above, you will see that my comment which he moved from the talk page included a comment not dissimilar from your own, above, as to the Jewish people. I did this with a trust that Tom, whether we see eye to eye on all issues or not, would care deeply about innappropriate process. Hope that helps. Epeefleche 14:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Epee, I tried to figure this out. It looks like Radiant moved your comments to the talk page of the project page due to their length?? I don't know if thats the worst crime in the world or what the policy is in regards to that. I have noticed that your comments are pretty long and involved. Unfortuneately, in the get it done yesterday world we live in, folks don't like to wade through lengthy aruguments.discussions. Anyways, I know this dosen't really answer your question. I would just say try to work with folks and take thier advice to heart as best you can, Cheers, --Tom 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Tx. This is just what I needed.

As far as the"I was just doing a public service" argument, I had actually thought it quite opaque.he said that his reason for moving the comments was their length. But I find that difficult to believe.

First, R was not a disinterested person, but someone hostile to the comments that he moved. They were comments that Second, if all he cares about is asked that his admin decision be overturned. And that defended against his (unfounded) charges (which he then reiterated on the talk page, after removing mine). Shortening the page discussion, he is free to move his comments off the page. But he cherry picked those he disagreed with. Third, it is subjective as to what the appropriate length is for an article. I saw no reference to a Wiki policy supporting his action, even if he had been a disinterested party. Fourth, I would suggest that moving the comments off the page makes it more difficult, not less difficult, to follow the discussion. Fifth, the comments were substantive. There were many non-substantive and redundant comments (including his) that were not removed.

In short, I don't see the Wiki policy that support one editor removing another's comments for this reason--even if it were believable that it was in fact the reason. But what makes his action especially innapropriate, it strikes me, is that he is in a lively discussion as to the innapropriateness of his decision, and moves off the page those comments that seek to point out the error in his decision.

This is like it would have been had Clinton broken into Monica's house to take and burn the blue dress, and then claimed it was all just about his interest in spring cleaning.

IMHOEpeefleche 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the Clinton analogy :). Again, I am not sure who did what, but I do agree that "interested" parties should be very carefull when removing/editing material or comments if there is an ongoing dispute. I myself like to keep things as there were to preserve the "history" and not move/remove stuff unless there is a REALLY good reason. Anyways, --Tom 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Tx. Would you have any idea how I appeal the review of the deletion ... which was, I would suggest, improperly impacted (see my talk page for someone who missed my comments because they were moved) by what I would suggest was this innapropriate removal? Tx.--Epeefleche 19:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

Oddly, you removed the tag without correcting the problem. Either cite the claim or leave the tag. Contact me with questions. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like somebody added the referrence about the Duke case being dismissed. Is that what you were questioning or was it something else? Thanks, --Tom 12:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That was it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your note

I don't see anything wrong with the lead you mentioned. What is the problem with it, as you see it?

Also, you're removing Russian-American from articles, and adding "Russian born American" [3], but the punctuation is wrong. It needs to be Russian-born (compound adjective). And can you say why you're removing "Jewish" once again? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slim, yeah I sort of realized the compound adjective thing a little late into my edit spree. I will go back and correct those in the next day or two. As far as Trude Weiss-Rosmarin goes, what is a "German Jewish writer"? Does she only write Jewish material? In her case, she is involved primarily in Jewish related material from what I can tell, but again this goes back to wp:mosbio. It seems that Wikipedia has standardized on not using ethnicity in the LEAD sentence unless that is what the subject is notable for. Is Weiss-Rosmarin's prime notability her "Jewishness"? Oh course there are exceptions if the person's notability is due to their ethnicity. Examples being Leo Frank. Elie Wiesel has "American-Jewish writer" and again, I find that to be confusing. Its still not about denying ethnicity. Anyways, I should ask my ethnicity guru :) user JackOlantern what he thinks because I find him to be a voice of reason in these matter. I see that Blu Greenberg and all the other ladies in Jewish feminism are standardized. Anyways, the old me would revert you, but I will ask for more input and defer to the community. I an not always as good at conveying my thoughts into the PC as I would like but hope this helps. Thanks for your reply, cheers! --Tom 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A reference to a German Jewish writer, without more, suggests that the person is German and that the person is Jewish.

Not that they are writing about German issues. Or Jewish issues. But the bio can, if either is the case, go on to so point out.

As to wp:mosbio, if you read it, you will see an example presented on Asimov, that mentions in the lead sentence that he is Jewish. While you say that "It seems that Wikipedia has standardized on not using ethnicity in the LEAD sentence unless that is what the subject is notable for," I have discussed at length how the Jews differe from other ethnic groups, as they are a nation. The wp:mosbio model bio is consistent with my interpretation. It is inconsistent with your interpretation (and that of some others), who prefer for whatever reason to abide by their interpretation rather than adopt one that is not inconsistent with the wp model bio.--Epeefleche 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

John von Neumann edits

Tom, it is not clear to me why you modified the reference to what I expect is an historical fact - circumcision. For me, the article should contain all facts pertinent to the person of John von Neumann. That he engaged in behavior now frowned upon, if not during his lifetime, seems not so insulting of the person. John von Neumann was as colorful as he was capable, and I tend to disagree with editors who remove information of this kind. In that respect, the edit you made seems more to limit knowledge transfer to the reader, than any other consideration. So, I would like to understand your justification.

I do not know much about the students of John von Neumann, though I seem to recall there having been only one. Thus, I am not particularly concerned with this edit, as other editors will surely support you in keeping this part of the article accurate. William R. Buckley 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How is mentioning that he had a "ritual circumcision" relevant to the article? Is that sourced and how does that add to the article? Was he also left handed? We don't add every "fact" about an individual to a bio unless it has some relevance/significance. Also, what "behavior now frowned upon" are you reffering to? I see that the article mentions some unsourced material that I will be removing shortly but can you be more specific? --Tom 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

We go by what reliable sources say; Cantor therefore belongs on the list unless and until these sources are proved wrong. Anything else violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion on his talk page.--Simul8 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You have provided one source, and that source makes pretty clear that his inclusion in this category is very questionable. Based on that, please provide a few more reliable sources that definitively call him Jewish. Thanks, --Tom 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"This method was first studied by Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor (1845–1918), born to a Jewish Danish father, who converted to Protestantism" Amihood, Amir. "Computer Science." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Eds. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. Vol. 5. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 129-132.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=114&letter=C&search=CANTOR%20GEORG

IMHO, lets reflect what the sources say, and let them speak for themselves.--Epeefleche 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

--Simul8 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

So Cantor wasn't Jewish? Who converted, Cantor or his father? I wish we could just get these folks on the phone and ask them :). --Tom 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Hoover

I was questioning that, yes. I know Hoover's article says that, sort of, but I remember seeing a family tree of Hoover that was mostly not German. I don't know if there is a source out there that says he was mostly German. Actually that whole section seems original research-y, to me. Mad Jack 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add the fact template back then. His bio says his dad is of German/German-Swiss ancestry? It sounds like he is 1/3?? German whatever the heck that means. These lists and categories are SO problematic. I made a few edits to the List of German Jews and was shot down on Georg Cantor and Boris Becker. Is Becker Jewish? This whole business that his mother was Jewish or grandparents were Jewish seem irrelevant. I know that folks would consider somebody who's mother is Jewish as being Jewish, but what if that individual converted or does not consider themselves Jewish? I just left a note wishing I could just call these folks up and ask them. Also, I am not sure how reliable the Jewish Encyclopedia is since they consider folks to be Jewish based on their own criteria it seems. Anyways, thanks as always! --Tom 18:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he was maybe 1/4 German based on this family tree,[4] if we assume that "Sarah Burkhart" lady was of German descent. As you can see, he was even less Swiss that he was German! As far as I can remember, Becker said something akin to his mother being "of Jewish descent" or something in some interview in 1999, and since that it has gone around the net and turned into her being flat-out "Jewish". He mentions no Jewish ancestry in his book biography and indeed says that she was of Silesian(?) German ancestry. She was left totally untouched by the Nazis, which means that whatever Jewish ancestry she has, it is fairly distant. Mad Jack 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed Becker for now, since none of the remaining sources explicitly say he was Jewish, and, he clearly isn't (i.e. his book bio), and almost certainly isn't Jewish by Jewish Law (i.e. since you asked about that) Mad Jack 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Under Jewish law (of all sects), if born to a Jewish mother one is Jewish. Under Reform Judaism (which has more adherents in the US than does Orthodox Judaism, btw), if born to a Jewish father one is Jewish. (And even less than that was required by the Nazis to deem someone a Jew ... which qualified them for the crematoria -- though I would not make the jump that Mad Jack makes -- the fact that the Nazis left someone alone does not "mean" that whatever Jewish ancestry they have is fairly distant.). If someone is Jewish for a portion of their life, that is of interest to me, and more than one reference is acceptable ... the same way that we reflect with many people that they were born in country x and moved to country y ... or obtained dual citzenship with country z. --Epeefleche 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the thoughts. I sort of use myself when thinking/editing these lists. IF, big if, I was famous (very far from it) my grandfather was 110% Jewish. My father is an agnostic and my mother is of welsh ancestry. I was raised as a Quaker. I consider myself an American but I'm also proud of my Polish-Jewish ancestry. Anybody could go back and put me on a list of Polish-American Jews, but I wouldn't consider that correct. That is why I asked the question over on the list of German-Jews(or one of the lists, i forget), is this a list of Gernam Jews or a list of people of German Jewish ancestry. Anyways, have a great weekend guys! --Tom 19:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tom. Well, if you were famous (and you are to us), I guess that Reforn Jews would view you as Jewish, Orthodox Jews would not (and you could not attain Israeli citizenship by the Law of Return), and the Nazis would surely kill you. Btw, the whole Welsh/Ameican discussion would not be of any moment, as they would not bear at all on whether you are Jewish. Also, the opt out question you raise is an interesting one--do you think you can opt out of being a Polish Americab (if that is the case)? I'm not sure you can. And if not, query whether the same is not the case for being Jewish. What complicates this is that the Jews are a people and a nation, as well as a religion. Njoy the weekend. Epeefleche 06:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the Reform and Reconstructionist groups consider someone Jewish only if they are raised fully as Jews in the Jewish religion, regardless of which parent was what. They don't really care about ancestry and I believe they view anyone who wasn't raised Jewish as not Jewish, regardless of whether their mother was. So, Tom would not be considered Jewish by the Reform, that is for sure, nor by the Orthodox (unless his maternal great-great-great-grandmother was somehow Jewish without his knowledge), and not even by the Nazis so much, they mostly left people with a single Jewish grandparent alone, and even let them serve in the Nazi army and so on. The Law of Return comment is also wrong. Anyone with a Jewish grandparent (the grandparent's Jewish status is defined according to Jewish law - so if you had a grandfather whose mother was Jewish, that would count) can immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, regardless of which grandparent that was. The only condition is that the person not practice any religion other than Judaism (no religion at all is fine). A person with a Jewish mother who is a Catholic themselves would not be granted citizenship. Although anyone with a Jewish grandparent can get a citizenship, they wouldn't be classified as "Jewish" on it unless they are Jewish under Jewish law, and so on. There appear to be a lot of misconceptions about the Law of Return's policies; I think a lot of people believe that only people who are Jewish under Jewish law can get a citizenship, and that is simply not true; I even saw Democratic leader Harry Reid say that his wife and kids and him can get Israeli citizenship because his wife was born Jewish - he seemed to imply that it was because of the maternal line. Well, they couldn't get Israeli citizenship at all, because his wife converted to Mormonism and his kids were raised, and are, Mormons. If you're using yourself when looking at these lists, then the majority of the people on them don't just have a single Jewish grandparent (and certainly those who do are not practicing Christians). As usual the criteria is or ought to be whether or not WP:RS say that they are Jews explicitly. Mad Jack 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So, your understanding is that one could be Jewish per the Orthodox but at the same time not per the Reform and Reconstructionist? And what does the phrase "as Jews in the Jewish religion" mean? First, is that a redundant phrase, or do the two parts of it mean diufferent things? And second, it seems an odd construct -- there must be more to it. To say simply that someone is Jewish if raised Jewish is circular, without a definition as to ehat Jewish is. If you could toss in cites on your comments on "sho is a jew" per the reform, reconstructionist, and Nazis, I would be fascinated to see them. Tx. Epeefleche 14:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)