User talk:Epeefleche/archive 1

License tagging for Image:Deep Treble Sopranos.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Deep Treble Sopranos.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Rutgers University Performing Arts section

That section really needs to be rewritten. Right now, it looks like nothing more than Deep Treble propaganda. And the Rutgers University Choir section is inaccurate. Glee Club and Kirkpatrick and the Orchestra were involved in that Beethoven's 9th performance. If you don't, I'll do so. —ExplorerCDT 16:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing something ... I did say that "the University Choir joined with the Kirkpatrick Choir, the Glee Club, and the University Orchestra to present Beethoven’s 9th Symphony." Isnt that what you say above I got wrong?

If you have any thoughts for revisions, feel free to run them by me. Thanks.

--Epeefleche 01:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing that entire section on performing arts. It's totally self-aggrandizing and not neutral. Stop putting up fluff. —ExplorerCDT 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Optimally, the visual and performing arts section would be great under a seperate "Academics" section, but it is about getting enough material to do so. Further, I am intending to rewrite that performing/visual arts section to be more comprehensive and more neutral, but have not just yet figured out how to do it correctly. —ExplorerCDT 21:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any thoughts for revisions, feel free to run them by me. Thanks.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to.

[edit] First step: talk to the other parties involved The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question. Never carry on a dispute on the article page itself. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise.

Both at this stage and throughout the dispute resolution process, talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it.--Epeefleche 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What audacity to lecture me on good faith, etc. Always the immediate crutch of people who add self-aggrandizing fluff to articles, I notice. —ExplorerCDT 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Protection

Perhaps you should digest your own lecture before you start jumping the gun: talking to other parties is not simply a formality to be satisfied before moving on to the next forum. Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. You made a half-hearted effort to seek a compromise. I offered you one option (RE: a section called "Academics" to discuss that), you didn't even acknowledge it. Your attempts at contacting me, all 3 of them, were formality, and there was no "discussion." You didnt' even bring something worth discussing to the table. Instead, you pedantically lectured. When people see that, they won't even consider a request for protection. Besides, the page isn't being vandalized. It's being constructively edited by me. I didn't vandalize anything. Just because your precious section wasn't included when I did my edit, gives you no grounds to get bent out of shape. Going for a Request for Page Protection" does exactly what your rule-crutch says: "escalates" the dispute, instead of resolving it. I'm a reasonable guy. You offer a serious alternative, one that is neutral, worth noting, and well-written, I'd gladly endorse it's inclusion in the article. Instead, despite my telling you it sucked, you kept re-adding your addition without consideration for my comments. Therefore, I give little creedence to your concerns. Change your tune, I'm reasonable. Right now, you're a vandal, in my opinion. —ExplorerCDT 06:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bint Jbeil

Hi Epeefleche, I noticed you added a "Miscelleneous" section to the article on Bint Jbeil. The edit seems to me too lengthy and a tad inappropriate. I would like to discuss the matter with you...

Jazzman 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Hi. Was out of contact. But your approach is a good one in my view. --Epeefleche 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers University

What exactly do you agree on? (Re: the alma mater and political correctness) I'm not meaning to poke fun at ya, but it would be nice, for the sake of extending the debate on this (and hoping you're on our side), that you could elucidate why you agree with us (presuming that you do). —ExplorerCDT 06:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that lyrics should be a link in this case. Not in the text of the entry. --Epeefleche 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the fact that most articles dealing with universities (or other academic institutions) have the alma mater lyrics under a "traditions" section within the article, or frequently placing it in its own "alma mater" section within the article? While not a convention, it seems to be the norm. And I was initially asking whether you agree with the principle, expressed on the Rutgers talk page, that if a text on the article is cited, and the lyrics are expressed as per the link (which is official), no user should edit the article to edit the lyrics in a way that disagree with the citation, unless they provide another official, or more supportable citation. And that to do so, in the face of a citation showing otherwise, is dishonest and against policy? Would you agree with that assessment? —ExplorerCDT 15:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that to the extent that other long entries include the lyrics, our making the lyrics into a link will make our entry superior. And by using a link, rather than making up new lyrics, we will address your second question. --Epeefleche 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's wisdom in those words...and it definitely gives me something to think about when the article gets unprotected. Thanks. —ExplorerCDT 16:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would appreciate it as well if you would reinsert my choir and deep treble additions at that time. --Epeefleche 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different matter, I can understand mentioning something about the choir programs in some form of mention of the music program (in addition to other academic programs)...but Deep Treble...first, they're not really that notable, and secondly, they'd belong in an article on Student Organizations rather than here, if mentioned at all. Remember, Deep Treble is one of like 700 student organizations. What makes Deep Treble more important than say the Palestinian Group that caused all those protests a while back? —ExplorerCDT 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have heard them, and think they are great. Bought their CD. Am not a member of Deep Treble, or even a Rutgers student. Just think they are excellent, and that they have received accolades that reflect their level of performance. Would appreciate your allowing their reinsertion, even if your taste differs from mine. Second, I think that the Palestinean protests and the reaction to them do deserve mention.--Epeefleche 21:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I have no problem with Deep Treble, actually enjoy some of their stuff (limited to what I've heard), but if we mention them, we'd have to mention every other organization at Rutgers, and right now there's about 700. None of which are notable outside their little community, and barely of interest to anyone outside of the community, both of which are part of the standards judging whether an article is good or recommended for deletion. Therefore, in cases of doubt, subtract...because the information could be found elsewhere by anyone who cared. Personally, with a reductio ad absurdum, if we add Deep Treble, we might as well add my daily itinerary as an article because it would, in theory, be just as notable. —ExplorerCDT 21:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different view than you. One could argue of course about much of the article. I've deferred to you on most of your preferences, and would simply ask that you be kind enough to pay me the same respect that I have paid you, understanding that your personal view differs.

--Epeefleche 08:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shebaa Farms

The use of the word 'current' in the Ddispute heading was deliberate; there have been earlier disputes about the same area, notably between Lebanon and Syria. I leave it to you to restore 'current' to the subheading.
Regards, Bardwell 15:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracee Ellis Ross article

It is stated in the article that Tracee is the daughter of Diana Ross and Robert Ellis Silberstein. It's no secret that Diana Ross is a black woman and that Robert Silberstein is Jewish, thus making the blatant reminder that Tracee herself is a black and Jewish a bit redundant and insulting to peoples intelligence. "Tracee Ellis Ross (born Tracee Joy Silberstein on October 29, 1972, in Los Angeles, California) is an American Black half-Jewish actress." sounds a bit gaudy and convoluted, and is probably being a little more meticulous with detail than need be. Simply pointing out that she is an American actress is fine. — DtownG 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity in header

Oh, I saw your edits, and that was an incredibly bad idea which will now have to be reverted. Per WP:MOS, we do not include ethnicity in header, only nationality. "Person X is an American actor", etc. The ethnicity goes under early life, later in the article, etc. but not in the header. Mad Jack 15:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. See "Wikipedia:Categorization of people"

It is Wiki-appropriate to incoude ethnicity in the first line where it is notable. Where the person is included in an ethnicity list, as in under "Black Jews," on Wiki, it is notable. Therefore I believe it should not be reverted.

--Epeefleche 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting all your edits. This has been talked about ad nausem. A very large number of people are on ethnicity lists. See the manual of style. Only nationality in header, or it gets to the ridiculous point wher Jennifer Aniston is an "English-Scottish-Italian-Greek-American actress". Ethnicity should only be in the header of the article when it was notable as to why the person became famous. One example I could see was Reuben Greenberg, in which the header mentioned that Greenberg was the first black chief of police. We would still not call him a "Black American" in the header, though, just say "he was the first Black..." Mad Jack 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) - "Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.) " Quite obviously, let's say, the fact that Khleo Thomas is black and Jewish has nothing to do with why his "famous". He is famous because he is an actor who starred in a movie, Holes, that made a lot of money. Similarly, his co-star Shia LaBeouf is not famous for being a Cajun Jew, either, but also for being an actor and starring in that same movie. But, as I said, one could argue that chief of police Greenberg is notable for being the first black police chief of that city or state, so that ought to be mentioned in the header of his article. Mad Jack 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Given that there is not a Wiki "English-Scottish-Italian-Greek" category, it is not notable, and I would agree that that should not be used for Aniston.

The same goes for "Cajun Jews." - - It is different with the Black Jews. There is such a category on Wiki. It is notable. - - I disagree as to what Wiki standards call for, and ask that -- rather than reverting all of my edits because you have a different view -- you raise this through the appropriate channels if you have a different view and we can seek a considered opinion of others. - - To simply revert all of my work might be less than polite. I understand that you have your view, but there may perhaps be a less disruptive way to address this, understanding that there may be a possibility that your view is not the Wiki view. - - I would appreciate it. - - In the meantime, please revert to what I had. - - Thanks. --Epeefleche 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no "view" here except that I agree with Wiki's Manual of Style, which has to be followed in Wikipedia articles. You don't really have an argument here, unless you can cite a source that says that, say, Khleo Thomas is famous for being a black Jew. Check out Template:Americans. We have a list of every X-American group out there. Regardless that we do, these people are not famous for being Greek American, they are famous for being actors, directors, etc. Their ethnicity is just one aspect of their lives, and, if properly sourced, should and usually is mentioned at some point in their article - just not the header. Mad Jack 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Jack is completely correct. These people are not notable because of their ethnicity. In the case of Goapele, she is not famous because she is a Black Jew. The exception mentioned in WP:MOSBIO applies for people like Rosa Parks. In the majority of these articles, ethnicity is already mentioned in the first main section. It should not be added to the intro. --musicpvm 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Black Jew" is not a nationality. American, English, etc. is. Neither is "Black Jew" a profession. I have no idea what a "Black Jewish politician" is, and how that person's duties would differ from all the other politician's. Not a single person on Wikipedia should be identified by ethnicity in the header, because it's impossible for a person to become famous because of their ethnicity. In cases where their ethnicity played a crucial role in their life, it should be mentioned in one of the header sentences assessing their notability i.e. with Oona King, the way I wrote it in regarding her election, etc. "She was Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green & Bow from 1997 until the 2005 election, which was plagued with racism and anti-semitism against King, because of her African and Jewish background." Mad Jack 08:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would hope that we can all agree that the Wikipedia Manual of Style should control here. Not any one person's personal views that are in conflict with the Manual.

2. The Manual says that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."

3. You, however, indicate that "not a single person ... should be identified by ethnicity in the header."

4. Where do you get the Wikipedia support for your notion? Not from the MOS, it would seem. --Epeefleche 08:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-American

Hi Epeefleche, just to echo the conversation above, the term Jewish-American should not be used in the intro/first sentence on bios unless, big unless, their ethnicity is what makes them notable. I/we see alot of.."Joe Blow was a famous Jewish Painter"...what does this mean? Is Jow Blow Jewish? Does he only paint Jewish subjects??...WP:MOSBIO is a very good guideline. Also, I see where alot of bios have the persons ethnicity added into the article in a very ackward way. I am in NO way trying to deminish anybodies ethnicity or censor it or whatever. Just trying to have sourcing and WP:MOS guidelines followed as best as possible and maintain article uniformity. Thanks! --Tom 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I hear you. Thanks for your note. I agree that the thing to do is to follow wiki guidelines. The rub appears to be what falls into the exception category.

Also, I think that we have an odd situation with the Jews specifically. With other religions, often the religion is distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not protestant, or buddhist, or christian, or hindu nation per se.

And when it comes to nations, we do indicate that in the first line.

With Jews, oddly, they are not just a religion. They are also a nation, dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years. Call them the Hebrews, or the people of Israel, or the Jewish nation, or Israelites....

So query whether this special consideration does not call for a special approach.

We have categories, and we try sometimes without much grace to force entities into them, and then apply the rules, but happily Wiki left an exception here and happily we are all bright enough to recognize exceptions and discuss how we might address them.

Thoughts?

--Epeefleche 20:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epee. First off, thanks for the civility. I hear what you are saying about the Jewish people being a "tribe"/nation. There will always be exceptions to the rules so a case by case approach is a good way to go. The GENERAL guideline is to say "Joe Blow is an American bubble gum blower". Ethnicity ~~should~~/CAN be mentioned further into the article if it is relevent. Should EVERY Jewish person have their ethnicity mentioned in their article?? I don't know. Some editors believe it should be. If it is, it shouldn't just be shooved into the article just for its own sake. I see too many article where the ethnicity has been inserted without care for how the article reads/flows.

As far as categories and lists on WIKI go, do NOT get me started. They are VERY problematic/POV/original research/unsourced/ect. There seems to be ALOT more leeway on these so have at those as you see fit. My last point would be do NOT take anything personal on this site as far as editors go and assume good faith. Most people are trying to improve the project. Anyways....--Tom 22:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civility as well! I have in my short time on this found that a number of people have a sense of ownership over issues. And enjoy the ability to force their views on others. Not through thoughtful open discussion. But rather through a greater enjoyment in getting their way, which translates into a greater appetite I fear for simply reverting what they do not like.

I have run into one or two of these people now who I have found somewhat frustrating. What would you think might be the best way to handle those situations, when civility fails?

As to the issue at hand, yes, thanks for your thoughtful response. It is so odd to see someone trying to understand another's thoughts here, rather than impose their own, that I had to sit back for a moment and collect myself after seeing your message.

I think that case-by-case in general is sound. That is I imagine called for given that Wiki rules indicate that there are exceptions.

The first question might be, because of the above dispersed nation issue, whether the Jews as a group deserve to be treated as any other nation, and mentioned in the front line.

The argument becomes even stronger, I would think, when someone's bio includes information relating to the fact that they are Jewish. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Sandy Koufax, Hank Greenberg, Oona King, Elie Wiesel, Jackie Mason, Mark Spitz, and Albert Einstein come to mind.

In any event, there is something a mite redundant I think about even mentioning, as to others, born in "new york," for example, and then mentioning that they are american.

More thoughts?

Tx. --Epeefleche 01:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Fencing

I don't have time to go through and fix all these, so please pay attention to what the targets are before you go making links willy-nilly. Armed points to a wholly inappropriate page; cut and stab point to disambiguation pages instead of useful articles, as do links such as German and Italian. There may be others, but I haven't examined your edits exhaustively. I don't mean this unkindly, and I'm sure you intended to help out here, but this needs to be corrected. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Will take a look. --Epeefleche 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were absolutely correct about armed. Sorry. Tx. And I found better links for cutting and stabbing, so thanks again. As to German and Italian, I would think that it is appropriate to have them as links ... are you dead agains it? If so, why is that? I know that they are not earth shattering in import, but I think they are appropriate.

Tx.

It's not that a link on German or Italian is objectionable in itself, but that the target of the link isn't useful. A disambiguation page rarely is. It's best to pick one and link directly to it, such as German culture. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Hi Epeefleche,

it's a condition for including material in Wikipedia that it should be verifiable, and where material is doubted or likely to be controversial you should cite your sources. The material you want to include in the Shebaa Farms article, claiming that a Beirut Times article said something, should therefore be accompanied by a citation to the Beirut Times. The citation that the material had was to a page on the Daily Star website (which did not include this information). The Daily Star is a Beirut daily newspaper, the Beirut Times is as far as I can tell a Lebanese-American newspaper, i.e. they are two quite different publications.

regards, Palmiro | Talk 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the article, but could not find it on the internet. So I contacted the Beirut Times, given your concern. She indicated to me that they do not keep archives of their articles on the internet.

Let me know if you would like her email address so that you can contact her yourself.

Under the circumstances, I would appreciate your leaving the reference.

Thanks.

Have a good weekend.

--Epeefleche 05:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to cite an online source. A print newspaper can be cited using {{cite news}} or in some standard style. If an online source exists with the same information, there is of course no reason not to link to it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Epeefleche, but you do have to cite the source. For a newpaper print article, if that's what's involved, you will need to give the name of the publication, name of the article, and date of the edition. If you can't find that information, and on request give the material that forms the basis for your reference, then unfortunately we can't use that reference. I am still puzzled as to the reason for the weblinks to the Daily Star site, I must admit. Palmiro | Talk 14:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your recent edits to the Mickey Mantle article. Your recent contribution(s) to Wikipedia did not provide specific references or sources. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Editors may choose to remove material you have contributed if it is not verifiable. Please provide specific references in your contributions to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content. You can use a citation method listed at inline citations that best suits each article. Thanks! Yankees76 20:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links

Hi, you asked me about the date links I un-linked. The links that I removed were links which do not respond to date preferences (because they were not full dates—for example, "July 2006" or just "2001") and did not relate to the context of the article. There shouldn't be any disadvantage to having these dates unlinked. If I removed a link which was useful, then I must have made a mistake and I apologize. -- Renesis13 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

--Epeefleche 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm

Thought you would find this article interesting ... She’s African-American and she’s Jewish Mad Jack 16:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tx.--Epeefleche 04:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rutgers

If you want to add something regarding Deep Treble, etc. as long as it's decently written, feel free to add it to Rutgers University student organizations. —ExplorerCDT 10:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tx!--Epeefleche 22:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You put it in the wrong place, ergo, I reverted. Also, the image is a copyvio. Please remedy that if you include that image when you place the text regarding Deep Treble (better written, I might request) where it belongs appropriately on the Rutgers University student organizations article, and not the Rutgers University article where it does NOT belong. —ExplorerCDT 03:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More

If you haven't stumbled on her yet, the model Esti Mamo is one of the few well known Israeli Black Jews Mad Jack 01:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marranos

Good work, but one question (please see Talk:Marrano#Jessianos). - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discussion

Kindly resist from editing my discussion page. I have nothing to say to you. DtownG 04:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to, if you desist from vandalizing my edits, without cogent explanations of any sort. --Epeefleche 04:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stop editing my discussion page. Continue to ignore my requests (as well as trolling/vandalizing the Tracee Ellis Ross page with your redundant edits) and I will report you to the Wikipedia admin. team. DtownG 05:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed on the discussion page of Ms. Ross, the edits are not redundant. Your response to rationale discussion -- that of saying that you have nothing to say, and then engaging in reverts -- as I told you constitutes vandalism on your part. I welcome your calling in the Wikipedia admin. team, if you like. In the interim, I ask that you exercise appropriate restraint by desisting in reverting my edits. --Epeefleche 05:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tracee Ellis Ross

It's come to my attention that you and another editor are in a dispute over content in the Tracee Ellis Ross article. Both of you would do very well to keep a cool head and use talk pages instead of edit warring, as due to violations of WP:3RR I could technically block both of you at this very moment -- another editors violation of 3RR does not entitle you to do the same, but should instead be reported to WP:AN/3RR. I encourage you to consider the dispute resolution process, including requests for third opinion and/or the Mediation Cabal. Continued edit warring may result in admin action, including blocks from editing or page protection, so please reconsider the way this dispute is being handled. Things tend to work better for all involved when we strive to cooperate as much as possible. Thank you. Luna Santin 06:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. As you will see , the other editor has been blocked, and in fact haas a history of being blocked. As you will also note if you look at the discussions, I have in fact sought to engage the other editor in discussion, to no avail. I have strived to keep a cool head, communicate, give the reasons for my edits, and warn the other editor, but he has instead chosen to make consistent reverts that lack any cogent explanation. He has also erased all warnings from his discussion page, as well as information with regard to his prior blocks, which I understand is contrary to Wikipedia policy, even though he was warned. As of now, while the last warning was reverted by an admin, I believe that info on his prior blocks is still not reflected, since he erased it. Thank you for your diligence. --Epeefleche 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, I noticed his two blocks. Talk pages can be cleared, but block logs not so much. I'm hoping the both of you can work something out; if not, do keep WP:AN/3RR or requests for page protection in mind. I'll try to keep an eye on things, now and then, but I'm hardly perfect. Good luck. Luna Santin 06:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Pryor

I know you're interested in this subject matter, and this has some good information about what it was like for Rain Pryor to be both black and Jewish, if you're interested in expanding that article. Mad Jack 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! Have done so. Tx as well for your suggestion on Mamo. BTW, am having touble on Ross (see above, and her page) with an editor who is given to reverts without explanation, and without respect for the three revert rule. Any suggestions for me? tx again. --Epeefleche 04:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, for Tracee Elliott Ross, it's true that any revert counts for 3RR - i.e. both yours and his - unless it's reverting blatant vandalism (and neither your nor his edits would qualify as vandalism). So if someone breaks 3RR, you can't break 3RR yourself just to revert them. As for the content, I agree that it's not obvious that her father is Jewish (or even, if one doesn't know much about last names, that he is white) so that is certainly worth pointing out in the article, especailly since it's cited. BTW, as for Rod Carew, he isn't Jewish (as his article correctly explains), just married to a Jewish woman. Mad Jack 05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. As to Ross, I thought that when a revert consists of an editor removing significant parts of articles, where the reason for the removal of the content is not readily apparent by examination of the content itself (or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided). As to Carew, I see your point. Tx.--Epeefleche 05:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Nelson

A tag has been placed on Joshua Nelson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mussina's Awards

I looked through the editing history of the article, and found that you were the original editor of the awards-related section. I'm having some difficulty looking up the term "Baseball America American League All Star" since the term apparently is nonexistent to me. See the talk page for details. Thanks, Vic226 09:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good research to find me. For reference that particular award having been awarded to Mike Mussina, see http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/M/mike-mussina.shtml . --Epeefleche 23:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Style

Hi there, I have noticed that you are making some minor edits to the formating for numbers. You might want to take a look at WP:DATE#Numbers_in_words. It is considered more appropriate to spell out whole numbers that are between zero and ten. Thanks // Tecmobowl 05:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It says the following: "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent. Example: There were 5 cats, 12 dogs, and 32 birds. or There were five cats, twelve dogs, and thirty-two birds." Thus I think it is fine as I had it. Also, since there are so many numbers in articles relating to baseball, it is appropriate IMHO for readability. Thanks. --Epeefleche 05:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The example you just used supports my previous point. If you wanted to be consistent throughout the article, then perhaps you could spend sometime contributing the the improvement of the article. The very first point mad at WP:Date is that whole numbers between zero and ten should be spelled out. Rather than entering into a revert war, I would like you to provide some reason why your edits improve the readability. At this point, I do not see your point. //Tecmobowl 05:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is the general rule. The later point is the exception. In the example of 5 cats, etc., the approach that I have used -- which the exception to the rule contemplates -- is presented. Therefore, I think that under Wikipedia standards my approach is contemplated, and acceptable, per the very reference that you cited. Thus, since it is acceptable, I do not think that it is appropriate for you to revert it. Also, I believe that it is more readable my way, because given that the article contains many numbers, it is easiest in skimming the article to see the numerals than it would be to see the words written out. It also takes up less space, which is a positive. An example, btw, of a style approach that actually mandates the use of numerals where one has a mixture of large and small numbers can be found at Indiana University's style page: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:fXvWb5Ox9HUJ:www.indiana.edu/~uitspubs/terms/review.html+numbers+style+%22spell+out%22+numerals+%22easier+to+read%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en . And I think if you glance at a list, you will see that numerals are easier to read than spelled out numbers. Cf. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:nZ_0iakuCbMJ:mededucation.bjmu.edu.cn/WritingEditing/editcourse/mat/Edles24a.htm+%22numerals+are+easier+to+read%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&lr=lang_en http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:OGBrQudJYq4J:www.nwnc-redcross.org/PreparingforEmergency.htm+%22numerals+are+easier+to+read%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_en --Epeefleche 20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All i can say is that point one on the list WP:DATE#Numbers_in_words is that you should spell out whole numbers between zero and ten. That point does not apply to list-like examples. I would not advise writing three-twenty-one batting average and seventy-home runs either. So far, I don't see any reason to adjust this. // Tecmobowl
1. Point one on the list is the general rule. I gather we agree.

2. The rule continues and says: "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent. Example: There were 5 cats, 12 dogs, and 32 birds...." Which suggests that it is permissible, as a modification to the rule, to list the numerals for numbers such as 5. And that if you use numerals for "12" in such a sentence, it in fact requires you to use a numeral for 5. Do you agree?

3. You asked me to provide some reason why using numerals rather than words, where such a choice is acceptable, improves readability. I have done so above, as you requested. Now that I have responded to your request, you have avoided the point. I am confused.--Epeefleche 02:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in most formal English style not dealing with technical subjects, the usual way would be five cats and 50 elephants,

while universally in a true list or table it would be

cats: 5
elephants: 50

But certainly within the context of finance or engineering or the like, the numerical style is always used. In the Sandy Koufax article, line 93 plus, we have 5th day 4th day which is OK, as is fifth day fourth day and in the same sentence 34 starts 41 starts 7 fewer starts. which is OK, but the one thing that would strike a reader as wrong would be 34 starts, 41 starts, seven starts. Speaking for myself, why change a consistent article when there are so many that are not consistent in need of improvement? LibrarianB 06:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but it appears to me that numbers in numeral forms appear easier to read in your and the sources' perspective. What the other sources you provided say above does not really apply to Wikipedia automatically since they are not even used as references in Wikipedia's MOS. If you wish, you could propose these styles into the talk page(s) of the number MOS. Until then, we should keep in mind about how it would appear to a general audience viewing Wikipedia. Although there are currently more people—only by a little bit—who prefer styles such as the one-word numbers be spelled out, I would propose a more open discussion about this somewhere rather than keeping it confined. Regards, Vic226_(chat) 14:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent contributions

I appreciate your recent contributions, but please don't introduce more stats into the article. The stats just gives the article a poor appearance, and I am trying to steer this article away from that image. If you want to add baseball stats for players like A-Rod, please do so in a prose form. Writing it out is better than just a bunch of numbers. Also, remember to provide sources (in reference form). Thanks. =) Nishkid 64 21:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources for your fencing articles please. Punkmorten 09:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on making the entries more robust, but will toss in citations along the way.--Epeefleche 09:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent

Hi, you added a few wikilinks and changed words to numbers on this article. While the wikilinking is welcome, I'm curious as to why you decided that in prose words should be changed to numbers? It's accepted practice that numbers should be written as words in prose, except when the numbers are scientific or mathamatical notation. I encourage you to change them back. --Monotonehell 21:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks. My understanding is that is not the case in certain circumstances, such as when the number is in the teens and higher. You might be interested in the discussion under Mussina, above. --Epeefleche 06:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, with large mouthful type numbers that have more than three or four words you should use the decimal, but in prose we write "three, sixteen or sixtyfour" Have a look here. It's nitpicky really and doesn't matter as long as it's consistent within the article as a whole. Which in the context of Age of consent is a discussion and should probably be words. However in the sub pages (like Ages of consent in Australia) there's numbers written for clarity as the context is a technical (legal) summary. Either way's is fine, but bear the above MoS gudieline in mind in future. Somebody will probably come along in the future and change them all back anyway. lol --Monotonehell 11:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Boudreau

I had never heard of Boudreau being Jewish before. Not that I necessarily disbelieve it, but I'd like to see more proof than a column someone wrote. Ken Holtzman is obviously Jewish, a subject that came up a number of times in his career. I don't recall anything ever being said about Louie's religion. Wahkeenah 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! A Jewish mother. Not "full blooded" Jewish, although qualifying as Jewish under Jewish law or tradition or whatever the right term is. I only ever recall the Tribune calling him a "Frenchman" in those pre-politically-correct days. Obviously of French ancestry, but I didn't know The Good Kid was Jewish, or "half-Jewish". And I thought I wouldn't learn something new today. d:) Wahkeenah 02:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... Judaism considers someone 100% Jewish if their mother is Jewish. Reform Judaism if their father is Jewish as well. And the Nazis ....

Jimmie Reese was another Jewish ballplayer who was happy to hide his Jewishness. Current ballplayers include Youkilis and Jason Marquis. --Epeefleche 02:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the era in which they grew up, hiding their Jewish roots wouldn't have been unusual for Reese and Boudreau. It was a little harder for Hank Greenberg to hide his ancestry, but he probably could have whooped anybody that hassled him, and they knew it. Wahkeenah 02:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.--Epeefleche 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Etti Ankri

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Epeefleche! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 00:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ankri 1a.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ankri 1a.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in lead sentence revisited

Hi Epeefleche, I know we discussed this before but I guess we are back. If somebody is notable for being Jewish, then a discussion can be made as to whether that deserves mention in the LEAD sentence. If not, it CAN be mentioned further into the article. I'm guessing you are adding this information out of ethnic pride, who knows, unfortuneately, people have been adding this information with darker reasons in mind. There is currently a problem over a the list of Jewish-American business people because an editor wants to add every single Jewish person to the list and is trashing it. Also, i'll have to find it, one of the baseball players you worked on has a whole sentence about orthodox vs non-orthodox recognition of the definition of being a Jew, ect that looks totally out of place and silly, imho. Is a baseball players bio really the place for that discussion? Again, if the guy was the first Jewish ball player, or sat out Jewish Holidays, ect, ok, that is relevant and should be mention. The fact that his grandfather's mother was Jewish so he can claim right of return? Not so sure. Anyways, you seem like you have added alot of valuable stuff to this project and mean well so I look forward to your reply. All the best and peace! --Tom 02:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nice to hear from you again. I believe where we left our discussion was with a note to you in September, which I will reprint here in pertinent part, as follows ...

"...I think that case-by-case in general is sound. That is I imagine called for given that Wiki rules indicate that there are exceptions.

The first question might be, because of the above dispersed nation issue, whether the Jews as a group deserve to be treated as any other nation, and mentioned in the front line.

The argument becomes even stronger, I would think, when someone's bio includes information relating to the fact that they are Jewish. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Sandy Koufax, Hank Greenberg, Oona King, Elie Wiesel, Jackie Mason, Mark Spitz, and Albert Einstein come to mind.

In any event, there is something a mite redundant I think about even mentioning, as to others, born in "new york," for example, and then mentioning that they are american.

More thoughts?"--Epeefleche 02:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer to WP:MOSBIO. You/I/We are not even suppose to mention where the person is born in the LEAD sentence unless it is really notable, just birth date. I see birth places mentioned but this isn't really the "agreed" upon style. Again the lead paragraph should include:Name(s) and title(s), Dates of birth and death, Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.) What they did. Why they are significant. Cheers --Tom 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised

I just noticed, to my surprise, that you have deleted all reference to ethnicity in many entries that I made.

I find that odd, for a few reasons.

First, given your tendency towards civility, it was odd that you would engage in many changes, which will require further changes, when you know that there is an issue to be discussed that might require further revisions. Indeed, possibly reverts.

Second, the Wiki policy as we have discussed has an exception, which I have indicated I believe these fall withing.

Third, in support of that notion, many of these athletes are in Jewish American or Jewish Sports Halls of Fame.

Fourth, even if you felt that it would be better to indicate ethnicity in other than the first line, you failed to move it down -- but simply deleted the reference -- which I find especially unusual given your character.

I would expect that you would have acted differently, and that if you are looking for violations of Wiki policy there are more clearcut ones to address if you have the time than my revisions -- which I do not believe are violations, cause no harm, and do not fit into the cateegory that you are protecting against.

Thanks.--Epeefleche 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epeefleche, sorry if I surprised or shocked you with my mass revert/edits/deletion of ethnicity, but the more I lool at it, the more I feel in the right here. I went back and looked at all the Jewish basebaall players. Do we note every Catholic player? Do we note every atheist? Oh course not. I hate to say it, but I fell that you are doing a disservice to these folks. I can't speak for them, but would they want to be known for their accomplishments on the diamond of for their ethnicity. Like I mentioned on your talk page, if they are some REAL notabilty due to their ethnicity, great, lets include that in a way so the article flows. Many of the bios have the feel that thier being Jewish is just being shoved into it to without a feel for how the article reads. I am sure many of the players take/took great pride in thier ethnic background and there is no reason it can't be incorporated in a sensable fashion. Anyways, my biggest beef currently is in the lack of sources being provide on Wikipedia and the huge amount of original research/personal analysis being presented here. Please provide reliable sources for any material being added. Please don't take this personally, like I mention, you seem to being adding alot of material to the project and have been civil in the past and I hope we can continue that trend. Anyways I am sure we will discuss this further. Cheers --Tom 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics are not a "people." Jews are.

Aetheists are not a people. Jews are.

Neither of them have Halls of Fame that include athletes, to my knowledge. Jews do.

Show me a list of the top 10 catholics in ERA. Or aetheists in RBIs. Can't? They exist for Jews, and are cited in their bios.

I discussed the difference between Jews and other religions that are not a nation above.

It is not a question of being known more for one than the other. No one is deleting their baseball accomplishments. Just including reference to ethnicity. This is not a zero sum game.

All of the Jewish fencers, I believe without exception, have a links section that mentions their being Jewish, and in many cases beind in Jewish Halls of Fame, and in some being in Holocaust Museum exhibits. This is by no means original research. And it is sourced. Let me know if you believe any references are not sourced in the links section. If this is your biggest beef, I think that you are performing massive reverts to the wrong person's contributions.

Thanks. I look forward to your thoughts.

I did just think that it was unusual, and dare I suggest other than the best course?, for you to engage in the massive revisions without discussion.

--Epeefleche 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first off, my "biggest beef" comment was not directed at you and I apologize for that, it was more venting and letting off stream and probably should have been left out of the discussion since you do seem to provide sources, I have a big mouth :). I really don't want to blow this into more than it should since you seem very dedicated to this project and that should be commended. Now to try to address your reply. I am very aware that Jews are a "people" as you put it and have their own ethnicity. I guess I am just still not convenced that it needs to be included in EVERY bio unless their is some relevant reason to mention it. Again, you have listed many bios where it makes sense. Also, if you are going to go into a full blown background on the guy then great, no problem. It just seems like some of the bios read" Joe Smoe bats right, hits 290, played for the jays went to Gopher crocher U and is...Jewish?" hhhuuhh.I really need to find the bio where there is a whole discussion about why the guy is considered Jewish. it just seems like a really inappropriate forum to get into that specific a discussion. Also, the Jewish Hall of fame ect, is fine, no problem. Again, please see WP:MOSBIO. Also, if we look at some of the best written bios of extremly famous folks, most adhere to this guideline. I just got through editing all the Italian-Ameican mobsters for the same ethnicity issue so again its nothing personal. I have probable touched 0.001% of the articles that need attention, we just happened to cross paths again. Anyways, I gots to eat and sleep. To be continued :) Take care. PS Do you know user: MAdJAck? Awesome contributor imho. Cheers! --Tom 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, being in the Jewish hall of fame doesn't mean that we should use Jewish-American in the LEAD sentence. Its not appropriate, period. Please stop. Could we ask a third party? User Jack O'lantern or maybe even Jayjag?? I was going to go back and revert but I am not going to. I am already very frustrated and I refuse to edit war for now. Please reconsider. I am in no way tring to deny thier heritage ect. Its more about standardization of the lead sentence. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 14:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's true that it shouldn't be in the header - the same old WP:MOSBIO thing again. If someone is in the Jewish Hall of Fame - it is because they are famous for something. No one is famous for being in the Jewish Hall of Fame, although the fact that they are certainly can be included at some point in their article. Mad Jack 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Being in the Jewish hall of fame is not why these people are famous. Additionally, your writing has some issues. Many of the articles and additions you make have returns between lines, which is not how we format. Last, just plunking in the words ,"who was Jewish" right after the name of every person in the second section is not the appropriate way to add this information. It is tiresome, boring, and less than informative. Make a case as to why their Jewishness was important, *in* the article, and write some real sentences. These wholesale insertions of "who was Jewish" are not adding to the encyclopedia. pschemp | talk 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Again, this material can be added, when appropriate, in such away that is relevant and flows naturally in the article and not just inserted for its own sake. --Tom 16:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epee, it isn't that the material can't go in there, it is that you must put it in context. Just adding random trivia isn't acceptable. WP:NOT a collection of random trivia. Unless there is some reason that their religion seriously affected their lives as a fencer, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. If there is, and the Munich case is the only one so far where I think it is important, than you have to write that out, in prose, not just insert words that make sentences choppy and less readable. Moving the mention from the lead is not enough. You have to move it correctly, prove that is it important, put it in context and make it readable. pschemp | talk 17:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks Pschemp. --Tom 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. As to the Jewish Hall of Fame RVs, I am at a loss to understand how you fail to see the context.

2. If you have a better contextual approach, apply it. To delete this information, rather than suggest what you feel is a better form of presentation, constitutes vandalism.

3. Check the Wiki definition of notable. The fact that these people are elected to Jewish Halls of Fame, and have many articles and books (e.g., "Jewish Sports Legends") that mention their being Jewish, makes it notable. And in any event, that is what is needed for inclusion in the lead paragraph -- and you are wholesale deleting it from the inner text. That consitutes vandalism.

4. If you wish to prove to yourself that it is important, just look at the links. Couple that with Wiki notability standards, which you should also read.

5. Tom -- I wish you could have!

--Epeefleche 01:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epeefleche

Hi Mad Jack, I am back AGAIN :) Iam getting into a little tizzy with Epee over using Jewish-American in the laed sentence on EVERY fencer he has created. He says because they are in the Jewish Hall of fame, that should sufice. I say no, lets keep Jewish-American out of the lead sentence. Anyways, I am not going to edit/revert at this point. I appreciate and respect your work as always. Cheers --Tom 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC) ps I will also copy Jayjg on this..[reply]

Request

Which page? SERSeanCrane 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look two conversations up. The pages are every single one he has labelled as a jewish fencer, with no context or proof that their religion was important in most cases. Also, he seems to think that being in the jewish sports hall of fame is enough context, when it isn't. Two other people have already told him that that isn't a reason in itself to include such infomation. pschemp | talk 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a heated arguement! I'm trying to weed through all the conversation now, but either way, I'd highly recommend using AMA. SERSeanCrane 06:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epee, I replied on my talk page. Also, this really isn't that heated. Epee seems to be civil and has added alot of good material to the project. Its more about style and how an article flows and relevance of the material he is adding. Anyways, I personally do not want to elevate this issue any farther. This is a minor blip on the Wiki radar :) Cheers! --Tom 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually calling other's edits vandalism isn't really civil. But I'm ignoring that for now. pschemp | talk 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps, Epee, I went back over your talk page and this seems like this issue has been going on for a long time with repeated requests to re-evaluate your edits. It reminds of the story...If one person calls you a jackass, screw them. If two people call you a jackass, screw them too. If three people call you a jackass, they can all go to hell. If FOUR people call you a jackass, its time to get fitted for a sadle! Just kidding :). Later --Tom 16:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Opinion -- Mention of "Jewish" in articles about Jewish athletes

I posted this at Talk:David Newhan.

As far as notability goes, I can only speak for the New York Mets market. When Shawn Green came to the Mets, him being Jewish was a big deal. Given how warmly such news was received I think it would be a poor idea not to mention his nationality (or ethnicity, if you prefer) in the lead of all NY Mets that are Jewish.

See this editorial in the New York Times for more: NYTimes.com
SERSeanCrane 03:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Epee also posted a very clear and concise explanation of WP:MOSBIO (in my opinion anyway) at Talk:David Newhan. Like I said above, I feel most comfortable relating this issue to baseball, particularly with the New York Mets market. Ever since Sandy Koufax and, in the case of the Mets, Art Shamsky, Jews in baseball are a bit of a big deal. If you haven't read the NYTimes article above, please do before posting on this issue. I personally don't understand why it came to be such a big deal but in the New York Mets market it makes sense - NYC has one of the highest population of Jews in the world. In addition, as Epee has pointed out, there are many sources dedicated to recognizing outstanding Jewish athletes...I even seem to remember a movie that noted Rabii Trading Cards. I must admit when I first saw such attributions that I removed it, thinking that the intent of the information could've been iffy...but I've since changed my mind and I think it's important for articles, such as David Newhan, Scott Schoeneweis, and Shawn Green to give mention of ethnicity in the lead.
As far as fencing goes...ya know, not my thing nor my area of expertise. It would be a good idea to bring in a fencing expert on this issue to clarify whether or not the sport recognizes Jewish fencers as is done in baseball...like I said, read that article. I also seem to remember a special or two that ran on SNY (NY Met's Broadcast Network) about Green's ethnicity. This was especially touted everytime broadcaster wished to emphasize the friendship between Carlos Delgado and Green - he participated in the wedding end was shown whereing a yamakuh (sp?) etc. So yeah, I think Epee is founded in his edits for baseball players, especially for the NY Mets players. I don't know how to handle the situation in other mediums, hence I'd recommend getting some experts in on it, or AMA. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions, etc etc. All the best! SERSeanCrane 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
P.S...I must say that certain editors involved in this disagreement have a consistently terrible tone...I would name names...but I'll just stick to being passive agressive...for now. SERSeanCrane 19:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well all I can really say is one can say a lot of ethnic groups are "nations", like the Cherokee, even Italians, etc. But as you can see from MOSBIO, nationality usually refers to the country in which one is a citizen. Quite a few people out there are on various ethnicity lists and in ethnicity categories - that doesn't mean they are famous for being of that group. David Newhan, above, came to fame for being an athlete, not for being Jewish. In fact, one logically can not become famous for being Jewish, unless it's for something that resulted from their Jewishness - like a famous victim of a concentration camp or a famous rabbi. Anyway, I have no problem with ethnicity being mentioned at some point in the article, like I said elsewhere.... Mad Jack 20:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but even if ehtnicity isn't the proximate cause to ones notablitly, it is how many people identify the subjects in question and is therefore just as important. Colin Powell is a good example - Notable as Secretary of State, but just as, if not more famous for being the first African-American to hold that position. SERSeanCrane 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and that last point is very true. Anytime somebody tells me a good reason why a particular person's ethnicity should be in header, I respond - wonderful, put that exact reason in the header! So in Colin Powell's case, his header should say "Powell is the first African-American Secretary of State". As opposed to "Colin Powell is an African American politician", which doesn't tell me anything about why that ethnicity is notable. The same is true for any ethnicity - if you have a really good reason why the ethnicity should be in the header - add that reason to the header! (As I demonstrated) as opposed to a random changing of "American" to "X-American", which isn't helpful. Mad Jack 08:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why it isn't helpful. As a reminder, see WP:MOSBIO for this example:
Francesco Petrarca or Petrarch (1304 – 1374) was an Italian scholar, poet, and humanist, who is credited with having given the Renaissance its name and inventing the concept of the Dark Ages…

And just so were clear, header = leading paragraph?
Aside: As a format, I've noticed very few NY Mets articles list ethnicity. This inconsistency troubles me, but I'm not yet convinced it's the fault of Epee's interpretation of WP:MOSBIO. As far as your last point goes, how would you suggest one fixes up the X-American to something in line with your interpretation of WP:MOSBIO. What bothers me about the edits made by several editors here is that they simply removed material without offering a possible fix, and without working with the major contributor of the article (which, as far as I can tell, is Epee) to at least try and make it work. Deleting is fun (I guess), but wiki works a lot better if editors work together and share what they've read on the subject, or what they couldn't find and would like guidance in getting so that they can affirm or refute a claim in the article. SERSeanCrane 16:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've got this a little skewed. IF you notice, there have been multiple attempts to explain to epee why just inserting a religion without context isn't acceptable. The removals came after he ignored that advice multiple times. Aditionally, the burden of proof is on him to show that that information is relevent, not us, if he wants it included. Also, all of these people are already in the relevent jewish athelete category, so the information about their religion still exists in the article. This works the same way as uncitied statements inserted into articles. Until they are proven, they shouldn't be in the article and are removed. Again, the burden of proof is in the inserter.
As for your comment about ethnicity, if you'll note, the ethnicity of each fencer is already there. Adding religion is different. And yes this is a religion. You can convert to Judaism, that doesn't make you ethnically Jewish. If someone can't come up with enough infomation to make a single relevent sentence about a person's religion, it shouldn't be included. WP:NOT a collection of random trivia. pschemp | talk 17:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier, I don't feel comfortable discussing the fencing issue...I know nothing about the sport or it's players so any fencing related issue is really out of my league. Also, I came into this discussion rather late (I presume) so perhaps I missed the progression of what I saw as an edit war...that said, see [Wikipedia:BOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle] if you haven't already done so. I concede that the burden of proof is on the inserter, but this case seemed less then clear cut given the conflicting interpretation of WP:MOSBIO. I think that's all I'll say on that I think I've argueing now for the sake of argueing and that's less then helpful.
Yes, Judaism is a religion, but Epee did a good job of explaining his take on the ethnicity/nationality stance of the term, and I believe many wiki-editors would agree with him. Before you make a sweeping definition, I think it'd be best if you pointed to some sort wiki-consensus that was made about the issue, because this is a very ambiguous point. WP:NOT? I'd hardly consider this "Random Trivia." Judaism (like all religions really) is something that can truly define who a person is. SERSeanCrane 18:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er that's the thing. While Judaism can be defining for some people, it is a fallacy to assume it is defining for all people, especially for all Jewish fencers. Therefore, it isn't always appropriate to include such info. (but like I said, that info is actually already in there due to the categories!) Additionally, Epee has made no attempt to put his information in context in the articles. He needs to do that, period. pschemp | talk 18:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Your move Epee...En Garde? =) SERSeanCrane 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is a good question. Things to be considered, IMHO, are 1) Wiki policy; 2) the distiction between Judaism and other religions; 3) "notability," and what it means for Wiki purposes; and 4) citations of people as being famous Jewish athletes, as in a Jewish Hall of Fame, or on a list of Jewish home run hitters with the most home runs, or in a book of Jewish Sports Legends.
Some thoughts --
1. Wikipedia Manual of Style. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is our guide. It states, in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), as follows: "The opening paragraph should give .... Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)"
2. Nationality. The first question, then, is whether the Jews are a nation. If so, information as to the fact that a subject of a bio is Jewish belongs in the opening paragraph.
The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)."
The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)."
Thus, one can maintain that in the (abnormal) case of Jews (distinguished from the "normal case," referred to in the MOS), who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, inclusion of the fact that a person is Jewish in the bio's opening paragraph is called for by Wiki MOS policy.
Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.
3. Ethnicity. If one were, however, to not consider the Jews a nation, despite the above Wiki definition, the question as to whether one should include the fact that a person is a Jew in the opening paragraph of the person's bio could be answered by the the MOS reference to ethnicity.
"Ethnicity", under the Wikipedia definition, includes among its subsets people who have a shared nationality (not the focus of the above exception, obviously), and those who share a religion. But, with Jews, much more than a shared religion is at issue, as discussed above, as the Jews also share a homeland and are a nation.
Thus, one would seem to find oneself pushed back to consider Jews in the "nationality" category, which calls for inclusion of a person's Jewishness in the openining paragraph of the bio.
4. Notability Exception. Even with ethnicity, Wiki policy calls for its mention in the opening if it is relevant to the subjects's "notability."
To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia.
That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."
Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to include that fact in the opening paragraph of their bio.
(Query, btw, as well whether one might argue that where a person is included in an ethnicity list on Wiki, as under "Black Jews," their ethnicity is notable.)
Some commentators seem to confuse what is meant by "notable" with their own, non-Wiki definition. That is a cause it would appear of much of the discussion on this subject above.
Notability does not mean that -- as suggested by one commentator -- they are famous for being of that group. That commentator suggests that there is a requirement that one mention the reason that the person is notable for being Jewish. Again, that does not seem to recognize that the phrase is used by Wiki as indicated above.
Surely, it is not contemplated that a person be reported as "notable as being Jewish because they are mentioned in multiple non-trivial articles, books, and the like." Nowhere do I see a requirement that the cause of notability be included in the bio -- just a statement that if the person is notable, as defined above, their ethnicity can appropriately be mentioned.
In any case, this is somewhat of an inconsistent comment. The lead paragraph mentions that one may mention where the person was born. It does not require that there be a demonstration as to how being born there accounted for their being notable (in the common usage of the word). The same with their date of birth.
And, by contrast, though there are a number of Halls of Fame and list and articles relating to Jewish athletes, for example, I do not think that we have the same for people born in, say, 1958.
"Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [1]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [2]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [3]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [4]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [5] and medalists can be found at [6]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [7]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [8] and [9]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [10]. It is mentions such as these, which are typically reflected in the bios in question, that reflect that the Jewish nature of the person has been noted in articles, etc ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.
As to one commentator's suggestion that the fact that a person is Jewish must be defining for that person, for it to be reflected, I think that is a baseless comment. Do we required that they feel that the fact that they are American is defining? That they were born on September 2, 1958? Of course not.
Finally, as to "categories" being sufficient, they are not. They are not part of the article. If the article is quoted in full, they are not quoted. And, I might add, it is I expect typical for every other "category" information to be reflected in the text of the bio -- It would be highly unusual, if not unique, to only reflect the fact in a category, but not in the text.
5. Mention Later in the Bio. Even if: a) for some reason Jews were not viewed as a nation; and b) the fact that a person was Jewish were not notable (i.e., they were not in books of Jewish Sports Legends, or Jewish Halls of Fame, or did not otherwise have their Jewishness noted), that would only be reason to suggest under Wiki policy the fact that they are a Jew should not be mentioned, generally, in the opening paragraph.
There is no suggestion at all in Wiki policy that it should not be mentioned further down in the article.
While some have suggested that inclusion of the fact that someone is a Jew appears disjointed, or awkward, or disconnected, I understand. Arguable the fact that a person was born in 1958 is included in a disjointed fashion. Or that they are American. We are simply used to seeing such mentions in opening paragraphs. Those are referenced in a fashion that is no more "without context" than the references to a person being Jewish. Of course, context would be greater if the word "Jewish" preceded or were hyphenated with the fact that they are "American," for example. Typically, absent Wiki policy, that is where one would expect to also see mention that they are Jewish. Wiki policy moves certain ethnicity mentions down further in the article. But if the narrow reading that some apply to Wiki policy preclude this, the reference to the fact that they are Jewish will typically be just as "out of context" to the fact that they are American, or born in 1958.
I personally think, for the above reasons, that mention that a person is Jewish belongs in the first paragraph.
But was I think is beyond cavil is that it belongs further down in an article, because it is "notable" in the Wiki sense of the word, if it is not in the first paragraph. I believe that all commentators but one have suggested at one time or another that they agree with this.
At that point, whether mention is: a) in the second paragraph; b) in a paragraph relating to the person's having participated in the Maccabiah Games (the Jewish Olympics); c) in a paragraph relating to the person's having been elected to a Jewish Hall of Fame or received an award from one; or d) put in a Miscellaneous section is something that can be discussed. I imagine that cogent arguments can be made for most if not all of those options.
What is, to my mind, inappropriate is to delete the information and not insert it elsewhere in the body of the article.
--Epeefleche 02:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's something that some people would undoubtedly be interested in; certainly whether a public person is or is not Jewish is something that is often discussed by Jewish people. And that ought to be enough to qualify it for inclusion, right there. I deplore the general trend in Wikipedia lately of us deleting information on the grounds that it's something users "don't really need to know". Gzuckier 15:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gzuckier, many people (specifically Jews), do like now to know wether or not someone is Jewish. I would put it in the opening paragraph UNLESS there is a biography of their early childhood where it can be written ("born to a Jewish family in Huston, Texas" or "born to Jewish parents in Huston, Texas" or something like this. It also should go in the opening paragraph if their Jewishness is specifically notable to them. And to comment on earlier posts, Jews are a nation (in the older/non-standard sense of the word), a ethnicity, and a religion. But Jews are certainly not mearly a religion or ethnicity. Epson291 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sabre
[edit]
In answer to your question, I don't know, I fenced for years and never saw it spelled "saber." Have you? Maybe in military terms that spelling is acceptable, but I've never seen it spelled that way in the sport. Bruxism 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See [11] and [12]. I think you will find that the more common American spelling, as on the USOC site, is saber. --Epeefleche 07:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message
[edit]
Yes, of course it's a picture of me! :-) Do you know how to switch on your e-mail and e-mail me?--Londoneye 21:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work adding references to the Azmi Bishara's article!
[edit]
Good work adding references to the Azmi Bishara's article! I've reorganized the references, preferring to bring an exact quote whenever possible. This is not necessarily good style.
Please note, though, that although the 2006 visit to Syria is now well-documented, the report still falls short of Wikipedia's NPOV's policy, in my opinion, since it does not bring Bishara's explanations of his visit. Itayb 12:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tx. You might want to add his explanatations. Also, a minor editing point, the footnotes are properly place after commas and periods (though before semicolons). --Epeefleche 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Islam and antiSemitism
[edit]
Could you please respond to this. Thanks. Bless sins 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antisemitism
[edit]
Here are some academic sources:
From Encyclopedia of Islam (EI), the standard encyclopaedia of the academic discipline of Islamic studies
"there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews (at most they were distinguished by prescribed differences in dress); but it later came about that some categories of d̲h̲immī s were looked on as friends of foreign powers and were worse treated, and naturally some Christians were in this respect more of a target than the Jews. There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism."
The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion
"In the Muslim world, antisemitism developments were far less overt, except in periods of religous extremism. There was little specific antisemitism, and Jews were treated (or ill-treated) like other infidels."
S. D. Goitein, a preeminent scholar in the areas of Jewish-Arab relations and Islamic culture:
"Still “anti-Semitism,” that is, hostility directed against the Jewish community, was not entirely absent from medieval islam, as has been assumed."(Reference to article in Encyclopedia of Islam)..."Although the term [antisemitism] is perhaps inapprorpiate in medieval Islamic setting, it is used here to differentiate animosity against Jews from discrimination practiced by Islam against non-Muslims in general. The Genizah material confirms the existence of a discernible form of anti-Judaism in the time and the place considered here, but that form of 'anti-Semitism', if we may use this term, appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic."
Nissim Rijwan
"Anti-Semitism, then, is an exclusively Christian phenomenon and, as such, a predominantly Western one. It is therefore both historically wrong and morally inexcusable to try to apply the term to non-Christian and non-Western societies."
So, as you can see it is not obvious that Qur'an contains antisemitic stuff. --Aminz 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fencing
[edit]
Thank you for your kind words and for so many pages created on Russian and Soviet fencers! I hardly can add something on Mazina and Sharikov, because I have very few information on fencers of the post-Soviet Russia. But I have some information on fencers of the Soviet Union, and I'm going to contribute to Viktor Krovopuskov article shortly. Cmapm 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newhan - Are Spring Training Stats Trivial?
[edit]
not for guys trying to make the team in spring training, they are not. more important than minor league stats, as the major league staff is watching. imho. --Epeefleche 23:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to post stats for Milledge, Ben Johnson, Anderson Hernandez etc?? The thing is, minor league stats are conserved and remembered years to come...they span a greater amount of time and show development. Spring training stats, more or less, are thrown out the window...it's a time for pitchers to try new things and it's more about getting into shape. We can discuss this further but it probably be best to refer it to wiki-project baseball. SERSeanCrane 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I followed them, yes, I would post their stats.
Spring training serves different purposes for different players. What you say as to spring training being about getting into shape is the case for players who have made the team, but that is not what it is about for Newhan. For Newhan, it is about impressing Willie and the coaching staff, so that they pick him for the team.
And as to spring training stats being thown out the window, the trend is the reverse. See, for example, http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/David-Newhan.shtml , in which you can see that Newhan didn't have very good springs hitting wise in 2005 and 2006.
As far as referring it to wiki-project baseball, that sounds fine to me if you are unwilling to undo your revert.
Might I prevail upon you to do it for me, as I am not sure how that is done.
Thanks. --Epeefleche 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See [here] and [here]. SERSeanCrane 03:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Tx. --Epeefleche 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit summaries
[edit]
Epeefleche, I'd like to thank you for all your work on baseball articles. I've seen you editing lots of articles on my watchlist recently, and articles like Ryan Braun seem to fleshed out better. But I do have a simple request: please use an edit summary when you are making changes -- it helps editors to know what has changed and whether they need to examine the history in detail. To remember, you can set your user preferences to "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks! -Phoenixrod 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks. Noted -- will try to do so, when not minor revisions. --Epeefleche 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Heads up
[edit]
Hi Epee, Just wanted to let you know what I am doing. I am going back to articles on MLB players who have ethnicity inserted into them under "High school" or "early carrer" ect that isn't relevant to that perticular section. I will try to leave alone the players that actually have a relevance for mentioning this material. I have had numerous discussions with folks lately and that seems to be appropriate. Again, I will try to only cases where this material is really out of place and not approriate to start. Anyways, just wanted to let you know. Again, lets try to get some other editors involved and start with the marginal cases and see where we get. Thanks,--Tom 23:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tom. Thanks. I have no problem myself with the location of mentions of ethnicity, and if you want to move the mentions to different sections that is of no moment to me. But I would have a problem with the deletion of the mention completely from the body of the articles. There is no Wiki policy support for that, and the inference is the opposite. So if you don't like it under the section that it appears in, and wish to move it to another section or creat a miscellaneous section or the link under which to list it, that is fine with me. --Epeefleche 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Epee, As you can see. I left probably say 1/3 of your material. I did in some case remove "Jewish" from the article since it was blantantly out of place and I am not going to write a full blown bio so it reads well since I don't think its relevant except in the cases where their is historical significance. Also, in my opinion, this whole "Joe Blow is 7th in hits among Jewish players" is offensive. This is not the Jewish sports encyclopedia and again looks terribly out of place. Also, would these players really like to see how they are only be graded against other Jews? What, they can't measure up on their own merits? I don't even care about sources at this point, its still about how the article reads. Anyways, again, please get some more eyes in here and listen to others. Also, the Marty Glickman article needs to have Jewish-American taken out of the lead sentence. His ethnicity and discrimination can be told further into the article. Leo Frank is one of the few articles that does that. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ps, on Glickman, if his discrimination was of such note, maybe mention it in the lead sentemce? Just a thought, Tom[reply]
Even with ethnicity, Wiki policy calls for its mention in the opening if it is relevant to the subjects's "notability." That is certainly the case with Glickman.
To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia.
That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."
Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to include that fact in the opening paragraph of their bio.
(Query, btw, as well whether one might argue that where a person is included in an ethnicity list on Wiki, as under "Black Jews," their ethnicity is notable.)
Some commentators seem to confuse what is meant by "notable" with their own, non-Wiki definition.
That is for example what you appear to be doing when you indicate that you, Tom, don't think its relevant except in the cases where their is historical significance. That is not the Wiki test.
The same goes for your opinion that "this whole 'Joe Blow is 7th in hits among Jewish players' is offensive. And your personal view that these players would not really like to see how they are graded against other Jews. Those are your views, but Wiki focuses not on Tom's views, but rather on notability -- as defined by Wiki.
Notability does not mean that they are famous for being of that group.
There are a number of Halls of Fame and list and articles relating to Jewish athletes, for example, I do not think that we have the same for Catholics or Protestants.
"Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [13]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [14]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [15]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [16]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [17] and medalists can be found at [18]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [19]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [20] and [21]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [22]. It is mentions such as these, which are typically reflected in the bios in question, that reflect that the Jewish nature of the person has been noted in articles, etc ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.
Finally, "categories" are not sufficient. They are not part of the article. If the article is quoted in full, they are not quoted. And, I might add, it is I expect typical for every other "category" information to be reflected in the text of the bio -- It would be highly unusual, if not unique, to only reflect the fact in a category, but not in the text. --Epeefleche 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Epee, thats why I am suggesting to work the material into the article in a reasonable fashion and then use the categories. Also, per policy about categories, you shouldn't have both categories and sub categories both listed. Anyways, your last round of including ethnicty under miscellaneous is boarderline offensive to me. We are only 70 years removed from when a group of folks in Germany went around compiling list of Jews for very dispicable reasons. Again, you are doing this out of ethnic pride right? Just making sure. --Tom 02:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom--am doing it for the same reason that all of the article written about these athletes do so, and that the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and the International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame and US Holocaust Museume (see [23]) do so. There is nothing perjorative in it. As to the Nazis and Jewish athletes, the Helene Mayer, Attila Petschauer, Roman Kantor, Alfred Flatow, Janos Garay, Oskar Gerde, and Marty Glickman articles may interest you. --Epeefleche 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats the point Epee, Wikipedia is NOT the groups you site above. Anyways, my head is throbbing from banging it against the wall with you. Listen I will defer to user:Jayjg, unless he disagrees with me of course, :) OK? --Tom 03:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have referred to Wiki policy. As you will see from the part of the policy that I have copied above, notability can be determined by the fact that a person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries. I don't see any issue here, and while I have referred you to Wiki policy I have not seen an explanation from you as to how you believe it supports your approach. I think this is a non-issue. --Epeefleche 03:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Moe Berg
[edit]
I had removed the external link to the Jewish Sports Hall of Fame as redundant because its now linked in the References section (diff here). Do we need two links? -- MarcoTolo 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, where the external link is there (as here) for a general reference (it is a bio), and not to support only the one specific point that it otherwise covers in the footnote. The same as with footnotes and a bibliography in a book. --Epeefleche 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Steve Hertz
[edit]
Wow. I am extremely impressed with your expansion of this article. I have started many articles for fairly obscure baseball players and Mr. Hertz might just top the list Mikemoto, 24:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha. Well, his becoming a manager in the IBL, along with Blomberg and Shamsky and Holtzman, is what made him catch my eye. --Epeefleche 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But you might be interested in Adam Greenberg's bio ... he is still playing, but has an even shorter (and more interesting) MLB career so far ........ --Epeefleche 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Goody Rosen
[edit]
A separate paragraph for each year is excessive, not in line with Wikipedia practice, and hurts readability ... spaces around em-dashes are contrary to WP:MOS ... listing names of some arbitrarily-selected people in the top six of a list where the subject is #7 is not encyclopedic and not relevant to the article (if you want to call for discussions about that, please go ahead) ... citing a Wikipedia mirror as a source for an unsourced statement is obviously not appropriate. I think that covers all the edits. --Walor 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ovarian cysts
[edit]
I reverted your edit to dermoid cyst. You are correct that dermoid cysts are only one kind of ovarian cyst; but that expanation belongs on whichever page describes ovarian cysts or ovarian tumors more generally, not on the dermoid cyst page. Okay? Una Smith 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think that it would be helpful to the reader for their to be mention of the linked phrase ovarian cyst there so that they can jump to that link easily, and know it exists, if they are interested in ovarian cysts generally, of which this is a subset. How that mention appears is less important to me. Thoughts? --Epeefleche 19:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Una Smith 18:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Dmitry Salita
[edit]
Hello, I reverted one of your edits on this article. Please take a look at something I posted on the talk page, [[24]]. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ... I will add some citations. While Wikipedia is full of articles that have citations only in the links section, and not to paras. or internal sections, and while I think that the material in question is all supported by the links urls, I will bring some of it up into footnotes. I see your point where much of it consists of quotations. --Epeefleche 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fencers
[edit]
Thanks for the additions to the fencers. May I ask where you are finding the information? --Epeefleche 20:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
mostly from www.databaseolympics.com and www.olympic-medallists.com In a latter site, when you type some countrycode (eg like USA.html, FRA.html or HUN.html) after the domainname, you can get some info. Otherwise it is not accessible.Gh 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Thanks much. --Epeefleche 18:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Lou Limmer
[edit]
I added a short page for Limmer who passed away on April 1 in Florida. Perhaps you can help expand the article a little Mikemoto 24:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tx! Done. --Epeefleche 02:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Category:Jewish figure skaters
[edit]
Please don't remove cfd tags from ongoing discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this issue was already covered, as I pointed out, ad nauseum. Unless you can point to a reason for it to be discussed again, it is innapropriate to put a cfd tag on an issue that is already discussed. --Epeefleche 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Vegaswikian 07:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I am going to let this stand, but I think ProveIt is abusing Wikipedia. He has already suggested that another category of Jewish athlete be deleted. Jewish Fencers. His suggestion was not accepted. He raises no new arguments here. It is a wast of everyone's time to therefore have to go through the same process, to reach the same conclusion. This discussion also took place with the category Jewish sportspeople. People should not be allowed to waste others' time in this manner. --Epeefleche 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
re: Attempt to delete subcategory of Jewish figure skaters
[edit]
You didn't mean to post this to me, did you? ;) Look, I've got no problem with subcats of Jewish athletes. I just don't think Athletes by Relgion by Sport is that worth it, and if we have Jewish figure skaters, we need to have Catholic figure skaters and Protestant Figure Skaters and it just becomes a headache.
On added thought, who do you mean by "they"? Kolindigo 02:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I left my reply to you on this on your page, where you first posted your comment, distinguishing Jews for the purposes of this discussion (i.e., nationhood, notability, etc.).
By "they," as I mentioned, I refer to those who tried to delete the categories "Jewish sportspeople," and then "Jewish Fencers" in the past. Their efforts were rejected. And yet, they are trying to do the same here. Editors such as ProveIt and coelacan and Abberley2 were all involved, for example, in the recent failed attempt to have jewish fencers removed as a category. I personally think it is a waste of our time for them to try again here, category by category. But when I asked some of them to drop it for that reason, they refused. --Epeefleche 02:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleting categories
[edit]
And where did this come from? 'I think that your suggestion that it was appropriate to put a subcategory of Jewish sportspeople to a deletion vote was wrongheaded.' I have not made any comments on the discussion for Category:Jewish figure skaters which I think this is about. Vegaswikian 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see your entry above in: "Category:Jewish figure skaters" --Epeefleche 05:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that was an opinion on this issue you are totally mistaken. Your removal of the CfD notice tag while the discussion was on going was the problem. I reverted it back and warned you for what is considered vandalism. 05:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Did I say that was an opinion on the issue? I had thought that I said that what was inappropriate was your supporting to suggest that a vote go on that is clearly redundant. I would suggest for your consideration the possiblity that supporting clearly redundant votes is a form of vandalism against which we might all be vigilant. --Epeefleche 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Zeq_and_Zero0000 Zeq 08:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heather Higgins
[edit]
I didn't want to be discourteous by immediately reverting your recent edit, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), Whole numbers from zero to ten should be spelled out as words in the body of an article. Use numerals in tables and infoboxes. Numbers above ten may be written out if they are expressed in two or fewer words, except in tables and infoboxes. Example: "sixteen", "eighty-four", "two hundred", "twenty million" but "3.75", "544", "21 million". This stylistic rule is typical of many in-house style guides. Now, the Wikipedia style guide doesn't state that numbers must be spelled out, but I just prefer the words to the numerals within text blocks for aesthetic reasons. I'll leave it to your discretion. DickClarkMises 00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that it is much easier to read as numerals, and takes up less space -- and, given that it is clearly permitted, I therefore gravitate in that direction. Are you certain that you are OK with it?--Epeefleche 01:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sean Bergenheim
[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Sean Bergenheim, you will be blocked from editing. Krm500 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Huh?--Epeefleche 07:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish sportspeople changed to jewish sportspeople. --Krm500 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only did that where a google search supported the change. Was Bergenheim the only one?--Epeefleche 11:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation
[edit]
Please do not copy and paste text from other websites as you did to Emelie Rotter (div, website). It can be considered copyright infringement. Awartha 18:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if one copies and pastes text from another website without any reformulation, and the text does not fall into one of the exception categories, such as falling into the public domain, then that may well rise to the level of copyright infringement. That is why it is my practice to both reformulate any such language, and (for ethical reasons, if not legal reasons) to include a citation to the source, either as a footnote or in a links or external links section. That addresses copyright and plagiarism issues. In addition, please note that the information itself is not copyrighted, but rather only the form of expression of the information. If you would like to further reformulate any language, go ahead, but please note that to simply delete it undoes helpful work of others and does not allow us to make these articles, appropriately, more robust. Thanks much. --Epeefleche 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding linebreaks and changing the punctuation does not make something not copyvio. It just means you spent five seconds adding in hard returns and periods. Vivian Joseph and Ronald Joseph are both very blatant. Awartha 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, I have to say I've studied copright law, and think that this is a non-issue here. This is the reporting of facts (which is not copyrightable), and the format is sufficiently changed to suffice. If it is reported that "x won a gold medal in the olympics," and one writes that "in the olympics x won a gold medal," that will not raise an issue of copyright violations. If you feel that the article can be improved by your further changing the language, without deleting information, go right ahead. To simply delete information would be wrong-headed, especially since there is no copyright issue. --Epeefleche 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Ausmus
[edit]
I'm trying to figure out where the statement that Brad Ausmus has demonstrated superior range is verified in the external links of his article. Since such information is notoriously pernicious, the statement not be cited in the body of the work, if it's going to remain?Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/ausmubr01.shtml, which is the third link down in the external links, sets forth his range and the league's range for each year that he has played. Plus, I'm not quite sure what is pernicious about that -- quite the opposite, I would think.--Epeefleche 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skating
[edit]
Hi there! Sorry for the belated answer but I'm not on-wiki every day. There's a few issues here. First off, as a result of its sheer size, Wikipedia is indeed inconsistent, and it's also possible for consensus to change, especially if several months have passed since the last debate. So the existence of Category:Jewish fencers is not per se grounds for keeping the ice skaters cat (by the same argument, the non-existence of the ice skaters cat could be considered grounds for deleting the fencer cat).
Second, regarding "canvassing", please see WP:CANVASS. It is understandable that people will bring a debate to the attention of others who they know (or suspect) to agree with them, but since such debates are not decided by vote count, this is generally ineffective.
And third, it would indeed be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page for deletion (e.g. taking a page that was not deleted yesterday, and nominate it again today) but this is about a different page. Also, repeat nominations after a few months have passed are generally ok.
I hope that answers your question? >Radiant< 15:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me!
Inconsistent with Prior Decisions. As mentioned, I think the decision is inconsistent with the prior decisions. The instant discussion mirrors the discussions on the other two subjects. See Jewish sportspeople discussion in 9/06 [25], and Jewish fencers discussion in 2/07 [26], as well as the just concluded discussion on Jewish businesspeople. In all of those instances, the subjects were not deleted as categories as the result of the discussions.
First, I thought that where the past and instant votes are parallel, and the arguments are parallel, that the decision should be parallel. This is not a case here of consensus changing, if you look at the prior two discussions and compare them to the instant one. Nor is it a case of the arguments that were made changing. Given that the consensus is parallel, and the arguments are parallel, it strikes me that the two issues that you mention do not apply here. I would think, therefore, that the decision here should be the same as the decisions were in both of those categories.
This is not wholly dissimilar from the comment on your discussion page, in which you were alerted to something that relates to your own prior vote.
Vote stacking? Second, as to the canvassing, I took a look at the url that you were so kind as to supply. Thanks for sending it to me. It seems somewhat internally inconsistent to me, but just to clarify what I did .... I don't think that I did anything disruptive. As the arbitrator in the article mentioned was "fine," I engaged in "a reasonable amount of communication about issues [and did not contact] a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." Actually, as a number of editors who had voiced the opposite opinion in the parallel debates had (somehow) been aware of this vote and voted their past feelings yet again, I think that it would have been more disruptive if the people on the other side of the vote were not aware of the vote. All that I did was engage in what the Arbitration Committee has ruled is part of Wikipedia's common practice: "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages."
Would you reconsider your decision? If not, I would like to appeal it.
Also, in the interim would it be possible to put the tags back on the Jewish ice skaters? Thanks.--Epeefleche 17:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent isn't binding on Wikipedia, in large part because we have a LOT of precedent and we don't want people to argue about the jurisprudence. It wouldn't surprise me if I could also find a precedent to the contrary if I looked around. And no, I don't think you did anything disruptive either, and I don't think I've said that. What tags are you talking about? >Radiant< 08:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.
BTW, essentially the same arguments (again, by many of the same people) were just raised on the discussion re Jewish Musicians, which closed today, with the decision also being to not delete it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_16#Category:Jewish_musicians .
Would you reconsider your decision? If not, I would like to appeal it.
By "tags" I am referring to the references to the skaters being "Jewish skaters." Is it possible to keep those on, until your review (or, if that is not engaged in or does not result in a "keep," alternatively the appeal review process) is concluded?
Thanks again. --Epeefleche 22:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about this and I see no compelling reason to overturn my closing. You are, of course, welcome to appeal it, on deletion review. I believe those "tags" have already been removed, and I would advise against replacing them unless the review overturns the closing. >Radiant< 08:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listing it on DRV is certainly appropriate at this point, no problem. >Radiant< 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers
[edit]
Please read WP:DATE, Numbers in words. Small numbers should be better spelled out in words. Thank you.--Ioannes Pragensis 14:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As I mentioned, the exception to that rule is when they are within a context or list in which others are numerals, as where others are above nine, as is explained in the url that you cited.--Epeefleche 15:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing
[edit]
I'm particularly concerned about your pattern of edit warring in recent edits. You have made at least thirteen clearly marked reverts of other editors' edits today, and accompanied this pattern of aggressive editing with a singular failure to engage in much communication. Your use of talk and user talk has been very sparse.
Please don't go down this route. If someone reverts your bold edits, the best thing to do is to go to the talk page and explain why you made the edit. We don't make an encyclopedia by fighting. --Tony Sidaway 23:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I believe that nearly all of those edits were by the one person whom you and I have been discussing.
He has been intent on arguing first that Mikhail Botvinnik is not Jewish. As I explained on your page, his only support for this was his feeling that one cannot have both been Jewish and Soviet or Communist. That is a puzzling view. Not only that, but it is contrary to the view of, among others, one of the 3 sources to whom I cited, who has been described by the President of the US FIDE as the foremost chess historian. For some reason, that escapes me, you indicated that you found that source and the others to be dubious. And reverted my material, which is more heavily sourced than the entire rest of the article.
His other comments in material that I RV'd was similarly curious. Such as his view that Zionism was the same as Judaism.
I always gave cogent replies to him. And indeed added more citations, where I would suggest none were needed. All he ever did was have feelings, that were contrary to the citations.
And as he objected to various chess players, on the grounds that he felt that they were not Jewish, but rather merely from Jewish families, or that that was all that should be indicated, I despite it being another peculiarity on his part provided additional citations when reverting his RVs that were based on his feelings.
I believe that first of all his comments (he was the one aggressively deleting my work -- I was only restoring properly sourced material) were wrong-headed. Secondly, even so, I added citations. Thirdly, I added explanations in the comment fields as I restored the integrity of the sourced articles. Fourth, when you suggested I do so, I engaged you in discussion on a talk page. Fifth, I find the fact that you refer to such edits as bold, and the fact that you reverted the Botvinnik edit itself in the face of the above facts, as disruptive.
I did explain the reason for keeping the properly sourced material status quo. And, added further citations. All your fellow did was ... Really, I think that it is the other tree that you should be barking up. This is not even a close call. --Epeefleche 23:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expect the other chap has been a little aggressive, too. But this doesn't mean that you are both allowed to slog it out like this. --Tony Sidaway 23:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. That is like saying, if you drafted an article saying that George Washington was male, and cited to the foremost historian's web article supporting it, but I had a "feeling" that people who chop down cherry trees are female, you would be "disruptive" if you simply kept the language as you had it, gave me explanations in the comment fields of your RVs, and added even more citations to the text of the article. Context is all-important here. I've done nothing innapropriate here IMHO. --Epeefleche 23:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reuben Fine-Please contain the fellow whose edits you have been supporting. See the Reuben Fine page. He is now deleting the citation laden reference to Fine being Jewish, because it is "possible" for people to change their religion, despite any evidence that he did so. This is getting absurd. He is also violating the 3RV rule. Thanks.--Epeefleche 16:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Botvinnik
[edit]
You're most welcome. —Cel ithemis 00:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography Standards
[edit]
Hi. The standards I use are described at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I know people do all kinds of other things, but this is the standard that's been laid down for a few years now, and is generally followed. Deb 10:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks.--Epeefleche 19:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maccabiah Games
[edit]
I am overhauling the entire Maccabiah Games on Wikipedia. There is no reason that it souldn't be as good if not better than the Olympic Games articles. I want to make a WikiProject out of it. Also, I made this list, but perhaps you might have more to add: List of Maccabiah medalists in fencing (men). -NYC2TLV 17:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you! BTW, can you point me to where I might find lists of maccabiah medal winners? Tx much!--Epeefleche 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aron Nimzowitsch
[edit]
Regarding my changes in Aron Nimzowitsch, the sentence just sounded awkward the way it was phrased, so I changed it. I'm sorry I didn't notice it had been reverted back and forth already. I'm not sure it's necessary to emphasize the distinction, but if you feel that way, there must be a better way of phrasing it. I'm not sure about Nimzowitsch, but there are other players like Samuel Reshevsky whose Jewish background had a much more profound influence on his life and character - incidentally, that article should make more mention of it. Anyway, sorry I've inadverdently restarted an edit war - just trying to help! youngvalter 05:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter. Understood. All that is being sought here is a reference in the text to the fact that he was Jewish. Nothing more. Your language said something less -- that his family was Jewish. You indicated that you disliked the prior language formulation -- do you have a suggestion as to better language? I think that we don't have any substantive disagreement here, and would be interested in seeing yet a 3rd formulation that both satisfies your ear and states that he (not just his family) was Jewish.
As to your point on there being other players whose Jewish background was more prominent in their lives, I'm sure that's true, and as you suggest it may be that their bios should properly make greater mention of that. All I'm trying for in this instance is the bare bones reference. Under Wiki, there is no more suggestion that the fact that the person was Jewish influenced their life than, say, the fact that they were Russian, or born on April 7, for it to be reflected in their bio. And that is all I was seeking to do here.
Thanks for your understanding, and for working this out on a talk page.--Epeefleche 20:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps putting it into the lead sentence, i.e. "Nimzowitsch was a Latvian Jewish chess player," would be simplest. youngvalter 03:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine with me. But I fear that others take the (debatable, IMHO) that under Wiki format suggestions the phrase Jewish should be in other than the lead sentence. Admittedly, this would lead one to put it in a more awkward location, as as a matter of common sense your construct is the most natural, and as a matter of convention it is normal to list "Latvian" in the lead sentence.
So -- you can try that approach, if you like, which may well lead to objections for the above reasons, which would then likely lead to a discussion as to whether the indicated policy applies here or whether an exception in the policy applies. Or you can try to add the phrase at a later point in the article. Either work for me. Would you like to choose an approach from those two? I would think either would be fine for me.
Thanks again. Nice working with you. --Epeefleche 20:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried coming up with other ways of solving this, but failed. So I had a look at other articles on Jewish personalities, and it seems the most common ways of handling this are (in no particular order, I wasn't keeping score):
Putting it in the lead sentence. Now I see that WP:NAMES frowns on that approach, I agree you're wise not to take it (although that's exactly what you did for Mikhail Tal, and nobody seems to mind.)

Noting in the first line of the biography that the subject was born to a Jewish family or to Jewish parents, i.e. what we have now. To me, it's very obvious that if one came from a Jewish family, then one is Jewish by ethnicity, and it makes no difference to me if you try to emphasize the latter. I wonder how others feel about this.

Not mentioning it early on, but incorporating it later in the article with an explanation as to why the Jewish background of the subject was notable. This is what I was trying to get at with the reference to Reshevsky, but I didn't explain myself well.
So, I'd suggest that you ask for opinions of other contributors on the second point. I've tried, but I'm afraid this is the best I can do. Regards, youngvalter 03:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Walter's point about the family remark. Noting that Nimzowitsch was of Jewish descent, or that he came from a Jewish family, is as good a way of indicating his Jewishness as any and is a common wording. It has the benefit that it does not assume anything about his actual beliefs or practices (of which nothing has been cited). It isn't controversial to call him Jewish either, but I think it was unnecessary to ever change the original wording (which I wrote). If the editing war is to have an end without tiresome arbitration, one of you needs to back off, and I think it might as well be you. (Echoing this at Talk:Aron Nimzowitsch for the benefit of other readers.) --Pbn-dk 21:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. Following up on Walter's suggestion, if any of you have an opinion on this, feel free to mention it here.
As far as the above options are concerned, my personal view at this moment is that option 2 is the only unworkable one, as it states something less that what we are trying to say. My view on it, in short, is that the most relevant fact is whether x is Jewish. If the article is about x. To say that x's parents or family were Jewish is secondary ... and why go for secondary when you can say what you want to say directly. And in fewer words.
But I would be happy to hear other views.
BTW, curiously, as to the question of whether Wiki allows mention of Jewish in the lead (my view is yes, both because Jews are different than other relgions that are not a nation, and because it fits within the exception in the Wiki guidleline, but others have a narrower interpretation) looking at the examples given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) as properly written bios, one will see (emphasis added) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29 the following:
Isaac Asimov (c. January 2, 1920 – April 6, 1992, IPA: /ˈaɪzək ˈæzɪmˌɔf/, originally Исаак Озимов but now transcribed into Russian as Айзек Азимов) was a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist ....
Which as you might expect I view as rather strong support of my interpretation.
--Epeefleche 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helpful revisions
[edit]
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)[reply]
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 makes 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)[reply]
Hi Tom. Funny one. :)
I don't see the "note below" that you refer to.
As far as insertion of the info in the lead sentence, see the note above our conversation for my thoughts. The Wiki policy that I refer to, which is the focus of some people who focus more on their view of required format than they do on what is AWK, no doubt largely causes this problem. I expect you don't have a problem with mention that someone is Latvian, say, in the lead ... and do not view that as AWK. And, as you and our colleague in the above discussion point out, it was seem non-AWK to say "Jewish" or "Jew" either before or after the reference to Latvian. But, where some people's reading of the Wiki format direction stops us from doing this, we are necessarily forced into a more awkward presentation. What you say "looks, feels, very awkward."
If I want to satisfy the format-is-most-important people, and I want to satisfy the AWK-is-most-important people, and still wish to reflect simply, in the text, that someone is Jewish, with no greater emphasis than mention of the fact that they are Latvian, I find that at times this can be challenging (depending on whether the interested parties wish to make the article better, or just like deleting or reverting the info, without putting it in a form that works for them and others).
There are, I expect, one or two other groups of editors out there. One group just wishes to delete mention of the fact generally that people are Jewish. Another group wishes to delete mention of the fact that people are Jewish if they believe it will help -- or hurt -- the image of Jews that they wish to propogate. These two group, I expect, do not indicate what their true interest is, but cloak their arguments with psuedo-rationale argumentation.
Personally, while I personally support reflection that people are Jewish especially in the area of sportspeople, I would not delete such a reference where the person in question is not one that the Jews might be proud to call their own. If it notable, as measured -- and this is important -- by reflection of the fact in multiple sources that are reliable and not connected, then I have no problem with "good" or "bad" people being identified as Jews, if that is the case ... the same as I have no problem with them being identified as Latvians.
I appreciate your comment that you are not trying to ethnically cleanse articles, as you put it.
I just had some people delete a category that I created, Jewish figure skaters. It was deleted despite the fact that attempts to delete Jewish sportspeople and Jewish fencers, with largely the same arguments, recently, by the same people, did not result in deletion. That is now up for deletion review. If you could give me any thoughts as to your thinking on how to address this issue that would be great as well.
Cheers. Have a great weekend.
--Epeefleche 20:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
[edit]
I'm not a Wikipedia administrator or anything. I'm sure you're allowed to contact people involved in the previous discussion. I don't know if the other people participating in the deletion review would consider it good form or not. -- Mwalcoff 23:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Do you know anyone who is an administrator or expert in this whom I might contact?--Epeefleche 22:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing problems
[edit]
All our other differences aside, you had better stop editing Isaac Asimov from your blackberry, because you're mangling a lot of the special characters, and cutting out the end of the article. I suspect it is a technical issue. See Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues Peter Ballard 07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter! You are absolutely correct that the Isaac Asimov edit clearly suffered from some computer SNAFU. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Have a great evening.--Epeefleche 23:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
[edit]
Thanks for your notes. Those issues are all resolved. I notice that you and Ioannes Pragensis are still edit warring. Do you think you could stop that, please? It isn't good for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking in on this. Since you looked it would appear at the history and the talk pages on the various bios at issue, you would have noticed I suspect that I moved the conversation to the talk pages, stopped making edits, and invited IP to join me in a discussion on the talk pages and do the same. With some difficulty, which may (or may not) be due to the fact that we are not both conversing in out native language, it appeared (especially with Peter's assistance on the MB page) that we had consensus. Expressing as much on the talk pages I waited, and then made the appropriate edits. Only to have, in at least one bio, and I believe more, IP again RV.
I'm at wits end. Trying one last time, and if I fail I'll have to assume that my going-in assumption of good faith is not properly placed, and elevate the matter.
Do you have a suggestion as to which approach I should take if that ends up being the case? Many thanks.--Epeefleche 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vote stacking
[edit]
I note you have been denying that you've been vote stacking lately. I suggest you stop spreading misinformation like that, as your actions are perfectly clear from the edit logs. WP:CANVASSing is disruptive. >Radiant< 08:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Radiant. In the above section, Skating, I explained to you as follows:
"This is not wholly dissimilar from the comment on your discussion page, in which you were alerted to something that relates to your own prior vote.
Vote stacking? ... as to the canvassing, I took a look at the url that you were so kind as to supply. Thanks for sending it to me. It seems somewhat internally inconsistent to me, but just to clarify what I did .... I don't think that I did anything disruptive. As the arbitrator in the article mentioned was "fine," I engaged in "a reasonable amount of communication about issues [and did not contact] a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." Actually, as a number of editors who had voiced the opposite opinion in the parallel debates had (somehow) been aware of this vote and voted their past feelings yet again, I think that it would have been more disruptive if the people on the other side of the vote were not aware of the vote. All that I did was engage in what the Arbitration Committee has ruled is part of Wikipedia's common practice: "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages."
To which you replied, in pertinent part, on April 24th:
"*...no, I don't think you did anything disruptive either, and I don't think I've said that."
Now, however, that I have appealed your delete decision, you seem both to have ignored my explanation, as well as your admission that I didn't do anything disruptive (the core of vote stacking), and instead have without basis accused me of vote stacking.
And, I might note, on the discussion page with regard to a review of your delete decision with regard to the category of Jewish Figure Skaters, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_3, you have removed my discussion of that issue from the discussion page (without my permission), and moved it to another page. And then proceeded to repeat your baseless assertion on that page. While I understand that you might, as a personal matter, not wish to have people have the same ease of access to my comments as they have to yours, I find your behavior astoundingly innapropriate. As I have requested already, I would appreciate your returning my comments to the discussion page from which you removed them.
Many thanks.--Epeefleche 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The boxing Judahs
[edit]
Hi Epee, before I go and revert all the brothers, can you provide a source for their ethnicity and its relevance? Thanks in advance, --Tom 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tom. Thanks for checking in before taking action. Let me take a look and see what I can do ... have you googled this yourself already to no avail?--Epeefleche 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Back again. I did a few minutes of googling, and quickly found the following.
"An African-American whose family has declared themselves Jewish ...*"Zab Judah"
"According to Jewish lineage, the story of the son always begins with the father; it is the father who defines and grounds the son. The principle seems to be alive and well in the Judah family. Yoel Judah, an avowed Israelite or Black Jew, is the undisputed ruler of his clan.""AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH YOEL JUDAH,"
"The best Jewish fighter of all time—Zab Judah—is a bore in the ring." "IS BOXING RELEVANT?"
"Zab Judah ... Of Hebrew heritage ... Jewish Boxers" Boxrec
Not a source, but a literature reference, is the following: ""Zab Judah is the only Yid champ left!" I said loudly to no one in particular but to everybody specifically. "Naturally, they'll never make the Hebe the headline bout, the Nazi bastards!" "Shanda: the making and breaking of a self-loathing Jew, by Neal Karlen, Chapter 1: Uncle Tom Jew"
That's way more support in aggregate than I see in that article for any other factoid.
By the way, if you want to look at deleting some completely unsourced material, or getting sources for it, look at the acquaintences section .....
--Epeefleche 00:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are acting a bit on the trollish side, which isn't going to win you a lot of friends
[edit]
But since we're supposed to give folks the benefit of the doubt around here, the way to deal with Admins we are in conflict with, I'm told is:
Make sure you've made good faith efforts at resolving the situation on your own by leaving a message/messages on the admin's talk page (which I note you have done).

Follow Resolving_disputes for further steps. (Wherein, I think you'll find reason to investigate RfC/User conduct - added later --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I understand these steps culminate in processes like the Mediation Cabal or the community sanction noticeboard.

If these steps fail, then Mediation is recommended.

If Mediation fails, then the absolute last resort recommended is Arbitration.
At all of these steps you will be expected to follow the relevant policies and guidelines, assume good faith, and be a good doobie. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much!--Epeefleche 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zab Judah is not Jewish
[edit]
Can you stop writing that Zab Judah (the boxer) is Jewish. I'm tired of changing something that's incorrect. Go on youtube and watch his fight with Mayweather if you'd like more evidence. No Jew is going to thank "his lord and savior Jesus Christ." He's a Black Hebrew Israelite, they hate Jews. How does it make sense to call this guy Jewish if it doesn't fit any of the definitions of Judaism? Watch minute 7:00 if you'd like to see the evidence yourself straight from Zab Judah himself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BpVlaVy12hE—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Enegue (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hey ... thanks for your message. Let me take a look and see what I can do ... have you googled this yourself already to no avail?
See citations at "The Boxing Judahs," above, in addition to my point that those are more sources than exist for any other factoid in the article.
If you want to put in both those citations, and your url ... works for me. But deleting that he is Jewish in the face of these citations would not seem right. Work for you>--Epeefleche 23:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you have failed to take into account is that the sources in "The Boxing Judahs" are not first-hand sources and they got their information because the Judahs call themselves Israelites (also indicated in the sources above) and wear Jewish apparel such as the Star of David on some of their clothes. The sources actually indicate that Judah is an (Black Hebrew)"Israelite" (which is correct) and a Jew (which is incorrect). What settles this whole debate is the source I provided, the youtube link. This clearly and incontrovertibly proves that Judah is not Jewish since Jews do not believe that Jesus Christ is their savior, which is exactly what Zab Judah said. Since this comes directly from Zab Judah's mouth, this source obviously has much more weight than any outside source and invalidates contradictory statements. Given this information, please delete the part about Zab Judah being Jewish. Enegue 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. If anyone else is reading this, to see the comment that Engue is referring to above, you most look further up on the page to my comments at the section entitled "The Boxing Judahs."
Enegue -- Sadly, I do not have access to sound at the moment, so I cannot listen to the Youtube url to which you directed me. But I have no problem with your reflecting it in the article ... go right ahead, as far as I am concerned.
As to the sources that I cited above, they are all fine sources. Wiki does not require direct quotes of every fact. These sources speak for themselves, and when I have a moment I will put them into the bios as appropriate to augment the points that they make. You should feel free to put in your url. I would do it for you, but cant listen.
And your comment does not support that the were not jewish.
EpeeflecheEpeefleche 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, "Jews for Jesus" are not considered Jews. Most of the sources that we're debating do not show that Judah is a Jew. The 1st one says his "family declared themselves Jewish." So what? I can declare myself to be a Martian, it doesn't make me one. The 2nd source says "an avowed Israelite or Black Jew." Once again all this points to is that he is a Black Hebrew Israelite, who claim Jewish descent, but this is not supported by the mainstream Jewish community, just like "Jews for Jesus" is not accepted. The 4th source doens't even clearly say Judah is Jewish, it only has a category called "Jewish Boxers" at the bottom of a webpage...Maybe someone forgot to take him off the list since there is NO mention of it in his BIO, that doesn't seem weird to you? The Jewish boxers on that website have mention of being Jewish in their bio, Judah does not. So in the end you have only 2 sources that have any support for Judah being Jewish, even though they are clearly incorrect since Jews do not believe that Jesus is their lord and savior. How can it possibly get any clearer than that, coming directly from Zab Judah's own mouth on national television?
I can write in several sentences about the controversy about Zab Judah's religion in his Bio, maybe that will be even better than removing it all together. But I will write-in everything I feel should be said to give an accurate description of the real Zab Judah. Enegue 22:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something that may or may not be of interest to you
[edit]
I don't know if you've seen this, but it seems like it might be in line with other stuff that has interested you. --Daniel11 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do with an editor who deletes my comments?
[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
DRV, Consensus, and further appeals
[edit]
Hi,
Your question is not a new one: as used on Wikipedia generally, "consensus" is a specialized term-of-art, defined at Wikipedia:Consensus. This definition pemits admin discretion in the finding of consensus, such that precisely laying down an exact standard for all situations is difficult; consensus is a subtle thing, involving not merely the numbers of proponents for various positions in a dispute, but also the strength of the arguments presented, and the overriding need to conform to the fundamental Five Pillars of Wikipedia's policy.
At DRV, furthermore, "consensus" means something a bit different than the usual Wikipedian interpretation of the term. My thoughts on this issue (I've been closing DRVs for a while now, and have tried my best to develop a consistent standard for deletion review, weighing the vast number of different concerns) are here, and may help you to understand the pragmatic nature of the review process. Briefly, DRV is a forum for cloture: it determines whether the community is or is not finished discussing a matter. As such, closer discretion is more limited: the arguments are, by their nature, meta-analytic; meaning that, with some exceptions, any judgment of argumentative merit would be inescapably riddled with subjectivity. DRV is more strictly driven, thus, by majoritarianism. If the majority wants a discussion to end on the basis on an existing consensus (the verdict of the XfD that is up for examination), it does. If a majority wishes to revisit the matter, the subject is relisted.
Even ignoring the allegations of canvassing, the view of the majority in this case was that matter had been settled.
There is no direct appeal from deletion review. However, consensus can always change. If you can locate new evidence, you are always welcome to return to DRV again, with a new argument. You may also choose to approach the issue of Jewish-occupation categories generally through a community process, like centralized discussion or Requests for Comment.
Absolutely, the most conclusive thing you could do would be to assemble academic, scholarly, or popular media citations addressing "Jewish figure skaters" as a distinct group. The consensus argument now dominant holds that categories of the form "X (nationality) Y (occupation)" are disfavored generally as being of infinite variety and little correlative encyclopedic importance. Evidence that academics or common people study and/or comment widely on this particular subgroup would provide a counter-example to the existing dominant view. To play devil's advocate for a moment (I have no view on this question myself) -- Who cares about Jewish figure skaters? (meaning, what scholars? what newspapers? what interest groups?) Since encyclopedias require verifiable proof of all claims, the answer to this question must come in the form of citations (the more, the better) to reliable published works.
The fate of any appeal of yours rest on your search for this kind of evidence. Find it, and consensus will change to favor your point-of-view. From experience, I can tell you that nothing short of that is likely to change the community's view. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your very helpful note!
As to just one point that you raise, "Who cares about Jewish figure skaters?," I addressed that question in the discussion, citing to a number of articles about Jewish figure skater per se.
For ease of reference, you can find them in the below comment.
That discussion btw was moved off of the discussion page without my permission by another editor (who had contrary views). His (opaque, I would suggest) argument was that my comments were too long. I found his behavior to be akin to what my reaction would have been had Bill Clinton stolen Monica's blue dress from her home, and then charged that he only did it in the interest of spring cleaning.
I feel: 1) that that action improperly impacted the discussion, making it harder for readers and potential commentators to read my comments than those of the fellow with opposite views; and 2) is behavior that is innapropriate for Wiki -- and without more, nothing is done vis-a-vis this fellow, and as far as he is concerned his behavior went by without negative repercussions and -- better yet -- was rewarded vis a vis the result. How might I purse this, both vis-a-vis the article and vis-a-vis the editor in question?
Thanks much for your help.--Epeefleche 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism; Discussion of Proposed Deletion of Category: Jewish Figure Skaters
[edit]
A user (Radiant!) vandalized a discussion page by removing my submission to it without my permission. Admittedly, the discussion was contrary to his points of view, which he left on the page. I am pasting it here so that I have a record of it and can keep an eye on it pending further possible deletions of it.
Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 3*Comment. Having read the above comments, I thought it might be helpful to share my thoughts to the discussion, to date, in one place. Some of this is unfortunately repetitive of prior comments in the original discussion and on individuals talk pages. I apologize for that, but felt this was necessitated by the fact that some of the above comments on this page suggest that some commentators have limited their analysis only to comments that made their way to this page.
1. Rationale Given for Deletion. The rationale given by Radiant for his deletion of the category was: "The result of the debate was delete. Most of the debate boils down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS vs. non-defining intersection. The former is not a valid argument, and vote stacking is inappropriate."
Radiant's failure to consider arguments presented. First, contrary to Radiant's glib dismissal, the underlying debate that he was charged with reviewing reveals that in their analysis those supporting non-deletion went far beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yet that is the only substantive point presented by those supporting non-deletion that Radiant indicates he considered.
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- what it actually says. Second, in fact, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS deals primarily with instances that are inapposite. Such as where other articles existed that were not the subject of a failed deletion review. That is clearly not the case here. Considering facts closer to our facts, the article says that: "Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted ... but even here caution should be used." Fine, this is only an admonition to be cautious -- not, as Radiant wrote, an indication that it is "not a valid argument." But lets go on to look at what encourages caution. "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons: does the fact that there is an article on every Pokémon character mean there necessarily should be an article on every character in Super Mario Bros?" Well, this is distinguishable. We are speaking here of deletion of a subcategory, were the parent category survived an attempt to delete it. Those circumstances are much stronger, and parallel, than the Pokemon example. The same holds for survival of direct sister categories after a deletion review. So Radiant's suggestion that this falls into Otherstuffexists is not a valid one -- and even if it were to fall under that umbrella, the guidance would only call for caution at most, and not as Radiant indicated be an invalid argument.
Non-defining intersection? Third, Radiant then went on to cite, as his only substantive reason for supporting deletion, "non-defining intersection." WP:OCAT), in "Non-defining or trivial characteristic," says "We should categorize by what is actually important in a person's life, such as their career, origin and major accomplishments. In contrast, someone's tastes in food, their favorite holiday destination, or the amount of tattoos they have are trivial—it may be interesting to put in the article, but is not useful categorization." Well, Judaism is closer to origin than it is to taste in foods, for example, so this does not appear to be terribly supportive of Radiant's deletion decision. In addition, clearly Wiki does not consider the fact that someone is Jewish to be a non-defining characteristic. For example, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), which in giving an example of a model, acceptable bio, states the fact that Isaac Asimov was "a Russian-born American Jewish author and biochemist."
While I do not suggest that the arguments of people who supported deletion were as simple as Radiant suggested, that was the only substantive basis he cited for his decision. And, it is not applicable.
Lack of Consensus. Further, Radiant did not address the fact that there was a lack of consensus. Such lack of consensus is a proper basis for not deleting the category, and in fact was the basis relied upon in the non-deletion decisions in the parent and sister categories.
2. Notability. Wiki policy calls for sensitivity towards "notability."
To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."
Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement.
Articles. Such is the case with Jewish figure skaters. The media abounds with articles about Jewish figure skaters, and ones that mention that such figure skaters are Jewish. See, for example, "Results in for Jewish Figure Skaters","Jews on Ice; World Jewry controls women's figure skating", "Jewish skater earns a silver," 3/2/06, "Jewish Figure Skater Hopes to Ice Spot in '98 Olympic Games," 1/19/96, "Oksana’s New Spin; Gold medal figure skater now embracing her recently discovered Jewish roots, with the help of an ex-chasidic fashion designer," 2/16/07, "How Gold Medalist Sarah Hughes Skated under the 'Jewish Radar'", "Feisty Figure Skater Sasha Cohen Heads Off to the Olympics, Magen David in Tow," 1/25/02, "The Tribe goes to Torino: Sketches of Jewish Olympic-Bound Athletes," 2/16/06, "Jewish Life at the Olympics", International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame - Lili Kronberger, Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bio, Southern California Jewish Sports Hall of Fame, "Louis Rubenstein's story recounted on film," The Canadian Jewish News, 6/3/04.
Halls of Fame, etc. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame, and lists, relating to Jewish athletes. "Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [27]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [28]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [29]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [30]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [31] and medalists can be found at [32]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [33]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [34] and [35]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [36].
It is mentions such as these that demonstrate the importance and notability of this classification -- which is what Wiki policy focuses on.
In addition, as is indicated in the Wiki articles of some of the more prominent examples, e.g., those of Louis Rubenstein and Michael Shmerkin, anti-semitism played a role in the careers of some Jewish figure skaters, who were often treated differently from non-Jewish figure skaters. This was especially common with Jewish athletes in the former Iron Curtain countries, and as you can see from their bios, a number of these skaters finally emigrated from those countries when they were able to. In addition, there are many examples of Jewish athletes in anti-semitic countries such as those in Nazi Europe facing the same, and greater, difficulties.
3. Heritage. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), demonstrates that a category such as "Jewish figure skaters" is clearly contemplated by Wiki policy. It says: Heritage ... People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: .... The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors). ... Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."
4. Nationality. Also, as an additional point, given that the Jews are a nation, and not solely a religion, it is clearly not appropriate to delete.
The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens.
Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. but are also a nation.
5. Inconsistent with Prior Decisions. As mentioned, I think the delete decision was inconsistent with the prior decisions. The instant discussion mirrors the discussions on the other two subjects. See Jewish sportspeople discussion in 9/06 [37], and Jewish fencers discussion in 2/07 [38]. One is the parent category. One is a sister category.
Farther afield, admittedly, but with many of the same arguments and the same "keep" result, are the very recently concluded discussion on Jewish businesspeople and Jewish Musicians . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_16#Category:Jewish_musicians. In all of those instances, as a result of the discussion review the subjects were not deleted as categories.
Where the past and instant votes are parallel, and the arguments are parallel, and the votes are close in time, the decision should be parallel. This is not a case here of consensus changing -- if you look at the prior two discussions and compare them to the instant one. Nor is it a case of the arguments changing. It might also be noted as well that many of those seeking deletion of this category were those who presented arguments, without success, seeking the deletion of the aforementioned categories.
The decision here should be the same as the decisions were in both of those categories. The action sought in the instant matter --KEEP-- is precisely the action that was taken in the other 2 instances. That the basis for the action taken is that there was no consensus is fine. There was certainly no greater consensus here, so the result, to keep the category, should be the same.
Clearly, we are trying to build a Wiki that has a degree of standards, and consistency in the application of those standards. This flies in the face of that effort, which is at the core of all Wiki policies and guidelines.
Radiant, in endorsing himself above, writes: "we don't do binding precedents." His reason? "Wikipedia is not a system of law." I followed his internal link. Frankly, I do not see anything in Wiki to suggest that, as he puts it, Wiki does not "do" precedents. Despite assertions above to the contrary, precedent is indeed something that Wiki looks at. As just one example, see WP:OCAT "based on ... WP:CFD precedent."
And Xtifr, while supporting deletion in the above discussion, himself relies on his understanding of applicable precedent.
Disruptive Behavior. As I communicated to Prove It on my talk page, "this issue was already covered, as I pointed out, ad nauseum. Unless you can point to a reason for it to be discussed again, it is innapropriate to put a cfd tag on an issue that is already discussed." He failed to respond. I then, in the interest of forward movement, wrote, "I am going to let this stand, but I think ProveIt is abusing Wikipedia. He has already suggested that another category of Jewish athlete be deleted. Jewish Fencers. His suggestion was not accepted. He raises no new arguments here. It is a waste of everyone's time to therefore have to go through the same process, to reach the same conclusion. This discussion also took place with the category Jewish sportspeople."
This deletion effort appears to be at least in part a part of a continued effort by a number of editors to delete categories that relate to "Jewish __." As noted, few of the editors in this discussion formerly tried to delete the categories "Jewish sportspeople," and/or "Jewish Fencers" in the past. Their efforts were rejected. And yet, they are trying to do the same here. Editors such as ProveIt and coelacan and Abberley2 were all involved, for example, in the recent failed attempt to have jewish fencers removed as a category.
6. Categorization. As Wiki states, "Categorization is a useful tool for finding and correlating articles.WP:OCAT)
We already have a parent category, Jewish sportspeople, which has undergone and withstood proposed deletion review. Deletion of this subcategory would have the opposite effect. The subcategorization -- one of many -- allows one ot break down the members of the partent category into smaller groups for easy comparison and/or location, rather than wade through the larger category. As has been pointed out, if all Jewish sportspeople subcategories were deleted, they would be upmerged into Jewish sportspeople, and if that were to be deleted with other sister categories, they would be upmerged to Jews. Not only would all of this be anything but subcategorization, it would be contrary to the above indicated Wiki principles.
7. The skaters in the category. The Jewish figure skaters in the category, btw, included Sarah Abitbol, Benjamin Agosto, Ilya Averbukh, Oksana Baiul, Alexei Beletski, Judy Blumberg, Cindy Bortz, Fritzi Burger, Alain Calmat, Galit Chait, Sasha Cohen, Amber Corwin, Loren Galler-Rabinowitz, Aleksandr Gorelik, Melissa Gregory, Natalia Gudina, Emily Hughes, Sarah Hughes, Ronald Joseph, Vivian Joseph, Gennadi Karponossov, Tamar Katz, Lily Kronberger, Irina Rodnina, Emilia Rotter, Louis Rubenstein, Sergei Sakhnovsky, Michael Seibert, Julia Shapiro, Michael Shmerkin, Jamie Silverstein, Irina Slutskaya, Maxim Staviski, László Szollás, Alexandra Zaretski, and Roman Zaretski.
8. Vote stacking? As to the charge of "vote stacking," all that I did was alert some of the people who had voted in the "Jewish fencers" and "Jewish sportspeople" votes that there was another vote pending on the same subject. This is not wholly dissimilar, as I indicated to Radiant, from the directly prior comment on his discussion page, in which he was alerted to something that related to his own prior vote.
The only Wiki policy that I saw that was close to bearing on this issue, which was not applicable here, was that: "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the debate in order to sway its outcome. Such comments ... may be tagged ... noting that a user "has made few or no other edits"." I did not ask anyone outside of Wikipedia to vote.
Further, I did not do anything anything disruptive. See WP:CANVASS). As the arbitrator in the article mentioned was "fine," I engaged simply in "a reasonable amount of communication about issues [and did not contact] a number of people who do not ordinarily edit the disputed article." In fact, as a number of editors who had voiced the opposite opinion in the parallel debates had (somehow) been aware of this vote and voted their past feelings yet again, I think that it would have been more disruptive if the people on the non-delete side of the vote were not aware of the vote. All that I did was engage in what the Arbitration Committee has ruled is part of Wikipedia's common practice: "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages."
I would also point out, in passing, that among those users whom I contacted, as you can see from my talk page and his, was Kolindigo, the fellow who nominated this for deletion -- i.e., the main person on the opposite side of this issue. Just as I alerted Radiant that his decision to delete was up for review, though his views were clearly contrary to mine. And I notified the theWub, who had deleted all of the individual categories. These contacts, though few in number, were not even one-sided.
True, someone (it is not apparent who) put an eye-catching notice on the top of the deletion discussion page that started with "ATTENTION!" It may have some nice graphics, but the suggestion is unfounded. It may well not have been appropriate, but I noticed that all that the notice said as a substantive matter was that deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. While I felt -- and communicated quite clearly to Radiant and others -- that there was no "vote stacking" here, but only behavior clearly acceptable under Wiki guidelines, I also noted that the notice itself pointed out that there would not be any effect if there were vote stacking -- given that rather it is the arguments, not the number of votes, that is of moment.
That Radiant (and others) should: 1) accept the unfounded assertion, which was incorrect, and then 2) suggest that their acceptance of the assertion is a basis for deleting the category, is wrong-headed. The number of votes did not matter, as the notice states. It would be non-sensical in any event to, where the arguments presented otherwise would not result in a deletion decision, to delete the category because some arguments only came to the attention of the decision maker as a result of such a communication -- appropriate or not. In short, there was no vote stacking, and had there been any it would not have influenced anything, so it should not lead to deletion where the result would otherwise be non-deletion.
And not only did Radiant in making his decision point to alleged vote stacking, but even in this review discussion Rockstar points to it as a basis for his conclusion that deletion is proper here. ("I don't like the fact, furthermore, that the DRV nom is also accused of votestacking and canvassing.") Similarly, Xtifr writes above in his delete vote explanation that "the suggestions of canvassing are troubling." I note that both Rockstar and Xtifr are careful to say not that I vote stacked, but that I was accused of such. Well, that accusation was unfounded, and the fact that it influenced Radiant, Rockstar, and Xtifr indicates that their decision were based in part on incorrect accusations.--Epeefleche 01:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Radiant problem continues, as can be seen from his talk page, which now includes this addition ... "Please do not move discussion from one talk page to another without consensus. You didn't have my permission or a consensus decision to move my discussion from WT:IAR to WT:DRV. You made a unilateral decision to move that material. This is my civil request on your talk page that you move it back. You may note a similar request on WT:IAR#DRV --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)" Query how we as a community can stop the vandalism.--Epeefleche 16:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV on Jewish Figure Skaters, cont.
[edit]
Hi,
You do have a point. I'll be honest -- I did not find the comments Radiant moved until after closing the DRV (I read the discussion of comments having been moved to a talk page, checked the category's talk page, found nothing, and assumed there was a mix-up.) When I read your remarks, I was impressed with the citations. With all due respect, however, you are not blameless on the question of your comments having been moved. "Brevity is the soul of wit" -- you would have been much better served by a simple "look at these citations:" than the extensive remarks you made. While I do think Radiant's comment-move (usually called a "refactoring" in wiki-speak) might have affected the debate, I can't say he was groundless in so doing. He might honestly have missed the links if he failed to read the long remarks closely. It is acceptable practice to move overwrought passages to talk pages in some cases... though I would not have done so if I were Radiant.
In short, I do think Radiant "goofed up" a little. I don't think pursuing "sanctions" against him is advisable, because his error was in good faith. Radiant is a long-time editor, a friend, and a mentor to me and many folks around the wiki. He's usually a very fair, funny guy; but, everybody makes mistakes, and gets a little frustrated, from time to time. You should realize that he has probably had arguments about "X (ethnicity) Y (occupation)" in literally 3000 distinct cases by now. If he's a bit quicker-to-dismiss than might be ideal, it is only because he has confronted many people who are simply too attached to their affection for a particular category to listen to reasonable arguments. I can see that this is not true in your case; but, I've only had this argument about 50 times, so I'm fresh by comparison! :)
After I saw your citations on the talk page, I briefly considered overturning myself and reopening the DRV. I decided against it for the following reason. The links you provided did demonstrate that a segment of the Jewish community cares about Jewish figure skaters. This isn't very surprising; the Jews deserve to be, and are, a proud people. That said, I don't think this is the strongest case you could make. I still think there are scholarly/academic sources to be found here.
The fact that Jewish groups care about Jews of a certain occupation (or that Irish groups care about Irish people of a certain occupation, or that African-Americans care about African-Americans in a certain occupation... I use those examples because I'm an Irish black guy ;) is a valid argument; but, it doesn't provide a strong answer to those who rightly worry about potentially infinite variations of this schemata. "Any nationality X" will have a significant portion of its people who care about "People of nationality X" in "any given occupation Y". To answer this argument strongly, one needs evidence of encyclopedic merit over and beyond this natural, universal national/ethnic self-pride.
I was once an academic in cultural history. From my work, I can assert confidently that "African American business executives" is a category Wikipedia should have: not only have African-Americans cared about that sort of social success very deeply; but, the importance of this subgroup has been studied by academics all over the world. By contrast, "American American yodeling instructors" is a category Wikipedia does NOT need -- even though there are very, very few of these, and any one of them is likely to be covered in the local press (ask my cousin, Thomas!)
The existence of Jewish "halls of fame", for example, goes a long way to proving (for me) that Wikipedia needs its category on "Jewish athletes." Someone is studying and collecting objective information on that population as a subgroup. "Jewish figure skating"? Still not proved to my satisfaction; nor, I think, the community's. I expect to see you back at DRV in a week or two. If you have the sort of academic evidence I think you might find, I expect everyone to look favorably on your request. (If Radiant still has his doubts, I'll nudge him personally.) On the other hand, if you cannot find that scholarly evidence, then you might wish to think about the problem of infinite varieties of national/ethnic self-pride, and the relative unimportance (encyclopedically speaking) of "African American yodelers". If there are no academic sources for Jewish figure-skaters, then Jewish athletes (the larger, more-studied supergroup thereof) might be a better place to focus your efforts. Best wishes, Xoloz 20:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I accept your brevity is the soul of wit comment. But as you comments above suggest, lack of brevity may be less than witty, without being witless. And, at times, may be appropriate. (Especially in converstations, such as that one, where there are charges on the other side of lack of analysis).
Your comment that you did not yourself see the comments is highly supportive of my point that it is not appropriate, especially, for an interested party to move the comments of others. And then add to his own, to boot.
Will revert further on substance when I have a moment, but wanted to make these quick points. Tx again.--Epeefleche 20:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate your honesty. You I see are interested in truth, and for that I respect you.
Impact of Unauthorized Comment Move. Given that you didn't review my comments, which Radiant had moved without my authorization -- and which he failed to return to the discussion page, despite many requests from me and at least two by other editors, I would respectfully request that your determination be changed to "keep due to no consensus," or else reopened.
If you didn't see my comments, one can easily understand that others who (after my comments were moved against my wishes by the fellow who disagreed with them) made comments -- or who failed to make comments, after reviewing the discussion -- did so without the benefit of having considered the input that I had provided. They should have had that benefit at the time that they made their comments. Or chose not to comment. Thus, the entire debate as reflected on that discussion page is flawed, as it does not reflect their views formed after publicly equally accessible debate, but only after one-sided representation of the debate.
Citations and Notability. I understand your suggestion that I might have been much better served by a simple "look at these citations." The approach that I took was to try to state what I had to say once. You will note how brief my initial comment was. I waited for others to provide input. And then sought to respond once, to the many comments. I organized my comment, and put in bolded headers to assist with ease of reading. Unlike Radiant, for example, who redundantly made (what I believe are unfounded) assertions as to vote stacking and the like.
As to the substantive discussion above on what I would refer to as notablity, I would suggest that notability for Wiki purposes is satisfied by reference to the sources that I provided. The fact that there are many newspaper articles about Jewish Figure Skaters, qua Jewish Figure Skaters, is enough.
The protection against "potentially infinite variations of this schemata" (I'll avoid going into a discussion of what the harm is that we are protecting against) is precisely what wiki points to in determining notability. Do such articles, etc., exist. That is happily an objective criteria. And is not the case, I would guess, for American Indian Muslim Taxi Cab Drivers. So the protection exists ... though from what, I am not sure. (And, of course, if we end up with an article a year in separate publications about American Indian Taxi Cab Drivers, and they end up with their own American Indian Muslim Taxi Cab Driver Hall of Fame ... well yes, you guessed it, they pass the notability criteria as far as I am concerned.)
You appreciate that the existence of Jewish "halls of fame" goes a long way to proving that Wikipedia needs its category on "Jewish sportspeople." Within this I sought the subcategory "Jewish figure skaters." Articles are written specifically about Jewish figure skaters. Or about x, as a Jewish figure skater. I seen nothing in Wiki that requires "academic evidence" when I already have supplied replete evidence of notability. And, of course, for me to do so would require an even longer comment on this subject.
Consensus. I looked at the Wiki definition of consensus. Even if I do not convince all those who comment, or you do not believe my arguments are so strong that all reasonable people should necessarily be convinced, I believe that I and others have suggested enough substantive reasons to not delete this category that it is not proper to delete it on the basis of consensus.
Where is the Harm? Since the larger sub-group of Jewish athletes exists, sub-groups such as this one only serve to aid the user who wishes to see who all the (two dozen, at this point) Jewish figure skaters are, without opeing up the bio of each Jewish athlete to see if they are one. That's the help. Where's the harm?
Radiant's Actions. You indicate that you can't say Radiant was groundless in refactoring because "He might honestly have missed the links if he failed to read the long remarks closely." Assuming good faith on his part, it remains difficult for me to envision how he missed the links that stand out, as they are in blue. Also, given the number of requests for him to restore the excised material, the fact that he only cut out material that was contrary to his view, and the fact that he then proceeded to laden the comment page with additional comments of his own to tend to erode one's sense of trust in the pureness of his motives.
You say that it is acceptable practice to move overwrought passages to talk pages in some cases, though you would not have done so if you were Radiant. Kindly refer me to any Wiki support for what he did in these circumstances.
The "image of impropriety" is especially astounding given that these are actions of the admin who is defending his own decision. I gather that you are beyond reproach, in that other admins, reviewing his decision, might not admit to viewing him as a friend ... but in the real world, that would lead an appelate judge to recuse himself of course.
As to our discussion about possible sanctions against Radiant, I am happy to discuss further once we determine what can be done about this case, rather than focus on it now. But my review of his talk page suggests that, while to you he has been a friend and mentor and usually very fair, there have been a number of instances in which his actions have in the eyes of others been wholly innapropriate.
Given that as you yourself say Radiant's "refactoring," what you refer to as his little goof, might have affected the debate, I think that this should be reversed. And if not, then reopened.
Many thanks for your thoughtful response.--Epeefleche 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish mathematicians
[edit]
On the CfD I reformatted your reply so that it all hangs together and you can see that the comments are for the keep vote that appeared unsigned. Hope you don't have a problem with this, but I think it will be easier for everyone to follow. Vegaswikian 00:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just glanced at your reformat. As a general matter, I would ask that you not revise my comments without my prior authorization. I do understand that in this instance, however, you left all material in and only sought to make it more readable, leaving it on the discussion page, and therefore by the result it is clear that your intentions were good ones and that the impact was a solely positive one from an objective perspective. Have a great day.--Epeefleche 19:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, the way you tend to format your comments (where only the first line is indented to the current indent level) makes it terribly hard for me to keep track of who's speaking, and I'd love it if you'd comply with the guidelines about that kind of formatting issue. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Helpful. And, btw, I appreciate your help. It contrasts with what Radiant has done -- when I wrote comments that disagreed with his, he deleted mine from the discusson page ... in the putative "interest" of making things easier for readers. Hence my general sensitivity to the issue. Cheers.--Epeefleche 21:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikistalking
[edit]
Wikistalking is not allowed on Wikipedia. What you are doing to Radiant is categorised as Wikistalking. If you continue, action may be taken in the form of a block. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your concern. I read the material at the url. It is inapposite. BTW, given your interest in Wikipedia and expertise in the area of blocks, can you advise me what the most appropriate way is to take action, up to and including blocks, of editors who: 1) delete others' comments, disagreeing from their own, from talk pages; and 2) make comments that in the western world would qualify as libel? Thanks much for your thoughts. Have a great day.--Epeefleche 19:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that this blasé attitude is likely to land you in trouble. Whatever concerns you have had over User:Radiant!'s conduct, your interactions (eg [39]) now seem to be little more than an exercise in goading. Give some thought to this situation, consider how best you can further the interests of the encyclopaedia. Consider whether it is actually necessary for you to interact with Radiant! given the antipathy between you. Perhaps it is best to let these things drop and continue with productive contributions?
Xdamr^talk 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing blase at all. I read the material at the url. It is inapposite. Blase would have been to not read it. Or not respond.
I think your point is well made, and I have given some thought to this situation, considering how best I can further the interests of the encyclopaedia. Radiant has now deleted even more of my comments from discussion pages. Upon reflection, it strikes me that this may less than helpful to the interests of Wikipedia.
Consider whether it is actually necessary for you to interact with Radiant! at all given the antipathy between you.
Given your interest in Wikipedia (my expectations as to the interest of the other editor in Wikipedia may have been misplaced, based on his failure to get back to me ... or perhaps he is busy, and will get back to me yet), and given your expertise in this area which no doubt is far greater than mine, can you advise me what the most appropriate way is to take action, up to and including blocks, of editors who: 1) delete others' comments, disagreeing from their own, from talk pages; and 2) make comments that in the western world would qualify as libel? Your advice as to how this might be done most effectively, with the least disruption to Wikipedia (e.g., edit warring is clearly not the answer -- I am looking for an approach that Wiki would find not only the most effective but the most appropriate one) would go a long way to helping Wikipedia.
And btw, I bear no antipathy towards Radiant! I am sure that he or she is a fine person. I do find it to be somewhat less than helpful for an editor to delete others' comments, repeatedly, without their authorization, simply because they are contrary to the views of the editor, however.
I look forward to your joining me in an effort to making W a better encyclopedia by providing this information.--Epeefleche 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish mathematicians
[edit]
I reverted your last edit, because you undid what I thought was an important post by Geometry Guy (he struck his delete and explained that he is thinking about it a bit more). I suspect this was a conflict where you just overroad the conflict rather than re-editing, but you really shouldn't do that on a CfD in particular, since it means something gets lost.A Musing 22:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Technological snafu here. If you look at my talk page, you will see that I have a strong sensitivity to precisely what you described. Thanks again.--Epeefleche 22:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant
[edit]
Am I correct to assume that all of the reverts of your comments by Radiant have been made on his own user talk page? If not, could you show me some reverts he did elsewhere? --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No; while Radiant also deleted my comments on his talk page, my focus at the moment is his deletion (and move) of my comments on the following talk page, discussing the proposed deletion of a category with other editors [40].
I can provide as well cites to numerous requests by me and at least one other editor for Radiant to put my comment back on the talk page.
I understand from [41] the following: "Behavior that is unacceptable ... some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.... As a rule, don't edit others' comments. Exceptions are described in the next section." None of those exceptions apply.
The admin who closed the discussion as no consensus indicated to me that he did not see my deleted/moved comments before he made his decision. It would be reasonable then to expect that others also didn't see my comments. See as well DRV on Jewish Figure Skaters, cont. above.
Though I've requested a number of times that the admin revert his decision (or at least relist the item) under the circumstances, I've not received a response.
BTW -- while I communicated with Radiant (to no avail--he never responded), I avoided an edit war. Not that it did any good.--Epeefleche 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radiant seems to think he has good evidence that you contravened the Canvassing guideline. In any case it seems to be all water under the bridge now, so it's probably best to chalk it down to experience. We all learn daily on Wikipedia. If you and one other person have been trying to tackle Radiant about this removal of your comment, and you both think he went against some policy and you were definitely in the right, it might be worth considering a User conduct RFC, though I don't think this case is serious enough to merit pursuing further. If he removes your comments again, not from his talk page but from somewhere else, then try to tackle him about it, and ask me for help too, and we'll see if we can sort it out with him. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A couple of thoughts. First, as I indicated in the comment that he deleted from the talk page, there was no canvassing. It's a bald, false, assertion. He never stated anything that bore upon my refutation, let alone showed it to be wrong.
Second, if I had canvassed, that would still not be an excuse under the policy for him to remove my comment. The removal is still a clear violation.
Third, the removal impacted the vote. The admin closing it did so without seeing my comment. One can only presume that others who commented (and failed to comment) did so in the absence of my input as well. That poisons the vote, which is an ongoing concern for me.
(I might also mention that editors are pointing to that discussion page in an ongoing new cat deletion discussion ... and those who read it are impacted in that they do not see my comment ... so there is another ongoing impact).
Tx for your input.--Epeefleche 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Rifkin
[edit]
With regards to the notability, WP:BIO is a guideline, and arguably, a minor leaguer who has drafted 1,479th overall and never made it up from the minor leagues is not notable. If you disagree, I encourage you to state the case for notabilty on the article talk page and remove the notice. -- Whpq 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment for you is seperate from the notability tag above - the reason I re-named it "Spouses and Children", since that is an important subsection for any biography, regardless of baseball, sciences, arts, etc. In terms of expanding, for biographical information, the name of his wife, how they met, when they married, when their children were born, etc. --Ozgod 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fencing (Flick)
[edit]
In response to a question you had last summer Epeefleche: 'Lock-out' refers to the mechanism of the electronic scoring system which disallows additional touches after a certain margin of time after the first hit. The new 2005 timings have increased the Impact Time from 1-5 ms to 13-15 ms, and decreased the Blocking Time (discussed above) from 750 +/-50 ms to 300 +/-25 ms. Thus, the blocking time has been effectively halved. Hope that helps to clarify. Bradybd 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Koplove article
[edit]
Hi ... I see you reverted the deletion of references in Mike Koplove to his being Jewish. I removed these references because someone claiming to be Koplove added an edit to the page saying that he is not Jewish (see [42]). I don't think there's any way to know for certain if the note was left by him, but I did a little research and found a blog entry that says his father is Jewish and his mother Christian and that he "practices his mother's faith". I grant you that a blog entry is not the best source, but since the question of his cultural/religious identification is not really germane to his notability as a baseball player, I thought it reasonable to remove the references. --Sanfranman59 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saul Rogovin
[edit]
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Saul Rogovin. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. I will address specific concerns about the article on it's talk page. - Masonpatriot 14:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lumper
[edit]
Yup. I was using him as en example more for the inline citations than paragraph structure. The latest couple I'm workign on are a lot better in that regard.--Wizardman 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links
[edit]
Wiki is not a link farm. Fangraphs does not belong in the link section of every page. If you want to reference it in articles, fine, but it is not worthy of inclusion. There are enough sites that provide statistical analysis. Wiki is not a place for expert discourse, it is an encyclopedia for the masses. I will continue to follow wiki's WP:BOLD policy. In the meantime, you should spend some time reviewing WP:LINK before adding external links here. //Tecmobowl 08:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is pretty open and shut. Again, if you want to cite a particular website in an article that improves the quality of the article, go right ahead. Short of that, there is not much to discuss. While I appreciate your attempts to discuss this, you did not do a good job. You simply reverted my edits and did not open a discussion with me. Again, please spend some time reading WP:LINK before commenting more on this topic. I have marked this page for watching, if you would like to continue the discussion here, please feel free to do so. // Tecmobowl 08:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I see no problems with the Fangraphs link. It provides unique statistical information that can't be found at Baseball-Reference or any other baseball statistical website. There is a bit of an excess of ELs at Sandy Koufax, so I have removed some unnecessary links. Also, don't edit war; please discuss on the talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tecmobowl
[edit]
Thank you for your comments. I couldn't see what it was you were linking to. But maybe a case is starting to build against that guy. Baseball Bugs 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. The hyphens threw me off. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Removal by Tecmobowl of urls with unique information; failure to discuss rather than delete; edit warring Thanks for letting me know. I added my tupence worth to the discussion. My problem with him is not necessarily all of his edits, but with his "my way or the highway" attitude. Baseball Bugs 15:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maccabiah
[edit]
I have posted a WikiProject proposal for a Maccabiah WikiProject. You should sign up if you are interested. -NYC2TLV 08:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Good work on that category, btw! Not sure I will sign up for it (not sure what that entails), but I will follow with interest and contribute when I can.--Epeefleche 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impending WP:3RR violation at Al Rosen
[edit]
Please take this as a word to the wise, especially as I am in near total agreement on the issues that we have been addressing here. The sequence of edits and reversions of the Al Rosen article are placing you at the cusp of violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy. I was penalized not too long ago and given a block for a rather pedantic violation of the rule, and the admins who hand out the penalties are rather inflexible in their by-the-book interpretation of the policy. Please read the WP:3RR article and be forewarned. Alansohn 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]