This is an archive of past discussions with User:Therexbanner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Therexbanner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
According to Jewish law. But for an encyclopedia, that might not work. Example: Natalie Portman and Michael Douglas have small bits of Russian (ethnic) ancestry. According to Christian laws, if your father is Christian, so are you. Does that make them Christian? I don't think so. But it is not consistent to say he is just Jewish, with 3 of his 4 grand parents being ethnically German. Did you notice that the article says he is part Jewish? Everybody agreed on that, the issue that some (one actually) user is trying to push that he is only Jewish, and nothing else.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Protection on Andre Geim
Hi. I protected Andre Geim due to an edit war over categories. It seems a bit excessive to leave it protected to all edits for something as minor as categories. So, I am going to unprotect it, but I'm asking all editors to regard it is protected in regard to categories until the dispute is resolved. Please continue the discussion or take it to dispute resolution. I hope I won't have to, but I am willing to enforce this with blocks (rather than protection) if necessary. Thanks for your understanding.--Scott Mac20:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the typo. If you click on "Appropriate vadalism warnings?", it will take you straight to the thread. NickCT (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Therexbanner. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Andre Geim
Your battles on TALK:Andre Geim make me laugh nostalgically. You truly have no idea how many articles existed and exist that have been torn to pieces by people trying to establish someone as "Jewish." I could write you a list. Note that User:Epeefleche's sole purpose on Wikipedia is to make as many disparate individuals as Jewish as possible - or so he makes it seem. You'll notice the way he re-wrote the article, the word "Jewish" shows up 7 times . (Also intentionally describing Geim's mother as "German-Jewish" instead of "German and German-Jewish.") By the amount of words devoted to his Judaism, you'd think Geim was a rabbi or a Hassidic, not a secular scientist of "some" Jewish ancestry. Bulldog12308:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been around long, but in the end it appears that Epeefleche was trying to co-operate in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
The thing is, there are news articles that state Geim is Jewish, and he said in an interview that his grandmother is (although she's the only one). Keeping in mind that people like Michael Douglas, Leonardo Di Caprio, and Natalie Portman are listed as Russian Americans even though their only relation to Russia is through a great-grandparent, I believe it would be ok to mention his grandparent in his biography.
However, I do agree with the fact that the current edition (with the confusing citations) is not amazing. You should keep in mind that it was implemented to establish a general consensus, and to prevent edit warring.
How do you feel about sending this list to AFD? It's already been deleted twice before and just recreated against consensus. The list serves no academic value. People will say it does because some researchers (i.e., Charles Murray) use it to make hypothesis about Ashkenazi intelligence and the bottlenecking of genes, but there is no relevant Jewish science to attribute to it - not to mention a significant amount of Nobel Prize winners are Sephardic or 1/2 Jewish (and a handful have converted or been less than 1/2 Jewish) - so it doesn't work the research findings nor does it pass most WP:LIST qualifications. Bulldog12304:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I would support the deletion, although I am a bit worried about the reaction it would get from certain groups. I suggest that you organize the arguments you mentioned so that more objective editors would be able to see your point. It might also be worth noting that halakhic laws (which many biased editors cite) should stay in the temple, and do not apply to an encyclopedia. It's as silly as if the North Koreans (or whoever) had a law, saying anyone who stepped on their soil is automatically North Korean. Regards, --Therexbanner (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Therexbanner, your comment implying and alleged lack of objectivity of various editors here based on their religious beliefs/ethnic origins/national origins is distasteful at best, and will only inflame an already contentious discussion. I strongly recommend you remove it, for everyone's good. I've moved my comment about it from the AfD to here, so that you have an unimpeded opportunity to do so. Jayjg (talk)00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, I changed my statement. I am allowed to make observations, and I pointed out something I found rather interesting.
I did not put those infoboxes on their pages, and I didn't force them to vote.
But, when 7 users of an involved group, all vote to keep, it does seem a bit strange. The part that really concerns me is that they did not discuss the issues posted, and just voted. That's the real problem, not that they're part of a group but that they did not explain their votes.--Therexbanner (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It is my opinion. Your attitude on the issue is not helping, and your threats to me and other editors are only making me more concerned for your true intentions. It's a free country (at least where I am now) and I did not attack you, I merely pointed out my opinion based on your previous statements.--Therexbanner (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is there have been ahandfulofusers whose sole purpose on wikipedia was/is to create or maintain hundreds of Jewish lists/categories/articles and to POV-push biographical articles into making people more Jewish (culturally/religiously/ethnically) than they actually are. The sooner we come to terms with this simple fact, the better. Bulldog12301:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't threatened you or any other editors, and your comment was a simple personal attack, nothing more. Saying something isn't a personal attack because it is your "opinion" is, frankly, ludicrous. I've been trying to solve this issue for over five years, and have been saying the same thing for the past five years; see, for example, this comment from November 2005. Betsythedivine and AndrewTheGrump just want to ensure Andre Geim isn't on the List of Jewish Nobel laureates. I'm actually concerned about policy, and that's quite clear. Jayjg (talk)01:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I assure you it was nothing personal, and not an attack. From what you have posted at the Andre Geim talk page (several weeks ago), I am not really sure of your intentions. You supported editors who claimed self-identification is not necessary for him to be listed as fully Jewish. In 2005 (according to your comment above), you claimed the opposite.
For your information, I also came to the AfD from Andre Geim and that does not mean I (or Betsythedivine or AndreTheGrump or any other user) am not concerned with the policy issues. If you are truly interested in solving the issue, please wait before nominating other AfDs. You are right in that there are many problematic lists, but it would be impossible to keep up with 20+ AfDs at the same time.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for existing. You're one of the few users to see the light, and one of the few not blinded by some type of agenda. I would award you a barnstar, but I feel the people tracking my contributions would find a way to hold that action against me in the future. Stay on wikipedia a long, long time. Bulldog12306:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! I'm sure many more editors are concerned with these issues, and I think the problem is that they cannot be properly informed without being canvassed, and most NPOV editors rarely venture into these lists/articles.
If it wasn't for the stubborn POV-pushing at Andre Geim, I too probably wouldn't have even known these lists exist.
