Jump to content

Talk:Andre Geim/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

German, Jew

(header given retrospectively to include all 5 discussions adressing the same issue. Aviados (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Direct Info

This is what I heard from Geim himself. There are old papers (JETP Letters) where Geim translated his name as Heim or Heym or both. Geim's brother (or uncle) now lives in Dresden.

His father was an ethnic German from the Volga region. The roots of those Germans go back to the 17-18 century when their ancestors escaped religious prosecutions (soemthing like that). His mother was von Bayer, a descendent of an aristocratic Bavarian family (he was a bit proud of this). However, Geim's grandma (Bayer's mother) was a Jew or partially Jewish. I did not get how sure Geim was about this. Geim considered himself an ethnic German, not a Jew. Nevertheless, he accepted that he had some Jewish genes and, I guess, was happy to be a mixed breed of such antagonistic nations.

Would this help to finish the debate? DrWhoever (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, IF you are right, DrWhoever, (a big IF because your claim is completely unsourced) then of course the ancestry of Andre Geim would be quite common, because 10 percent of all Germans have a Jewish ancestry. http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=176651&bolum=101Gladsmile (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
LOL ... did I already cite Einstein? I think it's very simple, the only person who has the right to classify Mr. Geim is Mr. Geim, since he is always classifying himself as Ethnic-German we should stick with this. I think the information is of importance because he often refers himself to this _cultural_ roots. A partially Jewish grandmother is interesting but as long as he doesn't define himself as "Jewish" or "German-Jewish" it's not our right to classify him as such. I myself have an (ethnic) Lebanese mother and would hate it to be classified as Lebanese-German because my culture is (beside food) 100% German. Any genetic argument comes mostly out of racist motivations. I know enough German-Russians to be sure that it is a valuable biographical information (much more than e.g. "German-American" could be) because of the "special" treatment they had in Russia, especially in the Stalin era. And Mr Geim speaks a lot about this. In short: I fear that classifying him as a Jew is a violation of his personal view point. This hysteria reminds me of Boris Becker who once said that his mother has some Jewish relatives which resulted in listing him as Jewish sportsman. Most people nowadays have mixed heritage...this classification thing is ill, ill, ill!
popolfi --89.12.244.253 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Jewish?

Is there any legitimate source that states he is Jewish? You can't just group people based on last names. --Therexbanner (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, he states it here: http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1 --Therexbanner (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The same source states "Because his parents had German ancestry...". Frankly I never heard of Jewish Russia-Germans in Russia (while it's possible). Maybe a mix of both or 20th century immigrants. Would be interesting to know the nationality his parents had in their passport (Soviets knew "Jewish" and "German" in the classification system). See also http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html "he was used to be called a fascist by some and a 'bloddy Jew' by others" and "in the UK he was flabbergasted to called a Russian the first time in his live". Anyway I doubt that he can be called "Russian born" like in the article, rather "soviet born" (if this exist) popolfi --188.107.219.224 (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not Jewish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.76.104 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a speculation. He has German ancestry, speaeking about it here: http://blago-mh.ru/issues/19/20_heim.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.76.104 (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps it would be best not to include him in the "Jewish Scientists" category until we find a clear enough source.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the confusion is caused by the fact that most Russian Jews have German (Yiddish) surnames. Both groups where considered "risky" at soviet times and discriminated in the education system (he states this himself). Anglo-Saxon journalists maybe can't imagine discrimination of Germans and misinterpretate him as Jewish. Reminds me of Einsteins famous quote: "... today in Germany I am called a German man of science, and in England I am represented as a Swiss Jew. If I come to be represented as a bête noire, the descriptions will be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew for the Germans and a German man of science for the English!" popolfi --188.107.219.224 (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I know of those instances, however this one appears to be different. In one of the above-mentioned links, he claims to have German ancestry. If his last name was Haim it would probably be more likely (although it is best not to stereotype people based on their names, ex. Norman Jewison is actually not Jewish, reliogiously or ethnically.)
Anyways, I think that it would be best to have several legitimate and clear sources before making any claims. For example, he is Russian-born (which has nothing to do with his ethnicity), which is known from countless sources/biographies/etc. Until his ethnicity can be proven with confidence, I think it should be left out.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have no problems if he is both. The point is that in post-french-revolution egalitarian Western Europe (including Germany!) Jewish is considered a religion and not an ethnicity and "West-Jews" assimiliated. The greatest part of immigration from Jewish and German minorities into Eastern Europe predate this development, and they lived in closed communities and didn't mix in zarist society. So if he is Jewish, then most likely from Germans who left later in 19th or 20th century.
Anyway I bablefished the Russian interview and he cites a well known German proverb from his father "Morgen, morgen und nicht heute sagen alle faulen Leute!" to describe his work-ethic ... that's so (classic ;) German that he can surely be considered comming from a German background. popolfi --188.107.219.224 (talk) 15:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we shouldnt decide too rapidly - he sure has german (how do you know its volgagerman?) background, but its not clear about the jewish. his fathers surname is "geim", his mothers "bayer", so while the latter for sure has german roots, father could be german or jewish (the surname is actually more typical for jews). what we learn from the primary sources and andre geimer himself? in his application to university he states "nationality - german"which does not contradict tobeing german and jewish at the same time. furthermore stating to be german rather than jewish, could be explained by the discrimination of jews at that time in the soviet universities. furthermore the author of the long and wellinformed article in "scientific computing" writes "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education" and then the author quotes andre geim saying "‘It was extremely selective, and my nationality didn’t help. I was regarded as a potential emigrant who would leave the country, so I had to get the top marks in those exams to get in.’" - one must know that at that time (1976?) no germans emigrated from ussr - this began later. - but again, I am not claiming that he has jewish ancesters, but just that one should make further research on that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.9.146 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I never said Volgagerman! But it wouldn't be very intelligent of his parents to stick with German nationality if they could opt for Jewish. From WWI and especially with WWII till the end of the Stalin era ethnic Germans where subject of massive discrimination and deportations, much worse to the situation of Jews in the USSR (at that time). And why should a one syllable word like Geim be a rather Jewish name? Approximately 150 bearer of this name live in Germany and the dispersion is very regional. If he is both it could be a very interesting case. Anyway I think we should better rely on the research of people able to read the Russian sources. popolfi --188.107.214.92 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


One the official University of Manchester profile article, he states his parents had German ancestry: http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html . Here is an article/bio that states he had a chance to leave Russia because his parents had German ancestry: http://blago-mh.ru/issues/19/20_heim.php . It also states that his daughter (with his Russian wife) says she has Russian parents, although she herself was born in the Netherlands. So I think it's safe to assume he's German/Russian (or Russian/German) ethnically, and the initial confusion stems from his last name and the anti-semitism of some Soviet people who automatically assumed he was Jewish (as popolfi mentioned above.) --Therexbanner (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily classical "anti-semitism", the soviet system had a massiv problem with the loss of "human resources" due to emigration to Israel and Germany. Thats why people with German surnames where considered "risky" when it came to higher education or promotion into higher positions. At least that's what they told me. popolfi --188.107.219.224 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

According sources ( close to Geim himself) mentioned above Geim was born to German parents. "German" in Soviet time means the chosen or "inherited" ethnicity/nationality as described in official papers (passport etc.). It is not clear whether both Geim's "German" parents were of traditional Russian-German descent("Wolga-Deutsche" etc.) or immigrants of 20th century. Geim is Dutch citizen more by chance but he is deeply linked with the UK science (espec. Manchester). SkanderBeck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.135.175.124 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so maybe we could agree on him being a Russian German, holding Russian and Dutch citizenships, and conducting his main research in the United Kingdom. If only someone could rephrase that.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

See Russian version, where to find he is a Russian German! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.76.104 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree! Family names (Konstantin Geim/Nina Beyer) and birth dates (born obviously inside empire and ussr) point to Russian-Germans of 3rd til 4th generation. Skanderbeck
Well anyways, some guy (girl?) with the username "Russian.science" is not letting this go. So far no counter-arguments, no facts, nothing, just plain reverting. I am quite busy and I didn't expect a simple, and frankly somewhat irrelevant, issue to go on this long, as he's a great scientist no matter what ethnicity.
So, if the random vandalism goes on, I would propose locking the article, and/or Russian.science --Therexbanner (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
'Russian.science' may have to be "locked" or else this will go on forever. Geim's documents from his school years (cited in the article) state that he was German, at least in the official documents. It is unknown whether the family was Volga German or otherwise, so I would leave it as "German". This is all that is known at this time. BTW, it appears that he left the Soviet Union before its demise based on his German ethnicity and thus may not have a Russian citizenship.64.251.32.254 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I put in a request for article protection.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! popolfi --188.97.9.46 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you should stop these sick people, permanently writing about Jewish origin of Geim! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.64.234 (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

These articles seem to confirm this.[1] [2] [3] Christopher Connor (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Geim != Heim

some people try to translate Geim to Heim, (maybe as argument for a connection to the Jewish name Haim or Chaim)

AFAIK phoneticaly confusing G and H makes perfect sense in Russian, but not really in German! It's more likely that G and K are confused. Now please compare the distribution of the surnames Geim and Keim in Germany and you will understand what I mean: 

 http://www.verwandt.de/karten/absolut/keim.html
 http://www.verwandt.de/karten/absolut/geim.html

Cheers Popolfi --188.107.214.92 (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the links! you write "some people try to translate Geim to Heim" - the point is, that IF his name originally was Heim, it would anyway become Geim in Russia! Just like Heinrich Heine in russian is Genrich Geine, Hamburg is Gamburg, Hegel is Gegel and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.28.100 (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this stupid vandalism relating to Jewish origin of Geim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.80.79 (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

He explanes himself on his Russian German roots here: http://www.rusdeutsch.ru/?news=2332 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.80.79 (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you doing nothing to stop a vandalism of Beetstra??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.80.79 (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a procedure in dealing with these kinds of issues. It has been invoked, and it won't take long before the vandalism stops.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
85.178.80.79. Discuss your edits, in stead of keeping on reverting. We achieve things by discussion, not by reverting. You are on your 3rd edit for that information, please be considerate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps your comments would be more appropriate for user Russian.science who has been vandalizing the article for the past 2 days. He does not respond to any calls for discussion and reverts to unsourced information. He has already received 2 warnings. The discussion on the issue has come to a consensus and multiple legitimate sources were provided (including citations from Mr. geim's interviews).--Therexbanner (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It is still not a reason to edit-war, and CCC. There may be more parties to it, but also this IP is one of them. Understand that protection is likely going to be at the wrong version. Sort it out here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Geim or Heim - German or Jewish?

Stupid thing that there are two references which state that Andre Geim (Heim) is German, but obviously no one can understand Russian nor even read cyrill letters a little. References 9 and 11 are links to scanned official documents of Soviet or Russian origin. Under point "nationality" in both documents the information "niemsy" (might be not exactly correct, since I don't speak Russian) is given, which means "German". The conclusion of that: Not only Geim's heritage is German, but also his nationality is!!!

If he would be Jewish the information "Jewish" would be given under point "nationality", since "Jewish" also had been a separate official nationality in Soviet Russia. Mixed ancestry is very very unlikely, because in 1910 - the birth year of Geim's father Konstantin - the Russian Jews formed a group of people still very much separated from the other nationalities of Russia.

So I think this discussion can come to an end until there are explicit contradictory other statements by Geim himself.

Might be that Geim could also have some ethnic Russian ancestry, since in 1910 there had already been several preceding decades of official "Russification" politics in Russia, affecting and forced upon especially the urban Germans: 1. communities in most of the larger Russian cities and 2. the Baltic provinces, where German had been the official language until the second half of the 19th century. (Estland (Estonia), Livland (Livonia) and Kurland (Couronia)). Disfranchised, the former centuries-old burgois and academic elite of Russia (after they had fullfilled their task of aiding to the modernisation of Russia and tsarist Russia thought she did not need them any more) had to think about leaving Russia or to fully assimilate in the near future. Many Germans chose the second option and Konstantin Geim seems to be one of them. His second name Alekseyevich - derived from his father's name "Alexander" - follows the corresponding Russian tradition. Second names like this were part of Russification politics and forced upon people by Russian authorities. Maybe Alexander Geim's wife (grandmother of Andre) had already been ethnic Russian and the marriage of Alexander being an intermarriage. But that's speculation. At least, Konstantin Geim and his family in Sochi had not been murdered in anti-German pogroms at the outbreak of the Great War, as several hundred Germans in Saint Petersburg had been. (The German name of the latter city was renamed to Petrograd this time around, only to be renamed to Leningrad by the Bolsheviks few years later.)

Geim's name could also be "Heim", since the russian-cyrill alphabet doesn't have a suitable substitute for the latin letter H. Therefore the latin H is often substituted with the cyrill letter Г (latin: G) or sometimes with the cyrill letter Х (German pronounciation of -ch- which somehow comes close to H). In the back-transcription - from cyrill to latin - of words or names with Г (latin: G) the G then is often kept. Not always accidentally ... a nice way to obliterate the German origin of a famous Russian's family name ... Russification politics in the 21st century.

A similar example would be Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, nee Helena von Hahn. Here, Hahn had been first transcripted to cyrill (H -> Г), then back-transcripted (Г -> G) to Gan. (The second H in Hahn is a calm H and therefore dismissed, respectively not transcripted!) Another example would be Shtokman, originally Stockmann.

Some people brought up the argument that Heim would be the germanized version of jewish Chaim. Lots of Jews germanized their names in German-speaking countries, but hardly in Russia. (We are not talking about the old Yiddish names in that context). If they did so in German-speaking countries they used already existing German names, they didn't create new ones! The fact that some Jewish users feel free to discover hidden Jewish names behind a spectrum of German names, is often pretty annoying. In the vast majority of those cases the person is German - non-jewish German. Furthermore, Chaim is a first name. The author of these lines has never seen this name as a family name (although she cannot exclude this possibility), as it would be the case regarding Andre Geim.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.48.83.132 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think when Mr. Geim will pass to read this discussion page he will be very amused. Maybe he already is... :)
BTW [Haim surname] -popolfi 89.14.223.108 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Early life of Prof. Geim

I know Prof. Geim and met him before. He is from a simple original Jewish family. It is not important his parents (or parents of his parents) had what citizenships before (German citizenship or God knows what else before). Some people here to try prove that Prof. Geim has another origin, using his previous and current citizenship, his family name and so on. Prof. Albert Einstein also had a German name and citizenship(like many other non-german scientists!), but all know that he was a pure ethnic Jewish man, and thanks God that there are enough documents which shows his real origin. Anyway Prof. Geim has grown up and educated in Russia and he loves Russia, and originally he is a Jewish. (you may call him and ask all these information). This is all about his early life. Ref. [8] in the article is a correct reference and there has been written all these; In the near future all these things become clear. Meanwhile some people use a flag of Netherlands (by the way they write ““ Dutch”” instead Netherlands there) for showing his citizenship. I like to say again, Prof. Geim is neither Dutch nor German by origin and ethnic. Therefore don’t lose your time! Your strange non-logical efforts here just shows that what is going nowadays in societies of west European countries. Do they have any problem with their histories? I am not interested and I don’t like to know.. but at least I hope that they keep their logic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian.science (talk • contribs) 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Early life of Prof. Geim

I know Prof. Geim and met him before. He is from a simple original Jewish family. It is not important his parents (or parents of his parents) had what citizenships before (German citizenship or God knows what else before). By the way for those that don’t know about Russian language, culture and history and Russian personal/official papers, I have to say that "национальность" always there means "previous"/current residentship/citizenship(Or generally from what "place(s)" the people come), and it doesn’t mean "ethnic" at all! As Russian people and governments following their high level culture and understanding, they never officially ask people that what is their ethnic!(and it is not a logical question,too, because it is not clear nowadays that some people have what ethnic, many are mixed!) Some people here to try prove that Prof. Geim has another ethnic, using his previous and current citizenship/residentship, his family names and so on. Prof. Albert Einstein also had a German name and citizenship (like many other non-german scientists!), but all know that he was a pure ethnic Jewish man, and thanks God that there are enough documents which shows his real ethnic. Anyway Prof. Geim has grown up and educated in Russia and he loves Russia, and he is a Jewish. (he is a living person, you may call him and ask all these information). This is all about his early life; e.g. Ref. [8] in the article is a correct reference and there has been written all these; In the near future all these things become clear. Meanwhile some people use a flag of Netherlands (by the way they write ““ Dutch”” instead Netherlands there!?) for showing his citizenship. I like to say again, Prof. Geim is neither Dutch nor German ethnic. Therefore don’t lose your time! Your strange non-logical efforts here just shows that what are going nowadays in societies of west European countries. Do they have any problem with their histories and backgrounds? I am not interested and I don’t like to know.. but at least I hope that they keep a bit their logical ability! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian.science (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If he indeed is Jewish how come he himself state his nationality as German in this student certificate? [4] Närking (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
And here is another paper written by Geim where he states German nationality [5]. Närking (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Another source where his former teacher tells he was German: "In a dark reminder of Soviet-era discrimination, his former secondary school teacher told the Tvoi Den tabloid that Geim's German origins made it hard for him to get into his first-choice university." [6]. Närking (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop changing the article if you don't have any sources for your claims. Närking (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your problem and people like you, is that you don’t know enough knowledge about what are you taking about. When you don’t know anything about Russian language and temporary history, what are you doing here!? What I already wrote here is similar to 2*2=4! (if you need reference for this kind of information please stop editing any text!) You are trying to tell here: 2*2=13.5 + (Dutch + German)!!! At any rate, reference [8} is fine, If you never read it! Also you try to refer to any Russian temporary literature or history encyclopedia. You, please stop editing any text that you don’t have any elementary knowledge about it!

Wow I can't believe this is still going on. So far no sources except one link that has been proven to be erroneous. Even the article in the Hebrew Wikipedia states he is an ethnic German and not Jewish, and there was a discussion on the respective talk page. If you keep vandalizing the article, you will be blocked. --Therexbanner (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

All articles and references, refer to a past Germany's residentship of family of Prof. Geim. PLEASE DON’T DISTORT THE DOCUMENTAL INFORMATION, because of your stupid prejudices. Why you don't like to check this main reference (ref. [8]) in the article: http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1.

Using foul language is not the best way to come to a consensus. That reference is taken out of context, and has been proven wrong by many other references listed previously (one of which was a resume, and the other was an interview.) Geim has never stated he is Jewish. He is not Jewish. You cannot decide that someone is, and your references to knowing him personally have zero weight in an encyclopedia. I understand that you may feel hurt because you believe in some sort of Jewish supremacism, where every successful person with a German name has to be Jewish or something like that, but reality often conflicts with one's fantasies/beliefs and that's just life.
P.S. Your Einstein example is laughable at best, Einstein has often stated he was Jewish and was proud of it (as he should be.) Mr. Geim's has never even alluded to being Jewish, and it is funny how you grew concerned with the issue AFTER he won the Nobel prize, although the article existed for quite some time before that. I'just curious, where was your conern for his "Jewishness" before? --Therexbanner (talk) 17:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)>

>You have completely wrong understanding. In any case I am taking about a living person(with clear references), and Prof. Geim will state officially all his necessary biographical information. Therefore it is not necessary to continue these discussions here and at this stage. But about this user Therexbanner, following his talks, there could be 3 possibilities about him/her: 1- a sick and genetical retarded Turk that is living in Germany, 2- a low level agent that is working for an anti-Jewish organization, 3- a German with an abnormal brain like a soldier in hitler’s army.

If you really are a friend of mr Geim I feel sorry for him. And in case he hasn't told you about this recent interview with him I give you this link [7]. And after you have read it, please explain to me why he again states he is of German and not Jewish family? "Учитывая то, что у меня родители немцы, то я себя и немцем тоже считаю." Närking (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
"agent working for a anti-jewish organization" wow, at least you made me smile. If you care that much, I am Canadian, and I'm ashkenazi, and I don't believe in screwing up what is possibly the best online encyclopedia with unsourced and racist assertions. That is all. --Therexbanner (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this discussion more, and as I already said, Prof. Geim is a living person and he officially will state all necessary information about himself. But just for improving your poor knowledge about Russian .., in the above reference i.e. [4] (that is good one, but you didn’t understand it, too), Prof. Geim, generally explained that since his parents came from Germany (they had long-term German “residentship”, that is sometime equal to this: German origin(birthplace and/or long-term being in a place, e.g Germany) = to come from Germany(as a place/birthplace) = past German long-term “residentship”), he is not only a "Russian", but “also” (=”тоже”) might be a German, because (birthplace and/or long-term residentship) of his parents: PlEASE pay attention that one of the main and key Russian word in your reference is “тоже” that it means: “also” in English. Only using this word: “тоже”, is enough to prove that when Prof. Geim refers to his (or parents) being Russian or German, he do refers to his or his parents “long-term” past/current residentship. Reference [8] in the article is good one, that is an original report by Mr. John Murphy (well-known journalist and reporter), from an interview with Prof. Geim in 2006; Prof. Geim said there that he is a Jewish; in other hand there is not any reference that Prof. Geim stated that he is not a Jewish. All these sources show that parents(and parents of his parents) and family of Prof. Geim had a long-term residentship in Germany; his family are Jewish by ethnic, and they have been in Russia as Jewish immigrants, like many other Jewish families that immigrated to Russia from other European countries.

That is pure speculation, and is completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia. I could claim that I'm Andre's brother/father/mother, but that would not make me right. What other sources clearly state he is Jewish apart from that one single one?
This is so pointless, I mean why one earth would someone even think he's Jewish? Do you think Norman Jewison is Jewish? Personal claims are useless. I love how Wikipedia admins don't care about these issues, even though this concerns a Nobel laureate, and not some random semi-notable person.
I really doubt that I could go on Barack Obama's article, list him as a Shintoist or something, provide one obscure source, and then continue reverting for 2 weeks without getting banned. Talk about double standards.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

thumb|160px

Well, after all the... interesting debate above:

The recent weekend edition of "Yedioth Ahronoth" (Oct. 15, 2010, pp. 24-25), Israel's most widely circulated newspaper, included an interview Geim gave to reporter Yaniv Halil (since it doesn't appear on the on-line version of the newspaper, I've uploaded a part of it here). In the interview Geim states that his father was German, and adds: "I never felt Russian in the Soviet Union". And I quote portions of the next 2 paragraphs (my translation): "Technically speaking, Geim is in fact a Jew. His maternal grandmother, Mira Ziegler, was jewish, and Geim spent his early childhood years with her. "Religion was well hidden in the family, much like within any family in the Soviet Union. My grandmother didn't talk to me about her Jewish ethnicity, since she was afraid that I'd tell it around to the [other] children and the rumor would spread out". Jewish rituals or holidays were off-limit. To this day, Geim describes himself as European: "in the UK there's no difference between the various religions, and I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or as Christian. I've been to Israel several times, and I'm a great [or: enthusiastic] supporter of the concept of Israel as the state of [the] Jews, but I despise religious extremists [or: fanatics]"."

Buttom line: an ethnic German-Jew, Soviet-Russian born, Dutch-British scientist. European indeed. Aviados (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For those of you who aren't familiar with the Hebrew characters, I transcribe the paragraphs in a hidden comment here. Aviados (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Now this is the kind of information finding I fully support. Much better than going around insulting people, because they are trying to be objective. I like your characterization of his background. Good find! --Therexbanner (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, very good! But I wonder if it was just his maternal grandmother who was Jewish? Närking (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess, if he had other Jewish grandparents he probably would have mentioned them as they were discussing the topic. So, technically he's 1/4 Jewish, and 3/4 German. (Although he can be considered a full Jew to other yehudim as it passes down the mother's side.)
In any case, I don't know if all this is truly relevant. The main reason I started the discussion is because, when he was announced as a Nobel laureate, I decided to read up on him/Novoselov and their discoveries. And the first thing somebody put in the article was that he was Jewish, so naturally I got a bit curious. (And then this thing stretched out for 2 weeks and G-d knows how many pages.)--Therexbanner (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Nice and interesting debate, however users Narking and Therexbanner (perhaps one person with 2 IDs or more, or two persons that are colluding and working together) are trying by a kind of Sophism to say that Mr. Geim is not a Jewish; In any case, I agree with above conclusion by user Aviados: ..” "Technically speaking, Geim is in fact a Jew.” Not only his father came from Germany, but his mother and grandmother, too. In this view all his family's members are German. Therefore the article should be edited again as follow: He is from a ethnic Jewish family, with a German origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Europe2000 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Russian.science. Could an administrator please check the IP of the above user and verify against banned user Russian.science. If it's him/her, perhaps the ban should be extended.
By the way, I love your posting style, you're a textbook example of a troll with an agenda. I have no connection to Narking, and there are many ways for adminstrators to check that (IP, location, edit history, article collusion- we have never discussed any common issues before this one, etc.)--Therexbanner (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Aviados! If Geim says "Religion was well hidden in the family, much like within any family in the Soviet Union. My grandmother didn't talk to me about her Jewish ethnicity.” And “Jewish rituals or holidays were off-limits” – so it is very obvious that he is not Jewish. Sorry, but we cannot consider every grandfather or grandmother in this encyclopedia. If we consider Geim a Jew, than Millions and Millions of Germans would be Jews too because of their Jewish ancestry. On average 10 percent of all Germans have Jewish ancestry: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=176651&bolum=101 No wonder - because Germans and Ashkenazi Jews share the same origins along the Rhine Valley… For example, the former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt has Jewish ancestors and is not considered Jewish. And so on. (Even Hitler seems to have been a descendant of Jews. http://www.history.com/topics/hitler-ancestry). So the ancestry of Andre Geim is nothing special among the Germans. --Gladsmile (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
B.T.W, where is the section "Direct Info"? Gladsmile (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, first, if it is common within up to 10% of the Germans, it is still the exception, and thus worth mentioning. And second, yes, he is obviously not Jewish by religion - but "Jewish" is an ethnicity (like "German") no less than it is a system of religious faiths and practice. Aviados (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting to note that resently the influential newspeper "Science of Chukotka" stated that Andre Geim is a Chukchi. His Chukchi ancestors were converted to iudaism already in the Bronze Age.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.79.147 (talk • contribs)

Conclusion(2)

A good note: The best online Encyclopedia!? -Of course Not yet!

There is really problem in Wikipedia with current rules, that people like Narking and Therexbanner and --Gladsmile(hysteric one) and … are there as editors!?, and trying by lying, wiling, scandal and sophism to change and distort the truths and subjects in the documental sources! Just look up and check how many times the above users tried to change Mr. Geim’s ethnic in the article!?, where they didn’t present any source(even a single but documental one) that clearly states Mr. Geim has such ethnic!??? In a single but strongly documental source ([8] in the article; and many others acceptable sources which they will be online in the near future) Geim stated that “HE IS A JEWISH”, it is not enough? If not, please don’t add any information about ethnic of Geim at this time! When he says that his family (mother, father, grandmother, etc.) are German, it simply means his family originated from Germany. Interesting point is that in the history of sciences I don’t see any remarkable German ethnic physicist! (if there is such ethnic at all, , in fact it was one of the delusions of hitler .. he killed millions of irreproachable people for that delusion, and finally he was LOST and was killed in a full calamity (by Russians!)), Maybe Heisenberg a bit is good one, but at the same time, jobs of Feynman (Jewish ethnic, Russian-Polish origin) and Dirac (British ethnic) in final formulating of Quantum Theory were absolutely better and pure genius. We understand that Germans feel a strong deficiency in their temporary social history and history of science (by the way it is true that they make a good cars(although Japanese cars are better;)), but why Jewish people must always response to these kind of deficiencies of german nation!? At the moment several million Turks are living in Germany, it is better that above users calculate the precent of Turkish ancestry of German nation, perhaps more than 30-40% :)) Please add/edit information by using documental sources, without any distorting of truths and SOPHISM there! It seems that Wikipedia needs more professional trustable administrators with stronger and faster reactions, specially for historical articles.


Another "Russian.science" sockpuppet. Plus the racism:
("in the history of sciences I don’t see any remarkable German ethnic physicist! (if there is such ethnic at all)"

You are right. Germans allways were and still are brainless savages! Only due to Jews they became peolple! Everyone knows that the science was created by Jews. You don't need to waste your time to explane these facts here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.79.147 (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

On the issue, 3/4 Ethnic German + 1/4 German Jew. I propose skipping any ethnic descriptions in the article (are they that relevant?) Anyone agree/disagree (real editors please, no sockpuppets)? I mean since he stated he doesn't consider himself Russia, German, or Jewish, but European instead. Also, I noticed that he's in the category "Russian Jews". Maybe it would be best to change it to "German Jews"? (I'm really not sure about that one.)--Therexbanner (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it might be better to explain it better and give mr Geim's view. By the way he is interviewed in Moscow Times today: "Geim, who has German parents, is more conciliatory, allowing that he could be called a “European scientist.” “Every nation now claims me,” he said, “and they have a right to do so.” [8]. But it all should be properly sourced which is something Russian.science has had big problems with. Närking (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you 85.178.79.147. As I chekced your IP, you are living in Berlin/Germany. So you know .. very well. Pure sophists.. (of course there are some fine people in Germany, but they are not related to people that we are talking about, like Narking or this stranger Therexbannana,--> he is more like an mad Indian that is living in Canada(Chanada;), if his IP is not a false one!

A final conclusion:

Now, referring to above source(s) and talks from editors with right mindedness (not false editors!), at least I recommend to write about Geim’s family as follow:

“His parents originated from Germany, where they were Jewish”. With Chukchis background (see above)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.79.223 (talk) 05:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem whatsoever with simply stating within his biographical background that he was born to an ethnic German Jewish family (just as written in the article now), and perhaps adding that he considers himself a European. Aviados (talk) 06:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this could work: "Andre Geim was born ..... to a German father, and a German-Jewish mother." The '.....' part is just to save space here. Any objections? --Therexbanner (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The current version (20:53 GMT, 21/10/2010) seems to be the most accurate, considering that this is an online encyclopedia. Hopefully, all the real editors agree.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am curious, why do you use this paranoid delusion of people, who apparently were informed by Geim that his mother is Jewish as a real sourse! Or is this information published? If yes, where? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.79.223 (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It was posted by Aviados. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg
The article translation is correct, Geim states himself that his mother is German (her father) and Jewish (her mother). That's why the article says Geim is 1/4 Jewish. I wouldn't post that unless I had a source, and I think that his interview with Israel's #1 newspaper is a good additional source. If you find something contradicting that, please do not hesitate to link to it.
If you are German don't get upset, I mean he's 3/4 German so you should definitely be proud. I don't understand why people think that if someone is part Jewish, that completely negates the other part. If you dig deeper, we're all a little something, that shouldn't change who we are.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not against this. But it's unbelievable that his mother who is Russian-German is really of Jewish origin. This funny newspaper is not a serios sourse at all! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.79.223 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the formulation “German father and German-Jewish mother”, it seems correct, “technically” spoken. (IP, the source is not a "funny newspaper"!) Although it’s incorrect too. Because the religion of his grandmother has nothing to do with Andre Geim himself – and therefore we create a kind of false truth in the first lines of this article. Gladsmile (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I also agree on that. And it seems like mr Geim isn't going to move back to Russia in the near future: "Asked whether he could envisage a scenario in which he would go back to Russia, Geim spared no words. “Reincarnation,” he said." :) Närking (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
1/4 Jewish and non-practicing (obviously.) Halactic laws do not apply to Wikipedia. Now if someone was to make Kosherpedia, I'd be all for that :).--Therexbanner (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
And we have a ref saying unequivocally he is Jewish. And practicing is obviously irrelevant. There's no legitimate issue, really. We have to take the ref, over the personal view of Therexbanner.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Jew acording to halactic laws

In interview in Yediot Ahronot Andre Geim hade said, that his grandmother from mother side Mira Zigler was jewish, but all other 3 grandparents was german. So by jewish laws he is jew, throught ethnicity and culture is something more than some religios laws. Anywhay 1/4 is partialy jewish, as 1/4 maori is counted as maori. 91.200.65.99 (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And we have a ref saying he is Jewish. There's no legitimate issue, really.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read the (full) previous discussion. At least 5 legitimate users agree with my objective viewpoint. There are 5 serious references that state he is ethnically German, one that states he is Jewish, and one that says only one of his grand-mothers are Jewish. We (even the Hebrew-speaking users) agreed that he is 25% Jewish, what else do you want?
P.S. What's with the hostility towards me, did this discussion hit a nerve? Are you unhappy that someone who is 1/4 Jewish is listed as that?--Therexbanner (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There is nothing inconsistent between him being 100 per cent German and being Jewish. Or between him having a Jewish grandmother and being Jewish. Please stop deleting text supported by refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You gave me a level 3 edit warning (after all the time I spent trying to contribute to this pointless discussion?), without giving me level 1 and 2? Wow that's very encouraging.
Don't worry, I won't make any edits until we reach a consensus. I'm not a vandal like Russian.science. Jewish can mean ethnicity or religion (or both). (You can read the Wikipedia article on "who is a jew"). There an inconsistency in the sense that you have 1 source, and there are 5 contradicting that. What source do you have (apart from one article) that states he is fully Jewish?
Do you want me to go and edit the Natalie Portman article to say she is a Russian actress, because she has a great-grandfather from Russia? Come on, this makes no sense and you know it.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have read the discussion (I'm assuming you did, since you have such a strong opinion on the issue, 1/2 a day after learning about it.) user Russian.science (the one who canvassed you, and one you support) has posted this little tidbit:

("in the history of sciences I don’t see any remarkable German ethnic physicist! (if there is such ethnic at all)"

I am very interested in knowing how or why such a serious Wikipedia user, and I'm not being sarcastic, you have a lot of productive edits, would support a member with such "interesting" (rather racist) comments? Does he/she sound like an objective person to listen to (never mind the 15 sock puppets he's created in the past 2 weeks.)--Therexbanner (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Nobody canvassed me. That is untrue. I made an edit with a comment. An editor indicated support. You then made an unsupported accusation as to socking, which you now repeated. If there is socking, bring it to checkuser--otherwise, repeating such statements, coupled with your incorrect statement just now, suggest a failure to AGF on your part and a delving into irrelevant ad hominem comments, such as those you have directed at me above. You now follow that with an untrue statement as to canvassing. I'm not familiar with that editor, or his/her other posts, but in this instance I believe that the editor is clearly correct, for reasons stated. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then--if indeed the editor is as you describe.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also wondering how many percent Jewish ancestors you need to have to be called Jewish? Is it also ok to say that Kevin Bacon is Swedish because his grandmother was and that he used to sing Swedish songs as a kid? Obviously mr Geim himself has also stated to be of German nationality. And I still haven't seen any source telling he or his parents are practicing Jews. More correct would be to say he has Jewish ancestry like we do with other people. Närking (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood Wikipedia's WP:V criteria. Wikipedia cares only about one thing; what reliable sources say. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to invent new criteria. The source in question is "Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas", Scientific Computing World, (June/July) 2006. It states "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education." That's explicit and reliable, and all that matters. Jayjg (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's true we have one reference saying he is Jewish, but there are lots of others saying he is German. For example his own statement [9] [10]. I also find this quote interesting: "In a dark reminder of Soviet-era discrimination, his former secondary school teacher told the Tvoi Den tabloid that Geim's German origins made it hard for him to get into his first-choice university. "His father is German," Olga Peshkova, 72, who still teaches in the town of Nalchik in the North Caucasus region of Kabardino-Balkaria, told the tabloid. "He said that after two years of studying hard and wanting to get in, he only later understood that it was because of his 'biographical details'." [11]. Since I know Russians surely don't hesitate to point out someone being Jewish it's strange his former teacher focus on his German ethnicity. And recently Geim was interviewed in Moscow Times where this seems to be an answer to those who is claiming him being only Jewish "Geim, who has German parents, is more conciliatory, allowing that he could be called a “European scientist.” “Every nation now claims me,” he said, “and they have a right to do so.” [12] Frankly I don't see the problem in telling just that he has multiple ancestry and not a single one. And I surely don't see the point in writing like this in the article "Geim, who is Jewish, was born on 1 October 1958..." Närking (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
            • You will have to face the fact that Geim himself has stated he has only one Jewish relative in Israel's most circulated newspaper. The link is above. Ask for a translation (although user Aviados of the Hebrew Wikipedia has already provided one), if you can't read Hebrew.
            • Ignoring the above source will get you nowhere, and any arbitration committee will agree with me here.
            • The above source being a direct statement from Geim supersedes any "scientific computing world" article.
            • What is "Scientific Computing World"? It is not even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article!--Therexbanner (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. A Google search for "Scientific Computing World" magazine gives 2400 results. (Mainly linking to the website.) No wonder that source contradicts top Israeli & Russian newspapers, and University of Manchester sources.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Issue Clarification

In response to Epeefleche's latest comment,

You were being canvassed. "Canvassing on Wikipedia refers to the sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] The term is sometimes used as an abbreviated way to refer to inappropriate canvassing. In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate because it could serve to compromise the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore may be considered disruptive behaviour."

A sock puppet of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russian.science contacted you about an article you have not edited previously (according to the edit history), and asked you to "edit" the article according to a single source, that was rebuffed here. Did this user not contact you, and ask you to engage in editing an article in a specific way?

You were contacted after the sock pupeteer attempted to vandalize the article and was blocked repeatedly (see the above-mentioned block log). All administrators that looked at the cases agreed that his/her edits were malicious and not properly sourced.

Checkuser was done several times, by several administrators, and there is no discussion on the issue.

Sources for Andre Geim being fully German (ethnically): http://blago-mh.ru/issues/19/20_heim.php

http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html
http://www.rusdeutsch.ru/?news=2332
http://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/outreach/friends/geim1.html

Sources for him being fully Jewish (ethnically):

http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1

Yedioth Ahronoth interview (in Hebrew) provided by user Aviados clarifies he is German, and has (had) a german Jewish grand mother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg This certainly qualifies him to be part of the "German Jews" category, but it is not something you can put as his main and only descriptor. A consensus has been reached, and you are trying to revert that using information that was already discussed.

Also, originally, the article said his father was German and mother a German Jew. We all agreed that was the best way of putting it. What exactly don't you like about that phrasing? --Therexbanner (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • 1) I was not canvassed. That is untrue. I was already in the discussion --- the editor simply indicated that he agreed with my comment.

2) If you think someone is a sock, make a report. Otherwise, it is best for you to AGF.

3) I've continually edited lists of Jewish __, as in Jewish athletes, etc.

4) As far as German vs. Jewish, you are confused. They are not mutually exclusive. The same w/having a Jewish grandmother and being Jewish. I've already said as much.

5) We have an RS that says he was Jewish. We have a statement, supported by the RS, that states that. It is incorrect for you to delete it. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


You were not in the discussion (where?), saying "untrue" several times over does not make it so.

Point 2 relates to the nature of the "editor" that agreed with you. Why would I report him/her when he/she is already blocked indefinitely? Point 3 is irrelevant, and only shows your bias. Saying that you edit a lot of Jewish etc. articles means that you're skewed in some way towards the issue. Points 4 and 5 make the most sense, but are contradicting.

This is the post left on your user talk page:

"I propose that you kindly edit the article as follow: (there is the same text in the Richard Feynman's page) Andre Geim is from a Jewish family. His family originated from Germany."

That is clear canvassing and you will be reported. --Therexbanner (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit war/protection - categories

I have protected this article due to an edit war. The edit war seems to be over categories, and it does seem extreme to prevent all other editing until the issue is sorted out. An editor has asked me to consider replacing the protection with a threat of blocks for edit warriors. Doubtless, I will have protected this at the M:Wrong version for some, but will those concerned with the categories agree not to change that version until the dispute has been resolved and allow me to lift the protection?--Scott Mac 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest framing this slightly differently. Since no-one has yet produced evidence that Geim has self-identified as Jewish, then per WP:BLPCAT no-one ought to restore the category "Russian Jew". So it would be very surprising if anyone persisted in an edit war on that (I certainly won't; I haven't edited the article at all). Unfortunately the dispute has to do with whether it is permissible to deleted sourced statements in the text of the article. I have no intention of edit-warring in that regard either; I might go to AIV if people persist in that deletion, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
That response is extremely unhelpful. This is a content dispute, and the only way I can unlock it is if people agree not to edit war until it is resolved. That is, whatever the status-quo is will have to stand. Shouting "But I'm right", even if you are, isn't going to get us anywhere. You can go to AIV if you want, but I warn you that I might well block you if you do for personal attacks and disruption. This looks like a good-faith content dispute, which should be solved through dispute resolution not accusing people of vandalism (or indeed implicitly of anti-Semitism[14]) on order to gain advantage. Now, knock it off.
If I unprotect this, will you agree not to change the status-quo without consensus (which will probably mean successful dispute resolution first.--Scott Mac 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I have already indicated in perfectly clear terms that I have no intention of edit-warring, and again I haven't edited the article even once. There is no accusation of anti-Semitism in what I wrote above, neither explicit or implicit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That undertaking allows me to unprotect this.--Scott Mac 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To Scott MacDonald (this will also be posted on your talk page in case you do not read this page.)

Although I have not participated in the edit warring,(though someone biased did give me a warning for that.) I would like to know your opinion on something. I could not find this in any Wikipedia policy articles, so I have to ask you whether cultural/religious laws determining members apply to Wikipedia articles.
Earlier, I gave the example of Leonardo DiCaprio. His article simply states that he had an ethnic Russian grandmother. Would it be appropriate for me to add a statement saying something like "Leonardo DiCaprio is a Russian actor." due to him having a Russian relative?
The reason for my question is that I may be wrong on the issue, and I want the opinion of someone with editing experience and good Wikipedia policy knowledge. Thanks in advance!--Therexbanner (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, as the admin protecting, I don't wish to be involved in the content dispute. Suggest WP:DR.--Scott Mac 20:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I guess I'll initiate a request for mediation, since I tried most of the lighter things, including the BLP notceboard.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I am going to risk unprotecting this. However, all editors should regard it as protected with regard to categories, until the dispute is resolved here or through dispute resolution. I hope I don't have to, but I will block any editor who violates this (unless it is reasonable to suspect they can't have known what's going on). Thanks for everyone's understanding.--Scott Mac 20:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request

{{Request edit}} Andre Geim is Jewish. He was born to a family of Jewish-German origin. There are many sources that confirm that:

This information should be added to the article, and relative category should be added too. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this has been refuted by Geim in his interview to Yedioth Ahronoth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg
He states only one of his grandmothers was Jewish, and non-practicing. That's why we're discussing halactic laws and etc. I believe the article subject's opinion is more reliable/true than other people's articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Therexbanner (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The Hungarian source is clearly also false telling that he went by Jewish nationality in his Soviet documents. He clearly state German nationality here for example[18]. Närking (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about the "Hungarian source"? It looks like an editorial to be published in the December 2010 issue of Structural Chemistry, a peer-reviewed journal by Springer Science+Business Media [19]. Unfortunately I can't read that Russian-language source. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just checking the domain country of the source. Anyway it's the pdf-file. Geim has himself written German nationality on that Soviet document and anyone who can read Russian can verify that. And it seems like some has drawn the conclusion it was his partly Jewish ancestry that gave him problems in Soviet union even though other sources clearly say it was his German nationality that gave him problems [20]. Närking (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, right, except in Soviet Union in 1976, it was much safer to be German than to be a Jew. Trust me, I know, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was perhaps a little better being German, but could still cause problems as stated in the article. But the point here is also that the source telling Geim went by Jewish nationality is false. Närking (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We have multiple sources saying he was Jewish. The Arb committee has, just this year, indicated that where there are such sources editors should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources, and when people still edit war its deletion, they are subject to sanctions. Such will no doubt be the case here, of those offending the arb ruling (assuming the rules are followed -- if not, we can again bring the offenders and those not enforcing the rules before the arb committee, for them to take appropriate action vis-a-vis both). The fact that he is Jewish is not -- once again -- antithetical to him being German (or Russian). The same with whether he is "practicing" or not. Some editors seem still not to understand these rather elementary points.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

People with only one Jewish, Russian or Swedish grandparent are not Jewish, Russian or Swedish. That's very simple. --Gladsmile (talk) 08:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, under Jewish law (I'm not sure of the correct term off-hand) you can be Jewish with only one Jewish grandparent, as long as said grandparent is your maternal grandmother. Practicing or non-practicing does not, as far as I am aware, make a difference. --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 09:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I know. But the Jewish Point Of View is not the Neutral Point Of View. --Gladsmile (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't even know what that means. If France says someone is French, according to French law, then is your position that you reject that? Because the "French Point of View" is not "the Neutral Point of View"?--Epeefleche (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. I would reject it, if a French law claims, that -- for example -- Mikhail Tukhachevsky should be a Frenchman because of his French grandmother. I would reject it especially because he has not regarded himself so. And I’m sure, not even you would consider him a Frenchman, despite of his grandma. --Gladsmile (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What's so wrong with just being specific and stating his maternal grandmother is Jewish? If you beleieve in halactic law, you will read it and say "he's Jewish", if you don't-you won't. The guy said in an interview she's the only Jewish grandparent.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • A few points.
  1. Here is the rule -- For the purposes of writing a Wikipedia biography, editors should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources.
  2. What applies is what the RSs say. We have multiple RSs that say he is Jewish.
  3. There is nothing inconsistent with one grandmother being Jewish, and him being Jewish. They are not mutually exclusive.
  4. We can reflect that his maternal grandmother is Jewish (with an RS ref), alongside saying he is Jewish (with an RS ref). We just can't say (absent an RS) that only his maternal grandmother is Jewish.
  5. While it may well be the case, he did not say from what I can see that his other grandparents were not Jewish, or that his mother was not Jewish.
  6. If his maternal grandmother is Jewish, his mother would naturally be Jewish.

--Epeefleche (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm really tired of posting a scan of his interview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg When discussing his ethnicity he does state that only his maternal grandmother was Jewish, his father was not, his mother was not ("naturally"), and he does not consider himself anything but European. Those are his words, and it is an article about him, and no random sources can beat his own statements. That is the one and only RS that matters because it is him talking about himself.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Therexbanner's contributions on this matter are rather selective. I have now read the relevant portions of the article he links here. He does not say "I do not consider myself anything but European"; the author of the article writes, "Geim defines himself as European". There are two relevant passages where Geim is quoted on the matter. One: "In Britain there is no difference between the different religions, and I don't see a reason to define myself as Jewish or Christian." Two: "Finally I was accepted to an institute of physics and technology. When I arrived, I looked around me and saw that all the students were like me: Jewish or members of other minorities." It is worth noting that this article itself defines Geim as Jewish, in unequivocal terms: "From a technical [i.e., halachic] point of view, Geim is a kosher Jew."
My reading of this is that we don't see the kind of self-identification that would be required under WP:BLPCAT for use of a "Jewish" category. But it is hardly the case that he rejects the notion that he is Jewish, and given the large and growing number of reliable sources that state he is Jewish it is reasonable for the article to treat it in some way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Full quotes: "Technically speaking, Geim is in fact a Jew. His maternal grandmother, Mira Ziegler, was jewish, and Geim spent his early childhood years with her. "Religion was well hidden in the family, much like within any family in the Soviet Union. My grandmother didn't talk to me about her Jewish ethnicity, since she was afraid that I'd tell it around to the [other] children and the rumor would spread out". Jewish rituals or holidays were off-limit. To this day, Geim describes himself as European: "in the UK there's no difference between the various religions, and I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or as Christian."
"Technically speaking" may work in Israel and in the shul, but this is an encyclopedia and if Mr. geim decides not to "define myself as Jewish or as Christian.", then it is his call.
That is why I keep proposing that we include full detailed information on his Jewish ancestry, but not classify him under any ethnic/religous category.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We are an encylopedia -- that is, a technical repository of knowledge. We do in fact reflect the technical. In addition, the wiki rule is that for the purposes of writing a Wikipedia biography, editors should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources. We have many RS sources saying he is Jewish. Feel free to add to the article that his maternal grandmother is Jewish, or that he is of German heritage. But that is not license to delete the heavily RS-referenced fact that he is Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
He says he's not Jewish (or Christian for that matter). And, not to be picky or anything, but:
Encyclopedia - An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.
The only encyclopedia using halakhic law might be the Jewish Encyclopedia, but even then I'm not sure.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Therexbanner, it is so simple! His grandma was a woman. So of course he is also a woman. --Gladsmile (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Or, as Glad would argue -- two of his grandparents were women. So of course he is half woman. And oh -- they were German. So of course he is not a man.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I’m glad that you are beginning to understand what “Neutral Point of View” really means, Epeefleche! ;-) --Gladsmile (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's funny how the point Epeefleche was trying to make disproves that very same logic: 2 grandparents are women =/ he is a woman, just like 1 Jewish grandparent =/ 100% Jew. but that's not what matters. He himself says he is European and not Jewish, or Christian.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This odd discussion is quite bizarre. Wikipedia editors don't get to decide who is Jewish based on how many Jewish grandparents they had, or how zealous those grandparents were in the practice of their faith. Rather, they must abide by WP:V and WP:NOR, which insist that Wikipedia considers someone to be Jewish if reliable sources state they are Jewish. That's the only criterion Wikipedia allows. Anything else is a fundamental violation of two of the three primary content policies, and if the person is living, a violation of WP:BLP too. There's no point in even having a discussion between two or three editors on an article talk page as to how they will define "Jewish" for a particular article or individual. None of it matters, Wikipedia editors don't get to decide who is or isn't "Jewish", only reliable sources do. We have at least three that say he is Jewish. We have none who say he is not. Please restrict all further conversation to what the sources explicitly say, not irrelevant calculations regarding grandparents or discussions about Jewish law. We care only what sources explicitly say about Geim, not what they say about his grandmother. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good to a point. I agree with the NOR bit. But you rather presume "Jewish/not Jewish" is a fact, which sources can record, rather than an assessment which sources make - starting from their own perspective and definition of what a Jew is. We don't record opinion, even sourced opinion, as if it were fact. I do think you are correct that the opinion of Wikipedians is neither here nor there. But I'd say it is better to narrate the objective facts (ancestry, self-description, observance etc.) and let the reader make their own assessment - rather than allow Wikipedians to put labels on people according to their opinion or the opinion of some source. When all else fails, stick with the indisputable facts, and avoid the temptation of simple categorisation. It is why I hate infoboxes and minor categories on biographies - they force us into silly binaries in a complicated world.--Scott Mac 00:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't presume anything is fact, just as Wikipedia does not. And the whole concept of something being a "fact" is pretty odd when it comes to someone being Jewish. How is it a "fact" that anyone is "Jewish"? There's no one universally accepted, objective measure or standard for being "Jewish" anyway. If you're saying that all lists/categories/etc. of Jews should be deleted, and that the term "Jewish" itself should never be applied to any individual, that's one thing. But if you're only objecting to its use here, because some Wikipedia editors have decided that they wish to apply their own criteria to who is "Jewish", that's quite another. Please keep in mind, we're not here to spread the TRUTH™, we're here to represent what reliable sources have to say on a subject. The first sentence of WP:V states

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

I think some editors here may have lost sight of that. Jayjg (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Truth isn't the issue here. We're on the same page in saying that as to "who is a Jew" is has no objective answer. However, just because one source opines something doesn't make that objective either. That's why it is best to record facts and self-description and not opinion (unless we directly attribute it). No, that doesn't mean we delete all referenced to people being Jewish. By anyone's definition the Chief Rabbi is a Jew - so we don't need to fear reflecting anyone's POV by saying that. But if I went about adding "foo is a Christian x" to every article where I could find one source opining that the person was a Christian, I'd seriously distort Wikipedia. That does't mean we need to remove the category from Billy Graham or the Pope. Reductio arguments are usually absurd. To take an example - someone wanted to put "Jewish" in the religion field on Ed Milliband's article, because a source called him Jewish, despite the fact that Milliband in affirming his Jewish identity had stated "but not in a religious sense". There's a time a little common sense is required. Actually, I solve this by removing all identity categories (like Jewish or Christian) from all articles unless the person is notable for that identity, or clearly wears it on their sleeve. Then we wouldn't have these silly discussions about things tangential at best to the reader's understanding of the subject. It's just damn project likes to put everything in simplistic boxes and categories.--Scott Mac 01:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, to begin with, keep in mind that it's not just one source, it's at least three, possibly four:
Also, the Jewishness is relevant, because it led to him being (at least verbally) attacked as a child, and later affected his ability to get into university. The Miliband argument is a bit of a reductio argument itself, I think; as I said on the Talk: page there yesterday, "Jewish" isn't a religion, and no sources say Miliband's religion is Judaism (in fact, they say otherwise), so the comparison to this article is very weak, in my view - in that article there were no sources backing the claim, and sources specifically contradicting it. Here the case is the exact opposite. In addition, while in theory one might object to all identity categories, in practice the concern only seems to arise in the case of Geim's being Jewish. No-one questions that his parents/father are "German", for example. Indeed, the category "German Russians" is still in the article. Why is the claim to being "German" any more credible than the claim to being "Jewish"? In short, there don't seem to be any strong reasons for removing the category, other than the personal views of editors who disagree with the sources, because they know the "facts" or "truth". Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know if Scott reads Arb Decisions, as many of the rest of us do, but his view is severely at odds with the Arbitration Committee's view on this issue.

Also -- Scott, are you editing here as an admin, or as an editor? You seem to be doing both, stating opinions (at odds with the Arb Committee), while using your admin powers to "protect" the article (in the form that accords with your views) and threatening to use your admin powers to block people (more than once) relative to the same issue. That strikes me as somewhat at odds with the guidelines.

At the same time, while I've brought to your attention the disturbing behavior of Off2 in relation to this precise issue, you've not at this point taken any admin action in regard to his clear wikihounding -- even though you found his behavior to be edit warring ... even though it followed your statement that you were ready to hand out blocks here, relative to this article's edit warring. That is troubling. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

He's perfectly in line with the guidelines. In regards to the protected version, please see The Wrong Version .

The subject of the article, in a direct interview, clearly states he is not Jewish or Christian. That's it, anything else is the opinion of 3rd parties that may or may not be true. Andre Geim says he isn't, and you keep pushing your POV, imagine how you would feel if you had a biography here and someone wrote something contradicting your own opinion.--Therexbanner (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, Therexbanner, but now you're just making things up. That is patently not what he said in that interview according to the many translations given on this talk page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Therexbanner: Would like to see a link to the ref.
Other note (to above statements/links): of the links above:
  1. 1 says he is Jewish, but is a scientific journal an RS for such? (asking... not implying)
  2. 2 biased or not? rs? (asking... not implying)
  3. 3 Does not make such a claim - claims family he was born to is Jewish
  4. 4 Does not make such a claim - says people called him it as a derogatory term
ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation

Just a courtesy note saying the article is now in mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Andre Geim. Christopher Connor (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How does this work? Is there any reason that the party bringing it to mediation left out of the "involved parties" list editors who directly disagreed with him? Is he just seeking mediation of those who don't disagree with him strongly?--Epeefleche (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I added you to the list, it is non-binding anyways, just some side policy opinion.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. How was it that you left me off the list the first time? And are you intentionally not adding anyone else not on the list, who has disagreed with you on this page?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
No that's not it, as you can see I added Nomoskedasticity who also disagrees. I didn't think you would be interested in a moderated debate, due to the posts you made two days ago, and the vandalism "warnings" you gave me after 1 revert made with good intentions. And since all editors listed have to agree to a discussion (otherwise the mediation is pointless.), I figured you wouldn't want to be a part of it. I'm glad I was wrong on that one.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you left out any other editors who disagreed with your position above? And if so, what was your reason there?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Who else have I left out? There were a few IPs, a user who has been blocked indefinitely, and one-edit users.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest that you invite all editors who have commented substantively, even if one-edit editors, and even if their views were contrary to yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Who, specifically? Please list them, and I will add them if they are regular users and have participated in the discussion. Please keep in mind that if they reject the mediation request, then it won't work.(which is why I didn't consider one time editors initially.)--Therexbanner (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Any editor who has commented substantively on this page above. It's easy enough for you to see, and I don't want to spoon-feed you. I think that by you not inviting editors who have substantively disagreed with you to the mediation, you create the impression of seeking to stack the result of the mediation. Which I'm sure is not an impression you wish to create. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
If those editors are following the discussion and would like to participate, they should post. I will not deny anyone. If they don't care and have moved on, then there is no reason to add them without their explicit desire because that will stall the whole process.--90.192.240.130 (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)That was me, damn cookies keep clearing.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As with canvassing, it is not appropriate for you to invite people only from one side to the discussion. I urge you to invite the other editors who have commented substantively (even if, and actually especially if, they have expressed a view that differs from yours).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Do tell me if I missed someone.--90.192.240.130 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)--Therexbanner (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added the actual policy issues to the RFM. The policy issues, as stated, were straw man statements, irrelevant to the issues here. Jayjg (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC

Should we reflect what multiple RSs say?

Well there's really no difference, as Geim himself states he isn't Jewish or Christian, doesn't want to be considered as such.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Now here's a very interesting interview: http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2010/10/07_a_3426604.shtml Some translations: "больше 50% я русский" - I'm Russian by more than 50% "Пытался оставить российский паспорт. Даже пытался дать взятку в русском посольстве" - I tried to keep my Russian passport, I even tried to bribe a Russian embassy official. "по большому счету я себя считаю россиянином. Шесть лет я прожил в Голландии, поэтому считаю себя тоже на 10% голландцем. И 15 лет прожил в Англии." - I mainly consider myself a Russian, 6 years in the Netherlands so I consider myself 10% Dutch, and 15 years in the UK. "Учитывая то, что у меня родители немцы, то я себя и немцем тоже считаю." - Considering that my parents are German, I also consider myself German. As they were discussing the topic in such detail, where is the info. on his Jewishness? It was only his grandmother which he confirmed in the Israeli interview.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

From a former co-worker (http://www.protvino.ru/news/564/): Андрей — этнический немец, и когда у нас в институте стали платить по доллару в день и разрешили выезд за границу, он уехал. Правда, не в Германию, хотя и немец, а в Голландию, откуда впоследствии перебрался в Манчестер» - Andrei is an ethnic German, and when our salaries dropped to a dollar a day and, we were given permission to leave the country, he left. But, not to Germany, although he is German, but to the Netherlands, from where he moved to Manchester.--Therexbanner (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
@Therexbanner - Re "Geim himself states he isn't Jewish or Christia" - I'm sorry for butting in the middle of a conversation here, but I wonder if anyone has cited WP:BLPCAT here. If there is an RS stating that Geim self-identifies as "not Jewish", that should really be the end of the question. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I did cite that (above, multiple times) but for some reason (POV maybe?) it keeps being ignored. I mean those are his own words!(It's an interview) If he can't decide who he is, then I don't know who can.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
@Therexbanner - Perhaps I am blind, but can you point to where he actually says "I am not Jewish". NickCT (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, in his interview to Yedioth Ahronoth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Andre_Geim_interview_to_Yedioth_Ahronoth,_Oct_15_2010,_p._25.jpg, which was provided by a member of the Hebrew Wikipedia, Mr. Geim states that "To this day, Geim describes himself as European: "in the UK there's no difference between the various religions, and I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or as Christian."--Therexbanner (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Well personally I always look to WP:BLPCAT on race/religion/sexual orientation, and the standard WP:BLPCAT calls out is "self-identification". Provided Therexbanner has provided an accurate translation of a reliable source, it would seem clear that Geim should not be categorized as Jewish. NickCT (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the discussion should now come to an end. Because a claim such as "Geim is Jewish" or something like that now would be clear POV-Pushing und should be sanctioned. --Gladsmile (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar discussion came up about Selena using the same rationale for stating her religion, and the decision was that we should not make such an assumption. There are many people who's ancestors are of one religion, but do not (and have claimed to never) profess that same religion. That is a little different than ancestry, which one cannot change. If you are born to a German family, then (at least when discussing one's ancestry) you are German. Religion doesn't work that way. There were debates also entered in other articles discussing how certain religions will claim that the child is of (or born into) the faith, whether they like it or not because of their parents'/ancestors' religious beliefs. In that, it was also agreed upon that the child-turned-adult would be the person to decide such (and decide their religious affiliation, if any) and that we cannot bind them to a religion based on what others (in this case their family or religion) deem for them if they do not agree... which brought us right back to that all important thing on Wikipedia for BLP's... needing a citation from a reliable source. I do not see any such citation, and thus on the grounds I mention above, I disagree with adding Geim to any religious category that cannot be reliably cited elsewhere. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The Arbitration Committee has ruled on this precise issue within the past year, and indicated (while sanctioning an editor who did not follow this approach) that where an RS indicates that a person is x, we should reflect it. Here, we have many RSs indicating he is Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
And we have a RS where the article's subject states he isn't.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Was just going to mention that. Did the ArbCom decision cover such discrepencies? I feel that the ArbCom ruling did not address this precise issue when the subject of the article, in a direct interview, clearly states he is not Jewish or Christian. In such cases as this, I would presume, especially since some people would consider otherwise to be defamation, that the subject's views, since they can be referenced as well, trump third party opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes -- it acknowledged that in some instances there may not be clear answers, and even that there may be conflicting statements by the person at issue during their lifetime, and suggested reflecting what the RSs reflect. Which is what I have suggested above, more than once.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it possible you can provide a reference to that ArbCom ruling? I cannot seem to find it, and it does not seem to be mentioned on this page. I think doing so will provide a clearer understanding of the situation for everyone. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course -- see here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
He specifically said "I see no reason to be defined as Jewish or Christian." In that interview he also says that only his grandmother is Jewish. But I'm not sure how these things are supposed to be treated in Wikipedia.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) (to brewcrewer) I would disagree with that wording, since he states he is not. If the references provided had any factual information to contradict his claim, I could see mentioning both, but I do not see such. If he says he isn't Jewish, I dont see any way (with the cites available) of claiming he is. And again, doing so may be considered a form of defamation. I know there are a lot of other religions, which if some ascribed them to being mine, I'd feel it a form of defamation. Not knowing his stance on that means the possibility exists, especially since he's gone on record stating he is not. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, what Brew suggests is (almost) precisely what the Arbitration Committee held. All RS sourced info is appropriate for reflection in the bio. The Arbitration Committee sanctioned an editor for deleting such RS-sourced information, which is precisely what Off2Rio and some other editors were doing here. I don't believe that there has been any objection to reporting other RS-sourced information regarding other aspects of his ethnicity/heritage/religion, and indeed they are appropriate for his bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt it (in situations like this). It becomes entirely POV. I would not object to (worded better than I can in my example)... "Though sources claim he is Jewish, Geim states he does not consider himself either Jewish or Christian" thus alleviating the POV aspect. One cannot simply write something that is POV by dismissing other known facts. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That ignores, among other things, the time factor. To follow the Arbitration Committee's approach, it would say something like "x, y, and z reported a, x1 and y1 reported b, and in x2 he was quoted in yyyy as saying 'c'". That avoids POV. A sentence with the word "but" is bound to have it - simply invert the sentence, and you have the opposite POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is key:"The individual who is the subject of a biography may have, in good faith, made conflicting statements during their lifetime about their ethnicity or heritage." Mr. Geim has not made any conflicting statements. The sources that state he is Jewish do not quote him, they are merely conclusions of their respective authors.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not a matter of contradiction (ArbCom involved). Geim has never stated he was Jewish.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I've only glanced at the ArbCom case (need to take a RL break for a few), but it seems to not be discussing this topic. It seems to be discussing "ethnicity or nationality" which is definitely different than religion, as I stated rationale for above. I'll read through the whole thing in a bit and see if my quick interpretation is correct (and apologies if it is not). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I just wanted to mention that.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
@RobertMfromLI - Having had this debate before I can tell you that Epee's next argument will be; "Jewish" can infer ethnicity. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee holding applies to "Identity disputes", the "ethnic or national identification of a given individual", and the individual's "ethnicity or heritage". Judaism falls under each of those classifications, as it is a religion, identity, ethnicity, and heritage (as well as a people/nation). It's precisely on point not only in one, but in each "bucket" mentioned (and would only have to be on point in even one).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with User:RobertMfromLI's wording except for the word "but" and "claim." let's avoid weasel words. let's just say how he is described in RS's and how he describes himself, provided the self=description is in a RS.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but then there are even more sources (including the Russian interview by Geim and someone close to him) where Geim says he's ethnically German. So, he's not religious (Jewish or Christian), and does not want others saying that, and he's ethnically German. Where does that leave us? (If he's not religiously Jewish, and not ethnically Jewish)--Therexbanner (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing citing whether the use of "Jewish" is defined as ethnic or religious, which means there is no point of reference for it. I also agree with Therexbanner's rationale preceding mine. Additionally, including the ambiguous statement while also including his "other" ethnicity implies he is religiously Jewish and ethnically German - inotherwords, since there is no source that claims such, pushing an unsupported POV. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 21:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That the Judaism is a religion, identity, ethnicity, and heritage (as well as a people/nation) is well-known. Is anyone quibbling over whether it is an "identity"? Is anyone quibbling over whether it is a "heritage"? Is anyone quibbling over whether it is an "ethnicity"? Just try any google search with Judaism and any of those terms. The Jewish identity, heritage, ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[21] "The Jewish Problem: How To Solve It," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "Jews are a distinctive nationality of which every Jew, whatever his country, his station or shade of belief, is necessarily a member" (April 25, 1915), University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Retrieved on June 15, 2009][22] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009][23] "The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 7: Berlin Years," U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, "The Jewish Nation is a living fact" (June 21, 1921), Princeton University Press, Retrieved on June 15, 2009]--Epeefleche (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • What does all that have to do with the fact that Mr. Geim says he's an ethnic German, and that he is not Jewish or Christian? Under what category of Judaism does he fall if he is not an ethnic Jew, and not a religious Jew? A converted-by-wiki Jew?--Therexbanner (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Please see my above comments about the fact that being Jewish and German are not mutually exclusive. You may find the article German Jews to be of interest on this subject. As to how we reflect what he is in his bio, the answer is in accord w/the Arbitration Committee decision. I've indicated above how that might look. If you would like me to fill in the x's and y's, I will be happy to.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There are two issues here. 1. "Jewish" is not a religion like "Chirstian" 2. If in one source a subject has identified himself a being whatever, and in another source he has stated otherwise, or that he does not wish to be considered whatever, then we have an obligation to bring all relevant sources. Debresser (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, he has not identified himself as Jewish anywhere. The only sources that state that he is Jewish, were written by some other people, are ambiguous, and do not define the matter in any way. Sources going deep into the matter (including interviews with him to various newspapers) state he is ethnically German, and religiously neither Jewish nor Christian. Tell me again, under what category of "Jewish" does he fall into if it's not religion and/or ethnicity?--Therexbanner (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That so far is the best method I've heard in this discussion. Non POV, states what knowledge is known (about both outside POVs). This I would support. But it brings up one more question. When it comes to the cat tagging, how should we apply this? ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, except for the fact that no sources make that claim, so it's an obvious violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The initial version mentions his maternal grandmother is Jewish. So would that not suffice for people who follow halakhic law? If they read that, they will come to the same conclusion. I never proposed removing information regarding his maternal grandmother.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The reliable sources also say he's Jewish; we can't force that out just because your personal view is that he's not. Jayjg (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a type of misrepresentation. I provided many sources saying otherwise, I have no personal opinion on the matter.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. I haven't misrepresented anything at all, and you have yet to provide a single source "saying otherwise". You have inferred and alleged that various sources have said so, but upon examination, it turns out none of them actually do so. And you've made it abundantly clear what your opinion on the matter is. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If sources are found that says that specificlly with regard to Geim, that is fine. Otherwise it violates our WP:SYNTH policy. We use what RS's say, whether the subject likes this info or the subject dislikes the info. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm afraid that would be OR, because no source links those points together like that. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, I dont think it does. CC, that is not OR, because it links nothing. It states two different points with two different cites. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/Chris. It fits squarely within WP:SYNTH. The second "point" has to be in a discussion about the subject of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If the subject has never personally identified himself as Jewish (religiously and/or ethnically), and the only sources that do, are not sourced themselves, and are original pieces by various authors; how would that be objective? There are hundreds of "sources" (mainly racist websites/papers) that claim Barack Obama or the Pope are Jewish, but that does not mean anyone here would take them seriously & over the words of Mr. Obama or the Pope.
How do we know that the authors did not make it up, if their description of Geim conflicts with his own?--Therexbanner (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Have you actually reviewed WP:RS and WP:V? We don't require sources to be the subject themselves, nor do we require them to be "objective". Indeed, the former is generally discouraged. And their description in no way conflicts with Geim's; one can be German and Jewish, just as one can be American and Jewish, or Brazilian and Jewish, etc. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
@TheRex -- Ummm ... that's a core issue that goes to our reliance on RSs. If a paper is going to "make something up", they could just as easily make up a quote as any other statement. If you read the Arbitration Committee decision, you will see that the focus is on reflecting what is reported in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You're stalling the discussion. I have listed sources that say he's an ethnic German, and that he is not Jewish religiously. I will repeat the question for the Xth time, if he is not ethnically Jewish and not religiously Jewish, how is he Jewish?
You cannot be an American Jew, if you're not Jewish through ancestry and/or through religion. You would just be an American. I'm not Chinese because I don't have Chinese ancestry or citizenship. I'm not muslim/buddhist/etc because I don't follow the faith. How hard could that be?--Therexbanner (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense again. Where has Geim stated he is "an ethnic German"? You have one source—some acquaintance of his—claiming he was an "ethnic German". The fact that you would accept that as uncontested fact, while insisting that he's not a Jew, is revealing. And religions such as Islam and Buddhism, which are not ethno-religions, are irrelevant, so please stop "stalling the discussion" by bringing them up. Furthermore, why would being an "ethnic German" preclude him being an "ethnic Jew" too? If someone has, say, a Chinese mother and an African-American father, and wants to claim to be both ethnically Chinese and ethnically African-American, who are you to say he's not both? Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If some sports writers wrote "Mats Sundin is a bald hockey player..." because they couldn't see the blond hair. And then Mr. Sundin would say he is blond, would the Wikipedia article say "Mats Sundin is a hockey player who claims to be blonde-haired, but whom some consider bald..." I don't think so.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately, the case here is nothing like that one. Please don't bring up irrelevant examples. Jayjg (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let me see if I can sum this all up.

  • We have sources, considered reliable for other fields of expertise that are commenting on either (a) his ethnicity or (b) religion or (c) combination thereof (of which none of us can determine which)
  • We have the subject himself claiming he is not Jewish or Christian (with no differentiation to Jewish meaning religious or ethnic - meaning it should be blanket coverage for both)

Which brings us to the points at hand

  • There are those who wish to include the information
    • But there isnt a single person who can make a citable argument for how to include it on it's own (ie: religious or ethnic)
    • There are proposals on how to include it (via "halakhic law"), but there are those who think there is no cite for this - failing to remember that the grandparent aspect is cited, and thus this is a factual given
  • There are those who are unintentionally attempting to impose a bias or POV by only including one or the other ("Jewish" or "claims he isnt")

So far, the only position that makes the most sense and IS cited is User:Andrensath's suggestion above. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I may agree that it makes the most sense, but it is inconsistent with our WP:V and WP:SYNTH policies. It's the latter that rules the day here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Robert seem to be ignoring, in your summary, the above comments, by a number of editors, pointing out why Andre's suggestion is a violation of wp:synth and related policies. As well as the Arbitration Committee's instruction as to how these matters should be handled.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The arbitration committee "hearing" dealt with matters where there is conflicting information given by the article subject. Mr. Geim has not given any conflicting information. The conflict arises from sources saying he's Jewish versus. Geim saying he's not. Which one of those takes priority (keep in mind that the sources do not elaborate on the source of their Jewish information.)?--Therexbanner (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Neither "take priority." We report both, assuming both are reliably sourced. Also, we don't care how reliable sources got their information, or even its true for that matter. See WP:V.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Geim has never said "I'm not Jewish"; please don't misrepresent him. Jayjg (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Precisely, Therexbanner, I have a question for you. In what version of the English language do the words "I see no reason to define myself as Christian or Jewish" mean the same thing as "I am not Jewish"? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec)
  • Oh, I'm not ignoring it. It's irrelevant as it does not apply:
    • The ArbCom case does NOT apply to this because no one has proven the claims of him being Jewish are ethnic and not religious. And the numerous claims that he is German would contradict the assumptions editors here would have to make to claim that "Jewish" meant ethnic Jew.
      • Establish we are talking about his ethnicity (2 reliable sources please) and I will agree on this point.
    • There is no original research in pointing out any of the above.
      • By the established definitions in "halakhic law" and with the citations about his grandparent, he is Jewish (meaning the only thing here to do is provide a cite to the halakhic law - and then it's no longer OR.
      • By the references listed, one cannot come to any valid conclusion except he's religiously a Jew or ethnically. How do you include something ambiguous that's in contradiction to everything else?
And final note, please explain how a source deemed reliable on particular subject matter can also be a source deemed NOT an RS for other subject matters? Many people make the mistake of thinking that because a source is considered an RS for certain subjects, that it should be treated that way for all such things. For instance, I would reference a peer reviewed theologian on certain religious topics, but just because he's deemed an RS (for such), do you think I could get away with citing him on topics of rocket science because he decided to write something (or simply mention something) on the topic?
ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
bc: yes. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would report both views if they weren't ambiguous (they don't even go into the details and say what "kind" of Jew he is), and if they didn't conflict with other sources. As I'm currently busy with other things, I will return to the issue tommorrow. --Therexbanner (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well then, can we all agree to figure out how the heck to do that? :-) Or first step, do we have a consensus that we should, as they are both relevant, try to figure out a proper way of doing this? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources aren't "ambiguous" about him being a Jew; rather, they are very clear. And we actually don't care what "kind" of Jew he is, since that's irrelevant. Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, though I disagree with that (John is tall (define tall?), it is hot (what's hot? hot as in a hot summer day or hot as in an oven on broil?)) since it is very ambiguous, it still brings us back to the question... are we all in consensus that we can try to figure out how to include both statements? He's been identified by others as Jewish but does not consider himself to be Jewish? (not in that wording of course). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Some in the above discussion appear to have not read, or else ignored, the Arbitration Committee decision on identity disputes. The decision held as follows, and addresses repeated suggestions by Therex suggesting that we conceal the multiple refs to Geim being Jewish; in fact, the Arb Committee in that case sanctioned an editor who edit-warred against this approach:

    The ethnic or national identification of a given individual is a complex subject that may not have clear answers in some cases. The individual who is the subject of a biography may have, in good faith, made conflicting statements during their lifetime about their ethnicity or heritage. For the purposes of writing a Wikipedia biography, editors should be sensitive to such statements by an individual, but also should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources. Where there is a conflict between these two types of sources, it may take judgment and consensus-building to find the proper balance between them.[24]

--Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I did read that.

  • There is no mention of differing statements by the subject
  • I have asked... four times now... if we can agree to come to a consensus to include both sets of information from both sources.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The decision says we should reflect both what the subject says and what RSs say. I propose following that decision.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Robert, "both sets of information from both sources"? Since no one has yet adduced a reliable source that Geim is not Jewish, what can you mean by that? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Agreed, and what I've (in my overly verbose way) been trying to suggest, and what I think most or all of us have come to agreement about. As you can tell, I am NOT the best with wording... I leave that up to you all. But... if we've all come to a consensus that we should try to include both, then at least we have a starting point. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Steven: I thought I was told the source exists and was listed (or I am losing it - which is also possible). A few minutes ago is the first I heard that it is not. I've requested it directly below your comment above (in preceding section). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here, let me help, Geim gave an interview in which he said (in translation in an article written in Hebrew) "I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or Christian". This is what Therexbanner (a very new user who doubtless doesn't understand WP:NOR very well yet) is referring to when he claims (falsely) that Geim denies being Jewish. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


(ec)Then perhaps the start above is a good place to start
"'Although he does not identify as such (cite), under halachic law Geim is considered Jewish, as his maternal grandmother was an ethnic Jew(cite)."
I only offer that as a basis for structure. "Although he sees no reason to define himself as Jewish...(cite)" perhaps? Or "Of Jewish ancestry, Geim sees no reason to define himself as Jewish" or... you get the point I hope. As I said, content creation is not my strong point. And yes, I agree, with his wording (assuming proper translation above), it would be an inference to assume he is saying he is not Jewish. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Side note: It may not be a lack of understanding of WP:OR that's the problem. Most or all of us will read something and understand a meaning, often with parts of that meaning inferred. Even understanding WP:OR, if our understanding of the actual meaning of a sentence is incorrect, it is pretty easy to thus use our inferred meaning in a way that seems OR. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Which source states "he does not identify as such", which source states "he sees no reason to define himself as Jewish", which source states "under halachic law Geim is considered Jewish, as his maternal grandmother was an ethnic Jew"? I haven't seen any sources saying those things. The closest was the one where he theoretically said "I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or Christian", which has a very different meaning than just seeing no reason to define himself as Jewish, though he must have actually said something else, since the alleged source was in Hebrew. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we can end the "pick on a new editor" session. It's not productive to the discussion. And honestly, on a quick read of subject's statement, I would probably have made the same unsupported assumption. As for the "under halachic law" part, no, these sources don't say that, but (stated as a question) doesnt a ton of cites already in existence about Judaism?

But again, we are getting off track. Let's work on coming up with a solution that adequately states what these sources do say. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly have no desire to pick on a new editor, but, let's be honest, Therexbanner has really swinging for the fences on this issue, and has been for some time. I certainly was not as confident in my absolute, unquestionable infallibility as he seems to be when I had 160-odd edits. This discussion would be a lot less contentious and a lot more productive if he would understand that it is not accepted for Wikipedia editors to apply their own reasoning to the question of whether someone is or is not Jewish. Our job is simply to report what the sources say. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Which then brings us back to coming up with a solution that adequately states what these sources do say. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)



A Note on My Comments

I feel I must make this note to clarify a few things, just to ensure nothing I have said is misinterpreted.

  • I do NOT believe anyone is actively trying to introduce bias or POV into the article.

With that said, the bias and POV portion comes from wording and inferred meaning. I'm one of those who truly believes one must weigh each sentence put into an article against others in the same article. Because quite frankly, even the truth and hundreds of citations can insert bias or POV if not worded correctly. A good example is dihydrogen monoxide. There are tons of articles about it online pointing out (in 100% accurate detail) all of it's very real dangers. Anyone reading them (no matter how many hundreds of reliable sources are attached to each claim) who does not know that dihydrogen monoxide is water would think it's one of the most dangerous substances on the planet.

This is a similar situation. I think some here, who have a very good knowledge of the various topics related to this, are not stopping to think of how those who do not, will perceive what they wish to include. That's for all of us (myself included) on both (or all three?) sides of the fence. As a for instance, though I am not Jewish (in either sense of the term), I have worked in kosher restaurants and done catering for events that were all kosher (food). Even in knowing the difference between ethnic and religious Jew(ish), my first interpretation would be the proposed insertion to the article indicated Geim was Jewish (religious). Due to the fact the article mentions him to be of German/Russian ethnicity/ancestry, when I got to that part of the article, I'd come to that conclusion even more strongly.

I think we truly need to make every attempt to ensure that our knowledge (and others' lack thereof - especially about a religion and ethnicity that the majority of people do not know about) does not infer any POV information or bias that we are not intending. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. To the extent that you are not introducing synth. There are articles written on him in a range of publications, with audiences supposedly with a range of knowledge and correct and incorrect assumptions as to this and other subjects, that refer to him being Jewish. Citing to them addresses this issue the same way the refs do. I think a physics magazine, for example, can be assumed to face the same issue that you describe.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not going to be writing the sentence or paragraph... I'm pretty darn good at copy editing - but I'd honestly say I suck at article creation. So, you dont have to worry about me introducing any biases or original research into the text. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andre_Geim/Archive_1&oldid=1037689972"