Talk:Andre Geim

Oposses Boycott on Israel

Important to add - this honest man opposes the shameful boycott on Israel.

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/9657 http://www.antisemitism.org.il/eng/struggle/49378/DozensofNobelPrizelaureatescondemnboycottcampaignagainstIsrael

WP:WEIGHT

The section on Geim's personal life now devotes nearly half its length to a paragraph quoting various sources that describe him as Jewish. This seems to me to give undue WP:WEIGHT to an issue that does not seem to have much weight with Geim himself. It is possible that the cult of the flying spaghetti monster might define someone as a type-G spaghetton if his last name began with G, but IMO that would be no reason to insert a paragraph about Geim's type-G spaghetton-ship here if it is something that he does not himself believe or care about. betsythedevine (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a direct result of "Wikiproject:Tag-a-jew" approach of some editors.--Scott Mac 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Jewish sportscasters and promoters and List of Jewish heavy metal musicians anyone? Bulldog123 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just to show everyone how seriously up-kept those articles are, note the last entry on the first list: "Bob Costas, US sportscaster/ NBC sideline reporter/ Huge Jew" Bulldog123 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a result of the evidence-gathering in the edit disputes chronicled above, but whatever anybody's motivation might be shouldn't be the focus --what matters is ending up with a quality article that follows Wikipedia policy. I think we can all take it as read from the evidence here on the talk page that there are many people who consider Geim to be Jewish. We don't need to list so many of their statements in the article itself, however. Maybe the one sentence about his Jewish maternal grandmother, and another one talking about his having suffered discrimination in Russia--in my opinion that really should be enough to cover what "Jewishness" has meant in Geim's life.betsythedevine (talk)

The version that's been getting reverted by User:Epeefleche (who curiously is missing for this discussion) devotes two whole sentences to the subject and yet manages to summarize the situation perfectly. Jewish grandmother (or perhaps now great-grandmother) and faced discrimination because of non-Russian surname. Bulldog123 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the "evidence" is required, then use a footnote.--Scott Mac 18:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I've been proposing all along. Notice, how once I agreed on a compromise, my latest proposed version hasn't been commented-on by the opposing editors that flocked here a month ago. Weird.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I also agree on this. But the discrimination he suffered in Soviet union was because of his German nationality, as has been referenced many times above. So if it should be mentioned I suggest we say he suffered discrimination because of his non-Russian nationality. I guess everyone can agree on that. If you must mention German or Jewish you can do it in a footnote. The important thing is that he suffered discrimination. Närking (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My question is, how do we ensure sufficient protection of the article (and similar articles) from these minority (minority as in their opinion is "supported by very few editors", not "U.S. census minority") lobbying groups? Do we just keep reverting to the good-quality version? Because they will revert back, and call 3RR. In other words, how do we ensure a binding consensus where the quality of the article does not suffer?--Therexbanner (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is too much of this material and we should cut it down. But the discrimination was not just because of his German origins, antisemitism was part of it too. Globes quotes Geim as saying, in Israel, "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you. Nonetheless, I don’t divide the world by religions or countries, but by stupid people and slightly less stupid people, and I hope that I am numbered among the second group." And before anyone jumps on this wording to claim that "Geim here identifies as Jewish", no, he doesn't. He is saying his great-grandmother was Jewish, and that he knows what it is like to be a victim of anti-semitism. --JN466 22:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, his great-grandmother was Jewish! Hahaha! Okay, then let us do this great-grandmother in a footnote, and we can all be satisfied.--Gladsmile (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jewish great-grandmother would make him 1/8th ethnically Jewish (unless my math is off) -- which is pretty much equivalent to 15-20% of all of Polish citizens. It also explains how his maternal great-grandfather managed to be a German noble back then. If other sources wish to call him a "Jew" because of matrilineal descent, fine by them. I see no reason why those sources need to be quoted in a wikipedia article though -- especially if Geim has no religious affiliation with Judaism. (Cue last-ditch desperate arguments saying Geim is a "cultural Jew" ) Bulldog123 22:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've trimmed some of it, and moved some of it to footnotes, while keeping the points mentioned in this string and above strings. Bulldog I see is edit-warring again, against consensus. To answer other editors questions in this regard, the way to address disruptive editing is to warn the editors in question, and ultimately have them sanctioned.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel bad for you, Epee. Are you going to ignore [1] this source now because it doesn't fit your world view? Bulldog123 22:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we lose the disputed tag now? I think it's fine now. --JN466 01:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

With the new version yes, but you're still allowing the List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners "See Also" link -- which is intentionally being used to substitute Arbcom's decision to exclude Jewish categories. Bulldog123 02:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I was only talking about the section with the disputed tag. Could you please provide a link to the arbcom decision you mention? I'm not familiar with it. Thanks. --JN466 03:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I meant the WP:BLP decision - not a decision specific to this article. Scroll up. It's on the talk page. Consensus was to remove categories per that after -- I think -- a third opinion was given. I don't know the whole history - I got to this article late. More here: Talk:Andre_Geim/Archive_1#Request_for_mediation Bulldog123 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(restart indents) I think the current state of the article, which uses Geim's own words, is excellent. Editors who have differing points of view are a real benefit to Wikipedia, in my opinion, because the process of reaching consensus can uncover new sources and create new understanding. This debate has been bruising for some, but I believe that Wikipedia's normal methods of staying civil to avoid escalating battles, using user talk pages rather than article talk pages to warn users about their behavior, and reporting bad behavior so admins can deal with it are best. betsythedevine (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Betsy. I've edited further, keeping all the material, but also keeping the material relating to his being Jewish in the text rather than only in the footnote.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I consider the changes to put extra Jewishness back into the article as opposed to the footnotes as a violation not only of WP:WEIGHT but also of the clear consensus on this talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New version is perfect, but you're not going to convince him. Good luck with that and expect "talk page warnings." Bulldog123 02:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

On what basis is he listed under "Jewish Nobel Laureates"? I thought we all agreed to include all sources, from both sides, but not to categorize him until the situation becomes clearer. He's not even listed on the http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html site (updated for 2010, and includes Diamond).--Therexbanner (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Albeit, it includes 0 sources for Diamond. Making it about as reliable as a Facebook status. Bulldog123 20:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"List of Jewish Nobel laureates"

The only criterion for inclusion on List of Jewish Nobel laureates is having been described in WP:RS as "Jewish." Accordingly, Geim is on that list. I have proposed on that article's talk page that the name of that article be changed to "List of Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish."

The question for this article is whether or not to accept the repeated addition by some of a "See also" link from this article to the misleadingly-named List of Jewish Nobel laureates. In my opinion, that violates the spirit of WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Geim does not self-identify as Jewish, and there is no justification for using his article to help promote a problematic list of Nobel laureates some Wikipedians have defined as Jewish.betsythedevine (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. The name "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" is misleading. Let us change it!--Gladsmile (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "List of Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." is what does it mean? "List of Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish by one source that a Wikipedian has found"? Does that mean if one Jewish newspaper labels someone "Jewish" they go on the list - even if no other source does and then deny it?. That would seem to offend against WP:UNDUE. If someone is regularly described as Jewish, then fair enough.--Scott Mac 15:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a bad title. However it should be discussed on the list's talk page, not here. The "See also" link should be discussed here, though. I don't see why it's needed; even assuming Geim is Jewish (which seems to depend on the definition used), I don't imagine many readers of this article are going to want to find other Jewish laureates. --Avenue (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yet again we're jumping through hoops just so a handful of users can feel proud they've managed to include someone new in their club. The guy does not self-identify as Jewish ethnically/religiously/or culturally, though I'm positive you'll find numerous reports that say he is quote "Jewish" -- mostly by ill-informed writers and Judaeo-obsessed publications. Similarly, I can find tons of "sources" that Hannibal was actually of Black African descent. Here's one: [2] QUICK! Everybody make a new article Hannibal (black)! Bulldog123 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the list is now being discussed. betsythedevine (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Home Page of Dr. Andre Geim in University of Manchester: Andre Geim is Jewish

In official Home-Page of Dr. Andre Geim in University of Manchester: http://www.condmat.physics.manchester.ac.uk/people/academic/geim/, there are only 3 standard references regarding his personal life: 1. http://sciencewatch.com/inter/aut/2008/08-aug/08augSWGeim/

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

3. http://www.condmat.physics.manchester.ac.uk/images/people/geim/physworld.jpg

In 2nd reference he stated that he is Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanPeal (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Redacting comment by one of the many banned sockpuppets of Russian.science. betsythedevine (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he didn't. We've seen that source already, it narrates he was discriminated against because the authorities in Russia regarded him as Jewish. I hardly think we can follow a report like that and say "hell, well if the Russians, who discriminated against him, said that, he must be Jewish"! We've recorded he suffered anti-Semitic prejudice, and that's all the source claims.--Scott Mac 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education." Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's better not to assert anything when we have the subject's own words to report. Passing mention in a bio in some scientific magazine isn't really a great authority. It is much safer to use the subject's own self-description, which is what we are currently doing.--Scott Mac 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Bus Stop. We have RS support for the proposition. That is what wikipedia is built on. It's much safer to stick with the core wikipedia RS proposition.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person. Here, self-identification is required. Yworo (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

We've had that source for some time. It was discussed above and consensus reached. Basically, that one source describes someone as something is not indicative of much, and the subject's self-description carries more weight. But as I say, this has already been discussed at length.--Scott Mac 18:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no self-identification that conflicts with the RS-supported statements. If an RS reports that x is a rapist, that y had sex with a goat, or that z has a venereal disease, that is reportable. So, it is in accord with the core wikipedia approach of relying on RSs to rely on them here. Judaism is not only a religion, but Jews are an ethnicity and a nation, and it seems unlikely that we would be more concerned with reflecting their religion than their criminal or other behavior -- such as conditions that are at the core of what led to the laws of libel and slander.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This source confirms what other sources are saying. No source is at odds with any other source. If we had a source for instance saying that he converted to another religion or that he disavowed Jewish identity we would be expected to exercise caution in using this source. But several sources are pointing to Jewish identity for Geim. I don't think we could be faulted for relying on this source. Scientific Computing World seems like a reliable source to me. I don't think we need a quote from him saying that he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You two both need to give it up. The term "Jewish" is ambiguous and can refer to religion. BLP instructs us to err on the side of caution. Therefore we assume that people will read it as religion. Geim's exact statement is included in the article and that is all that is going to be included. Yworo (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you need to stop telling people engaged in pointing to legitimate facts and principles to give it up. BLP concerns obviously are greater as to the issues I raised in my above post. Your "give it up" comment, intellectually incisive as it was, notwithstanding. This isn't a case of BLP concern at the level of the examples given, and even in those examples we would rely on RSs. Plus -- note, this is not a category discussion, but an article discussion. As such, the reader has the benefit of reading the ref. As to "consensus", consensus was earlier reached on this page to reflect that he is Jewish. As the RSs reflect. Why anyone should "give it up" for Yworo's view, and the view of a sysop who flips back and forth between acting sysop and acting editor on the same article in violation of wp:admin, is not clear to some of us.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a BLP issue. Geim makes it clear in his statement that he does not identify as Jewish, that he does not want to be identified as Jewish, and that he has suffered harm from being misidentified as Jewish. That clearly invokes the BLP maxim "Do no harm". I don't know what your motivations are, but Wikipedia is not "Jew Watch". Continue in this vein and I will take further action to have your behaviour over the issue examined and evaluated. Yworo (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when was "Scientific Computing World" an authoritative source on who is a Jew anyway? I doubt I could get away with using the "Jerusalem Post" editorial as a source for an article on particle physics. That one journalist describes someone as Jewish is simply one person's estimation. It does not provide evidence that he considers himself, or is widely considered to be, or is, Jewish. But, as I say, we've already discussed this. Stop flogging dead horses.--Scott Mac 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott, would you be willing to join in opening a user conduct RfC against these two over the issue. This is not the only talk page they are disrupting in this manner. Yworo (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I suspect it is just a case of letting them be. Consensus on the article has been reached, if some folk want to keep flogging dead horse on the talk page, let them. As long as the article isn't disrupted there no real problem.--Scott Mac 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yworo and Scott. It strikes me that all Jews, and areligious grandchildren of Jews, can apply for Israeli citizenship. If Geim or any of his grandparents were Jewish, he would have had an easy route out of Russia, but he took a more difficult path instead. From his citizenship and residency history, it looks as though he was not eligible for Israeli nationality and had to find another way out of Russia. DrKiernan (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who said he wanted to emigrate to Israel? And of course, that's a completely OR comment, replete with assumptions that are questionable -- we don't weigh OR/synth over RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, he's the most reliable source available for this, and he says his great-grandmother was Jewish and that his name sounds Jewish. You would only say that if you were a Gentile. Jews would just say "I'm Jewish". Also, as he refers to Jews in the Globe interview as "you", that is fairly indicative that he does not think of Jews as "us". DrKiernan (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference: http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1, is a double standard source, because it’s been chosen and put in official home-page of Dr. Geim by himself. It is quite enough for proving Jewishness of Dr. Geim. --OceanPeal (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

We have additionally this in the Jewish Daily Forward:

"As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov." Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tedious, Bus stop. I must note that you were previously banned for this sort of obsession, that prior to being banned, you were under a restriction not allowing you to edit anything having to do with Jewish ethnicity, and that part of the conditions allowing you to come back to Wikipedia were that you "may not edit any articles having to do with cultural or religious identity of individuals, living or dead. This should be construed broadly. Should you try to WP:GAME the edges of this ban, you will be blocked again." I've reviewed the actual discussions on WP:AN, and it is clear that those proposing these restrictions intended them to be permanent. There may have been some confusion conflating this restriction with the general probation which lasted only six months. But you are clearly returning to the previous behavior which got you banned and I will be taking this to WP:AN to have your ban reinstated. Yworo (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bus and Ocean.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yworo—you posted this here which I guess is your prerogative. But this is the Andre Geim Talk page. It is not a place to discuss me, is it? Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Dutch not Russian

This page appears to be mis-categorized. If Geim is Dutch, by nationality, then he is a Dutch Nobel laureate and not a "Russian Nobel laureate", as he is categorized. The categories are by "nationality" not by self-described ethnicity or country of origin. Since there was a recent controversy on this entry regarding categories I do not want to fix this boldly myself, but would rather hear feedback.Griswaldo (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right to me. It should be based on his citizenship when he won the prize. Yworo (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize statements

One news article has appeared quoting Geim criticizing the Nobel Peace Prize Committee for their choice of jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiabao. The first paragraph of the story paraphrases (badly) what Geim actually said, which is also quoted: "Look at the people who give this Nobel prize .. They are retired Norwegian politicians who have spent all their careers in a safe environment, in an oil-rich modern country. They try to extend their views of the world, how the world should work and how democracy works in another country. It's very, very patronising -- they have not lived in these countries. In the past 10 years, China has developed not only economically, but even the strongest human rights supporter would agree also human rights have improved. Why do we need to distort this?"

I have heard from many Chinese people in the US and elsewhere that they deeply resent Western criticism of China, because more credit should be given to China's huge progress on human rights issues since the not-so-long-ago Cultural Revolution. Geim's mention of his Chinese colleagues and students makes it clear that it is this view he is endorsing with his statement. This is also apparent from the fact that "Although both \[Geim and Novolselov\] agreed it was unfair that neither Mr Liu nor his family had been allowed to accept his award, they said it was a myth that every Chinese person was terrified of the regime."

I would like to see Wikipedia quote what Geim actually said, not the journalist's sensationalizing paraphrase of it. Llosa's remark that the physicists "must explain themselves" pretty clearly derives from his not having seen Geim's perfectly clear explanation.betsythedevine (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what exactly did the journalist paraphrase? The quote that you mention Geim as saying is reported verbatim in the Australian news article.

The fact that you hear many Chinese people in the US deeply resent Western criticism of China is empirically difficult to prove. And when subject to logical analysis, the assertion is probably ironic and untrue for three reasons: 1) many Chinese dissidents made (or make) America (or a Western country) their choice for emigration; 2) to speak of Chinese people as one monolithic block is to ignore the process of assimilation of second and third generation Chinese Americans into mainstream American society, and insofar the assimilation theory holds, it isn't clear why Chinese Americans should feel resentful of Western criticism of China when they would regard their identity as fundamentally American; 3) if they resent Western criticism of China, why do they continue living in a Western country like, say, the USA?

I have no problem with Wikipedia quoting what Geim said. I do have a problem with your claim that Llosa's remarks derives from an incomplete understanding of Geim's explanation as to why the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be given to Liu. For one thing, it could be the case that when Llosa asks the two scientists to explain themselves, he's not asking them to explain why the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be given to Liu, but rather the more specific issue of Liu's imprisonment and how the scientists should explain themselves in failing to condemn the imprisonment of a political dissident by the Chinese government. For another, Geim's explanation of why the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be awarded to Liu isn't convincing either: the first paragraph of his insinuation about the Norweigan politicians who handed out the prize as sanctimonious and elitist is a non-sequitor and his claim that the Nobel Peace Prize distorts the human rights progress (by which Geim means progress in socio-economic rights, not civil and political rights as when he says: "China has not only developed economically)) China has made in the last 10 years is to miss the point about the meaning of the Peace Prize which is an award to a person who promotes the cause of peace regardless of the human rights (i.e. economic development according to Geim) of the country in which the recipient resides. Moreover, his statement also seems to make two problematic assumptions: 1) that peace is coterminous with human rights, even though the pursuit of those human rights can result in a violent, totalitarian society (i.e. North Korea, where socio-economic human rights are guaranteed at the cost of living in a totalitarian society.); 2) Chinese exceptionalism, that because human rights in China are improving, there's no evidence that it isn't a peaceful society. Of course, nobody will deny that human rights in China are improving, but with the imprisonment of a political dissident, it begs the question of how much improvement is made on that front.Fellytone (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The paraphrase I referred to was the journalist's statement "said the Nobel committee was out of touch, and dismissed its tribute to the jailed Chinese dissident as patronising," which had been quoted verbatim in the bio. From Geim's actual remarks, he seems to be using the word "patronizing" more generally to describe the committee's attitude toward non-Western countries.

I agree with most of the changes you have made to the article, but I don't think Geim was saying that human rights had improved because of economic progress. I think he is saying that the economic progress has been enormous and at the same time the progress in human rights has been significant. Let me be clear that I am not agreeing with Geim's position about the Nobel Peace Prize committee, just trying to understand what he said and why so we can report it accurately for our readers.betsythedevine (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well you said that the journalists did a bad job of paraphrasing Geim's comment that the issuing of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu was "very very patrionizing - they [the Nobel peace Prize committee] have not lived in these countries." So unless it isn't part of the job of a journalist to paraphrase the comments of living people in their news articles, I can't see what evidence there is that the journalist paraphrased Geim's comment in a sensationalist manner.

As for Geim's remark that human rights has improved only because of China's economic progress, it's really hard to think otherwise when he said, "China has developed not only economically, but even the strongest human rights supporter would agree also human rights have improved." If he doesn't think of human rights as being coterminous with the provision of socio-economic rights, then why would he mention specifically China's economic development in his proposition that China's human rights record has improved? And as for your comments that you don't agree with Geim's position about the Nobel Peace Prize committee, I'm unconvinced that's the case either, what with comments like: "China's huge progress on human rights issues since the not-so-long-ago Cultural Revolution," and "...derives from his Llosa not having seen Geim's perfectly clear explanation." Although, I am happy you do agree with the changes I've made though. Fellytone (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that China's huge progress in human rights since the Cultural Revolution should exempt them from criticism for ongoing abuses. I don't think that the people who serve on the Nobel Peace Prize committee made a bad decision -- or that even in a hypothetical case where they did, they deserve to be scolded. So on those points at least I disagree with what I think Geim thinks. As for the word "patronizing;" where I disagree with the paraphrasing journalist is what Geim meant by "it" in his statement "it's very, very patronizing." The journalist's summary implies that Geim's "it" stands for "giving a prize to Liu"; my reading from the context it that "it" stood for "the Nobel Peace Prize committee" or perhaps "the committee's attitude toward the non-Western world."betsythedevine (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

p.s. You can hear Geim discuss the subject, and utter the long quote from the article, in the BBC interview Nobel Minds, starting at about 19:15. It is clear that all the laureates present were distressed that Liu could not be present. The interviewer asks Geim about his (apparently earlier) use of the word "condescending" WRT the Peace Prize, so Geim explains himself. On the subject of jailing dissidents in general and Liu in particular, Geim also states "He should be out of jail, there is no question there." That statement was omitted by the journalist from the article. Llosa's viewpoint is also expanded in the interview you can listen to. He disagrees with Geim about the appropriate pace for democratization and change in China. Llosa uses South America as an example, saying that if you ask the people they will always want freedom and democracy rather than a dictatorship. Geim says (I'm paraphrasing) that most Chinese people he knows prefer a slow progress toward freedom because of what they see as the example of Russia's quick democratization which precipitated bad changes as well as good ones. I did not hear Llosa say that the scientists "must explain themselves" during the taped interview. So perhaps he said it after being informed (perhaps in a garbled way) of Geim's criticizing the Peace Prize Committee but before having heard Geim explain what he meant by his comment. betsythedevine (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Honestly, the entire section is WP:UNDUE. It was an off-hand remark that belongs on the Nobel Peace Prize 2010 article, not here. To emphasize it with such a comparatively large section is dangerously close to violating WP:BLPSTYLE, in regards to criticism and controversy.--JeremyMiller (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's discuss this instead of reverting. This is a BLP issue, so the section should remain deleted until we can produce consensus here on the talk.--JeremyMiller (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Jeremy that this is WP:UNDUE in terms of its importance to Geim's bio. Only one news outlet mentioned it, that got some bloggy-outrage because she headlined and wrote it up to make it seem as if Geim was dissing Liu instead of criticizing the Peace Prize Committee. Of course it makes a much better shock-and-shame story that way, but it isn't what happened. Geim's clear statement that Liu should not have been jailed at all is left out of her story, tho you can hear it if you listen to the BBC interview. Geim and Novoselov agreeing that Liu and/or family should have been allowed to attend is mentioned several paragraphs into the story. But her writeup is Geim vs Liu! Geim vs Llosa! Her headline is "Liu Xiaobo wrong man for Nobel Peace Prize, say laureates" -- something that neither laureate in fact says. On the other hand, people outraged by reading the hitpiece in blogland will come to the article and put some garbled slanted version in if we don't mention it here. I think a mention and leave out the Llosa bit, if you listen to the Nobel Minds debate he is not having any fight with Geim about it; their main disagreement is that Llosa disputes Geim's belief that people in China prefer slow change toward freedom. I also think it makes more sense to drop the Australian journalist's hit piece as a source and just use the BBC recorded debate. betsythedevine (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. I made the change I suggested under the heading "Views and Opinions" where it belongs; feel free to improve or remove if you feel it was wrong. betsythedevine (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No you couldn't hide your bias could you? I see in the changes that you make, you completely leave out the (ungarbled) disagreement by Llosa (starts at around 19:40 in the exchange on the BBC website) about Geim's criticism of the Nobel peace prize Committee. And it's ironic how you would go on to complain how people in blogland will "come to the article and put some garbled slanted version in if we don't mention it here" because cherrypicking the preferred tactic of argumentation among bloggers. And no, I don't read blogs so I don't come from blogland.

Where is the evidence that she's sensationalize the article? Where's the evidence that her article is written like an announcer for a boxing match? She reported exactly what Geim and Novoselov said verbatim in her article. You say the laureates never say Liu Xiaobo is the wrong man for the Nobel Peace Prize, so then it begs the question of what exactly is the point of their criticizing the Nobel Peace Prize Committee if they disagree with selection of a Chinese political dissident for the Nobel Peace Prize award? The logic of your argument is exactly like that of a segregationist in the 1960s who would defend segregationist policies on the grounds that the fact that although it treated blacks inferior to whites, it never explicitly says blacks are inferior to whites.

I'm going to put the remarks by Llosa back in, without which it makes it look as if the ridiculous emphasis of Geim's argument on the character of Nobel Peace Committee members has any iota of sanity. Though I'm sure people from blogland (particularly members of the 50 cent party) will go crazy if support for Liu is voiced anywhere in the Internet. Fellytone (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Geim's criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize committee is a very minor part of Geim's career, it does not merit so much WP:WEIGHT in this article as you wish to give it. In my opinion, and in the opinion of at least one other editor here, Llosa's remarks are not relevant to the article Andre Geim. Use this talk page to try to persuade others of your opinion that Llosa's remark belong in Geim's article instead of edit-warring. Support for Liu is very widespread on the Internet and elsewhere. betsythedevine (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to give Geim's criticism disproportionate weight but the fact that it is picked up by a major news outlet of an industrialized country and the fact that the content of the remarks are controversial makes his remarks and the response to his remarks at least worthy (however fleeting) of mention.

Now onto your point about Llosa's remarks not relevant to the article about Andre Geim. But that's precisely the point: it isn't about Geim the person (i.e. scientist), it's about Geim's political opinions. And insofar as Llosa's response to a controversial stance by Geim are under the views and opinion section of Geim's Wikipedia page, I can't see why the rebuttal shouldn't be mentioned. The only point of disagreement might be the disproportionate weight given to the length of the rebuttal, but even then that point of disagreement isn't grounds for wholesale deletion of Llosa's response. And let me understand you correctly when you say, "Llosa's remarks are not relevant to the article Andre Geim: so you suggesting that only the opinions of the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia page are relevant and that the opinions of people who aren't are irrelevant, yes? Fellytone (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If Llosa's remark is added here then one needs to add what the other panelists said. They broadly agreed with Geim and two even did not raise their hands to demand the release of Xiobao - shame! (according a newspaper). Then we will end up with a transcript of the whole debate. I suggest to delete the whole piece including Geim's remark. Maybe, just saying that "Also, he criticised the 2010 Nobel Prize for Peace" or similar with references (?) Absolutef (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

No the remarks of other panelists don't need to be added because the exchange is primarily between Llosa and Geim with the concurring remark of another scientist (Konostev) defending the Chinese government being a one-line statement of support. The fact that the two other panelists didn't raise their hands to demand the release of Xiaobo doesn't mean an agreement with Geim's position: it could simply be evidence of intimidation or lack of knowledge to participate in an emotionally charged political exchange between the two nobel prize laureates. Provided that the exchange is condensed, I cannot see what evidence there is that the exchange should be reduced: after-all, it was picked up by a major Australian news outlet. Fellytone (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Llosa's remarks are not relevant here because the remarks are not about Geim or about any major part of Geim's career. If you look at other Wikipedia articles about people you will see that (for example) George W Bush has a brief quote from his State of the Union address but the article does not follow that up with any of the people who criticized or refuted Bush's remarks. If you look at the article Frank Guinta, it quotes his views on Social Security, but not any of the people who consider those views mistaken. Nobody is trying to protect Geim here, or to attack Liu, we are just working to keep the article encyclopedia-quality and encyclopedia style. A remark that might be relevant to Andre Geim would be a newsworthy remark that was about Geim. betsythedevine (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious you didn't read my response. Llosa's remarks aren't about Geim or his career, it's about his controversial political views. You're right his remarks would not be relevant if it were written in a section anywhere than under the "Views and Opinion" section of Geim's Wikipedia page, but in this case it isn't. You seem to strangely assume that the only criteria of judging the relevance of a remark to a person is the person's occupation (in this case Geim's career as a scientist) and not what the person opinion, but I can't see why that criteria should include just the former and not the latter. If that was the case, then the wikipedia pages of political commentators should also have all their sections removed because, under your criteria, the remarks of others about the political commentator's opinions not any part of the political commentator's career. You give me the parallel example of George W Bush and Frank Guinta and how the fact that the criticisms of their comments didn't get mentioned would then justify the deletion of criticism of Geim's comments, but it's problematic for two reasons: 1) the fact that it quotes their views on the respective issues doesn't mean that criticisms about those views cannot be posted (as is the case of what you are trying to do by having Llosa's remarks about Geim's Nobel Peace Prize Committee removed); 2) the difference is in the nature of the content: how the issue of privatization and Bush's "axis of evil" remark (which is qualified by the statement: "the broader "War on Terror", allegations of an "axis of evil", and, in particular, the doctrine of preemptive war, began to weaken the unprecedented levels of international and domestic support for Bush and United States action against al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Foreign_policy The War on Terrorism sub-section) has the same level of moral outrage as support for a government and a system that is responsible for imprisoning a political dissident in direct contravention of the Article 19 of the UNDHR is a parallelism that has to rely on some very twisted logic, and whose logic is even more twisted when the further argument is made that any criticism of a government and political system that imprisons political dissidents should be removed on the grounds that those remarks aren't part of the [said] person's career. Unless you can give me another reason other than its irrelevance to Geim's occupation, your arguments of excluding Llosa's reaction to Geim's remarks are unconvincing. Fellytone (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Relevance to "Geim's career" means relevance to the stuff that is important to his public life. If Geim were to continue to discuss his views on China widely, making a point of them when interviewed by media people, then his views on China would become more relevant to his public life and to this article. Relevance to his "occupation" is not something anybody suggested. Can you cite any parallel example of a Wikipedia biography with the configuration you want to see here? That is, where a comment by Mr X that got written up by media is "balanced" with a comment by Mr Y that was not reported by any news media, a comment that did not mention Mr X but expressed disagreement with Mr. X's opinion? On the contrary, see for example Steven_Weinberg#Other_intellectual_legacy, or Lubos Motl, both of which describe their subjects' public viewpoints but not the viewpoints of their many opponents. betsythedevine (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your fervent desire to censor criticism of the critics of Liu Xiaobo, but at this point you are stonewalling. Your splitting hairs with the definition of career as meaning i either public life or occupation when it is defined first and foremost as the latter (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/career) and in any case it's a red herring: the fact that a comment isn't about Geim's career doesn't mean it can't pertain to anything else about another facet of that person's life. You give me the example of Steven Weinberg and Lubos Motl to illustrate your point[1] that because the their viewpoints don't also have the viewpoints of their opponents, then that same situation should be the case for this article which is a ridiculous argument for two reasons: 1) my initial point: "fact that it quotes their views on the respective issues doesn't mean that criticisms about those views cannot be posted (as is the case of what you are trying to do by having Llosa's remarks about Geim's Nobel Peace Prize Committee removed)" and 2) is there a Wikipedia guideline that says statements of criticisms about the comments by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia entry shall not be made if statements of other people do not have the viewpoints of their opponents?

Ma'am, I really don't mean to be rude, but if your argument is comprised of nothing more than pointing out that other articles don't have oppositional viewpoints written challenging the viewpoints of the person who is the subject of that Wikipedia article, then there really is not anything more to discuss. Fellytone (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

[1] in illustrating your point that the remarks by Llosa should be censored by pointing to the parallel examples of Motl and Weinberg, the examples actually undermine your initial argument about the relevance of one's comment to one's Wikipedia article. In the case of Weinberg, his criticism of the boycott of Israeli academics by certain British organizations is irrelevant to his career, but it's deemed relevant enough by editors of his Wikipedia page to warrant its regurgitation verbatim on his Wikipedia page. So while you may judge the legitimacy of one's comment on the sole basis of the comment's relevancy to one's occupation, it's clearly not a criteria that is shared by everyone. Fellytone (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)