User talk:Ioannes Pragensis

If you leave a message here, I will respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page.

Can You help against vandalism ?

Dear Joannes,

Thank you for your note against the removal of a link to the data portal at: http: //workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html. in my post on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_data Workforall is a leading think-tank in Brussels. Their contributions provide information on a great number of socio-economic subjects, some of which have indeed political sensitive implications conflicting with mainstream economic thought. The information they provide is high quality, well researched and well documented, and their posts were a positive contribution to Wikipedia's quality and pluralism.

One or two of their posts would indeed better suite under a different subject. However the indiscriminate mass destruction by Requestion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam ) for this sole reason of all the valuable information they provided has destroyed lots of highly valuable subjects.

Such hasty random destruction without thorough investigation is causing much collateral damage and looks more like vandalism than it helps to fight spam. Such hit-or-miss random destruction in a couple of minutes has the ultimate effect of lowering the overall quality of Wikipedia.

The last thing the Wikipedia community needs is censureship. Wikipedia does not need censors from big media to validate the quality of information. The visitors of Wikipedia are competent enough to evaluate the quality of information provided. Once big media censors take over it will be the end of the unique Wikipedia concept.

Could you give me advise how to fight the vandalism of Requestion ?? thanks

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.26.155 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Indexed names

Hi Honza! I would like to present you an example of discussion on using original names (indexed) in my articules (i.e. César Muñoz, Jiří Pelikán, etc.), by Gene Nygaard (Do you remember him ?). I have written an articule on Luis Augusto Sánchez, and Nygaard attacks me.

Cease and desist

Please stop creating articles such as Luis Augusto Sánchez if you cannot add the proper sort keys so that the articles are indexed properly in categories. I fixed that one. Go back and fix any others you have messed up the same way. Note that spaces and any other character are also indexed, such as the one you put in front of his name in the 1930 births category. Gene Nygaard 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A piteous demand

It is pity that your writing about different articules is so aggressive. If you find a mistake you can change it. By the way, I have just changed dates in categories births and deaths on Luis Augusto Sanchez (a Colombian chess player). Earlier, I wrote an articule on Boris De Greiff (a Colombian chess player), and I copied by mistake the categories. Your demand to cease and desist from doing it in all my articules is ridiculous and piteous. Mibelz 17:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about in your reply on my talk page? The problem I fixed had nothing to do with Boris De Greiff. I'm glad you noticed that separate mistake you made, but you also need to stop doing indexing with characters such as "á" in the sort key, and you need to go back and fix any others you have misindexed that way. Gene Nygaard 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that since you are the only editor in the edit history of César Muñoz and some of the other missorted articles, there is no possibility that this missorting can be blamed on anyone other than you. Fix them. Gene Nygaard 21:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Honza, would you, as a member of WikiProject Chess, be so kind to send a message to Gene Nygaard on it. All the best to you and a Happy New Year! Mitch Mibelz 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Misach, I wrote him on his talk page, I hope that it will help a bit. Do not worry about him, try to do the indexing without diacritics and keep up good work. Happy New Year!--Ioannes Pragensis 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Chess

Hi, thanks for reverting my apparently bad edit to chess. However I had spotted the error, just failed to update the edit summary, so I';ve reinstated the rest of the edit. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 12:27 7 January 2007 (GMT).

Chess players and National chess players

Sorry Honza, but you are wrong - in my opinion - on it. There are three different categories: Chess players, Chess grandmasters and "National" chess players (i.e. Czech chess players) in Wikipedia. The last one include "Chess players" and "Chess grandmasters", presented separately for all nations.

Greetings, Mibelz, 9:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Honza! At Category:Chess players - it is clearly written there that: This category includes notable chess players who are not grandmasters. So, it is not true that every "Czech chess player" is automatically a "Chess player" at the same time. Some of them are "Chess grandmasters"!

For example, in category "Czech chess players" there are Hort, Pachman, Pelikan, Treybal, etc. In Category "Chess players" are only Pelikan and Treybal, but Hort and Pachman are only in subcategory: "Chess grandmasters".

By the way, there is a little disorder in Category "Chess woman grandmasters" because of lack some names which are in category (subcategory) "Female grandmasters". Of course, none of them is in category "Chess players".

Maybe, it is a problem with designation of categories and subcategories.

Greetings, Mi Mibelz 17:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Honza, I am afraid that you want to remove the category which includes more than 300 chess players all around the world. Why ? What to do in a case of nescience on a player's nationality ? I propose to change name "Chess players" into "Chess masters", like "Chess grandmasters", or create a new subcategory.

By the way, there is 9 subcategories (not 4) in Category: Chess players - see the next page. Unfortunalety, sometimes the same categories are subcategories of subcategories and/or independent categories. So, it is not a very simple way to find chosen players or categories.

All the best, Mi Mibelz 20:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sample chess game

FYI - the arguments look valid, but someone may need to do the transwiki, and correct the links in Chess and elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sandy for the info!--Ioannes Pragensis 19:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Czech Republic, a project dedicated to building and maintaining a large and neutral database of Czech Republic-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name here.

--Darwinek 15:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs.

Hi Ioannes
I would appreciate it if you would add a line to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs. Since your name is mentioned there, I believe you may find the statement it is used as an unfair statement. thanks in any case.cs 11:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Regression analysis: proposed lead

Dear Ioannes: It's impressive that you could fix an article like the one you got the award for. I see that you are a recent contributor to Regression analysis. Would you consider giving an opinion for or against the following Talk:Regression analysis#Proposed lead? The reasons are listed there. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 03:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So glad to hear your latest comment on the above, Ioannes, my dear fellow-critical rationalist. May I have your permission to list you at the top of "Proposed lead" (in support of the proposed lead)? Regards, Thomasmeeks

Instead of this, I would just replace the lead of the article quickly. :-) No need for more polling etc., I think. Best regards, --Ioannes Pragensis 14:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you would. That's why I'm protectihg you from your yourself (; ). You will one day possibly be a great politician, like your better known, sainted countryman. And you will have me to thank for it. Slightly more ponderously, the request for comment has the advantage of encouraging further possible improvement (which we critical rationalists so charmingly never exclude) and reflection. (On the latter, does anyone really want to revert if they in turn might be reverted by a small army of fellow editors?)

I really would like to recognize you at the top. (Woollymammoth deserves mention too.) So, just say "OK," OK (; )? (Or not, as you feel most comfortable with). BR, Thomasmeeks 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, and it is finished - even without the poll :-) Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but there are the advantages above of giving the opportunity for such (like the value of the right to vote even if not exercised). I believe that this article has a chance to move up significantly as a Web resource with continued improvement. You made a decisive difference. All the best, Thomasmeeks 01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Ioannes. A very good Edit (especially relative to 2 Edits before ; ). I hope that it won't be your last such for this article.* IMHO it would have been even better if you had taken more seriously the "proposed lead" (the principle of charity again), sentence by sentence (noting alleged 1-5, and other, advantages over the previous Edit), as a check that you had neither introduced errors nor omitted material that was useful or helpful.§ On the latter, of course, I'm not talking about people like you & me who know more than a little about the subject. I'm not even talking only about those who know a little about the subject. I'm talking also about those who know less than a little but would like to know more and would like motivation to learn more (for example, reading beyond the lead). Many of the greatest statistical intellects of the past century wrote for such people, not only their colleagues and students. I am almost wholly lacking in such intellect, but I recommend it for others (; ). Again, congrats & best wishes.

* By the way, you might make a quick minor Edit or 2 before others (besides me) do the same.

§ You might even consider revising critically, assessing your own Edit along the above lines. I put a lot of effort into that proposed lead and feel pain in seeing such substance (not the words as such) expunged, even though those wonderful prospective readers might find such useful, relevant, and interesting. --Thomasmeeks 15:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Thomasmeeks, for this lenghty explanation and especially for starting the discussion about the article. - I think that the whole article including the lead is still far from perfect, from the point of view of both advanced and unexperinced readers. I hope that during the time you and other editors will make it better. Feel please free to introduce useful changes if you see the opportunity. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 20:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ioannes. I'd sure rather have you on my side than otherwise. Like you, I prefer tightly written articles, but, given varying backgrounds, sometimes stating things in a somewhat different way help some people and not unduly bother others. BW, Thomasmeeks 21:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am on your side, you know :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 22:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(With that, I'll sleep better / )

\

--Thomasmeeks 00:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A beautiful rewrite of Section 2, Ioannes (including the well-placed "slightly misleading"). I didn't put a comment to that effect on the Talk page there only b/c I wanted you to get what is likely the last substantive word on it (& deservedly so). I still haven't gotten to a 2nd-order-of-importance Edit of the lead (& won't until the right minor Edit comes along). Watch this article soar in use in the near term thanks to expository & content improvements, which can be expected to continue. While it is easy enough to criticize earlier efforts, they brought the article to a point where professional students of the subject regard the article as possible to improve (including with replacement), rather than a hopeless cause. BW, Thomasmeeks 20:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy of your response on my Talk p., Ioannes Pragensis (I use your last name by symmetry with mine). If you'd feel like putting up a section for discussion of this on the Regression analysis Talk page -- the Wiki way, that would be great. If not, that is fine too. --Thomasmeeks 20:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (slight proofreading Edit) Thomasmeeks 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regresion analysis footnote: attempting to narrow the dispute

Dear Ioannes Pragensis, the question of the link is (I think you'd agree) separate from the question of the footnote. I'm going to try to separate those 2 questions with the following Edit summary.

Lead: Per WP:LEAD, sect. 3 & 4 on context: * fn. restored --without [external] link -- to try narrowing dispute): "* In real-world applications, data could come from any combination of public or private sources."

It may help to emphasize that the footnote is about data sources, not about a data set, which your earlier Edit summary referred to. If we can work out remaining differences without going to the article Talk page, so much the better. --Thomasmeeks 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On the remaining issue of the link in the footnote, I have responded to your comment from yesterday at User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page. I'd welcome your additional thoughts there. If don't hear from you in a day or 2, I'll assume that there is no dispute. P.P.S. Small point, your close of "Greetings" is OK, but would more standardly come at the beginning of communication. (Of course, you might be including it at end the end, because it is unusual ;) --Thomasmeeks 15:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ioannes Pragensis: In the above P.S. I had thought that 1-2 days would be a reasonable time for you to comment. Evidently I was wrong on that. Perhaps you did not respond then because of underlying other objections that you now raise.

I'd like to continue dialogue to narrow differences if possible. If this is acceptable to you, there remains the question of where it is to be done. User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page has the advantage allowing continued exchange without bringing in others who might only be distracted by it as sideshow between 2 disputants. Are you agreeable to continuing discussion there? Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think that it is always better to keep the content disputes on the talk page of the article. Moreover I think that hete (the external data link in the lead) is nothing to dispute, the matter seems clear to me: the article is about regression, not about American econometric data. Have a nice wekend,--Ioannes Pragensis 15:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm guessing you meant 'hit' where you wrote 'hete' above. As to your next-to-last sentence, I met that point earlier in my Talk page. I am diappointed at how far short your recycled point falls from your own response on my Talk page ("3. and 4."). Here is one point on your (1) in User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page reproduced as:

Read please WP:LINKS to the end - under "External links section" it states that the best place for external links is the External links section at the end. Otherwise you "should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question" - which is impossible here, because the website is relevant only very loosely if at all.

The "External links section" states no such thing. Instead it refers to the format of references in the "External links section". Paragraph 4 of WP:LINKS (previously part of paragraph 3) includes this sentence:

This guideline only concerns external links that provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links.

That sentence makes sense only if it presumes that other uses of external links in an article besides for citation or reference or in the "External links section" could be reasonable. I have 2 points here. First, you are assuming an interpretation of WP:LINKS inconsistent with the link itself: that it is a Wiki guideline to discourage external links outside of the "External links section" . Second, I was making a reasonable use of the "sources" link. It's distracting to have burn up Talk space of the article on such matters. If you would have other thoughts on the preceding that you would like to pass along, I'd welcome them. I trust that you are in agreement that the point on Talk pages is not to "win" arguments but to improve the article. Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 20:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (proofreading corrections) Thomasmeeks 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ioannes Pragensis: I hope that you are well. A little notification: As my comment above indicates, we were in earlier disagreement. I am about to restore the "sources" link to the article. As a courtesy to you, I'd like to state that my only intent is to make the article more interesting by including an accessible link for the lay person to illustrate some different sources and kinds of data, though I agree that the link is not taxonomic as a general link. I have not responded to (3) your "discipline bias" on my Talk page, but I will respond to it (or any other points) on the article Talk page if necessary.

There might still be an honest difference of views between us. If there is and there is a revert of my Edit, I hope any future exchanges might at least avoid repetition of points that were satisfactorily addressed earlier. If there are still differences, I am sure we both hope that the article could benefit from the exchange & any final action. Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your comment. I left a response at User talk:Thomasmeeks#Link to the data page. --Thomasmeeks 21:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your latest comment. I left a response atUser talk:Thomasmeeks#Regression. --Thomasmeeks 16:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And a final one. Thomasmeeks 12:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Hence, the biology objection. It all becomes sooo clear now (; ). --Thomasmeeks 14:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You would be surprised, my work (and my education) is very far from biology. :-) But you do not always choose your work yourself... --Ioannes Pragensis 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that makes you a practical economist. Scary, isn't it? --Thomasmeeks 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Chess

This article is full of old photos that promote a musty, stuffy and old fashioned image of the game. It is desperately in need of some modern images. Consequently, I am concerned at your removal of the 'Young and old' image. I am reinserting it since IMHO it benefits the article. If you still object then please make the point on the talk page and see if you get consensus. Unilaterally removing material without talk page discussion is an inappropriate way forward. You raise a valid point about it not being suitable to the lead para so I have dropped it down the article. However, I do not have an 'agenda'. One of the appeals of chess is that enables competition across the generations and can be played by the very young and the very old; this is a factual and valid point to make. TerriersFan 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, we are writting an encyclopedia, not an advertisement for chess clubs. The image of the game is not our problem here. - The second and also important reason is that the photo is of low quality, clearly a work of an amateur, and the article has already many good quality pictures. If you wish, I will write it on the talk page, but I hope that it is enough to explain it here.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

re:German Soldier's House

I left a comment on your remark on the article for deletion page. The new citations Halibutt have provided only back up things that link off the article, and are not directly related to the German Soldier's House. for instance, reference 5 references that there were brothels in concentration camps for select inmates, but those are not German Soldier's houses (which so far there is no evidence even existed in the organized extent claimed on the page).

please, respond on my talk page, thanks

--Jadger 16:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikify tag onList of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters

Hello. You tagged List of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters as needing wikification back in December. Other editors and I have made some improvements to the page since then. As I've done most of the work on the page, I don't feel like I am impartial enough to determine whether the tag can be removed at this point. If you feel it is sufficiently wikified at this point, could you remove the tag? If not, please add any suggestions to the talk page. Thank you! DenisMoskowitz 18:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better now, DenisMoskowitz, thank you for the effort.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Please stop adding Category:Miracles to inappropriate articles. Your argument seems to be that, because there's not an accurate category, they should go into the inaccurate one; that's not the case. Both articles are already in appropriate categories; neither of them is a mirracle. The category isn't for any article that relates to or mentions miracles. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I write the above before reading your more extended comment on my Talk page. If the category were explained more clearly, I'd have no further objection. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Chess players

Do you think you and Epeefleche could sort out your differences on the chess articles without edit warring and being nasty? --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I try to keep rules of Wikipedia and try to be nice to other editors. In the case of numerals (Richard Réti), where the rules were not broken, I resigned soon and accepted Epeefleche's version although IMHO suboptimal. But if I see dubious external links and POV-pushing, I try to restore the neutral and normally formatted version. If you are able to reach an acceptable state of matters using means other than reverts, please do so, I really do not enjoy edit wars and do not enjoy contacts with Epeefleche.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Data

If you could give a better explanation of your re-insertion of that external link to data, it would be greatly appreciated. On its face, it would appear that you're suggesting a link that provides a random set of "data" is acceptable as long as it is "formatted"? I'm not following. Kuru ^talk 13:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it can be based on WP:EL, "What should be linked": "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to (...) amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) (...)". At least it looks quite comprehensive. I do not know the site, but I feel that we need something like this. Cheers,--Ioannes Pragensis 14:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Hübner

I rated Robert Hübner "high" on the importance scale because he was once (added: actually he made it to the Candidates three times) in the world championship playoffs. But I don't disagree with your change to Mid. I added the project tag to a lot of biographies, and I rated only a few. I'm glad to have a second opinion! Bubba73 (talk), 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bubba - nice to hear you again. Perhaps we can think about more precise criteria for importance rating of chess personalities. My "private" scale in this moment is approximately: Top = Classical WCHs, their "great predecessors" (Morphy, Anderssen...) plus perhaps a few other personalities of comparable importance for chess (I think about Vera Menchik for example as the first Women WCH); High = People who were just about the top, but not High importance (people who played for championship but lost, FIDE WCHs, people who were 1st or 2nd in Elo lists) - examples are Keres, Korchnoi, Topalov..., further Women WCHs, Correspondence WCHs, top chess composers, top theoreticians (Réti, Nimzowitsch...) and similar; Mid = generally people who were in the top ten for some time, important grandmasters, chess organizers (FIDE Presidents and similar); Low - the rest. What do you think about it? Cheers,--Ioannes Pragensis 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is very good, and very close to what I had in mind. I put the Top Importance tags on world champions plus Morphy. I thought that anyone might want to read about one of those. I agree with your reasoning that a person such as Keres or Korchnoi should be the next level and Hübner would be a level below that. As I discovered a doay or so ago, there are many lesser players with bios. Most of these should go in Low importance, I think. Bubba73 (talk), 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aron Nimzowitsch

Nimzowitsch is described as Latvian in multiple references, including Danish encyclopaedia Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, Danish Wikipedia and the "Nimzowitch related articles" external link. Encyclopaedia Britannica calls him "Latvian-born". Could we agree on that as a compromise? If you have a good source for the later Danish citizenship I think that could well be mentioned in the Life chapter.

I would also hope you could end your editing war(s) with Epeefleche. Such things don't do Wikipedia any favours. Could we possibly agree on a good wording that explicitly calls Nimzowitsch Jewish rather than using the wording about his family? For instance, could we write "a Latvian-born, Jewish chess player" in the opening paragraph? At least I hope you will not edit the wording again without first discussing it here or at the Talk page. --Pbn-dk 18:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Latvian-born is OK, it cannot be misinterpreted as citizenship or ethnicity. "Jewish" is also possible, but not in the lead of the article - see WP:MOSBIO ("Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." which is - as far as I know - this case). - Regarding the so called "edit wars", you can easily check that I respond Epeefleche (and everybody else) on discussion pages and try to find a compromise. But I do not see why I should tolerate clear breaking of rules of Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have pushed online another edit, adding a bit more detail and hopefully improving the wording (the first part of Life seemed overly complex). I moved the mention of Danish nationality away from the opening because I felt it over-emphasized something which even Danish references don't emphasize.

A better way is to suppres the places of birth there. Because WP:MOSBIO says that the principal nationality should be already in the lead. I have changed it already. --Ioannes Pragensis 10:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree (but will discuss it with you here rather than revert). My problem was the mention of him as "Danish" in the opening: None of the references I have found use this form, and I doubt that it is reasonable to call it his principal nationality. Can you tell me when he obtained Danish citizenship?

I fail to understand why you consider your wording of the Life chapter better than mine. Especially, I can't believe that you actually changed the Jewish thing back again after agreeing to allow the other version. --Pbn-dk 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The article itself says: "after World War I, Nimzowitsch moved to Copenhagen in 1922 (some sources say 1920), which coincided with his rise to the world chess elite. He obtained Danish citizenship and lived in Denmark until his death". Which else citizenship would you put there? WP:MOSBIO says: "The opening paragraph should give: (...) 3. Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)" I am not against a second nationality if you know that Nimzo really had the nationality (was he German before? or Russian?), but I think that Danish should be mentioned there in every case, if the quote is correct in this point.

Why I consider my wording better than yours? Because it flows (I hope) more easily and especially because your wording is very unclear. If you say "Aron Nimzowitsch ... learned chess from his father. The German-writing Nimzowitsch travelled to Germany..." then nobody knows whether the traveller was the young Aron or rather the father. Moreover, "it is better to refer to the person by their surname and not their first name, even if the subject is not controversial. The use of the first name gives the impression that the writer knows the subject personally, which, even if true, is not relevant." (WP:MOSBIO again).

And one thing more: please assume good faith. I am not against Jews, against Nimzowitsch or against you. But I have years of experience with editing behind me and I wish to keep articles clean and unbiased.--Ioannes Pragensis 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "he obtained Danish citizenship" means that he became a Danish citizen sometime after he moved here. I have no source for that citizenship, but I presume you do. Since you seem unable to tell me when he acquired the Danish citizenship, how can you claim that he was Danish when he "became notable"? I think "Latvian-born" is probably the best nationality description we can give in the opening, which is supported by the references I cited.

I will accept your first point about language. About names, I think you have misunderstood something. The rule you quote is about using "Nimzowitsch" instead of just "Aron", as in "Aron travelled to Germany..." Certainly, I never wrote such a thing. Last, I assume nothing but good faith, but I am disappointed that you once again reverted to the "Jewish family" wording. --Pbn-dk 19:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no sources about hte time of his Danish citizenship, but I am sure that "Latvinan-born" is not his true citizenship - Latvia did not even existed as an independent state when he was born, and moreover he was not an ethnic Latvian.

It was myself who tried to start the first sentence in the second para with "Jewish and German-writing Nimzowitsch..." and it was you who edited it first. In my opinion, your formulation was - as I have said - a bit unclear and not naturally flowing (a very short sentence between two rather lenghty etc.). But I am not against another versions of the text, and I believe there are many possible versions better than mine.

Regarding the "Jewish family", it is the more usual wording, probably because it is in my opinion the better wording:

• It says that he was not a Jewish convert, but he inherited the ethnicity/faith from his parents, and
• It leaves open the question whether and how much Nimzo personally identified as "Jewish" - many ethic Jews in the time assimilated fully and became members of other nations, while other Jews strenghtened their ties to their religion and/or ethnic background. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

My conclusions: Since we do not have sufficient information about his citizenships, we cannot fulfil the MOSBIO requirement of giving his official nationality at the time when he became notable. We should leave it at "Latvian-born" in the opening and mention the Danish citizenship in the body, as suggested. As I explained to Epeefleche, I think both versions of the Jewish reference are fine, but had hoped to see the difference of opinion reconciled. Since I don't want to be part of anything even resembling an editing war, I will not revert either the Danish or the Jewish thing, but hope you might agree with my conclusions and follow my suggestions. EOD. --Pbn-dk 12:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)