Talk:Andre Geim

Jewish

user Eppeflletch has added this .. Geim, who is Jewish, this is so false, the guy has one jewish grandparent. Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but, their one and only source is "Scientific Computing World" magazine. Go ahead, Google that source. 2000 hits (mostly repeats). http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=709&q=%22scientific+computing+world%22+magazine&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=42f94b0252e3ea85

Now Google "Yedioth Ahronoth" and/or "University of Manchester". Feel the difference. --Therexbanner (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate it, most of all, if everybody would stop edit warring. The Scientific Computing World source says, as Jayjg notes, "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education." A piece in The Forward says "As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov." This appears to make the Russian Jew category allowable. Another source says "Andre Geim, now a Dutch physicist, was born in 1958 in Sochi (at that time USSR, now Russian Federation), to a Jewish family with German roots." From what I can see, we have reliable sources calling him Jewish (there's probably more). Christopher Connor (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally someone who's sourcing their claims. My question is whether his interview is to be ignored? He states that only his grand-mother was Jewish, and she was not religious so that means he has some Jewish ancestry but he is not Jewish.

I think his own statements can be trusted more than anything else. Discuss?--Therexbanner (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no one is denying his grandmother was Jewish, but I can't understand why that 1/4 ancestry should be emphasized like it was in the article. Isn't it better telling more exactly about his ancestry? Närking (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think so too.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw this as a BLP issue, labeling a person as Jewish when they have only a single grandparent has BLP issues, even if he is referred to as Jewish in a citation, I opened a thread also at the BLPN here - Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Having a single Jewish grandparent doesn't mean you're not Jewish. Reliable sources say they're Jewish, that's all that matters. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why the heck is his interview being ignored? This is really strange, I mean the man himself said that only his grandmother was Jewish, and yet you keep pointing to other sources. What about him saying that he does not want to be called anything but European? So he cannot decide for himself who he is and who his parents are?--Therexbanner (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Jayjg)That is clearly a false claim supported by poor cites. We are requested to use intelligent editorial control as regards claims in a BLP. He is not Jewish at all, he has one Jewish grandparent, that is all. As the article says, he is a Russian-born Dutch physicist ... with one jewish grandparent. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest, gently for now, that you stop editing on Jewish-related topics -- you quite clearly don't know what you are talking about. Apart from the fact that there are perfectly reliable sources verifying that he is Jewish, it is simply untrue that having only one Jewish grandparent means one is not Jewish. You are mistaken in asserting otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just a NPOV contributor with WP:BLP in mind. A person is not to be described as a jewish person if they only have one jewish grandparent, that is clearly undue representation. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You are editing BLPs on the basis of your own personal opinions about what makes someone Jewish (or not). Never mind that the opinion is incorrect in connection with basic definitions of Jewishness -- you are proposing that your personal opinions should override what is verified by reliable sources. It has to stop. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a single Irish grandparent we do not say, 'jonny who is Irish and we shouldn't do it for people with a single jewish grandparent either. Even if the living person is falsely represented in a citation as such either.Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since you won't respond to me on your talk page, I'll have to communicate with you here: you are persisting in pushing your personal opinions here. This is known as WP:OR; it is not acceptable. I don't know why you are doing this particularly on Jewish-related issues. I have suggested that you stop [3]; you have simply deleted this from your talk page. The next step will be RFC/U (though, yes, I realize that another editor would have to share this concern and raise it on your talk page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on your talkpage. This living person has only a single jewish grandparent, your attempt to portray him as Jewish is undue and I will defend that anywhere. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is nuts, oy. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F : The definition of who is a Jew varies according to whether it is being considered by Jews based on normative religious statutes, self-identification, or by non-Jews for other reasons. Because Jewish identity can include characteristics of an ethnicity, a religion,[9] and citizenship, the definition of who is a Jew has varied, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or ethnic aspect was being considered. Claiming halactic laws apply to an encyclopedia is just plain silly. This is not Kosherpedia, thats why the Wiki article on Pigs does not start with the warning: Not kosher!--Therexbanner (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Jewish point of view is not the Neutral point of view. --Gladsmile (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it; your calculations of who is or isn't Jewish, based on how many Jewish grandparents are required, or whether one can simultaneously be German/European and Jewish, are irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what reliable sources say on the topic. Period. And there are three reliable sources (at least) that say he's Jewish. There are no reliable sources that say he's not Jewish. Case closed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please notice that www.jinfo.org don’t mention Geim among the nobel prize winners, because he is NOT Jewish.--Gladsmile (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Under Jewish rules, the religion passes through the mother. How many of your other great-great grand parents is immaterial if your mothers mothers mother's mother (I thinks thats the right number of mothers) is Jewish. In a case like this, I would decide according to whether the person identifies themselves as Jewish. It sounds like its not that big a deal to him. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday a rather nasty editor has written here: „Geim’s dark brown eyes show he is a real Jewish”. He is blocked now for 1 year because of his complete misuse of logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:158.108.16.199). Today you write here: “The religion passes through the mother. How many of your other great-great grand parents is immaterial if your mothers mothers mother's mother (I thinks thats the right number of mothers) is Jewish.” I know, Telaviv1: This is the Jewish law, and I respect your religion. But is your sentence more logical? Is your sentence more convincing than the brown eyes? Or is this only another kind of magical thinking? --Gladsmile (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is very much a rule based religion, Rabbis are the guys who decide who is or is not Jewish and those are the rules have been honed over a couple of thousand years of discussion. Which makes them very inflexible. To claim you are Jewish you need to show some proof that a maternal something or other was Jewish. BTW I have blue eyes and a family cemetery in Bavaria but I would never call myself a German. My guess is that Geim used his German ancestry to get EU citizenship and move to the west. Anyway this whole issue is generating far too much discussion. Telaviv1 (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

edit request

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

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

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[7]. 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 [8]. 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 [9]. 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:

• "Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas", Scientific Computing World], June/July 2006. "As he was Jewish he was regarded by many as someone who would simply leave the country after he received his education."
• "What? Not All Jews Are Geniuses?", The Forward, October 06, 2010 (issue of October 15, 2010). "As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov."
• "Diamonds Dismissed – Nobel-Prize Winning Graphene Enters", Russia Info-Centre, October 8, 2010."Andre Geim, now a Dutch physicist, was born in 1958 in Sochi (at that time USSR, now Russian Federation), to a Jewish family with German roots."
• "A physicist of many talents", Physics World, February 2006, p. 8. "Growing up in Russia as the son of two German parents he says he was used to being called a fascist by some and a “bloody Jew” by others."

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)

• suggestion: how about saying he is Jewish, but that he considers himself "Russian" or "European", or whatever?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:18, 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.[10] "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][11] Palmer, Henry, A History of the Jewish Nation (1875), D. Lothrop & Co., Retrieved on June 15, 2009][12] "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)

• How about this: 'Although he does not identify as such (cite), under halachic law Geim is considered Jewish, as his maternal grandmother was an ethnic Jew(cite).'? --Andrensath (talk | contribs) 22:06, 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.[13]

--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)

Proposed language; in accord with Arb Committee decision on identity disputes

The following I believe accords with the Arbitration Committee decision on identity disputes (though suggestions as to changes to make it further accord with the decision are of course welcome). The decision held as follows:

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.[14]

If anyone has other relevant RS sources, and new text is supports, they should feel free to add material from them as well. The below is limited to the English text I could verify.

---

Geim, now a Dutch national, was born on 1 October 1958 in [[Sochi]], [[Soviet Union|USSR]]. His parents were an ethnic German father and an ethnic German-[[Jewish]] mother whose mother (Mira Zigler) was Jewish.<ref name=PhysicsWorld>[http://onnes.ph.man.ac.uk/~geim/pt.html "A physicist of many talents"], ''[[Physics World]]'', Edwin Cartlidge, February 2006, Retrieved 24 October 2010</ref><ref>[[Agence France-Presse]]. [http://www.physorg.com/news205560354.html "Nobel prize winner was 'B student': university"], physorg.com, 6 October 2010, Retrieved 24 October 2010.</ref><ref name=GRHC>Translated from the German by Alex Herzog, [http://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/outreach/friends/geim1.html "Andre Geim, a German Russian, is Awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics"], Germans from Russia Heritage Collection, [[North Dakota State University]], October 2010, Retrieved 25 October 2010.</ref><ref name="themoscowtimes1">{{cite web|url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/nobel-winners-tell-why-russia-lacks-allure/420700.html|author=Howard Amos |title=Nobel Winners Tell Why Russia Lacks Allure |publisher=''[[The Moscow Times]]'' |date=21 October 2010 |accessdate=27 October 2010}}</ref> Geim said he could be called a “European scientist,” and that “Every nation now claims me, and they have a right to do so.”<ref name="themoscowtimes1"/> ''[[The Forward]]'' reported in 2010 that Geim is Jewish.<ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/131944/ "What? Not All Jews Are Geniuses?"], ''[[The Forward]]'', Joy Resmovits, 15 October, 2010. Retrieved October 18, 2010.</ref> ''[[Physics World]]'' reported in 2006 that growing up "he was used to being called a fascist by some and a “bloody Jew” by others."<ref name=PhysicsWorld/> ''Structural Chemistry'' wrote in 2010 that "Geim came from a family of Jewish-German origin and as being Jewish was considered to be a nationality his identity documents carried this designation causing barriers in his receiving higher education."<ref>[http://www.kfki.hu/chemonet/osztaly/kemia/ih.pdf "Editorial"], ''Structural Chemistry'', István Hargittai, December 2010, accessed 25 October, 2010</ref> ''Scientific Computing World'' wrote in 2006 that because Geim was Jewish he was regarded as someone who would leave the country after finishing his education, and therefore had to perform particularly well in the entrance examinations for a Moscow university, which he did. Geim said: "my nationality didn’t help. I was regarded as a potential emigrant ...."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1|author=John Murphy |title=Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas |publisher=''Scientific Computing World'' |date=June/July 2006 |accessdate=27 October 2010}}</ref> ''Russia-InfoCentre'' reported in 2010 that he was born to a Jewish family with German roots.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.russia-ic.com/education_science/science/breakthrough/1176/ |title= Diamonds Dismissed √ Nobel-Prize Winning Graphene Enters: Sounds Like A Breakthrough |publisher=''Russia-InfoCentre'' |date=8 October 2010 |accessdate=27 October 2010}}{{Reflist}}</ref>

---

Comments on Proposed Addition

Epeefleche's proposal (above) is absurd, because the decisive sentence lacks: "I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or as Christian". And VERY unencyclopedic: to many words! --Gladsmile (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Civility please. Same thing in wording more appropriate for true discussion. I believe it is still lacking without the inclusion of the statement "I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or as Christian".

The lack thereof has been a big point of contention, and nothing in the ArbCom case indicates such should not be included.

I also think that we can stop bringing up the maybe relevant ArbCom discussion as we've already covered what needs to be included in this. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello friends. Perhaps in the urgency of getting to the proposed text, you missed my lead-in to it. In which I said

If anyone has other relevant RS sources, and new text is supports, they should feel free to add material from them as well. The below is limited to the English text I could verify.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That was very well put, and with the addition of his Jewish/Christian statement I think it may even be good-article material.

I also propose adding some of his other interview info. I mentioned above: 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.

I'm not saying it should conflict with the other info., but since we're adding all good reputable sources we have to include this too (perhaps in a "Trivia" section or something.) I'm not sure about the wording too.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We're getting somewhere. I'm happy to have any of these additions that the community thinks are a) relevant, and b) can verify the translations, and c) can verify the RS nature of the sources. I'll avoid weighing in for the moment (and perhaps forever) as to whether they are relevant, and can't speak to the second point, and can't begin to address the third point without translations of the source names.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If it all checks out (translation, relevance -- which I'm fine with, and RS), we could add a sentence along the following lines from Therex's Russian source. I would suggest it be the penultimate sentence in the first proposed para. It could read:

--Epeefleche (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good wording. In terms of the source it's Gazeta.ru, and the info. is given by Andre Geim himself in an interview. For the translations, you're welcome to use anyone you think is qualified, since the statements Geim makes are pretty simple. --Therexbanner (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. Let's here if others are happy with it as well, on all three points, and if so I propose we add it as discussed. Nice working with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a short comment. Structural Chemistry writes "Geim came from a family of Jewish-German origin and as being Jewish was considered to be a nationality his identity documents carried this designation causing barriers in his receiving higher education". As said twice before it's obiously false that he went by Jewish nationality in Soviet documents. [15]. Närking (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, also could somebody please Google "Scientific Computing World" Magazine. Here I get 2400 hits, no wonder I've never heard of it although I'm kind of a science buff. Are those two reputable sources for Wikipedia?--Therexbanner (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First, as to Narking -- a) is the source that you are using an RS? b) if it is an RS, do we known that it reflected how his identity documents read, and how they read at all times in his life? as the Arb decision notes, the answers to this question may differ at different times in the person's life. As to Therexbanner, it appears that we've used it as a source in a number of wiki articles other than this one. And we're really not questioning the underlying point that it makes, as it is consistent with the other RSs, so we know that the fact that he is Jewish is supported by RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. That's why I agree that it's best to include all RS info. like you did in your paragraph above.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another Soviet document written by Geim where he has written German nationality [16]. So I very much doubt he went by Jewish nationality in his Soviet passport. It's also confirmed by the article mentioned before where his former teacher tells about him having problems just because of his German nationality. Närking (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC) And here is another Soviet document [17]. You can access more documents here [18]. Närking (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

a) is the source that you are using an RS? If so, we can include the source in the article. b) if it is an RS, do we known that it reflected how his identity documents read? Is it his identity document? And do we know that it reflects how his identity documents read at all times in his life? As the Arb decision notes, the answers to this question may differ at different times in the person's life. c) While we can include the doc if it is an RS, we can't engage in synthesis, or interpret primary documents (much as I don't like the rule), but must rely on secondary sources to interpret the documents (not the way I would have written Wiki's guidance, but there you have it ... I can cite you to the specific guidance if need be). In short, "I very much doubt" will be considered synth, and not allowed. But an RS saying "I very much doubt" is gold -- and we should reflect it.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it has been established that only his grandmother was Jewish, and that some sources state otherwise. Like in the paragraph written at the header.

Would it not be better to summarize all those sentences from different sources into >> "Several sources state that Andre Geim is Jewish." and then add all the RS as "ref" tags?--Therexbanner (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, "Several sources, including Scientific Computing World, Physics World, and the Forward claim that Andre Geim is Jewish." Just to save space, and because they all mainly point to one thing.--Therexbanner (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Once we have agreed-upon language, we could look at boiling it down into something simpler, certainly, avoiding any redundancy (though we wouldn't say "claim" ... but rather report or say or state or somesuch ... see wp:wordstoavoid). Though where it adds flavor (e.g., name-calling, how it impacted opportunities in study) we would not want to lose that.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah we definitely need to keep the discrimination info too. Report, state, etc. I personally don't mind using any one of those.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Don’t forget http://jinfo.org/ which reports Geim NOT among the Jewish nobel prize winners.--Gladsmile (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's up-to-date (ie. if they had a chance to look at this year's laureates) then it could be a ref. (Just to save space) We don't want 50% of this article being redundant information on his nationalities. I mean he is a scientist and in my humble opinion, after we're done with all the biographic stuff, we should expand on his scientific contributions a bit more.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it’s up-to-date, Therexbanner; they report Peter Diamond being the 2010 prize winner in economics.--Gladsmile (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, then I think it's in.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it say "he is not Jewish? Or just fail to mention him on the list. The first would work, and should be reflected, if that is what it says. The second would be synth, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really like the direction you all are heading with this. I think I'll just sit back and watch this all unfold into the final entry/change, as you all are obviously much better at content creation than I. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

While it does reflect what sources say, it looks somewhat awkward to fit in the article. Where do we put it? Do we create a separate Personal life section just so we can lump this paragraph about his Jewishness there? Maybe it can go in a footnote somewhere. And about the Yedioth Ahronoth source: is that an accurate translation and has any important things been missed? Agree that, from the above translatation, he doesn't say he's not Jewish, like some are suggesting. From "in the UK there's no difference between the various religions, and I see no reason to define myself as Jewish or as Christian", it looks like he's talking more about religion than ethnicity. The good thing about this case is that new stuff is coming out and some time from now, this will all be cleared and over. Still worth trying to pursue a solution though, as an a test case and because not all cases will be resolved in future. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I see two possibilities (there may be more - I've only had one cup of coffee, so it's likely I missed other ones):

• We come up with a proposed addition and then decide where it should go.
• We decide where this info should go, and then tailor the proposed addition for that section so as not to destroy the section as a whole.

Those are my thoughts. But then again, I'm not writing the content. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Chris--As to where we put it, I would suggest we meld it into what are now the first two paras of the Personal life and education section. It fits nicely and naturally there, and can replace some of that content. As to the Hebrew and Russian translations, confirmation from a third party would be great. Perhaps someone can post on the correct noticeboard?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Final: Is Andre a Jew?

My father is one of Andre’s classmates. In Russia, all people know he and his family are pure Jewish. Before Russia, his progenitors were immigrated to Germany in 19th century, see this RS reference:

http://www.rusdeutsch.ru/?news=2332

God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.109.11.180 (talk) 10:45 am, Today (UTC−4)

I'd like to motion that this section be closed as it apparently fails to offer anything helpful. There is no mention of Andre's religious persuasion/ethnicity in the article offered. NickCT (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.rusdeutsch.ru/?news=2332 >> Lol, it doesn't even mention the word "Jewish" in any shape or form. He does say: Мои родители немцы, у меня немецкая фамилия, мои предки – немцы. До шести-семи лет немецкий был моим родным языком. Сегодня я уже им не владею. Сегодня я чувствую себя человеком мира." - My parents were German, I have a German last name, my ancestors were German. Until I was 6 or 7 years old, German was my native tongue. Now I can't speak German. These days I feel like a person (citizen) of the world.

This can be added to the sources once Epeefleche compiles the bio. paragraph.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser please http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Russian.science . WP:DUCK --Therexbanner (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's him. WP:RBI to the section and any edits.--Therexbanner (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anon, please read about original research and reliable sources. You will find those policies do not permit using the information that you have provided - even if they said what you claim. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 18:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Poor people! Read this, if you are able... Maria Ziegler (not Mira) comes from Russian German nobility! http://www.rg-rb.de/2010/42/odi.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.90.249 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All this discussion seems to be a sort of paranoia and is a big shame for Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.90.249 (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it's a super-detailed interview with his relatives (who now live in Germany). There are like 3 paragraphs on their ancestry (which was apparently a hot topic amongst the paper's readers- just like it is here!) and history. Good find!--Therexbanner (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Бабушка по материнской линии – Мария Домиановна Циглер (Maria Ziegler) до самой пенсии проработала начальником метеорологической станции в Сочи. В числе наших предков по материнской линии – участник польского восстания 1863 года немецкий дворянин Карл Циглер (Karl Ziegler).

Our maternal grandmother (Maria Dominianovna Ziegler) worked at a metereological station in Sochi until she retired. Our ancestry on the matrilineal side includes Karl Ziegler, a German nobleman who took part in the Polish uprising of 1863.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Если бы не репрессии в отношении российских немцев, то возможно Нобелевскую премию получил бы один из наших дедов или наш отец.

If it wasn't for the discrimination against ethnic Russian Germans, it could've been possible that the Nobel prize could have gone to one of our grandfathers or our dad."

P.S. in Hebrew (due to the complexity of transliteration to English, and an absence of vowels) a word that says "Mira" could also sound like "Maria". Plus my Hebrew sucks.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Super-detailed, indeed! But no word about Jewish ancestry ... Has Karl Ziegler been Jewish? (A nobleman ... Hum.) Or is that "Jewish grandmother" only a myth?--Gladsmile (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's this noble family they mean [19]. But still we don't know who this Ziegler (father of Maria) was married to. She could have been Jewish, but then we are way back in time from Andre. Närking (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Then failing that (comment on Jewish ancestry), we can always look at this as simply a source for more (different) content for the article. Article expansion rarely hurts if done right. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Närking, it must be one of these noble Ziegler-families. (B. t. w. there is a German chemist named Karl Ziegler, who won the noble prize in 1963.) But if Andre’s great-grandfather was a Lutheran nobleman, then Andre’s “Jewishness” only could come from his great-grandmother. So we have quarreled several days about the presumed DNA of his great-grandma (and have no source that his great-grandma has been Jewish at all)… The “Jewish grandmother” is a “Jewish great-grandmother” or a myth. --Gladsmile (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad, I think that perhaps you don't quite understand how this works. It is completely consistent with his grandmother being Jewish that her mother (and possibly not her father) in turn was Jewish. There is no conflict at all.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ep, I know. Therefore I say “The Jewish Point of View is not the Neutral Point of View” (see above). But first we need a reliable source that Geim's great-grandmother was Jewish at all. Gladsmile (talk) 09:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you should write here that Geim is a Chukchi and we can use another sources for any correct information! Wikipedia became Yello press! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.90.249 (talk • contribs) 18:24:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Remarks (to two anons) Made in This Section

• Note: I have issued User_talk:62.109.11.180 a Level 3 warning for their remark directed at Therexbanne. Sorry anon, but using "really looks like" instead of "is" does not (IMHO) make it less of a disparaging (and unwarranted) remark. Comment on the content and not the contributor. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• To User:85.178.90.249, it's actually called (a) trying to contribute in a way that follows Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, (b) building consensus and (c) attempting to improve an article. Perhaps it would be best suited if you read Wikipedia: The Five Pillars before jumping to such conclusions. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. All we're doing is just gathering as much sourced information as we can.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed language; Draft # 2

The following is draft # 2 of the proposed language (though suggestions as to changes to make it further accord with the arb decision are of course welcome). If anyone has other relevant RS sources, and new text is supports, they should feel free to add material from them as well. The below is limited to the English text I could verify, plus the non-controversial (IMHO) and relevant (IMHO) Russian additions supplied by Therex and IP (the translation of which someone should verify). I've also tightened some of the language that seemed redundant, as suggested by Therex. The below would replace the first two paras that are now in the section below the lede (much of which is duplicative). I've had to "nowiki" the first draft, so the reflist here would work.

---

Geim, now a Dutch national, was born on 1 October 1958 in Sochi, USSR. His parents were an ethnic German father and an ethnic German-Jewish mother whose mother (Mira Zigler, or Maria Dominianovna Ziegler) was Jewish and worked at a metereological station in Sochi until she retired, and his ancestry on her side includes Karl Ziegler, a German nobleman. His father, Konstantin Alekseyevich Geim (1910–98), his mother, Nina Nikolayevna Bayer (1927–), were engineers. Geim said he could be called a “European scientist,” and that “Every nation now claims me, and they have a right to do so.” He has a brother, Vladislav. In the 1990s members of the family emigrated to Germany. In 1965, the family moved to Nalchik, where he graduated from a specialised English-language high school, before applying for university. He also said in an interview in gazeta.ru that he mainly considers himself Russian ("by more than 50%") and tried to keep his Russian passport, spent 6 years in the Netherlands so he considers himself "10% Dutch", and spent 15 years in the UK ... and considering that his parents are German, also considers himself German.

The Forward and Russia-InfoCentre reported in 2010 that Geim is Jewish, and Physics World reported in 2006 that growing up he was called "a 'bloody Jew' by some." Structural Chemistry wrote in 2010 that "Geim came from a family of Jewish-German origin and as being Jewish was considered to be a nationality his identity documents carried this designation causing barriers in his receiving higher education." Scientific Computing World wrote in 2006 that because Geim was Jewish he was regarded as someone who would leave the country after finishing his education, and therefore had to perform particularly well in the entrance examinations for a Moscow university, which he did. Geim said: "my nationality didn’t help. I was regarded as a potential emigrant ...."

He applied to the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, taking the entrance exams twice, but was not accepted because of his German origins, then applied to the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, where he was accepted. He said the students had to work extremely hard: "The pressure to work and to study was so intense that it was not a rare thing for people to break and leave, and some of them ended up with everything from schizophrenia to depression to suicide."

--Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Nice job!--Therexbanner (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, although the casual reader may be wondering why there are so many words about this in the article. :) As for infobox statements, categories, inclusion in lists and navigation templates, please remember that per WP:BLPCAT the ''only'' valid criterion for applying religious categories is the subject's self-identification. --JN466 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Tx. Moving it in. This of course does not forestall future conversation/emendations. Especially about the Hebrew-language source, though its relevance seems somewhat lesser and the translation somewhat less sure than the Russian. I'm hoping as the article is built up, this will become a smaller section. Tx to all for your collaborative spirit -- especially my new friend Therex. As to JN's comment, he does self-identify in the cited material, and the Arb decision in any event appears to apply to cats.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good working with ya. I'll try and get some more info. on his previous experiments.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I hate to cause trouble here, especially as consensus appears to have been reached. But I must say, after reader the "The Forward and Russia-InfoCentre reported ....." paragraph, it appears as though the solution we've arrived at is very inelegant. Randomly present a group of sources stating that Geim is Jewish is only going to leave the reader asking "why all this random information about Geim's religious beliefs?"

Perhaps the easiest way out of this would simply be to add "Although Geim has publicly stated that he doesn't consider himself Jewish, the Forward and Russia-InfoCentre reported .....". Would anyone oppose that? Alternatively, "Although XXX has reported Geim as publicly stating that he doesn't consider himself Jewish, the Forward and Russia-InfoCentre reported ....." NickCT (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does seem a lot more clean. As long as all the information is kept, it's all good.

Although the version we've arrived at is pretty good, it would be best to compress the wording on the various sources.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Selective cleanup proposal (improving flow and removing redundancy):

Sources should be ref'ed and collated:

Ex. rather than writing "In an interview to source X, subject stated..." you write "In an interview <footnote reference link to source X> subject stated...". Same thing with "Source X and Source Y and Source Z reported that...", it becomes "Several sources (ref link to sources xyz) reported that..."

Geim's father was an ethnic German, and his mother was half-German and half-Jewish (through Geim's maternal grandmother Maria Dominianovna Ziegler, or Mira Ziegler). His mother worked at a metereological station in Sochi until she retired. Andre Geim's ancestry on his mothers' side includes Karl Ziegler, a German nobleman.

Several sources reported that Geim is Jewish,(ref links to physics world, the forward, russianinfocentre) and that growing up he was called "a fascist by some, and a 'bloody Jew' by others." Another source (ref to structural chemistry) reported that "Geim came from a family of Jewish-German origin and as being Jewish was considered to be a nationality his identity documents carried this designation causing barriers in his receiving higher education." An online magazine (ref to scientific computing) wrote in 2006 that because Geim was Jewish he was regarded as someone who would leave the country after finishing his education, and therefore had to perform particularly well in the entrance examinations for a Moscow university, which he did. Geim said: "my nationality didn’t help. I was regarded as a potential emigrant ...."

That's it for now, if anybody has any suggestions on improving the flow of the article, please share. I also propose putting a paragraph break somewhere in the second paragraph, as it is a bit too thick. Any suggestions/comments?--Therexbanner (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources reported that Maria Ziegler was Jewish. Please call Geims mother who lives in Germany and ask! She will be very surprised to know that she is a Jew:)))! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.100.48 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If I could contact Mr. Geim I probably would, to clear it up. But, he said in an interview that she was.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

If I say you now I am Isaac Newton would you believe me? There are rumors and SOURCES!

With all due respect, the information is from an interview (with Andre Geim) to a reputable newspaper. I'm sure Mr. Geim knows his family better than anyone here (unless one of the posters is him, but that's highly unlikely). I personally don't consider that a rumor.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully mr Geim can make everything clear on this in a few weeks when he has written his official autobiography here [20]. By the way the picture used on that official Nobel site is from Wikimedia Commons! Närking (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest edit-war

It would be good if Bulldog123 would join the discussion on the talk page, instead of edit-warring. From what I can see above, the proposed version above has at least some consensus (not just for the cats but for the whole thing). Nobody previous involved in the article has reverted the new revision. Regarding the quantity of info on the subject, it looks like the issue is complicated and can't be summed up in a few words and that's why so much text is spent explaining the details. So unless Bulldog123 puts forward some comments here on why his version is better, I think his revision should be reverted shortly. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. I've said as much myself on Bulldog's talkpage, to no avail. Completely agree with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with Christopher Connor. It's hard to see what the specific objection to the material is. It does need a couple copy edits though. NickCT (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

about grandparents

I've read all five sources to the "jewish grandmother" and haven't find anything about it. The only mention is that Geim was teased as a jew at school, because of his untypical surname. This sentence must be removed until reliable sources will be found.217.66.146.58 (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the first one? It is an interview in which Geim speaks of his Jewish grandmother; see Talk:Andre Geim/Archive 1#Conclusion. Aviados (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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