User talk:Skol fir

Please add any comments you wish to make at the end, to keep a consecutive order of postings. Thank you.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Skol fir}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

/Archive 1

List of English words of Yiddish origin

Well, m-w.com is a redirect to Merriam-Webster, so I didn't really remove the source. I just tried to remove that fanciful Aramaic folk etymology, but I could have acted hastily. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, be that as it may, you removed a key portion of the definition given in M-W having to do with the Turkish origin. Also, I have continued this discussion at the Talk Page for the article if you wish to make your case there. --Skol fir (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Malden

I am in receipt of your several notes on my talk page and have also read the notes you left on the Malden talk page. While I appreciate your concern, I wish to make clear my position. I have none, as far as Malden's ethnicity goes. I am not remotely trying to "hide" his Serbian background, and if your search of my history of editing this page had been a little more assiduous, you would have found more than one example of my replacing references to his Serbian heritage that others had deleted. My edits have been entirely along the lines of correct WP style and formatting for a biographical article. I point you to WP:OPENPARA, which states that in styling the *opening paragraph* 1. In most modern-day cases this [the national identification] will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable. 2. Ethnicity...should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is *relevant to the subject's notability.* Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.

Malden's heritage was notable in that he was proud of it and spoke of it often. However, it was not relevant to his notability, which was as an actor and commercial spokesman whom tens of millions of people knew without any clue to his Serbian background. In his case, he differs from an actor such as Cary Grant, who is understandably considered a British American actor because his British heritage was part of his actor's persona, down to his accent. Most Grant aficionados likely think of Grant as British or British American, while I submit that being Serbian has little or nothing to do with Malden's fame. (Admittedly, there is argument on the Grant talk page about this, but I think it's a serviceable example in any case.)

Most importantly I want to make clear that I do not appreciate your not entirely subtle implication that I made my edits out of bigotry. I would direct you to another section of WP Guidelines you may well have overlooked, one of the fundamentals: WP:AGF. I presume you must have been unaware of this rule and were not simply flouting it. Monkeyzpop (talk) 10:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyzpop, I was not pointing to you personally about being a bigot. This comment was an observation about the "appearance" of bigotry when someone objects to a single mention of his Serbian origins in the introduction. Talking about introduction, who knows what kind of person-(s) wrote the section on "Opening paragraph" in Wikipedia:MOSBIO? I already told you, that I was aware of this rule, and that I thought Malden was an exception to the rule, particularly because he lived not only as an American citizen, but as a Serbian at heart. As for Cary Grant, there is even less reason to connect him with England, as his accent was a "distinctive yet not quite placeable Mid-Atlantic accent" and nothing in his biography links him to England except for his birthplace. As you pointed out, Malden made a point of letting people know of his Serbian origins, so those who knew him personally, would know that about him. If his movie fans did not realize this, it was because of his modesty in not promoting it openly.

My origins are not Serbian, as I am German-Canadian. I may understand ethnic ties better than most because of this, and because of the fact that I am 1st generation Canadian. I see the importance of making people aware of a person's ethnic origins to tell them more about a person's make-up and thinking. There is NOTHING to be ashamed of in mentioning this fact once in the opening paragraph. Whoever made up the rule that ethnic origins had to be linked to a person's notability could have been a white supremacist racist, for all I know, and no one bothered to challenge this. I do not believe the WP manuals and policies are written in stone, but need to be applied with intelligence.

In Malden's case, the only persons who, as readers, would object to having Serbian American as the description would be those who for personal reasons have a bone to pick about Serbs. I think it is silly that one should have to hide one's ethnicity because of a policy that states "ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Who says it "should not," when the person who it affects most is no longer living, and has stated himself that he would approve of being called "Serbian." To me it is a non-issue, and those who make an issue out of it, are showing a lack of tolerance. That is my opinion. As a proud German-Canadian, I have my reasons for that opinion.

Look at the articles for Peter Bogdanovich or Brad Dexter as examples. What makes them any more eligible to be called Serbian American in the opening paragraph? Should we start taking this adjective out of all the articles in Wikipedia that mention this? That would look like "ethnic cleansing" to me. In the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, what part of his notability is Austrian? ...maybe being Mr Universe at age 20, when he was still in Austria (known only to a select group of Americans interested in body-building)? ...maybe the accent? Although his real notability comes only out of his movie roles after arriving in the USA, and the Governorship of CA, his opening paragraph states Austrian-American.

Having said all that, I was not the initial person to add the term "Serbian" to "American actor." When I first saw that addition, I thought it was appropriate. That's probably how Malden himself would have liked to be remembered. No one should be offended by pointing it out, unless they find it offensive for someone to say he is "Serbian American." If you read the link that I pointed out from Facebook, it says "Serbian Americans are citizens of the United States who are of Serbian ancestry. Blessed with the beauty of both cultures!" That's what it means. Whoever wrote that clause in the WP:MOS of avoiding ethnic heritage in the opening paragraph is probably not aware of this beauty, and I pity them.

--Skol fir (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in whether "Serbian" is used to describe Malden in the first paragraph. What I am interested in is keeping consistency with established Wikipedia guidelines. If you do not care for Wikipedia guidelines, there are means by which to address your concerns and seek to have those guidelines changed. But suggesting that there "might" be nefarious reasons for a guideline you don't like, that there is reason to distrust the guidelines because "who knows what kind of person made them up?" is almost certainly going to get you off on the wrong foot with the majority of Wikipedia editors who have worked long and hard to create an online encyclopedia that adheres to the most advanced encyclopedic traditions of style and format. Saying that a rule you disagree with "might" be an underhanded attempt to foment bigotry or "ethnic cleansing" is just going to anger a lot of people who simply want the best encyclopedia possible. It certainly has me. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have overlooked one option in Wikipedia: IAR. (See Wikipedia:Understanding IAR). In particular, in this article it states:

The essence of ignorance --

Two important implications of this policy are:

You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are.

If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.

Well, that supports my contention that there is a better way to handle ethnicity. If the subject of a bio himself confirmed and welcomed being included in an ethnic group, it should be noted up front, not limited to the body of the article.

--Skol fir (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Time format at "Gary Moore"

Hello, Skol fir. You have new messages at TheRetroGuy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: My editing of French-Canadian / Quebec to Canadian

The term French-Canadian and usage of Quebec to describe a person are both incorrect when describing nationality. One does not use the term 'Oregon-American' or 'London politician'. They are simply 'American' or 'British' which are proper terms. You're flagging of my editing simply shows either your ignorance of proper grammatical etymology or pro-Quebec leanings, both of which are improper for a public-based information database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.47.19 (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your ignorance of Canadian history astounds me. Canada is not the United States, Oregon is far from Quebec by geography and by history. A motion called the "Quebecois nation motion", first tabled by Prime Minister Harper, and passed by parliament on November 27, 2006, states "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada." The French Canadian element in Canada has a special status in history and that status is recognized world-wide as the "French fact" in Canada. Twenty-two percent of Canadians speak French as their mother tongue (see: Quick Facts about Canada's Francophonie). The pride that French-speaking Quebeckers have for their own culture is unique, and deserves support not suppression. Your attempts to use Wikipedia as your own platform to squelch this pride, just because of your own narrow point of view goes against everything that Wikipedia is supposed to represent: tolerance, neutrality, inclusivity. --Skol fir (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not clutter this page with biased information generated by the spin doctors of the CMHR. This is a publicly funded national museum, not a private project, and its governance, contents and funding are open to legitimate public debate.