User talk:AndyTheGrump

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive "Subject/headline" for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Archives:

Sept 2010, Oct 2010, Nov 2010, Dec 2010.

Jan 2011, Feb 2011, Mar 2011, Apr 2011, May 2011, Jun 2011.

AN/I

This is to inform you I have brought you before AN/I for your blatant rudeness and uncalled for anti-Jewish remarks that Jews can not be a nationality.Camelbinky (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I sense a WP:BOOMERANG a coming, Andy would like some popcorn? Nom Nom Nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I should probably go to bed (it's gone 3.15 am here), but I think I'll see how this one runs. The sad thing is, I think that Camelbinky probably disagrees with what I actually said a lot less than what he/she thinks I said. The internet is a marvellous device for miscommunication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if you like these, but here is...

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For preaching the doomsday end of the (typographic) universe! Tijfo098 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I am going to have to leave the scene for a little while, I am rapidly losing my temper with some of these people who are consistently and unapologetically uncivil and I cannot handle the way nobody bats an eye at this. I will try to stay a way from the articles and ANI discussions for a while, difficult as it is when one is trying to defend one's honor against abuse and slander. I'll have a cup of tea and come back when I feel better. Sorry to leave you hanging, you are one of the few editors here to have any understanding of social sciences, and I appreciate your editing very much. I'd give you a nice barnstar but someone beat me to it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-tagging

Hey Andy. I've noticed that you seem to be very active in discussions regarding the obsession of "ethno-tagging" (I think you coined that, did you not?). To clarify right off the bat, I agree with you on all counts in these discussions. I personally started the "battle" over Nikki Yanofsky being ethno-tagged, and I'm quite surprised how much it's blown up. I'm wondering if it's possible to start an RFC about the issue of ethno-tagging on Wikipedia, as it's something that I'd greatly like to see done away with. I ask you, because you seem to have much more experience in the matter than I do; I wouldn't know where to start with something like that. Is it something that WP admins will take seriously, or will they just see it as an unwinnable battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFrozenFire (talk • contribs) 23:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it was me who coined the term - it was an idea who's time had come anyway. But yes, I'd like to see it stopped, or at least confined to places where it is actually significant to the person under discussion, but I think it is going to be a long battle, and trying to make dramatic changes to policy right now isn't likely to get far I'd think. It is worth remembering that the admins have no more say regarding changes of policy than anyone else (at least in theory). For now, I'm just pushing the point home where I can, and biding my time. It is unfortunate that Yanofsky has become the focus of the latest round of this - we shouldn't be dragging minors into debates, even indirectly, and to be honest, were it not the focus of a wider debate, I'd be tempted to let this one go - but others are using it as a point of principle and though in theory Wikipedia isn't bound by precedent, the fact that it has become such an issue implies that in practice it is.

As regards to BLP policy in general, there has been an increasing concern shown by Wikipedia policy to privacy issues, and I think that this is probably a reflection of a greater awareness of the consequences of the internet age regarding this - the debate is actually a much wider one, and Wikipedia is largely reflecting what is going on elsewhere. This isn't a reason to sit back and do nothing, of course - such changes only occur as a result of individuals making active choices. I wonder whether attaching too much significance to the ethno-tagging issue might be a mistake, and what might be more constructive would be a wider debate on privacy issues, and on what the purpose of BLPs should be. Such a wider debate would have the advantage of engaging more than the 'pro' and 'anti'-tagging factions, and would hopefully be more likely to bring about real and significant change in the long run. This needs more thinking about though, and at the moment, I'm still ruminating, and gathering evidence. If you have any specific proposals, I'd be interested to see them, and will support anything that looks viable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it was from you that I saw its first use, so I'm giving you credit for a coined term that describes quite well the disturbing tendency of certain groups, in this case probably Zionist Jews, to tag the "Jew" affiliation onto everyone that is notable and could be of Jewish ancestry. And, of course, that tagging comes with the connotation that those who are identified as Jews necessarily support the Zionist movement, which is far from the case.

But, more generally, and somewhat more important, the practise of ethno-tagging is shared by many religious groups, except that theirs isn't necessarily tagging individuals with ethnic labels, but rather religious ones. Zionist Jews are the most frequent users of this practise, but it's also something done by many Mormons, Catholics and so on. That is, they assign the label of "Mormon" or "Catholic" to their children, and the children only rid themselves of that by explicitly stating that they are *not* associated with that group. In the case of Jews, it is much more difficult to evade, since it's not just a belief system, but instead encompasses all of those with Jewish ancestry, or at the very least Jewish mothers.

Now, it's worth mentioning that I certainly don't come to Wikipedia with an aim or a purpose, other than to contribute factual content, so I don't want you to think I have an "axe to grind" with religious or ethno-religious groups, that I'm bringing to Wikipedia. I've simply found that this issue is one that pervades Wikipedia's BLP articles, and is something that needs to be addressed, for the sake of ensuring a factual encyclopaedia, as well as for the sake of the privacy of those targeted by these groups.

My suggestion for addressing this matter wouldn't necessarily be to seek to immediately establish a policy forbidding such activities, but rather try to bring the issue to the group consciousness of WP. For instance, having a general RFC on the matter, without any particular aim, except perhaps to establish that the community recognizes the activity, and that it can be harmful. If an article is created which explains the activity, and explains *why* it can be a problem, then it's something we can point people like Bus Stop to, and say "This is what you're doing; it's harmful to the accuracy of the article, and to the wellbeing of the BLP subject. Please stop."

As you say, it's likely to be an uphill battle, and no immediate solution is likely, but I think that if we initiate a well-reasoned discussion on the matter, we can shift the debate from the talk pages of BLP articles to a centralized location, so that we don't end up edit warring BLP articles over such a sensitive issue. I agree that it's a delicate matter, and putting a minor's BLP article into the middle of the debate will do substantial harm, especially if it becomes a matter of public inquiry (people asking Yanofsky to address the issue publicly). When I first started removing those tags, it was entirely out of concern for WP:BLPCAT, but I think it's spiralled into a bigger issue of article accuracy. As Bus Stop so frequently repeats, there's no policy relating to the article content that addresses the issues that BLPCAT address for categories, in this regard. TheFrozenFire (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. Firstly, I'm not sure that all those involved on ethno-tagging 'Jewish' people are necessarily Zionists - though the term 'Zionist' is rather vague, sometimes used in a defametory context, and best avoided anyway, in my opinion. Secondly, that the ethno-tagging issue often comes up in regard to people of (claimed) Jewish descent, is probably a side-effect of this being a US-based, English speaking Wikipedia. The issue can be just as controversial in other contexts. Indeed, I first got involved in the question in regard to articles on Latin America, where some contributors were intent on creating a 'white' ethnicity out of thin air. This is a complex subject, and one has to be careful not to do the very thing we are objecting to - which is attaching labels to groups, based on our prior perceptions. It is for this reason that I argue that if we are to achieve a meaninful change in policy, it needs to be done in the broader context of privacy issues, where hopefully the debate could move beyond narrow labelling, endless name-calling, and circular arguments that only serve to deter outside contributions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Hi Andy. I just wanted to say Thank you for your comments on my recent question on the WP:BLP with the example on the Romanian wikipedia. While I did not make any progress and the situation is now worse than before, I do appreciate your input. I also believe WP:BLP is quite good as it is and the only major problem I see is mostly with its interpretation. Gigi marga (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in turn. I agree that most of the problems with WP:BLP are to do with its interpretation, though I think it could still be improved a little. I'm optimistic that with time attitudes will change regarding personal information, and that we will come to appreciate that sometimes it is better to avoid padding out articles with information of peripheral relevance, regardless of whether it is properly sourced or not. There are some issues (like ethnicity) which are inherently contentious, and often a simple statement that 'person X is an Y' is of little meaning without further context, even if it is 'correct'. Unfortunately, there are always contributors who wish for whatever reason to include such details, and where this becomes contentious (as seems to have occurred on the Romanian Wikipedia), there is a tendency for people to dig their heels in, and ignore the complexities for the sake of asserting a particular position. Fortunately, on the English-language Wikipedia, we have a broad enough range of contributors to make such stubbornness less effective, and it is a pity that this seems to have been the problem with Romanian Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I just wanted to drop a little note of apology on your talk page, over the tongue lashing I gave you at WP:ANI. Looks like I was in a pissy mood and took it out on you; you didn't deserve that. So I just wanted to say I'm sorry and offer the peace pipe. --Jayron32 22:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We all have our off days, and I've written things I shouldn't more than once myself. I see the 'prof' has replied at AN/I, and cleared it all up in any case - one of his students clearly wasn't paying attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which--you may want to consider striking a comment from a certain AfD... Drmies (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I probably should... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy. I have to tell you, I haven't been in an AfD this ridiculous in a long time. May it end soon. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provincialism

Andy,

I am sorry about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Catalyzer&diff=prev&oldid=429739143
but there is a sort of Italian "faida" going on concerning the E-Cat.

Unfortunately, after a bitter initial match
( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagine_da_cancellare/Catalizzatore_di_energia_di_Rossi_e_Focardi )
it seems that someone wants another ring to fight on here...
--79.6.9.51 (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, You are probably right. I was tempted to delete the section entirely, as it has no particular relevance to our article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am Reporting You

I am reporting you for slander. You labeled me an Antisemite when the opposite is true, but this "truth" is far too deep for you to understand.GegenIsrael (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]