Talk:Andre Geim/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

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.[3]

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>[ "A physicist of many talents"], ''[[Physics World]]'', Edwin Cartlidge, February 2006, Retrieved 24 October 2010</ref><ref>[[Agence France-Presse]]. [ "Nobel prize winner was 'B student': university"],, 6 October 2010, Retrieved 24 October 2010.</ref><ref name=GRHC>Translated from the German by Alex Herzog, [ "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=|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>[ "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>[ "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=|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= |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: 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, 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. [4]. 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 [5]. 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 [6]. You can access more documents here [7]. 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 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:

God bless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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) >> 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 . 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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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 [8]. 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 (talkcontribs) 18:24:11, 27 October 2010

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

  • Note: I have issued User_talk: 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:, 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)


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).

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 [9]; 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 : 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 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 ( 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)

Russian Jews are freely accepted in Germany, already more than 216000 since 1991. Check out what "Kontingentflüchtling" means. This discussion is a shame, we had all this already, but it has been archived away. I won't trust WP anymore as before. popolfi -- (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The Jewish Daily Forward has this to say about Andre Geim:
"As of press time, Russian Jew Andre Geim shared this year’s Nobel Prize in physics with Konstantin Novoselov."
The linking above to our own Who is a Jew? article I don't think is the only source for defining whether or not an individual is Jewish. I find the following at the fairly reliable Judaism 101 website:
"A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism. It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do."
The citation from the "Forward" should be sufficient in and of itself to establish for our purposes in writing the article that Geim would accurately be called a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
No it's not. This man has personal rights, attributing an "Ethnicity" because of some distant genes is just racism (BTW: Nazis did it)! There is no direct source till now where he or any of his relatives say their grand-grandmother was "Jewish", they only talk about Germans. With your reasoning of the decisive maternal line, it shouldn't be to difficult to find plenty of Palestinians which have to be "Jewish" from now on. OTOH it has been genetically proven that most founding mothers (!) of Ashkenazi population where Central Europeans women. And why on earth should someone stick with German nationality in Stalinist society, when it's possible to claim a Jewish one??? (read what they wrote about deportations of German relatives). In summary: Looks like wishful thinking of Jewish "patriots" ... and since this discussion lasts so long let my also add "pathetic"! popolfi -- (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We have robust RS support for this. No issue here. BTW -- IP 89 -- have you ever edited on wp under another name or ip address?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
what ever RS means... did you notice that I'm signing with "popolfi"? -- (talk) 15:59, 19 November 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.[1][2][3][4] His father, Konstantin Alekseyevich Geim (1910–98), his mother, Nina Nikolayevna Bayer (1927–), were engineers.[3][5] Geim said he could be called a “European scientist,” and that “Every nation now claims me, and they have a right to do so.”[4] 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.[3] He also said in an interview in 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.[6]

The Forward and Russia-InfoCentre reported in 2010 that Geim is Jewish,[7][8] and Physics World reported in 2006 that growing up he was called "a 'bloody Jew' by some."[1] 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."[9] 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 ...."[10]

He applied to the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute,[11] taking the entrance exams twice, but was not accepted because of his German origins,[3][12] 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."

  1. ^ a b "A physicist of many talents", Physics World, Edwin Cartlidge, February 2006, Retrieved 24 October 2010
  2. ^ Agence France-Presse. "Nobel prize winner was 'B student': university",, 6 October 2010, Retrieved 24 October 2010.
  3. ^ a b c d Translated from the German by Alex Herzog, "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.
  4. ^ a b Howard Amos (21 October 2010). "Nobel Winners Tell Why Russia Lacks Allure". The Moscow Times. Retrieved 27 October 2010. 
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ [2]
  7. ^ "What? Not All Jews Are Geniuses?", The Forward, Joy Resmovits, 15 October, 2010. Retrieved October 18, 2010.
  8. ^ "Diamonds Dismissed √ Nobel-Prize Winning Graphene Enters: Sounds Like A Breakthrough". Russia-InfoCentre. 8 October 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2010. 
  9. ^ "Editorial", Structural Chemistry, István Hargittai, December 2010, accessed 25 October, 2010
  10. ^ John Murphy (June/July 2006). "Renaissance scientist with fund of ideas". Scientific Computing World. Retrieved 27 October 2010.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ "най наших: лауреатом Нобелевской премии по физике стал российский немец" (in Russian) (Google Translate). 6 October 2010. Retrieved 27 October 2010.
  12. ^ Agence France-Presse. "Nobel prize winner was 'B student': university". 6 October 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2010.

--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 (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 [10]. 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)

Nice canvass, Epee. There's nothing "complicated" about this issue. Geim has not once yet called himself "Jewish." If he does so in his Nobel Bio, we can change it to Epee's wishes. Bulldog123 22:11, 17 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)
Would ask that Bulldog discontinue his edit warring, editing against consensus, and deletion of RS-supported material. Would suggest that he consider this a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus. That's why the version with two sentences wasn't reverted for almost three whole weeks before you yourself reverted it. Why you're acting like a magazine like The Forward has enough importance to be included in the actual body of text instead of just a citation I don't understand - and neither will anyone reading this article. All they'll do is wonder why you Wikipedia editors spend two paragraphs trying real hard to make Andre Geim seem more Jewish than he is. In other words, this all REEKS of WP:NPOV. Bulldog123 13:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. We never had a "consensus" about the "jewishness" of Andre Geim.--Gladsmile (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Bull. Of course we did. Your "bulldogging" your way forward by refusing to call a spade a spade does not change that one whit. I would offer for your reading pleasure the prior posts on this page, which spell it out in minute detail. Best. Glad -- what names and/or IP addresses have you used prior to editing in this incarnation?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Epee, you do realize that you're not allowed to add the Jewish category, right? So exactly where is the consensus you keep mentioning? And why is it that you seem to be the only one that cares so much whether the article directly states Geim is Jewish? If his maternal grandmother is Jewish, any Jew can easily deduced he is too (by law - though not be personal admission). Bulldog123 23:48, 18 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. (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)
NOTE: Pretty sure is Epeefleche. Bulldog123
NOTE: I'm pretty sure that Bulldog123 is a very cute 5-week-old puppy of indeterminate progeny, with a docked tail, who not having been taken out for its walk has leaned on it's master's keyboard inadvertently while scratching its left ear with its hind paw, but who when it exercises what it has in its cranium would prefer to reflect proudly the highly intellectual and thoughtful artistry for which the bulldog if famous rather than that of any more considered species. But, of course, I could be wrong. Still -- perhaps the cutie believes it best form to spread this unfounded accusation around, rather than bring it to a noticeboard, given his frustration at not being able to otherwise spread around his personal-smelling feces elsewhere on his walk. He no doubt prefers to be engaged for spreading scurrilous nonsensical "I'm pretty sure" accusations around, rather than consider being a clever, thoughtful, contributing member of the Project. It being feeding time, I thought I would be obliging, as I found his contribution to be comical.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Um... Okay. Bulldog123 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


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

I think this is a direct result of "Wikiproject:Tag-a-jew" approach of some editors.--Scott Mac 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
List of Jewish sportscasters and promoters and List of Jewish heavy metal musicians anyone? Bulldog123 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh and just to show everyone how seriously up-kept those articles are, note the last entry on the first list: "Bob Costas, US sportscaster/ NBC sideline reporter/ Huge Jew" Bulldog123 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a result of the evidence-gathering in the edit disputes chronicled above, but whatever anybody's motivation might be shouldn't be the focus --what matters is ending up with a quality article that follows Wikipedia policy. I think we can all take it as read from the evidence here on the talk page that there are many people who consider Geim to be Jewish. We don't need to list so many of their statements in the article itself, however. Maybe the one sentence about his Jewish maternal grandmother, and another one talking about his having suffered discrimination in Russia--in my opinion that really should be enough to cover what "Jewishness" has meant in Geim's life.betsythedevine (talk)
The version that's been getting reverted by User:Epeefleche (who curiously is missing for this discussion) devotes two whole sentences to the subject and yet manages to summarize the situation perfectly. Jewish grandmother (or perhaps now great-grandmother) and faced discrimination because of non-Russian surname. Bulldog123 22:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If the "evidence" is required, then use a footnote.--Scott Mac 18:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I've been proposing all along. Notice, how once I agreed on a compromise, my latest proposed version hasn't been commented-on by the opposing editors that flocked here a month ago. Weird.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I also agree on this. But the discrimination he suffered in Soviet union was because of his German nationality, as has been referenced many times above. So if it should be mentioned I suggest we say he suffered discrimination because of his non-Russian nationality. I guess everyone can agree on that. If you must mention German or Jewish you can do it in a footnote. The important thing is that he suffered discrimination. Närking (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
My question is, how do we ensure sufficient protection of the article (and similar articles) from these minority (minority as in their opinion is "supported by very few editors", not "U.S. census minority") lobbying groups? Do we just keep reverting to the good-quality version? Because they will revert back, and call 3RR. In other words, how do we ensure a binding consensus where the quality of the article does not suffer?--Therexbanner (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree there is too much of this material and we should cut it down. But the discrimination was not just because of his German origins, antisemitism was part of it too. Globes quotes Geim as saying, in Israel, "My mother's grandmother was Jewish. I suffered from anti-Semitism in Russia because my name sounds Jewish, so I identify with you. Nonetheless, I don’t divide the world by religions or countries, but by stupid people and slightly less stupid people, and I hope that I am numbered among the second group." And before anyone jumps on this wording to claim that "Geim here identifies as Jewish", no, he doesn't. He is saying his great-grandmother was Jewish, and that he knows what it is like to be a victim of anti-semitism. --JN466 22:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, his great-grandmother was Jewish! Hahaha! Okay, then let us do this great-grandmother in a footnote, and we can all be satisfied.--Gladsmile (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Jewish great-grandmother would make him 1/8th ethnically Jewish (unless my math is off) -- which is pretty much equivalent to 15-20% of all of Polish citizens. It also explains how his maternal great-grandfather managed to be a German noble back then. If other sources wish to call him a "Jew" because of matrilineal descent, fine by them. I see no reason why those sources need to be quoted in a wikipedia article though -- especially if Geim has no religious affiliation with Judaism. (Cue last-ditch desperate arguments saying Geim is a "cultural Jew" ) Bulldog123 22:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed some of it, and moved some of it to footnotes, while keeping the points mentioned in this string and above strings. Bulldog I see is edit-warring again, against consensus. To answer other editors questions in this regard, the way to address disruptive editing is to warn the editors in question, and ultimately have them sanctioned.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes I feel bad for you, Epee. Are you going to ignore [11] this source now because it doesn't fit your world view? Bulldog123 22:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Can we lose the disputed tag now? I think it's fine now. --JN466 01:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
With the new version yes, but you're still allowing the List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners "See Also" link -- which is intentionally being used to substitute Arbcom's decision to exclude Jewish categories. Bulldog123 02:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I was only talking about the section with the disputed tag. Could you please provide a link to the arbcom decision you mention? I'm not familiar with it. Thanks. --JN466 03:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant the WP:BLP decision - not a decision specific to this article. Scroll up. It's on the talk page. Consensus was to remove categories per that after -- I think -- a third opinion was given. I don't know the whole history - I got to this article late. More here: Talk:Andre_Geim/Archive_1#Request_for_mediation Bulldog123 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Thanks Betsy. I've edited further, keeping all the material, but also keeping the material relating to his being Jewish in the text rather than only in the footnote.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I consider the changes to put extra Jewishness back into the article as opposed to the footnotes as a violation not only of WP:WEIGHT but also of the clear consensus on this talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
New version is perfect, but you're not going to convince him. Good luck with that and expect "talk page warnings." Bulldog123 02:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

"List of Jewish Nobel laureates"

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

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

I agree with your proposal. The name "List of Jewish Nobel laureates" is misleading. Let us change it!--Gladsmile (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem with "List of Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish." is what does it mean? "List of Nobel laureates who have been described as Jewish by one source that a Wikipedian has found"? Does that mean if one Jewish newspaper labels someone "Jewish" they go on the list - even if no other source does and then deny it?. That would seem to offend against WP:UNDUE. If someone is regularly described as Jewish, then fair enough.--Scott Mac 15:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a bad title. However it should be discussed on the list's talk page, not here. The "See also" link should be discussed here, though. I don't see why it's needed; even assuming Geim is Jewish (which seems to depend on the definition used), I don't imagine many readers of this article are going to want to find other Jewish laureates. --Avenue (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Yet again we're jumping through hoops just so a handful of users can feel proud they've managed to include someone new in their club. The guy does not self-identify as Jewish ethnically/religiously/or culturally, though I'm positive you'll find numerous reports that say he is quote "Jewish" -- mostly by ill-informed writers and Judaeo-obsessed publications. Similarly, I can find tons of "sources" that Hannibal was actually of Black African descent. Here's one: [12] QUICK! Everybody make a new article Hannibal (black)! Bulldog123 20:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Dutch not Russian

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

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

Nobel Peace Prize statements

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

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

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

Sorry, but what exactly did the journalist paraphrase? The quote that you mention Geim as saying is reported verbatim in the Australian news article.
The fact that you hear many Chinese people in the US deeply resent Western criticism of China is empirically difficult to prove. And when subject to logical analysis, the assertion is probably ironic and untrue for three reasons: 1) many Chinese dissidents made (or make) America (or a Western country) their choice for emigration; 2) to speak of Chinese people as one monolithic block is to ignore the process of assimilation of second and third generation Chinese Americans into mainstream American society, and insofar the assimilation theory holds, it isn't clear why Chinese Americans should feel resentful of Western criticism of China when they would regard their identity as fundamentally American; 3) if they resent Western criticism of China, why do they continue living in a Western country like, say, the USA?
I have no problem with Wikipedia quoting what Geim said. I do have a problem with your claim that Llosa's remarks derives from an incomplete understanding of Geim's explanation as to why the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be given to Liu. For one thing, it could be the case that when Llosa asks the two scientists to explain themselves, he's not asking them to explain why the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be given to Liu, but rather the more specific issue of Liu's imprisonment and how the scientists should explain themselves in failing to condemn the imprisonment of a political dissident by the Chinese government. For another, Geim's explanation of why the Nobel Peace Prize shouldn't be awarded to Liu isn't convincing either: the first paragraph of his insinuation about the Norweigan politicians who handed out the prize as sanctimonious and elitist is a non-sequitor and his claim that the Nobel Peace Prize distorts the human rights progress (by which Geim means progress in socio-economic rights, not civil and political rights as when he says: "China has not only developed economically)) China has made in the last 10 years is to miss the point about the meaning of the Peace Prize which is an award to a person who promotes the cause of peace regardless of the human rights (i.e. economic development according to Geim) of the country in which the recipient resides. Moreover, his statement also seems to make two problematic assumptions: 1) that peace is coterminous with human rights, even though the pursuit of those human rights can result in a violent, totalitarian society (i.e. North Korea, where socio-economic human rights are guaranteed at the cost of living in a totalitarian society.); 2) Chinese exceptionalism, that because human rights in China are improving, there's no evidence that it isn't a peaceful society. Of course, nobody will deny that human rights in China are improving, but with the imprisonment of a political dissident, it begs the question of how much improvement is made on that front.Fellytone (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The paraphrase I referred to was the journalist's statement "said the Nobel committee was out of touch, and dismissed its tribute to the jailed Chinese dissident as patronising," which had been quoted verbatim in the bio. From Geim's actual remarks, he seems to be using the word "patronizing" more generally to describe the committee's attitude toward non-Western countries.
I agree with most of the changes you have made to the article, but I don't think Geim was saying that human rights had improved because of economic progress. I think he is saying that the economic progress has been enormous and at the same time the progress in human rights has been significant. Let me be clear that I am not agreeing with Geim's position about the Nobel Peace Prize committee, just trying to understand what he said and why so we can report it accurately for our readers.betsythedevine (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Well you said that the journalists did a bad job of paraphrasing Geim's comment that the issuing of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu was "very very patrionizing - they [the Nobel peace Prize committee] have not lived in these countries." So unless it isn't part of the job of a journalist to paraphrase the comments of living people in their news articles, I can't see what evidence there is that the journalist paraphrased Geim's comment in a sensationalist manner.
As for Geim's remark that human rights has improved only because of China's economic progress, it's really hard to think otherwise when he said, "China has developed not only economically, but even the strongest human rights supporter would agree also human rights have improved." If he doesn't think of human rights as being coterminous with the provision of socio-economic rights, then why would he mention specifically China's economic development in his proposition that China's human rights record has improved? And as for your comments that you don't agree with Geim's position about the Nobel Peace Prize committee, I'm unconvinced that's the case either, what with comments like: "China's huge progress on human rights issues since the not-so-long-ago Cultural Revolution," and "...derives from his Llosa not having seen Geim's perfectly clear explanation." Although, I am happy you do agree with the changes I've made though. Fellytone (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that China's huge progress in human rights since the Cultural Revolution should exempt them from criticism for ongoing abuses. I don't think that the people who serve on the Nobel Peace Prize committee made a bad decision -- or that even in a hypothetical case where they did, they deserve to be scolded. So on those points at least I disagree with what I think Geim thinks. As for the word "patronizing;" where I disagree with the paraphrasing journalist is what Geim meant by "it" in his statement "it's very, very patronizing." The journalist's summary implies that Geim's "it" stands for "giving a prize to Liu"; my reading from the context it that "it" stood for "the Nobel Peace Prize committee" or perhaps "the committee's attitude toward the non-Western world."betsythedevine (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. You can hear Geim discuss the subject, and utter the long quote from the article, in the BBC interview Nobel Minds, starting at about 19:15. It is clear that all the laureates present were distressed that Liu could not be present. The interviewer asks Geim about his (apparently earlier) use of the word "condescending" WRT the Peace Prize, so Geim explains himself. On the subject of jailing dissidents in general and Liu in particular, Geim also states "He should be out of jail, there is no question there." That statement was omitted by the journalist from the article. Llosa's viewpoint is also expanded in the interview you can listen to. He disagrees with Geim about the appropriate pace for democratization and change in China. Llosa uses South America as an example, saying that if you ask the people they will always want freedom and democracy rather than a dictatorship. Geim says (I'm paraphrasing) that most Chinese people he knows prefer a slow progress toward freedom because of what they see as the example of Russia's quick democratization which precipitated bad changes as well as good ones. I did not hear Llosa say that the scientists "must explain themselves" during the taped interview. So perhaps he said it after being informed (perhaps in a garbled way) of Geim's criticizing the Peace Prize Committee but before having heard Geim explain what he meant by his comment. betsythedevine (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


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

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

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

No you couldn't hide your bias could you? I see in the changes that you make, you completely leave out the (ungarbled) disagreement by Llosa (starts at around 19:40 in the exchange on the BBC website) about Geim's criticism of the Nobel peace prize Committee. And it's ironic how you would go on to complain how people in blogland will "come to the article and put some garbled slanted version in if we don't mention it here" because cherrypicking the preferred tactic of argumentation among bloggers. And no, I don't read blogs so I don't come from blogland.
Where is the evidence that she's sensationalize the article? Where's the evidence that her article is written like an announcer for a boxing match? She reported exactly what Geim and Novoselov said verbatim in her article. You say the laureates never say Liu Xiaobo is the wrong man for the Nobel Peace Prize, so then it begs the question of what exactly is the point of their criticizing the Nobel Peace Prize Committee if they disagree with selection of a Chinese political dissident for the Nobel Peace Prize award? The logic of your argument is exactly like that of a segregationist in the 1960s who would defend segregationist policies on the grounds that the fact that although it treated blacks inferior to whites, it never explicitly says blacks are inferior to whites.
I'm going to put the remarks by Llosa back in, without which it makes it look as if the ridiculous emphasis of Geim's argument on the character of Nobel Peace Committee members has any iota of sanity. Though I'm sure people from blogland (particularly members of the 50 cent party) will go crazy if support for Liu is voiced anywhere in the Internet. Fellytone (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Geim's criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize committee is a very minor part of Geim's career, it does not merit so much WP:WEIGHT in this article as you wish to give it. In my opinion, and in the opinion of at least one other editor here, Llosa's remarks are not relevant to the article Andre Geim. Use this talk page to try to persuade others of your opinion that Llosa's remark belong in Geim's article instead of edit-warring. Support for Liu is very widespread on the Internet and elsewhere. betsythedevine (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not trying to give Geim's criticism disproportionate weight but the fact that it is picked up by a major news outlet of an industrialized country and the fact that the content of the remarks are controversial makes his remarks and the response to his remarks at least worthy (however fleeting) of mention.
Now onto your point about Llosa's remarks not relevant to the article about Andre Geim. But that's precisely the point: it isn't about Geim the person (i.e. scientist), it's about Geim's political opinions. And insofar as Llosa's response to a controversial stance by Geim are under the views and opinion section of Geim's Wikipedia page, I can't see why the rebuttal shouldn't be mentioned. The only point of disagreement might be the disproportionate weight given to the length of the rebuttal, but even then that point of disagreement isn't grounds for wholesale deletion of Llosa's response. And let me understand you correctly when you say, "Llosa's remarks are not relevant to the article Andre Geim: so you suggesting that only the opinions of the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia page are relevant and that the opinions of people who aren't are irrelevant, yes? Fellytone (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

No the remarks of other panelists don't need to be added because the exchange is primarily between Llosa and Geim with the concurring remark of another scientist (Konostev) defending the Chinese government being a one-line statement of support. The fact that the two other panelists didn't raise their hands to demand the release of Xiaobo doesn't mean an agreement with Geim's position: it could simply be evidence of intimidation or lack of knowledge to participate in an emotionally charged political exchange between the two nobel prize laureates. Provided that the exchange is condensed, I cannot see what evidence there is that the exchange should be reduced: after-all, it was picked up by a major Australian news outlet. Fellytone (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Llosa's remarks are not relevant here because the remarks are not about Geim or about any major part of Geim's career. If you look at other Wikipedia articles about people you will see that (for example) George W Bush has a brief quote from his State of the Union address but the article does not follow that up with any of the people who criticized or refuted Bush's remarks. If you look at the article Frank Guinta, it quotes his views on Social Security, but not any of the people who consider those views mistaken. Nobody is trying to protect Geim here, or to attack Liu, we are just working to keep the article encyclopedia-quality and encyclopedia style. A remark that might be relevant to Andre Geim would be a newsworthy remark that was about Geim. betsythedevine (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's obvious you didn't read my response. Llosa's remarks aren't about Geim or his career, it's about his controversial political views. You're right his remarks would not be relevant if it were written in a section anywhere than under the "Views and Opinion" section of Geim's Wikipedia page, but in this case it isn't. You seem to strangely assume that the only criteria of judging the relevance of a remark to a person is the person's occupation (in this case Geim's career as a scientist) and not what the person opinion, but I can't see why that criteria should include just the former and not the latter. If that was the case, then the wikipedia pages of political commentators should also have all their sections removed because, under your criteria, the remarks of others about the political commentator's opinions not any part of the political commentator's career. You give me the parallel example of George W Bush and Frank Guinta and how the fact that the criticisms of their comments didn't get mentioned would then justify the deletion of criticism of Geim's comments, but it's problematic for two reasons: 1) the fact that it quotes their views on the respective issues doesn't mean that criticisms about those views cannot be posted (as is the case of what you are trying to do by having Llosa's remarks about Geim's Nobel Peace Prize Committee removed); 2) the difference is in the nature of the content: how the issue of privatization and Bush's "axis of evil" remark (which is qualified by the statement: "the broader "War on Terror", allegations of an "axis of evil", and, in particular, the doctrine of preemptive war, began to weaken the unprecedented levels of international and domestic support for Bush and United States action against al Qaeda following the September 11 attacks" ( The War on Terrorism sub-section) has the same level of moral outrage as support for a government and a system that is responsible for imprisoning a political dissident in direct contravention of the Article 19 of the UNDHR is a parallelism that has to rely on some very twisted logic, and whose logic is even more twisted when the further argument is made that any criticism of a government and political system that imprisons political dissidents should be removed on the grounds that those remarks aren't part of the [said] person's career. Unless you can give me another reason other than its irrelevance to Geim's occupation, your arguments of excluding Llosa's reaction to Geim's remarks are unconvincing. Fellytone (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Relevance to "Geim's career" means relevance to the stuff that is important to his public life. If Geim were to continue to discuss his views on China widely, making a point of them when interviewed by media people, then his views on China would become more relevant to his public life and to this article. Relevance to his "occupation" is not something anybody suggested. Can you cite any parallel example of a Wikipedia biography with the configuration you want to see here? That is, where a comment by Mr X that got written up by media is "balanced" with a comment by Mr Y that was not reported by any news media, a comment that did not mention Mr X but expressed disagreement with Mr. X's opinion? On the contrary, see for example Steven_Weinberg#Other_intellectual_legacy, or Lubos Motl, both of which describe their subjects' public viewpoints but not the viewpoints of their many opponents. betsythedevine (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand your fervent desire to censor criticism of the critics of Liu Xiaobo, but at this point you are stonewalling. Your splitting hairs with the definition of career as meaning i either public life or occupation when it is defined first and foremost as the latter ( and in any case it's a red herring: the fact that a comment isn't about Geim's career doesn't mean it can't pertain to anything else about another facet of that person's life. You give me the example of Steven Weinberg and Lubos Motl to illustrate your point[1] that because the their viewpoints don't also have the viewpoints of their opponents, then that same situation should be the case for this article which is a ridiculous argument for two reasons: 1) my initial point: "fact that it quotes their views on the respective issues doesn't mean that criticisms about those views cannot be posted (as is the case of what you are trying to do by having Llosa's remarks about Geim's Nobel Peace Prize Committee removed)" and 2) is there a Wikipedia guideline that says statements of criticisms about the comments by the person who is the subject of the Wikipedia entry shall not be made if statements of other people do not have the viewpoints of their opponents?
Ma'am, I really don't mean to be rude, but if your argument is comprised of nothing more than pointing out that other articles don't have oppositional viewpoints written challenging the viewpoints of the person who is the subject of that Wikipedia article, then there really is not anything more to discuss. Fellytone (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
[1] in illustrating your point that the remarks by Llosa should be censored by pointing to the parallel examples of Motl and Weinberg, the examples actually undermine your initial argument about the relevance of one's comment to one's Wikipedia article. In the case of Weinberg, his criticism of the boycott of Israeli academics by certain British organizations is irrelevant to his career, but it's deemed relevant enough by editors of his Wikipedia page to warrant its regurgitation verbatim on his Wikipedia page. So while you may judge the legitimacy of one's comment on the sole basis of the comment's relevancy to one's occupation, it's clearly not a criteria that is shared by everyone. Fellytone (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(restart indents) For you to change the article to add the Llosa quote, you need to get consensus of other editors. So far, you do not have consensus. You can solicit outside viewpoints by tagging the article NPOV, as you have done, or post some of your arguments about it at WP:RFC. I have no desire to censor critics of critics of critics of anybody, but my alleged motivation is not the issue here. The issue is whether the change YOU want to make to an article that was in consensus state before you tried to change it will be accepted by others. So far, your addition of the Llosa quote has been removed by two different editors, while yet another editor JeremyMiller has advocated removing the entire reference to Geim's remarks about China. The change you want is supported by zero people other than you. betsythedevine (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

And this change to the article is now under discussion here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Andre_Geim betsythedevine (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In or out?

The submission to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Andre_Geim did not generate a lot of response, but the one person who replied seems to be a respected editor who follows many issues on that page. Her opinions were that "I can't see any reason to include Vargas Llosas's comments" and (as for keeping or omitting the Peace Prize remarks altogether) "I would have expected his opinions on anything Nobel related to be notable, but if they really didn't get media attention then absolutely fine to leave out." Accordingly, since both JeremyMiller and Absolutef have advocated removing the whole matter, I will withdraw my earlier objection to doing so. If this entails later driveby re-insertions, we can deal with those when/if they occur. Of course if the China/Peace Prize matter later becomes a subject of media interest, or if Geim were to continue to discuss this publicly, the material would become more relevant to the article than it is now. betsythedevine (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Argumentum ad numerum. The fact that she, JeremyMiller, you and Absolutef think the exchange should be removed doesn't mean either a legitimate reason is given as to why the removal of the exchange should happen or a consensus about this issue established based on just the views of four people. I have responded to your argument on the noticeboard, but to summarize my opinions there here, I reiterate my point that your arguments for either deleting or reporting only the remarks of Geim are confusing. Fellytone (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)