SlimVirgin violates 3RR Rule Options

[nobs]

SlimVirgin has violated the 3RR despite several users presentation of well sourced material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

[blissyu2]

It reminds me of the mess with the Jewish lists (Antidote, Poetlister, Lulu and Slim Virgin), although in that case it was mostly Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters behaving like this, but with Slim Virgin backing him up (and Jayjg opposing them both, for people who think that Jayjg and Slim Virgin are best buddies). Just odd that its the same behaviour. Perhaps Slim Virgin needs a lesson on what sourced material means. She seems to be not accepting anything.

[Lir]

It reminds me of the mess with the Jewish lists (Antidote, Poetlister, Lulu and Slim Virgin), although in that case it was mostly Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters behaving like this, but with Slim Virgin backing him up (and Jayjg opposing them both, for people who think that Jayjg and Slim Virgin are best buddies). Just odd that its the same behaviour. Perhaps Slim Virgin needs a lesson on what sourced material means. She seems to be not accepting anything.

She just didn't understand the importance of getting as many Jews as possible listed in Wikipedia.

[jorge]

She just didn't understand the importance of getting as many Jews as possible listed in Wikipedia.

GraceNote, why can you not see that the vast majority of people contributing to these lists are doing so for positive reasons. Do you really want a situation where we are not allowed to mention that anyone who did anything positive in history was Jewish? I have seen people attempting to edit the lists who are probably anti semitic but their edits are almost always completely inaccurate. Personally I am interested in British jewish history because I discovered a Jewish connection in my family- I see absolutely nothing wrong with listing Jewish people by occupation as I would have no problem with listing other ethnic groups who did or do not have a state of their own.

[Lir]

GraceNote, why can you not see that the vast majority of people contributing to these lists are doing so for positive reasons.

One could reasonably ask why the editors in question seem unaware that those reasons are not seen as positive by some others. I think some of the editors are frankly insensitive. Others I am deeply suspicious of. It is hard to assume good faith of someone who insists that Jack Straw should be considered Jewish because he had a Jewish greatgrandparent. I am deeply suspicious of people who want to draw up lists of Jews and fight to maximise them.

I am deeply suspicious of editors who wish to include Matt Busby -- not identified as Jewish in any reputable source (and here is a man who has had a great deal written about him) -- in a list of Jews because he was of "Lithuanian Jewish origin". Deeply, deeply suspicious. Because how can those editors not be aware that "Jewishness" is not like "Lithuanianness"? Particularly when Jewish editors have pointed it out to them, more than once, and the article itself carries a link to an article that makes it absolutely explicit.

Above and beyond any discussion of who is or is not Jewish, Wikipedia outlaws original research. Any internal criteria for "deciding who's Jewish" are not allowed. That some editors want criteria that are looser than Hitler's is quite astonishing.

I don't see anything wrong with being described as a Jew. I don't mind it. Why would I? I don't have feelings about Jews any other than I do about any other human being. I get called all kinds of things anyway and none of it bothers me. Some of the trolls here seem to think it's "antisemitic" to oppose the listing of Jews though. I can only assume that they do not understand the reasons for opposition, and that the notion that it is positive in itself for people to be listed as Jews is not supported by some.

Do you really want a situation where we are not allowed to mention that anyone who did anything positive in history was Jewish?

I want a situation in which we simply report what our sources say, jorge. No more, no less. I recently edited the piece on Joseph Rotblat, a great man, and without question Jewish. I edited the piece to make clear that he was Jewish and not "of Jewish origin" (which is plain nonsense). I have absolutely no problem with our stating that he was Jewish, and if you insist on drawing up lists of people of one type or another, I would not strike him out of a List of Jewish Foos, although I dislike Lists of foos a great deal. It can readily be sourced that Rotblat was Jewish. I don't need to rely on some bullshit source or tenuous inquisitorial process. I don't either need to use myself as a source, although I knew Rotblat personally.

I have seen people attempting to edit the lists who are probably anti semitic but their edits are almost always completely inaccurate.

I saw what seemed almost like an inquest into Tom Baker.

The bottom line is, we should only say someone is Jewish if a reputable source says so. It doesn't matter whether Tom Baker's grandpa once went to a bar mitzvah or some website says Sharon Osbourne's dad was Jewish. Once you start working out whether someone is Jewish or not, you're doing original research -- using sources to support your thesis, not simply restating someone else's thesis. That is not allowed in Wikipedia and I think rightly so.

Personally I am interested in British jewish history because I discovered a Jewish connection in my family

Fine. I'm not disparaging an interest in British Jewish history. I'm saying, don't add people to the list unless a reputable source says they are Jewish. Not says they have a Jewish dad. Not says they were of Jewish origin. Says they are Jewish.

Your list is not a list of people who might have a Jewish skeleton in the cupboard, jorge. It's not a list of people who you personally consider Jewish. It should not go even close to being either of those things.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with listing Jewish people by occupation as I would have no problem with listing other ethnic groups who did or do not have a state of their own.

Whether there is anything wrong with the lists as objects in themselves is entirely moot. Let's say there is not. Let's say that the consensus is that there may be lists of people by ethnicity or whatever. Okay.

Now we are at the question. Who's in, who's out? In is anyone who is called the thing in question by a reputable source. Out is anyone who isn't. End of discussion. Any other discussion about who is of a particular ethnicity or nationality is simply original research and barred from Wikipedia. Now that policy -- one I strongly believe in and adhere to -- might be difficult to enforce on pages such as List of British Jews, because editors with differing motives oppose its enforcement fiercely, but it remains applicable to that page.

It's a question of being encyclopaedic. If you know that someone is/was Jewish and refuse to add them to the appropriate list because "there are enough Jews listed already" or some such nonsense, is that appropriate behaviour for Wikipedia?

There is room for discussion about who counts as a Jew for this purpose, but there is a reasonably settled status quo on this at present, and we should abide by this unless and until there is agreement to change it. Lulu's view that a name can only be on a list of the article clearly says that the person is Jewish is obviously nonsense, as are the suggestions that only people who are 100% Jewish or practising Jews are eligible.

Unfortunately, there are editors who do not want these lists, and will use any ruse to delete names from them or indeed entire lists. Good examples are the attempt to convert the List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society to a List of Fellows of the Royal Society, and the deletion of Max Born from the List of British Jews and Riesz from the List of Swedish Jews because they weren't born in Britain/Sweden (though Riesz lived in Sweden for over 60 years).

Next, I suppose we'll see swathes of articles about Jews flagged as non-notable.

This is close to too demented to answer. It's totally fucking simple. If you want to add Riesz to a "List of Swedish Jews" you find a reputable source that says he was a Swedish Jew. I don't suppose anyone would take umbrage if you found a separate source for each of "Swedish" and "Jewish", so long as both were reputable. There is no "room for discussion" whatsoever. Wikipedia simply restates what other sources state. It's an encyclopaedia not an inquisition.


No one is "flagging" anything as non-notable. No one is trying to exclude Jews from Wikipedia. The suggestion is absolutely ludicrous, particularly because you are making it of editors, such as SlimVirgin and IZAK, who have added many articles about Jews and Jewish issues, and are themselves Jews.

[guy]

If you want to add Riesz to a "List of Swedish Jews" you find a reputable source that says he was a Swedish Jew. I don't suppose anyone would take umbrage if you found a separate source for each of "Swedish" and "Jewish", so long as both were reputable. There is no "room for discussion" whatsoever. Wikipedia simply restates what other sources state. It's an encyclopaedia not an inquisition.

No one is "flagging" anything as non-notable. No one is trying to exclude Jews from Wikipedia. The suggestion is absolutely ludicrous, particularly because you are making it of editors, such as SlimVirgin and IZAK, who have added many articles about Jews and Jewish issues, and are themselves Jews.

There are excellent references that Riesz was Jewish and that he lived in Sweden for over 60 years. Doesn't that make him a Swedish Jew?

And can Grace Note please be consistent and provide sources that SAlimVirgin and IZAK are Jewish. Unless and until these are provided, he can't, by his own logic, claim that they are Jewish.

[Lir]

There are excellent references that Riesz was Jewish and that he lived in Sweden for over 60 years. Doesn't that make him a Swedish Jew?

Guy, you simply don't understand something fundamental about Wikipedia. And you don't understand it no matter how many times it's explained to you. I'll try once more.

Wikipedia restates what other sources say. It's not allowed to do original research. This effectively means two things: one, you cannot write about your personal theory unless it is reported in a reputable source, and then you can only say those things about it that the source says (the second part is crucial -- you can't just say "Well, the Guardian mentions Mimsiology, so here's my theory of mimsies in full"); two, you cannot take material from sources and fabricate a novel thesis or use it to make a case of your own devising. Guy, it's your belief that having lived in Sweden for 60 years makes a person Swedish. You use the having lived in Sweden to prove your thesis that the person is Swedish. Are you seeing that? It's breathtakingly simple and whoever invented the policy was smart, because if we followed it, there simply could not be the argument over who is a foo. By the way, even if you found a source that said "living in Sweden for 60 years makes you Swedish", you would still fall foul of NOR. As I said, you cannot make new theories from your sources. It is not permitted to take two facts and create a third. Wikipedia should simply never innovate. If no one has ever said Riesz is a Swedish Jew, Wikipedia should not. It's that simple.

And can Grace Note please be consistent and provide sources that SAlimVirgin and IZAK are Jewish. Unless and until these are provided, he can't, by his own logic, claim that they are Jewish.

I am not writing Wikipedia articles about Slim or about IZAK.

[Lir]

By the way, even if you found a source that said "living in Sweden for 60 years makes you Swedish", you would still fall foul of NOR.

Does anyone take this seriously? I mean, duh, if you live in Sweden for 60 years, you are certainly Swedish, at least Swedish-something; but yet, he says that even if you find a source that agrees with you, that you still can't make that claim? wtf? What is this argument about? Who could seriously claim that someone who lived in Sweden for 60 years, doesn't belong on a list of Swedes? Wait, hold on, should we delete all lists, unless they are copied verbatim from another list? Afterall, the lists are 'original research'!!!

Why, omg, I think we should require that every word in every article be cited, and Wikipedia should be nothing but a collection of quotes; hey, you can't just read things like "George Bush is the current President of the United States" and think you are an expert capable of knowing that this means he is a politician -- like, maybe it means that 'George Bush' is a popular nickname for an oceanic current more formerly known as 'President of the United States'. These are very important ethical issues for Grace Note and I, because if everyone starts doing their own original research, and making connections wily-nily, who knows what could happen!

NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH!