Talk:Tim Wise/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

"Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists."

Content of Wikipedia needs to be relevant. If indeed Tim Wise's synagogue was attacked by white supremacists when he was a child, then that is relevant. It would be an important part of anyone's biography, let alone someone who dedicated his career to allegedly fighting white supremacists. But was it or was it not?! If it was - provide a proper proof! I would add here, that, presumably, if a synagogue was attacked by white supremacists, there would be sufficient evidence - media reports etc. - to prove this claim, apart from Mr Wise's own say-so. Yet, interestingly, none is offered. So is it all a hoax, or maybe a great exaggeration of a very minor, non-issue, event (such as someone saying something)? In that case, Tim Wise is a con-artist for making that claim. So, which of the following is it? (a) A very relevant event which very much belongs in this entry, and one which would, quite undoubtedly, be very easy to prove, yet for some reason no one seems to have been able to do so this entry, interestingly enough? or: (b) A major exaggeration which says more about Mr Wise's integrity than anything about white supremacists. In other words, an attack which never occurred, yet very much suits Mr Wise's narrative about white supremacists. If it is (a), please provide evidence and don't leave it with "Mr Wise says...". If it is (b), then simply remove the above sentence (see section headline) from the article.

In any case, to write "Mr Wise says that ... [a certain event happened]" is totally improper. It leaves open the question of whether the event did happen or Mr Wise is a bit of a liar.

That is why I suggest that, until evidence is presented either way, the above sentence should be removed, as it creates more questions than answers, and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.188 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is the policy: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion See also: WP:UNDUE and WP:PAGEDECIDE Shortcut: WP:ONUS While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Based on the policy quoted above and on my arguments earlier: "Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists" - is verifiable but not improve the article. Because, so what if he only says that?! If he or anyone else can verify NOT THAT HE MADE THE CLAIM, but the veracity of the claim - that would be both verifiable AND relevant. Until someone can prove the CLAIM ITSELF, I say we leave it all out. Opinions please, before I remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.188 (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:TL;DR
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think what you're saying is "We can't take Wise's word about what happened; without independent sources, we need to remove the sentence about white supremacists attacking his synagogue." Why? What Wikipedia policy or guideline requires that? Regarding the use of self-published sources, WP:Biographies of living persons says:
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
See WP:BLPSELFPUB. Do you feel the sentence fails any of these criteria? Let's discuss. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am the same person from above (though my signature may be different): According to your quote, "Such material may be used as a source only if... it is not unduly self-serving;" . Therefore, it will be sufficient grounds for me to use as criteria for the removal of the sentence, if I demonstrate that it is "unduly self-serving". Let me try to establish that it is, in fact, "unduly self-serving".


I refer you to the term Perception management (PM). Wikipedia is, as usual, much more knowledgeable than me, but let me quote a bit from the entry of PM. (My quote is heavily-edited, but you can use the above link to go to the entry to verify that I did not necessarily distort meanings):

Perception management is a term originated by the US military. The US Department of Defense (DOD) gives this definition: Actions to convey ... selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their... objective reasoning ... ultimately resulting in ... behaviors ... actions favorable to the originator's objectives. ... perception management combines ... deception... ... Factors that influence the target: ... Ambiguity: a lack of clarity. If ambiguity increases, the perceiver may find it harder to form an accurate perception ..." Based on the above (admittedly, heavily edited) quote, you may use ambiguity to manipulate the listener to create perception management which suggests an impression which is, actually, false.

That is exactly what I accuse the sentence that I propose to remove does: it suggests, using not evidence but ambiguous language, that a certain event occurred. For the casual, skim-reader, the sentence "Wise has said that when he was 9 years old his Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." would sound close enough, and register in their mind as, "when he was 9 years old Wise's Synagogue was attacked by white supremacists." Agreed? Do you agree that for a casual and/or careless reader, skim-reading through this sentence, this may occur?

If that confusion was deliberate, is that PM which is "unduly self-serving"? Absolutely!

No doubt that Mr Wise's narrative and argument is positively enhanced by the belief of the community in the occurence of such an event, whether or not that has indeed happened. I hope you are still with me.

If that (the attack on his synagogue) has happened, then there is nothing I can do about it: Mr Wise wins the day! His argument is enhanced by the facts.

But notice that there is no evidence that this event occurred, or at least none is offered here. However, this lack of evidence is somewhat obscured, isn't it(?), by the fact that it is true that Mr Wise said that he seen it, which creates the ambiguity which I alluded to earlier: the uncertainty of did it really happen or not? - That is an ambiguity which may exist in the mind of the reader, without the reader being conscious of it, and consequently they may come to the conclusion - which is not accurate, based on the evidence offered, or lack thereof - that Mr Wise's synagogue has, in fact, been attacked. That would be self-serving for Mr Wise, but would be only PM, and nothing more.

So, sorry. Not good enough for me: in simple words, my position is "put up or shut up", i.e., either put up the evidence that his synagogue was indeed attacked, or don't mention this claim at all.

I hope the above starts to articulate my position. 125.255.40.126 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
As for developing consensus on whether to include or exclude the sentence under discussion, put me down in the
INCLUDE column. The fact that Wise claims his synagogue was attacked when he was a youth, regardless of the veracity of the claim, is informative to me about the subject of this article, Tim Wise. If I want to get factual, verifiable information about attacks on synagogues, I'll look for that in a more appropriate article where it is conveyed in Wikipedia's voice. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Was hoping that other people would jump in and contribute to this section.
As for the topic: to include or not to include - that is the question. Here is my take:
Tim Wise is someone who based his entire career on criticizing White Power, White Privilege and White supremacist. If indeed his synagogue was attacked by white supremacists - that is a hugely important detail in his biography.
However, instead of stating simply that this has occurred, the only thing stated is that Tim Wise says that this has occurred. That is already weird. Furthermore, using Google, I tried to find any verification from other sources to this alleged attack. Not only did I find nothing from other sources. Interestingly, I have found nothing from Tim Wise HIMSELF written about this, INCLUDING IN HIS BOOK (in Google Books) - a more than 100 pages book detailing his childhood and multiple references to his synagogue and white supremacists. I repeat, nothing at all. The only reference to this claim is allegedly a claim made verbally during an interview. If indeed a synagogue was attacked, you would expect to find sufficient evidence, yet you barely find any evidence that Tim Wise himself said it. A man that penned books, essays and letters (including one to the Jewish community which mentions, generally, "synagogues desecrated"), never ever puts into writing what should be a very key event in his life, which both explains his activism and lends weight to his claims. - NOT ONE WRITTEN REFERENCE from Tim Wise himself, nor from anyone else.
Suspicious, no?
Therefore, I would say that the attack ever happened is highly unlikely. In any case, if there was such an attack which mysteriously was never ever mentioned by any witness to it in writing, then the principle of verifiability should kick in: no evidence - leave it alone. The integrity of Wikipedia as a factual source for information should trump what is, actually, pretty worthless and meaningless statement: "a private person said that something happened". So What if a person made a claim about some event happening? Without the evidence such a claim is worthless. That is how such a thing would be treated in a court of law, and I suggest this is how it should be treated here.
The say-so of a person, or "hearsay" in legalese, is absolutely worthless. At least if you say that in court, the judge, while immediately dismissing the admissibility of such a claim, at least would not know whether that is true or not.
In this case, due to the fact that no one seems to be able to say confidently that the attack did happen, even though you would think that if it was true the claim would have appeared more than just once, then you can quite reasonably determine that it is not admissible, and with 99.99% never happened. Yet, leaving it there may leave the impression in the minds of some readers that it may have happened/ That may have been the intention all along, but we must appreciate that if it was, then this sentence is nothing but a cheap ploy to circumnavigate Wikipedia's principle of verifiability ("I can't prove that it happened - because it did not, but I can say for sure that I said that it happened" - if it was Mr Wise's own edit). I say for the integrity of Wikipedia remove this silly sentence.
Just to give you an example: if in an entry about some person, Mr John Doe, there is the statement that Mr John Doe claims to be the tallest man alive. This statement is totally irrelevant without any other source discussing the height of Mr John Doe. That sentence by itself, provide very little useful information, but creates confusion: Is Mr John Doe really very tall, or is he a liar. Claims should add information, not create additional vagueness and uncertainty. That is what the sentence in Tim Wise's entry does, and I propose to remove it therefore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.99 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If indeed his synagogue was attacked by white supremacists - that is a hugely important detail in his biography.
If you say so, but that's not the discussion. If you've found reliably sourced information which conveys his synagogue was indeed attacked, and conveys the importance of that event re: Wise, then you are encouraged to add that to the biography. As for the issue at hand, his claim...
So What if a person made a claim about some event happening? Without the evidence such a claim is worthless.
Incorrect. I find that information to be of value. Your mileage may vary. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
" I find that information to be of value". OK, do tell: what is the value of this information? How does this information enhance your understanding of the topic, namely Mr Wise? 1.129.96.224 (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The value to me is that it adds more understanding of what he says is the history behind his activism. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. It seems that there is no consensus to keep the silly sentence. Unless something changes I may remove it a bit later. 125.255.40.126 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Nightshift36, what is "sketchy" about using Wise for a quote by Wise? Are you implying a fake-Wise said it? And what is "controversial" about Mr. Jones said xxx? Mr. Wise could have said he was abducted by aliens from another dimension, and the sentence wouldn't be any less "right". I think I'm really going to enjoy your response. Remember, Just because something isn't true, doesn't mean the notable person didn't say it. It seems there is no consensus, or even a valid argument, for removing the sentence. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt that it was Wise, not an evil clone. But again, just because it was said, doesn't make it completely accurate. Just ask Brian Williams. He "remembered" a few things too.... What you essentially have is a guy telling a "war story" without any corroboration and we're saying it played a role in forming who he was. That's where it gets sketchy for me. If it were something inconsequential, I'd be less concerned but when it's a claim about an allegedly life-changing event, I'd like to see something corroborating. Was this attack reported anywhere? I'm not saying the event doesn't merit inclusion, just that it needs better sourcing. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but particularly in a BLP, isn't it more critical to have a consensus to include than a consensus to remove? Especially when the souring is primary. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Your Brian Williams analogy doesn't address our situation with Wise. As shown in sources like the one I linked below, attacks on synagogues by skinheads, Klansmen and other white supremacists did occur in that same time frame and area. Wise doesn't name individuals or a specific Klan group or a specific synagogue or a specific date or that he was present (if he did, and any of those details proved "sketchy", then we would have a Williams situation). Wise merely says, responding to a comment about how he started in his line of work, that he remembers an attack on his synagogue (which could be any in his geographic area for this purpose) as a youth, so he had "more than a passing familiarity" with such events because it was "close to home". Life-changing event? He remarks about it as part of many experiences that steered him toward his present work, but he doesn't claim he narrowly escaped a burning building or something. I'm just not seeing a need for any additional corroboration for a simple statement conveying that violence against a nearby religious institution played a part in influencing his path. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • For some reason you seem to have an issue with the word sketchy. Let's move past that. The Brian Williams analogy is valid. Williams was in fact in that war zone (Wise was in TN). Helicopters were in fact shot at.(you say synagogues were attacked). But Williams "misremembered" that he was in one of those helicopters and then used that as a claim about his experience. As it turned out, he wasn't in one of them. Are you telling me that it's impossible that Wise knew of an attack and "misremembered" being there, using it as a claim of his experience? If this were reported by a reliable third party source, I'd feel much better about it. Right now, as a completely uncorroborated story, I'm uncomfortable with it. Just being in an area where something happened isn't a good reference. A roll-over crash happen on the street by my office on Wednesday. I was in the area. I even witnessed the flipped over van. That doesn't mean I was personally involved in the crash. This wouldn't be the first time that someone "adopted" an incident that happened to someone else and used it to make themselves look more experienced etc. Let me ask you a different question.....will the article be that diminished by the removal of this single sentence? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I've no issue with the word "sketchy". In fact, I used it in my response. Moving on; the applicability of the Williams situation ceased when you noted, "But Williams 'misremembered' that he was in one of those helicopters and then used that as a claim about his experience." Wise makes no such claim. He doesn't claim he was in the synagogue when it was attacked. He doesn't even claim to have witnessed it, first hand. He merely refers to an attack on a synagogue as an event during his youth which left some impression on him. It probably would have left an impression on me, too, had I learned of such an event through news media from half a continent away — but in his words about the event, "it was very close to home". You appear to be trying to use Wise's childhood recollection as a basis for prosecuting a case on where and when and how a specific synagogue incident happened, which you simply aren't going to get from the cited source. The removal of that sentence won't diminish the article any more than removal of the sentence saying he was student body vice-president, or the removal of his middle name — but there is likewise no reason to remove those either. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The valid argument is that it is not important that he said that. If it is the onus is on you to argue why. It is the second time you havea chance to answer this question which I also asked you before and ideas of answering it you ignored it and replied to someone who didn't ask you anything. Looking forward to reading hit answer to my question.1.144.96.234 (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that it is not important, but more to the issue, I don't see a policy-based reason for removal of the content. You may not consider it "important" that a person has 2 daughters and a son, or was born in Hicksville, KS, or attended Smith High School, but information is added regardless. If the content was disputed as WP:UNDUE, as the policy you cited indicates, then the WP:ONUS would indeed be on the person looking to add it to the article. But that argument has not been made; and as the nature of Wise's comment under discussion bears directly upon the most notable aspect of Wise's work, I don't see how it can be argued as undue. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, ladies and gents. Let me summarize:
(1)Argument for removal: My argument is that Wikipedia is not some lousy cheap tabloid. You don't publicize completely unsubstantiated stories that contain substantive and serious allegations about White supremacists allegedly attacking Tim Wise synagogue when he was 9 any more than you publicize the claim of some white supremacist that when he/she was 9, Tim Wise attacked their church. You either provide a proof, or realize that stories belong in One Thousand and One Nights, but not in an encyclopedia. The argument(though possibly factually correct proof) that it is true that Tim Wise made this claim, and therefore attributing this claim to him is acceptable, is not sufficient argument to justify it remaining here: The relevant question is whether the synagogue attack occured or not. The mere fact that there is someone (and only one "someone") that said it does not make it relevant, nor significant in its own right. (Emphasis on the word "significant"!)
(2) As it is lack of consensus whether this sentence should stay or go, it should go, as per policy I quoted above. Reminder: WP:ONUS
While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
(3) If you dispute removing this sentence, please avoid edit wars. I tried to avoid them by giving this debate a good few days to roll along without touching the sentence. There is no consensus to keep the sentence, so it goes. If you dispute this removal, please do as me: refrain from touching the entry itself, but take it to dispute resolution.
Regards, 125.255.40.126 (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So have you come up with a policy-based reason for removing information from the article? (Other than your personal opinion that it isn't important to you?) WP:ONUS isn't it, unless the content is determined to be WP:UNDUE. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I just re-read your point (1): did you just equate a comment about unnamed white supremacists attacking a synagogue (something that has happened [1] Pgs. 284, 700, ...) with an accusation that a named living person attacked a church? Seriously? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Will address your points. (1) Firstly, you ask me a question based on reading my previous contribution in this page. May I assume that if you re-read my contribution, you have noticed that I asked you a simple question several times, which you fail to answer, and here you are demanding that I answer your question. Just a reminder, my question was as follows:
"I find that information to be of value". OK, do tell: what is the value of this information? How does this information enhance your understanding of the topic, namely Mr Wise?"
Would be interested to see you finally address this question. It would have been proper if you have done it before asking me your question. Oh, well, am not here to teach anyone manners, so let's move on.
(2) You write: "did you just equate a comment about unnamed white supremacists attacking a synagogue (something that has happened [ummm, no, it probably didn't - as I indicated, I am 99.99% sure that the claim by Mr Wise is nonsense, 58.106.253.97 (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)] with an accusation that a named living person attacked a church? Seriously?". My point was that playing games of unsubstatiated allegations is not proper, and just like Tim Wise does it, anyone else can do it and maybe we can leave this nonsenseto tabloids, rather than to a presumably serious and factual publication.
(3)Finally, to your main point, which is the most relevant to this entire discussion, namely: "So have you come up with a policy-based reason for removing information from the article?". The answer is yes. Actually, interestingly enough, this policy was already quoted in this very section, not by me, but by Malik Shabazz, who is the one who reversed my initial edit. I note that after I used his quoted policies to argue my case (against his reversal of my edit), he quit entirely this discussion. Anyway, for your benefit, I will repeat my arguement and even add a couple. Let's start with the policy quoted by Malik Shabazz:
Regarding the use of self-published sources, WP:Biographies of living persons says:
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
See WP:BLPSELFPUB. Do you feel the sentence fails any of these criteria?
"
That was the policy. I already argued above that it is "unduly self-serving". To the above argument I would argue that definitely it also fails the criteria of "it does not involve claims about third parties;", doesn't it? Tim Wise is accusing White supremacists of a serious crime. I would say that involves a third party (and one which Tim Wise has a long history of war with too, right, which would, additionally, further support the suggestion that it is self-serving)? So, anyway, this allegation against White supremacists by itself establishes my case.
Are we ready to remove this sentence now? 58.106.253.97 (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
To your question (1): already asked and answered above.
To your point # (2): There is nothing "tabloid" or "nonsense" about the comment (unless you are sitting on a source which says so, and aren't sharing), and it's cited, verified and relevant.
To your point # (3): The sentence is not unduly self-serving, nor does it involve an identifiable 3rd party. And if Malik Shabazz brought it up, I'd wager Malik feels the same. Nightshift36 didn't even mention it. I don't see a 'case' at all. But please do not take my word for it. You are encouraged to raise your concerns at the BLP Noticeboard and see what input you receive. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
To address the following (1) to (3) points.
(1) You write: "as the nature of Wise's comment under discussion bears directly upon the most notable aspect of Wise's work, I don't see how it can be argued as undue". The problem is, that while the claim mentioned in the comment indeed, as you correctly say, "bears directly upon the most notable aspect of Wise's work", it is unsubstantiated and as such, I maintain, belongs in the rubbish bin.I Will not elaborate on this because our discussion seems to go nowhere in relation to this point.
(2) A comment made by someone about an event (including, and, indeed, especially regarding hugely important event) is little more than tabloid gossip BS if it is not backed by evidence. Again, we don't seem to go anywhere here as well so am prepared to leave it at that.
(3) Here we arrive at the crux of the matter, the policies. You write "nor does it involve an identifiable 3rd party". Well if the 3rd party is not "identifiable" as you say, so here is my question: IF IT IS NOT "IDENTIFIABLE", THEN WHY DID MR WISE IDENTIFY THIS 3RD PARTY AS "WHITE SUPREMATISTS" (allegedly)?!
Maybe best to do as you suggest and try to resolve it at BLP Noticeboard. We are not getting far here between us, are we?
Regards, 58.106.253.97 (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
it is unsubstantiated and as such, I maintain, belongs in the rubbish bin.
Yeah, I understand that is your position. His claim that violence against a nearby religious institution had an influence on his early career path is adequately substantiated.
I Will not elaborate on this...
That is probably prudent, because this part of the conversation is veering really close to a debate over whether attacks by hate groups against religious institutions happens or not. And I'd rather not engage in such absurd debates.
A comment made by someone about an event ... is little more than tabloid gossip BS if it is not backed by evidence.
Incorrect. The only comment that he made about the event (an attack on a nearby synagogue by supremacists back around 1980) is that it happened, and historical record already shows that such events happened. If someone says "it rained on me when I was 9 years old and I caught a severe cold, so ever since that day I wear warm clothes and carry an umbrella when it rains", we don't then demand to see meteorological reports and medical records or conclude it must be just "tabloid gossip".
You write "nor does it involve an identifiable 3rd party".
Exactly. I think I see what is confusing you about that. Let me try to explain. The "Identifiable 3rd party" wording, as referred to in the WP:BLPSELFPUB policy we're discussing, refers to identifiable individuals (or small groups, wherein individuals can be identified). The goal of BLP policy is to avoid or prevent the publication of harmful unsubstantiated information about identifiable third parties. Information about non-descript groups such as "supremacists" or "an offshoot Klan group" or "skinheads" do not run afoul of this rule, whereas information about "Christopher David Fisher" or the "Los Angeles Fourth Reich Skinheads" would be much more restricted. WP:BLPGROUP summarizes this, but perhaps getting clarification on that specific point at BLP/N would clear some things up. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've beat me to the BLP Noticeboard, and already started a BLP/N Discussion. Thank you, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity

A recent edit added "Ethnicity = Jewish" to the infobox in this article. This appears to be an incomplete (read: inaccurate) addition to the article, and has been reverted per WP:BRD pending resolution of this discussion. It is also questionable to be adding an unsourced ethnicity to the infobox for a person primarily known for his crusade against racial prejudice, ethnic discrimination and identity stereotyping — but I won't speculate on possible motives. It is possible that the edit was completely innocent, if ill-considered.

Do we have a reliable source which states that the ethnicity of Tim Wise = "Jewish"? I see that one of his four grandparents was Jewish, and he has referred to himself as "Jewish", albeit anti-Zionist and non-religious. He has also referred to himself as "White" (which Wise considers an ethnicity), Russian, European, Scottish, Irish among other ethnic identifiers. It is likely to become a very crowded infobox field. Do we have a reliable source indicating not only his ethnicity, but the notability of that ethnicity? This subject has come up several times before (see the archives), including here, and the longstanding consensus has been to leave the ethnicity field blank. There is even an email correspondence (allegedly) from Wise in the archive where he is against describing him as of Jewish ethnicity. If there is a reason to revisit and reconsider this matter yet again, please present your concerns and justifications here rather than trying to edit-war your preferred problematic content into the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Is "Jewish" actually an ethnicity? Can you convert to Judaism and become Jewish? If a Jewish couple have a child, don't raise him to belong to any religion and he becomes a Muslim, is he Jewish? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked to our Wikipedia article for answers to some of your questions, and only ended up with more questions. Apparently, there are many different Jewish ethnic divisions, which only complicates matters further with regard to our infobox. All the more reason to have a reliable source to lay it out for us in specific detail regarding Mr. Wise. He has already self-identified as part of several different cultural groups. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic:, thanks for finally bringing this to the talk page after claiming twice in edit summaries that his Jewish ethnicity is not sourced in the article and now you have made such a claim a third time above. You finally decided to discuss after your third revert ("trying to edit-war your preferred problematic content"). And now you're even claiming that a "longstanding consensus has been to leave the ethnicity field blank" even though there is no such consensus (yes I have read the archives -- all of them). As for the "email correspondence" claiming that he "against describing him of Jewish ethnicity", the operative word there is allegedly; I don't think I need to explain why such a claim is worthless on Wikipedia. On a number of occasions publicly Wise has identified himself ethnically as Jewish. Combined that with his Jewish heritage and he can be considered Jewish ethnically. As for the "notability" of his being Jewish, we can debate that from now until the cows come home. He cites a formative event in his early life as the bombing of his synagogue by white supremacists; not "a" synagogue, his synagogue. There is precedent on Wikipedia for excluding ethnicity in the WP:LEAD if the notability is questionable. There is no such precedent for an infobox; the only guideline for the infobox is that it requires a reliable source, and this article has a reliable source.
@Niteshift36:, Judaism is a religion that some Jews practice. "Jewish" is an ethnicity. The two are not identical. Sundayclose (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Except that there are a number of ethnic divisions for Jews, aren't there? So is it that simple? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ethnic subdivisions are irrelevant to the discussion of whether Wise is Jewish. Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and all other subdivisions are still ethnically Jews. Sundayclose (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
We should try to keep this discussion factual, if we are to be productive and come to a resolution.
...claiming twice in edit summaries that his Jewish ethnicity is not sourced in the article...
Incorrect. I did not. Here are my two edit summaries for your review: (should first be substantiated in body of article) and (from article: "More to the point, and as regards myself, my Jewish lineage extends only on my Y-chromosome, that is to say, my paternal paternal line, as three of my four grandparents are of Northern European and decidedly non-Jewish derivation") — perhaps you have me confused with another editor. And I just checked our article again, and nowhere in the body of the article is his ethnicity substantiated (and I did a word-search for "ethnicity" to be certain).
...you have made such a claim a third time above
Incorrect. The first and only time I've asked for a source for his ethnicity was just above. I'm not sure if your confusion is related to reading or counting, but regardless, hopefully it is clearer for you now.
You finally decided to discuss after your third revert...
Incorrect. Again, I'm not sure if your confusion stems from counting or reading difficulties, but regardless, please know that I opened discussion here after my second revert, as the edit history chronology shows.
you're even claiming that a "longstanding consensus has been to leave the ethnicity field blank" even though there is no such consensus
Incorrect. Per policy: Consensus can be assumed if no editors object to a change. The field has been blank since last year, which is longstanding consensus (and before that change, the field contained "Caucasian"). The last suggested change discussed on this Talk page was to remove the Ethnicity field altogether (over a year ago), which received no objection. Consensus can change, of course, which is why we are revisiting the subject here.
I don't think I need to explain why such a claim is worthless on Wikipedia.
Partially Incorrect. Information and concerns voiced by the (verified) subject of Wikipedia BLPs are anything but "worthless", and are taken very seriously, however, you are correct that your explanations aren't needed here. No one has suggested using private communications from the subject, and I mentioned the email only as a point of interest. We have instances where Wise calls himself "White", "Jewish", "Caucasian", "of European lineage", "my Jewish-Whiteness", ... but no reliable source (to date) conveys what his ethnicity is. And if our Wikipedia article on ethnicity is to be believed, one can even leave one ethnicity and become part of another, or be multi-ethnic. As I requested above: Do we have a reliable source which states that the ethnicity of Tim Wise = "Jewish"? (...and just "Jewish"?)
On a number of occasions publicly Wise has identified himself ethnically as Jewish. [...] the only guideline for the infobox is that it requires a reliable source, and this article has a reliable source
Well then ... problem solved! Let's see your reliable source, please. I see many occasions where he says he is Jewish, among other identities, but I missed the one where he "identified himself ethnically as Jewish." He certainly acknowledges a bit of Jewish ancestry (a grandparent), and cultural exposure, but he has also complained about attempts to pigeonhole him as Jewish. Hey, wait a minute, he has frequently complained about e-thugs on websites who: "like to point out especially that I am … wait for it … Jewish." (Source from our article.)
As for the "notability" of his being Jewish, we can debate that from now until the cows come home.
I'll pass, thanks. However, do we have a reliable source indicating not only his ethnicity, but the notability of that ethnicity? Now that would require discussion, but we first need to produce a reliable source conveying exactly what his ethnicity (or multi-ethnicity) is, before we can have that discussion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: I will not dignify with a response your WP:Wikilawyering and hair-splitting about whether Wise's self-identification as a Jew and his Jewish heritage is sufficient to determine that he is a Jew (as is the case with numerous articles about Jews), nor to your statement that you did not claim that his Jewish ethnicity is not sourced in the article (your edit summaries can speak for themselves to anyone who can understand English), nor to your claim that you have not yourself done the edit warring that you accuse others of doing, nor to your false claim that there is a "long-standing consensus" that ethnicity should not be in the infobox. So far in the current consensus discussion you seem to be the only one arguing that his clearly sourced Jewish ethnicity should be removed, whereas the editor whose edit you originally reverted and I are in favor of including his Jewish ethnicity. So I'm finished refuting your false claims, and we'll wait to see if there is any further comment here that might sway the consensus in your direction. Otherwise you have no consensus, including your self-proclaimed "long-standing consensus". Sundayclose (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Since you specifically called for more participation of people who agree with User:Xenophrenic, I’ll chime in. Yes, we have plenty of sources of Wise mentioning that he's Jewish or has Jewish lineage, etc., but why does that need to be singled out in the infobox? And if we accept that Wise is ethnically Jewish, how do we know that that is his ethnicity and not merely an ethnicity of his? -- Irn (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a valid question. Is that his only ethnicity? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is a valid question as to whether he has more than one ethnicity. People can have multiple ethnicities, and two or more ethnicities can overlap; they are not mutually exclusive. Wise has identified himself as Jewish, and he has identified himself as White (which he considers an ethnicity). There is no prohibition against including more than one ethnicity in an infobox if they are adequately sourced. So far we have adequate sourcing for his Jewish ethnicity. An important factor here is that he self-identifies with an ethnicity. He has identified as Jewish. He has identified as White. Are there any others and do we have sources? Sundayclose (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Wise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tim Wise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Wise/Archive_2&oldid=1092242648"