User talk:Wedineinheck

Welcome!

Hi Wedineinheck! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! VanTucky ^(talk) 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More unsolicited suggestions

Sorry to pile the assigned reading on a new editor, but Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset explains the rules you'll most need to know. Plowing ahead without knowing these conventions is also an option.

If you choose the latter, try to take user warnings in good humor, and ask questions when you don't understand. Perspicacite may not have assumed good faith, but he wasn't just picking a fight either. His intentions were good, and he was trying to do the right thing for Wikipedia.

In situations like this, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks will help smooth things out. / edg ☺ ★ 09:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. I am definitely convinced, however, that Perspicacite was trying to pick a fight. I am absolutely not interested about this character, however, and do not wish to further discuss him. Personally, I hate conflicts, and have no time to waste with such individuals. Wedineinheck 10:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the page, I'll have a look. I am definitely convinced, however, that Perspicacite was trying to pick a fight. I am absolutely not interested about this character, however, and do not wish to further discuss him. Personally, I hate conflicts, and have no time to waste with such individuals. As for my own comments, they were indeed made stricly defensively. As english is not my first language, they may have seemed too unsubtle, but reflect the fact that I did not believe in my contradictor's good faith either. Best, Wedineinheck 10:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me. I think when you get a sense of how complex things can be, you'll have a better idea of where Perspicacite was coming from. It's hard to understand people's intentions sometimes.

I hope the Simplified ruleset helps you a lot. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ★ 10:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

anticommunisme

Hello JJG, j'ai un peu de mal avec ta catégorisation en anticommunisme : Chirac ? VGE ? Apollon 19:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oui mais Chirac et VGE n'étaient pas des militants anticommunistes (Chirac distribua un temps l'Huma, VGE a été plutôt complaisant avec l'URSS). De façon générale c'est un peu le bric à brac :) Peut-être suffirait-il de rajouter des noms. Apollon 15:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Cat Sassoon

Hi,

I wasn't sure if that was how to answer you back, so I hope this is correct. Anyway, I'm not sure on the "karate champ" credit to be honest. I do know she was in a few movies about karate or kung-fu, but to my knowledge, she wasn't an expert. There's very little about her life online and IMDb doesn't have her credited as an expert in any of her films. She might have studied it, but again, I have no info on that. Out of curiosity, where did you get this info? If it's a reliable source and it says anything about her studying karate, please feel free to add it to the article. By the way, thanks for adding the "also known as Cat" to the Catya Sassoon article. I completely missed that bit of info. Pinkadelica 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, now I'm confused! lol I have no idea if she was actually a karate champ. The movie poster/cover & preview says so (thanks for supplying that), but I can find nothing to back up this claim. I've been looking up some things about the movie and nothing confirms that she even studied karate, let alone became a champ. The reviews for the movie basically say the fight scenes she was in were lame, and a man in drag did most of her stunts. I'd like to think a movie can't make a claim like that because surely someone would get sued so, I just don't know. I'd love to have it in the article if it were true, but without at least one reliable source, I'd feel uncomfortable writing it in. If you can find anything to back it up, please let me know. Pinkadelica 09:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL That's hilarious that they've never heard of her! I can't believe they answered you so quickly. So old Roger lied, huh? Why doesn't that surprise me? To be honest, she didn't strike me as a karate champ type which was why I was totally puzzled at your question at first. I mean, it's possible that she could've been, but judging from the trailer, she didn't look all that proficient in karate. Bad boob jobs, yeah, but not karate. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though, I'm renting the movie just to see how bad it really is. Supposedly you can really tell when Cat's stunt double is used. Nothing wrong with a stunt double because, as you said, it's standard practice, but it's always funny when it's completely obvious. Pinkadelica 10:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research on Unsung Heroes (film)

The article should contain facts which are backed up by reliable written sources, not independent inferences based on examination of photos. Second, there's no need to take a didactic tone and correct allegedly common misconceptions. Simply report the facts as they are. Cheers, cab 23:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Since Korea Web Weekly (which isn't really worth the electrons its printed on, but is apparently our only source of information) misidentified that picture as being Jenkins, they might also have

1. Put the wrong picture up in the first place (i.e. it's not Klaus)
2. Put the wrong actor's name (i.e. the part isn't played by Son)
3. Or he could just be wearing a wig and a hell of a lot of makeup (as the Style Weekly article indicates was done) and we can't tell because the picture is so bad.

Also, given that this [1] article about mixed race people in North Korea specifically talks about Nameless Heroes and Shu Ok-soon as an example, I'd be surprised they didn't mention Son too if he were Eurasian. Cheers, cab 09:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Chick drawing - Image:Jack-chick.gif

No, Jimmy Akin didn't contact me; the permission can be found here. Currently, fair use is being claimed for the image; I even listed it for review and it was approved (though before the current fair use policies came into force). Since Jack Chick doesn't appear in public, a free image of him is unlikely to be created. (But if you want to contact the author and ask the image to be released under a free license, go ahead.) - Mike Rosoft 09:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cat Sassoon article

Hi. The reason I removed the info about Cat Sassoon not actually holding the title that the Angelfist movie claims she does (finally rented it by the way, it's AWESOME) is because it's considered original research. Since you personally contacted the World Kickboxing Association, you researched that info. Even though I'm sure it's correct, original research is not allowed and it can't be included. If say, a reliable third party publication had done that same investigative research and found the same thing, we could include it. Plus, it's unsourced and in a way, a bit irrelevant. I'm in the process of collecting articles about her and if I come across this information, I'll be sure to include it. If you feel the information should in fact be included or if you have what you feel is a reliable a source or if you just don't agree with me, please feel free to consult a third party or contact an administrator. If you have any questions, please let me know. Pinkadelica (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for adding the reference! Pinkadelica (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are addressed on the article's talk page, which is where this conversation should be taking place. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pieck and Heuss

It is absurd to say that Doenitz was the predecessor of Heuss and Pieck in their respective positions. Even assuming we recognise the legitimacy of Hitler appointing Doenitz as president (which no-one did at the time), he was President of the German Reich, a state which ceased to exist when the Allies assumed control of Germany. Heuss and Pieck were the first presidents of two new states, the BRD and the DDR respectively. This Wikipedia fetish for bogus "predecessors" is very tiresome. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So did Heuss or Pieck succeed Doenitz as President of Germany? Or both simultaneously? To ask the question is to show the absurdity of the proposition. And what about Karl Renner (President of Austria from 1945)? Since Doenitz was President of the Greater German Reich, was he also Renner's predecessor? No, the correct position is that the German Reich ceased to exist in 1945, and that Doenitz had no successors. In 1949 two new states were created on German territory, neither of which was the constitutional heir of the Reich. (In fact one could make a case that Doenitz's successor was Richard von Weizsäcker, the first president after the legal termination of the four-power occupation. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In that case Doenitz should be deleted, since he didn't actually administer anything, except in his capacity as Navy Commander. That would make Heuss and Pieck the successors to Hitler, which I'm sure would delight both of them. Germany was de facto and de jure administered by the four Allied commissioners from 1945 to 1949. They have a better case to be regarded as Heuss and Pieck's predecessors than does Doenitz. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If a state ceases to exist, then its head of state has no successor. I will grudgingly acknowledge that Doenitz should be regarded as Hitler's legal successor, although strictly speaking the Weimar Constitution was still in force and Hitler had no power, even under the Enabling Act, to appoint his successor, but when the German Reich ceased to exist so did the position of head of state of the German Reich, and that position has never been revived. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice the article President of Germany simply ignores the GDR and treats the FRG as the sole heir of the prewar German state. I have commented on this at the Talk page. You might have an opinion on this. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well (grumble grumble grumble). I won't argue the point further. Long experience at Wikipedia has taught me that logic always loses out to stubbornness. :) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Robert Irvine as Impostor

Hi! I've recently reverted your addition of the category Impostors to the article on Robert Irvine. While I can see he might be perceived that way, it's really not accurate. Irvine did not pretend to be something that he's not, ie. he didn't represent himself as a chef when he isn't. He's a legitimate, and talented, chef who specializes in cooking for large groups of people. That point isn' even at issue. Instead, what he's done in embroider the truth regarding where he cooked and some of his credentials, which really doesn't fit the commonly understood definition of an impostor. Best, Drmargi 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Guignols de l'Info - NPOV problems

Bonjour,

Je viens de lire l'article anglais auquel vous avez contribué et me demande si vos ajouts ne posent pas des problèmes de neutralité : "The show's treatment of Nicolas Sarkozy has been criticized as being excessively partisan, agressive and humorless": cette sentence n'est appuyée que par deux liens vers des forums, à mon sens peu valide dans l'estimation de la perception du public. La répétition de "partisan" à deux reprises sur quelques lignes ressemble également à du matraquage.

D'autre part, j'ai été assez amusé de vous voir vous lancer, dans un chapitre nommé "Neutrality problems", dans un discours particulièrement "aggressif" envers l'émission, vous faisant malheureusement tomber dans le travers que vous critiquez :

"The show has definitely become ultra-leftist in tone, and their anti-americanism has been downright hateful for some years now. IMHO, they have become some of the unfunniest, biggest demagogue shits on french television."

Enfin, je souhaitais vous assurer de mon admiration pour votre fluidité dans ces deux langues, ainsi que votre ample travail de précision dans certains ajouts que vous apportez. Bien que je sois d'accord avec vous sur de nombreux points (sur la malhonnêteté intellectuelle des auteurs notamment - voir leurs critiques de la mise en berne des drapeaux lors de la mort de Jean-Paul II, pourtant souverain du Vatican), je pense que les ajouts que vous avez apporté à cet article précis lui sont nuisibles.

Cordialement

Gabknight2005 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Racial category

Copied from my talk

Hi,

before deciding that there was "no evidence" that Sidney Tamiia Poitier was of mixed race, you should have checked a picture of her mother. As for Joakim Noah, his biography states that he is of "Swedish, French, and Cameroonian" descent. Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 19:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on several levels. First, the onus is on the editor wishing to include information to produce a reliable source if challenged. Second, the use of pictures like this appears to constitute original research, something we are forbidden to do. Thirdly, I have to admit, I found the addition of this category to be very indiscriminate; in most of the cases I looked at there was no evidence that the subject had identified as being of the "Afro-caucasian race". All in all, given the existence of WP:BLP and the other policies I have pointed you too, I would continue to remove such categories. Best wishes, --John (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, well, since the biographies of people such as Melanie Brown, Lenny Kravitz, et.al. explicitely state that one of their parents was white and the other black, I don't see where the lack of evidence lies. Considering that the ethnicity of Ms Shimkus (which is an extremely well documented fact, as she performed in many movies) is not a reliable evidence and constitutes original research is rather mind-boggling. As for the use of the "Afro-Caucasian" terminology, since the term "mulatto" is debatable and since there already was an "Afro-Caucasians" category, I assume that this is the most correct expression. If you disagree, however, I'd have no problem in creating a "Mulattos" category, but this would create more tensions, I guess. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As for George Washington Carver, I admit that I have no evidence of his mixed ancestry other than the wikipedia article, which I trusted. If he was not a mulatto, then he should be removed as an example in the mulatto article. But before yelling that "this is unacceptable", shouldn't you "assume good faith" ? Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tensions is right, I am glad you recognise that this is a delicate area to get into. I would not recommend creating a category called "Mulattos", and neither would I recommend adding any more unverified racial categories to articles, especially those on living people. Supposing it was you? That you were notable enough to have an article on yourself. Somebody looks at a picture of your father and a picture of your mother, and decides you are of mixed race. They post this description of you to a website. You are annoyed, never having considered yourself this way (after all, race is not a very scientific construct, but more of a social one). I would say that the category properly belongs on Barack Obama because the subject has verifiably identified as belonging to this category, and it is relevant to much of what coverage there has been on him. Thus he can stay in the category. Likewise, if you wish to add this to the Kravitz article, it should be easy for you to find books or other reputable sources which call him this. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of "everybody knows", however mind-boggling you may find it. Good luck, --John (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't yelling by the way. It was naive of you to use Wikipedia as a source, but you may assume the assumption of good faith in this case. --John (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering that there was already an "Eurasians" category, I found it a pity that this particular type of mixed ethnicity was not granted its own category. Hence the "Afro-Caucasians" category, which already existed, by the way (I just created the "people" subcategory). However, in the vast majority of cases, this is a well-known, well-documented fact, and already referenced in their bios. Nothing judgemental about it, on the contrary : I think that Mariah Carey's or Alicia Keys' mixed ethnicity is part of their appeals for many fans, Barack Obama's plays a large role in his public image. As for Carver, I knew nothing of the man, and just stumbled upon him while filling the category. Since the fact is admittedly unreferenced, I just removed him from the "mulatto" article. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

However, as this edit makes clear, I think you may be in need of some coaching regarding your behaviour. We do not use edit summaries that contain "Can't you read ?" on this project. Best wishes, --John (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was annoyed at this point, since I considered that YOU were being incivil : Alicia Keys' mixed ethnicity is very well documented in her bio, so this would cast some doubts on your good faith. Anyway, I don't want to go into an edit war myself : simply, it doesn't seem a smart thing to do to revert documented info simply because it annoys you for whatever reason. FYI, I don't have anything against people of mixed ethnicity : my own daughter is ! ;) Wedineinheck (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've definitely got the wrong end of the stick then. My point all along has been that if, for example, Alicia Keys' mixed ethnicity is very well documented in her bio, it should be easy indeed for you to point me to that, with a page number and an ISBN. If you can do that, like in Obama's case, that is the end of the problem. There is certainly no call to get annoyed or get into an edit-war. What you mustn't do is continue to restore the category to articles where it is not verifiably referenced. Hope that is clear. All human beings are of mixed ethnicity by the way. --John (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You just have to look at the article's references : this article, used as a reference mentions Keys' "multiracial family" : "her mother is Irish-Italian, and her father is Jamaican". I was just completely perplexed by your edit, as the info was very easy to find : I hope this explains my reaction to your edit, since you had deleted a duly-referenced category. As for "all human beings" being of "mixed ethnicity", well, I guess this is true if we go back to Adam and Eve. ;) Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jamaica is not in Africa but in the Caribbean. Is the problem that you understand African to mean the same as black? It doesn't, you know. And you don't need to go back to Adam and Eve to understand the scientific view of ethnicity. --John (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider that "African" means "Black" (although, granted, there are White Africans, not to mention Maghreb, which is in North Africa), quite simply because this is the terminology generally used in the English-speaking world. As for Jamaica, that is a moot point, since Black jamaicans descend from the African Slave Trade : hence, most Jamaicans are of African descent. If we use that logic, we are to consider that many "African-Americans" listed on wikipedia are in fact "Caribbean-Americans", etc. I wouldn't mind, but it would be a tough job to change all of this, so best keep the generally-accepted terminology. As for the argument regarding mixed ethnicities, scientific facts are irrelevant, since it is essentially a visual/cultural criteria (much like "Italian-American", "French-British", "Spanish-Bulgarian", etc.) Now, to close the argument, we just have to consider that people could find an interest in looking notable "Afro-Caucasians" (or mulattos, or whatever) : if the information is duly referenced, I don't see where the problem lies. (or else, we have to deleted the "eurasians" category : good luck on that). Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I am glad you accept that race, in the modern age, is a social rather than a scientific construct, and a very sensitive one at that. As such, we should not use this category (especially with living people), except in cases (such as Obama) where the person's race is a significant part of why they are notable, and this can be reliably referenced. It is not enough to prove they were from (say) a Jamaican mother and a Breton father, as not all Jamaicans are of black African descent, and not all Bretons are white, though most are. We absolutely cannot infer from this however that a person is "Afro-Caucasian"; rather we must find a source which uses the phrase in connection with the person. The same applies to all these ethnic categories and you should feel free to remove any for which there is no evidence, as I will continue to do. It is not necessary to delete a category which is being misused; merely depopulating it of the articles which should not be there is fine. Good luck yourself. --John (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, though I don't agree 100% with it, as I don't think the ethnic question should be that sensitive (IMHO, it should be dedramatized). Anyway, in most cases the ethnicity of the referenced people is arguably part of their appeal (Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys, Barack Obama...) or plays a significant part in their positions or personal histories (Alexandre Dumas, Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala, Barack Obama again...) So, if the information is duly sourced (which I have just done on several articles), there is generally no problem with it. IMHO, there is no need for any kind of controversy on that matter. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, it is pretty sensitive to a lot of people. Regarding your references, how do you get from "Fils du tennisman français Yannick Noah et de mère suédoise, né à New York, il grandit en Amérique, puis arrive à Paris à l’âge de trois ans" to adding the category? Also, the first link you added here is, as a blog, not a reliable source. I implore you to read and follow these links to policies and guidelines I am sending you; they will help avoid the controversy you say you wish to avoid. Adding this category to more articles with no proper supporting sources is guaranteed to cause controversy. Instead, make sure that any category you add is mentioned and properly referenced in the article itself. --John (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yannick Noah is of African origin, and a Swedish mother would make him a mulatto (or a "quarteron" - don't know the english word for persons 1/4 black, sorry), even though I agree that there are SOME black swedes now. ;) I think that we don't have the same vision of the problem, but I see your point. I don't have time right now (gotta sleep), but I'll try to have another look in the following days, even though most of the articles are, IMHO, duly sourced. I don't think, anyway, that we need to have 10 000 articles in the category. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, here is a picture of Joanna Shimkus (with Sidney Poitier) on her official IMDB page : as you can see, considering that she is caucasian is not "original research" ;). (just teasing you). IMHO, not only her daughter's mixed ethnicity is part of the appeal she may have, but the fact that she is the daughter of a VERY famous black actor (whose ethnicity DID play a role in his career) makes her inclusion in the category logical. I agree, however, that we should not be obsessed about it. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than give me your assertions about the ancestry of Yannick Noah, I would like to see a reliable source that says that his son is, and that it is noteworthy. "Mulatto" and "quadroon" are very archaic words in English now as they are relics from the day when people used to think race was a defining characteristic of human beings. The scientific community has moved on, and Wikipedia reflects that. One's race is, on the face of it, no more (and no less) significant than one's hair colour or eye colour. If someone has blue eyes, we do not need to add a category to their page for that. If they were famous for having blue eyes, then maybe a category should get added. Are you seeing the distinction? I apologise for maybe being a little humourless on this subject; I spent time in Southern Africa in the 1980s and saw apartheid in action in South Africa, which spoiled me forever for teasing about race. As long as we have ethnic categories I am going to make sure that every one is properly sourced. Not a blog, not a reference to their "mixed race" (not the same as being Afro-Caucasian, you know), not a synthesis you have made from the person's father's and mother's places of birth, or even worse some original research you have done by looking at a photo of the person. No, I want to see a proper, verifiable, reliable source stating that the person was noted for being of this ethnicity for every single person, or I will be taking them right down again. --John (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be easy, as most people in this category already have info in their bios and references related to their ethnicity and heritage. But allow me to disagree, looking at someone's photo is not "original research" : it is just obvious evidence. :) Whether one likes it or not, ethnicity is, above all, a visual criteria (and still a very important social construct, regardless of scientific research). Regarding public figures, their ethnicity is part of their image/appeal : Vin Diesel, for example, has been quite vocal about this (I just added an extra reference) and, for people like Alexandre Dumas, it is of great interest. As for it being noteworthy, Cher is listed as being of "Armenian descent", while this has played no part in her singing/acting achievements. Granted, however, wikipedia should not focus exclusively on ethnicity, but there is no reason to ignore it either when it has some impact. What is perplexing to me is that it should cause so much trouble when wikipedia already has a "multiracial actors" category, which strikes me as more odd. I just added extra info on Alicia Keys, which shows that she is quite comfortable with her biracial heritage. From an antiracist point of view, this is both interesting and heartening. On the contrary, Jennifer Beals stated that her mixed ethnicity caused her some problems (reference added), so this is interesting data as well. PS : J'habite en Île-de-France, dans la peu passionnante contrée du Val-de-Marne pour être précis. Content de savoir que mon anglais est encore correct. :) (J'ai juste appris la langue à l'école) Votre français n'est pas mal non plus. Cordialement, Wedineinheck (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

As I said at my talk page, we must ensure that such categories are verifiable and especially in the case of living people. Please stop adding categories for which no evidence is presented. Thank you. --John (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. You state in your edit summary that you are using another Wikipedia article as a source. Per WP:RS we cannot do this. Please provide proper evidence or stop restoring this category. --John (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed you have continued to add this category without any evidence in spite of my requests above. At this stage I will have to take it further and invite another admin to take a look. Edit-warring and incivility are highly unlikely to convince others of the merits of your argument. Please think again. --John (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was annoyed at this point, since I considered that YOU were being incivil : Alicia Keys' mixed ethnicity is very well documented in her bio, so this would cast some doubts on your good faith. Anyway, I don't want to go into an edit war myself : simply, it doesn't seem a smart thing to do to revert documented info simply because it annoys you for whatever reason. FYI, I don't have anything against people of mixed ethnicity : my own daughter is ! ;) Wedineinheck (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Wedineinheck: I was asked to take a look at your recent edits to add people to categories that denote their race. I think we have to be very careful in this area. I would want to see a mention of the ethnicity in the article body itself (and a connection to relevance) along with a citation that directly supports that ethnicity, before I would think that adding the article to a category for that ethnicity is a good idea. The depopulation of these categories by John is in my view appropriate, and your reinsertion is not. In reviewing diffs of edits you made, I am seeing edit summaries that assert that the information is in biographies, but I am NOT seeing cited references for statements in the article... for the most part I am only seeing inclusion of the category itself. I may have missed some, of course. An assertion in an edit summary is not sufficient, we need verifiable cites to reliable sources. I would strongly caution you to be meticulous in your research in this area, if you even need to include the information at all. In most cases, the race of a person is immaterial to their biography, as it has no bearing on their achievements, and therefore I would leave it out. We do not, after all, have categories for persons by eye color, by hair color, by height, by chest size, etc. Or at least I hope we do not. ++Lar: t/c 21:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am not obsessed about racial categories, but I feel that one person's ethnicity is, unlike what you think, not immaterial to his/her biography, and has some bearing on his achievements. No one would dispute the fact that Barack Obama's ancestry has some impact, and Mariah Carey or Alicia Keys' ethnicity has, IMHO, some effect on their appeal (same thing for Halle Berry, Thandie Newton, Vin Diesel, etc.). Following the same logic, it is interesting to note that Dieudonné M'Bala M'Bala (often accused, and rightly so in my opinion, of "afrocentrism") is of mixed ethnicity. Moreover, it is extremely interesting to note the ethnicity of Alexandre Dumas, as it makes his achievement as France's most popular novelist in the XIXth century all the more remarkable. Hence, if they are duly referenced, ehtnic categories should not be a problem, even though I agree that it should not include every single person with a tiny drop of African/Caribbean/European blood (note that I did not include Alexandre Dumas, fils, even though he was 1/8th black). It should be included if it has some effect on their public images or personal histories. Wedineinheck (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you don't have to repeat your entire message in both places (see user:Lar/Pooh policy, many people use this approach of keeping things threaded... just leave a short ping on my talk if it has been a LONG time without a reply here (say a day... remember, there is no deadline). My view is that to add the person to the category, you have to find a reliable source that mentions they are that ethnicity and also discusses why the ethnicity is relevant. I can find sources for Barack that discuss why it matters that he is African-American. Many of the biographical articles I saw you revert-tussling with John about, I suspect that is not the case. For the most part, someone's ethnicity really has no impact on their achievements. If it does, find a source that says so and include the reference in the body of teh article where the significance is discussed. I think if you need further guidance, this might be a good matter to raise at WP:BLP ... I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(refactored from my talk... please keep this threaded and in one place.)

Hi again, as I feel no need to add many articles to that category, I don't think I'll spend that much time on the matter. However, it could be (endlessly) argued that one's ethnicity has some impact on his personal history and/or public image. Vin Diesel, for example, has been quite vocal about the importance of being "biracial". Hence, this category is justified when it comes to public figures, even though I agree that we don't need 10 000 articles in that one : IMHO, those who actually populate this category are significant enough. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Find cites in reliable sources for what Vin Diesel has said regarding his ethnicity, or what critics have said, and add those. Or don't, as your interest takes you, but without reliably sourced cites, expect your category additions to be reverted. It's not enough that you think it's important, (or even that you observe that someone is a particular ethnicity, we are not a primary source) it has to be cited. That's the point I'm trying to make here. I hope it's clear. I hope when I next look at your contributions I don't see reversions, but instead I see discussion on the article talk pages or on the policy pages to get clarity on what consensus is. ++Lar: t/c 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See also the long thread on this at User talk:John#Afro-caucasian where I have made my position clearer. Wedineinheck, vous ecrivez très bien anglais; est-ce que vous avez habité chez les anglophones quelquefois? J'ai un ami á Montmartre, mais ca fait longtemps depuis je l'ai visité, ou parlé francais. D'ou en France venez-vous? Et excusez-moi pour mon francais, bien sûr. --John (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We really REALLY need to keep this discussion in one place. Scattering it to your talk, my talk, Johns talk, etc is very ineffective. This is the THIRD time I've moved a comment of yours back to your talk from mine. I AM watching this page and you do NOT need to reply at my page to comments I make at yours. Please. It would be GREATLY appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(from my talk)

Hi, I just added an extra reference to Vin Diesel. Regarding the importance of ethnicity (mixed or not), it does play a part in one's social construct and eventually on his public image. While Ruud Gullit's mixed heritage has probably no part in his performance as a soccer player, but knowing it is very interesting on a social point of view - and to my knowledge, Gullit is not embarassed by it, as it plays a part in his public appeal, so there is no reason to hide it. However, I agree that it should be used for public figures and duly referenced, so I think we agree on that. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With Vin, I think the case has been made that his ethnicity is relevant and your new source is good. Ditto for Jennifer Beals, for example. However, I need to STRONGLY point out that your assertion that "looking at a picture is not original research" is flat out wrong. Looking at a picture and then determining race or ethnicity is absolutely original research. You need to internalise that. It is not a debatable point, I'm afraid. Don't just take my word for it, or Johns, go read the references you have been pointed at. ++Lar: t/c 10:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

PS, deriving categories from the parentage (mother is X and father is Y so person must be X-Y) is also original research... the changes to Thandie Newton‎ for example, are not supported by the references in my view, the reference to about.com says she is mulatto which could mean, as that very reference points out, anything. ++Lar: t/c 10:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that one person is not necessarily X-Y if mother is X and father is Y is a bit equivalent to saying that 2+2=4 must be proved by independent sources : I'm afraid I'm a bit confounded by that one. I disagree with the pictures agreement but will have a look at that rationale when time permits. Regarding Ms Poitier, her father is a famous black actor, her mother did have notoriety as an undeniably caucasian actress (she might not be known in your country but I saw her in several films from the 1960s), so I thought the research was not THAT needed. Anyway, Thandie Newton's parentage is already stated in her bio, and referenced by the New York Times + her bio on IMDB. IMDB is not 100% reliable, but it is checked by professionals and agents so it is probably ok in that case. Sorry about misplacing the discussion, I just hadn't seen your previous message :lots of text to read and little time - :). Anyway, as I previously said, I don't have plans to add more articles to that category at the moment (maybe later). Glad that you appreciate the work on Diesel and Beals. I must say I'm quite surprised that the "Eurasians" category does not arise the same amount of controversy : and yet, being half-black is no more disreputable than being half-asian. Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lar that we should keep this all in one place, so have moved over the stuff from my user talk. It makes it easier for others to follow if we keep it all here. What you still seem not to "get" is that someone belonging to a racial group, according to you or according to someone else, is not in itself notable, any more than if they had small feet or a big nose. (I remember when we used to have a section on the nose article about famous people with big noses. It got removed.) Only if it can be shown that verifiable third party sources have discussed the person's ethnicity can we consider including it in an article. Looking at a photo of someone then adding the person to a category based on your assessment of their race is the absolute definition of original research. Merçi á vous; je suis content si je n'ai pas oublié complement comment parler francais. --John (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As for ethnicity not being important, I certainly do not agree : whatever one thinks of it, it is still a very notable social and cultural construct, and this is IMHO unlikely to change anytime soon, as it is based on what meets the eye. Hence, it does have an impact on one's persona and public image (much like one's national origin, and possibly more in some cases), though it is obviously (and hopefully) not the only defining criteria (and I agree that people should not be classified on wikipedia by ethnicity exclusively) I guess - I hope - you understand that for me, being of mixed race is not a bad thing per se ;). As for the "picture" controversy, that is a moot point : you apparently didn't know Joanna Shimkus, but I can assure you that she used to be a relatively notable actress, who was definitely caucasian. :) Anyway, I still don't understand why this category is more controversial than "Eurasians" (which has over 400 articles !) Désolé, mais je dois y aller, je n'ai pas beaucoup de temps ce soir. Best, Wedineinheck (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please John, mention it to me on my talk page, before you want to delete any categorization. I still don't understand your point of view, as one would think that you find "biraciality" to be somewhat offensive or shameful. IMHO, mixed ethnicity is an additional source of appeal or curiosity for many public figures, and I'm still perplexed that you think ethnic origins plays no part in one's social and intellectual construct, while saying that it is a sensitive subject (hence, recognizing its importance). Moreover, finding a reference to prove that the daughter of a (very famous) black man and a (somewhat notable) white woman is biracial (and that it may play a part in her appeal) strikes me as a bit silly, but I just did that. We can discuss this calmly on my talk page and not bicker or waste time into edit wars. (Nota bene : I am certainly not opposed to finding references, but I don't have that much free time, so please discuss this before you revert anything). Cheers, Wedineinheck (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not need your permission to remove unsourced contentious information, and I will continue to do so. See WP:BLP. I had hoped to do this with your cooperation, but if it takes a short break from Wikipedia to help you realise the truth of what Lar and I have been telling you, maybe that is what we will need. Please do not copy messages to my talk page; any further discussion can take place here, thus keeping it in one place. --John (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that we were having a sensible discussion, but I am disappointed to see that you now choose to adopt a hostile behavior. Sorry, but my edits are neither contentious, nor defamatory, and you can check that I have added sourced and -I hope- useful and interesting information to all articles, whenever possible. It saddens me to see you react this way. I don't know your ethnicity (and to be frank, I don't care) but your comments on Talk:Mariane Pearl would make one think that you are biracial yourself. That could explain why you are so sensitive about the subject. Anyway, as I already said before, I am myself the father of a biracial child, and am therefore interested in miscenegation and how it is lived and perceived. Having role models like Mariah Carey, Alicia Keys, Barack Obama or Thandie Newton (whatever one thinks of their achievements) seems quite useful to me, and it is not defamatory at all to mention their ethnicity and the way they live it. Once again, I thought we were having a discussion like responsible adults, and I find it quite hurtful to see you react this way. Wedineinheck (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a wuss, but your reaction has hurt my feelings. I'm taking a wikibreak for a few days, as this is getting close to pointless and silly. :( I hope we can have in the future a sensible discussion article by article, like responsible adults, instead of wasting our time in edit wars. Wedineinheck (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This will be my last contribution to this debate. Please take the warning which you removed as being your last warning for adding categories for which there is no evidence to articles on living people. I hope you enjoy your break. --John (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'll enjoy not hearing from you for some time. I've come to the point when I can no longer believe in the tiniest shred of good faith from your part. As there is no point in getting my intelligence insulted ãgain and I deem wikipedia conflicts to be highly useless and time-consuming, this is au revoir for now. I eagerly wait for you to argue that the validity of "1+1=2" has to be proven by independent sources. Wedineinheck (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've looked at some of your recent contributions. Really, I don't think you've internalised what we are saying, which is this: Someone's race is NOT relevant to their biography, just like their shoe size or their eye color is, unless there is REASON for it to be relevant. Take this diff: [2] Yes... that diff establishes the fact that Sydney is biracial. (and thanks for at least getting that you have to give a cite, you can't just say "well look at her picture, it's obvious") However it doesn't establish the relevance. A biographical article of a living person is not a random collection of facts. Everything in it needs some relevance. You did great on Vin Diesel... you found sources that discussed why his multiracialness is relevant to his career. You need to do the same for the other articles. Or you're going to keep getting reverted. And, eventually, if you keep edit warring, you're going to get blocked, because the WP:BLP policy is pretty clear on this. I'm sorry that hurts your feelings or frustrates you, but that's the way it is. There are lots of things to work on but in looking at your contributions overall, it seems this is a focus of yours... race. You keep referring back to your attitudes, your relatives, other people's attitudes about it etc., and that misses the point. Attitudes are immaterial. What matters is sourcing for relevant things. I thnk it's good that you're taking some time off. When you come back, if you do, please come back with a fresh attitude. Work on some other things instead of this, or be meticulous in your sourcing, or bring your concerns to policy discussion pages, but do NOT edit war with someone citing BLP concerns. That's a bad path to go down, and it will end badly. Which would be unfortunatele. ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)