Talk:Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Jewish category additions
An editor added Category:Ashkenazi Jews and Category:Russian Jews to the article, another reverted, and since then we appear to have an edit war in full effect. In an effort to (hopefully) resolve this I removed the categories based on the following rationale:
- Nowhere in the article does it state that Ulyanova was Jewish. In order to add these categories the article must state this and link to a reliable source that backs up the claim.
- Typically, in order to be considered ethnically Jewish one's mother must be Jewish. The article states that Ulyanova's father was Jewish, converted to Christianity and married a Swedish/German woman. The implication is that this woman was not Jewish, which would mean that Ulyanova herself was not Jewish either (she certainly would not be considered as such under Israel's Law of Return, for whatever that's worth).
I hope this helps. -- Hux (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Neither of those statements is true. One does not need to attribute categories to reliable sources. Judaism as a religion is passed through the mother (by most traditions). Jewish ethnicity is a matter of heritage, upbringing, self and external identification, and all the usual hallmarks of ethnicity. Ethnicity is a very real but imprecise concept. For purposes of categorization it is useful (depending on consensus) to cast the categories widely to avoid exclusion. Some might see an attempt to deny people's Jewishness to be anti-semitic or at least misguided. Others might see over-inclusion in the same way. Not a simple thing one can stand up and demand citations for. As long as the facts are correct, the decision is a matter for consensus, not verifiability. Wikidemo (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikidemo, you are at serious problem with understanding wiki policies. A day ago I advised the newcomer (whose edit is discussed here) to use reliable sources to back his edits (and I see he already received a praise from someone else for following my advice). If he follows your advices "does not need to attribute categories to reliable sources" "consensus not verifiability", he will be in a deep trouble waging edit wars of words and personal opinions. "Reliable sources" is an absolute requirement in wikipedia.
- Now, back to the topic. IMO the problem is that ethnicity categories are badly conceived. It is very often confused notions of "ethnicity" and "ancestry". A person may have 8 different ethnicities in his close ancestry and even more if one moves up genealogy tree. You say "Some might see an attempt of antisemitism". I say "Some may see it as an attempt of Jewish domination of the world by assigning all glory to Jewish people by including people with 1/32 Jewish blood into "Jews", which is a form of reverse racism." Ethnicity was well-defined category where people could not move more than 30 miles a day. In modern days the whole Earth is one big melting pot of ethnicities. And we cannot solve this problem of wikipedia in the talk page of a single person. There should be a guideline in wiipedia for assigning ethnicity categories, and this I agree is a matter of consensus (still based on commonly recognized rules found in reliable sources). Mukadderat (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wikidemo: While the second statement is debatable, the first is not - there is nothing in the article that states that she herself was ethnically Jewish, only that her father was. In order for the two categories to be in this article, the article itself needs to say that she was Jewish and that claim needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Anything less is POV. -- Hux (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Goodness gracious. I understand Wikipedia policies just fine, and verifiability in particular. No, you don't need to back up a category addition with copy in the text of the article or a reliable source. If challenged, however, the matter is up for debate. Ethnic categorization, as people here amply demonstrate, is not merely a matter of finding a reliable source to back up that someone belongs to ethnicity or another. It is also a substantive decision about how we treat ethnicity on Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- "you don't need to back up a category addition with copy in the text of the article or a reliable source" - Depending on the category, yes you do. When the article doesn't state at all that she was Jewish (because, let's face it, she was never known as such during her lifetime) and when defining her as such is a controversial move (because, let's face it, it has ramifications for a number of other articles, most notably Lenin's), adding Jewish category links becomes a matter of opinion and will inevitably be viewed as original research. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that if her article is to be added to Jewish categories then it needs state that she was, in fact, Jewish, and it needs to back that up with reliable sources. If we stick to standard, agreed upon requirements for verifiability then we avoid problems. That's all I'm suggesting we do. -- Hux (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think we're saying the same thing. Asking for a citation or use in the article is a reasonable requirement for a category, I'm just observing that it's not the automatic default on Wikipedia. There are plenty of categories, most of them probably, where this is not the case. Hypothetically, if there is a category for female tennis players one does not need citation or mention that a person is a female. Or for "companies based in Rome, Italy" one may not need a citation to prove the company is based there (though it may be good practice). It's a little more complicated when we're talking about ethnicity but if people see the category as controversial or prone to error I agree there has to be some standard for inclusion. Citations and sourcing is not the only choice here - you need a source to make a disputed factual claim, e.g. whether someone has Jewish ancestry. However, where the ancestry is clear and the question is how to characterize ethnicity, verifiability only gets you so far. There's a separate judgment we have to make on Wikipedia on how to frame the question. Wikidemo (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- We may be saying similar things. Where we differ, I suspect, is in the details. Case in point: your female tennis player example supports my position, I think: we would never add an article to "category: female tennis players" if the article didn't even mention that the person was a tennis player. We would also very likely require some kind of cite to show that she was a tennis player. (Though if she was known for tennis then links to other sources would probably already be in the article, so this would likely not be an issue.) And if her tennis playing was in any way controversial we would definitely require a reliable cite, probably multiple ones, in fact. Imo, the situation with Jewish categories in this article pretty clearly demands a higher than average level of verifiability given that the claim is both murky and controversial. -- Hux (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for more detailed explanation of your position. Yes, we don't need a citation for each two words in wikipedia. The fundamental policy wikipedia:Verifiability clearly says so (or said when I read it last time; you never know with wikis:-). At the same time it is a rule that if someone questions some statement, it is your obligation to provide supporting reference for your addition of information. But again, you wrote for "companies based in Rome, Italy" one may not need -- wrong, wrong, wrong. Especially for companies. There are zillions of companies which operate in, say, California, but incorporated in New Mexico or elsewhere, for tax reasons and where they only have a P.O.Box. You cannot take official info on hearsay. Colleague, you have an amazing mixture of correct and incorrect understanding of rules. Putting an article about a company Bucknaggers Ltd. into category "companies from Apopka, Colorado" has no essential difference from a sentence "Bucknaggers Ltd. is headquartered in Apopka, Colorado": it is a piece of knowledge which must be verifiable in wikipedia. The same with ethnicity: however we frame it in wikipedia policies, they do not override the Verifiabilty rule. Mukadderat (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Again with the statement that I don't get policy. This isn't the place for a discussion about company headquarters (much less commenting on me as an editor) but in practice most such categories are not cited and many are not mentioned in the article. For example, see. There is no policy statement that they must be or that adding a source is the only legitimate response to a dispute over categorization. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think WP:V even mentions the word "category." That is one interpretation of policy shared by some people but not others, and clearly not upheld universally in practice, hence a matter for consensus. There are plenty of pieces of information for which we do not require citations. The nature of ethnicity and how we treat it is a matter for interpretation and agreement. One can find plenty of sources that would claim Jewishness is a matter of lineage, others upbringing, others choice or self-identification. None of those prove the point. It's not entirely a question of fact. Wikidemo (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think we're saying the same thing. Asking for a citation or use in the article is a reasonable requirement for a category, I'm just observing that it's not the automatic default on Wikipedia. There are plenty of categories, most of them probably, where this is not the case. Hypothetically, if there is a category for female tennis players one does not need citation or mention that a person is a female. Or for "companies based in Rome, Italy" one may not need a citation to prove the company is based there (though it may be good practice). It's a little more complicated when we're talking about ethnicity but if people see the category as controversial or prone to error I agree there has to be some standard for inclusion. Citations and sourcing is not the only choice here - you need a source to make a disputed factual claim, e.g. whether someone has Jewish ancestry. However, where the ancestry is clear and the question is how to characterize ethnicity, verifiability only gets you so far. There's a separate judgment we have to make on Wikipedia on how to frame the question. Wikidemo (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- "you don't need to back up a category addition with copy in the text of the article or a reliable source" - Depending on the category, yes you do. When the article doesn't state at all that she was Jewish (because, let's face it, she was never known as such during her lifetime) and when defining her as such is a controversial move (because, let's face it, it has ramifications for a number of other articles, most notably Lenin's), adding Jewish category links becomes a matter of opinion and will inevitably be viewed as original research. I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that if her article is to be added to Jewish categories then it needs state that she was, in fact, Jewish, and it needs to back that up with reliable sources. If we stick to standard, agreed upon requirements for verifiability then we avoid problems. That's all I'm suggesting we do. -- Hux (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Goodness gracious. I understand Wikipedia policies just fine, and verifiability in particular. No, you don't need to back up a category addition with copy in the text of the article or a reliable source. If challenged, however, the matter is up for debate. Ethnic categorization, as people here amply demonstrate, is not merely a matter of finding a reliable source to back up that someone belongs to ethnicity or another. It is also a substantive decision about how we treat ethnicity on Wikipedia. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wikidemo: While the second statement is debatable, the first is not - there is nothing in the article that states that she herself was ethnically Jewish, only that her father was. In order for the two categories to be in this article, the article itself needs to say that she was Jewish and that claim needs to be backed up with reliable sources. Anything less is POV. -- Hux (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Wikidemo. First of all, Maria Ulyanova was half Jewish from the Paternal side of the family, whereas her mother was of mixed Swedish, German, Russian and Kalmyk descent. This in itself is sufficient enough to categorize her as a Russian Jew. Since being Jewish also signifies an ethnicity as well being a member of a Jewish religious sect, one does not necessarily have to practise Judaism in order to be recognized as a Jew. Therefore, the issue of her Christian faith is a non-issue in this context.
While Lenin cannot be classified as a Jew because he has many ancestries, his mother can because the Jewish side of her paternal lineage is dominant, albeit her many ancestries from her maternal side. This in effect, neutralizes the first arguement brought up by the culturally oversensitive Mukadderat about how a person is capable of having upto 8 different ethnicities, why adding the Jewish category constitutes reverse racism among other absurdities. Thank god, he did not add propagating Zionism, soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred to the list.
Throughout the history of mankind, the Jewish people have proved themselves as the salt of the earth with their numerous contributions to science, literature, philosophy and other fields. Inspite of constant persecution, hatred and expulsion, they have managed to force the world to respect and admire them by their wit, intelligence and hardwork, not by yelling, rioting and blowing themselves up. If this is not worthy of respect and admiration, then i dont know what is. Mark Twain once said that the Jews are the only people in the world who work fully using their brains and not their hands.
Please dont misunderstand me, I am not overpraising Jews while deliberatly ignoring contributions made by Christians, Muslims, etc to modern civilization. I am praising them because they have managed to contribute disproportionately to modern civilization inspite of their peculiar situation throughout history. Therefore, one need not add Maria Ulyanova to the Jewish category to unduly praise Jewish people. They have already proven themselves worth warranting my respect.
Also, it is unnecessary to back this up with sources specifically stating that she was Jewish since the fact of her paternal Jewish heritage is already mentioned in this article. SantiagoMatamoros (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
