Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:59, 19 August 2011

Biography Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Adam Levine received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

What about Rihanna?

he had a single with Rihanna too!! Why isnt that there??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.49.63 (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Maroon 5 (not Adam Levine) had a single with Rihanna.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Mickey Mouse?

Is that true? Mickey Mouse was the name of the member of Adam's bandmate? Or was the article vandalized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.100.102 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Adam Levine

Another Adam Levine has put up a site telling people he's not that Adam Levine: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.176.160.13 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does he sing in such a high pitched comical voice?

well why?99.149.118.183 (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

listen to Five For Fighting's music, and you'll see his inspiration —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.33.227 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I deleted the statement that the name is to be pronounced as lev-a-nay since that is simply wrong, it is pronounced as levine, exactly as if it were spelled levin, and the e at the end does not change it to lev-a-nay. 79.176.37.186 (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Kara's Flowers

First it says members of the band Kara's Flowers met at fine arts camp in New York and a couple sentences later says they met at Brentwood school. Can someone clear up the discrepancy? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.55.197 (talk) 21:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry

Can we have a normal conversation about this topic outside of someone's talk page or the BLP noticeboard (fail to see how text sourced to an interview with the subject of the article would violate BLP). I'd like AndyTheGrump to explain how Levine's ancestry is any less relevant than Madonna's French-Canadian heritage or Tony Bennett's Italian heritage. Yes, otherstuffexists, whatever, I don't know what that means. What I do know is that (sourced) ancestry is absolutely a commonplace biographical attribute on Misplaced Pages, whether it be Paul Revere or Rebecca Black. If you're responding to this, please respond only on the topic of the inclusion of this text in the article. I am not talking about the categories, whether Levine is "Jewish" under any definition or is to be described as "Jewish". If you want to talk about any of that, start another thread. I just would like to know why Levine's ancestry is less notable than Gaga's or Paul Revere's. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at BLP/N - discuss this there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

When you explain to me how article text exactly sourced to an interview with the subject of the article can be a BLP violation, I will. Please point to the exact part of BLP and quote the line you believe is being violated. I'm referring to the version that was here before you two showed up, though. On that note, I wish to thank both AndyTheGrump and Off2riorob for turning the article Adam Levine from a properly sourced article to a BLP violation with the current text. It says Levine is an "atheist". There is no source anywhere stating this. The source says Levine's uncle, Timothy Noah, is an atheist (or rather, Noah states so in the source). Nothing about Levine being an atheist. So yes, thanks to your efforts, you two have turned a properly sourced article into one that violates BLP (or more importantly to me, WP:V), by claiming a living person is an atheist when no source supports this. I think we should stop examining whether BLP is protecting Misplaced Pages and start examining whether we can protect Misplaced Pages from BLP and its accolytes. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There is ongoing discussion at BLP/N - discuss this there (and see WP:NPA) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Explain to me what the BLP violation is. Are we to discuss the weather at BLP n too? No personal attacks? Explain to me how stating what you did to this article relates to your personal life. You and Off2riorob have turned the article Adam Levine into a BLP violation. That is not a personal attack. That is a fact. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you consider it a BLP violation, then discuss it at BLP/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, you removed it now... All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

...And I hadn't added it in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats the issue with this current content -? Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

See your , Yworo's and my edits - the source supposedly stating that Adam Levine is an atheist wasn't referring to him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the bottom line here is quite easy to determine, and we needn't get into a convoluted examination of what makes a person Jewish, and what exactly Levine inherited from which grandparent. The bottom line is what significance has the matter to Levine, his work, or his notability? The cites produced so far would suggest practically none. Levine makes little mention of it, he has not self identified as Jewish, it is not reflected in his work, and we have nothing to suggest it played a role in shaping him as an artist or a person. Indeed, the cite provided talks more of his rejection of it as a feature of his upbringing.

I therefore think that the reader doesn't gain any insight into the article subject by knowing the ethnicity of some of his fore-bearers, any more than if we were to report on the political beliefs of his grandmother on his mother's side. By doing so the article would be guilty of suggesting that it has significance beyond that of unimportant trivia. --Escape Orbit 16:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you support the deletion of ethnicity from the articles Lady Gaga, Paul Revere, Jimmy Carter, Tony Bennett, Renée Zellweger, and Bradley Cooper? Relevence to notability and work is not a criteria for inclusion into Misplaced Pages articles and never has been. If it was, we would have to delete well over 70% of the text of Misplaced Pages biographical articles. The criteria for inclusion, as far as I can tell, is that something has to be a piece of salient biographical information. Ethnicity generally is. Aside from that, I doubt we would be having this conversation if Levine's ancestry was three quarters Italian. It would simply be in the article, and, provided it was sourced, no one would question it, much less cause all this ruckus over it. For proof, see - well, Lady Gaga again. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It may sometimes be reasonable to comment on someone's ethnicity (or that of their parents) in a biography. What isn't reasonable is to do it in an unbalanced way: we are told about the Jewish ethnicity of some of his ancestors, but nothing at all about the ethnicity of others - instead, we were told that his maternal grandmother was a Protestant. In any case, when looking at the only source that now seems relevant, it appears that Levine was discussing religion, not ethnicity - which made attempts to comment on the faith of his maternal grandmother, while ignoring Levine's own remarks on religion, even more bizarre. Frankly, it was a misuse of the source. The fact is that we cannot describe Levine's ethnicity in any reasonable way in the article, because we don't know what he (or anyone else for that matter) considers it to be. When contributors cherry-pick sources to tag individuals as (partial) members of an ethnic group, and ignore the pertinent facts regarding what is actually discussed in such sources, it does little to improve Misplaced Pages.

(By the way, you seem to be implying that three out of four of Levine's grandparents were ethnically Jewish. The source doesn't actually say that, and it would be WP:OR to infer it from the source - we don't know whether both of his father's parents were both ethnically Jewish - and come to that, we don't know for sure that his Protestant maternal grandmother wasn't ethnically Jewish. Then again, one can ask the same questions about the grandparents in turn - how many of their grandparents were ethnically Jewish... Of course, this is a futile exercise, only serving to illustrate the meaninglessness of ethnicity as an abstraction imposed from the outside. If Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish, he is, if he doesn't, he isn't, and anything else is opinion...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The source says his father and maternal grandfather were Jewish. We're just copying that. The Misplaced Pages article says nothing about his paternal grandparents both being Jewish, so it is not OR. The Misplaced Pages article doesn't use the word "ethnically". It simply repeats the source. It is up to the readers to interpret it any way they want. If you wish, we can just quote the source, and say, "according to the Jewish Chronicle, "Levine's father and ..."" etc. Here's a source that simply states he is Jewish (here). I know of a source where he calls himself Jewish, and he's described himself as Jewish on his twitter account a couple of times. So what? I don't want the article to simply call him "Jewish". It should state his full background. Which apparently is something you wanted? And it is not necessary to state his remaining background if we don't know it. If we don't know, then we don't know. Lady Gaga's article says her father is Italian without saying what her mother is. Because we don't know. And that's ok. It doesn't have to give the whole picture as long as the sources haven't. As long we imply there is a whole picture. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If you know of a source where he calls himself Jewish, why not link it? It would have saved all the pointless waffle from the start. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Because I didn't want to complicate things. The article should state his full background. It shouldn't simply call him "Jewish" without explaining further. Nor do I endorse this bizarre concept that if someone didn't call themselves "Italian" or "Irish" we can't mention that they are of Irish and Italian ancestry. He said he was born in Cedars-Cinai, "like all the other Los Angeles Jews", in the Blender magazine interview that was previously here. And twitted it twice twice. (At least). But again, the article shouldn't state this without making it clear that his maternal grandmother was not Jewish, or implying this. It's misleading to not say that. Like saying Barack Obama is African-American without saying that his mother was not. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Are you saying that the fact that his maternal grandmother wasn't Jewish means that he can't be? This may possibly be true under Halachic law, but this certainly isn't a standard that Misplaced Pages can apply - this issue is contentious even amongst Jewish communities.. We can only apply Levine's self-description here. If he says he is one of the "Los Angeles Jews" then that is the only relevant fact (though the sources you link might be problematic - I'd have to ask). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're trying to answer the "Who is a Jew" question. I am not. You keep trying to bring this up everywhere. I am saying unreservedly that it does not matter how you or I view Levine. What I am saying is that the facts should be presented and people should decide for themselves. So the article should say his father and grandfather were or are Jewish. If you want to include his self-identification as well, go ahead. But it shouldn't be included without stating his full ancestry, which is relevant. (his self-identification or how Judaism of certain branches view him could be relevant if we're talking about categories, but I am not). I don't believe the article should state "Levine is Jewish" without mentioning anything else about his ancestry, because that is misleading to the large portion of Jews who view Judaism matrilineally (Judaism is a lineage- and history-based religion in several critical parts, which is not my opinion but fact). Aside from that, it would be misleading to the large proportion of people who read the word "Jewish" as meaning someone born to two ethnically Jewish parents who has not converted to another religion (for the record, if his paternal grandmother was not Jewish, I would support mentioning that too if sourced; like I said on your page, I want the complete set of facts presented, more/the merrier). Twitter can be used as a source for the subject of the article, see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. However, my point is it does not matter. There is no requirement anywhere on Misplaced Pages that a subject of the article has to identify with an ethnicity for that ethnicity to be mentioned in their article. If it's a verified fact that x is of Irish, Scottish, and Portuguese descent, there is no rule prohibiting a mention of that. Throughout this whole thing you've been talking to me as if you're backed by such a rule, which is why I didn't want to bring up these sources to affirm you. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, just wrong. There is nothing whatever in Misplaced Pages policy that supports this. If Levine describes himself as Jewish, he presumably doesn't accept the relevant part of Halachic law. And if he doesn't accept it, we sure as heck can't impose it on him. If you want to compile a database of people of Jewish matrilineal descent, fine - just don't try to do it on Misplaced Pages. This isn't an arena for internecine struggles between different sections of Judaism over who is Jewish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong? Everything you just said was an argument for including the "Jewish" category in the article. I am not talking about categories. I am just talking about article text. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that prohibits us from stating someone's full ethnic heritage if we have sources to back it up. I wouldn't want to call someone simply "Italian American" if we have a source that their father and maternal grandfather were. We should state the most complete version of the facts possible. I don't see how this is unreasonable, nor is it against any policy. (If you want to include his self-identification as well, that is fine, too. Like I said, the more information the better). (p.s. see my Barack Obama example above; using your logic, are we supposed to simply call him African-American per his self-id and not explain his full ancestral heritage? That doesn't make any sense). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no support in sources for the assertion that Adam Levine "has no formal religion". The article is presently saying that "He has no formal religion."

What the citation reads is: "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop." Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@ All Hallow's Wraith. I am not going to argue with you over this here, beyond stating that you are not only wrong, but that you seem to completely misunderstand fundamental Misplaced Pages policy regarding NPOV, weight etc. We are under no obligation whatsoever to "state the most complete version of the facts possible" in a BLP or anywhere, just to provide 'evidence' for something that is entirely irrelevant to the person in question, to the majority of readers, and no doubt to those who actually employ Halachic law - or do they consider hearsay evidence gathered from the internet via Google to carry sufficient weight in such matters? Not that this last point is of any relevance whatsoever. I will probably have to pursue this issue elsewhere, since it seems to raise a fundamental issue that has been hovering in the background of many of these debates over categorisations relating to Jewishness - though I will of course check archives etc to see whether it has been discussed before.

@ Bus stop. As you know full well, Levine rejected a Bar Mitzvah (though presumably All Hallow's Wraith thinks that he wasn't eligible for one anyway), and states that he has "rejected formal religious practice". I can see no reason whatsoever to think that summarising this as a statement that he has no formal religion is in any way unreasonable, and given your earlier attempts to remove any reference to Levine's beliefs at all from the article, I think you are on very dodgy grounds anyway. If you think the summary isn't sufficient, we can presumably include the entire sourced statement (including the rejection of the Bar Mitzvah) and 'let the readers decide for themselves. You could raise this at RS/N, I suppose, though I suspect that some contributors are getting heartily sick of the whole issue.

Finally, Bus stop, just out of curiosity, where do you stand regarding All Hallow's Wraith's suggestion that we cannot describe someone as unequivocally 'Jewish' in an article if there is a possibility that they might not be recognised as such under Halachic law? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—You're not going to like what I have to say, but with the additional sources brought by All Hallow's Wraith, it is clear that Adam Levine is Jewish. We should adhere to that which is found in sources unless other sources contradict those sources. According to my sensibilities, only the simplest notation should be made, such as:

"Adam Levine is Jewish, though both of his parents are not Jewish."

The following two sources would suffice to support the above statement:

1. ) "Levine, an alarmingly self-assured, caustic, 28-year-old middle-class Jewish boy, is booming the word 'extraneous!' during a lengthy argument over a forthcoming video."

2. ) "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish.".

Additional sources support the above:

• "Sitting at a ginormous conference table covered in what appears to be silver–painted snakeskin, Levine talks about growing up just a few minutes from the Roosevelt Hotel. He was born at nearby Cedars–Sinai Hospital — “like all the other Los Angeles Jews,” he quips."

• "Look for me out there on "the PCH". I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle. Can't miss me."

• "Dear early bird sandblasters at my neighbor's house. Fuck off. Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor."

As All Hallow's Wraith points out above, "Twitter can be used as a source for the subject of the article, see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves."

But only the first two sources are sufficient to support the sentence above that I would suggest placing in the article. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, why would I complain about a statement that Levine was (ethnically) Jewish, based on his own self-identification? Regarding the statement that both his parents weren't I think that the wording you use is less-than-clear. It also, incidentally, isn't sourced, as far as I can see: we don't know what ethnicity his mother is, do we? Her mother has been identified as Protestant (not an ethnicity), and her father has been identified as Jewish. It seems to me that the only verifiable facts are:

(a) That Levine self-identifies as (ethnically) Jewish.

(b) That Levine rejected a Bar Mitzvah, and "has rejected formal religious practice".

(c) That Levine's father considers himself (ethnically) Jewish, and is a follower of the Judaic faith.

(d) That Levine's maternal grandmother was a Protestant (ethnicity unknown)

(e) That Levine's maternal grandfather was (ethnically) Jewish.

(f) That according to Halachic law, Levine cannot be Jewish (unless his Protestant maternal grandmother was of Jewish matrilinial descent - it gets complicated, doesn't it?): though, as I have made clear, I do not consider this last statement to be relevant here.

I hope you will accept that there is no point in you arguing about the appropriateness of the word 'ethnically' here - you know exactly what I mean, and I'm trying to keep things clear. Now, bearing in mind that the article is about Levine, and not about tracing his ancestry back to the Great Flood, what useful, verifiable information should the article include? (a) and (b) are both well sourced, and seem pertinent to Levine's bio, and (c) helps explain (a) and (b). All Hallow's Wraith seems to think that (d) is important - but from his logic, if it is important, we cannot unequivocally describe Levine as Jewish at all - and somehow, I can't see that argument getting far, so I think we can safely ignore it. So what could we say in the bio? I'm going to see if I can come up with wording that makes (a), (b) and (c) clear. I don't see how we can include (d), because it is a statement about religion, not ethnicity, and would look bizarre and out of place just hanging there on its own. We might need to consider (e) too - to indicate that he has at least some Jewish ancestry on his mother's side, I'm not sure how important this really is though. Before I go any further though, I'd like to see your comments - and ideally, some from All Hallow's Wraith, if he is serious about trying to argue for the relevance of Halachic law to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, we are getting into the territory of using unreliable sources. The Jewish Chronicle is simply not a reliable source for showing that Levine is Jewish. They will call anyone Jewish based simply on ancestry, regardless of whether the subject considers themselves Jewish. Slate is a much superior source for the details, but how is any of this encyclopedic. Why should we care? How does it related to the subject's notability? Please answer these questions in detail before adding any of this speculation and original research back into the article. Yworo (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please point me to the policy page that says article content has to be related to the subject's notability. That is simply a false statement. About 70% of every biographical article has nothing to do with the subject's notability, nor should it. It's simply biographical detail. Ethnicity is an amazingly common biographical facet that is mentioned for every single one of Levine's peers in the music industry, when available. See Bruno Mars, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Madonna and so on. An interview with the Jewish Chronicle is a reliable source for his ethnicity/religion.

As for AndyTheGrump, again, see Barack Obama. Obviously, he self-identifies as African-American. Does that mean we simply describe him as African-American in his article and don't mention his full background? All I am saying is that his whole background should be mentioned (something you sort of were saying before too). (Gabrielle Giffords is a good example too; she self-identifies as Jewish but her full background is mentioned as well). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Barack Obama's ancestry has been a matter of considerable interest beyond Misplaced Pages. Adam Levine's hasn't (or do you have evidence to the contrary?). In any case, we cannot discuss Levine's 'whole background' in the article, because we don't know what it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Obama's ancestry is more relevant than others. However, the practice is univeral (or at least near so) on Misplaced Pages, and if Obama was a little known actor (or politician), I'm sure his full ancestry would be mentioned regardless of what he identified as. Why wouldn't it be if it can be sourced? And again, see Giffords. Anyway, what are we talking about? What do you want to change the article text to? I'm frankly happy with what's there right now, provided it's still there and hasn't been reverted. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Plea against edit warring

Personally I'm not that bothered, although I do believe it's undue emphasis on something of practically no significance. What I am bothered about is the constant edit warring over this on the article. Can everyone please stop and reach consensus here first? --Escape Orbit 20:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone here is aware that further edit warring after page protection expires would be disruptive and that an uninvolved administrator (like myself) may be more inclined to handle it by blocking disruptive editors than by extending protection, which prevents others from editing the page. Regards, causa sui (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, can I ask that all those concerned note that making controversial edits, while refusing to discuss them in the appropriate place (we had a long, though somewhat inconclusive discussion going on at the BLP/N when this talk page section was started) is hardly conducive to reaching a consensus. And neither is a participant in this discussion intentionally withholding pertinent information regarding sources because he/she "didn't want to complicate things". I will admit that some of my edits may have been close to edit-warring, but faced with a situation where proper dialogue is impossible it is difficult to see how to handle this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking generally, when one is at a loss as to what to do because someone is persistently making content edits we disagree with and refusing to discuss it to our satisfaction, the answer is to resist the temptation to edit war and follow dispute resolution: for example, seek third opinions or article content requests for comment. If the discussions produce clear consensus but a minority editor or editors refuse to abide by it, they can then be sanctioned for disruptive editing. The trick is to ignore the feeling of urgency that motivates frantic efforts to "correct" article content immediately through bald reverting. Since the dispute resolution outlet is always available, it is never constructive to even toe the line of edit warring. I hope that helps. Regards, causa sui (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect, neither an RfC, nor WP:3O should be necessary while there is an ongoing discussion, with multiple participants, regarding the issue at BLP/N. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Add BLP/N, or anything else similar, to the list of examples and my comments stand. causa sui (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it Misplaced Pages's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?

The article presently reads:

"Levine is of a Jewish background from his father and maternal grandfather. He has no formal religion."

The first sentence, while correct as far as it goes, is inadequate. The second sentence is incorrect.

Adam Levine is Jewish, yet neither of the two sentences presently in the article say that Adam Levine is Jewish. The second sentence says that he "has no formal religion". The source provided doesn't say that at all. This is the source for the second sentence:

"Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life."

The source, quoted above, makes a reference to religious practice. Yet it does not say he has no religion. You cannot replace the term "religious practice" with the term "religion" without changing the meaning of the sentence found in the source.

I think the number one question we want to entertain is whether or not we are justified in stating in our article that Adam Levine is Jewish. We are crucially interested in knowing whether sources support an assertion to that effect. I think these sources establish that Adam Levine is Jewish:

1. ) "Levine, an alarmingly self-assured, caustic, 28-year-old middle-class Jewish boy, is booming the word 'extraneous!' during a lengthy argument over a forthcoming video.""

2. ) "Sitting at a ginormous conference table covered in what appears to be silver–painted snakeskin, Levine talks about growing up just a few minutes from the Roosevelt Hotel. He was born at nearby Cedars–Sinai Hospital — 'like all the other Los Angeles Jews,' he quips."

3. ) "Look for me out there on 'the PCH'. I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle. Can't miss me."

4. ) "Dear early bird sandblasters at my neighbor's house. Fuck off. Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor."

While I am not opposed to mentioning Adam Levine's ancestry, his ancestry is of secondary importance to who he is as an individual. Therefore I think a brief mention of ancestry is all that is called for. We have a source saying:

"Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."

My inclination would be to include the above information concerning ancestry virtually verbatim. The total statement I would suggest for this article on this subject would be something like the following:

"Levine is Jewish. His father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."

We have to strike a balance between what is of sufficient importance for inclusion and what constitutes informational clutter. We also have to be concise. We are not writing a treatise on Adam Levine's Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do mind you altering the section title. It is offensive to refer to 'Identity' in a context like this. It isn't wikipedia's job to determine anyone's 'identity', nor even to imply that they have one, except in as much as they self-identify with something (and they are under no obligation to do that). And no, your proposed text isn't acceptable either - you are cherry-picking a source in which Levine discusses religion to provide a few specific details regarding his ancestry, while disregarding the most salient points of what he said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—would it be acceptable to you if I moved my post to a new section, titled "Identity"? I will take the liberty of doing so. I will also move your response to my post. And I have taken out the inapplicable (2) sentences from my post. You can delete your post, which I have moved. And I will delete this post. And we can keep this discussion on track, moving forward. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope - I have altered the section to reflect the comment I made, and I'm certainly not going to remove it. I will consider any more edit-warring over section titles to suit your POV as a breach of Misplaced Pages talk-page guidelines, and act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "act accordingly"? causa sui (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Report the matter at whatever place seems most appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Causa sui—as an administrator here, observing this in real-time, can I ask you to allow me to post my position under my chosen Talk page section title, and despite Andy's vehement objections? We are supposed to be having intelligent, rational, fair-minded discussions—despite different points of view. Thanking you in advance. Bus stop (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, after I objected to you using the term 'Identity' in a section title, you not only created a new section with that term alone as the title, but you moved my comment raising my objections to the term into it, and then asked me to delete the comment. I don't see how that can be described as 'intelligent'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't make authoritative pronouncements about what the section header should be - being a sysop does not confer any special privileges in that area. What I can say is that I would expect, along with the community, that any two editors engaged in good-faith discussion will eventually reach a compromise. But if I were you, I wouldn't make much hay over what the section is titled. causa sui (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop is trying to refactor discussion to keep it organized. You disagree with the way that he is doing it. That's pretty much it, so you wouldn't have much to report. I can read from what Bus Stop wrote that he had no intention to offend anyone and is not strongly committed to any particular section heading. What he seems to be trying to do is frame the debate in a way that everyone can agree on, so that by having a clearly defined thesis to debate, the discussion will be more likely to reach a resolution. This is an ordinary step in any mediation process and it is expected (as he evidently expected) that it may take a few tries to get right. It's a storm in a teacup to begin with, and making vague threats like this in lieu of proposing solutions (as he invited you to do) is bullying. I think you should more carefully pick your battles. causa sui (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that there was any need to refactor in the first place. As for 'proposing solutions', this was the purpose of the BLP/N discussion. Nothing Bus stop is saying now differs significantly from what he has said before. I have already made my objections plain. I'm not going to endlessly repeat them every time Bus stop starts a new section, regardless of the title. Bus stop is attempting to misuse a source to give someone an unquivocal Jewish 'Identity' while ignoring the entire context - that Levine made it quite clear that he wasn't Jewish by faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I tried to title this section "Identity". You changed the title to "Is it Misplaced Pages's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?" I feel that you are undermining my attempt to express my point of view on the issue at hand. It is of course a position that differs from your point of view. I think the question is—how conducive is this to creating a quality article, based on the collaborative process that is necessarily indispensable to Misplaced Pages? First you have to let me express myself. Only after I have expressed myself can you constructively respond to me and rebut what I've said. But if you've changed the section title right above my first post in this section—have you really let me express myself? Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you tried to title this section 'Identity' after I had expressly state that I thought that it was wrong to use the term, in order to impose you point of view on the discussion. How is that compatible with a 'collaborative process'? In any case I have no need to rebut you - I already have, repeatedly. You are misusing a source in order to impose an unequivocally Jewish 'Identity' on someone who made it quite clear that he isn't of the Judaic faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—do you notice that I bring sources to support most points that I try to make? You are not even presenting sources for our evaluation. You seem to be of the opinion that Adam Levine is not Jewish. I have brought several good sources above indicating that Adam Levine is Jewish. Do you have any source to suggest to us that Adam Levine might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The only relevant sources we have clearly demonstrate that Levine self-identifies as ethnically Jewish, but not of the Judaic faith. I have no problem with that - you seem to. He is who he is, and that is all there is to it. Otherwise, 'is' doesn't really come into it. 'Jewishness', whether by ethnicity or by faith, is a social construct - and a notably contentious one, amongst many of those who self-identify with it. It isn't my job, or Misplaced Pages's, to make definitive statements one way or another. If you want to unambiguously divide the world into 'Jew' and 'non-Jew', you can - but not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you've addressed my question, asked immediately above: Do you have any source to suggest to us that Adam Levine might not be Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to me to be 100% factual - Levine's father and grandfather were Jewish, and this is backed by the source. His lack of religious conviction is stated too. So, we have covered his ethnicity and religion. What more need be added to this? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

it is wikipedia's job to report that someone is jewish (or anything else) if it is in the sources and particularly if it is self-declared (as adam clearly has said and indicated several times for the record). it is not wiki's job to report it if there are no sources. why is that an issue here? there are solid sources saying he is jewish (and not just 'of jews'). and what the heck is 'formal religion'? sunday school? Soosim (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That incorrect language has been put into the article twice by All Hallow's Wraith—here and here, and it has been put in the article once by AndyTheGrump—here.

The source does not say that Adam Levine "has no formal religion". The source reads:

"Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life."

The source makes a reference to religious practice. It does not say he has no religion. You cannot replace the term "religious practice" with the term "religion" without changing the meaning of the sentence found in the source.

Perhaps the two editors who have inserted this phrase can explain or defend its use. Bus stop (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all this indicates is there is a lot of thrashing around trying to establish a firm basis and indisputable wording for Levine's religious and ethnic status, when there is simply not sufficient evidence or sources to do so. We should not be trying to create something out of practically nothing. Leave it out until there's something we can work with. --Escape Orbit 11:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear from the provided sources above that he does define himself as being Jewish. Judaism has a category for those who are ethnically Jewish but who do not practice the religion. Marokwitz (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"Leave it out"? If a source said Levine's father and maternal grandfather were of Italian descent, not only would we not leave it out, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. In fact, no one has yet stated exactly why we are having this discussion. What is in dispute here? A visitor from Mars may be forgiven for thinking the debate here is what to name the section title. No, not the section in the article. The section in the talk page. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The longer you've been on Misplaced Pages, the less surprised you'll be when people make a huge deal out of inconsequential minutiae. causa sui (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith—can you tell us why you have twice (here and here) placed into the article, in reference to Adam Levine, that "He has no formal religion"? You are relying on a source which says: "Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life." The source makes a reference to religious practice. It does not say he has no religion. You cannot replace the term "religious practice" with the term "religion" without changing the meaning of the sentence found in the source. Bus stop (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just reverting the total deletion of the content by AndyTheGrump or one of the accolytes. I had no idealogical or fact-based reason for including the line "no formal religion". P.S. maybe a good idea would be to change the line to "Levine does not formally practice a religion" or something along those lines. Maybe that will please both sides? Or at least two of the seventeen sides? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith—you are making this more complicated than it is. Adam Levine is a nonobservant Jew like approximately 50% of the Jews of the world. As I suggested up above:

"Levine is Jewish. His father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."

We have sources in abundance supporting the above. You, All Hallow's Wraith, have brought most of those sources.

This source says that:

"Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."

This is not an article about Adam Levine's extended family. It is about Adam Levine. Nor are we writing a treatise on the Jewish dimension of Adam Levine. To that end, we should be mentioning that he is Jewish, but we should not be delving into that. It suffices to suggest that both his parents might not be Jewish. But it would be out of place to examine, as if under a magnifying glass, his halachic status. No one cares. He is hard-rocker. This is not a value judgement. I am saying that it is obvious to the reader that Adam Levine is probably not the most observant of Jews. We editors need to decide whether we are interested in writing the obvious article that needs to be written, and which is entirely supported by sources, or whether we are going to argue and block every possible reasonable language for inclusion in the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking about the sentence "does not formally practice a religion", that I proposed, I have no stake in that sentence. I simply proposed it as a compromise between you and AndyTheGrump. It doesn't matter to me if it's there either way. As for the proposed sentence "Levine is Jewish" (if that's what you're proposing), I think it would be misleading to say that. For a very long time, the word "Jewish" referred to someone whose parents were both Jewish and who didn't practice another religion. Clearly, this is changing now as the number of people who fit that definition decreases. On Misplaced Pages, though, we have the space to lay out Levine's full background. I wouldn't want Lady Gaga described simply as "Italian American" since she had a grandparent who was not. Categories are another matter, but article text means we can go into detail that categories can not. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith—a Jew is a person who was born Jewish or who has converted to Judaism. This is not new. Again—you are making this more complicated than it is. Furthermore Misplaced Pages is non-accepting of original research. We derive the content for our articles from that information that is reliably sourced. You express the wish to "lay out Levine's full background." I cannot stop you from doing that—if it is reliably sourced. But doing so will lower the quality of the article, in my opinion, because it will skew the article in a senseless direction—a direction in which the halachic status of ancestors must be examined. In my opinion that would constitute: Too Much Information. This is hardly a treatise on Adam Levine's Jewishness. But as I say—if you wish to document the status in this regard, to the extent that reliable sources allow—I cannot stop you. The core question is whether, according to reliable sources, Adam Levine is Jewish. These sources are all saying that Adam Levine is Jewish. Do you have a source that is suggesting that Adam Levine might not be Jewish? Please bring such a source to our attention if you know of one. In the meantime consider the following:

1. ) "Levine, an alarmingly self-assured, caustic, 28-year-old middle-class Jewish boy, is booming the word 'extraneous!' during a lengthy argument over a forthcoming video.""

2. ) "Sitting at a ginormous conference table covered in what appears to be silver–painted snakeskin, Levine talks about growing up just a few minutes from the Roosevelt Hotel. He was born at nearby Cedars–Sinai Hospital — 'like all the other Los Angeles Jews,' he quips."

3. ) "Look for me out there on 'the PCH'. I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle. Can't miss me."

4. ) "Dear early bird sandblasters at my neighbor's house. Fuck off. Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor." Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the bottom line is this: two things are off the table in my view. One, is deleting any mention of his being "Jewish"/of Jewish ancestry altogether. Two, is simply stating "Levine is Jewish" without explaining his ancestry in more detail. Anything else and everything else I can agree to, since it would presumably be in between these two options. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, it isn't necessary to repeat the same information several times in the discussion. Yes, the source says that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish. But the same source that is used to provide information about his Jewish ancestry, makes it absolutely clear that Levine isn't formally of the Jewish faith. Can you explain why we should be misleading readers by ignoring half of what the source says? What gives you the right to assume that readers are only interested in ethnicity, and not faith? .And more importantly, why do you assume that readers would interpret 'Jewish' as implying ethnicity, and not faith? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

All Hallow's Wraith—as I said—I cannot stop you from documenting the status of Adam Levine's ancestors—go right ahead and do it.

But as to your other point—numerous reliable sources support that Adam Levine is Jewish. Do you have a source that suggests that Adam Levine is not Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not particularly objecting to the description of him as "Jewish", or the categorization. What I am saying is that there are "only" two things I will not agree to, one is deleting everything, and the other is saying he's Jewish without saying he isn't of fully Jewish ancestry. So, basically, the two extremes (?). Everything else you can sign me on for. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "the source says that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish." Can you bring to my attention the source that "says that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish"? I haven't seen any such source. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, please don't be intentionally obtuse. You know full well what 'ethnically' means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—In fact it matters what a source says. You say in this post that "the source says that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish" but in fact the source does not say that. I think you should be making a distinction between what a source says and what a source does not say. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You know full well what 'ethnically' means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you should not be saying that "the source says that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish" when in fact no such wording is found in any source (that I have seen). Additionally you are not linking to any source. How would I (or anyone else) know if you have found a source saying that or not? Bus stop (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Make your mind up, Bus stop. We have a source that shows that Levine isn't formally of the Judaic faith (though it doesn't make clear exactly what he does believe), and you are suggesting that there aren't any sources for him being ethnically Jewish (or am I missing something here?). If Levine isn't Jewish by faith, and he isn't Jewish by ethnicity, how is he Jewish at all? Earlier you were insisting he had a Jewish 'identity', but now you seem to be insisting that he doesn't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "We have a source that shows that Levine isn't formally of the Judaic faith". Can you please link to the source that you have in mind, and can you please cut-and-paste what you feel is the relevant wording from that source? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish. "Dad spiked in a little Judaism," he says of his religious upbringing. "But it wasn't the kind of thing he wanted to force on me."

Levine might be covered in tattoos and have a reputation for being a lothario, but he is a serious-minded individual whose religious convictions reach back to his early teens.

"Religion is a very long, complicated conversation that we're not going to have right now," he asserts. He believes that "you have to let kids figure out what they want to do for themselves." Is that what happened to him? "Well, my father did ask me whether I wanted a barmitzvah, and I said no."

He was surrounded by Jewish boys marking their transition to manhood, and yet he worried that they were doing it for the wrong reasons. "I felt as though a lot of kids were trying to cash in," he says. "They were trying to make a bunch of money, and that's fine. I just don't think it's the most respectful way to deal with God and beliefs and years and years and years of cultural heritage."

Like a lot of Jewish musicians, Levine has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life. It was inevitable, really: in a way, the Bible and its characters were supplanted at a young age in his imagination by the heroes of pop.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you have said (here) that "Levine isn't formally of the Judaic faith".

You've provided a source (here) which says "Levine has rejected formal religious practice".

In your above transformation of language you have rearranged some words, eliminated other words, such as the word "practice", and inserted new phrases, such as "Judaic faith"—which is not found in the original source. All that you have retained are the words formal/formally. Your new assertion is original research.

You have changed the title of this section from "Identity" to "Is it Misplaced Pages's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?" The title that you have chosen questions whether we can say in our article that Adam Levine is Jewish. Your choice of title suggests to me that you are unlikely to accept that Adam Levine is Jewish no matter what reliable sources say. I think you convey a similar notion when you subsequently post that "Jewishness" is a "social construct". You are certainly entitled to such positions but importantly no sources say anything like that in relation to Adam Levine. Four sources cited above refer to Adam Levine either as being a Jew or as being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, don't be so intentionally obtuse. I have made my position perfectly clear: Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish (he describes himself as a Jew), but he also makes clear that he doesn't follow 'formal religious practice' - he says that "Religion is a very long, complicated conversation that we're not going to have right now", which can only reasonably mean that he isn't stating what his beliefs are - and in the context of the remark (an interview with the Jewish Chronicle) it can only reasonably be interpreted a statement that his beliefs are his own, and cannot be assumed to be those of Judaism. So yes, Levine is Jewish by ethnicity, but no he isn't Jewish by faith (or at least, we don't have a source which states that he is - and Misplaced Pages requires self-assertion regarding faith). So the only sensible answer to the question 'is Levine Jewish?' is 'in what sense?'. It isn't a yes-or-no question. In any case, both ethnicity and religion are social constructs - this is basic sociological theory, though Id suggest that it is also common sense, and if you don't understand that, then really I don't think you should be involving yourself in debates like this. Furthermore, and perhaps more to the point, both Jewish ethnicity and Jewish faith are contested concepts - the former, as All Hallow's Wraith has shown by debates over the requirement under Halachic law for matrilinial descent - which is of course rejected by many who consider themselves ethnically Jewish. Likewise, there are debates amongst the different wings of Judaic faith as to who is Jewish by religion', as I'm sure you are well aware. So I'm not going to make assertions that anyone is or isn't 'Jewish' - because reliable sources say that it isn't a question with a yes-or-no answer - and it isn't my job (or yours) to make such assertions. We can only follow the sources, that state that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish (though evidently this may be contested by others) and his faith (if any) is undefined. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Old requests for peer review