Talk:Adam Levine/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia, 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&#39;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 Wikipedia and start examining whether we can protect Wikipedia from BLP and its accolytes. All Hallow&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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 (Talk) 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 Wikipedia articles and never has been. If it was, we would have to delete well over 70% of the text of Wikipedia 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&#39;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 Wikipedia.


 * (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 Wikipedia article says nothing about his paternal grandparents both being Jewish, so it is not OR. The Wikipedia 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&#39;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&#39;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 Wikipedia 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 Verifiability. However, my point is it does not matter. There is no requirement anywhere on Wikipedia 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&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong, just wrong. There is nothing whatever in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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&#39;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 Wikipedia 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 Verifiability."

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&#39;s Wraith (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Barack Obama's ancestry has been a matter of considerable interest beyond Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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&#39;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 (Talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia'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&#39;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  (Talk) 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&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The longer you've been on Wikipedia, 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&#39;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 Wikipedia, 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&#39;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 Wikipedia 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&#39;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&#39;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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)


 * You guys know that nobody else wants to read these long debates between you, right? It makes you both look bad by creating the impression that you are more interested in winning than reaching a resolution. At this point I think it would do either or both of you some good to consider the fact that you're obviously not going to convince each other -- quite the opposite, the longer you debate this, the madder you'll get, and the more dug in you'll get -- and that another dispute resolution outlet is necessary to determine what should be done with the article. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Causa sui, given that the BLP/N discussion went nowhere, and All Hallow's Wraith refused to even participate in it, just what 'dispute resolution' outlet are you suggesting? I'd be happy not to have these 'long debates', but given Bus stop's endless circular arguments, and endless nit-picking over words he clearly understands, combined with an outright refusal to acknowledge that some questions don't have yes or no answers (the root cause of his stubbornness, IMO), it is difficult to see how this can be resolved - even if I was to walk away from this debate, I suspect that Bus stop and All Hallow's Wraith's positions are irreconcilable too (though both seem to involve stretching WP:WEIGHT and/or WP:BLP policy beyond reasonable limits anyway). More to the point though, this obsession with tagging people for ethnicity and/or religion when it is of no relevance to their notability (and frequently poorly sourced) is contrary to the objectives of Wikipedia BLP policy and guidelines. This isn't supposed to be an ethno-religious database, and treating as such leads to very skewed article content. If anything needs 'resolution', it is probably the behaviour of editors who use Wikipedia as a means to boost their own ethnic and or religious group, rather than the rather minor one of in that ways Adam Levine is or isn't Jewish - if this is somehow settled here, it will no doubt spring up again elsewhere, as long as nothing is done. I suspect you are right that this isn't going to be settled here though - I think that (yet again) we will need to discuss the more general policy issues regarding this - in a more appropriate place. I will obviously have to think about this in some depth first. Meanwhile, I haver made my position quite clear here, and will leave Bus stop and All Hallow's Wraith (and of course anyone else who is interested) to see if they can come up with a mutually-agreeable wording that doesn't violate WP:BLP, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTHESIS etc, though, as I've already suggested, I doubt that this will happen. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Causa sui—isn't it clear to you that a section on the Adam Levine Talk page should not be titled:


 * "Is it Wikipedia's job to assert that someone has a Jewish 'Identity'?"


 * I had originally titled this section "Identity".


 * As an administrator, I would think you would very well know that we do not decide Wikipedia policy on the Talk pages of individual articles, therefore what purpose does the present Talk page section heading serve?


 * Additionally—section headings should not express one-sided views.


 * Andy retitled this section to the present title.


 * I asked you to intervene yet you let Andy's section title stand.


 * Since then you have stood by idly when there were policies that needed to be abided by. You have occasionally posted, but never to guide the discussion in accordance with the basic Wikipedia policies.


 * WP:RS is extremely applicable here. WP:NOR is extremely applicable here. WP:TALK is extremely applicable here.


 * As an administrator should you not be reminding participants in a discussion that there are policies that must be observed? Bus stop (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—your argument has been that Adam Levine considers himself "ethnically" Jewish.

I have asked you to produce a source supporting that contention of yours but you have thus far failed to do so.

You say "We can only follow the sources, that state that Levine considers himself ethnically Jewish" but there are no sources for us to follow as you have produced none.

The sources that we do have (1, 2, 3, 4) convey to us clearly and unambiguously that Adam Levine considers himself Jewish. The sources also convey that others consider him Jewish. No source whatsoever hints that he might not be Jewish. If you know of such a source please bring it to our attention. We edit according to sources and we avoid original research.

Yes, we know that Adam Levine's mother is not Jewish. No one is trying to suppress that fact. Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist. But the fact that Adam Levine's mother is not Jewish does not change the fact that Adam Levine is Jewish. Article content is determined not by original research but rather by following reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, do you understand what 'ethnically' means? From the above, you appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—after these two edits (1, 2) I've brought this up here. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You can call him whatever you want but his full ancestry should be noted, which I'll do. Like I said, the two things I do not agree to are 1. deleting it alltogether and 2. simply saying he is "Jewish" without a full explication of his background. Option #2 is not practiced anywhere on Wikipedia that I can find, nor, frankly, Andy, is option #1. I added "the religion of his father and maternal grandfather", although I'm not all that satisfied with it. I'm also confused about the sentence "Adam Levine is Jewish". Is he a member of the Jewish religion, Reform, Conservative, and so on? There is no particular evidence to say so. Is he an ethnic Jew? Well, he is of partial ethnic Jewish descent. So what do we mean by this statement, "Levine is Jewish"? Is it to say that he self-identifies as Jewish in some sense? Why don't we just say that, "Levine self-identifies as Jewish", or "Levine identifies as Jewish". Perhaps "Levine's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish; Levine identifies as Jewish, and is not religious", which combines everything and states that he is Jewish through self-identification. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you state this at the new BLP/N thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so have we once again taken a conversation to the BLP thread? How wonderful. Where is this stated as common or reasonable practice? Anyway, nevermind. The conversation over there, yet again, is not about what I am talking about. It's about whether to mention that he's not religious or has no formal religion. No one has even brought up the issue of his ancestry. Do you object to the wording I just added? Or to the wording I just proposed? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to you refusing to take part in an ongoing discussion regarding this. We are discussing precisely the issue you are editing on, and your refusal to take part in the debate is just plain obstructive. Stop playing games. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish to offer no opinion on whether his lack of religion or lack of formal religion or whatever should be mentioned in the article. That is what the discussion at BLP is about, and I indeed refuse to participate in it because like I said, I have no opinion that I wish to share. My question/query is about mentioning his full ancestry, and that's not being discussed over there. That's just a fact. Since that's not being discussed over there, let's discuss it here, or let's not discuss it at all if you have no objection to my latest edit. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Either discuss it there or I will revert you edits as against consensus (which they clearly are - I've seen no support for your arguments from others). You are refusing to take part in an ongoing discussion on the most ludicrous pretext - what exactly do you have against discussing the issue at BLP/N? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked at your addition and wanted to revert - its kind of leading and asserting all sorts of claims that may or may not be correct - "Levine is Jewish (the religion of his father and maternal grandfather).[6][7][8][9] He has rejected formal religion " - The first statement asserts his maternal grandfather and his father were religious - I have seen detail that his father was, is his grandfathers religiousness cited as well? And then the first part of the content asserts that Jewish is a religious expression. - and then it says he has rejected formal religion ? Its just unfathomable what the two combined comments are attempting to say. Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no citation to assert he is religious at all, is there? Off2riorob (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this: . He has clearly got an opinion on the subject, but prefers to keep it to himself - given that source, one certainly cannot say he has no religion: merely that he "has rejected formal religious practice" - e.g. the Bar Mitzvah. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tend to only focus on what we actually have, we don't seem to have that he is "not religious" in a reliable cite - I just think all of this is a bit of a waste of time - why not just leave out the religion/not religion comment - leaving something simple like, Levine's father is Jewish and his mother is ..not... Off2riorob (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, if you wish, you should replace the text with "the background of his father and maternal grandfather" (as opposed to "religion") and I probably wouldn't even bother objecting if you just changed it to "religion of his father". As I recall, you yourself stated that the article should mention he is not fully of Jewish ancestry, so I support any text that correctly reflects this (I guess "Levine is Jewish (as were his father and maternal grandfather)" is another option). AndyTheGrump, Why should we discuss this (or anything) at BLPN, first of all? What is wrong with this talk page? What is wrong with other methods of dispute resolution? Second, what I am talking about is not being discussed at BLPN. It's just not. I am talking about including his full ancestry, which no one over there is talking about. And finally, if I were you, I wouldn't go around saying that you'll "revert you edits as against consensus ". First, there is no consensus anywhere on including his ancestry, and there couldn't possibly be a consensus at BLPN as it's not being discussed there. Second, you've already broken 3rr here outright, in the literal sense, (you're the only person here who's done so on this page), so now you're saying you're going to revert me without A. disagreeing with my edit (do you?) or B. discussing it with me? How fantastical! And let me guess, if I revert you after that, I get blocked, you don't? How would that work, causa sui? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S., I just noticed Bus Stop wrote "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist". Great, so out of the people involved in this dispute, who opposes the inclusion of his ancestry? I don't, Bus Stop doesn't, I don't think Off2riorob does (though could be wrong, maybe he wants to change the wording slightly and I don't object). Do you oppose it, AndyTheGrump? If you don't, I don't see that we have a disagreement on this issue. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Levine is Jewish (as were his father and maternal grandfather)" - this seems reasonable considering he refers to himself a lot a being "Jewish" - with no religious cats. What ethnicity/religion is/was his Mother? Off2riorob (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't know. We know her father was Jewish (but by faith, by ethnicity, or both?) and her mother was Protestant (ethnicity unknown). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the wording Off2riorb uses (just used). All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We should be going by what sources say. Sources say that he is Jewish. Therefore the primary statement that we should be making is that Adam Levine is Jewish. The terminology that some of you are introducing is not found in sources. "Ethnic" is never used in relation to Adam Levine in any source. Ditto for "ethnicity" and "ethnically". Stick to sources and you avoid original research. We should be conservative in what we say in this, a WP:BLP. The most solidly sourced piece of information on this topic happens to be that Adam Levine is Jewish. Multiple sources support that, and they do so with unambiguity. All that this article should be saying is that Adam Levine is Jewish. It would not matter which of his family members were Jewish. It is really not our concern, in an article on a "singer–songwriter musician", whether his mother or his father are Jewish. That information may be out there—but dragging it into this article represents an unjustified intrusion on an individual. No reader reasonably wants to know whether Adam Levine's father or mother are Jewish. If they do want to know, they can click on the citations, glance at the "External links" section, or glance at the "Further reading" section. There is a proper "depth" of information in an article. All that is called for is mention that he is Jewish. The simple mention of it remains within the bounds of propriety. Dragging up identities of parents and grandparents raises eyebrows—it enters the realm of impropriety. Bus stop (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, 'ethnicity' is a well-understood and common term from the social sciences - if you are suggesting that articles can only be discussed on talk pages using words found in sources, I'd like you to point out which policy dictates this. And secondly, I think your comments regarding 'original research' need to be seen in relation to your recent edit summary: "the source does not say that he "has rejected formal religion", and that wording is meaningless, especially in relation to Jews, because a nonobservant Jew is 100% Jewish, and we should not be implying otherwise; the source in fact refers to practice". That is 'original research' - or more accurately, it is your own opinion on a complex issue, and as such doesn't belong in an edit summary. (It is also ridiculous: how do you measure someone's Jewish/non-Jewish ratio?). Regarding 'impropriety', I'm slightly baffled about where this comes into this. Perhaps you could make clear what you mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you stated "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist" not very long ago. I am going by this. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All Hallow's Wraith—in response to your post immediately above, I have to say—no information on so-called "ancestry" should be in this article. All that should be stated in this article is that this "…singer-songwriter and musician, best known as the front man and guitarist for the pop rock band Maroon 5" is Jewish. That is it. Nothing else is called for. We are not writing a thesis on the Jewishness of Adam Levine. The man is only noted for being a musician. There is no obvious connection between his being a musician and his being Jewish. There is a proper depth and there is an improper depth with which various pieces of information should be presented. It would not matter what extraneous material could be found in reliable sources. We are not compelled to drag everything that can be sourced into an article. Editorial discretion should be exercised to include only that material that will contribute to the writing of an article that is balanced in its entirety—from start to finish. A well-written article should not overly focus on a small point in an incongruous way, unless there exists a reason why such focus is called for. There is no reason why Adam Levine's being Jewish warrants the scrutiny that some are advocating for.


 * Overly delving into the well-sourced fact that Adam Levine is Jewish introduces an imbalance. We are not, for instance, even delving into the origins of his musicianship to the extent that some of you are proposing that we delve into the qualities inherent in his Jewishness: where did he learn to play guitar? what appeals to him about guitar playing or musicianship? how does the pursuit of music intersect with his sense of self? Such questions—or any questions like such questions—are not addressed. Yet some of you seemingly are determined to pinpoint, with exactitude, the contours of his Jewish identity. That is putting the cart before the horse. In this article Adam Levine is firstly a musician, and only secondly a Jew. We should not get our perspectives mixed up. As this is a living individual, we should be exercising restraint in including material of dubious pertinence.


 * A little bit of perspective is called for here, in my opinion. In my opinion, it is the whole article that we should be concerned with, which implies a focus appropriate to to the overall article and not just to the relatively unimportant point that Adam Levine is Jewish. Put in proper perspective I think that no more is called for than the bare noting that Adam Levine is Jewish. The reader has plenty of resources provided by the article for additional research if they are interested—the Citations, the "Further reading" section of the article, and the "External links" section of the article.


 * I hope you will participate in the WP:BLPN discussion found here: Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I find at WP:BLP: "If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard." This issue has remained unresolved after several weeks of tussle and it behoves us all to avail ourselves of all avenues of resolution. You are obviously welcome to bring up any points you wish there. I say this because you have indicated above that the focus of discussion there is something other than the focus that you feel is important. To me it is obvious that the variety of points and language that have bedeviled us for the past several weeks are all related. This should be hashed out at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and I hope you will participate, as you have been very active in all that has transpired up until this point. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The word Jewish refers to both an ancestry and a religion. It just does. That's not my opinion. It's a fact. So, yes, if we are getting into someone's Jewishness, we have to illustrate both the ethnic and the religious aspect of it (if known). That's the way it's done all over Wikipedia. I don't see why this page would be different (I think I've repeated this sentence for about a month now here on one issue or the other). No precedent nor rule exists to block this out. Like you said above, "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist". Now you have changed your opinion completely. Why? Do you really want more edit warring and debate? Seriously? You wrote that sentence out just a few days ago. Now it's a completely different opinion from you? Enough already. I don't see why you and I get to know Adam Levine's full background but the Wikipedia reader would not. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All Hallow's Wraith—if you feel that your position has merit please present it here on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.


 * I notice a total of five editors (including myself) who seem to be expressing the opinion that all that we should be saying at the Adam Levine article is that he is Jewish, and nothing more. Please note the comments of the following four editors: here, here, here, and here. I too feel that the appropriate thing to do in this article is to simply note that the individual is Jewish—and nothing more.


 * There are two editors—you and AndyTheGrump who hold varying opinions on the sorts of additional material that should be added. Please present some input at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please present your argument there. The intention is not to be discussing this forever. The intention is to resolve this. Bus stop (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, wrong, none of those editors are addressing the topic of his full ethnic heritage, which was never brought up there (were any of those editors addressing the concept of stating his full ancestry? No. Was the question posed when you started the discussion? No. How about at any other point in that discussion? No).. You can't reach a consensus on an issue if the issue was never discussed, only the issue of whether to say he is religious or not religious or what. Bus stop, I said above two things are unacceptable to me: deleting the text, and saying "he is Jewish" without anything else. These positions will never, ever change. I will not tow to the extremism of one side or the other. And I don't think Wikipedia should either. Nor do I have any intention of starting a conversation about this specific topic on BLP, since one does not exist at the moment. I do not see how quoting sourced text can be a BLP violation. This is a perfectly lovely place to discuss this. And aside from that, "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist", "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist", "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist", "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist". How many more times do I need to quote you? "Information on Adam Levine's ancestry can be included in the article if you and All Hallow's Wraith insist". Sorry, but I'm going to go by your statement on this matter a few days ago. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I also just noticed you said "Yes, we know that Adam Levine's mother is not Jewish. No one is trying to suppress that fact". Seriously, I'm not going to reply here anymore. Just copy and paste text that you wrote as a reponse to your upcoming responses. See how you like (literally) debating with yourself. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I do not take that stance anymore, as should be obvious to you. Of primary concern is the article. We should not be writing an imperfect article, based on the premise that an editor (me) misspoke. I am entitled to revise my position. On further reflection, all that should be said about Adam Levine (note that this is not about all articles but rather this article) is that he is Jewish. He is a musician first (from a Wikipedia point of view) and a Jew second (or third, or fourth, or fifth…). You are making a mountain out of a molehill, putting the cart before the horse, or any other metaphor for distorting emphasis. Wikipedia writes articles from a Wikipedia point of view. Those people who comprise a close circle of family and friends view Adam Levine from a perspective that is quite different from the perspective that Adam Levine would be viewed in a Wikipedia article. Our articles place a good deal of emphasis on notability. His being Jewish is for all intents and purposes, from a Wikipedia point of view, unrelated to the reason we are writing an article about him. There would be no constraints on the level of detail or the quality of insights we might provide on his musicianship—because it is his musicianship that he is notable for. Reliable sources are not saying that he is notable for being Jewish. We do not have to drag a quality of information that is in its essence extraneous to this article. This is in keeping with the language found at WP:BLP:


 * "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."


 * While it is true that notability does not limit content:


 * WP:N: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."


 * We nevertheless should be exercising judgement in what information we chose to include as we stray further and further from the subject's core reason for notability. It is instructive to note the depth to which this article delves into Adam Levine's musicianship. Did he study with a teacher, or was he self-taught? Are there other musicians in his family? From where did he derive his interest and his confidence in music? Does he have influences? Was he inspired by any other musicians? (Actually there is information on this in at least one source just waiting to be put into the article.) Did he entertain other career choices before settling on music? My point is that much can be said about his musicianship but little is said. Instead you are seizing on his Jewishness as an area that needs to be expanded upon. For what reason? This isn't an exhaustive biography—far from it. There are many more questions that can be asked about his musicianship. The emphasis of some editors is misplaced. You are arguing for a distorted article. He refers to himself as Jewish in three sources. In a fourth source he is referred to as Jewish. That is a level of conspicuousness that qualifies such information for inclusion. On the other hand, finding out that his mother was of this identity or his maternal grandfather was of that identity—this should make us think about our WP:BLP constraints. Should this article be "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"? In the context of a Wikipedia article of this brevity, the depth of probing you and AndyTheGrump are suggesting is out of place. You are each emphasizing different types of information, but none of it belongs. We neither need to know Adam Levine's "beliefs" (Andy's suggestion) or Adam Levine's "ancestry" (your suggestion). The appropriate level of information is suggested to us by the basic sources we have supporting the claim that Adam Levine is Jewish. The reader can easily click on the links or review the "External links" section or the "Further reading" section. Just because information is out there is not sufficient reason to include it in a well-balanced article. Bus stop (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, I think you misunderstand my position. I am not suggesting that an article about Levine must necessarily discuss his religious beliefs (as you say, it has nothing to do with his notability). However, I am saying that simply labelling him as 'Jewish' seems rather arbitrary, given that he has discussed his rejection of aspects of Judaic ritual etc. Like it or not 'Jewish' is an ambiguous term, and since we are under no obligation to note his Jewishness at all, it should be our responsibility to do it in a way that clarifies (as much as we can, given the sources) any ambiguities, if we chose to discuss his ethnicity. I have as yet to see any reasoned argument from you as to why adding reliably-sourced information regarding Levine's attitudes to his Jewish heritage should be excluded. And purely from a point of view of style, a paragraph consisting of the single sentence 'Levine is Jewish' looks ugly, arbitrary, and more like something added by a passing vandal than the result of extensive discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, I agree with everything after the sentence "Like it or not ". And that's consistent with what I've been saying all along. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * andy...but he is jewish. Soosim (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what do you mean, "he is jewish", soosim? If you mean he's a follower of the Jewish religion, I don't think there's any particular evidence of that (i.e. is he a member of Reform Judaism? no evidence). If you're saying he's fully Jewish by ethnicity, well, he's not. If you're saying he self-identifies as Jewish, it would appear so. These are three different things and the word "Jewish" can refer to any of them. Which is why the actual facts should be presented in the article, not some nonsense, and we should explain what we mean when we use that word in the text. Bus stop, my position will simply never ever ever never change on this issue. I am not towing to extremism. You are extremism, and not even very consistent extremism at that; once you "won" against Andy with the religion thing you went further, switched your position around 100%, and now you're trying to see how much you can get away with. Well, that's nice. If you wish to pursue this further, and make arguments for why this should be the only Wikipedia article not to mention someone's full background when it is available, please do so on whichever messageboard or noticeboard for third party resolution is available. Just be sure not to quote yourself from four days ago. I support facts and their full unselective presentation. That's how an encyclopedia should be written. Period. And don't make this silly argument about privacy? Are you kidding me? How is his ancestry private if it was reported in a reliable source? And how is his religion not private? And so on. I am not going down that road. I hope you drop this silly thing as soon as possible. This should never have been an issue in the first place, it is completely uncontroversial, and taking it beyond one month of so-called "discussion" is just nuts. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All Hallow's Wraith—you are asking, "what do you mean, "he is jewish", soosim?"


 * Adam Levine is Jewish, obviously, because reliable sources say that he is Jewish.


 * Let me add that it is out of place for you to be questioning whether Adam Levine is Jewish on this WP:BLP Talk page. I find the following language at WP:BLP:


 * "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages…"


 * All sources that address the topic at all, say that Adam Levine is Jewish. No source suggests that Adam Levine is not Jewish. I think it is out of place for you to be questioning on this Talk page whether Adam Levine is Jewish—unless you are basing your doubts on sourced references. Where are your references? Your above post is replete with an abundance of expressed doubts but it is completely lacking in sources.


 * I would suggest the following wording for inclusion in our article:


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


 * The second sentence is a direct quote from The Jewish Chronicle Online.


 * With citations the two sentences would look like this:


 * Levine is Jewish. "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this wording. Feel free to include it. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 10:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * to all my friends: "levine is jewish." means "levine is jewish". i am not here to interpret it to mean born of a jewish mother, converted into the religion, had a dream one night and feels jewish, is orthodox, reform, conservative, reconstructionist, humanist or secular, culturally, ethnically, religiously, biologically or anything else. i meant what i said and i said what i meant: "levine is jewish". Soosim (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I am ready to make that edit. Can I have assurance from Causa sui that it is time to move ahead and make this edit? Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't up to Causa sui to determine article content. He/she was merely insisting that we stop edit warring, and reach a consensus through talk page discussion. As for the proposed edit, I'm against it firstly, as a matter of style - it uses the word 'Jewish' twice in the same sentence, which is less than elegant, but secondly, that it doesn't address the very issue I raised in my last comment - that Levine has explicitly stated that he has rejected parts of Jewish faith and/or ritual, and yet we make no mention of this salient fact, while going into detail about his ancestors' ethnicity. You have still given no reason whatsoever for us to omit reliably-sourced information regarding Levine's attitudes to his Jewish heritage? What are your reasons, beyond 'I don't like it'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't determine what article content should be based on some kind of administrative fiat. But I do feel comfortable judging whether there is consensus or not, and there isn't. You should probably be thinking about an article content RFC. causa sui (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This is being discussed at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which is where I think it should be discussed. The proposed notion, of characterizing Adam Levine's Jewishness in some way, has already been rejected there. I think AndyTheGrump can reintroduce this topic again there, if he feels that will be productive, or I think consensus could be assumed to have been achieved at this point. Bus stop (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, there is no consensus here. Now, please answer the question I asked: Why should we omit reliably-sourced information regarding Levine's attitudes to his Jewish heritage, while going into detail about his ancestors' ethnicity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—five editors (including myself) responded to you at the WP:BLP Notice-board. I think we basically said that we were opposed to going into a characterization of Adam Levine's Jewishness. This is a brief article and my feeling is that there should not be greater depth of coverage of Adam Levine as a Jew than there is of Adam Levine as a musician. Please pose these sorts of questions to others at the WP:BLP Notice-board as they would no doubt respond in an entirely different way than I am responding. But they have said, at least several of them have said, that we should limit a statement in this article to simply that Adam Levine is Jewish. Aside from my own posts, I am referring to posts by others found here, here, here, and here. Those sorts of posts I think represent a consensus against your initiative to characterize Adam Levine in some way vis-a-vis his Jewishness. Bus stop (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that yet again you refuse to answer my question as to why should we omit reliably-sourced information regarding Levine's attitudes to his Jewish heritage, while going into detail about his ancestors' ethnicity. There is no consensus, here or on BLP/N, for the text you are proposing. As Causa sui says, an RfC on alternative texts might be the best solution - we certainly aren't going to 'invent' a consensus on the basis of your selective use of others' comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer back to BLP/N. It looks like Off2riorob, Epeefleche, Jayjg, and Cerejota thought "Levine is Jewish" is a compromise edit, with Collect in opposition. That creates the appearance of a consensus if we disregard the archived monstrosity at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive129. Maybe an RFC is pointless since the least interested contributors seem to have already exhausted their interest in this small detail. So let me ask you both a question: What would it take to get you to yield to the opposition on this? In other words, what level of dispute resolution are we going to have to escalate this to in order to have a resolution? causa sui (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Causa sui, it isn't a question of 'yielding to the opposition', but of presenting sourced information about Levine in a neutral way, taking into account issues of weight. I think that we are all agreed that Levine's Jewishness is of no relevance to his notability, and that as such we are under no obligation to include it at all. All I am suggesting is that if we discuss this, we do it in a balanced way - and going into detail about ancestry, while omitting more salient details about how Levine sees his own relationship with 'Jewishness' doesn't look balanced to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Believe me, you have made your opinion on article content clear. But I am not particularly interested in article content: I am interested in resolving this dispute. Is there is literally nothing in the dispute resolution process that would cause you to yield, short of an arbcom ban? causa sui (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Let us consider the following:


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


 * "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."


 * The above should satisfy AndyTheGrump, and All Hallow's Wraith has already granted acceptance of the part applicable to his concerns.


 * The new addition is a complete and intact quote of a whole paragraph. The above indicates two separate paragraphs. The paragraphs consist of two sentences each. The same source would be used in support of both quotes. Bus stop (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * With citations the two paragraphs would look like this:


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


 * "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) 20:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are we having a conversation here, or just carrying on monologues using threaded Wiki-formatting to create the misleading illusion of dialogue? causa sui (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Causa sui, if you are not interested in article content, can you explain to me why you are here at all? 'Article content' is the only thing at issue. As for arbcom bans, I am at a loss as to exactly why you think that any of this is even remotely relevant to arbcom: there has been nothing raised at AN/I on this, and as yet the only sanction raised was the one by you, when you blocked Bus stop (I'll not comment on whether I think that this was justified or not, beyond saying that I was surprised when it occurred). AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * In terms of content, I think we are getting there, though from a stylistic point of view, I think it needs work - I'll see if I can come up with alternative wording. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * How about this:
 * ''Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side before him, though as was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle "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."
 * I'm not sure we need all the other citations for him being described as Jewish - maybe one or two at most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would take out the "before him" part, and start the next sentence as a new sentence. Just stylistic quirks. All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, yep - actually, the 'before him' part is ambiguous anyway. I'm not entirely clear about what you mean about starting a new sentence though: perhaps you could make this clearer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "side. As was noted" All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side. As was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, "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." - yup, that works, though I think it then needs a comma after 'Chronicle' as I've added. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump says at 18:23, 29 August 2011: "I think that we are all agreed that Levine's Jewishness is of no relevance to his notability, and that as such we are under no obligation to include it at all."


 * AndyTheGrump apparently feels that "we are under no obligation to include it at all" but do others feel that we are under no obligation to include Levine's Jewishness at all? Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, this isn't a forum for endlessly debating every last word everyone has written so far. We've now got a proposed text, based largely on your suggestions. Is it acceptable to you or not?. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—to address your concern and to address the concern of All Hallow's Wraith, I have lifted intact, relevant text from this source. These concerns are predicated on Adam Levine's being Jewish. I am presenting again the following which I think best meets our needs:

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

"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."

Tell me if you find any fault with the above. Bus stop (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to interject, but inline citations would be a good idea for the direct quotes. causa sui (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, the wording that All Hallow's Wraith and I arrived at is based on your original proposal, but reworded in such a way as to avoid successive unattributed quotations, and to improve the flow - in terms of the information concerned, it makes no practical difference. Could you tell us what is wrong with the proposal, rather than merely repeating your previous one? I am frankly rather baffled by your attitude - we seem to be getting close to a resolution, but you seem reluctant to either agree, or to explain why you disagree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—what "successive unattributed quotations" are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:INTEXT. If you quote a source directly, you should attribute it in the text, not just with a citation - Hence 'As was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, "Like a lot of Jewish musicians..."'. I assume that causa sui was making the same point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, my point exactly. causa sui (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am accepting of the suggestions offered above. Tell me if this reformulation is acceptable:


 * Levine is Jewish. The Jewish Chronicle reports that "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."


 * The Jewish Chronicle goes on to say, "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) 19:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't say that reads particularly well - it certainly shouldn't need to be split into two paragraphs. And quoting the JC directly over Levine's father and grandmother looks odd - as if it is their opinion only. I'll ask again, what is wrong with the wording that All Hallow's Wraith and I proposed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please review this:


 * Levine is Jewish. The Jewish Chronicle reports that "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." "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."


 * Do you find anything wrong with the above? Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you say, "what is wrong with the wording that All Hallow's Wraith and I proposed?"


 * We are better off sticking to sourced statements. We have four sources supporting that Adam Levine is Jewish. Therefore we can say that Adam Levine is Jewish. "Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather", your proposed wording, is stilted language. It sounds dated. It sounds almost "Biblical". Bus stop (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What?. We already say that Levine is Jewish. We are citing the statement that his father, and that his maternal grandfather were Jewish. There is no need whatsoever to use direct quotes for sourced factual matters. And neither do we need to use the word 'Jewish' four times in the paragraph - and you are still not attributing the second quotation. You are giving no rational explanation whatsoever for your objection to the wording proposed by All Hallow's Wraith and myself. I am now going to give you one last opportunity to either agree to it, or give a proper explanation for what you think it shouldn't be used. If you refuse to do this, I intend to report you at AN/I for tendentious editing. I think I have sufficient grounds for this, given the nonsense you went through moving my comments around, against my express wishes, and against Wikipedia talk page guidelines (see Indentation)  . Now you seem intent to prevent consensus by repeatedly proposing content that neither conforms to the MOS, nor to reasonable standards of literacy, without giving any rational explanation, in the knowledge that I can't agree to your proposals anyway without All Hallow's Wraith's input. It seems that you are playing games. Well tough, I'm not interested in this obstructive nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—I don't have time to respond right now. But I thought it might be helpful to put the two versions in proximity so others can be clear about what is under comparison.

This is your suggested version:

''Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side. As was noted in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle, "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."''

This is my suggested version:

Levine is Jewish. The Jewish Chronicle reports that "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." "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."

I will present my own analysis at a later time, but I just don't have time now. Anyone else is welcome to weigh in, obviously. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * i think i would like to offer a compromise. (not in the language, but in the placement of the sentences). see how this flows: Levine is Jewish. "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish."  The Jewish Chronicle reports that "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." Soosim (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Soosim, please read WP:INTEXT. And will you, as I asked Bus stop to do, explain what is wrong with the version that All Hallows Wraith and I arrived at? There is nothing in the proposed alternative versions that isn't in my proposal already (and mine actually explains why the Jewish Chronicle is able to say what it does about Levine's beliefs) - all I am asking is that we (a) conform to the MOS, and (b) write in proper encyclopaedic language, rather than in disjointed phrases and unnecessary unattributed direct quotations. Why is there a need to 'compromise' over this anyway? What is the purpose of the alternate proposals? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that neither Soosim nor Bus stop has replied to my request to explain why they object to the version agreed by AHW and myself (though I note that Bus stop took the time to write a long reply, only to self revert), I can see no particular reason why I shouldn't just revise the article according to the agreed version - if there is actually a problem with it, then this needs to be explained, and I think we've wasted far too much time on this already. I'll leave this for a few more hours however, in case anyone is watching this talk page, and wants to comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "as I asked Bus stop to do, explain what is wrong with the version that All Hallows Wraith and I arrived at?"

We don't use unsourced assertions. You are suggesting that we write "Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side." That is not sourced. We know that Adam Levine is Jewish because four sources tell us so. But we do not know that he is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side. We have reason to believe that Adam Levine's mother is not Jewish. In fact we know nothing about the father and grandfather in this regard. We should not be making assertions that are not sourced. Any assertion that we make should be sourced. This is a WP:BLP. We have a source which says that "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish." In the version that I suggested above, that exact quote is included in our article. Separately we know that Adam Levine is Jewish. We are on safe ground source-wise because we have four very good sources which would support an assertion that "Adam Levine is Jewish." Now is a good time to take a look at those sources:

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. ) "He was born at nearby Cedars–Sinai Hospital — “like all the other Los Angeles Jews,” he quips."

3. ) "I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle."

4. ) "Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor."

You are repeatedly asking me what is wrong with your version. I am explaining to you what is wrong with your version. You are insisting on taking two sourced assertions and writing them as one assertion. In fact no source supports the whole assertion that you wish to make. We do not know your assertion to be true. There are various routes to Jewishness and we do not know that "Levine is Jewish like his father, and like his grandfather on his mother's side." A person can be Jewish because they converted to Judaism; a person can be Jewish because their mother was Jewish; a person can be Jewish because their father was Jewish and despite the fact that their mother was not Jewish. For what reason would we want to write one problematically-sourced assertion instead of two well-sourced assertions? In fact I think the onus is on you to explain why it is so all-important to make two sentences into one. We have four very good sources (above) supporting that Adam Levine is Jewish. I use those sources in my version above to support the assertion that "Levine is Jewish." It is a more than adequately sourced and a completely verifiable assertion. I use the quote, lifted intact from the Jewish Chronicle Online, that "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish." We are on solid ground with that because that assertion is being made by the Jewish Chronicle Online.

That in fact is the agreed-upon means that we were going to make reference to Adam Levine's "ancestry". Please note that I suggested to All Hallow's Wraith here that we word our article exactly this way: Levine is Jewish. "Levine's father and grandfather on his mother's side were both Jewish." All Hallow's Wraith responds to my suggestion here. His exact words are as follows: ''"I have no problem with this wording. Feel free to include it." Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop, I will make no further response to this here: I am in the process of compiling a formal complaint regarding your tendentious behaviour, and will be submitting this at AN/I. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Inasmuch as this article is about Adam Levine, the key part is to reflect the first sentence that Bus reflects above, which I fully support. Well-sourced, factual, encyclopedic.  Whatever else is decided, that sentence should be in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * andy...andy...andy....what are you reporting? epeefleche, busstop and myself have all given constructive, useful, simple to understand comments. not sure what you are mising. Soosim (talk) 06:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bus stop? "Constructive, useful, simple to understand comments"? Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

After I made certain comments at ANI about the content (not about Andy's main reason for going to ANI), Andy said I should make any comments about content here. I don't completely agree with Andy's response to my comments at ANI, but I can't argue with his suggestion. First, I am NOT going to read this entire thread as I only have what's left of one lifetime, so anyone who wants to take potshots that my comments are ill-informed, have at it. Second, I'll first repeat my comment at ANI: "The stereotypey (just made up the word) phrase 'Like a lot of Jewish musicians' makes me cringe, whether it's sourced, quoted, or pronounced by a supreme being." I'd leave off that phrase and just stick to whatever the sources say about him and his relatives and their being Jewish. The phrase is unnecessary and states something beyond Levine about Jews in general. I don't care whether it's sourced - we don't have to repeat everything that is sourced. As far as mentioning the name of the source, it's almost always unnecessary unless it adds value to the article, not just some way of our emphasizing that it's their opinion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WP:INTEXT, all direct quotations have to be given in-text attribution. As for the reason the quote is there at all, I think you'd at least have to read the source, and look through the discussion (which would have been a heck of a lot shorter if Bus stop had stayed on-topic) - essentially, the Jewish Chronicle article discusses Levine's attitude to his faith in some depth, while mentioning his ancestry in passing. The simple fact is that there is much to indicate that he "has rejected formal religious practice" - he refused a Bar Mitzvah for example, To ignore this central theme of the interview, while data-mining it for his ancestry, is in my opinion a breach of WP:WEIGHT. It is sourced, it is more relevant to Levine himself than the ethnicity and/or religion of his maternal grandfather, and if we are going to use a source at all, we should use it properly. The article isn't about a 'Jewish musician', but about a musician who happens (amongst other things) to consider his Jewish heritage of some significance, and has an equivocal (or complex) relationship with the Judaic faith. Yes, the comparison with other 'Jewish musicians' is somewhat fatuous - but as a statement about Levine, it is entirely in line with what he himself said in the interview. If you can suggest another way to describe Levine's relationship to Judaism that is acceptable to the disparate viewpoints here, and in accord with Wikipedia standards, I'll of course be glad to see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed text: Levine's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish. When his father asked him if he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine said no. According to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, Levine "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life."


 * It avoids the Jewish musician phrase and actually gives some useful content about his childhood and his current beliefs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that Bus stop (and several others) have indicated that the article needs to say that Levine himself is Jewish. He certainly self-identifies as a Jew, so I can't see any problem with that - though plonking the phrase 'Levine is Jewish' onto the front of your proposed text makes it all rather repetitive. As for the rest, I'd be happy with it - but I suspect that Bus stop, for one, won't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we consider the following:


 * Levine is Jewish   though not religious.


 * I have already tried the above (here)and it was rejected. I still think that it has merit. Some may object that we do not have the exact wording in a source that he is "not religious", but I consider that objection disingenuous. There is a common-sense approach to editing and it requires adhering to exact wording sometimes and it requires substituting equivalent wording at other times. I believe this is the appropriate amount and type of information we should be supplying in this instance. The above relies upon the common use of the wording "not religious" in relationship to Jews. We should be succinct—saying no more than necessary—and we should be using common terminology and common references. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, because as I have already pointed out, it is an outright lie. Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What is a lie? You say you have already pointed something out—what are you referring to?


 * By the way let me just say that I also find the wording presently in the article acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "He is a Jew" is clearly contested contestable - see you favourite unreliable source 'Judaism 101' on how your mother (and her mother in turn) has to be Jewish for you to be a Jew unless you explicitly convert - but for some reason you aren't citing this source here - I'll not bother to ask why. As for "he is not religious", what are you basing this on? Do you have a source where Levine says this? The only source I've seen states that he has "has rejected formal religious practice" - actually, it doesn't even say which religious practice he has rejected - though he refused a Bar Mitzvah. He could be a non-practising Rastafarian, for all we know - he told the JC that "Religion is a very long, complicated conversation that we're not going to have right now", which is by no means an assertion that he isn't religious. The simple fact is that he, probably intentionally, makes his attitude to religion in general, and Judaism in particular, unclear. So to assert definitively that he he is or he isn't religious is a lie either way - all we can say is that he has made clear that his religious beliefs, if any, aren't something he wishes to discuss with the Jewish Chronicle. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I liked Bbb23's version. Who will I unexpectedly agree with next? All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a distinction has to be made between that which is "contested" by an editor and that which is contested by a source. No source has been brought to this Talk page contesting that Adam Levine is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think Bbb23's version is informative and clearly speaks for the notable detail without asserting anything vague and I support its inclusion. - As myself, Bbb23 and All hallow's have supported this version, are we close to a consensus? Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - maybe that is the answer then. I think that it wants tweaking to avoid using 'Levine' twice in a row, but otherwise it works well. I doubt that we are ever all going to reach absolute agreement over this, but that isn't required: "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity" per Consensus. To be clear though, we are replacing the entire paragraph, including the 'Levine is Jewish' part, with this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems like Off2riorob, All Hallow's Wraith, AndyTheGrump, and Bbb23, are supporting a version which does not say that Adam Levine is Jewish. I would have no choice but to accept consensus—but can any of you tell me why you apparently support a version that conspicuously omits the articulation that Adam Levine is Jewish?


 * For clarity sake, this is the version that the four of you are supporting:


 * Levine's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish. When his father asked him if he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine said no. According to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, Levine "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life."


 * Failure to "practice" the Jewish religion in no way negates one's being a Jew. I fail to see why none of you are seemingly interested in including the well-sourced information—including self-identification—that he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly because 'he is Jewish' actually contains very little information? I'm sure you've read our excellent who is a Jew? article before, but it might help for you to read it again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—Omission can be just as gratuitous as selective inclusion. Isn't it a contrivance to overlook all that is conveyed by these sources: . Are they not all sources supportive of an articulation in our article that Levine is Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ...and as our who is a Jew? article illustrates, this tells us very little. If you want to propose alternative wording, go ahead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Tells us very little"? I'm looking at our Who is a Jew? article. Can you save me the time of searching and just tell me where in that article it is conveyed that saying that someone is Jewish "tells us very little"? Bus stop (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want to propose alternative wording, go ahead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * i think it is necessary to say that he is jewish. it is well sourced and self-defined. and it tells a lot, which is exactly the point of the excellent article 'who is a jew'. so, i think we go with the consensus + he is jewish. i propose:

Levine is Jewish, as is his father and maternal grandfather. When his father asked him if he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine said no. According to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life."

(i also changed the second levine near the end to 'he'.) Soosim (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that was acceptable - but there is a slight grammatical/logical problem in stating that Levine's grandfather 'is' Jewish. I don't think we can assume he is still alive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The only change to my wording I support is Soosim's change of the last Levine to he. I finally read all five sources currently in the article about Levine himself being Jewish, and I think Soosim's wording distorts Levine's identity. For one thing, it puts Levine's connection to Judaism on the same level as his father's and grandfather's, which I suspect is not true. Just the example of the bar mitzvah shows that Levine, even at a young age, didn't feel Jewish the way his father did. Going back further in time probably meant even more conventional Judaism for the grandfather. I realize that this is getting a little WP:OR, but we are making editorial judgments and the way we phrase this is a result of those judgments. If I had to change my wording, I would propose:"Levine's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish. When his father asked him as a child if he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine said no. As an adult, he describes himself as Jewish. However, according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life.""


 * Based on past experience, some may find certain words in the proposal problematic, namely "describes himself" and "however". Maybe not. All that said, if Andy, Rob, and AHW, are okay with Soosim's version, I would go along with it for the sake of consensus. If you want to solve the tense issue, you could say, "Levine's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish, as is Levine."--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Bbb23—you are making mountains out of molehills. Judaism is not constant. You are saying that Adam Levine's "connection to Judaism [is not] on the same level as his father's and grandfather's". Adam Levine's connection to Judaism may be stronger than that of his father or grandfather. Adam Levine is 32 years old. He is, in the here and now, declaring himself to be a Jew—according to sources. Did you expect his father and grandfather to use Twitter to express that they were Jews? Did Adam Levine's father and grandfather broadcast to the world that they were Jewish? Adam Levine can be seen broadcasting publicly, using Twitter, to the widest possible audience—that he is Jewish. You cannot overlook the importance Adam Levine's Twitter feeds in this regard.


 * Bar mitzvah occurs automatically for a boy at age 13. That Adam Levine chose not to mark that moment 20 years ago is irrelevant. Bar mitzvah has no bearing on whether a person is a Jew or not. A person who did not have a Bar mitzvah could well be an Orthodox Jew. I am not saying that Adam Levine is an Orthodox Jew—but he is a Jew nevertheless. He says that he is a Jew, others say that he is a Jew, and his father is Jewish. All of this is supported by our five sources. The liberal end of the spectrum of Judaism accepts that a child is Jewish no matter which of the parents are Jewish. That he chose not to have a Bar mitzvah 20 years has little modifying effect on his declarations now that he is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Soosim (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * bbb23 - yes, the 'however' is POV of sorts. and while i like my version just a paragraph or so above, i could go with this: :"Levine's father and maternal grandfather were Jewish. When his father asked him as a child if he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine said no. As an adult, he describes himself as Jewish. According to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life.""
 * I don't agree with most of what Bus stop said, but I'm not going to go into it. I'm fine with Soosim's one change to my latest proposal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Bus stop's comments are speculative, and irrelevant. I think maybe the latest proposed wording is a little stilted though. Maybe we could try an alternative approach: "Levine has Jewish ancestry on both sides of his family (his father and maternal grandfather were both Jewish), and considers himself Jewish, though according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life". As a child, when asked by his father whether he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine had said no."
 * AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Although the last sentence jars just a bit (seems like an afterthought), the wording is acceptable. I would eliminate the word "both" from the parenthetical as unnecessary - one both is enough.


 * He is Jewish -- say it. We have RS support for this, and consensus support in this string to reflect that.  No need for tortured mumphing to avoid saying that, and no need to engage in OR.  We can spend more time discussing it, of course, if that is what pleases people, but I for one see a clear consensus among the community commenting on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. "clear consensus", sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, it is difficult to see how there is a 'clear consensus' for unspecified wording: others are making concrete proposals - what is yours? (And yes, the 2nd 'both' in my proposal is redundant - brain half asleep, evidently...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article should just say that "Levine is Jewish" and nothing more—or—if anything else is said, it should be subservient to the main statement—that "Levine is Jewish". Do you think we would be having this discussion if we did not have four reliable sources saying that Levine is Jewish? I don't think so. And three of those four sources involve "self-identification". Levine not only has a Jewish father but Adam Levine virtually broadcasts the fact that he is Jewish. It is a bit over the top that we are even having this discussion—here we have a guy who virtually insists he's Jewish, AND his father is Jewish—and yet we have Wikipedia editors who are arguing that we should not be saying that he's Jewish in our Adam Levine article. I'm baffled as to how some of my fellow editors are misunderstanding a source like this:


 * "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."


 * Can someone please tell me how they misunderstand the above quote from a reliable source? Adam Levine is going out of his way to point out that he is Jewish. He need not mention it if it is a factor that he does not wish to broadcast. It is gratuitously added for no reason but to lay claim to the identity of "Jew". If anyone interprets the above any other way, could you please explain it to me?


 * This article is referring to Adam Levine as a "middle-class Jewish boy". Maybe I need bifocals or a new English dictionary. Are there any editors here that are interpreting the word "Jewish" there to mean anything but its superficial meaning?


 * How about this Tweet? When he says, "I will be the skinny Jew on a motorcycle", do any of the editors here understand the word Jew to mean anything other than what the word always means?


 * And then we have this Tweet: "Love, your cranky Jewish neighbor and future mayor." He doesn't have to mention that he is Jewish in the above quote. It is entirely gratuitous. He is letting all those who "follow" him on Twitter know that he is Jewish. He is broadcasting that information far and wide. Is there some reason why the Wikipedia article on Adam Levine should not mention that he is Jewish?


 * All that the article really needs to be saying is that Levine is Jewish. This isn't an instance where the sources are unclear. Nor are there any sources contesting that Levine is Jewish. We are not just Voting. At WP:VOTE I find: "Wikipedia decisions are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions by reasonable people working towards consensus." Can any of those opposed to including wording in our article that Levine is Jewish explain to me why those above four sources would not support that assertion? Bus stop (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No wonder this thread is so long - you don't listen, you just repeat yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Bus stop, given the utter contempt you have displayed for normal talk page standards with your last post, I have posted a link to it on the AN/I discussion on you behaviour I started earlier. I suggest you either respond there, or stop wasting everyone's time here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think this has gone on long enough. I propose to ignore Bus stop's irrelevant repetition of arguments that have already been made and rejected by others (he has refused to respond on AN/I to my statement that he is engaging in tendentious editing, which I think can only be taken as an acceptance of it being true - otherwise he should have responded by now). Unless someone other than Bus stop has any objections, I'm going to revise the article, by deleting "Levine is Jewish, as are his father and maternal grandfather" and replacing it with the following:


 * Levine has Jewish ancestry on both sides of his family (his father and maternal grandfather were both Jewish), and considers himself Jewish, though according to The Jewish Chronicle, who interviewed Levine, he "has rejected formal religious practice for a more generalised, spiritual way of life". As a child, when asked by his father whether he wanted a bar mitzvah, Levine had said no.

This can all be sourced from the Jewish Chronicle article - I'm not sure that we need any other references, though it would be nice to include a link to the Telegraph article too, as it has further information on Levine. Any suggestions regarding this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Take out the second both (heh). Take out the "had" in the last sentence - you probably want it because of the preceding sentence, but in the sentence itself, it's wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump, Bbb23—please tell me how you justify overlooking the four sources that refer to Levine as a "Jew" or as "Jewish". Three of those four sources involve Levine referring to himself as a "Jew" or as "Jewish"—wouldn't they constitute "self-identification"? You are only using one of five sources—the Jewish Chronicle source—and that source does not contest what is contained in the other four sources. Aren't you avoiding the other four sources? Please explain. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like any of the other sources, even the Telegraph one that Andy asks about (to answer Andy's question). An article calling him a "Jewish boy" is hardly a great source for describing him as Jewish. blender.com seems more of a blog than a reputable magazine to me, but I could be wrong - don't know much about them. In any event, the comment is flip and not very useful. Finally, I hate the idea of citing to tweets.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forgot about the second 'both'. And you are probably right about 'had' too. And Bus stop, do you really think that anyone reading the proposed text would assume that it meant that Levine wasn't, Jewish? It says that he considers himself Jewish, and makes clear assertions about his Jewish ancestry. It doesn't say that 'he is Jewish in every way possible', because we don't have sources that say this (and indeed, have sources that suggest that he may not be). The point is, we are not required to classify him at all. You may not like it, but the term 'Jewish' is ambiguous and contested - and Wikipedia cannot resolve this ambiguity. This is all I have to say to you on this however, unless you are going to make constructive suggestions, based on the emerging consensus here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I've now added the proposed text (with Bbb23's corrections). Can I ask that anyone wishing to revise or revert makes constructive suggestions here - this has gone on for far too long already... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * AndyTheGrump—you have made this edit here. It says that Levine "considers himself Jewish". Is that sourced? What is the source for that? Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point: he doesn't actually state this outright in the JC article (though he does in the Twitter quotes). What are you proposing we do about it though? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, the article says "Like a lot of Jewish musicians" - remember that infamous phrase? That's just as good as some of the sources that were there before, e.g., the article that called him a "Jewish boy". I don't want the tweets back in, although I suppose one teeny, wittle, tweet couldn't hurt.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, it looks like we'll have to use Twitter, or the blender.com article: I believe that Twitter is ok as a RS if the account is verified: and we are only using it for Levine's statement about himself. I'd suggest that we use this one (unless Bus stop thinks we can only use it as RS for him considering himself a "skinny Jew on a motorcycle") AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)