Talk:Nenad Puhovski

Jewish?
Considering that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous", I have removed the assertion thad "Nenad Puhovski is Jewish", based on the title from a sensacionalist Croatian weekly. It is unfair to decide whether a person is a Jew (or whatever) according to some arbitrary chosen person from his ancestry. Only a citizen has a right to declare himself as a Jew, or anthing else - and Nenad Puhovski does not declare himself so. Inoslav Bešker (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * These edits were reverted by User:Eversman with the edit summary:
 * He declared himself as a Jew in that same interview. Nacional is not sensacionalist weekly.
 * The title of the article is Ponovno mi prijete da će me ubiti jer sam Židov, but it's true that that phrase doesn't necessarily mean he asserts his Judaism, rather this is the assertion of the people who threaten him.
 * Puhovski's actual quotes from the article are:
 * To je pismo očito upereno protiv ljudi židovske nacionalnosti u Hrvatskoj, kojima se prijeti likvidacijom [...]
 * Početkom 90-ih tijekom glasovanja u Londonu, izjasnio sam se kao Židov, iako sam ja hrvatski državljanin, a uz to mješavina različitih nacionalnih i etničkih utjecaja, od židovskih, poljskih, mađarskih i albanskih do talijanskih i hrvatskih. [...] “Čistih” Hrvata nema puno u Hrvatskoj i zato bi konačno trebalo prestati s prebrojavanjem krvnih zrnaca.
 * I would concur that the point of the interview wasn't to declare himself a Jew, rather to discourage chauvinism in general. Categorization as a Jew will be fair only in concert with these other nationalities, otherwise singling out his connection to Judaism sounds exactly as ominous as he says - prebrojavanje krvnih zrnaca. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And now an anonymous user added a quote from an LA Times editorial emphasizing his Jewish origin again. I'm not sure if this is overly enthusiastic with a positive or a negative angle, but I'm leaning towards it being against the spirit of WP:BLP either way. Thoughts anyone? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the problem, I've added a reliable source(English one, since this is English speaking Wikipedia), and more reliable then Nacional. Sorry, I did not know that adding a reliable source like Los Angeles Times is against biographies of living persons rules.--89.164.231.238 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this matter, the Nacional story is the most reliable source because it directly quotes the person in question, who is by default a far more authoritative source on their own self-identification than a random journalist. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All that doesn't discredit the source that I have added. While BTW your source is characterized by some users as sensacionalist.--89.164.231.238 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't discredit it, it just makes it less relevant. Any perceived sensationalist nature of the article editing doesn't really discredit the other source - if the person had later said somewhere else that he was misquoted or misrepresented, that would have discredited it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Circumcised?
I really cannot understand why you are persevereting in the pointing of the (half) Jew ascendency of Puhovski, based on none of his maybe thousand works and ond one interview, where the title was pulled out of a context (what stresses the sensacionalist narure of that weekly)? Did you verify even if the director iz fully (or halfly) circumcised? Even if positive, this kind of stressing the ascendency of people is racist, and in Croatian situation can be harmful. And, by the way, I don't act hidden by the nickname. It is a confortably, but not allways honest, to pintin the other persons "racial" descent. Inoslav Bešker (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

notice
I've reported this case at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)