Talk:Maup Caransa

Problematic wording

Just a note to say that I've removed highly problematic wording, bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes and language.[1] Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Due to the repeated reverts, and the failure of the involved editor to appear on this talk page to discuss the problems I listed above, I will go into them in more detail below. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• The involved editor (the guy that wrote this, in fact) has a name. I rolled back your little warning, and will plant one on your talk page for your disregard of the sources, you know-it-all. How is your Dutch? Drmies (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
• This edit is plain wrong. "highly problematic wording"? His "non-Jewish appearance" (and note that I added a modifier) is verified, and I've added even more inline cites for it. "Bordering on unintentional antisemitic stereotypes" is quite a charge, Viriditas, and I would like to see you explain how my rendering of the sources, which are in Dutch, is somehow incorrect. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Insensitive at best and transcribing at worst. Do we need that Drmies? really?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Because...whether you acknowledge it or not...you just made it clear in the authoritive voice of Wikipedia that there is a Jewish type. Please elaborate.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Lift the facts and be careful not to include the bias of the author. The fact is the "Nazis" perceived him as not looking "Jewish". Please do not add as "fact" that his appearance was "non jewish". That is the insensitive part Drmies.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Sorry.

Just saw the change and thank you for it.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Voor "niet-joodse uiterlijk", see [2] and [3] and [4]. Same wording ("zijn huwelijk met de katholieke Rika Heijsteeg en zijn niet-Joodse uiterlijk redden hem van deportatie") is also here--this is the website of Beth Haim, the Portuguese-Israelite cemetery where he is buried, and where he placed a stone to commemorate those who didn't return from "the camps", as reliable sources call it and as Dutch parlance has it too, whatever camps they may have been.

  Now, I don't know who this person is who can't stand being reverted when they're wrong and start templating, making accusations of antisemitism and alcoholism, and threatening ANI threads rightaway, but I'm willing to bet they can't read Dutch. Why they would doubt the words of Het Parool, a resistance paper founded during World War II in Amsterdam under German occupation, I can only guess, but here's the thing: if it's good enough for Het Parool it should be good enough for us, transcription monkeys or not. And Mark, I would have given you a little bit more credit. Please don't patronize me, Mark, though I'm happy that I made you happy by turning something unproblematic into something tortured and verbose.

  One more thing, Viriditas. You took offense to the whole plying a trade bit. That also comes, of course, directly from the source. What you don't know, in your youthful highhorsedness, is what Jewish in Amsterdam means--part of what it means is Jewish humor, which is a survival technique. If you go through those articles you will see that Caransa himself was quoted joking about his experience. In fact, when on the last day his kidnappers said they were going back to 40 million again, he said, "well, I guess you'll just have to shoot me then". But I suppose it takes a sense of humor to be able to see that, and for me to explain to you how much Amsterdammers respected Caransa for his tenacity and humor even though they hated him as a slumlord and developer--I think there's no point in trying. Note that I didn't object to your reversal there. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the fuck you are screaming at and I don't give a fucking shit. Don't patronize me either. Thanks. If you don't understand what my issue was...fine. But don't you dare try to make me the issue when you are the one that added the content. I actually DID give you credit and you actually did make a change to the content. So...what the fuck is the issue?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not screaming "fuck" all over the place. You already suppose "bias of the author", without having read said authors. You're not the issue, no, nor is your opinion of me very relevant, given that you don't seem able to respond to the points I raised. (Hint, Mark Miller: how do you think it makes a person feel if they're accused of being a drunk antisemite, and along comes you who seems to confirm--initially, at least--that suggestion?) Drmies (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies...seriously, I can assume bias if you are claiming the content is from the source as written. You are not one to change your own content lightly. I have no idea how it makes one feel with the scenario you mention because all I was commenting on was your contribution...and certainly not you as a contributor. I don't care who the source is or what they wrote...we do not add content that uses Wikipedia's voice of authority claiming as fact that this subject was untouched because of his "apparent non-Jewish looks". The writing was the issue not your intent. I screamed fuck all over the place because you attempted to deflect some of this on me as patronizing you. Drmies......all I did was to attempt to communicate how insensitive that text was. I surely don't think it was your own feelings. I know you better than that, which is why I freaked out (well...that and the accusation of patronizing you).--Mark Miller (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark, there is nothing wrong with those sources. You and Viriditas will just have to accept that "the camps" is not an attempt to underplay anything, and that "niet-joodse uiterlijk" may well point to stereotypes, but does so in a way that cannot be called antisemitic, as is evident from the sources that use the phrase: a resistance paper, a mainstream paper, a Belgian public radio station--and the Jewish cemetery where he is buried. What it means, for the PC police, is that NSBers and WAers and Amsterdam cops and SSers had little reason to arrest him since he didn't look like what they thought a Jew should look like. If someone doesn't understand what it means given the context, then they simply don't know the context. They maybe don't know what else the sources suggest: that he was allowed to now wear the star because he was married to a Catholic woman and had undergone sterilization, and that this made his appearance even more relevant. (But I'm not about to dive into the topic of such an operation, since I don't see why all that should be out in the open, and I think the Dutch sources agree since it's not well covered.) Now, if the Wikipedia reader doesn't know that there isn't a Jewish type, I can't help that, but if anyone is suggesting that I am helping in some sort of solidification of an existence of a Jewish type, yeah, I take offense to that, and if someone I suspect of having common sense seems to support that, well, I have difficulties with that as well. Now, you don't have to take my word for it, but the phrasing I used is acceptable and correct, and perhaps this points more at a US-centeredness on Viriditas's part than on my supposed drunk and unintentional antisemitism. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have anything to do with "the camps" issue or have any opinion on it. Also, I did not use the term antisemetic. I don't read Dutch but...why are we using non English sources? Are there really no English sources of equal validity? If not...why is this even being mentioned if translating it is becoming an issue. "SSers had little reason to arrest him since he didn't look like what they thought a Jew should look like." Then that is how you would write it. I don't know what is going on here with your other issues so I will let Viriditas answer that, but frankly.....it was a horrid way to write an encyclopedic entry to a biography. I never for one moment thought you were "helping in some sort of solidification of an existence of a Jewish type" I felt that the text, as written was. Again...I am not talking about you as a contributor, just the contribution.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I can't write that in there because it's not explicitly in the sources, but any person who knows how the Dutch papers write about those events (which means also that that person knows what was going on in WW2) knows what's going on. I think that The Banner, for instance, might be able to confirm that. We write a lot about those events, but not everything is always spelled out. As for non-Dutch sources, I doubt you'd find a lot of them. I didn't see any, and I had to dig pretty deep to find what I found. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if that should be "Non-semetic looks" (or something along those lines), whether or not we add the supposedly. Seems more encyclopedic and clear. I don't really care about political correctness as that is something that is a perception of those that seem to see it and not a demand I am making. I just think the writing is still a bit off but this is my last comment here. Its a contentious statement and I feel it needs stronger sourcing. We're not writing for people who know about these things. We are writing for those that do not.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This directly appeals to stereotypes of Jews. This is clearly an inappropriate comment sourced to an unreliable source. The reference to "blonde hair and blue eyes" refers to the Nazi ideals of the Master race. Meanwhile, in reality, Jews may have blonde hair and blue eyes, and many do. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing about Nazi's is that they were really big on racial stereotypes, see for instance Der ewige Jude. In this case Caransa owed his life to the fact that Nazis loved stereotypes. It's not politically correct, and I assume you blame Caransa for not telling the Nazi's that many Jews do not fit the stereotype and insisting that he was, in fact, Jewish so he could be gassed, properly and entirely politically correct.

It is true that our content has to be supported by reliable sources, but we do not have to parrot them word for word. Although we are discussing -- well, perhaps the greatest racists of recorded history, we should strive to do it in a way that respects the ethics of the present time, such that it does not appear in any way that Wikipedia's voice supports the concept of a typically Jewish appearance. I've rewording the phrase to explicitly reference Caransa's while attributing the racist intepretation to the Nazis. Hopefully that works for everyone. NE Ent 12:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Quote from the newspaper Parool: Dat hij overleefde, dankte hij, zei hij later, aan zijn gemengde huwelijk en zijn uiterlijk: blond, bijna rood, lichtblauwe ogen. In English: That he survived, he thanked, he later said, to his mixed marriage and his appearance: blond, almost red, light blue eyes. So I do not see the problematic language in the sentence "He married a Catholic woman in 1941 and thus (combined with his apparently non-Jewish appearance) managed to survive World War II, (...)" The Banner talk 07:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's problematic because Parool doesn't support the wording of "non-Jewish appearance", only De Telegraaf does, and it's not a reliable source for biographies. Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas, perhaps you should look up what nazis describe as good arian looks. Do not be shocked when you find that they preferred blond hair with blue eyes.... The Banner talk 14:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you actually read what The Banner wrote? Besides, on what grounds do you dismiss the biggest Dutch newspaper as a "reliable source"? There has to be more than just your sayso. Kleuske (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I read it and I addressed your query on WP:RS/N. The source has a terrible reputation for accuracy and is not reliable by our standards. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Viriditas. I listed four sources that have that wording. But you know best, you old Nazi fighter. Now I'm going to deal with your vindictive little tags. Drmies (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've disputed that the other sources have that wording (many of them don't), and I've disputed the reliability of the sources that used that wording. Again, what does a Jew look like? This is the perspective of the Nazis, that Jews would not have blonde hair and blue eyes. And, they most certainly do. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Scuse me, but everybody calm down now. Drmies, User:Mark Miller actually tried to help you - Drmies, you were angry that you were called alcoholist - that is something Viriditas picked up from Candle-C.oM., by the way - and it was mighty unfair - but you were all friends before and liked each other - so calm down. Please. Hafspajen (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed tag removed

The instructions for {{Disputed}} require First add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements. As this was not done, I've removed the tag. NE Ent 13:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Ent, and for your other edits in and around this article. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, a "disputed" section isn't a requirement as long as the dispute is highlighted, and since the dispute takes up this entire page, the tag should not have been removed. The article still has serious problems. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I see only one big problem, leading to a couple of other ones, including your move. NE Ent, John, what's the procedure to dispute a move? Or should Viriditas have filed this with WP:RM to begin with? I find this to be more than a little disruptive, and smacking of sour grapes. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The name "Maurits Caransa" is used predominantly in English sources, not his nickname. Are you claiming otherwise? What exactly do you dispute about the move? English language newspapers, books, and journals use the name "Maurits Caransa". Can you show otherwise? Viriditas (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • In fact, mr. Viriditas, the dispute went that far that it was considered disruptive. Please, be a good boy when you return in three days. Hope you will be able to learn Dutch in the mean time. The Banner talk 11:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

English sources

Considering the plethora of English sources on this subject, we should not be using foreign language sources that have had translation problems, leading to edit warring and disputes. There are more than enough English language sources that cover his life in detail. Viriditas (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide links to a few of the very best and most useful of the "plethora" of the reliable English language sources that provide biographical coverage of him. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using Dutch language sources for an article about a Dutch topic. It takes as minimum of two to start an edit war, and disputes do not occur in a vacuum. Respectful, level-headed input rarely results in either. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? I have not made a single revert to this article. Not one. On the other hand, Drmies has now made three reverts, just over the 24 hour limit. I hope that clears up your error. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I notice that you ignored my first and most substantive sentence, Viriditas. And please point out the words where I said that you had edit warred. You were simply the one who made the accusation. All editors involved in this dispute should step back, de-escalate, and concentrate on the core goal of improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that sentence was hardly English, Viriditas, despite all your jabs at my English. Plus, you read the source wrong. I can forgive you for mistaking a Dutch plural for an English adjective, but it's not an excuse for acting like this. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is not with the sources, Viriditas. "Foreign"--you mean "Dutch", right? Please find me the English-language sources that discuss his participation in active resistance to the German occupier. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are many problems with the sources, your interpretation of the sources, your translation of the material, etc. Have you used any English language sources at all? Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You are welcome to add them, Viriditas. As for my interpretation, well, you got laughed out of the ANI court (and you're not gaining traction at RSN), and I hope you're not still ascribing a Nazi point of view to a community of Portuguese-Israelite Jews. 03:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good grief. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using foreign-language sources. The editor who adds them should be prepared to translate titles and key passages on request, is all. I see Drmies provided up above the passage to search for that means "non-Jewish appearance" in English, so he's done that for that issue. There is no reason to prefer English-language sources unless they adequately cover the material; guidelines simply state that where they exist, if reliable, they should be used as well, to assist the reader. Drmies also says he found very little in English, and currently all I see cited that's English is a book on Ajax ... that refers to him as Maup. If there are indeed many English-language sources, they should be added quickly, not just asserted to exist. Not entirely incidentally, I also don't see the English or translation problems that have been alluded to. Have those problems been cleared up? If not, can we have some specifics, so we can clear that up? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep. Thing is, a simple count of hits in GBooks suggests that the simple search for Maurits vs. Maup might well support Viriditas's renaming, but that's a real shallow search. I suspect (OR alert!) that among a Dutch readership mention of "Maurits Caransa" provokes the response "who? Oh, Maup!", but I suppose that's beside the point. "Maurits Caransa" does indeed have some hits in English publications (fewer than 20, by my count), but I challenge anyone to write an article based on those sources. It would be a one-liner: "Maurits Caransa was a real estate developer who was kidnapped in 1977 and who supported Ajax." So, I could add a dozen English-language sources to verify that he was kidnapped and released for ten million, but what's the point of that? Much of his biography could simply not be written if non-English sources were discredited--and I think I did a pretty good job, bad English and all, of providing a rather comprehensive biography of the man. BTW, "nickname", the term that was used to refer to naming him "Maup", is the wrong term. "Maup" is short for "Maurits" and isn't a nickname--it's a whole bunch of other things, including an abbreviation used for friends and family that then becomes the person's actual name.

    But the general point of using English sources, I can't get over how ridiculous this is. Would we know about his bridge habit, and his financial support for the sport? That he owned almost all of the Rembrandtplein, "the heart of Amsterdam"? That he owned the Amstel Hotel, the most historically significant hotel in the city? That he built the Caransa Hotel, at the time one of the most luxurious places, and that it was built by Piet Zanstra? (Imagine trying to write an article on Zanstra using only English sources! I found four English sources of some significance in eight pages of Google hits.) Or, most importantly given Viriditas's proclaimed interest in righteousness, that Caransa was a member of a Jewish Action Group that beat up on Nazis? Preposterous--and pointy. And I think all of this is in the service of discrediting Dutch publications that say something about what Caransa did (or did not) look like. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Dr Mies is right. Caransa was generally known as 'Maup Caransa' and the many (most) Dutch sources (listed in the article) refer to him by that name.The best argument for using 'Maup' instead of 'Maurits' would be the 'Maupoleum'. It would not have gotten that nickname if Caransa was known as 'Maurits'. After all, the article on William Henry Gates is titled Bill Gates.
    • I have visions, nay nightmares of axes waiting to be ground and various sets of extremely long toes. Please prove those wrong. Kleuske (talk) 10:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Article title

I can't say that I agree with every edit Viriditas has made on this article up to this point, but the decision to move/rename it was a good one. When he was kidnapped, hundreds of English-language newspapers ran an AP report datelined Amsterdam, that gave his name as Maurits. (I will add as an aside that V's block was unfair, IMO, and The Banner's "be a good boy" remark[5] uncalled for - another example of the behavior that makes the WP editing environment look sophomoric.)

• Dutch launch nationwide search for kidnap victim [6] (news.google.com)
• Dutch multimillionaire released by captives [7]
• Nationwide Search Is On For Dutch Kidnap Victim[8]
• Kidnapped Businessman Hunted [9] (newspapers.com)
• Leads Drying Up In Millionaire Hunt [10]
• Caransa kidnap mystery continues [11] Australian Associated Press (AAP) via news.google.com
• Kidnap victim freed; $4 million ransom paid [12]
• Caransa Remains in Captivity [13] (Jewish Telegraphic Agency - jta.org)

There was also a TIME article in November 1977 that referred to him as "Maurits ('Maupie') Caransa"[14]

Other English-language references:

• Dutch Victim: Self-Made Man [15] nytimes.com subscription (I coughed up the 99¢ to read it.)
• Bridge: Norwegians Needed Luck; To Win Deal in Amsterdam [16] nytimes free

Drmies, I think it would be a great conciliatory gesture if you moved/renamed this article back to Maurits Caransa. Lightbreather (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, when there has been an ugly brawl, the best thing is to pour on more fuel and keep it roaring! Hint: This is a brand new article, and there is no urgency to work out which editor is wrongest. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also uncalled for. An opportunity for a conciliatory gesture is chance to cool things down. Viriditas has been blocked, and cannot do this. If I do, it's likely to start others warring over the article title. If Drmies does it, that's a good sign. (Neither he or V. have behaved well here, but V. is the one sent to the sidelines.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to remember that approach for the future—Drmies now has two choices: (1) bite his tongue and move an article he believes should not be moved; or (2) refuse to make a conciliatory gesture! Gotcha! Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you review what Drmies wrote[17] at ANI you'll see that his main objection was that V. made the move without discussion. D. himself acknowledged that the sources were about 50/50, but as I showed above, among English language sources, "Maurits" is the majority. Despite what the Dutch might call him, English speakers are more likely to search for "Maurits Caransa"...

But let's give Drmies a chance to respond, please. Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that American sources are prevalent to Dutch sources? Can you guarantee that al these articles where based on original research and not on a single faulty press message from Reuters or the likes? Do we need an USA-centered approach here for an article about a Dutchman? The Banner talk 10:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, this is not the first time that I meet Viriditas on Wikipedia. The Banner talk 00:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was. No matter your past with V, it's still uncivil to taunt another editor by telling him to be a "good boy." Even worse when he's blocked and can't defend himself. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Lightbreather: I was about to start a "move back" discussion here after finding out that Viriditas had been blocked and therefore could not respond to my call here for identification of the large number of English-language sources he had referred to, but I then realized the article had been moved back. Thanks for tracking down and enumerating those sources, especially for ponying up actual cash for the NYT! If no one else does, I'll add at least one of those to the article, because we should include English-language references if possible. But I believe the list confirms that the article should be at "Maup" - the name by which he was usually known - with a redirect from his full first name. The majority of the English-language sources, you say, are reports on the kidnapping based on the Associated Press. That one event (and use of one original report) should not outweigh what he was usually called. That's what redirects are for. Many people, men especially, go by a short form of their first name, but I imagine the AP writers rightly suspected that English-speaking readers wouldn't know that Maup = Maurits the way Tony = Ant(h)ony and went with a full name. As Drmies says above, the English-language sources on this person from a non-English-speaking country are relatively sparse and don't have much depth - as is common and as one would expect. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Edit to above while adding refs to article: The second link should be this. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• I didn't get anyone blocked; I didn't seek three forums or devoted all my time to this one thing. 50-50 is only part of it; the English sources, as I explained above and as I think Yngvadottir confirms (hard to see--I'm mobile) aren't that plentiful and will not allow the writing of an article. That's all I can say now: I have more pressing concerns at the moment. John knows. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that you got V. blocked. However, the fact remains that V. is blocked... I was just proposing a peace offering. However, I am taking my name off this article's watchlist now. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Caransa was a living legend in the Netherlands. I'd be surprised if there were Dutchmen that had never heard of him. I'd be even more surprised if many people (apart from his direct family) knew that his "official" name actually was "Maurits" and not "Maup". --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition, Randykitty, while GBooks gives a number of hits for Maurits, I wonder if Dutch publications are properly (relatively, etc.) represented in GBooks. In Gbooks, "Maup Caransa" gets only 38 hits (initially it reports 89 but that number goes down once you hit the third page), only one of them in Vrij Nederland. Dutch magazines, for instance, are heavily underrepresented compared to US magazines. That won't satisfy those who take "English-language publications" as the only yardstick, but a more complete search result should show, if you and Banner and I are right (and I think we are), an overwhelming number to set up against English publications that may use "Maurits". I mean, imagine if Panorama and Nieuwe Revu and HP and De Tijd would show up in Gbooks (like Time and other popular US weeklies do, I believe), there would be hundreds of hits. That's somewhat speculative, of course, but we can't take GBooks as our only measure. If I were in a Dutch library and could type in "Maup" in a keyword search, this debate would quickly be settled. Isn't it funny that all three of us are expatriates? We are the brain drain... Drmies (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)