Talk:Tim Wise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

One-sidedness

I think it's safe to say that this is the most NPOV article on all of wikipedia, and I say this as a newbie. NPOV< that's the right abbreviation, right? Anyway, I removed a rather long edit by an anonymous editer claiming to be Tim Wise, because obviously he isn't, unless the original author of this article is right and Tim Wise does have such a large ego that he sits around all day typing "Tim Wise" into google to see if people are talking about him. This article needs to be severely cleared up. Say, cut out everything below the first two paragraphs? --TheBurningHelm 01:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree that the the part after the first two paragraphs is very opinionated. Actually, i would call it a venomous rant. (This is not changed by the words "critics say".)

You also raise a good point that we don't really know who the author of the "Notes from Tim White" was, although i think this is a secondary question. They were clearly written with the intention to defend Tim White, so they did put some balance into this article. By purging the defense you effectively left the section extremely one-sided. I was thinking of reinserting them, but there are two problems with that:

1. Many of the comments were not helpful – a statement "read the book" without any abstract of what the book says on an issue is pretty useless in an encyclopedia.
2. The criticism has grown considerably since the "Notes from Tim White" were added. This severs the connection between statements and replies. Example: After the reply "This last statement is one of the few accurate things in this critique" was written, the preceding paragraph grew to about three times its size, including accusations of witch hunt.

I therefore agree with you that cutting everything below the first two paragraphs seems to be the best for now. The information is not lost; people can always look it up in the history. I will also take some venom out of the first paragraph:

• "angry rants occasionally dotted with profanity": This is a strong accusation for which I have not seen any example in the rest of the article.
• "loose canon": If someone important said it, we might quote that person, but let's not gratuitously introduce offenses. (Besides, i don't know which meaning of canon is intended  ;-)

Sebastian (talk) 09:36, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

---

I think Tim Wise's criticms of Michael Moore, specifically regarding his alleged "Snide racism" should be placed into context - that being that Michael Moore, in the scene in question in Fahrenheit 9/11, parodied both white and non-white cultures. This is an important fact to note.

I've also read a number of Wise's articles to try to find the claims previously listed. It seems that Wise has made a number of dubious claims, mirroring Ward Churchill's claims about American Indian genocide ("infected blankets of small pox"/"American army exterminated 100 million people"). This may also be worth mentioning.--TheBurningHelm 02:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

---

That sounds very reasonable. Wikipedia can only gain from well researched facts.

I looked at this article again and found a few more things that we might consider changing:

1. The two headings "Background" and "Criticism" don't make much sense. Maybe we should sort it by factual criteria such as
   • Current position(s)
   • Awards and such
   • Background (in the sense of "personal history")
   • On systemic white privilege
     (including 2nd paragraph of criticism section and the part from "Wise's supporters contend that he focuses his attention on white males" on.)
   • On Zionism
   • On Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
   • On Michael Moore (including your planned addition)
   • On American Indian genocide
2. We could delete some of the http://www.zmag.org/sustainers links which are already accessible through the Main listing of Wise's online articles.
3. I also don't like the first paragraph of the Criticism section. People have all sorts of reasons why they like or dislike him; we can't really pick one out. And "polarizing" is an attribute that applies to most activists.
4. The article also needs a category. I'll go ahead and add Category:Civil rights activists, but that sounds a bit vague. I'm open to other proposals.

I currently don't have much time on my hands, though, and there is no rush, but i wanted to present the idea. Let me know what you think of it. — Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

That looks great Sebastian. What do you think about breaking things up as they grow, so that we don't have once sentence under each heading? Anyway, I broke up the paragraph, to start :)

I think that some of the material currently on the page does not agree with his speeches. For example, the statement, "he argues that almost all white Americans are inherently racist in ways that they cannot detect", is inaccurate. He says, instead, that most white Americans support a racist system of oppression without their knowledge, and that when the majority of these white Americans are made aware of their unfair privilege and the resulting unfair proleteriatization of their fellow non-white Americans, they are horrified and willing to change. The word used, "inherently" (existing as an essential constituent or characteristic), is a very poor choice; "inadvertently" (not duly attentive) is a much better choice.

MisterSheik 14:27, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Untitled

76.24.28.210 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC) For the love of all things holy, be cognizant of what is being written. I just had to edit a poorly written sentence that claimed Tim Wise was an anti-white racist.

Untitled

The sentences related to Tim Wise being an anti-racist have been repeatedly vandalized to reflect the wording that you mention. It's annoying to have to keep fixing it...--Eric Stoller (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion between Daxtox and 68.45.229.208

(Daxtox:) I dispute the claim about Qadhaffi in this article; from everything I've read, the evidence points to his being framed, possibly set up by the Mossad (they've done such things in the past). Sources are "Killing Hope" by William Blum; the site www.whatreallyhappened.com is also valuable.

(68.45.229.208:) If you wish to edit in the claim then do so, however, be reminded that that claim is entirely based on opinion. Conspiracy theories about Mossad run left to right. Qadhaffi has ADMITTED guilt in the manner, so why would he do that? Why pay reparations if you were set up? The sanctions on Libya weren't lifted until he gave up chemical weapons, so that couldn't have been a motive. And anyway, you claim it was Mossad (The Jews did it!) whereas Tim Wise, according to this article, claimed that the Syrians did it, so your objection seems a little irrelevant.

(Daxtox:) Calm down. What is this "the Jews did it!" crap? Several Mossad agents have written about their experiences with the organization and its covert ops, similar to the way former CIA agents have written about their experiences. Victor Ostrovsky is a prominent example. I'm getting pretty tired of people shrilly crying anti-semite everytime Israeli actions are critically analyzed. You're right, of course, in in that I can't substantiate the claim, and frankly I have no interest in doing so. But terrorism doesn't belong entirely to Arabs, is my only point. How is yelling "the Jews did it!" (which I never did) any worse than yelling "the Arabs did it!", by the way? Grow up and read all sides of an argument.

(68.45.229.208:) Calm down? Where did I call you an anti-semite? It's called sarcasm, idiot. You missed my point entirely, anyway, in that Mossad, like the CIA, is blamed for everything, from the Tsunami to AIDS, and unless you can substantiate your claim (as you have admitted you can't), there's no real point in mentioning it, and since Wise claims it was the Syrians to begin with, it is still even more irrelevant. You clearly have brought the cliche, suppressed, angry "The Israelis are capable of terrorism too!" argument to this discussion, which baffles me, since it has nothing to do with anything. Vent somewhere else about Israel.

(Daxtox:) Fair enough. But you don't have to call me an "idiot" like a 5-year old, I never resorted to name-calling. And who in the world blames Mossad for the tsunami? Show me that source.

(68.45.229.208:) You told me to grow up on the false presumption that I propagate for Israel, so calling you an idiot was fair retaliation. As for the tsunami, that would be another example of SARCASM. They are, however, blamed for everything. They were even blamed for the recent Lebanese former prime minister assassination.

No one can tell when you're being sarcastic Anon until after you've elicited a (usually negative) reaction... MisterSheik 13:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Editors needed

I see tons of pictures of him on the web. Can't an experienced editor track down a non-copyrighted portrait and add it? --Bertrc (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, how can somebody who writes on such a volatile subject not have a "Controversies" or "Criticisms" section? Come on, I need my Jerry Springer fix! (More seriously, I want to know what reactions to him have been, and I want to know who has been for or against him) --Bertrc (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's generally better to place info about controversies/criticisms (as well as positive comments) in the other parts of the article. Those sections tend to attract vandalism, extremist points of view, and violations of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant "How can there not have been any editors criticizing this guy" regardless of where they put it in the article. Surely somebody out there thinks he is a crank. He has to have ticked off some group or other. Even Ghandi has critics . . . Or is this guy just very little known? --Bertrc (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Tim Wise is well known amongst folks who work in higher education. The article has been repeatedly vandalized so I guess the critics have chosen vandalism over critical analysis. --Eric Stoller (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this right

Anti-Tim-Wise-ists: Can you please just add a "Criticisms" section that cites non-blog sites? (Preferably ones that critique his actual positions, action and/or papers, instead of directly attacking the man, himself) I really want to know if this guy is a reputable personality or a non-entity, and knowing who dislikes him will help in this as much as knowing who supports him does. --Bertrc (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Tim-Wise-ists: Can you please cite some examples (or point out the existence in an existing citation) where Tim Wise is fighting racism other than discrimination and bigotry against Blacks? This will strengthen your argument, and perhaps help us reach a compromise. --Bertrc (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Racist's have special rights?

Censoring Tim Wise's heritage is mendacious and shameful, period.

In a recorded debate with Jared Taylor, Tim Wise proudly stated, "I'm Jewish, on my father's father's side my people are Jewish."

Tim Wise's political agenda ought not to influence Wikipedia from providing an accurate account of his ethnic heritage. (Murrayhuntington (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

Although I agree that "Tim Wise's political agenda ought not to influence Wikipedia from providing an accurate account of his ethnic heritage", I don't agree that there is any censorship, "mendacious and shameful" or otherwise. It is also not appropriate to use YouTube as a source because it is unreliable and YouTube has lots of copyright violation. Find another source. Ward3001 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You clearly don't agree with the statement. One thing is certain, it is mendacious to censor Wise's heritage. (Murrayhuntington (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC))

And you clearly don't know what you're talking about. And you clearly have violated Wikipedia policy by reinserting a YouTube link, for which you will be blocked if you continue in this manner. Ward3001 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll link to the transcript of the interview. Hopefully, that will satisfy our pursuit for truth and accuracy. (Murrayhuntington (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)).

Changes based on Correspondence with Tim Wise

Below is part of an email I received from Mr. Wise in asking him for a photograph (to be posted soon, hopefully), with regards to the "white" descriptor, and why it should be left in his description. Also on why he'd rather his ethnic background be left out.

“ [A]s for the term white, I am the one who has been putting that back in every time it gets taken out. I think it is important that people know I am a white antiracist ally...I do not want the focus to be on my Jewishness...being Jewish a) has nothing to do with my views on race and b) allows racists to too easily dismiss me as "naturally being leftist" since, in their mind, Jews are a distinct and destructive race of evildoers who don't even have the right to speak about whiteness...so please, leave the white descriptor in place and do not post about my being Jewish or, on the other side of my family, Scottish...that is not the relevant point... ”

—Godheval^{T C H} 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Two problems here: an email to you from Wise is original research and not a legimate source for the article. Secondly, the subjects of Wikipedia articles do not determine what is included in their articles; in fact, people are discouraged from editing their own articles per WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Ward3001 (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I’m struggling to see the relevancy of the policies/guidelines you’ve linked. The question here is whether or not we want to include the fact that Wise is Jewish in the article. I’d be curious to see why people feel strongly one way or the other about this. To me, it’s not a big deal. I can see reasons for including it, but I would question what it adds to the article. Especially since it’s already established that he’s white, which is very relevant in regard to the anti-racist work he does. As for the Jewishness? I see no compelling reason to include it, and if Wise himself would rather we not include it, I don’t see why we can’t honor that. Although I think that categories are a different matter.-- Irn (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point. Godheval provided an email from Wise stating what Wise wants and does not want in the article about him. The point in in my comments above is whether an email from Wise is an acceptable source (it is not, per WP:NOR); and whether the subject of an article (in this case, Wise) should determine the content of the article on the subject. Both policies that I linked clearly apply in that they discourage a person from editing an article about himself/herself, and because Wikipedia discourages editing when the editor has a conflict of interest (in this case, Wise would have a conflict of interest in determining the content of an article about him). Thus, Wise should not decide what is included in the Wikipedia article about him, rendering the email not only original research but also a moot point. Ward3001 (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we might be talking past each other. I understand that Wise shouldn’t decide, but I don’t think that prevents us from listening to him or prevents him from influencing the decision. And I agree that the email cannot be included in the article because it is OR, but I don’t think that matters because I don’t think the idea was to cite the email in the article but rather to simply delete the references to Wise’s Jewishness per his request. -- Irn (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"simply delete the references to Wise’s Jewishness per his request": And that is contrary to WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Wise does not decide what is and is not included in his article, whether done by email, his own editing, or any other means. If we let subjects decide the content of their own article, it is no longer an encyclopedia, just a group of personal websites. If I was known for committing a horrible crime, and I made it known that I did not want that in my article, should Wikipedia follow my wishes? Whether or not Wise's ethnic heritage is included in the article is determined by other editors, proper sourcing, and Wikipedia policy, not what Wise wants. Yes, we can "listen to him" from reliable sources (for example, if he says "I'm Jewish" in a reliable source), but we do not "listen to him" in his personal preferences for Wikipedia (e.g., "I'm Jewish, but I don't want that in my article"). Ward3001 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think I am arguing that we should remove references to Wise’s being Jewish from the article only because he has asked us to. This is not the case, and I beg you please respond to the rest of what I write, not only decontextualized fragments. Just because something is in reliable sources does not mean it belongs in wikipedia. It’s up to the editors of any single page to determine what material is relevant and important and should, therefore, be included and what material is not as relevant and not as important and should, therefore, be left out. Do you have any opinion about the relevance and importance of Wise’s ethnicity to this article? -- Irn (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to think I am arguing that we should remove references to Wise’s being Jewish from the article only because he has asked us to": Well, either you have expressed yourself unclearly or you have contradicted yourself on this matter. Your statement "I don’t think that prevents us from listening to him" certainly suggests that his opinion matters. So let me try to simplify this. Wise's opinion should have zero influence on the content of his article. Why should we "listen to him" regarding the content of his article if his opinion doesn't matter? Now, I realize you're saying that other editors' opinions are considered, but you have clearly stated (or at least strongly implied) that Wise's opinions should be considered. That is where you either are wrong or have misstated yourself. Read WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI.

"Do you have any opinion about the relevance and importance of Wise’s ethnicity to this article?": Most bio articles contain ethnic background if it can be reliably sourced. It is perfectly acceptable to do so and should be done here if the source is reliable; Wise's opinion is irrelevant. I haven't checked the reliability of the source because this is one of many articles that I watch. Ward3001 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither COI nor AUTOBIO says that the opinion of the subject of an article should have zero influence on the content of that article. Indeed, both COI and AUTOBIO recommend that users for whom the guidelines apply utilize the talk page to discuss the changes they wish to see, which runs counter to your claim that Wise’s opinion should not be considered. I see no reason why his opinion cannot be considered and weighed on its own merits with the obvious biases in mind.

Now, I understand that it’s acceptable to include a person’s ethnicity. But why should it be done in this case? Do you think it’s relevant and/or important? -- Irn (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I continue to strongly disagree that Wise's opinions should have any influence on Wikipedia's article about him unless there are factual errors, which is the intent of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Yes, errors of fact should be addressed, whether by the subject or anyone else. But the subject's opinion about other matters of content, based on his political agenda, should not be considered. The purpose of Wikipedia is to have an unbiased, politically neutral presentation of the facts. If we are swayed by Wise's agenda (one that I generally agree with, but not one that should affect the content of his article), we no longer have an objective encyclopedia. To repeat an earlier point I made, suppose my political agenda were to promote Nazi politics, but I made it clear that I don't want my Jewish hertiage in my article because it does not fit my political agenda. Should Wikipedia accede to my demands? Of course not. And Wise should not get special treatment simply because he is at the other end of the political spectrum. If Wise is aware of factual errors, then by all means those should be cleared up. But we don't omit his ethnicity because he wants us to so that the article can conform to his political goals.

"But why should it be done in this case? Do you think it’s relevant and/or important?: Most bio articles (longer than stub length) of a major public figure on Wikipedia contain basic demographic information (place of birth, ethnic background, education, etc.) if available from a reliable source, whether it's an actor, a sports figure, butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. Indeed, most good print encylopedias have that information. In fact, ethnicity is a standard parameter in a bio infobox, regardless of whether it is relevant to the person's notability. Is someone's place of birth "relevant and/or important"? Important to what? To having a complete article, or to expediting that person's agenda? Place of birth, details about education, and ethnic heritage are important for a complete article on a person. Yes, it's important for the purposes of a quality article to include reliably sourced information about ethnic background, regardless of whether Wise feels that it's important in his goals. Wikipedia guidelines specify that ethnicity should not be included in the lead unless it is directly relevant to the person's notability (and ethnicity is not relevant to notability for Wise), but it does not state that ethnicity should be omitted altogether in the remainder of the article. Wise's article is no different, whether we agree with his political agenda or not. Ward3001 (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Using your analogy, I would not say to you, “Per AUTOBIO and COI, your opinion has no place here.” Rather, I would say, “Given that you are a Jewish Nazi and Nazis hate Jews, your identity is a rather remarkable anomaly. As such, it deserves at least a mention in an encyclopedia article about you. Furthermore, your argument (you don’t want wikipedia reporting your ethnicity because it doesn’t fit your political agenda) flies in the face of NPOV.” I’m not saying we should “accede to [his] demands”; I’m saying we should listen to his opinion and respond appropriately (which COI and AUTOBIO provide an avenue for, regardless of their intent).

You argue that we should include his ethnicity (or at least that of his father) because it’s a standard piece of information for biography articles. I understand that it’s fairly common to mention ethnicity (at least for articles on American Jews), but I don’t see why it has to be that way. In general, why is it important to mention ethnicity? And in this case what does the ethnicity of his father add? And why include the ethnicity of his father and not that of his mother? And why the ethnicity of his parents, but not his ethnicity? That is, I don’t know how he personally identifies; does he identify as being Jewish? Or Jewish/Scottish? Or white American? -- Irn (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

If you would consider "listening to" a Nazi trying to use Wikipedia to promote his political agenda, I don't think any amount of reasoning or any Wikipedia rule would convince you that it is inappropriate to "listen to" anyone with a conflict of interest regarding his article. If, on the other hand, you feel that the Nazi should not have his demands granted after this "dialog", it is pointless to try to convince you that, as a matter of principle, it would be a dual standard to apply the rule to a Nazi and not apply it to Wise. I don't think it is possible to make that point any clearer. So that is now a moot point of discussion between you and me.

If you find a reliable source on the ethnicity of Wise's mother, you are perfectly entitled to add it to the article. I have never said otherwise. As to "why is it important to mention ethnicity", I have already answered that question quite fully and clearly. But this will be one more (and my last) repetition of this point. It is important to having a thorough and well-done article on Wise (or any one of the other thousands of articles that include it). It is not important in terms of promoting his political agenda, just as it would not be important in promoting a Nazi's political agenda, but promoting political agendas is not our purpose here. Now, no offense, but if you can't understand these points, I don't care to repeat them again. We'll just have to see if other people express opinions. This is my final edit in response to you unless you raise new issues. Ward3001 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

With your Nazi example, listening to the Nazi is having a dialogue; you can’t have a dialogue without listening to the other party.

If we accept that ethnicity is important, why is the ethnicity of one parent important? Why not whatever Wise claims as his own ethnicity? -- Irn (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, according to the alleged correspondence with Tim Wise, he is worried that racists will dismiss him as naturally leftist if they know about his Jewish heritege. As distateful as it may be, I think Wikipedia allows racists to have such opinions. If the intention behind excluding accurate facts is to prevent certain opinions from being drawn, then said exclusion is making a value judgment on said opinions. That seems to go directly against any number of wiki policies. Heck, there are many racists who read wikipedia; if Tim Wise is correct, that means that there are many wiki-readers who would want to know that he was raised Jewish. I can see concerns about giving it undo weight if too much text were devoted to it, but a single sentence noting that his father is Jewish hardly seems to push the bounds of propriety. If he no longer practices Judaism and/or does not consider it relevant to his work, he should mention it in an interview or on his web site. Then we can quote him here, but continue to give accurate facts so that wiki-readers can make up their own minds. --Bertrc (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, whatever the consensus ends up being, format the article correctly. Putting "Jewish" in parentheses after the father's name is bizarre, and seems to be an irrelevant piece of information. "Oh I went to the store to get some bread (by the way, the store owner was Jewish)." Ok? In other words, integrate mention of his ethnicity into a general discussion about his background, not just randomly after the father's name. Come on. How long have you all been here? —Godheval^{T C H} 05:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Woefully inadequate sourcing

How can this article have been here for so long without any WP:RS?Historicist (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not an outlier. --Milowent (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI tag

Considering the comment for this edit: [1] and the following alleged correspondence: [2] I think the Conflict of Interest policy comes into play. While a person certainly can (and should) correct erroneous facts about themselves, Wikipedia frowns on them choosing which accurate facts are relevant. --Bertrc (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the policy, and absolutely agree. But just because the subject does not want something included doesn't mean that we must include it. If Wise came and posted that he wants it included, would we automatically delete it, just to be contrary? His wishes shouldn't dictate the article, for or against.

IMO, it's just not encyclopedic. If we were including his heritage in general, it would fit in. But the "Wise's father is Jewish" line is just kind of stuck in there. Unless someone finds more info on his heritage, it's just not worth including. Even if we find his entire genealogy, I'm still not sure it's relevant to the article. The fact that someone stuck it in there in the first place feels a little POV to me, although I'm not sure what POV it's supposed to be.

I'm going to remove that line, and the tag. I'm not sure that e-mail correspondence with an article's subject neccesarily constitutes a COI, although it does imply a potential NPOV issue.

For the record, this is my first contribution to this conversation and article. 216.70.183.48 (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'll leave the tag for now, until I or someone with a NPOV can go over the article a little more thoroughly and check for POV problems. The tag may prompt someone to do this. :-) 216.70.183.48 (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other about his ethnicity, but I could understand how somebody researching him would care. IMHO, it is not POV either way. That wasn't the reason for the COI tag. There have been numerous qualitative changes by an editor who claims to be Tim Wise. These changes often affect the tone of the article and there is alleged correspondence outside of Wikipedia in which TW states that he does edit his article. Hence I felt the Conflict of Interest tag was appropriate. --Bertrc (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the ethnicity of his mother and corrected the link regarding the ethnicity of his father so that it now points to the interview instead of a 404. Since displaying his ethnicity is against Tim Wise's request, we can now safely say that he had no influence over this part of the article. Is this the only instance of a possible conflict of interest? If so, now that it is settled, I will remove the WP:COI tag within 24 hours barring any objection from someone. If this is not to anyone's satisfaction, please share so that we can reach some sort of consensus. Roshangeorge (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Amren URL

I saw someone edited in a URL of a debate transcript, which linked into the racist website of "American Renaissance"... I think it must be noted here that this is where the link points to, and also offer a link to the Amren wiki article which should be widely read to further disseminate that racism is certainly not dead, and is cropping up in all sorts of crypto/pseudo-scientific ways--and must be dealt with. If this edit is a problem, please someone else jump in or offer a revise... I just thought it absurd to link to Amren in an article about an anti-racist advocate and not mention to unaware readers what in fact Amren truly is. (This unsigned comment was placed here by User:207.237.44.250 15:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 70.23.167.179 05:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

How is AMREN racist? Do you mind actually GIVING EXAMPLES instead of spouting libel behind a computer screen?24.109.239.233 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Scottish mother?

The mother source only says "The side of my family that comes from Scotland", which does not even refer to his mother, especially when the [http://www.amren.com/interviews/2005/20050511finley/ father source] says "the traditions of Scotland and Ireland and England and the Russian Jews on my father’s side" and "I’m Jewish, on my father’s side". O Fenian (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, why do we mention his father's religion but not his mother's religion? --Bertrc (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Race or Ethnicity?

White is not an ethnicity. It's a race. Race refers to the color of your skin and a collection of distinctive physical features. Examples are White, Black, Brown, Amerindian/Native American/American Indian, etc. An ethnicity refers specifically to a national origin or a cultural or linguistic group. Examples of ethnicities are Hispanic/Latino, Jewish, Chinese, etc. These are simple definitions that you can find in a sociology textbook. Please fix this. ... Also, (this isn't an issue in this article, but just in case you want to know), there is a difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological, a word referencing your anatomy. Gender is socio-psychological, a word referencing the way that your brain and society perceive you vis-à-vis your sex. 173.218.141.254 (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

An Open Letter to the White Right

I see there have been repeated attempts to add this by an IP, not for the first time. I know exactly why the majority of editors have tried to add it, as they wish to paint Wise in a negative light. So what is the significance of this particular piece of his writing? What secondary sources have dealt with any controversy over this? As far as I can see, in the absence of secondary sources there is no need for any emphasis to be placed on this piece of writing at all. O Fenian (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reliable secondary sources are necessary as a minimum. There is also the question of undue weight. Why should our encyclopedia article focus on this essay of Wise's out of the hundreds (thousands?) he's written? Regardless of the editors' motives, I just don't think mention of this essay is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Me neither. It was just that the (latest) IP had trimmed a significant amount of information from their poorly sourced attempt, leaving only the primary source. I do not believe this essay is significant enough to quote, as it is little more than a blog post. O Fenian (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both your comments. This is one more of many attempts in this article to portray Wise as an anti-white radical. Cresix (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook quotes

The article recently saw the addition of a large number of quotes culled, supposedly, from Wise's facebook account. The inclusion of this material violates both the WP:OR and WP:BLP policies. We are not permitted to select what quotes from Wise represent his views, we need secondary sources to do so. Now, I dont do facebook so I cannot access this quotes, but even if they are accurate they cannot be used in such a manner. nableezy - 16:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal for "Between Barack and a Hard Place".

I would like to propose that the article Between Barack and a Hard Place, be merged into this page. The article, as pointed out by other users in their edits, does not hold enough notibility to stand on its own; it is, however, reasonably enough sized to be added as a section on Tim Wise's (it's author's) page.

Jakob Russian (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

support—this seems like the best thing to do with a book this new, which has been covered in sources of substance, but not substantially.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. I believe there are now ample sources to allow for a stand alone article on the book. Gobonobo ^{T C} 04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the merger tags, welcoming, of course, any further discussion. Gobonobo ^{T C} 10:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Tim Wise is White

The only reason I even looked this guy up in wikipedia was to find out if he was black or white. Contrary to what Cresix says, I believe that we do need this somewhere in the article. We do not even have a picture of him. If somebody has a better location than the lead, feel free to move it. --Bertrc (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

First, there needs to be a consensus because the relevance of him being Caucasian is disputed. Secondly, even it is relevant, it does not belong in the lead per WP:MOSBIO. And finally, it needs to be sourced. A link to a photo is not good enough. As a comparison, G.K. Butterfield is African-American; look at his photo. Cresix (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you disputing the relevance of his race? If not, who is? He's notable because he's a white anti-racist. I would in fact argue that this specifically belongs in the lead per WP:MOSBIO: (Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability). -- Irn (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Irn . . . I didn't even think this was going to be controvertial. The only reason I searched for Time Wise in wikipedia was to find out if he was black or white. As such, I think his article should answer such a question. With regards to citations, he refers to himself as white repeatedly in his writings (a la ". . . we white folk were taught . . .") Putting a citation in for it seems a little overkill, unless there is actual doubt about his race. To be honest, I am not terribly set on the location of the fact, but I feel it belongs in the lead because, considering his strong and recurring focus on and criticism of how whites treat blacks, I think it makes him notable --Bertrc (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, regarding a source, it does seem like overkill (he has a book called White Like Me that is all about him being white), but I wouldn't be opposed to it. -- Irn (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll compromise. Add that he's Caucasian, but keep it out of the lead, per WP:MOSBIO. And simply citing the title of a book is inadequate for proper sourcing. For you youngsters, go back a few decades. John Howard Griffin wrote a book entitled Black Like Me. Does that mean he's black? Check it out. If Wise's being Caucasian is notable, there should be mention of it within the book or in another source. Find a relevant page in the book and cite it, or find another reliable source stating that he is Caucasian. If there is no mention of his being Caucasian anywhere except a book title, that is a far cry from notable. Cresix (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not the lead? You cite WP:MOSBIO, but what part exactly? Also, no one said the title was sufficient; the entire book is about him being white. -- Irn (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

His criticism of white people and his being white hardly puts him a unique cateogry. There have been many, many notable civil rights activitists who are/were white. Again youngsters, have you ever heard of Andrew Goodman or Michael Schwerner (neither of whom have their race mentioned in the lead), just to mention a few? That's not intended to mean that black people weren't the overwhelming participants in that movement, but if you take a broader perspective outside of the last few years (read WP:RECENT), Wise is not terribly notable for being white. Keep it out of the lead. Cresix (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Irn, have you read WP:MOSBIO?: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." And the entire book is not about his being white. The entire book is about his perspectives on racism. It's not a constant repetition of "I'm white, I'm white, I'm white ..." That's a gross oversimplification. Cresix (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually quoted WP:MOSBIO above with that exact same quotation, so if you could kindly stop condescending that would be appreciated. And obviously "I'm white, I'm white, I'm white" is a gross oversimplification; it's called a strawman. Whether to include it in the lead comes down to whether he's notable for being white. That doesn't mean he's in a unique category for being white and being critical of white people; it means he's notable for it (or, rather, I would say, for critiquing white privilege from a white perspective). You don't have to be in a unique category to be notable for something. Wise wouldn't be as well known and prominent as he is if he weren't white. His focus on white privilege as a white person is central to his success. Indeed, this is a point Wise himself often makes. For a recent example, Wise points to the importance of him being white here, specifically, the last paragraph. -- Irn (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked me to cite the specific part of WP:MOSBIO, suggesting you did not know the section I referred to; if you don't want the information, don't ask for it and then suggest condescension when it didn't exist. "You don't have to be in a unique category to be notable for something": I never said anyone did. But if Wise is one of thousands and thousands of white people who have argued that white people have an advantage because they are white, it is hardly notable enough for his race to be in the lead (remember, I have agreed his race can be in the article, just not in the lead). I am arguing for a broader perspective. We are not talking about people within the last decade or so. Wise wasn't even born when many, many of his white predecessors fought and died in the civil rights movement. He did not suddenly become the leader of white people against racism. His message is about the advantages of whites in a racially discriminatory system, not that he is white. Emphasizing his ethnicity by placing it in the lead is a violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. The two white civil rights activists I mention above died in their contributions to that movement, yet their race isn't such a huge part of their identity that it must be mentioned in the lead. As another comparison, take a look at Martin Luther King, Jr.; there is hardly a more iconic figure in African-American civil rights. His ethnicity is not mentioned in the lead. Wise is notable, and his ideas are important. His ethnicity does not deserve the overemphasis that you are pushing at the expense of the notability of the other aspects of his life and work. I strongly suspect Wise would agree that his being white is not nearly as important as the rest of his ideas. Cresix (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that it belongs in the lead -- considering Tim Wise's usual tone and choice of book titles, it is the only thing that makes him notable to me, whereas the others listed above are known for much more -- However, I don't think it really damages the article to have the information somewhere else and I don't think the location of the information deserves this much headache. If I may propose a compromise: I can re-add it to the lead, and, if Cresix truly feels it damages the article in that location, he or she can move it to another location. Irn, can you accept the information in another location? Cresix, can you accept the option of editting instead of reverting --Bertrc (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing instead of reverting? Oh please!! Are you trying to make it look like I've edit warred or are you trying to make it look like I edit warred? I reverted one time. One time. And that was to ask for discussion and consensus. Give me a break! I don't need to agree to not edit war. I haven't, nor will I, edit war. What I will agree to is a clear consensus. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. BTW, please keep in mind: I've already compromised. I don't think his race should be mentioned at all. My compromise is to move it out of the lead. I disagree that his being white is the "only thing that makes him notable"; try telling Wise that his ideas, his philosphy, his writings -- none of it makes him notable; only that he's white. With all due respect, that's ludicrous. Let's just make the entire article one sentence: "Tim Wise is white." Then we won't have to worry about whether it's in the lead or elsewhere. Cresix (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, I asked if you would accept editing instead of reverting. I did not mean to imply you were edit warring, and sincerely apologize if you inferred that (I concede that my first draft was a bit snarky, but I corrected that) So are we agreed? I'll add it into the lead, since that is the place Irn and I feel appropriate, then you can move it to a place you feel is appropriate? Irn are you okay with that? --Bertrc (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind moving it, although that seems to be a silly game: Why not just place it at another place to begin with? That way, those of you who feel it should be in the article at all can place it at your preferred place outside of the lead. But if it takes a game to get this discussion resolved, so be it. BTW, it does need to be sourced properly; that should be the responsibility of the editor who adds it, per WP:BURDEN. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I don't know what would be a more appropriate place (The biography template doesn't have a field for race) so I am leaving that up to you. --Bertrc (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I placed it in infobox. It needs a citation; can be removed if one is not provided in a reasonable time. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to respond; I had some meat space concerns to take care of. Anyway, I can live with the compromise. Because while I would love to continue arguing about why Wise's whiteness is, in fact, directly relevant to his notability, its placement in the article is just not worth this much headache (as Bertrc said). That said, Cresix, why does it need a citation? It certainly isn't contentious - Wise himself readily and often mentions it - and I can't see why anyone would challenge it in good faith given that fact. -- Irn (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, if his being white is a major part of his notability, and if he himself often notes his race as important in his message, then it certainly is reasonable to cite it. Race and ethnicity are sourced quite frequently on Wikipedia. If you need an official reason, then WP:V, of course. Thanks for providing the citation. Cresix (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking whether or not it's reasonable to cite (I agree that it's reasonable); you say that it needs to be cited. Just because things are done frequently does not mean they need to be done. Regarding WP:V, I don't see how that requires a citation. The policy states, "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source" (emphasis in original). I don't think it's likely to be challenged (see my comment above), and I don't think you're challenging it (are you?). The only other guideline I can think of that requires citations would be WP:BLP which states, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." But, again, this is hardly a contentious issue. -- Irn (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, no offense, but let's simplify here so we can move on to other matters. I am challenging whether Tim Wise is white. That is sufficient. Now that you have kindly provided a citation, the challenge has been taken care of. That should end the matter. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as we have an editor who actually challenges whether or not he is white, and seeing as the only thing of interest I wanted to know was whether or not he was white, I am re-adding his race. --Bertrc (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

Regarding recent changes:

1. Wise is an anti-racism activist. That's the way reliable sources describe him. Simply calling him an activist is deceptive and unhelpful to readers.
2. According to the article and the source, Wise has been hired by many groups. Obviously, they're not hiring him for "what he sees as racism"; if they didn't see it as racism as well, they wouldn't hire him.

If other editors have suggestions on improving the wording in these areas, please suggest them. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the fact that Tim Wise lives in a neighboorhood that is 97% of white and 0% black be mentioned in this article?

That Wise has chosen to live in an extraordinarily white neighborhood by national, state, and Nashville standards would seem pretty relevant for a guy who talks about the evils of white privilege and the return of de facto segregation.

If you search the Tennessee assessor records by owner here: http://www.padctnwebpro.com/WebproNashville/search.asp

You find the record for WISE, TIMOTHY & CASON, KRISTIN

Wise, Timothy & Cason, Kristin 4405 Westlawn Dr. Nashville, Tennessee, 37209 Total Property Value: $639,300

The Census Bureau's American Factfinder gives Census Tract 134 for this address. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?ref=addr&refresh=t#none

Per the New York Times' Mapping America, Census Tract 134 is 97% white and 0% black. http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/explorer

RT 24.113.109.228 (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No. It's original research, particularly WP:Synth. -- Irn (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If the criticism is repeated by an reliable source, it might be worth including. 24.69.174.26 (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

British Diversity Award

I have removed "as well as the 2001 British Diversity Award, for best feature essay on race and diversity issues" because there is no indication of what the award is or what standing it confers. It might, for all I know, be an award created by a single person and conferred only once, the equivalent of a doctorate purchased from an online university. Certainly as a Brit myself I have no idea what the award is supposed to be and a Google search provides no further information. Unless an award is generally recognised and can be checked I do not think that it should appear in a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.26.83 (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Racist?

First of all, Time Wise is a Jew, not White. Secondly he is not an anti-racist. If you read much of his work, you will see he is anti-white. If a White man wrote what he wrote, but exchanged the word white with Black or Jew, people would be raiseing all kinds of trouble over it. 76.187.18.69 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC).

I haven't read much of Tim Wise's work, but he's completely anti-racist, right? Is there any evidence that he was ever at all racist in any way? User: LyricalReckoner keeps changing "anti-racist" to "racist," and I keep changing it back. I need to make sure I'm not backwards or something. I'm pretty sure he was completely against racism, but again, I'm not an expert on his work. --Friginator 00:46, 01 October 2008 (UTC)

He is clearly considered anti-racist except by extremist white supremacists, who consider him racist against Caucasians. Ward3001 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Ward, only the "extreme" white supremacists consider him racist against Caucasians, not the moderate white supremacists... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.188.54 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In Wise's "open letter to the white right" he wished death upon what he described as "right-wing" whites. In the American context, this equates to the majority of whites (by some standards, a very large majority). He also used the expression "you and yours", i.e. he targeted his attack not just at the "right-wing whites" but their families and descendants, who might well be of any political persuasion. It's hard to draw any other conclusion than that he holds fairly strong anti-white views. Not that this will be much of a revelation to anyone even remotely familiar with his writings, of course, but it's worth recording. Claims that he is a racist are supported by his own globally published work and therefore inclusion of such allegations, or at least a discussion of their validity, would be very much at home in the main article. One does not need to be a "white supremacist" of any type, or white at all, to hold such a view - merely to be capable of reading and understanding what Wise himself has written and published for a global audience.Shiresman (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Most American 'whites' are not right-wing. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In his "Open Letter to the White Right," he was looking forward to their inevitable natural deaths, a rather different thing, because due to demographic shifts and cultural change when they had passed their self-serving power structure and bad influence would pass as well. That's neither anti-white nor racist. postdlf (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Self-serving power structure"? Whom should an ethnic group's power structure serve other than itself? If it serves a different ethnic group then doesn't it make that people a slave caste?

There are compelling arguments that White America's power structure does indeed serve other ethnic groups than itself, and one in particular. So your contention seems faulty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.159.251 (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CAT: Anti-zionism in the United States?

The article is placed in this category, but it makes no mention of anything Wise has said on Zionism. One of these facts should be changed... Dozzzzzzzzzing off (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Any time you see a category on an article when the text of the article does not even mention that category, just remove it. This is especially true for articles on living people, per WP:BLPCAT. postdlf (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct in removing the category when it's not mentioned in article.. Per his homepage, Time Wise is a self-declared anti-Zionist Jew, and apparently he was banned from a MLK parade once for holding these views. But there don't seem to be much or any mention of this in independent sources, so it might not be notable for inclusion in the article. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why did my comments got removed from Talk

How is it objective when only the liberal left can have an opinion?--KevinFrom (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the place for sharing opinions of any kind. Note the instructions at the top of this talk page, which I quoted in my edit summary when I removed your inappropriate comment: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tim Wise article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." postdlf (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm far from a liberal....and completely support the removal. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish

For the purposes of the infobox, "Jewish" is not an ethnicity, it's a religion. ... discospinster _talk 00:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree, discospinster. Template:Infobox person has separate parameters for Ethnicity and Religion. Since "Jewish" is both an ethnicity and a religion (and many Jews identify more strongly with ethnicity than with religion), my understanding is that "Jewish" can be included as Ethnicity. Do you have information that I am missing? I'm not arguing that "Jewish" is notable enough to include in Wise's infobox (or any specific infobox); in fact, I think it probably shouldn't be in Wise's infobox. But I think there could be instances in which it would be appropriate. Cresix (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Cresix that one's ethnicity can be Jewish, I think discospinster was referring to a specific problem we've been having with this article. IP editors have been changing Wise's ethnicity from [[White people|White]] to [[White people|Jewish]]. That is certainly wrong. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly correct and only certain people like yourself are censoring the page. 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity does not belong in the lead. Cresix (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the fact that Wise is Jewish a defining characteristic? If not—and I don't think it is—it doesn't belong in the lede. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It IS a defining characteristic and it DOES belong in the lede. There has been a concerted attempt by several editors to censor this page and I will not allow it. 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia, you do not determine what you "will allow". Cresix (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, being "white" is no ethnicity either. One can be Irish, Nigerian, Jewish or so on. And to the ones saying that "Jewish is not an ethnicity", that is not what Israel and the jews themselves say. They are identified as not only a religious group but an ethnic group. Since when was "white" an ethnicity? Wikipedia is a place where one should be honest, in stead of racial. I suspect there are ulterior motives involved here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.17.141 (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What about my Irish friend whose parents are Nigerian and who is Jewish? Qwerta369 (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And there are none in attempting to portray Tim Wise as a white-hating Jew? I also missed where in the Counterpunch article Tim Wise says he is ethnically Jewish, since last time I checked it is also a religion. O Fenian (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No-one are trying to portray Tim Wise as a white-hating Jew, where are you getting this from? Wikipedia shouldn't be about racially motivated editing, so we would appreciate if you could stick to the facts. White is not an ethnicity. If you put "Jewish and Irish" for instance, or whereever his mother is from, it would be more understandable. Stick to facts and stop trying to pervert wikipedia, which is supposed to be an objective site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.17.141 (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.amren.com/interviews/2005/20050511finley/index.html This] is where he identifies himself as Jewish:

“ I’m Jewish, on my father’s side, my people are Jewish, and certainly Jews have a history of having been oppressed as well, have identified themselves is group terms based on the history, the material conditions and of course the particularistic reading of scripture that Orthodox Jews believe in also. ”

I thought one is only Jewish if one's mother is Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerta369 (talk • contribs)

It's not obvious that he's talking about ethnicity, just history and scripture. Earlier in the interview he refers to himself as "Russian Jew": "To me, those very rich cultures, the traditions of Scotland and Ireland and England and the Russian Jews on my father’s side, are traditions that in many respects..." If we are going to say that his ethnicity is "Jewish" then we might as well include Russian, Scottish, Irish and English, or we could just say "White". Furthermore, nowhere does he indicate that his being Jewish is particularly important to his identity and his beliefs, or moreso than any other factor, so to put it in the infobox is to give it undue weight. ... discospinster _talk 17:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In the link given below, Tim Wise explicitly self-identifies as a jew, writing: "As someone who is Jewish, I am..." http://www.counterpunch.org/wise05272008.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.190.211.52 (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the soln is to remove ethnicity all together from the info box. I can understand religion (which is clear) but race/ethnicity is an odd thing to have.--Inayity (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tim Wise Religion Judaism

I would like to include in the article the religion (Time Wise tells his religion at 45 minutes 55 seconds) of time wise? Which he describes as Judaism in this video. GingerBreadHarlot (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)