Talk:Mileikowsky: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people’s names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy

Because Mileikowski were the original surname of his father, and was substitued in order to hide its real origin, really, the logical surname of Benjamin Netanyahu is Mileikowski, and is a form of show that inaccurate treatment of real history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza4 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article already explains everything the reader needs to know about the history of the name. It is pretty self-explanatory that the only three individuals mentioned on the page are grandfather, father and son despite bearing different names. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The surname pages have a specific format and we do not add arbitrary tangential information into them. All about Nenaniahu is in his bio page. Not to say “it is often associated” text is original research. —Altenmann >talk 22:47, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your “specific format” involves replacing a link to relatives of the Mileikowskys with these four useless links:

then I’d rather not follow that format. Two of those searches are void and the other two give results already listed on this page. So let’s try to less bigoted about the format and focus on the usefulness to the reader, thanks. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, please ‘do not add text not supported by references cited. —Altenmann >talk 23:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • PPlease cite the source that says “It is often associated with …” or equivalent. —Altenmann >talk 23:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • PPlease cite the source that specifically says “It is sometimes associated with”, otherwise it is WP:UNDUE: many people have different birthname and quite ofthen it is mentioned in bios. Reliable sources must specifically single out an ovccurrence, so tthat it willl be singled out in WIkipedia. —Altenmann >talk 00:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m looking for one. Meanwhile, we don’t have to have that exact quote to observe that there are sourced commentators who refer to him by his father’s surname. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After some pause I have to agree that the association with Netaniahu family is notable enough for the surname annd worth mentioning in Wikipedia. However the refbombing yo provided is of poor quaality and eaasily conterstablle. However, like I said, the fact is of note and I am sure good sources should exist, so I m willing to wait while you are looking for them. —Altenmann >talk 03:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this entry from the third opinion noticeboard because the dispute is between more than two editors. Consider opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah…} 22:07, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann:, where did you get the idea that you could delete other people’s comments? You should take a good hard look at WP:TPO. Anyway, there are indeed more than two editors involved here: Forza4, IvanScrooge98 and you. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah…} 01:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I unwittingly added my discussion under subject title that was discussing a diffferent issuue 3 months ago. Nor I split the issue of OR inn a separate section. —Altenmann >talk 04:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a good night’s sleep I checkked all refernces and unfortunatelly, I removed alll of them as failung to be WP:RS with edit summaries:

• curprev 09:33, October 1, 2025 Altenmann talk contribs 1,736 bytes −298 rm aljazeera: it gives false information “Benjamin Mileikowsky (Netanyahu)” undo
• curprev 09:31, October 1, 2025 Altenmann talk contribs 2,034 bytes −235 rm mehrnews: it gives false information “Netanyahu (Mileikowsky from Poland)” without explanations undo
• curprev 09:29, October 1, 2025 Altenmann talk contribs 2,269 bytes −245 rm muslimmaters: it falsely refers to “Benjamin Netanyahu-Mileikowsky” without any explanation undo
• curprev 09:26, October 1, 2025 Altenmann talk contribs 2,514 bytes −256 rm Abulhawa: the sourse gives false info: “Benjamin Netanyahu, a Polish Jew whose real name is Benjamin Mileikowsky” undo
• curprev 09:24, October 1, 2025 Altenmann talk contribs 2,770 bytes −291 rm open.online per WP:CIRCULAR: the source is clearly using WIkipedia as a sourcce undo

When adding replacement refs, please check that (a) they do not contain false information and (b) they directly say an equivalent of the generalized statement “It is sometimes associated with Israeli prime minister” —Altenmann >talk 16:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Of course it’s false information, geez. We discussed this above. The references are good enough to show that there’s people calling him that. Period. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not restore references to false information without discussion. You cited WP:BRD yourself. That said, you write “The references are good enough to show” – this is your original research WP:SYNTH: you interpreted the sources, which do not directly say “It is sometimes associated with …”. I wrote above what you need to cite. —Altenmann >talk 17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. We are still discussing your bold edits, which you keep proposing. Stating that some associate the name with Netanyahu is not interpreting the sources, it’s simply observing them. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  YOu may “observe” whatever you want, but once you write your observations into Wikipedia article, it becomes original research. —Altenmann >talk 17:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not original research, this is stating what the sources say in third person. If several sources make comments of appreciation for a movie, stating “the movie was well received” on the movie article and citing those sources is not original research. Try again. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You know what? Stating “the movie was well received” citing a couple of reviews that did not say “the movie was well received” is Wikipedian’s undue generalization, i.e., original research. Try again. —Altenmann >talk 18:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If most available sources praise a movie, it is well received unless you find reputable sources claiming otherwise. And it isn’t original research. Neither is citing a few commentators and observing that those call Netanyahu with a different surname. Pure observation is not research. End of the story. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, “most available” is Wikipedian’s opinion. And WP:BURDEN to disprove it is not on me, but vice versa: you have to find a source that says “most critics” or “most viewers” or “most fans of Chuck Norris” or etc., loved it. —Altenmann >talk 19:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]