Jump to content

Talk:Ari Nagel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Mvqr (talk). Self-nominated at 11:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: This article looks all good (length, sourcing, newness, etc). Earwig seemed to mostly pick up quotes and unavoidable paraphrasing. It did have some tone issues and information that didn't seem quite neutral or encyclopedic. For example, the information about his height, hair and eye color isn't encyclopedic and had to be removed. I went over it and made some copyedits, but now I can't approve it so this needs another pair of eyes. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples: as you've involved yourself in a content dispute on the page, without using a proper edit summary please withdraw from this review. The information on his height and eye colour is noted by multiple sources, I even daresay nearly all sources covering him as it appears relevant to sperm donation. It is as encyclopedic as use in pages on models, such as Alton Mason. Other than that, vague hand waving on neutrality without pointing out specific issues is not helpful.--Mvqr (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mvqr: If you read my review you will see that I asked for a second review, since I edited the page to help it meet standards. Ari Nagel is not a model, and afaik page's don't usually include trivia about hair and eye color. Mentioning that the page had minor tone issues isn't handwaving, it's an honest attempt to improve the page which wasn't written in a completely encyclopedic manner. This isn't an insult on your work! You did a great job overall. Also thank you for pointing out the sourcing error on the sentence about him depositing sperm with six different banks, I fixed that by adding the correct source. If you look closer at my edits, you'll also notice that I didn't remove the movies about Nagel, I just added them to the prose and removed the WP:External links. External links should be avoided whenever possible. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that you removed the height and eye colour, despite sourcing, your remaining comment on tone and neutrality without identifying any specific issue is a vague hand wave.--Mvqr (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mvqr: not everything that can be sourced should be added to a Wikipedia page. Many many reliable sources will mention a notable person's favorite meal, childhood memory, hair color, eye color, skin tone, weight, etc. If this isn't in some way important, it usually gets left out in the interest of keeping the page encyclopedic. I have tried to adjust as many of my edits as possible to make the page more to your liking. Beyond that, we'll have to leave it to the next reviewer. As it is, I think the nom should be a groundball for approval. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I will assume good faith in the review by Apples concerning the copyrighted content and other already ticked reviews. I don't know why NPOV was crossed (I can't read major opinions beyond "prolific"). If Apples is still watching the page, they may want to explain it. Now the actual review, the article has some issues:

  • A source from the questionable WP:NYPOST is included: the first one concerning the following phrase only "Shortly after the story was published, Nagel was contacted by the New York State Department of Health as he was unlicensed to provide tissue banking.[6]"—if true, reliable sources might exist (the phrase "In 2016, the New York Post reported that Nagel had fathered 22 children, nicknaming him the Sperminator.[5]" doesn't apply because another source is reporting how the Post nicknamed him).
  • The phrase "with the recipients paying for his flight fare, and the sperm is provided free of charge as a donation." is sourced to the NYT and SBS but only SBS mentions the fact.
  • Or "However five mothers (of nine children) successfully sued him for child support, and half of his university paycheck is garnished towards these payments" is sourced by Esquire and Haaretz but only Esquire mentions it.
  • Not related to the review, but content related to his physical features might be added to Wikidata instead. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tbhotch: those issues, and in particular the New York Post citation, were introduced by User:BuySomeApples in this edit. The prior version mentioned the Post via Esquire, but BuySomeApples saw fit to introduce it. BuySomeApples then edit warred their version, with some corrections to citations after being called out Talk:Ari Nagel#BuySomeApples's edits for falsifying information from a citation.--Mvqr (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tbhotch:, I removed the New York Post and corrected the NYT/SBS citation issue on bullet two. I feel you are mistaken on bullet three as the last paragraph of Haaretz has: "Working as a mathematics professor in The City University of New York, Nagel claims half of his paycheck goes to child support. It seems that despite promises, Nagler has been sued for child support five times." Haaretz is missing the nine children, but corroborates all the other details of half his paycheck and five mothers filing for child support. I disagree on the exclusion of the physical features, but I am not going to fight over it or fiddle with Wikidata, it would add but is not critical.--Mvqr (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tbhotch and Mvqr: thanks for picking up this review! The reason I added the New York Post is because it seems to be the original source for the claim. Esquire repeating it doesn't make the claim more verifiable since the original source seems to still be the Post, so it's better to properly attribute it imo. Also, @Mvqr: I would appreciate you WP:Assuming good faith for minor citation errors that I had already fixed, especially since I edited the page so that your nomination would have a better chance of acceptance on the second review. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Post is not used as a source, the NYP is being reported by another source: "In 2016, [...] The New York Post made his story public, dubbing him The Sperminator." In other words, a nickname created by the NYP, as an unreliable WP:PRIMARY source, is being reported by the TARB, a more reliable WP:SECONDARY source. There is no legal reason to use a link to the NYP because this article is not about the NYP and the statement already attributes the NYP: "In 2016, the New York Post reported that Nagel had fathered 22 children, nicknaming him the Sperminator". This is covered by Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date or year

[edit]

This tweet by him probably contains his birthday, which matches database sources, but because the original tweet he was replying to was deleted it is impossible verify for sure. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BuySomeApples's edits

[edit]

I've reverted this edit, which was lacking an edit summary, due to:

  1. Worse flow.
  2. Falsification of sources: "In 2017, Nagel deposited sperm with six different sperm banks." does not appear in NZ Herald which is cited.
  3. Height and eye colour are covered by a multitude of sources on Nagel, e.g. [1][2][3], it appears to be relevant to sperm donation in general as seen in this paper.
  4. Baseless removing of a sourced section on movies on Nagel. Mvqr (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvqr:
  • The source currently cited is Jerusalem Post which states "In 2017, Nagel deposited his semen in six different sperm banks and filled joint requests with seven women who asked to become mothers by him."
  • Height and color might be mentioned in various sources, but it's rarely included in Wikipedia articles, outside of models.
  • The films have not been removed, they have been incorporated into the body of the article, and the external links removed. External links should generally not be used in that way.

The rest of the info added is also sourced, such as the Esquire interview, and other minor edits. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source originally cited, was a serious biography of living people issue. You've corrected it to the Jerusalem Post, but you should also correct that this happened in Israel. Removing the external links is fine, but you removed the entire section, not just the external links. This belongs in a separate section. As for height and eye colour, multiple sources disagree with you, both specific to Nagel and to sperm donors generally. There attributes are probably even more relevant to sperm donors than models.--Mvqr (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvqr: Many sources discuss the hair or eye color of politicians, journalists, scientists, etc. because it adds personal detail and humanizing touches, that doesn't mean it has to be included on the page. The page doesn't currently specify where the sperm banks were, and is in a paragraph regarding Israel, so it's not incorrect. However, I have specified Israel per your request. The section "Movies" is both nonstandard and unnecessary. If you read the page, you'll see both documentaries are still included. Thanks! BuySomeApples (talk) 11:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvqr: I have added a subheading for "Documentaries". Although it's not necessary, hopefully it will help reach a middleground for the page that you might like more. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A section with Filmography is pretty standard, here are three featured articles with such a section: D. Djajakusuma#Filmography, Noël Coward#Works and appearances, Gary Cooper#Filmography. Height, hair, and eye colour are not humanising touches for sperm donors, as it is one of the main screening criteria as pointed out by Men's Journal, The New York Times, The Journal of Bioeconomics, and the Economics & Human Biology journal. --Mvqr (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvqr: A filmography section formatted like those pages would be fine, that's different than the "Movies" section you inserted. I don't doubt that eye color or hair color impacts the desirability of a sperm donor, or a politician, a date, or a host of other things. However, that doesn't mean that it belongs in an encyclopedia article about the person. Hopefully that makes sense, I'm not trying to be difficult. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thank you for returning the Documentaries section. We will disagree on height and colouring, in my opinion it is as relevant as it is for actors and models. It is not the same as some random profession or politicians.--Mvqr (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if we disagree @Mvqr:, hopefully its removal doesn't disappoint you too much. And again, you did a wonderful job on this page in my opinion. BuySomeApples (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ari_Nagel&oldid=1253949472"