Jump to content

Talk:Bouncer/Archives/2012

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


Unsorted early comments

There is an occupation "doorman" that is separate from the occupation "bouncer". Hotels, office buildings, and expensive urban condos and highrises often hire someone who sits or stands near the door and helps to ensure that no one has unauthorized access to the building. Residential doormen often also accept packages, assist people with luggage, and even open the door for people entering and exiting.

So... can we make "bouncer" a separate article? Avocado 23:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I utterly and completely agree. The two occupations cannot be likened together as in this article. How can you possibly say that a "doorman is a bouncer working in a hotel"? Just ridiculous. --JackLumber 13:00, 9 March 200 (UTC)
I also agree. A hotel doorman and a bar bouncer are as related as a casino security guard and a mall rent-a-cop. There needs to be two seperate entries. I added substantially more "meat" to this article before signing in - if the article is split, please retain this information under "bouncer". Youspeakmylanguage 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW: I've been a bar bouncer for three years. Youspeakmylanguage 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more than I do with the assessment nd recommendation put forward by Jacklumber and Youspeakmylanguage. Aside from a bit of strangeness which was pointed out below, the article here does a remarkable job of summing up the professional performance of bar security. The quibble about the word 'Doorman' is makes little sense when one considers that nouns can shift what they refer to based on their surrounding context. If I use the word, "car," no one objects to it's meaning both "automobile" and "a section of a passenger train. The same is true when it comes to the "bouncer/doorman" question.

Sorokahdeen 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)sorokahdeen

Inside the industry in the UK the use of Bouncer is very much depreciated to the point where the SIA and BIIAB get quite upset about terms like “Bouncer” Training courses Mjwalshe 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the SIA and BIIAB tell us that we are "door supervisors" which is just as alien a term, if not more so, than 'bouncer' in the industry. Pienamo 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell thought up this line? "Many clubs enjoy tailoring the appearance of their powerful bouncers to increase the likelyhood of you attacking one of them, at which point they will overpower and ruthlessly punish you." I've seen bouncers approach someone, and they don't try and instigate a fight at their first chance. In fact, in the only case that i've actually seen the bouncer hit someone first, it was because he was brandshing a broken bottle and threatening to attack someone. 70.113.23.254 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Many people seem to have a real problem with us, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a soapbox. We're okay people really, most of us. Violence is the last resort, and only then if you are doing it out of defence or protecting someone else. The skill of a good bouncer lies in his or her ability to talk a situation down. It'd be nice if people were more positive about us. We may not always be a pleasure to deal with, but we're looking after everyone's safety. Pienamo 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:70.113.23.254 (I wonder if he would let me just call him 'user') the line he cites is beyond ridiculous if for one practical reason that no one seems to take into consideration: bars and nightclubs can be sued for the actions of their employees. No bar-owner would retain an employee or crew of employees that he knew to be habitually violent. The Numbers fail to add up in that the cost of defending a lawsuit far outstrips the value to a bar of any security employee hired to provide security. Whatever else you may say about us (more than a decade of experience in my case) we are low-paid employees and easily replaceable. Sorokahdeen 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Sorokahdeen

Here in the UK the bouncer stereotype of large muscular men seems to be fairly accurate - probably more as a detterant against violence, although I have witnessed several people being phsically ejected from bars, etc for hurling verbal abuse at the bouncers. This seems to go against the "persuasive verbal techniques" mentioned in the article. Those are just my experiences though - I imagine something like that would be quite hard to find a reliable cite for. 86.16.36.41 10:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed

This article generally lacks neutrality, claiming that bouncers "will supplement their wages by collecting "tips" from patrons in order to bypass a line or enter a club that has already reached its legal capacity". Expressing that bouncers "often prefer[…] intimidation and loud verbal threats" is also a bad thing to do in Wikipedia. I further find it peculiar that the article claims it to be normal for bouncers to call the patrons "nancy bitches". In addition, the article needs references. The article is so badly written that it probably should have been deleted. 84.48.89.77

I'd have to agree. I've worked the industry for five years, and I've never collected a "tip." I've also never referred to a drunken customer as a "nancy bitch," nor have I worked with another crowd controller who has used such an insult in my presence. I've taken the liberty of removing the section regarding bouncers being payed less than police officers, soldiers and other security officers. I'm inclined to believe that pay rate depends on the employer, the nature of the work and the bar/club/venue a bouncer has been contracted to protect. Besides, I'm earning far more in security than I was earning in the Air Force. I've also added that the professional term for a "bouncer" is "crowd controller," as this is the license we must possess in Australia in order to work in this particular area of security (oh, and because "bouncer" is a label, not an occupation). If anybody disagrees with this, go ahead and change it, although it would be appreciated if you would explain why on this page. Gamer Junkie 05:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up the article. It should probably be moved to Bouncer (security), Bouncer (profession) or something like that. 129.177.48.69

That sounds rather original researchy to me, does anyone have a reference for this? I'm not from the UK myself, but I've never heard of bouncers "arresting" random people off the street there. That's a rather strange accusation to make without a reference to back it up. Besides that, wikipedia isn't supposed to give advice like that, I know it's in the policy somewhere, I remember reading it. I just don't remember exactly where I saw it. Still, anyway, that section really needs a reference if it's to stay in the article in its current form. Errick 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section in question was also very poorly written and unencyclopedic. I have replaced the paragraph with a brief summary, but unless a reference is found then this should also be removed. I have also removed all uses of "arrested", since without further explanation it is not clear what this means (A bouncer / doorman is not a policeman and does not have the power to legally arrest anyone inside or outside of the club. The suggestion that nightclubs buy land outside the club in order that their staff can attack passers-by (which of course would still be illegal) seems dubious if not ridiculous without a reference and I've also removed that. 85.210.134.104 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I hope the fact that I just undid a number of changes will not lead to Nazamo taking it personally (this is a 'good' article for edit wars, sadly). I think that the lead paragraph should remain more succinct - short and not too detailed. I have kept the section on use of force, though its heavily in need of references.

The change to 'notable bouncers' into 'notable names' is a (maybe too strict?) following of the WP:MOS style guide, which says that the title of an article should not be reused in the section names unless necessary.

MadMaxDog 08:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Come a LONG way

Just to pat ourselves on the back, compare THIS version (only a month ago!) with the current one. What a little friction and energy can do ;-) MadMaxDog 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has one of the best pictures I've ever seen on a wiki. Someone had to say that. Kevin S. 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Never did like that picture... it's such a Roadhouse cliche. Nevertheless, this article is very good now. Perhaps it's time it was submitted for FA review? Gamer Junkie 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is cliche - and it's STILL great. Wonder how many times I will have to defend that image during the GA/FA nomination process, in lieu of actual discussion about the article contents.Ingolfson (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

A change of the Law in Canada

An FYI: see this site on how Bouncers are now (well, as of Aug 23rd/07) officially classified and licenced under the catagory of Security Guard in Ontario Canada. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA nominations process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners, such as the one currently in the History section, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy the issues brought up by any such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That banner is ridiculous. How big would this article be if we chose to represent the history of bouncers from every country and culture on the planet? Gamer Junkie T / C 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asserting that the banner is correct. I'm saying it violates the GA quick-fail criteria and thus causes the article to fail the GA nomination. Remove it and renominate the article if you want. VanTucky 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I'll do that. Gamer Junkie T / C 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried for over half an hour to google ANYTHING. No luck. I'm amazed that we have so much in the history section at all. Even with various different search combinations (such as "history" or different country names added to the search terms) all I get is modern stuff if at all - most of it is barely connected blog-stuff and such. And there seems to be little real lit about it anyway (except modern-day tell-alls). Ingolfson (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All I get is stuff related to this and various anime/manga shows. I believe we have the entire earthly sum of bouncer-related knowledge ever written already here. Gamer Junkie T / C 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Aaah, you give up too early. I have added some more research and regulation stuff, including some from Singapore, and I have found a ref for Glenn Ross (a real stub of a ref, but still good!). So what's missing? Oh, yes - ANOTHER 30+ minutes spent on trying to get more on history of other countries, and NOTHING. For all we know, bouncing was invented in the US and then spread (but only to English-speaking countries - which may explain part of our problem). Ingolfson (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work with Glenn Ross. As for history, if somebody else can do better, they're more than welcome to chip in. We could try to find Wikipedians related to security across the world and ask them to add stuff related to their respective locales. That would probably take forever, though. Gamer Junkie T / C 12:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Excessive force" section could really use a ref or two. Murderbike (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As no activity has been made to improve this article as suggested, I'm failing it. Noble Story (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would the suggestion you're talking about be the one and only comment directly above your own? Did you even read the article? Perhaps you could add some suggestions rather than make it seem like you simply read the above comment and failed the article. Considering you've failed it, I would assume you agree with the above editor. I do not. I believe "excessive force" is covered quite well already. Would you please explain why you believe it isn't? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as slightly hostile, but explanation comes with the territory when you make such judgements. Gamer Junkie T / C 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the previous comment. Also, following suggestions is not automatically the correct thing. The first paragraph could easily and correctly be referenced by simply copying over some references provided in other locations in the article (which I will do in a second). The article will be re-assessed/renominated, but as Gamer Junkie said, a comment from you regarding the fail would be appreciated. Ingolfson (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So, what shall I say? I'll be honest, and admit I'm wrong. I reviewed the article, shall I say, rather hastily. I would say that my reason for failing it was definitely wrong. Please use re-assessment, or whatever you deem necessary. My sincere apologies. Noble Story (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Most people would have come up with some nonsense or thrown in a technicality or two. Your honesty is appreciated. Gamer Junkie T / C 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets resubmit. Force section is now referenced, respectively the claims toned down to more clearly match the refs. Ingolfson (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Profiling

This line from the article "...separation based on race or cultural group." is troubling me. In Canada I believe it is illegal (yet still occurring, based on complaints by banned individuals) to refuse someone entry to a club based on race. Should the line be allowed to stand without any mention of the 'racial profiling' debate? --Byron Bell (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be too blunt, but why is this a problem? The claim is referenced, and it is easily understood and well known that this IS or at least has been the case in many eras and or parts of the world. Try getting into certain clubs in the US South as a black. Or as a Turk or Russian into some German discos. Or as a punk into a upper-class nightclub.
So how does the question of whether this is racism or legal enter here? You might try to include such a link (to profiling), but I am concerned that it might be a bit heavy-handed (because it would make that particular part the article take off on a tangent). Maybe a subsection, if you want to go to the t<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text heredfkgnjdkfjgdnkfjgdkfgnj</nowiki></nowiki>rouble of researching profiling in regards to bouncers, might make more sense. Ingolfson (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

= GA nomination ==Insert non-formatted text here

This is a very unusual article on an interesting subject. It is very well written and informative, and is quite thoroughly cited. However, there are some rather serious issues preventing the article from reaching GA status.

  • You should use the cite web template for your website citations. This site is probably the best place to go for this conversion.
  • What about the rest of the United States? Only California and New York is mentioned. Maybe it would be helpful to make a fork article for bouncing in the US?
  • There's only one image. More images should definitely be included.
  • The lead is not comprehensive enough for a GA. It should be sufficient to stand alone as a summary of the whole article.
  • The 1800s section is pretty choppy and would be better off with some of the paragraphs merged together.
  • Anything recent about bouncers? It stops at the 1930s.
  • I have some doubts about the reliability of some of your sources. Blogs and websites like "Witnessjesus.com" wouldn't really fall under this definition.

If you have any problems with this review, feel free to contact me on my talk page or go to WP:GAR. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed doesn't quite begin to state it. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR FA STATUS HERE!!!
  • You should use the cite web template for your website citations. This site is probably the best place to go for this conversion.
Sigh. Yeah, yeah, yeah. May do.
  • What about the rest of the United States? Only California and New York is mentioned. Maybe it would be helpful to make a fork article for bouncing in the US?
Definitely not. Wasted effort when apparently we cannot even get this article to suit people. I do not think that THIS article is improved by listing regulations from all 52 states (which you do not seem to suggest, granted). However, this means that according to your comment we still should remove those two sections to make this article better. Why?
  • There's only one image. More images should definitely be included.
Eh, I just spent 20-plus minutes on Flickr trying to find more (before reading your comments). No luck at all. I also do not really agree that lots of images are a requirement for GA ("available and appropriate").
  • The lead is not comprehensive enough for a GA. It should be sufficient to stand alone as a summary of the whole article.
Will see what we can do.
  • The 1800s section is pretty choppy and would be better off with some of the paragraphs merged together.
Will look at it. Disagree, this does not need any merging in my opinion. Ingolfson (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything recent about bouncers? It stops at the 1930s.
Most recent stuff we found is blogs, and most of the up to date stuff is in the main article. If you read the talk page, you will see how difficult it is to get modern refs unless you go out and buy some of the tell-all books (which may or may not be good refs and are unlikely to have stuff on 1930-1970s).
  • I have some doubts about the reliability of some of your sources. Blogs and websites like "Witnessjesus.com" wouldn't really fall under this definition.
Since when does a GA article have to reference what is effectively a "See also" section to exhaustive levels? We thought we'd be better off by doing so (and we kicked out all people who were not referencable at all) but apparently we should have kicked them out alltogether? All it claims to ref is the fact that somebody was once a bouncer. Any others you find dubious?

Sigh. This is about as frustrating as getting a quality image on Commons. I think I'll take a break now before I get too irritated. Ingolfson (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly getting that way. Are we going for GA or FA here? It might not be perfect, but I'd say it's pretty damned good. The website Witnessjesus.com shouldn't be problem at all. So what if it's a religious website? It confirms the information we have here. It's not a blog or rumour mill, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be used. As far as the exhaustive list goes. I'd be adding more information from other countries not listed at all before adding more information on the minor legal and ethical differences between the 52 states of the United States. I'd imagine such a list would be chopped down and merged into a general description for US security to decrease article size pretty quickly anyway, so no. I was also under the impression that we're to use as few images as possible. Especially when we can't find free-use alternatives. Gamer Junkie T / C 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So what do we do? Fix the ref styles (a pet peeve of mine, I dislike the cite web format), do some more post 1930s research and maybe the odd other US state and then either call for a re-assessment or - ha! - resubmit again? Ingolfson (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, let's just get it up to FA standard so we can get a GA rating. Personally never cared about the ref styles, myself. They're just footnotes and not even part of the article proper, not to mention a pain in the arse to change, but I'll do it anyway if that's what it takes. I tried finding modern info that wasn't related to blogs and forums, but didn't get much. I'll keep trying anyway, I suppose. As for US states... no. I'm not going to focus all of my attention on one country's various minor discrepancies and subtle law differences. If an American editor wants to come in and take care of that, fine. As for me, if they want more detail, it'll pertain to countries that aren't listed at all yet. I'd rather shoot for a global perspective. Particularly considering neither of us are Yanks. Gamer Junkie T / C 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, course charted, then. How about we nominate for FA as well, to flagellate us a bit more? (Just kidding) Anyways, I don't think I will have the time / interest to work on this more before the next weekend. See you then. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Feelin' the same here. Whoever gets to it first then, eh? I'll probably add a bit more in a couple of days. Probably. Gamer Junkie T / C 09:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Went through Flickr again, checked all Wiki-compatible resuts for "Doorman / doormen" "bouncer" "security guard"... for over half an hour. No luck. tried some historical image sources, nothing either. We will have to stick with the photo we have. Ingolfson (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually there was one other useful picture - directly there on Commons! I missed it the last time round, because it needed some light touching up before it looked okay, but it's actually quite good. Ingolfson (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To be done:
  1. References format as per below
  2. Lead expansion
  3. Try to find material post-1930s
  4. Maybe one or two more US States

Ingolfson (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Another picture certainly helps. Good work. I'll leave the references format and US states to you, and that's only if you want them. I don't consider either to be necessary in the slightest for a GA pass. Lead and modern material are definitely on the agenda. Gamer Junkie T / C 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After some dicking around with it, I strongly disagree with a forced conversion to cite web format. For example, the second reference (by the Security Industry Authority). When I correctly fill it in using the tool mentioned, one is left with:
  • either a very foreshortened ref (which doesn't even correctly add the name of the doc, so I have to add it by hand)
  • OR, if I also add the author (i.e. the "Security Industry Authority, Great Britain" and provide it in standard link brackets) a garbled ref which shows three links, of which only the third link is the main ref itself.
    • However, if I unlink the author, to make it clearer which is the actual ref, then I actually reduce the information provided, because the user doesn't there is actually an article about the author/organisation too.

It can't be a positive step in an article to reduce this kind of information.Ingolfson (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't get the real lit

Its frustrating - there's serious academic research about bouncers (see the bottom of the list for just some examples [1]) and yet I can't get more than five-liner abstracts, because all those fine academics don't want their work to be freely accessible. Grrrr... Ingolfson (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Found some. It's a single source, but it's a goldmine... Ingolfson (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible unintentional self-contradiction

In the Use of force section:

Despite popular misconceptions, bouncers in Western countries are normally unarmed. [16][17] Some bouncers may carry weapons such as expandable batons for personal protection, [18] but they may not have a legal right to carry a gun or other weapon even if they would prefer to do so.

References only point to the Au training allowing Security Officers to take the course. I think it would be advantagious to find a Reference to what the Au Law says about Security carrying such a weapon as this bit sounds self-contradictory ( but for the life of me I cant seem to rectify it :/ ). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you stating that although crowd controllers can take a course that allows them to carry certain weapons on their person, they aren't actually allowed to do so anyway? Such a reference seems somewhat redundant. The course would be entirely pointless if this was the case. Gamer Junkie T / C 05:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, this is a generic statement, which is also hedged for the very reason that laws of various nations will differ. If we go totally afield, I am sure there are few laws that would prevent a bouncer in a bar in the Congo from carrying an automatic rifle (okay, I am drifting off topic here - but the point is that exceptions in some country's laws don't invalidate the point). Ingolfson (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, I have a problem with "Some bouncers may carry weapons such as expandable batons for personal protection" ... followed by a reference to a training course. How does that Ref support the statement? The inference is that once trained, they can carry, but this should be supported by a Ref to a law stating so. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be assuming that the security industry isn't bound by laws and regulation acts. There are countries that allow it and countries that don't. Heck, there are parts of countries that allow it and parts that don't. Would you prefer it if we added this or a list of laws from various countries? It would help if you'd tell us how you would like the situation remedied. Gamer Junkie T / C 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be against citing or requesting whole lists of laws! We'd end up in the same fallacious avenue of 'improving' the article as if we had actually spent time on the request to add lots of other US states to the "By country" section. Ingolfson (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also note that the "Some bouncers may carry..." statement wouldn't even be wrong if they carried the baton illegally. Ingolfson (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The list thing wasn't really serious. I was being annoying. And the baton thing would, of course, only apply to places where people can actually carry them. Gamer Junkie T / C 11:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bouncer (doorman)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I took it on because I remembered that one of my landlords had been famous locally as a bouncer. He had the build and strength of a gorilla - I once saw him with an armchair under each arm - but was a very nice guy and I never heard of any trouble when he was on duty. I'll post proper comments within a day or two - remind me if I'm tardy. --Philcha (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I usually do reviews in 3 stages:

  • Coverage and structure
  • The nitty-gritty details - style, refs, status of images
  • The lead, when all main content issues are resolved.

Coverage

In most respects you guys have been impressively thorough - and the article is fun to read. However there are a few more aspects that should be covered:

  • The presentation of the history starts at 1800, and entirely in the USA. I'm pretty confident that earlier urban cultures would have had the same behaviour problems and therefore needed bouncers. I'd expect there to be good refs for ancient Rome and ancient Greece. If I were editing this I'd also consider ancient Mesopotamia (Babylon, Sumer, etc.; I remember reading about an ancient poem from one of these cities about the pros and cons of urban life) and China. Brownie points if you can find a pic with supporting citation of a bouncer from any ancient culture!
  • At present the article is mainly about the USA, with a few mentions of other countries. What about e.g. Russia, China, Japan, India (the last of which publishes a lot in English), Germany (especially in the 1930s, when the streets were ruled by politically-aligned gangs), Turkey (where football supporters, i.e. soccer fans, can get pretty rough), etc.?
Struck parts now covered. Ingolfson (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I searched but did not find anything about Turkey - it would be difficult to find anything citeable about bouncing in Turkey anyway in English language, at least if we are looking for more than "3 bouncers in a brawl"! I have however instead added something on UK football hooligans and their fights with bouncers, and an indirect reference to North African countries being considered the 'bouncers' of the European Union's borders. Ingolfson (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Could not find Babylon / Sumer materials (though the Mesopotamian myths probably partly count), but I found a biblical reference. Ingolfson (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure

*Other names for "bouncer" appear in the lead but not on the main text. Lead should only summarise main text. Done. Ingolfson (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Other notes

*Image:Thebouncer.JPG might be good, if we can get supporting info - I've asked the uploader at Commons --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

User has not responded or done anything at all since joining except upload this one image which I am unsure whether it is acceptably licensed anyway (if it is a copyrighted graphic novel, as I suspect). So striking in terms of "tasks to do". Ingolfson (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on, Philcha. It's been at GA nom for about three weeks now, I think, so it's appreciated. Regarding the history starting in 1800, it's been rather difficult to locate any in-depth information even from present, let alone ancient texts and scriptures, but we can try again. It would have to be honour guards and bodyguards, though, as "bouncer" wasn't really an occupation as such. Regarding more diverse explanations and descriptions from other countries, this is something we set out to achieve earlier, although precious little verifiable information exists, as we've come to discover. You'll notice that User:Ingolfson has added information that he has been able to retrieve already, but even we feel this is probably not enough to complete the article, at least not to FA standard. Rules and laws are so varied, even in states, regions, provinces, etc of only one country that this has also proven an obstacle for me. We'll try, though. For the last point, we have those names only in the lead because the term "bouncer" is really an informal title used by the public as a whole, rather than an official title used by the industry or any specialist security services of any kind. I strongly feel that this is an important point to be made for the description of such an occupation, so please let me know if removing this is an absolute necessity. I'll be back to start on your suggestions later tonight. Cheers. The Cake is a Lie T / C 23:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No need to remove the other names, I suggest moving this content to the top of the "Functions" section, just above the sub-section "Bouncer". --Philcha (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I did some searching:
  • I found a few in Latin literature:

:**The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 11, pages 393-394 - note "Christians" among the shady characters on the police's shakedown list (quote from Tertullian) Included. Ingolfson (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Eden, P.T, (1994). "Miscellanea". Mnemosyne. 47 (4): 516. doi:10.1163/156852594X00294.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

: "One such functionary commonly to be found in well-to-do houses was the janitor, ostiarius, who sometimes acted as a 'bouncer' (cf. Seneca Dial. 5.37.2), and might take note of irregular behaviour." The Seneca reference is from Dialogue 5, "On Anger", at Dialogues and Essays, page 47 Added, but from another reference. The first is a link you have to pay to access, the second was a bit too indirect in being applicable for the article. Ingolfson (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

    • Plautus (1999), "Bacchides", in Berg, D., and Parker, D. (ed.), Five Comedies, translated by Parker, D., Hackett Publishing, p. 193, ISBN 087220362X{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
      "Get lost!
      Unless you want to feel the unwanted attentions
      of a large and powerful bouncer behind that door!"

Covered. Ingolfson (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, WP needs brightening up with surprises like this. If this article were being expanded from a stub, the ants item would be a good candidate for DYK. A brief version has to go in the lead, to whet curiosity. --Philcha (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey, good stuff! Where'd you get all of this? Anyway, I like it all, except.. the ants. Not really sure how we'd work that in... The Cake is a Lie T / C 08:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This is where the real work starts

Hi, I see you've made a few changes. I also noticed you've contacted the uploader of Image:Thebouncer.JPG.

The article is well-written, and looks well-sourced (although I haven't yet checked sources in detail). However on re-reading it I became aware of some problems of perspective:

  • It's still very oriented towards developed countries and especially USA. To some extent that's caused by availability of sources.
  • The first half reads almost as an advert for the security and hospitality industries. I notice you haven't yet incorporated the material I found about the problems associated with bouncers in countries where "western" culture is not dominant.
  • Partly as a result of this, the structure looks fragmented.

I think it would be worth considering a re-structure to make it flow better, by covering the "problems" and then the legal and industry responses to these. Then the lead will almost write itself.

  • "Functions" is fine as it is and where it is. Also has the advantage of a modern perspective before launching into the chequered history, so helps to keep the article balanced.
  • History - I think this could also be a little briefer, especially for USA, although colourful anecdotes like the one about Mickey Steele are worth keeping.
    • Ancient
    • Western world
    • Elsewhere - good place for problems associated with bouncers in countries where "western" culture is not dominant.
  • Sociology (perceptions of bouncers; difficulties of machismo in bouncers and "patrons")
  • Legal / regulatory -point out this applies to "western" cultures"
    • Limitations on use of force
    • Cost of lawsuits
  • Selection and training - could be a good place to point out other commercial incentives, e.g. image, family-friendliness. Point out this applies to "western" cultures"
Could you please explain what you mean by "Western culture"? I'm not sure I understand what this means in regards to family friendliness and such. Regarding history, the last guy failed the GAN partly because the history was too brief and not enough of it was about the US. What should we sum up more quickly? Also, I'm not certain that regulation only applies to Western culture, but maybe I'm misinterpreting the context. Could you please elaborate? The Cake is a Lie T / C 23:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Re "western cultures" I mean those that follow the patterns developed in W Europe - which includes, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and apparently, for the purposes of this article Singapore. I guess I'm referring to cultures where the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law are well established, as opposed to those where anyone who can afford to hire muscle is superior to anyone who can't - please don't ask me to dig up refs for that!
Re the history, given how much there is to rest of the article, it's long enough. As a Brit and having read quite a bit of non-European history (I won't bore you with why), it struck me very quickly that this is too US-centric - I just looked at the previous review and it said nothing about the history being too brief and not giving enough detail on the US. When I Googled I was disappointed not to find any sources for ancient China, Mesopotamia or Egypt. Any urban civilisation needs bouncers to guard the homes of the rich, important meeting places and places of entertainment. Since sources are really hard to find, that's OK for GA. If this were an FA review, where coverage is supposed to be "comprehensive", coverage of ancient and non-"Western" cultures would be required. Making the existing historical content a little more concise will mkae room for the additional history as people find it.

BTW, what did you think of the structure I suggested?

More sources:

Thanks for clarifying. I've got no problems with the structure suggestion. We can swap all of that around. I'm not sure where the US conversation stuff is, maybe it was at GAN? I remember speaking with Ingolfson regarding expansion of the article, but that there was already enough US content, despite what the previous reviewer believed. As an Australian, I'm more than happy to be sure there's more international content. I've just got to get through my work. I get in deep shit when people see me editing Wikipedia at a work PC... The Cake is a Lie T / C 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Is anybody there? I'd be rather annoyed if I had to fail this for lack of response. --Philcha (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Responding. I'm bogged down with work at the moment due to Christmas preparations. I haven't had time to do anything with Wikipedia and probably won't be doing more than dropping in to check recent edits for vandalism for a few weeks. Sorry, but I'm a little overwhelmed right now. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, real life can be an obstruction. However I think we need to get this wrapped up by mid-Jan 2009 (!) at the absolute latest. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Alright then. I'll be able to make time in January, I'm sure. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, just let this fail. We will resubmit in a few months when the requirements for a "Good article" have increased again, just so we can get our masochism on. Ingolfson (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I take that back. I will make an effort during the next days to get this over the hurdle. Can we please have unti the 18th January unless we contact you earlier? Ingolfson (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bouncing" is not a profession, it's job. Instead of using the word profession in reference to bouncing, use the word job. Bouncing doesn't require a college degree, it's not a profession. It's not comparable to doctor, professor, attorney, etc. Also, the image of the bouncer in the Infobox looks like nothing more than a guy standing outside some joint. Other than the caption, there's nothing in the image that identifies him as a bouncer. Find a better image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReverendLogos (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
How very elitist of you. Well, if you read the article, you'll note that there does happen to be a level of training involved in most regions and countries, although the fact that it doesn't involve five years of academia and a master's degree leads me to believe that a gentleman of your obvious esteem probably wouldn't find this satisfactory. The Cake is a Lie T / C 20:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Because this article is taking a world view of the topic, the editor needs to be careful about using words like 'profession'. What does the word 'profession' mean to the English, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Chinese? If the word means traditional academic education and a degree from an accredited university, then the editor here should not be using 'profession' in connection with 'bouncing' -- which probably requires only two weeks of on-the-job training at the most. Bouncing is not a profession and the word shouldn't be used in connection with it because such use is misleading. The editor needs to check US government sources in connection with this article. Try the public library or [2]. Idioms like "covering an employee's back" and "in the moment" need to be defined for those unfamiliar with the expressions.ReverendLogos (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You've just highlighted the assumption in your own argument - "If the word means traditional academic education and a degree from an accredited university ..." This assumption is untrue even in the West, e.g. nurses, physiotherapists and, in some countries, accountants, do not neccessarily have university degrees. --Philcha (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
If some nurses, accountants, and physiotherapists don't have university degrees then it means they're not professionals, right? The word professional is thrown all over the place today. "I'm a professional grocery store check-out girl, I'm a professional pole dancer, I'm a professional pump jockey, I'm a professional blahblahblah ... The word has come to mean "I'm paid to do something therefore I'm a professional." Ridiculous. ReverendLogos (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Highlighting assumption again, I was required to do a ten week course at a TAFE institute (not including the police licensing and first-aid level 2 courses that I was also required to complete) in order to receive my crowd controller's licence. Two weeks of on the job training wouldn't suffice, I'm afraid. Also, considering that this article is written in a formal tone and setting, "job" would be incorrect anyway. I think the proper terminology would be "career" at the very least, given the nature of the article and the fact that "profession" is clearly reserved only for use by the social elite. The Cake is a Lie T / C 11:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, "job" is correct meaning "a regular remunerative position", alternatives would be "work", "work life"... "A bouncer's job/work may require administering first aid." "A bouncer's job/work may involve late night hours." In light of the fact this article is being written in a formal tone, "profession" is incorrect and "career" is incorrect too. What's wrong with job or work? Considering this is a formal article, idioms like "covering one's back" should be avoided. Also, the "Character" section needs considerable citation. Otherwise it sounds POV. Check some US Labor Department materials on "bouncing". Such material is available online and in public libraries. Most of this article could have been written citing one or two government sources. ReverendLogos (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with ReverendLogos quite seriously. He himself notes that "the word professional is thrown all over the place today." yet he apparently expects a Wikipedia article to be holier than thou on a minor definitional point instead of concentrating on what makes the article better. Also comments like "idioms like "covering one's back" should be avoided." (because the articlle is written in a formal style / is on Wikipedia) make my skin crawl - why not let Wikipedia be written by a computer without any sense of style, English language or writing quality? How about we introduce "approved lists" of things that are okay to say in a good article, and ban all other turns of phrases to ensure quality? Ingolfson (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Once again, 'bouncing' is not a profession, and it should not be defined as such in this article. An idiom like "cover one's back" should be avoided here because there are many readers who would not be familiar with it. The expression has a slang tone to it that is inappropriate in a formal WP article. ReverendLogos (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I will also note that several of the uses of the word "Professional" in the article are from direct quotes of people associated with the industry. Another argument for the keeping this as an acceptable word. Ingolfson (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Not really. Grocery store check-out girls run around identifying themselves as "professional" grocery store check-out girls. They based their identification upon such things as "I'm paid to do the job, I had three days of job training, my employer says I'm the best check-out girl he's ever seen, and I never call in sick. Therefore, I'm a professional." Saying so doesn't make it so - especially when it comes from someone in the industry. If the word 'professional' is used by those in the industry, then such uses need to be in quotes with an inline citation, like so: Mr. XYZ, a spokesperson for the hospitality industry, has said, "Bouncers are professionals."[1] Just because industry people describe bouncers as professionals doesn't make it so. This article needs a massive overhaul. First, get in touch with a government agency such as the US Department of Labor for a definition of "Bouncing" and other details about the job. Government materials are always reliable and verifiable sources. Next, mundane details need to be covered: how much do bouncers make? Are they salaried or wage earners? Are females employed as bouncers? What about lesbian clubs? Do females work as bouncers in lesbian clubs? Do bouncers need a high school diploma? Are high school dropouts hired as bouncers? How much education does a bouncer need to qualifiy for the job? Two years of college? Four years? Do bouncers receive medical benefits from the employer? Dental benefits? Paid vacation time? What hours do bouncers work? Etc. The images are terrible. There's no reason to think these people are bouncers. The two in the bottom image could just as easily be Mardi Gras revelers or two people attending a Halloween party. There's no reason to think the guy in the top image is a bouncer. It looks like someone snapped his pic on the street and identified the guy as a bouncer in San Francisco. There no reason to think the pic is of a bouncer or of San Francisco! The images should be discarded. ReverendLogos (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Your comments were read and I disagree with most of them - this is not an FA process, and you are welcome to add material if you feel it would improve the article. I have removed the "profession" word (and mainly replaced it with "occupation") except where in direct quotes, or where not in the context you disagreed with. Ingolfson (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm still trying to get over the check-out girl thing. Sounds to me like, no matter how hard she works or how much pride she takes in her job, she's still nothing more than a check-out girl. Nice. It's good to know there's still straight-laced, traditional conservatives of good, non-check-out related pedigree out there to keep the common people in their place. Makes me wonder why on earth you'd be registered to a community-based, free encyclopedia website in the first place. Anyway, regarding your listed questions/points, they're virtually impossible to properly add here. I mean "Do lesbians work at lesbian bars"? "Do bouncers get dental"? "Paid vacation time"? These are issues decided by individual companies, clubs and employers. They don't apply to an overview of the industry. I also believe we've covered a couple of the questions in the article, such regarding what is necessary to get licensed in various regions. If you would like to add more information regarding licensing and regulation in specific locales and could find and reference these regions yourself, then by all means, please assist us further by doing so. The Cake is a Lie T / C 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I think my questions should be answered here. Many readers would come to the article with similar questions. While writing an article about bouncing from a sociological perspective and concentrating on the 'macho man' aspect of the job and the 'character' of bouncers is ok, you need to answer the nitty gritty, real world questions about the work. If you check government publications, you would find such information. While wages might vary from one club to another, a government publication would make that clear. A government publication might read for example: "In 2007 in the United States, nightclub bouncing paid on average US$12 an hour. Wages were higher than average on the west coast, particularly in Los Angeles and San Francisco blahblahblahblahblah..." Check it out. These are the kinds of questions many readers would expect to be answered in such an article. ReverendLogos (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ReverendLogos, those items would be interesting if WP:RS could be found. People whose articles I've GA-reviewed will know that I'm quite keen on breadth of coverage. However when suggesting additional topics for an article I generally provide at least examples to show that there are WP:RS. WP:V also places the burden of proof on those who wish to add content. Can you cite any relevant WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please let me know when you've finished, then I can start the detailed walk-through. BTW:

  • ReverendLogos is right about the source for the 6-ft lady acrobat-turned-bouncer: Stag mag never was WP:RS; the URL's totally dead; so that para will have to go. Never mind, there's plenty of other material here, provided the sources stand up.
    A technical hint: if Google returns a hit and the URL is dead, Google's cache is too short-term to be useful. Instead copy the main URL given by Google (right-click and select "copy URL" in most browsers) then go to the Internet Archive and enter the URL into the WayBack Machine from on that page. If that finds a saved version, use the {{cite web}} template as normal, but add 2 more parameters, archiveurl (=the URL of the page returned by the WayBack Machine) and archivedate (=date when Internet Archive saved the copy).
  • The source for Josef "Sepp" Dietrich also says the SS were formed "to protect Party meetings", I think this is worth a mention. --Philcha (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
ReverendLogos, I would like to know why exactly we should add the average pay of bouncers in various cities in the United States? Why precisely would everybody want to know this? Most of the article is based upon Western crowd control as it is, and we are currently attempting to broaden the article's focus by concentrating on security and crowd control in other cultures and regions of the world. Once again, if this is something you feel is entirely necessary, try helping us improve the article by pitching in instead of just pointing and complaining about how biased we are and how our references aren't good enough for you. The amount of time we've spent bickering over this nonsense could have been much better spent researching for the article. You're an editor here as well. Anything you want to add or adjust or reference, you can do so yourself at any point. The Cake is a Lie T / C 09:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to get down to the nitty-gritty if we'ew to wrap this up by mid-Jan. So I'm going section by section (lead last).

Bouncer

  • "which may contravene anti-discrimination laws in many Western countries" needs a ref. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • in "bouncers use metal detectors and body searches to prevent patrons from bringing potentially dangerous and illegal items, such as drugs and weapons", the ref supports drugs but not weapons, metal detectors or body searches. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • in "to ensure that club rules and alcohol regulations are adhered to", the source talks about club rules and customers who can't hold their booze, but not about alcohol regulations. BTW Checking trouble at the door covers under-age customers and ID issues. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • re "Also, bouncers must generally resolve conflict within the establishment, which may involve verbal warnings to rule-breakers, separating individuals and groups, or ensuring that troublemakers (i.e. those who become too disorderly, intoxicated, or argumentative) leave the venue", the source supports hardly any of that. The 2 dictionary citations add very little, and most of the supported content is supported adequately by Bouncers & Doormen. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • re "Bouncers can also be responsible for collecting an entry fee, or "cover" and checking for identification (especially in regard to the legal age of customers for entry and alcohol consumption). In some venues, bouncers may have the subjective task of "separating the 'in-crowd' from the 'out-crowd'"", next to none of this is supported by the IMDB entry. If you mean it's supported by the DVD, use {{cite video}} - you still use the URL param to provide further info, but then the accessdate paarma musy say when you accessed it (format yyyy-mm-dd). In fact the in-/out-crowd bit is supported by the following ref (Times of India). --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Bouncers may also escort employees (particularly female staff) to and from the venue, and in rare cases, may act as bodyguards for VIPs, celebrities, or management within the venue." needs a ref --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • From Checking trouble at the door, "Most bouncers work only part time and have a different full-time job during the day. Others, like Carl Marcelin, are students who bounce to earn spending money and help pay for their education" looks worth using. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Re "Some venues equip their staff with in-ear walkie-talkies to stay in contact. A small number of bars also use digital cameras connected to biometric devices such as facial recognition software to alert staff to the presence of known troublemakers and individuals that have been barred from the venue, or possibly even from other venues", the ref covers only facial recognition. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Re "Other terms used may be 'door staff', 'floor staff', and 'door supervisor' (in the United Kingdom)", the source uses only 'door supervisor'. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Such terms are more precise than generic terms like 'security guard' or 'security officer' insofar as they describe the main location of duty" needs a ref. --Philcha (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Supervisor

  • Re "A security supervisor (also called a "head bouncer" or "cooler") is an employee who oversees the security for a venue and supervises bouncers and other security staff:
  • Bisons in bar brawl? supports none of Security supervisors are usually security staff members with many years of experience and good conflict resolution skills. A security supervisor's primary function is to organise and support security personnel and ensure the maximum level of safety for his/her staff and customers. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The 2nd para has no refs. --Philcha (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

History

  • The whole of the preamble (2 paras) lacks refs. Thisis imprtant because you are clearly presenting an interpretatnio rather than summarising facts that are supported by refs in the sub-sections. In addition it looks too much like an ad. Let's face, bouncers started as hired / bought muscle and the only people they had to please were their employers / masters. The "honorific" and "professionalisation" were later developments, and to this day in most of the world bouncers still "muscle". I'd scrap the entire preamble. --Philcha (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The subsections of this one should have regular lower-level headings. Starting a para with ";" generates and HTML construct (DL, DT and DT tags) that's meant to be used for glossaries. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with scrapping it. What's with the non sequitur about a trend that occurred in the 90s and 00s, rather than discussing any notable history. There's no content at all... It's complete rubbish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andythechef (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In ancient times

In modern times

19th century

20th century

  • Re "In the 1930s, the bawdiest parts of Baltimore, Maryland docks were filled with "burlesque shows, penny arcades, ..." ...",i've already noted that the link is dead and was never WP:RS. I think this para may have to go. --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reading the source, it looks to me like Christian Weber was a bouncer when he teamed up with Hitler. --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd tag "In early Nazi Germany, some bouncers in underground Jazz clubs were also hired ..." on to the previous para - it's all about Germany in the time of Hitler. --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done BTW, that's a nice set of finds about this period in Germany! --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd combine "Hong Kong also features a somewhat unusual situation where some bouncers are known to work directly for prostitutes ..." with the previous para, as it's all about the underworld links. PS what's "Goggle Books"? --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done It's a pity real readers don't read refs - "What, though, of his interior life? Is there an interior life? Or will we find, if we go behind that gum-chewing grimace, only a flickery Terminator-world of threat assessment, one-word commands, and thermal readings of girls’ asses?" at Nightclub Bouncers Tell All is a gem.--Philcha (talk)
  • Get Ready To Duck is under-used - it's an interesting mix of academic and tabloid newspaaper writing. Other goodies there: the boredom. --Philcha (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside studies


Inside studies

  • Re "violence itself was the defining characteristic, a "culture created around violence and violent expectation"", I think you're actually being hard on bouncers here, as the study makes it plain that bouncers' jobs focus round dealing with appalling behaviour by people who are often just plain nasty. --Philcha (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Character

Excessive force

Alternatives

Canada

New Zealand

  • "In New Zealand, there is no national-level regulation of bouncers as of 2006" - what about 2009? I'd drop this sentence, as it may reflect absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Re the Security Association, they stand to gain by regulation, so I'd drop them. What matters that the emplyers, the Hospitality Assoc, are coming round to the same view. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Singapore

UK

  • "One current provider of training is the British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body" is just an ad. I'd remove it, as the important thing is the legal requirement. --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

US

  • Should not use paras beginning with ";" as sub-headings (see above). In this case a bullet list would be fine, the you can start the 1st item e.g. (In California ..." --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Re California, the source says plenty about training, mentions batons but nothing about "criminal background check, including submitting their fingerprints to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation" --Philcha (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Last Call for the Falls? redirects othe site's home page, i.e. the cited page has gone. In any case it's a blog entry. The text of the refs says "with further references". I think you need tofind an archived copy (see below) and then find its refs. --Philcha (talk)

General notes on citations

  • Book citations should generally include page numbers - page=X or pages=X-Y. I usually try to give chapter title as well, in case overseas editions, later editions, etc. have different page numbering. See {{cite book}}
  • Exception: for dictionaries, encyclopedias and other things arranged alphabetically, I generally use {{citation}} with contribution=name of the item, as {{cite book}} does not support (i.e. ignores) contribution=.
  • All URLs must have accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD.
  • Where a web page reproduces a book, cite the book. When it reproduces a journal article, cite the artcile (see e.g. Get Ready To Duck), using {{cite journal}}.
  • Avoid giving the full citation details more than once. Use <ref name="think-of-a-name">{{ cite ... }}</ref> the first time, and <ref name="think-of-a-name" /> on subsequent uses - and the / before the > is vital. Tastes differ about ref names: some use short ones, e.g. "Bloggs2005" or "Bloggs2005p107". I prefer longer ones that include an abbreviated title, as that reminds me what the source is about when I'm editing, re-arranging, etc. Develop your own style.
  • For checking links, use User:Dispenser/Checklinks, e.g. here's the links check for this article. Later in the review I'll check this report myself to ensure that there are no problem links.
    • Any code other than 200 in the first column is at least a potential issue, and 404 means "not found", i.e. you got a problem - try the WayBack Machine. Note that if you use pages saved there, you must specify url=original url, archiveurl=url of page as returned by the WayBack Machine and archivedate=date of the saved copy - as well as accessdate=.
    • The third col shows the parameters used in the citation, if you used a citation template - looks like this artcile contains only bare urls. You've got some work to do there.
  • Get into the habit of using citation templates. Strictly speaking they're not mandatory and hand-typing equivalent output is officially acceptable - but that could change anytime. --Philcha (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No

Pilcha, I don't want to ask you to water down your standards (though I think you should have a look at this some day - but you have made over 70 (!) change requests. I am officially now giving this up. Fail the GA request. I do not care anymore. What would I have to do for an FA? Swear on my immortal soul to pledge my unborn children and their children's children to forever maintain and expand the subject article? Sorry - no. Ingolfson (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
For an FA? - "just" comply with all of WP:MOS :-) Philcha (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is unfortunate. This has been Ingolfson's baby since the beginning, and I was just the support guy trying to lend a hand where I could to lift some of the burden. In all honesty, I can understand why Ingolfson has called it quits, and I hardly blame him, as this is just the final straw in a long line of straws in the last 1 1/2 or 2 years since the rewrite of this article first began. Philcha, at the same time I wouldn't expect you to lower your standards, and I realise that every reviewer has their own idea of what a GA or FA article should consist of, but, as it stands, I will not be able to fulfil the requirements necessary for Bouncer (doorman) to be awarded GA status. I work ten hours a day, six days a week and have zero access to computers during this time. To be entirely honest and practical here, Philcha, if I were to go this alone, it would be sometime in the second half of this year before it were completed. Unfortunately, I'd say this leaves only one option at this point. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
The Cake is a Lie, thanks for being so honest.
Re "every reviewer has their own idea of what a GA or FA article should consist of", in principle that's not true - see Wikipedia:Good article criteria. The criteria specify what (relatively few) parts of WP:MOS apply, and are quite uncompromising about WP:V and WP:NPOV. The most subjective area of Wikipedia:Good article criteria is "Broad coverage" (rather than the "comprehensive" coverage demanded for FA), but that's not a problem in this article.
I'll leave it until the end of this Saturday to see if Ingolfson changes his mind. --Philcha (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no response and the reference problems remain un-remedied, I must conclude that this article has failed to reach GA standard. I find this as frustrating as I'm sure you do. --Philcha (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure somebody will finish off what needs to be done sooner or later. I'll probably drop in to add a point or two every now and then and monitor it's current condition for vandalism. As it stands, the article is hardly what I would call "poor", so I'm not altogether fussed by this turn of events. The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - please post review comments / responses above this line - - - - -

File:1766
Terry McPhillips

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwest Bar Manager (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unreasonable cite tags

It is unreasonable to expect a five line paragraph that sticks extremely close to the reference material to provide more than the multiple references already given. The person who placed the (now removed again) cite tags obviously expects to have a reference behind every single half-sentence that says more than "Doh!" (which is great for readability of both clear and edit text too!).

I have changed the corresponding references to provide exact page numbers in the reference, but that is the maximum reasonable. Ingolfson (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I expect every sentence that sounds like POV to be sourced. The section called "Character" sounds like the author of the article is presenting his own opinion about what constitutes a bouncer's character. Every sentence in the section should have in-line citations if you're seeking GA status. On another note...In the paragraph: "In the Weimar Republic in the Germany of the 1920s and early 1930s, doormen had the often risky task of protecting venues from the fights caused by Nazis and other potentially violent groups (such as Communists). Such scenes were fictionalised for example in the movie Cabaret, where a bouncer is brutally beaten by Nazi thugs. Hitler himself had early on surrounded himself with a number of former bouncers such as Christian Weber[27] (partly fictionalised in the novel The Night of the Amazons), or rough people such as Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich, later to become a high-ranking SS officer, who has been described as Hitler's "chief bouncer" during the early days of his movement.[28]" The first sentence needs an in-line citation. No ifs, ands, or buts. Note [27] is not supported. You've written "Hitler...surrounded himself with a number of former bouncers" while you then list only one as does your source. You should list at least two of the "former bouncers" in Hitler's circle, or edit the sentence to read something like: "Christian Weber, a former bouncer, was one of the people in Hitler's circle." The line about 'Sepp' puzzles me. Was Sepp a bouncer? Did he work as a doorman? I don't get it. I don't think the author of your source is using the word 'bouncer' in the sense that this article understands - that is, someone who stands at the door of a nightclub evaluating customer IDs, sobriety, pugnaciousness, etc. I think this sentence is reaching for the moon or something. Its misleading, and should simply be deleted. Also, your source for the paragraph about bouncers being guardians of morality in dance halls, is not a reliable source. If you can't find a reliable souce, the paragraph should be deleted. ReverendLogos (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The normal convention in WP is that a ref covers all sentences / clauses that precede it, up to the preceding ref or the start of the paragraph. I've been on the "receiving" end of a few GA reviews myself, and all the reviewers were happy with that. See also WP:CITE#How to present citations. Hence if the ref supports each of the preceding sentences adequately, none of these sentences can be accused of WP:OR or WP:POV.
It would be helpful if you could begin each separate point that you wish to make in a separate para or list item, as I have done here and in the GA review.
While "bouncer" is most commonly associated with public places of entertainment, see the "History" section and its refs, and the cited translation from a play by Plautus uses "bouncer". --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand the "normal convention" but the first sentence of the "Weimer Republic" paragraph is not supported in ref [27] and needs a citation. My comments about Weber and Sepp are valid. Weber appears to be the only bouncer Hitler had in his circle but the author of this article suggests there were more. Who were they? As I noted, if they are not going to be listed, then the sentence should be rewritten to precisely reflect the source: "Christian Weber, a former bouncer, was a member of Hitler's circle.[27]". Actually, Weber should be listed at the "Notable bouncers" section rather than having his own paragraph.
The History section is where this article plays fast and loose with the lead's definition of bouncing, and, in other sections, you're citing instances when 'bouncing' has been used here ot there as a metaphor or someone has taken 'poetic license' with the word. Is this sort of thing encyclopedic? I get the impression that someone is googling the word bouncer and including every google reference in this article. Bouncing is defined in the lead as someone who stands at the door of a nightclub checking IDs, evaluating sobriety, etc. The slave at the door of a wealthy Roman's house was not exactly the same thing. A slave wasn't paid to do so, for example. If you're going to define bouncers as any one who turns others away at a front door, you should include doormen at ritzy hotels, at fancy restaurants, and exclusive apartment buildings. I was in a public library yesterday where the librarian threw unruly children out of the building. Under your fast and loose definiton, one could define her at that moment as a 'bouncer' - but then that doesn't jive with the definiton in the lead. In Twelfth Night, I believe Malvolio throws Viola out of Olivia's house. Under the fast and loose definition, I suppose we could call Malvolio a bouncer. If we're going to use the fast and loose definition, there are dozens of real-world and fictional characters who act at one time or another as bouncers. But do they need to be included in this article? This article needs to stick with its definition in the lead and cut the other stuff. The other stuff is kinda reaching for the moon or something and taking the focus off the topic.
Also, the source for the material about Mickey Steele is unreliable. Stag Magazine was a sleazy men's sex-and-violence girlie photos pulp magazine from the fifties. I wouldn't call Stag a reliable source. ReverendLogos (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Re the History section and the lead's definition of bouncing, one of the functions of an ostiarius (literally "doorman") was to exclude or eject unwelcome visitors, see e.g. Seneca "On Anger", section 37, on p. 47 of "Dialogues and Essays" as well as the Plautus extract - these guys are bouncers alright, although at wealthy homes, not nightclubs; see the Tertullian ref also. The role of the doorman evolved and, as usual with evolution, diverged. At places where unruly visitors were unlikely, like your "doormen at ritzy hotels, etc." their functions became more to welcome guests and to show off the opulence of the place. In other places where unruly visitors were more likely, one of their main functions remained to exclude or eject. In either case it's irrelevant whether the job was done by a slave or a hired hand - that's more a consequence of the legal and economic system (accountants and personal assistants of wealthy people were usually slaves in ancient Rome).
Your point about Mickey Steele is valid, the URL's dead and I can find no other refs to a lady bouncer called Mickey Steel. I'll raise that in the GA review, thank you.
Re Weber, the source lists him as a bouncer and early supporter of the Nazis.
Re Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich, the source says plainly that he was Hitler's bouncer and that the the SS were originally formed as bouncers ("to protexct party meetings"). --Philcha (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is where the article is losing focus and going off on tangents. Instead of focusing on real-world material about bouncers such as wages, hours worked, etc., the editors have chosen instead to go off on tangents about slaves and ants. If you're going to explore the ancient world, look for something about ancient wine shops and taverns. That's the parallel with modern nightclubs and bars, not the homes of the rich. Yes, apparently Weber worked as a bouncer before hooking up with Hitler. But Sepp? He didn't work as a bouncer in a club. Your reference has taken 'poetic license' with the word bouncer. You've defined bouncer in your lead. The article should stick to that definition in presenting material in the article rather than padding the article with material that uses the word bouncer as a metaphor. ReverendLogos (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Mickey Steele reference - it is clearly acceptable on Wikipedia (ESPECIALLY on minor points like the Mickey Steele one) to use offline references. In other words, books, newspapers etc... which are NOT "click and look" (there were things before the internet, you know?). The Mickey Steel reference gives a title: "Baltimore's Bawdy "Block"", an author: "Hull, Stephen"; a publication: "Stag" and a year "1952". This makes it a perfectly reasonable reference even if dead.
As for arguing that "it was a sleazy men's sex-and-violence girlie photos pulp magazine from the fifties. I wouldn't call Stag a reliable source." you are making a value judgment, and in my opinion you do this to make a point - i.e. you want to raise as many criticsm of this article as possible, relevant or not. Why should a "Men's magazine" (I will ignore your 'sleazy' comment, it has little bearing) not write articles on bouncers and bars - which would after all, be a related interest to many of its readers. Mountains out of molehills, natch. Ingolfson (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think you need to run the reliability of Stag as a source past experienced editors here at WP if you don't believe me and reread WP:RS. Go here for a 1952 copy of Stag. Note the feature stories - "Sin: Deluxe Style", "The Mayor was a Gangster", "Revolution in Hell". I'd hardly call Stag a WP reliable source. Just because something's in print doesn't make it a reliable source. Contact the Baltimore Historical Society or the Baltimore public library's history department for reliable sources and materials about Mickey Steel. The library may have newspaper clippings or an obituary from the period about the character. You wouldn't expect to find such things on the net about an obscure character like Mickey Steel but local history societies and public libraries file such things away for reference. ReverendLogos (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Movies

This section is unsourced and looks like OR/POV. ReverendLogos (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, I agree with you. What is the world coming to. Ingolfson (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Adam and Eve

Jeesh, you guys get further and further from your definition of bouncer in the lead. I mean the section about Israel. How about listing Adam and Eve as the best known "bounced" in history? That would make God the first "bouncer" in history because he kicked Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden for breaking the rules. ReverendLogos (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk about "the oldest profession" :-) Philcha (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Breaking the rules gets you bounced.
Pity the pic's too wide to use. --Philcha (talk) 14:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Breaking the rules gets you bounced.

Smaller? How's this? Start the history section something like this: "Explusion has been a part of human history from the beginning. In Genesis, for example, Adam and Eve were 'bounced' from the Garden of Eden when God discovered they had disobeyed his injunction against eating the apple." ReverendLogos (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And placed an angel with a flaming sword as a bouncer!
Of course we'd then get into whether Genesis is a reliable source, and the article might need some of its subjects to protect it. --Philcha (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, doubtful. Biblical references fall under "folklore and mythology", don't they? The Cake is a Lie T / C 12:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Better check your life insurance! --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm agnostic. That gives me the right to snipe at both sides of the fence :) The Cake is a Lie T / C 14:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys! You are giving me some heart here! LOL Ingolfson (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Or not. I have better things to do than spend 100% of my free time during my next couple days working on this for the <strik>promise possibility of a little "tick". Ingolfson (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Race

A couple of times I've reverted an unsourced assertion from the lead that bouncers are employed to exclude people on the basis of race - latest [4]. Other editors have reverted it before me. My reasoning is that such a contentious claim needs to be sourced, and even if it has happened and a reliable source can be found, it should not be in the lead, as that would imply that it is a regular occurrence and would violate WP:UNDUE. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality?

"and in others we sometimes simply take the law into our own hands, after repeated failure of the local law enforcement to take any action them." This does not seem neutral at all, nor is it a good sentence. What happened here? I'd just snip it away but it seems to have been there for a while, even multiple edits back. This suggests others who know more about the subject than I do have also seen it but left it, but I am really not sure about it.

FrisianDude (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


Addendum: to be honest, the entire article seems a sham in the same way as I posted above. The very next paragraph adds a bit about 'the tiger simply never changes his stripes.' This reeks heavily of bias.

FrisianDude (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-write

I have found myself in this profession for the past few months, and this article is ridiculous. It only focuses on the modern USA, it leaves out everything. The doorman has been an integral feature of the drinking establishment which has been an integral feature of human civilization for thousands of years.

I'm going to start from scratch, because being bold gets stuff done. Anyone have any suggestions on layout and major headings or want to help out? I'll probably be doing this around the 10th of July. --§Pumpmeup 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Face control merge to here

I've suggested that Face control be merged here. FC is a velvet rope process, or really just the bouncer. Smallbones (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please note that Face control and Face Control are different articles. Smallbones (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the only proper source (which dates from 2009), it doesn't really seem any different from the door policies that have applied in the past and continue to exist for venues in the West. There are certainly a number of London nightclubs that are just as difficult to get into, regardless of how much money the would-be patrons (seem to) have, or what they're wearing. It's also clear that it's not necessarily the bouncers doing the picking and the choosing; they may have to enforce the decision, but the latter is down to non-security staff. In light of that, if the page is deleted - and there seems little point to it, really - any salavaged content woul be more appropriate to Nightclub#Entry criteria than here. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bouncer/Archives/2012&oldid=1142518867"