Talk:Harvey Levin/Archives/2014

Gay?

Is he gay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.27.205 (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the new issue of Radar, yes, he is. It doesn't really fit into the article well as it's written right now, but it should probably have some of the LGBT category tags added. --David Bixenspan 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New info about this was just added. It includes some things he supposedly said, and sources for these would be greatly appreciated for BLP purposes (unless the information is already in the reflist provided). 71.113.42.186 (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he's gay. He has said so repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:RenamedUser5 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and he is also a jew. So he is a gay jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:RenamedUser5 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Baldwin voice mail message

An editor wanted to introduce material about the voice mail by one of the Baldwins that went public. Can we discuss the sources and how/if this material warrants inclusion in this bio? At first glance, I would rather "contain" this to the TV show article if even that. Anyways, thanks, --Tom (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

My Way

Someone might want to add a note and/or a full section about his recording of it. XP — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarasuGamma (talk • contribs) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jew or Not Jew?

For some odd reason a person is attempting to remove information from the article about Harvey's jewish heritage. I am not sure if this is being done because the person(s) is anti-semitic or what. The information is well sourced and even includes a television interview in which Harvey himself discusses his religion. His religion became an issue when the Mel Gibson DWI report was first mad. When Gibson's rants became public, Gibson reported became angry at Levin because he is jewish. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks ("anti-semitic"). And please obtain consensus here for the relevance of Jewish ethnicity to his notability. Cresix (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not make a personal attack against any specific persons. I just made a generalized statement about what I perceived as the problem with people deleting his religious information. Wikipedia has a whole section devoted to listing people of jewish/American heritage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Jews User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting that an editor is "anti-Semitic" is most definitely a personal attack. Cresix (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Brittany, you did not make a "generalized statement" about "people". You said "a person", and you said it on the heels of my reverting your edit adding Jewish to the lead of the article. Your oblique comment about anti-Semitism is offensive and uncalled for. Please apologize to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I apoligize to you, Bbb23. You weren't the only one who had been reverting that information. Several others were as well and my statement was directed at that whole group based upon my perceptions of their apparent motives for wanting to remove this information. I guess the isssue of jew or not jew is still unresolved at this time. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I just could not/can not understand why people would want to remove that information about Harvey's heritage. So my generalized statement was made on the apparent belief that these reversions were done for what I felt to be an inappropriate reasons. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome!!  :) User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether directed at a specific editor or a group of editors, calling someone an anti-Semite is a personal attack. And there's something else you seem to have a hard time understanding (or you don't want to understand it): "jew or not jew" is not unresolved. No one is disputing his Jewish ethnicity. What is disputed is its importance in the article. And one more time, RenamedUser5, stop making assumptions about other editors. Just because you have a "belief that these reversions were done for what I felt to be an inappropriate reasons" does not mean that you should announce that as if it is fact. I don't think you realize just how lenient a substantial number of editors have been with you in tolerating confrontational editing rather than seeking administrative sanction against you. I've seen many editors get blocked many times who have been less disruptive than you. You might want to ask for the guidance of an experienced editor by placing {{subst:dated adoptme}} your user page. Cresix (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What does that mean, "adopt me'? And how much does it cost to get this help? i don't have a lot of money, but I guess so. User:RenamedUser5 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no charge for anything on Wikipedia. All you have to do is ask for help (and show a little patience with the process). Cresix (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's more information on the program.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Military Service

Someone keeps deleting references to Levin's military service basically by saying that they are poorly sourced. I posted a photograph of Levin in the uniform of the Air National Guard. While some wish to quibble about where he was stationed at (it was Reseda, CA), you cannot argue as to whether or not he served. The picture is what it is, and it shows him wearing a sergeant's uniform of the Vietnam-era Air National Guard. PLEASE STOP REVERTING THESE EDITS!Albert14nx05y (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence that Albert wants to add to the Personal life section is: "During the Vietnam-era, Levin served as a sergeant in the Air National Guard in Reseda, CA." The source ([1]), which consists of a picture and one sentence, says only that Levin served in the Air National Guard. I'm not sure how much you can infer from the picture (whether he was a sergeant, whether it was a Vietnam-era uniform), but that requires interpreting a primary source, which we shouldn't be doing. That fact that Levin served in the Air National Guard isn't particularly noteworthy, but if we can't even say when it was, it's even less noteworthy. We certainly can't say it was in Reseda.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking at a photograph is considered to be something that "we" should not be doing, to use your words above? Whom is this "we" that you refer to? Why do you refer to yourself in the plural? That seems a really dumb thing to say. You are not a "we." You are a you. Anyways, looking at a picture is not much different then looking out the window and interpreting what you see and saying "it's a sunny day." Come on dude. Just because YOU do not happen to understand what it is that you are looking at does not make the source any less valid. You obviously do not recognize military uniforms or what time periods a certain type of uniform was worn in. Others in a better position do recognize such things.

Military service is an important event in a person's life. There are whole pages on Wikipedia listing the names of famous people along with their branch of service. An example is here: list of US Marines So what is the problem with listing Levin's service? Maybe because you never served this issue is not important to you. But for thoese of us who did, it is important. Levin is plainly wearing a sergeant's uniform of the Vietnam-era Air National Guard. It is what it is. FYI - I did provide his duty station - it was Reseda, CA.Albert14nx05y (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We is a common shorthand for Wikipedia. As I said, images are primary sources and can only be used in certain circumstances. Here, it requires someone (you) to interpret the uniform. That essentially constitutes WP:OR because there's no secondary source confirming your interpretation.

I noticed that you tried to inject a question in WP:BLP, which was of course reverted because it was inappropriate. If you want to ask such questions, one place to do so would be WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There is NO interpretation! The picture is what it is. You cannot look at that picture and say that it is something that it is not. For example, you cannot say it is a picture of a flower, or it is a picture of a rock. Just because YOU look at that picture and YOU see something that YOU do not understand is of no import. Or lack of education or understanding is not my problem - that is your problem. For instance, I don't know anything about medical stuff, but there are articles on Wikipedia in which they show, for example, pictures of germs and stuff like that. A guy says "this is a picture of a cold germ" or "this is a picture of a flu virus." I look at the same pictures and say "WTF is that shit?" cuz I don't know what I am looking at. So should I go there and start deleting ALL the pictures on Wikipedia that show things I do not understand? Cuz if you want, I'll do just that and will devote an entire weeked to deleting shit. Using the logic behind your position, I would be entirely justified in doing so. Because the doctor or medical expert who says that a pic of the flu is a pic of the flu has to interpret for me, otherwise I don't know what the fuck that shit is. Now do you get it? Your lack of understanding or education has no being. And I am putting the words back in.

Be very careful. Your retaliatory comment about "deleting shit" from Wikipedia can get you into a shit load of trouble. I suggest you retract it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

But following your logic about Levin's picture, I would be entirely justified in doing so. Obviously, I am not going to run around deleting stuff. But under your premise, it would seem to be okay. Just sit down a moment and think about it. Because you do not understand what you are seeing when you look at a particular photograph, that photograph is somehow invalid. That simply does not make any sense. We can take this up for a vote here, but I've no clue as to how such a thing could be done, or if it is even possible. But the picture of Levin is what it is. Whether or not you understand what is contained in the picture is not the picture's problem. Albert14nx05y (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You apparently don't get the concept. It's not about what I know about uniforms or what you know about uniforms. It's about anyone interpreting an image to make an assertion. It's not the image that is "invalid"; it's the assertion that is unreliably sourced based on original research (stuff you know in your head). I've raised the issue at WP:RSN, which is what I asked you to do. Your insistence on adding the material back to the article is disappointing, particularly with the part about Reseda, which even you acknowledge is unsupported by the source. I'm not going to edit-war with you about it. I'll wait to see what comments crop up here or at RSN. If that's not satisfactory, I'll think about what would be best to do to resolve the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what WP RSN is. never heard of it. But I will check it out and see what's up and what other folks think. It doesn't seem that anyone else but us cares about this matter.  :( Albert14nx05y (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote at WP RSN - :I hope that some others will check it out and say what they think. But so far it is just myself and Bbb23 doing all the talking. My position is that the picture is what it is, and it shows Levin in a Vietnam-era Air National Guard uniform. Levin said on TV that he was stationed in Reseda, CA. I can't find any print sources that say that, but his duty station is a minor issue and it is certainly not something that could harm the reputation of a living person, which is what the BLP policy is all about, right? It is to address contentious materials. According to Wiki policy, "Looking at the history of WP:BLP, contentious material is primarily that, if untrue, would clearly cause harm to the subject." So it seems to me that Bbb23 is crying BLP. Albert14nx05y (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:RSN is that the source does not reliably support the material. Therefore, I will remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What I find really amusing is that I went to the link provided and it directed me to a TMZ website which is Harvey Levin's TV show's website and the comment about the photo that shows three famous people in uniform insinuates that it is 'our own' and Levin didn't put the photo in there - supposedly. 70.135.35.79 (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

tHE KIDS ON YOUR SHOW SHOW THEY ARE VERY FOND OF YOU. COULD YOU SHOW PICTURES OF THEY FROM THE FIRST SHOW AND WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE NOW .Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.6.219 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What about TMZ?

TMZ's only mentioned in the intro blurb but isn't a part of his career section - that's kind of weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.55.232 (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is the thing that most connects him to notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I added a very short blurb just so that the topic was at least mentioned in the career section. Hopefully someone else will expand. 68.81.55.232 (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)