Jump to content

Talk:Sal the Stockbroker

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

Reason For Redirct?

[edit]

Is there a reason that this article was redirected The Howard Stern Show staff? This is a very notable person,if there are mutiple BLP problems, i suggest semi locking this, but there is no reason for a redirect. (that is why i undid the redirect) 98.117.40.154 (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions of this redirect are on record at
Both discussions indicated support for the redirect. However, I do think that notices of these discussions should have been placed here. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the anon editor who's asking that question is also the editor who initiated each of those discussions, and knew perfectly well what the answer was. I'm restoring the redirect because the RS problems haven't been addressed, at least one flagrant BLP violation remains (the unsourced/unverified claims of criminal activity by the subject and members of his family; the cited reference fails WP:RS and really wouldn't support most aspects of the claim anyway), and, as noted in the previous discussions, there's no satisfactory showing of notability once the article is pruned back to legit content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The editor has modified the article so that it removes the BLP violations, as far as I can see. This is a normal procedure for BLP problems; once the problems are removed there's no longer any basis to use BLP to redirect the article. The notability issue has been addressed now with a range of independent references. As an uninvolved editor, I think you should be engaging with other editors HERE, and working in line with normal expectations for consensus and assumption of good faith. Hence, I am reverting the redirect, and advising you to actually bring concerns HERE where they belong.
DO NOT use "rvv" as an edit summary. Although you may disagree with what the article should be, this is in no sense vandalism, and it is destructive and improper to describe your mutual edit warring in this way. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 06:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is vandalism; rather than dealing with the RS and BLP issues, the anon simply added phony sourcing and false claims of having solved sourcing problems. This has been addressed repeatedly. Just take a look at the claim of criminal behavior leveled at the article subject and members of his family at the end of the first "Early life" paragraph, then check out the entirely unrelated "reference" inserted by the anon vandal to "verify" the claim. Inserting phony references to prevent a BLP violation from being deleted is a deliberate effort to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia and a textbook case of vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I should have picked that up myself when I was looking at the revert war. My apologies. You are correct that there was still a BLP violation, which would still have been a violation even if sourced, and the source given is both dubious as a reliable source and even then does not even mention what it is supposedly given to reference.
I do think it is better to have the problem clear on the talk page; thanks for adding that account. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im working on it despide the fact that he is Gaming the system thats all Wolfowitz does and this article is just another victim of his antics.98.117.34.180 (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reverts to a redirect have been appropriate, given the previous problems in the article which had never been addressed. It remains to be seen if a new version can resolve the real problems that made the redirect the right thing to do. If so, then the article will have improved even despite your mutual animosity. If not, then no loss; because the article in its previous form is not going to fly at all. In any case, I recommend you both stick to the article itself as far as possible and avoid all the personal ad hominems. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 01:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources are used on a buch on pages like the Howard Stern and The Howard Stern Show so if they are not good for this one they they should be removed for the other ones listed to? no? does not make sense here this artical is being targeted for an unknown reason!98.117.34.180 (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is ridiculous. A specific problem is mentioned directly above, unambiguously. There was an unsourced allegation of criminal activity in his family at the end of the first "Family Life" paragraph. A citation was added at one point, which did not even mention the alleged criminal activity, and was to the kind of source which could not possibly justify such allegations against a living person. BLP issues requires a lot more than merely finding a source! There's nothing remotely comparable in other articles, and the reasons are perfectly clear in the comments given on this page. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the IP sent about an hour and half fixing and adding new sources check old page to confirm this98.117.34.180 (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To now add to this I fixed it, it should be good now, if you feel it is not good place have an independent person (not originally involed in the redirect) look at it, and give their 2 cents on it. 98.117.34.180 (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents. I can't actually see BLP violations at present; but it is awfully thin, and actually I prefer the redirect, for what it is worth. But I can't see at present any major reason to insist on a redirect. This in itself is a new development.
The history of this absurd war over an article of dubious notability is revealing. The article has been around for a surprisingly long time; since Jan 2005. First use of this talk page was March 2007, to add a boxed warning about BLP policy needing to be maintained; but no actual talk was ever engaged until very recently. Lots of editing activity, however, which seems to have intermittent issues with POV, RS, BLP and so on noted in edit comments.
  • Finally, on Oct 17 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz performed a major clean up, and then decided what was left did not warrant a separate article. Accordingly, he redirected to a paragraph within The Howard Stern Show staff. All of this was useful work. A talk page comment might have been nice; but since no-one had been using it, that's ok. Good work.
  • There follows then a confused bit of edit warring. It starts out on 23 Oct with a revert to undo the redirect 16:48 23 Oct, promptly undone 10 minutes later by HW, and then in rapid succession are the question on the talk page here 16:59, on BLP noticeboard 17:13, on HW's talk page 17:20, and on AN/I 17:34. The formal BLP and AN/I noticeboard gave nothing but support for the redirect, and admonished the IP about too many reports.
  • The IP went back to editing the page, and as noted above by HW the edits did not address the problem. The IP also reported HW for vandalism at 06:47, 3 Nov; he was promptly and properly informed that there was no vandalism.
  • He went back to edit warring. On 06:51, 17 Nov the IP requested full page protection; repeating the accusations of vandalism. The request was denied, the IP again admonished.
  • Around Nov 26 the IP made a series of new edits to construct a new version of the page; first actual constructive editing on by this IP on the article I can see. I can't actually see any BLP issues straight away when I look at the result; but the article is now reduced to minimal content again.
  • Since then the IP has been blocked; and I can't actually see (or care) if this was a good block to start off with. But it was followed by a concerted attack with a series of socks (maybe) to get around this and just cause trouble... much of it an attack on my talk page, where the IP has engaged as well in an attempt to drum up support.
I don't actually care about the attack on my talk page. It was pretty funny in a sad kind of way, and has been dealt with. What is of much more concern is the repeated inappropriate attempts to get some kind of admin support at a series of noticeboards, all with no success; repeated and completely incorrect complaints about vandalism and persecution against Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, aggressive edit summaries with invalid accusations of vandalism and persecution as well. The IP also complains that people are picking on him because he is just an IP; apparently not recognizing that all his problems are because he is being a moron.
The article at present seems legit, but it has so little content that the redirect back to the paragraph within The Howard Stern Show staff would be sensible. This is not just because of the attack on my page, and I won't mind at all if the page stays like this instead. If there's any genuine BLP issue (I can't see one, I've been wrong on that before) then nuke it again. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The IP also complains that people are picking on him because he is just an IP; apparently not recognizing that all his problems are because he is being a moron."
Well said. I, for one, am sick of users crying that they're being persecuted when they're being disruptive. Good summary of the events. The IP edit-warred, made inappropriate reports, left rude comments about other users, and then threatened to use sockpuppets if blocked. Enigmamsg 18:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than a week, and I haven't seen any substantial objections to restoring the redirect. Absent objections in the next few days, I'll redirect the article again. This is consistent, I think, with the general practice for Stern employees, associates, etc, where those with no significant coverage outside the context of the show arecovered only within list/group articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the redirect 109.123.74.14 (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. Sure, you object. I object to your objection; and we can have another round of edit wars. I don't think that's a good idea; but it will most likely end up with the redirect back in place, given that the reasons for redirecting have been given quite clearly, and have been endorsed every time this comes up to a wider audience. The objections, on the other hand, don't have anything to say about it. You, for example, give no reason at all for objecting, and furthermore "you" show no history in wikipedia, other than a very swift and efficient fix of the redirect covering the two relevant articles. Quick learner, maybe? Or yet another IP from the phantom troller who used about 100 different IPs to basically be a jerk about the whole thing? Sorry, but "objection" doesn't seem particularly credible.
How about this. What about we propose a formal "merge" proposal, where there is a period of time where anyone can "oppose" or "support", and there will be a final decision reached which will have a lot more strength that you objecting or me reverting back to the redirect. OK? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May i make a suggetion? It seems to be User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who is doing this but not participating in any discussion why can he do what he does whith talking, but when someone else undoes what he does thats not ok, it seems like a double standard. 74.117.61.54 (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion lets discuss this like rational human beings. (December 2009)

[edit]

The very first issue was that this was a BLP issue, it seems everyone has come to an agreement that this is not longer and issue.

This is no longer an issue but there is a particular user who keeps insisting on redirecting this article, but not giving a reason.

One reson Give for a redirect is “with the general practice for Stern employees, associates, etc, where those with no significant coverage outside the context of the show arecovered only within list/group articles.”

But I disagree with this sure he is a Stern employee but he is a know show personally, also he does things outside the show, he is a comedian and does things outside the Stern show, which in itself I feel could be the sole reason for not having a redirect.

This article has been around since January 19 2005, its been here for about 5 years now with no one ever trying to redirect, but now out of the clear but this come up. I will bring up some more issues later, this is my “opening statement” Someone suggest a formal merger proposal, go ahead and make one (I do not know how to). A user that edits stuff (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its previous form was a serious BLP violation. How long it had been like that makes no difference. I gave a potted history of dispute arising from clean up of this in bullet form in the previous section; here is a much shorter summary.
  • First use of this talk page was March 2007, to add a boxed warning about BLP policy needing to be maintained; but no actual talk was ever engaged until very recently. Lots of editing activity, however, which seems to have intermittent issues with POV, RS, BLP and so on noted in edit comments, without ever being properly resolved or dealt with. Basically, a very minor article never really got proper attention for these problems, until...
  • On Oct 17 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz performed a major clean up, and then decided what was left did not warrant a separate article. Accordingly, he redirected to a paragraph within The Howard Stern Show staff. All of this was useful work. A talk page comment might have been nice; but since no-one had been using it, that's ok. Good work.
  • There follows then some edit warring and forum shopping. The IP tried to raise this matter at BLP, AN/I, AIV, and RFP; all of which gave nothing but support for the redirect, and admonished the anonymous IP editors who objected to the clean up about making too many reports.
  • Around Nov 26 the IP made a series of new edits to construct a new version of the page, which is what I think we are discussing now.
On its own merits this appears to have removed the BLP problems (I think), but what is left is minimal, as expected for such a non-notable minor comic. What is here mostly belongs as a short paragraph in the Howard Stern Show staff page, and with the redirect in place this is still easily found in wikipedia.
In brief, I support the redirect, simply on the basis of what is in place for the article now. It's a classic case where merging of the articles and having the redirect in place is the best way to prevent present the small amount of useful encyclopedic information in the wikipedia. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other issue, MR. User:Duae_Quartunciae if you feel it should be redirected please do so, I feel that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has clamed some kind of ownership of this artical, it would be a lot better to see someone else other that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, he does not talk nor discuss he just does things if you do it right now i would not get that mad becuase you have made points but our friend Wolf just does, this could all end on my part if someone other than User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz makes a final redirect. A user that edits stuff (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I try not to edit war. I prefer to talk first. I don't have any sense of urgency about fixing a problem; it often fixes itself if I wait a little while. This saves me from getting ulcers.
In fact, I did do a revert to the redirect once and once only. Someone reverted it back, of course; and that is the point where I stop editing and start talking. What with all the forum shopping that went on there was actually a fair amount of input into this from a range of people, all of which seemed to support the redirect. I agree that it would be better to talk a bit more on this page, frankly, but some folks are not as garrulous as I am. In any case, the talk is here NOW, and your complaints of "ownership" have no merit, frankly.
Be that as it may, the most recent redirect was applied by Malinaccier (talk · contribs), so I guess that means you are now content? —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect consensus?

[edit]

From reading the above, it appears that consensus still remains with using the redirect. An anon changed it back earlier today without discussion, so I reverted to restore the redirect again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it unless someone rejects then i should stay!70.90.89.81 (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above consensus seems to support keeping the redirect. But, feel free to start a new discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long time since last talk.

[edit]

It's been a long time since there has been a discussion. This person has been in a few movies since the last talk (simple google search can show this). Plus there are a lot less notable people who have pages on this site but for some reason this one get bitten at more than others. 70.192.194.245 (talk) 01:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular personal investment in the subject, but thank you for starting a new discussion. There are previous discussions of BLP concerns which haven't been answered, but it's not clear to me what they're referring to. (Use of the word "harass"?) I've posted at Talk:List of The Howard Stern Show staff asking people to comment here. Choess (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Has been and now a redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. (non-admin closure) — George Ho (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Sal the Stockbroker → Sal Governale – WP:COMMONNAME He hasn't worked as a stockbroker in over a decade. He is no longer called "Sal the Stockbroker" on the air. The official website does not refer to him as Sal the Stockbroker. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sal_the_Stockbroker&oldid=1246703665"