Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Infobox changes

For some reason the text I added to the edit summary on my last reversion didn't come across, so (in slightly longer format) the reasons behind the reversion are as follows. I have reverted the last set of changes to the rather horrible and pointless infobox, which had been replaced with something horrible, pointless, misleading and inappropriate - not to say also using the wrong format. Sellers was more than a comedian, he was a performer, including as a straight actor, so the change to the comedian infobox was entirely wrong. On top of that I am not sure why a number of bits were removed, including the image's "alt" for less able readers (something we're supposed to have as an FA), as well as a few other bits that had been agreed upon on this talk page - which means that there was a consensus or compromise reached for them to be in there. Finally, the "new" addition introduced incorrect formatting in the listing of his various family members, which should be carried in {{plainlist}} format. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

When I first read the comment about the infobox being "replaced with something horrible, pointless, misleading and inappropriate," I actually thought it was referring to the lead image. My mistake. On the other hand, considering the gripes about the article rewrite featuring Sellers' emotional problems and divorces as way undue on the negative, maybe the selection of the snapshot photo with him looking like he hadn't slept in a week or two was really not "pointless," since it helps support the reader's negative impression. But I digress. The 3rd paragraph of the lead seems bloated, btw. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"readers negative impression?"...says who? Or is this critique a lone voice based on your own views? -- Cassianto^Talk 19:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. "All the headings are confusing that way. Good, I guess, for those very familiar with Peter Sellers, but not good for those wanting to learn about him. Apparently his mental and personal problems dominated his career. It certainly sticks out more," wrote User:MathewTownsend on his first impression of the rewrite. SchroCat replied that in his opinion " his mental and personal problems did dominate his career." (emphasis in original)

Says who? Besides you, SchroCat, and the famous British tabloids, which this "featured" article is full of, even against clear guidelines against using them. The only medically confirmed health problems mentioned in the article are about his heart problems, which he prematurely died of. Nothing about his mental states as a medical issue. Even his heart attacks were insufficient, as you both then added a gratuitous and irrelevant quote dug up from a director, "Wilder was unsympathetic about the heart attacks, saying that "you have to have a heart before you can have an attack". --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Change the record and give it up WW. BTW, I've removed the copyright violation you added: the BBC do not release their programmes through youtube. I know you like to violate copyright on all the images you introduce to Wikipedia, please don't do it through the links too. If you want that information in there, find it from a reliable and not infringing source. - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No doubt you'll also want to remove all the unreliable sources you both added. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cor, you really are full of bad faith this evening WW. What unreliable sources are you referring to? Do you mean all of the unreliable sources that passed a very tough and extremely thorough FAC? Nikkimaria carried these out who is an excellent reviewer. Go troll there if you dare! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, were these mental problems listed in a WP:RS at all? If so discuss here with a view to working together to incorporate these changes which, as we have said a million times over, we are happy to do. Out of curiosity, Sellers' hero was Dan Leno who similarly suffered depression and mental health problems. I wrote and researched Leno and produced it at FAC. Seeing as they are cut from a similar cloth, would you say that this article is just as "bad"? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "What unreliable sources are you referring to?" I'm referring to the tabloids. As for "bad faith," it's not this editor who resorts to childish and petty retaliatory deletions. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The English press are not considered unreliable. There you go again, spouting bad faith; calling us "childish" and "petty" for correcting your mistakes. tut, tut...-- Cassianto^Talk 22:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not considered unreliable?" "Tabloid journalism tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news. Such journalism is commonly associated with tabloid sized newspapers like the National Enquirer, Globe or the Daily Mail and the former News of the World." If you disagree, you can try rewriting that article also. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You will be telling me The Sunday Sport is unreliable next! I, for one, find it very reliable; especially when Mrs. Cassianto is out shopping! -- Cassianto^Talk 23:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the "childish and petty" ad hominem. Your insults would carry a little more credence if I had somehow vandalised a good piece of work, but I didn't. I removed yet another copyright infringement you've introduced. Please could you associate yourself with the relevant copyright policies of Wiki in future? There was absolutely nothing wrong with the information, but if you can't find a WP:RELIABLE source to back it up, then please don't include it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Per an admin, the material should be restored, even without a link. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your comment - espec if its contensious content - It needs a quality source whatever an admin says - Youreallycan 07:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

WW, Have you tried to search for the information from other sources ... Google Books perhaps? At least some of the information is in the Lewis biography, some is in Rigelsford and some in Sikov. Rather than trying to force the copyvio issue, why not take the path of least resistance and add something less contentious which everyone will be happy with? - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't bother going further. But then I didn't think noting that Sellers learned to play the banjo from his father would be "contentious." Had he thrown a banjo at his spouse, however, I'm sure it would have remained in. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please please ignore this troll people. He doesn't even deserve the respect of being answered to.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about Blofeld? Youreallycan 09:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, defines troll.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the definition of troll, almost all your comments everywhere to this entire talk page might be good examples. Just drop it Dr., and move onto something more constructive, please. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been more constructive in the last 5 minutes than you have in several months. You just drop it, otherwise I'll seek to have you topic banned from this page. If I see one more unwarranted critical post from you related to this you leave me no choice based on your months of disruptive bollocks here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"Just drop it Dr., and move onto something more constructive, please" Fine words coming from someone who took the opportunity to use a non-contentious posting on the talk page to spew forth more bad faith bile. How about you just drop it WW, and move onto something more constructive, please. And that's not just now, that's for the future too. If you are trying to drive away others with your constant trolling and sniping you should know now that it won't work. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There's an obviously better photo of Sellers now available. Does anyone else agree? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It shows a character he is playing, not the man himself. It should certainly go somewhere within the article, but not as the main photo. - SchroCat (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It was not a character still, but a press publicity photo of him out of character and looking halfway normal. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Try reading the image of the back that you uploaded: "PETER SELLERS as the multi-facted Aldo Vanucci, also known as The Fox..." That's him as a character, not him as himself. - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a press publicity photo, obviously as himself, to promote the picture. Read Film still and you'll see this is the typical way to promote an actor in a film. This is not a production still, with him acting, but a publicity still: two different kinds of photos. But it wouldn't matter in any case, since he looks normal in this one, and a lead image should resemble the person relevant to their notability. But I'll keep it open for others to comment. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Obviously as himself"? Look at the image of the reverse: "PETER SELLERS as the multi-facted Aldo Vanucci, also known as The Fox..." That's not "obviously as himself", as far as I can see it: that's him playing a character—and one of his lesser-known ones from one of his lesser-known films too. The lead image we have is one that is obviously him, out of make-up, in his home environment. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Allan Warren's picture is great and should stay. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WW, Unless you want the RfC summarily closed without further comment, I strongly advise that you re-phrase your request to ensure it stays within the guidelines at WP:RFC: I will draw your attention to the use of the term neutral for the language of the opening statement. You know this already, having opened a string of fatuous and disruptive RfCs during the editing and FA processes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly WW, your RfCs are becoming more frequent than the second hand on a clock. Your unbalanced opening rational is seriously biased and I would request that you reword it pronto. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead image be changed?

Should this photo of Sellers be used in place of the current lead image? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It's an image of Sellers in character, rather than of the man himself (and one of his lesser-known characters from his lesser known films too). It's down to a matter of opinion, but if you want the first image people see of Sellers to be something that looks like a pomaded pimp, then I'm not sure what image you have in your mind of him really! - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I just remind you WW that this is a biography. First and foremost, Sellers was a person like you or I and the lede image should reflect that. A biography should be about the person as a whole and not just for wht they are famous for. See any FA biography of the same ilk and you will see that the lede image is of the actor out of character and in his or hers most natural form. -- Cassianto^Talk 19:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with SchroCat. The current photo works best. The 1966 b&w photo is not representative. Sellers often appeared onscreen "in character" so an everyday photo is the only viable option, even if he does look like "he hasn't slept in a week", as WW said elsewhere. - Fantr (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the Allen Warren photos at Commons are worth having. Ideally, I'd include them all in the article! But I think that smiling one is probably the most sympathetic and representative. And, for a 48 year-old film-star, that's a pretty honest and reasonably kind image too. But, my word, there's not much else there to choose from, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RAF Service in World War II

...although it is unclear whether he volunteered or was enlisted; Don't you mean "...volunteered or was conscripted;" or "...volunteered or was drafted;" Unless Peter Sellers served as an officer in the RAF he necessarily enlisted. The question is whether it was his own idea or not. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I think its fine as it is. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

description of works - The Pink Panther

I have twice attempted to insert the point that the Pink Panther was a huge (or "an international") box office success and twice seen this undone. At present the coverage of the film in this description looks negative and does not reflect the significance of the film at the time. A film historian would certainly include this information.

If I have written the point badly can the undoers explain how, or why this information is not relevant when it surely is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitespeck (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It may have stood a better chance of remaining in place if you had used a reliable source to support the statement. Material not supported by reliable sources is liable for removal. The language was also unencyclopaedic: "huge box office success" means little. A figure of global ticket sales against budget etc is normally preferred, again with reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The source is very reliable, but unfortunately it consists of my experience of 1963 at the time. This film was a massive box office and critical success around the world because of Sellers' character performance, and the paragraph does not begin to reflect this. Everone went to the cinema to see it and he became an international star on the strength of it. This deletion is simply misleading. I am sure there is a lot of journalism back to the time that would support this information. whitespeck 86.19.221.156 (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC) 86.19.221.156 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not for others to add a reliable source for your information, it is for you the editor of the intended addition to find first. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a very curious interpretation of normal wiki procedure. Many articles have been written without every statement being reffed, if something is challenged use a cn. Greglocock (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. All information should carry a citation from a reliable source. Use of a CN tag is fine for a lot of articles, but not an FA, where tags are overly problematic. End of the day, if someone wants to add info, they need to back it up with a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some well-sourced comments about the film that can be added to help add a touch of the positive to what, to me, suddenly became a noticeably negatively-leaning article:

"The success of the original Pink Panther box office blockbusters also depended largely on the comic talent of British actor Peter Sellers, . . ." Icons of Mystery and Crime Detection: From Sleuths to Superheroes, By Mitzi Brunsdale (2010).

"In 1963 and 1964 came two enormously successful comedies, The Pink Panther and A Shot in the Dark,. . . " Roger Ebert's Movie Yearbook 2012, By Roger Ebert, p. 697.

"[Sellers] is probably best remembered for his role in the hugely successful Pink Panther movies. Pennsylvania Biographical Dictionary, p. 473.

"the highly successful Pink Panther series. A Grand Guy: The Art And Life of Terry Southern, By Lee Hill.

"Blake Edwards described Sellers, as the most versatile comic actor of his generation." Peter Sellers: the authorized biography, Alexander Walker p. 187. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WW, Why must every interaction on the talk page include some negative and silly gone? It really is rather tiresome. Move on for goodness sake. I also note that you've managed to find a batch of sources that all miss the point that was trying to be inserted: the The Pink Panther was a box office success, not the series, not rather vague statements about two of the films. Ebert's is closest, but it still doesn't talk about box office success. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You've already got the deed to the property. Must you ring it with barbed wire? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't revert to uncivil (and snide) accusations of WP:OWNership. you tried to keep this article as a biased hagiography, poorly-written and wallowing at an optimistic B-grade article. It's now an FA and you still haven't moved on. Surely there are better things to do? If you spent half as much time checking out the copyright status of the images you uploaded as you do whining about this article, you'd have a much more pleasant Wiki-time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions everyone but I don't care for the sources suggested and I think that the public's experience at the time should be sufficient. Also historians should recall such events accurately. The later Panther films were terrible artistically but their success was due to the first film. It was Sellers' Inspector Clouseau (plus the music score and Edwards' direction) that made this film such a great success at the time. If it has dated since it is not due to Sellers' character creation or several other virtues that the film has. The fact is that it was a huge international hit for artistic reasons and this should be recognized by history and by Wikipedia (in those days talent was appreciated...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitespeck (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the phrase "Despite the doubts of the critics" is pedantic as these were already examined previously in the same paragraph. It is punchier to state that the film was an international success. I still think that my revised wording was right. Whitespeck (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)whitespeck

We now cover the fact that it was a success, both at the box office and by awards. We also show the critics had their misgivings. All these are correct and to try and appropriate. We also have the advantage of having this with a reliable citation, something you failed to do earlier. - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the return of WW with his very boring OWN claims! Whitespeck, you are not serious when you say: "Thanks for the suggestions everyone but I don't care for the sources suggested and I think that the public's experience at the time should be sufficient" are you? That is not reliable! --Cassianto^Talk 18:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Film release dates

Are the release dates given here American ones? I always understood that The Pink Panther and Dr Strangelove were released in Britain in 1963, with Shot In The Dark at least a year later, and the critical fame was in 1963 surely? The Americans didn't get British films until a year or so later and only if there was international interest. The British in those days even had to cast American actors to attract American interest in their films. Surely Sellers got Henry Orient because of the two 1963 films? Whitespeck (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)whitespeck

Panther was January '64 in London. The December '63 release of Dr. Strangelove was delayed because of Kennedy's assassination until 29 January '64. As to your statement "The British in those days even had to cast American actors to attract American interest in their films": untrue, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Filmography and other works

I find this section heading confusing. Surely there should be two section headings: "Filmography" with the link, and "Awards and nominations" with this list? Whitespeck (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)whitespeck

That would leave two overly-small sections. The consensus gained at PR and FAC was that this is suitable. - SchroCat (talk),

I think that the Main Article heading should be in bold as with Selected Works. Whitespeck (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)whitespeck

That would go against the MoS. One is a pre-formatted link, one is the table title. - SchroCat (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tabloid trivia?

This paragraph seems to be stuck in the section on Being There without any meaningful context. Besides, it sounds like something out of a children's storybook. Thoughts?

In March 1980 Sellers asked his fifteen-year-old daughter Victoria what she thought about Being There: she reported later that, "I said yes, I thought it was great. But then I said, 'You looked like a little fat old man'. … he went mad. He threw his drink over me and told me to get the next plane home." His other daughter Sarah told Sellers her thoughts about the incident and he sent her a telegram that read "After what happened this morning with Victoria, I shall be happy if I never hear from you again. I won't tell you what I think of you. It must be obvious. Goodbye, Your Father."

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My thought is that you should move on. Showing the relationship between Sellers and his children is hardly trivia and your continued poisonous attitude to this article is a waste of everyone's time and effort. The consensus at PR, FAC and still is that it is appropriate. You really should take this off your watchlist and move on. Try spending time examining the copyright status of images instead: it would be more beneficial to the project than your ongoing toxic postings here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please go away WW and do something constructive with your time. --Cassianto^Talk 08:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

punctuation

I have on several occasions tried to insert a comma in a title after Pink Panther and before reference to a divorce, to separate the film from the divorce as they are not connected. A certain Wikipedia contributor keeps scrapping it. If the divorce is not connected to the film The Pink Panther then surely there should be a comma between the two? There is another title where this issue might be appropriate. Whitespeck (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)whitespeck

You are trying to insert a serial comma in an article that does not use serial comas. Stop trying to edit war your personal preference into an article that does not use the punc style you are trying to use. I'll also point put that as this is a list of the main events in Sellers' life, they are intrinsically connected. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox

I am wondering why this article needs the infobox to be collapsed. It only contains six different parameters, and does not disrupt the article. It is the first infobox I've seen that's completely collapsed. Why? Beerest355 Talk 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

More for the reason as to why the article needs an infobox altogether? Anyway, that has been argued before and this was a happy compromise. I see no harm in having it collapsed as it only contains information which is repeated in the lead section. This hides the repeated information and the ugly box, while maintaining the metadata which is needed on google etc. I plead ignorance on the last bit as I don't understand it, but the rest is common sense to me. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. If the consensus is for it to be collapsed, then I have no problem with it. Beerest355 Talk 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Beerest355. Infoboxes are a bit of a tenacious subject on WP, with Camp for and Camp against. Sellers had a rough time with an infobox tug-of-war which blighted the article for a good few weeks. A comprimise was sought and we have ended up with this. The beauty of this is that those for an infobox get to keep it for metadata reasons while those against get to banish it from the screen and get to marvel at the wonderful Allan Warren image you see before you. Hope you liked the article! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and you have totally valid points. This article was the very first time I've seen a collapsed infobox. But then again, it was also the first time I ever witnessed such a major effort by two editors to remove an infobox totally, or eliminate a celebrity's personal life section, or argue intensely to keep a poor candid image in the lead over various professional and dignified portraits. --Light show (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013

You still got a massive case of sour grapes over changing a poor article into an FA? Why must you start throwing childish insults at EVERY thread that opens here? Move on WW, it's too tiresome. (and, by the way, there is a consensus: just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that a consensus is lacking. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No infobox

I'm not sure who voted to support the infobox but in my opinion the infobox (especially collapsed) is a complete waste of space and looks much better and more professional without it. Usually the chief article writers decide on whether they wish to use an infobox or not in the article. I see no benefit that an infobox brings, the lead summarizes the important information nicely. I don't want to open up an old can of worms but I'm being honest when I say I'd love to see the infobox vanish and replaced with a neat image like the Bernard Lee and John Le Mesurier article etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement and would be much happier to see it disappear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Lets delete it as soon as possible! -- Cassianto^Talk 23:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

One word: Ridiculous! --Musdan77 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your right, it was ridiculous. That's why we deleted it. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A data point for you editors (I'm only a reader). When I looked up Peter Sellers and saw that there was no infobox, I assumed the page had been vandalized. Infoboxes are the first thing my eye goes to when reading biographies. Birth years / death years / birth locations / years active help my brain place people in wider context. Not seeing that familiar box felt oddly disorientating in a way that's hard to verbalize. Just be aware that the lack of infobox jarred a reader into learning how to add a comment on a talk page. 98.216.107.241 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Birth years / death years / birth locations / years ..." – All of which can be found within the first paragraph of the lead section, thus making the infobox unnecessary repetitive drivel. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The title of an article adds no information that cannot be gleaned from the first paragraph, but that does not mean a title is unnecessary repetitive drivel. A title is a guidepost. When you pull up a webpage and your brain spends half a second figuring out what it's looking at, your eyes will focus on the title instinctively. You won't even think about where to look, because all articles have a title in the same exact place. I understand that for you an infobox doesn't pull its weight, but for many people the infobox is the central anchor. Reading a biography without an infopage feels like navigating a foreign city that doesn't have street signs. (If my analogy does not carry across the Atlantic: street signs are standardized in the US. You never realize how much you relied on standardized signs until you travel abroad and need to frantically scour your field of vision to locate a street name) - 204.213.244.97 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (same person as 98.216.107.241)

With respect, that is far too much of a science for it to be illustrative. The salient fact is that the box is repetetive and IMO redundant and ugly. That is unavoidable. Birth name, birthplace, death date, deathplace, notable parts, medium of entertainment for which the subject is concerned in can all be found within the first paragraph of the lead section. Why on earth would you want that repeated??? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I for one am pro info box as it provides a quicker reference point than the lead paragraph does without the reader having to re read the entire lead. Especially when the lead is so long! -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes far too often attract and give prominence to all sorts of irrelevant nonsense that isn't supported in the text of an article. An unhealthy part of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Instead of turning the Sellers article into a permanent war zone, with various editors trying to restore the infobox and others quickly deleting it, I think a new consensus should be provided. Recall that originally the infobox was summarily deleted without a rationale, on 7/16/12. The deletion was supported 4 minutes later by another editor apparently overjoyed.

Subsequent to that period many editors have argued for restoring it. Some, like User:Doc9871, commented that "the reality is that if you start looking at GA's and FA's, they pretty much all have an infobox." Whereas User:Musdan77 explained their use, "to repeat the purpose: to summarize key facts, allowing readers to identify (those) key facts at a glance." And over the last few weeks there has been more edit warring over this by other editors(?). An updated consensus is warranted, IMO: Should Peter Sellers infobox be restored?

172.191.112.76, Despite your summary on this edit, you are indeed involved in edit warring. You have ignored the message on your talk page to discuss the matter on the article's page and simply reverted again, despite the consensus gained here. Please desist from warring against the article's consensus, and instead discuss your thoughts here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Support. As I discovered last year, practically all of the people mentioned in Sellers' article, except Sellers, has an infobox. --Light show (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Bad form Light Show. The consensus was gained less than a month ago in the thread directly above this one. Your argument about infoboxes for other people named in the article is largely pointless and irrelevant and the fact is that the box is neither needed nor required. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not by my count: User:Beerest355 only wondered why it was collapsed, and User:Musdan77 called removing it "ridiculous!" If we include the recent IP editor, the consensus is for restoring it. --Light show (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Consensus is about the strengths of the arguments: there were no arguments for keeping the thing during the last discussion, so the overwhelming weight of argument was to remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Some people must have awfully boring lives to keep bringing this up..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that people keep "bringing this up" tells you that it shouldn't have been removed without discussion in the first place (talk about going against status quo). --Musdan77 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It was: see above thread. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I said "in the first place", meaning a year ago (by the person I was speaking to). And the "above" is not a discussion for consensus, and certainly doesn't follow the way you've been saying it should in this thread. You can't have it both ways. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There were no arguments in the above thread that argued for the retention of the infobox. On that basis it represents the consensus of the tome and the box was removed. If you wish to overturn that consensus you will have to bring arguments based on the MoS or policy that it should be included. - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Number one, there were dissensions against removal -- the removal that went against the status quo. As I said, I gave reasons based on the MoS a year ago (and they still stand up). And the above, from what I can tell, went from the start of discussion to the removal in about 7 hours?! And you think that's the right way to find consensus? There were no "arguments based on the MoS" to remove it. Stop contradicting yourself. And I don't know how you got Cassianto to change his mind. He was very much for the collapsed version, but then went against that as well. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see one person (you) saying "one word". You offered no argument against the removal. You may have dissented, but there was no reasoning behind it, which is pointless: Wiki doesn't !vote - it needs to discuss to come to a consensus. I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that the consensus wasto remove. It's in the threadabove and there were no sensisble answers against that consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – The bloody infobox and rather irrelevant and groundless rational which has formed the basis of Light show's support. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Restore the dreaded and allegedly demeaning infobox. Doc talk 22:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

To overturn the status quo you have to make arguments based on policy or guidelines which support the change. Could you please add which guideline or policy you are basing your decision on? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh, wait: that's the thing that's been the issue. WP:ILIKEIT. Just as good. Consensus is the policy, and I don't need to explain my position in forming it. Doc talk 23:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As we don't !vote, but discuss based around guidelines and policies, I don't really see what you're basing your choice on, apart from personal preference. That's not enough to overturn the status quo, unfortunately - SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to explain in detail to you (again) why I think the infobox would be more beneficial to the article than detrimental. And vice-versa. It would be like a person of one political ideology attempting to convert someone of the exact opposite ideology. We fundamentally disagree on this, and that's just how it is. That is all. Doc talk 00:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but it's not going to overturn the consensus of the status quo, that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what consensus is going to always be on this issue, Mister. Your smugness on this issue will be less concrete as the consensus is formed. "The status quo is just never going to change" is a really sad argument here. Doc talk

Please don't lower yourself to ad hominem comments, they don't help matters, do they? All I have tried to do is to show that when you refuse to give any arguments to overturn the consensus, then you are unlikely to end up changing the status quo. I'm also not aware I have said that I have said "The status quo is just never going to change": could you provide a diff to show where I have said that? If you can't, perhaps you could try not to put twisted words in my mouth, please? - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your desire for consensus, ie. "I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that the consensus was to remove." Note that nearly 100 other editors had no problem with the infobox from 2007 until you deleted it a year ago, without discussion, warning, and obviously without consensus. Hence, you are contradicting yourself. And as the comments here prove, there is still no consensus or approval of allowing an editor to wave their scepter and dismember the article structure, a format contributing to its FA status. --Light show (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And you can also stop with the snide ad hominem comments too please. As I have already explained, the thread above this contains a discussion to remove the infobox. There were no arguments based on MOS or policy against that removal and that discussion now constitutes the current consensus. What you are trying to do in this conversation is to overturn that consensus - all very acceptable under WP:CCC - except that we don't seem to be moving towards overturning that consensus, as I've not seem any substantive comments showing why it should be done, apart from comments below from Musdan77 referring to a previous discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support reinstatement. I gave my points based on WP "guidelines and policies" back at Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 1#Is infobox recommended for this bio.3F (for those who want to know where the discussion started) -- and started before you did. And it still stands (my position and the MOS). --Musdan77 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the MoS does stand: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not an argument to remove it. That just says that it can go either way -- with consensus -- which was not found. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not an argument to add it either, which is something you have singularly failed to do. You need to do more to overturn the consensus of the status quo, which is that there is no infobox on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add one in the first place. Articles don't start life with an infobox in place, they are added by someone. Where was the consensus for that? Why is it you people insist on having a consensus to remove an infobox yet there is no mention of a consensus to add one? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a stroll down history, shall we? This article was created in 2004. The infobox was not yet developed for a few more years. When it was, it was added here. Not long after that the infobox basically became an accepted standard on WP for many reasons. It stayed on the article for 5 years with no opposition (if someone did remove it in this period, it was quickly reverted). Then, someone decided he didn't like it and removed it without discussion. This brought much debate with solid points from both sides. A collapsed infobox was "a happy compromise." But then the same person who removed it the first time decided once again that it should go, but this time there was no discussion for consensus, and going against status quo, it was removed. In fact, it wasn't even a vote. It was: "in my opinion" it should go; and "I agree"; and "Lets delete it as soon as possible." This all took place within hours, then it was removed. This is not even close to how consensus is to be found on Wikipedia. That's why it was totally "Ridiculous!"

SchroCat, [I don't want to keep replying above. It's better at the bottom.] I was the only one in that (very short) section, but there was another in the previous section. You keep saying the same things, and I keep saying how you're wrong (and even two-faced). I could copy and paste the points I made a year ago -- plus add to it, but my main grievance is not that there isn't an infobox but the disgraceful way in which it was removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the third time in this discussion—and to the third person—I'm again going to ask that you please don't lower the thread to ad hominem comments. If everyone could please stick to the substantive issues then it'll be less unpleasant for all. In terms of your comments, and contrary to what you have written, the infobox is not "an accepted standard on WP". They are present on some articles (about half, I think) and not on others. The MoS defines the community consensus on the matter when it says that they are "neither required nor prohibited for any article", which is a long way from being "an accepted standard". Most of the rest of your comments all contain misleading errors ("someone decided": no, actually a few people did, rather than one; "the same person who removed it the first time decided once again that it should go": I think it was different people involved, although I really don't want to have to trawl through ancient history to find the diff, etc). End of the day, I'm still not hearing anything that shows that the consensus has changed to now include the infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points Musdan77:

• "The infobox was not yet developed for a few more years. When it was, it was added here" -- Where was the consensus to add it then?
• "Not long after that the infobox basically became an accepted standard on WP for many reasons." -- Accepted yes, obligatory NO.

-- Cassianto^Talk 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, saying, "stick to the substantive issues" I guess is your way of only responding to what you want to, and ignoring other issues that you don't want to answer or have no answer for. There's nothing untrue about saying, "the infobox basically became an accepted standard on WP." How many articles contain them has nothing to do with it (and I'm sure that the great majority of biographical articles do have them). You say that my comments contain errors, but then say "I think" and you don't want to look at the history. You can't say something's not true if you don't know. I didn't just make stuff up. I did the work of searching the history.

Cassianto, 1) Normally, when an infobox is added, it goes by BRD. And as I said, it was not opposed for about 5 years. And that's when consensus had to be found, because there was opposition on both sides. 2) No disagreement there. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, when I say stick to the substantive issues, it's not about only dealing with subjects I want to. It's rather obvious from the context that it's in conjunction with asking you not to resort to ad hominem comments and remain on the subject. If you did the work of searching the history, could you provide the diffs? - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The status quo of the article, as it was for five years, with nearly 100 different editors tacitly approving the infobox, speaks much louder than any editor's unilateral removal. To add insult to injury of the article, it was removed without even the courtesy of a rationale, much less a prior discussion.

Almost all bio FA's have an infobox. Even in this article, almost everyone mentioned has an infobox. Just click on any of the names in the article. Some examples:

Goon Show: Michael Bentine; Spike Milligan; Harry Secombe. Influences, friends, associates, costars, etc.: Peter Cook; David Schwimmer; Sacha Baron Cohen; Monty Python; Paul Scofield; Dashiell Hammett; Oscar Rabin; Henry Hall ; David Lodge; Dorothy Squires; Kenneth Horne; Ted Ray; Alfonso Bedoya; Alec Guinness; Herbert Lom; Cecil Parker; Michael Relph; George Martin; Boulting brothers; Terry-Thomas; Mario Fabriz; Leo McKern; Richard Lester; George Bernard Shaw; Sophia Loren; Marcel Pagnol; Stanley Kubrick; James Mason; Shelley Winters; Norman Granz; Peter Ustinov; David Niven; Slim Pickens; Adlai Stevenson II; Harry Kurnitz; Anatole Litvak; William Peter Blatty; Britt Ekland; Billy Wilder; Dean Martin; Kim Novak; Ray Walston; Peter O'Toole; Capucine; Woody Allen; Laurence Olivier; Vittorio De Sica. Family: Daniel Mendoza ; Dickie Henderson; Michael Sellers (son)

Why, with the overwhelming guideline support for not deleting the infobox, is it not restored? Truly amazing! --Light show (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:CCC, which is what happened, and it wasn't "unilateral", except in the sense that only one editor can make the edit: the decision was backed up by others.

2. "Almost all bio FA's have an infobox". Way off the truth there. A significant proportion don't have infoboxes. Of the names you mentioned I clicked on two of the names: neither of them have infoboxes and one of them is an FA.

3. There was a consensus to remove: it was done so. There is, as yet, no consensus to return it. There is nothing "Truly amazing" about that, except in your inability to accept that something has happened that you disagree with. - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to my comment that "Almost all bio FA's have an infobox," you wrote, "Way off the truth there." Here are some biography FAs you can browse to prove they almost all have one, the exact opposite of your statement: Music biographies, Art, architecture and archaeology biographies History biographies, Literature and theatre biographies and Royalty, nobility and heraldry biographies. That's a few hundred. Do the math on those. When you reply with your results of around 1%, feel free to restore the infobox. We'll all appreciate it. --Light show (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

From the first link you provided I went through the first line of FAs: Charles-Valentin Alkan, Walter Bache, John Barbirolli, Thomas Beecham, Georges Bizet, Adrian Boult and Benjamin Britten are all there and none have infoboxes. I'm not sure that means that they "almost all have one"? And I'm really not sure that it proves "the exact opposite" of my statement: quite the reverse, in fact. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I could also have continued into the second line, where Rebecca Clarke (composer), Frederick Delius, Josquin des Prez, Edward Elgar, Gabriel Fauré and Kathleen Ferrier are all also without infoboxes... - SchroCat (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Light show, if truth be known, you don't actually care about the Sellers infobox do you? You have had a problem with SchroCat and I from the word go. Against your wishes, we expanded the article and eventually scored it an FA rating. This resulted in a barrage of ad hominem comments, and resistance against all of our hard work. Next up, and having failed in your quest to ruin the newly FA awarded expansion, you went ahead and added some frankly dodgy images. Again, these were obviously removed by us due to their licensing and various other reasons (see here, here, here. As far as you and your editing history (in terms off Sellers) is concerned, we have had to stand guard on the article ever since (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here,here, here, here, ..etc. As sure as god made little apples, the cliché WP:OWN tag was then hurled at us because you could not get your own way here. Our policing and improvement of this article has right royally pissed you off and now, every opportunity you get, you create problems and bitch and snipe at all our hard work. Finally, and having realised that the infobox subject is a tenacious one, you have now thrown some four star petrol onto the simmering fire of an old argument with the plain objective to cause trouble. This is why you have brought it up. My advice would be to go away and concentrate on something else. -- Cassianto^Talk 05:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstatement (again?), supporting local editors. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

LightShow, It's astonishingly hypocritical of you to delete the comments of others because you don't like then, saying that they are personal attacks. I have left all the ad hominem comments directed at me and you should have the decency to leave the comments in place. I seem to remember you tried this little trick previously just because you don't like something. I'd advise you to self-revert if you have any decency at all. - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Lightshow, you are at 3RR. Do not revert again or I will report you. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have taken this to ANI, as I said I would if you continued. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Except it's not: you posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, not Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of an infobox. I had no prior interest in this discussion and came to the article looking for a piece of information (Sellers's final wife's name) that would normally appear in an infobox and is not present in the intro. The information is also not easily located given the section structure of the article (i.e., lack of a personal life section). The lack of an infobox is a bit unusual for a figure of such stature and it can significantly impede location of important info as it did in my case. If editors are opposed to infoboxes per se, precluding an infobox in this case is not the way to go about expressing such an opinion or trying to effect policy change. Some of the discussants above need to check out WP:OWN. —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you basing this on any particular aspects of the MOS or policy? Could I also ask that you highlight where you think there is evidence of ownership? As there is none, and as accusations of such are uncivil, could you strike your comment if you are not prepared to provide a diff? - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How bloody boring; a driveby editor armed with a cliche OWN accusation. Let me ask you a few things AjaxSmack:

• You say: "Sellers's final wife's name that would normally appear in an infobox and is not present in the intro." -- Frederick's name should not be one of the first things a reader should see. She was important in his life towards the end of his life and was an incredibly minor actress.
• You Say: "The information is also not easily located given the section structure of the article (i.e., lack of a personal life section)." -- The article is in a chronological order as are many other FAs.
• You say: "If editors are opposed to infoboxes per se, precluding an infobox in this case is not the way to go about expressing such an opinion or trying to effect policy change." -- what piece of made up bit of policy would that be then? Can I remind you that its is not obligatory for an article to have an infobox.

"Some of the discussants above need to check out WP:OWN" -- You need to check out WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There we go, one cliche guideline for another. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, infoboxes are not compulsory, none of the editors of this article want one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support/Restore - There has been a longtime wide community consensus that infoboxes are helpful to convey key facts of an individual or other types of topics at a glance and generally all FA and GA biographies have infoboxes. There is nothing different about Sellers that means there should not be an infobox. A limited local consensus of three users is not consensus. There has been a staggering amount of WP:OWN by a few users in this article and this issue is an example of that. --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• A misleading statement on the consensus there. The community consensus on infoboxes is identified in the MOS, which states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." I'll ignore the petty, unfounded and uncivil accusation of own, which seems to be wheeled out whenever there is disagreement about articles. - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tally: After 3 months of feedback, then, we have 6 support and 4 oppose. --Light show (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• So what? Try learning what consensus is before spouting nonsense: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• As Blofeld said above: "...none of the editors of this articles want one." Doc talk 07:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm bored of the snide and pathetic accusations that are unworthy of most of the participants here, for the Nth time in this thread, stop with the uncivil ad hominem comments please. -SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What uncivil ad hominem comments were made by the last three users (myself included) that happen to disagree with you, just now? It sounds like you are calling people "snide", "pathetic" and "unworthy" to me. Ad hominem is when "a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." Doc talk 08:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Calm down Doc, it wasn't aimed at you: it was at the uncivil accusation by Oakshade. It follows on from the ad hominid comments from a number of others much earlier in the thread, but that wasn't what I was commenting on this time, I was trying to ensure that people didn't revert to such silliness again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, just for disagreeing with you've twice called me a "troll" and several times that I have a personal "POV" (despite being asked multiple times, you've never explained what that "POV" is). Saying there is WP:OWN going on when there is strong evidence of such is not uncivil. Calling someone a "troll" is. --Oakshade (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

And by repeating the lie you only make the situation worse. Just for the record I utterly refute and reject any smears of ownership, which I find laughable. Now. can I suggest that we move on from this rather pointless tit-for-tat discussion and try and take some heat out of the talk page, rather than continue to stoke the flames? - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support The current lead image looks rather naked. There's a long table of contents, which results in a lot of white space when I view the article on a landscape screen. A long infobox like that at Charlie Chaplin would help fill that space. Warden (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Adding an infobox full of uninteresting shite in order to "fill space" is not a valid reason to have one. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
    • It's the current lead image and its caption, "Sellers in 1973" which is uninteresting as it tells us almost nothing about the subject or the photograph. A more detailed infobox, such as I find in the edit history, seems far more interesting, telling us that he had a CBE, his name was not originally Peter Sellers, that he had four wives and so on. This is far better than white space. Warden (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
      • It's a shocking thought, but you could always move your eyes to the left and read the lead, which provides a much more accurate summary of his life than the gobbets of half-misleading factoids and even provides a broader context. Even more shocking is the thought that you may read the whole article, which ensures a much fuller picture of Sellers, and puts all the information in a context which will actually lead to understanding of the man, rather than just bald "facts". - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
        • Per WP:SIZE, the page is too large at over 100K and even the lead is a wall of text. We favour presentation in a summary style and an infobox is consistent with this approach. As this discussion has been running for a while, the balance of opinion seems to prefer an infobox and the article has a long history of having an infobox, I have have restored the infobox with some tweaks such as adding the occupation of drummer. Warden (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Per WP:LENGTH (not SIZE) there is no issue. It's not "over 100kB: it's 58 kB of "readable prose size", so I'm really not sure what that has to do with things... Furthermore, I'm not sure that there is anything in the MOS that suggests we favour presentation in "summary style" and I'm not sure where you've got that from: is it based on a guideline somewhere? - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:SUMMARY which states, "Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front ... generally 30 kilobytes of readable prose is the starting point at which articles may be considered too long." Warden (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see absolutely nothing in that policy that suggests an infobox is needed: perhaps you could enlighten me? As to the article size, I'm also not entirely sure how bloating it further with a needless infobox is going to reduce the size of the article? - SchroCat (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Warden, there is a conversation in progress: wait until it finishes before unilaterally reverting based on your own opinion. There is nothing that "forces" an infobox to be in an article, only consensus, so let that consensus develop properly first. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You are really screwing yourself by continuing to edit war with multiple editors over the infobox issue, claiming consensus does exist exist for its inclusion. You do realize that, right? Doc talk 10:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Doc, I am not "screwing" anyone, despite your colourful term: there is a discussion in progress and it needs to finish before someone unilaterally decides to edit the article based on their own preferences. This is rather basic stuff really, not edit warring. Once a consensus has been decided by all editors - and based on policies, not on whether Warden just "wants it there" or not, a decision will be settled on and the article edited or not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The consensus to exclude the infobox simply does not exist beyond the small group that keeps reverting it. I'm not going to talk down to you like a child. I know my policy. Reverting the infobox multiple times, whether in a 24-hour period or not, can certainly constitute edit-warring. It's not acceptable for the same editors to continually make reverts that are quite clearly made in good faith. Doc talk 10:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There are others in this thread who have not edited the IB at all and have stated that it is not an improvement. I have seen no-one say anything that uses policy or guidelines to suggest why the infobox needs to be there. This is not just a vote, but I've not seen much evidence of it so far. - SchroCat (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding an idiotbox to an article where there is currently a discussion about it on the talk page is NOT being added in good faith. It is being added by someone to satisfy their own personal desires, regardless of anyone else's opinions. --Cassianto^Talk 10:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's ridiculous on a few levels. Firstly, and most importantly: the consensus to exclude the infobox does not exist. If anything, consensus here is rather in favor of having one, and there is certainly no wider consensus beyond your group to "unilaterally" keep one out. Calling it an "idiotbox" sort of illustrates where you stand on the issue quite well. Many people add infoboxes to articles, and I don't think it's done for bad faith reasons. Doc talk 10:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The final decision should not be made by a bunch of drive by editors who want to add it for reasons like "filling in white space" and because in their opinion "every other article has one". The latter is a complete myth and a trip to WP:FA will show each and all that an article can be considered FA without the inclusion of an infobox. It is not a requirement to have one. Why is there such a battle happening on Sellers, when there are hundreds of other articles (FA and non-FA) out there with no infobox? --Cassianto^Talk 11:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You want to point to policy. Of course nothing in policy states that articles are required to have an "idiotbox". But if y'all want to fall back on the consensus policy, you actually need consensus. You don't have it. To continually remove the infobox simply because you don't like it is really not in line with policy. Perhaps the attention gained at AN/I has garnered more scrutiny on this particular FA instead of the others. Dunno. Doc talk 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Whose edit warring? This is a talk page where discussions take place right? We don't "claim consensus does exist exist for its inclusion" we think that having one is utterly pointless and caters for the lazy reader. --Cassianto^Talk 10:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

If he didn't make the revert, I would have expected you to. See WP:CONLIMITED on who "we" is. Doc talk 10:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

That's not edit warring see WP:3RR. If Warden were to revert back, that would have been warring. I shouldn't have to be explaining this basic rule to someone with your experience. --Cassianto^Talk 10:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. If you think that only violating 3RR defines edit-warring, you are incorrect on that assumption. Doc talk 10:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Warden, please do NOT add an infobox just because you feel like it. An infobox is NOT a default position and your desire to in fill the white space didn't work either did it! --Cassianto^Talk 10:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• We obviously have disagreement rather than consensus but a 7:4 majority seems a reasonable basis for the article to return to having an infobox, as before. I pressed the point in order to record some particular details which, in my view, ought to be included. That's really what we should be discussing here - the details. The lead image which others prefer is presented in a box and has some sketchy info too and so is a form of bare-bones infobox. Other editors prefer to have more details in the box and so it's the level of detail which seems to be the issue, not the existence of a box or frame, per se. Anyway, to move forward, I suggest we make this an RfC and then get a formal close. Warden (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• "a 7:4 super-majority"? Please see WP:VOTE and appreciate that decisions are not made by voting, but by building consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• And per the discussion, as WP:VOTE stipulates, consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of restoring the infobox.--Oakshade (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• No it doesn't!!! Try reading the policies rather than just throwing them out at people. As per consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity  nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." It's not a vote, despite your attempts to summarise threads as such. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yet another snide uncivil remark at someone just for disagreeing with you. I'm extremely familiar with WP:CONSENSUS and Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms" is exactly what's occurring here and the decision making is overwhelmingly in favor of restoring the infobox. The more quotes from WP:CONSENSUS you bring up, the more you're demonstrating that consensus is for restoring the infobox.--Oakshade (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Okashade, there was no uncivil attack on you whatsoever. Consensus forming is not a vote, no matter how many times you say it is. the process of building a consensus is where "editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns". Trying to say that "more people want something = consensus" just isn't right, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the infobox. It adds nothing of value and looks better with out it. Sadly infobox Nazism has become prevalent on this website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Infoboxes add nothing to any article IMHO and we don't need one in this article. Jack1956 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The infobox in this article contains only redundant information and interferes with the layout of the LEAD section. I agree that it is not helpful in this article and should not be here. -- 128.59.26.199 (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment This debate on this talk page has gone on long enough - there seems to be no consensus, so keeping the page as it currently is seems the best course of action at this time. In addition, it seems many people have gotten unnecessarily testy over one infobox - we're all trying to improve Wikipedia, so we're all on the same side. I propose an admin archive this discussion and let it rest for a while. GRUcrule (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has been reinvigorated by the starting of a formal RfC process on 12 Nov 2013. The standard period of time for such an RfC is 30 days. The idea is to get some input from a broader range of editors which may help settle the matter. If the discussion were closed now, the issue would continue to fester. Warden (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The RfC discussion has done nothing other than to prevent editors from improving the project further by holding them up with this bollocks. I will be making steps to get this archived as soon as possible. --Cassianto^Talk 18:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• History A timeline for this may help:

2001 — article is created as stub

2002 — 1st anniversary

2003 — 2nd anniversary

2004 — now has lead image which is now redlink

2005 — now has sections and TOC

2006 — now has {{infobox biography}}

2007 — now {{infobox actor}}, note also proposed merger of Monty Casino

2008 — {{infobox actor}}

2009 — {{infobox actor}}

2010 — {{infobox actor}}

2011 — {{infobox person}}

2012 — {{infobox person}} FA status

2013 — infobox box removal in July, since when the matter has been disputed with multiple reversions to and fro.

What I find especially significant is that the article reached FA status with the infobox. Removal without consensus therefore seems improper in that it destablises the article from its agreed satisfactory state. As stability is one of the FA criteria and we have another major dispute too, an FA review may be appropriate. Warden (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What I find especially significant is that you seem to be still here trying to flog this dead old horse when there are millions of articles out there that could actually use your time. Incidentally, where was the consensus to add an infobox in the first place? We seem to need consensus to delete one but nothing to add one! --Cassianto^Talk 16:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

A majority of editors here want the infobox restored. And now that wider discussion is occurring instead of a limited local consensus that sprang up in July, it appears that will be the case.--Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really the point. As I've pointed out to you before, this isn't a vote: it's based on policy and guidelines, not a democractic show of hands. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nobody here who dosn't want the infobox making their arguments based on policy and guidelines, just name-calling at it ("bloody infobox," etc.).--Oakshade (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And nobody bringing any policy or guidelines as to why it should be added either. As such—and here's a bit of policy for you—the status quo remains. Can you also clarify what you mean by "a majority", if we are going to vote count? There have been 12 people who have expressed a clear support or oppose here: six for each. (If I have that tally wrong, it's a good faith error, but hardly an overwhelming tidal wave in spport). - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable to justify your removal of the infobox based on policy and guidelines, then we go by overall community WP:CONSENSUS, not your limited local consensus. Consensus didn't and does not want the infobox removed.--Oakshade (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall community consensus is outlined in the MoS, which can be found at WP:INFOBOXUSE: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article." - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, so now that you've told everyone multiple times that arguments must be based on "policy and guidelines", which policies are guidelines are you basing the removal of the infobox on? --Oakshade (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

In case it's slipped your notice, there is no infobox to remove (and there hasn't been for four months): the RfC is about the potential addition of one. I thought that was clear... - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a massive "so what?" regarding the history: it proves very little excpet that the article hasn't have a IB for some of its history, and has had for some of its history. It's all a bit like the stock market: previous performance is no guarantee of the future. Your "conclusion" that the removal somehow intrinsically destabalises the article is flawed: an article does not become stable because it has no infobox: an article becomes stable because people either add or subtract one without discussing first. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It's completely false that there is a wide consensus in favour of infoboxes. I suggest Oak Shade you look at this. What part of The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. don't you get? The arbitrators make most of the important decisions on here and they clearly have a consensus that infoboxes are not compulsory. An editor with a history of adding infoboxes to articles was banned from doing so Oakshade because all of the arbitrators considered his behaviour to be disruptive , trying to enforce them where the articles writers didn't want them. Why don't you quit being a nuisance and do something useful instead? Dr. Blofeld 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Then Dr. Blofeld I suggest you look at WP:CONSENSUS and specifically its WP:CONLIMITED. After seven years with all editors keeping and building an infobox, a limited local consensus of three editors suddenly swooping down one month and removing it is not consensus. --Oakshade (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

When will one of you answer my earlier question? Maybe you can oblige Oakshade? Where was the consensus to add an infobox all those months ago? --Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you realize how you're coming across. Read my user page. People who frequently brand per WP:xx are the weakest individuals on wikipedia who can't form an intelligent constructive argument to state their case. Anything they cite completely contradicts what other reputable folk have stated on the website. The fact is that yes, wikipedia attracts a certain extreme group who are obsessed with things like infoboxes and will do all they can to troll the site implementing them and other things. A lot of wikipedia editors, good editors, always feel that an infobox is an essential part of the articles which they write. Use of infoboxes in biographies are undeniably popular across the website. In some cases, I'd agree that infoboxes are of great value if crammed full of data which wouldn't be better represented in prose. However. for biographies the data represented if of very minimal value to the point that they're virtually redundant not to mention unsightly. Given that there is no official rule stating that articles should have infoboxes and a lot of very good editors here reject them, why should we be forced to accept something which isn't a rule? Show me the universal consensus that all articles must have infoboxes and I'll accept it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, it was you who put a link to an Arbitration case and who quoted from it and that quote actually used WP:CONSENSUS (you conveniently omitted that "WP:xx" link from your quote). If you're argument is now you think citing any WP:xx is bad as reason to remove the infobox, I say with all honesty that is the weakest argument on this thread. --Oakshade (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

When will you answer my earlier question? Maybe you can oblige Oakshade? Where was the consensus to add an infobox all those months ago? --Cassianto^Talk 19:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at that and I don't see a clear consensus outside the quick kill limited local consensus to overturn seven years of an infofox when literally thousands of editors saw fit not to remove it, not to mention in July there wasn't the community-wide scrutiny as this should receive in the 30 day RfC. --Oakshade (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see little beyond the same arguments from the same group. Infoboxes are not required, Infoboxes are stupid, people that want the infobox are stupid, etc. Warden's history above, especially with the FA passage, is compelling. There never was a genuine consensus to remove it in the first place, and it's been bullied out by the same small and extremely vocal group ever since. Doc talk 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Oakshade...Nicely avoided, so I'll ask you again. Where was the consensus to add an infobox all those months ago? --Cassianto^Talk 08:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The infobx was there all those months ago and all of those years ago due to consensus - seven years of it and during that time the article made FA status - with the infobox. Only suddenly a limited consensus tag team ignored 7 years of consensus, and the thousands of editors who didn't remove it (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS), swooped in and removed it. --Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Restore infobox! I see no good reason why this biography should not have one. For an article of its size, infobox is even more necessary. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Not a reason to restore I'm afraid. An articles length has bugger all to do with an infobox. You also provide no good reason as to why this article should have one. Cassianto^Talk 15:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

We've not seen any good reason why the infox needed to be deleted. All we've seen was "they're ugly," "they're stupid," they're "not required," and "bloody infobox!" --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Identibox

Peter Sellers British actor
The film actor, comedian and singer in 1973
Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record

Comment: I don't know anything about this "battle ground" nor am I interested in more of the kind. Have you considered the compromise of an identibox, like Percy Grainger has. I might look like this and may save a reader who does NOT know Sellers the time to get beyond title, alternate name, and dates of birth and death to find that he is an actor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I have to say, I wasn't aware that the page this links to exists - what a wonderful treasure trove! And I have to say, I don't think many readers (myself included) would have found this so quickly without the help of such a link. A very good reason, I think, to follow Gerda's suggestion. Alfietucker (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd probably be happy with that, although I think we could pipe the link to something more elegant sounding. (I've no idea what specific wording to use, but that's a relatively minor point). - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How about naming the link "Performance database" - not elegant, admittedly, but succinct and clear. Alfietucker (talk) 11:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Needless to say that this is just a suggestion, and that I personally would add the data of birth and death, as suggested for Verdi. I inserted a subheader and confess that I find the whole page unmanagable ;) - Is part of it ready to be archived? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Not ideal, but a happy compromise. Support this on condition that Gerda builds it. She is a neutral voice to this discussion and has a talent for building such things. I'm worried that if one on either side would do it, then the arguments would only continue. --Cassianto^Talk 20:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(p.s), Not keen on the "British Actor" being there; seems redundant IMO. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that: perhaps it could be removed and the caption tweaked to "The British actor, comedian and singer in 1973". Partly because "film actor" is only part of the story. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sssh... If I was to be honest, I would even delete "The film actor, comedian and singer" as that can be seen in the first line of the lede, but in the interests of drawing this pantomime to a close, I would allow it to stay. Just waiting for Gerda to get changed ;) --Cassianto^Talk 20:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bzzt... - I already used my two entries to a given infobox discussion per day ;) - I am restricted to not add an infobox to an article I didn't create, - and by create they mean "create", not expand a one-line stub, you know that. I leave you alone with what goes on top of the image and what below, if nationality is mentioned or not, and how to pipe-link his achievements. I think of a user who knows nothing about Mr. Sellers, - he would be helped by "British actor" right on top. I followed the Grainger example here, - for me nationality is nothing important ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Gerda. Would you vote for or against the restoration of the full infobox as it existed before? If you could? I do think that possibly you can... Doc talk 07:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure Gerda is allowed to comment further: there are Arbcom sanctions against her "making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article". - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec, hear me laughing) I didn't look, and will use my time for something else, like preparing a GA nom ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Percy Grainger article never had an extended infobox and the current small infobox ("identibox" as termed here) is all that was built so far. Unlike with this article, it wasn't like there was a well-built infobox in place for many years and it was deleted by a small but vocal group. For the Peter Sellers article, except for the three users who ensured removal of the infoxbox, I see no change of support from those who'd prefer the infobox restored to being in favor for this "mini-infobox."--Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Leaving aside the Percy Grainger article (it's the Peter Sellers article here that's the issue), I am much more convinced of the usefulness of the Identibox - above all for the page it links to, which contains far more useful data than does the infobox, which so far in this article has only demonstrated a tendency to be filled with arbitrarily chosen and often trivial information. Alfietucker (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

Oakshade, I ask you again: Where was the consensus to add an infobox in the first place? Forth time of asking, still ignoring. CassiantoTalk 15:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Do you think you are going to get a different answer for the fourth time you post the identical question? Asked and answered. Stop asking it. Doc talk 15:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC) It hasn't been answered. Oakshade gave a non-intelligible answer which made no sense at all. It's an easy question with an easy to find diff I would have thought. Maybe you could answer it and provide a diff? CassiantoTalk 15:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC) this diff , your seventh edit to the article, you seemed to clearly understand that a consensus had long existed to have an infobox, since you edited it and didn't remove it entirely as you've done recently. Was there a consensus to add an infobox before your edit to it? Of course. As has been pointed out several times before, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is a good thing to look at. Doc talk 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Answered twice above.[1][2] You're not going to get a different answer by repeating the same question. --Oakshade (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC) What has that diff got to do with the infobox, other than that I mention "infobox" in the edit summary? It was a repositioning of the image within the first section. Still no talk page diff provided of a consensus led conversation asking the community if they would mind an infobox being put in place. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. @Oakshade, I haven't had one fucking answer let alone two! Also, the first diff made no sense at all and the second diff makes mention of the infobox being there during the FAC. May I remind you that infoboxes are NOT obligatory at FAC. Again, you provide an inaccurate and unintelligible response and hide behind a "policy". Provide a diff of the talk page discussion please and then I will stop asking. CassiantoTalk 16:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Your ideas on what constitutes consensus, as well as what constitutes edit-warring, need a lot of work. Why would there even need to be a talk page discussion prior to including in infobox, all those years ago? To prove to you that there was actually a consensus for one all along before you lot came around? Not needed at all. That you can't understand that you were operating under the already existing and longstanding consensus for the infobox with the edit I pointed out is interesting. Doc talk 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC) You may like to rely on mythical consensus where you wrongfully assume everybody wants an infobox, but frankly I don't. You say "Why would there even need to be a talk page discussion prior to including in infobox, all those years ago?" I say, why would there even need to be a talk page discussion when deleting an infobox. Why do you think it's ok to add an infobox with no discussion, yet have a discussion when someone removes it? The answer you are looking for is actually what you really want to say which is this: "I like infoboxes and I think everyone else should. There was no discussion when the box was added, therefore no consensus exists. Now it has been removed, I rather hypocritically accuse others of breaching consensus such as my infobox friends did all those years ago. I will choose to ignore this in the hope that nobody asks for a diff. Shit, they just have, er....so now I will blind them by policies and guidelines and thus avoid the question". CassiantoTalk 17:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Cassianto, you need to learn how consensus is established. When an edit is made and there is no dispute to that edit, it is assumed to have consensus. This is not "mythical" but exactly how WP:CONSENSUS explains how consensus is established - see specifically WP:EDITCONSENSUS. When an infobox is added and seven years go by with thousands of editors choosing not only to keep the infox but to add to it and make it FA status with the infobox no less, that is an extremely strong indicator of consensus. If you'd like to change how Wikipedia establishes consensus, you're free to make your case on the WP:CONSENSUS talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC) "There was no discussion when the box was added, therefore no consensus exists." It's quite ridiculous when you think about it, that there must be a discussion in order for everything to have consensus. It demonstrates an utter failure to understand that policy. Doc talk 17:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC) Yes there should be. What exists for one, must exist for the other. My point has now been made and you have shown your view to be thoroughly groundless. I shall not converse with you on the subject any further. Can you now answer Alfietucker's post below. Thanks CassiantoTalk 17:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC) You probably shouldn't converse with me further on policy, as no one is coming along to correct me on it. How about an admin? I wager I know it better that you. Doc talk 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've explained why I think the Identibox is a superior option to the infobox. Does anyone care to explain why they think we should opt for an infobox rather than the Identibox? Alfietucker (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Good people: as well as having to reinstate my earlier post which got lost in the current debate about infoboxes, may I politely remind you that this is a thread about the Identibox. Could you please reply to my question, or further the discussion about the proposed Identibox, or take your argument "outside"? Alfietucker (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. The "identibox" was brought in after this thread was underway. At this point it is not going to be some magical compromise. Doc talk 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to check I haven't misunderstood you, Doc: you appear to be saying you will not even engage in a discussion about the Identibox, simply because you want to continue arguing about whether or not the article should have an infobox. Do you really have nothing to say about the pros or cons of an Identibox? Is it more important to "win" this argument about having an infobox? Alfietucker (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not about an identibox. Winning... we go by consensus, generally. And no, this is not the place I want to discuss the pros and/or cons of an identibox in general. I shouldn't have to here. The discussion to restore the infobox is not over that I can see. Doc talk 17:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:CON encourages editors to find "alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns"; discussing the pros and cons of this proposed compromise is part and parcel of the larger infobox discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why I collapsed it: to get on with discussing it. Why you uncollapsed this portion is unclear to me. Discuss the identibox at great length, please. Doc talk 03:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I feel that I must support the identibox. The infobox was indeed a bit excessive and trivial, but the image alone is pretty bare as well. The identibox neatly combines both into a concise, readable format without being overbearing or underrepresenting. I think it would be the best compromise at this time. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, have an infobox (invited by the bot) North8000 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support restoring infobox to article. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 10:55, December 16, 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not a vote so can add exactly WHY you think this should have an idiotbox as your comments are unhelpful as it stands. Cassianto^Talk 21:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bad close. Consensus is developing, and it's closed after one of the "cons" questioned the rationale of a "pro". Really a terrible, consensus-stifling and premature close. I'm only saying this because we still have no firm decision on the infobox after all this - I agree with pretty much everything else in the closing rationale, and my comments are not intended to disparage the closing admin in any way. Doc talk 04:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to back-pedal, Doc: it's a bad decision by a non-neutral admin. To summarise one point of view as "basically ... "I don't like it" on the con side" is untrue, and ignores pretty much every advocate of the IB here saying "I like it" as their sole rationale. Shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

What's "shameful" is you and Cassianto doing the same thing to every editor that comes here and disagrees with you. "This is not a vote, please provide a detailed rationale on your opinion or it doesn't count." If they agreed with your position, neither of you would try to discount the "vote". You two are seemingly not interested in developing consensus here, and are happy to harangue anyone who tries to disagree with you. THAT is "shameful". Doc talk 04:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. And (yet again) please try not to dip to personal comments about other editors: keep it neutral and civil if you can please. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to play the "borderline personal attack" thing with you. You will lose on that one. I've seen you be incredibly dismissive and insulting to editors that disagree with you. Want diffs? And we all know perfectly well that you two would be freaking out if consensus determined that the infobox should be restored. It's perfectly understandable: it's called "sour grapes". But don't try to claim that I'm leveling personal attacks against you. Doc talk 05:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're on about here Doc: I've asked you to comment on edits, not editors, that's all. There are no sour grapes at all, I'm just rather bored of having to remind people, including you, not to keep making it personal. - SchroCat (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know you in in real life. And I'm sure you're a great person. So "personal" in this case is not about you as a person - it's about how you edit. If one's behavior on Wikipedia is questioned, it's not necessarily "personal". And just above, where you dismissed my comment as "nonsense": could that not be construed as a "personal attack". I think it could: instead of saying "I disagree" you dismiss the argument as that from a nonsensical person. Bad form. Doc talk 05:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Doc, I'm sorry, but not sure what you are on about, or what you are trying to prove on this, so I'm going to step away and leave you to it. - SchroCat (talk) 05:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, when the RfC is reopened without the Identibox side issue, with all previous comments restored concerning the infobox; you will step back in and we will go from there. Doc talk 05:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

And this is going to be the next issue. Sigh. I'm not going to go this route, but I'll bet I know who is going to revert it. When you do: do not attack the person who made this change "personally". Doc talk 07:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

While I strongly disagree with the "Jewish" RfC closing and feel the closing admin didn't actually read the scrutiny of the "sources" nor did abide by consensus, I will respect it and as of now not take this to a higher level and certainly won't edit war. I suggest those who disagree with this closing to do the same with this "yes" and "yest it should" outcome. --Oakshade (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, one of them is going to revert it, whether it's a matter of minutes or hours. And then we're back to, "You need to get consensus for including the infobox". Yay. Doc talk 07:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not respecting and ignoring an admin's RfC closing is grounds for community scrutiny on the editor and easily opens them up to punitive measures. If they'd like to go down that route, it's their prerogative.--Oakshade (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't say.[3]. Stable "prior to removal'. "Consensus" has spoken. This is straight-up edit-warring, and I'm off to collect diffs. There's a bunch of them. Edit-warring is not confined to violating the 3RR rule. This is slow, entrenched edit-warring; and it's against our policies. Doc talk 08:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Calm down Doc, there's no need to get so heated about this. Yes, according to a poor admin decision there is a consensus to have an IB. We have one. I'm not sure what you're getting so riled about. All I have done is put the last stable box back in there, correcting a couple of minor errors as I did so. It's not edit-warring, whatever your overly-emotive language may claim it to be, but you go ahead and collect diffs, although I' not sure what the point of that actually is... - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. But I don't like edit-warring. See: I just don't do it. The purpose of me collecting diffs would be to show that you have been slowly edit-warring over this for some time. And it's quite easy to show that. I think your notion of consensus is a joke. And that is not a personal attack at all. Doc talk 08:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You are utterly clueless about my notions of consensus, so please do not try and double guess me. I have accepted the consensus, despite the fact that it is a poor decision (something you also commented on), and I have not sought to remove the IB. It it there and, in my last edit, I corrected some of the errors introduced; I also out it back to the last stable version that appeared on this page. I'm sure the diffs will confirm that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I misread the closing at first: I thought it meant closed as "no consensus". My apologies to all - I screw up often and will always admit it when I do. But now we've got a "collapsed" infobox. Almost like an "identibox". I don't recall any conditions on restoring the version of the infobox that you didn't like. "Utterly clueless"... gotcha. Doc talk 08:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Odd that you accused me of sour grapes on this, when it's nothing of the sort, on my side, at least. We have, as we had before it was removed, an infobox in place. It was, as one editor put it, "a happy compromise". That has been re-installed. Whether I like or don't like it is neither here nor there: we are adhering to the consensus that a poor decision has says exists. I disagree with the decision, but I am happy to live with it, subject to an Arb commenting one way or t'other. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to pursue this any further unless edit-warring continues. As I said before, I'm sure you're a great person in real-life, as well as Cassianto. We could all probably have a good laugh about this over a beer. No hard feelings, SchroCat! Sometimes we disagree with those whom we would agree with on other things. It's really nothing personal. Doc talk 09:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

An identibox satisfies all concerned as far as I can see. For the sake of sanity, let's move on! -- Cassianto^Talk 09:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Character of "Jewish" con-man?

STATEMENT REGARDING "JEWISH CON-MAN" TO REMAIN AS CURRENTLY PRESENTED IN THE ARTICLE.:

There are three main threads to the discussion; the first concerns the accuracy or verifiability of the statement that the character was Jewish, the second concerns the way the information should be presented, the third concerns the relevance or notability of the statement.

1) As presented in the discussion, there are five reliable sources which state that the character is or was intended to be Jewish. There are no sources presented in the discussion which countered or disputed the character was a Jew; the counter arguments in the discussion are based on the editors' own perceptions from viewing the advert. As pointed out in the discussion Wikipedia's own guidance for verifiability is to use reliable sources over personal observation, so we have to prefer the sources.

2) There were suggestions of presenting the statement in quotes or "seen as", and some of this gained some traction, though consensus is unclear. However, as there are multiple uncontested sources we do not need to present this as a contentious statement, where we might use "XXX says the character was Jewish" (there is a "XXX says" footnote explaining that Sellers was criticized for his portrayal of Jewish characters, and that seems appropriate as it's only one source), or to put the statement in quotes as has been suggested; we can present the information as factual, and taken for granted. The statement is simple, factual, sourced, and uncontested by reliable sources.

3) The third aspect is that given the sensitive nature of the statement, we should consider carefully if it is appropriate to use it. It's a good point, though as pointed out there are enough reliable sources to qualify the material as notable; however, we also need to consider how readers will perceive the information, which is why it's important to assess the quality and amount of sources. In this case, as also pointed out, there are multiple reliable sources rather than just one source, or a few dubious sources.

There was an additional concern that there is no advanced detail describing the character's Jewishness - though, as pointed out, the statement is only following what the sources say; the article is not in itself commenting on the character's Jewishness, only that the character was intended to be Jewish.

Good arguments have been brought out in the discussion regarding all these aspects (spoiled by the occasional unpleasantness), and the debate has been interesting and thoughtful. All the relevant policies and guidelines have been raised in the discussion - Undue, Not censored, etc. The arguments put forward to keep the statement as it currently is in the article carry most weight and most closely follow Wikipedia guidelines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In the section about Seller's last work in a series of commercials for Barclay's Bank, the article describes him as playing "Jewish" con-man Monty Casino. There is a reference that used the term "Jewish" to describe him, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. However, the actual commercials give no overt indication this character is Jewish. You can (Link removed as per linkvio) and see for yourself. In the commercials, Casino is just a sleazy con-man with a London accent with zero indication of religion. In another reference about the character, Mr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers makes no mention of the character's religion. The "Jewish" part just seems the first book's author Roger Lewis' opinion.

I suggest removing the word "Jewish" or at least indicating this was the opinion of biographer Lewis.--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Evans comments on accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against Sellers for some of his Goon Show portrayals and goes on "A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds". (See Evans, Peter (1980). The Mask Behind the Mask. London: Severn House Publishers. p. 194. ISBN 0-7278-0688-2.) I think that as two reliable sources highlight this aspect—especially as one of them says the portrayal was attacked—probably satisfies the inclusion of the term and without needing any other explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the character Mony Casino was Jewish, it just means Sellers was accused of anti-semitic with some vague un-specified interpretation that the Casino character was Jewish. There's still no indication that the character is Jewish. --Oakshade (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two independent, reliable secondary sources that say the character was Jewish. Your POV says otherwise. Guess which one stays in the article? - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Peter Evan source doesn't say he's Jewish and the actual commercials make no indication he's Jewish, just that Sellers was accused of antisemitism due to the ad. It's only the Lewis POV source says so. I think we're going to need wider community input on this. --Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

See also Riglesford: "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man" (see Rigelsford, Adrian (2004). Peter Sellers: A Life in Character. London: Virgin Books. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-7535-0270-9.) I'm not sure why you wish to keep flogging this dead horse, but feel free to set your POV against what is now THREE reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Rigelsford, who has a history of questionable journalism and shady practices, is not a reliable source. Again The Peter Evan source does not say the character was Jewish, just that Sellers was accused of antisemitism due to the ads. Only ONE possible reliable source interprets the character as being Jewish. I have no problem as it being written as the character as being interpreted as Jewish by a biographer, but not that the character is Jewish. Additionally, the actual ads, not interpretations of them, give zero indication that the character is Jewish.--Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Source four: The Northern Echo, 11 March 2005, P 13: "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino." Need any more, or do you still hold that your POV is a stronger basis for editing Wikipedia than anything that can be shown to you? - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't POV. There's nothing in the ads that indicate the character is Jewish. Maybe that's what Sellers intention was and haveing that in the article is fine due to the possible source you just provided, but still there's nothing "Jewish" about the character.--Oakshade (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"There's nothing in the ads that indicate the character is Jewish": staggeringly, and I know you may have difficulty in understanding this, but that is your POV. Actually I have also seen them, and my POV does not agree with yours. Quite simply, no-one will care what your or my POV is, but refer instead to the reliable sources. I've shown you four sources that suggest otherwise and it matters not what you or I think about the matter: the sources are key. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What is "Jewish" about this character? You've only given one reliable source with the opinion the character was Jewish, one by Adrian Rigelsford who is not a reliable source, one that gives zero indication the character was Jewish but that Sellers was accused of antisemitism and one that indicates Sellers intended the character to be Jewish. Again, what is it about this character that indicates his religion and specifically the Jewish religion?--Oakshade (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've given you four sources. You have given nothing but your POV. Guess which carries more weight? - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This has turned into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you've ignored every explanation that all but one of your sources don't indicate the character is Jewish and one unreliable source that say's the character is. the Sellers biography Mr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers by Ed Sikov simply says the character is a "con man" and makes no indication that the character is Jewish.[4] SchroCat, what about the character Monty Casino is Jewish? --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As Schrod says a whopping four sources support what is written. Unless you can demonstrate at least the same number of sources to prove otherwise you haven't a case here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Only one source supports what is written and the actual ads, arguably the most important source, does not support what is written.--Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

FOUR sources, as you can't count. The ads only lead to your interpretation, which is as meaningless as everyone else's POV. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As you're in a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about only ONE reliable source you've provided indicating the character is Jewish, before we get wide community input on the matter, SchroCat, what about the character Monty Casino is Jewish?--Oakshade (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Move on Oakshade, there is nothing to see here. I think the plethora of reliable sources speak for themselves here. --Cassianto^Talk 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually only one reliable source indicates the character as Jewish. This isn't about Sellers intent of the character being Jewish doesn't exist. One of the sources shows that and I have no problem with that being in the article in that context. This isn't a black and white issue. --Oakshade (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's bullshit. You've been shown more than one reliable source, and your inability to take on board that your POV is as meaningless as everyone else's when stacked against the reliable sources, is now bordering on trolling. Stop flogging the dead horse and either provide a source that states the character isn't Jewish, or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we to believe that Barclays would run a series of advertisements that would portray a Jewish person as a "conman"? Our article presently says: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank. Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265]" "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I have seen the advertisements. I don't see any obvious cues that the character is intended to be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Troll/stalker alert. Of course Bus stop your recent disagreements with Schrod and I with another Jewish related article have nothing to do with your post here.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld—I happen to have this article on my Watchlist. If not for having this article on my Watchlist I would be unaware of this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As per the above, if you've got a source that says otherwise, them show it. If not, move on. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, for the fifth time, what about the character Monty Casino is Jewish? --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And for the nth time, my POV, along with yours is meaningless, especially when there are four' reliable sources that state the information, and nothing that remotely questions those sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And of the nth time, only one reliable source possibly states he was Jewish - actually it states " he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino" (emphasis mine). "Seen" is not the same as "was" or "is". All the other "sources" you provided are un-reliable like from un-reliable source Adrian Rigelsford, or simply show Sellers intended the character to be Jewish, which I have not problem of being in the article. As stated above, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" which you have simply not provided. Repeating over and over again "I have provided FOUR sources that says he's Jewish" whilst completely ignoring all of the faults of those "sources" is not acceptable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No. You are acting like a troll. You are not listening to what is being explained to you and you somehow think that your POV is a better basis for including information than anything else. Either provide something that says he wasn't Jewish, or that questions the other sources. If you can't, then take your trolling elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Same team, same games. It's not simply what factoids are cherry-picked and force-fed into the article, but what general details are kept out or ignored from the same Lewis book, which BYT, is considered trash by most Amazon reviewers. The result is that an insignificant bio detail, based on an opinion by a tabloidish writer, is strongly defended, yet a key detail to Sellers' career, as he told Kenneth Tynan, is removed from the article body and hidden in the Notes section. The saga continues, therefore, as once pointed out, and as apparently many others also noted. --Light show (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize how pathetic you really are supporting anything which criticizes this article purely because you couldn't even get it to B class? You're a nobody here, what you say has no bearing on the discussion. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering how close you came to being topic banned last time you dragged something so pointless to ANI (when community consensus was stacked very heavily against you), I would have thought you may have learnt to be a little more circumspect in your comments this time round. Sadly not. Still the same of drivel you're spouting... - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

With a consensus of three concerned editors to you and Dr. Blofeld's, why are you both obsessing and arguing about keeping such an insignificant word, just a piece of opinion trivia in the article? The article is already "incomprehensible" and unlikely to be read, so aren't you guys satisfied yet? --Light show (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for you, at least) the opinion of the community at PR and FAC was against you on that point. When you ridiculously raised the possibility of a review, you were again turned down by editors much better than you (and me too, for that matter). For all your gripes and moans, you have done nothing positive for this article, and I'm surprised that you still bother to have this on your watchlist, unless it really is only to try and pour petrol onto any flames that appear on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not petrol, but water. Between your flame attacks and Blofeld's ABFs, even the water simply becomes steam. That's me on the right. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're making less sense than normal and still not bothering to add something positive to the argument... - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, now you're simply name calling and completely failing to address the issues with the sources (all "FOUR!" of them) provided. There are faults with all of them in regards to simply calling this character "Jewish".--Oakshade (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No: you are acting like a troll and I am identifying you as such. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just name calling and not at all addressing the issues of the sources you've provided. All of them have been properlly challenged and you've not addressed to challenges at all and your only defense of these sources is "you're a troll!." You'll have more credibility of you actually counter the challenges to the flawed sources you've provided to support your POV. --Oakshade (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's identifying your poor approach to this whole matter and not listening to what anyone is saying. I have provided a numver of sources and IDIDNTHEARTHAT is all you can come back with, endlessly repeating "only one source", as if the mantra is going to fool everyone. As to credibility, I stick to the reliable sources, and not try and deny what is staring me in the face, or try and force my POV onto an article, despite what I can see and read. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—I'm wondering how you think that any source could conclude that the "Monty Casino" character was "Jewish". You say up above at 16:03, 31 Oct.:

"staggeringly, and I know you may have difficulty in understanding this, but that is your POV. Actually I have also seen them, and my POV does not agree with yours."

You are saying that, I believe, in response to Oakshade's comment at 15:55, 31 Oct.:

"There's nothing in the ads that indicate the character is Jewish. Maybe that's what Sellers intention was and haveing that in the article is fine due to the possible source you just provided, but still there's nothing "Jewish" about the character."

Can you please tell me if you see anything in the ads that is "Jewish" about the "Monty Casino" character? I don't see that. I have looked at the ads many times in the past couple of hours. We know that the person being depicted is a "conman". We don't know, because there is no indication of this in the ads, that the person depicted is "Jewish". Can you please tell me how any source could conclude that the "Monty Casino" character is "Jewish"? Bus stop (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said at the time "no-one will care what your or my POV is, but refer instead to the reliable sources": I suggest that also applies to your POV here, both about the description of the character as Jewish and as a conman. For all other information, do the decent thing and look to the five separate sources, which is what our policies say we should do. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not a "POV" that "Monty Casino" is a "conman". Concerning the Monty Casino character, the attribute of being a "conman" is different from the attribute of being "Jewish". The attribute of being a "conman", in the case of the the Monty Casino character, can be exhaustively described. The attribute of being "Jewish", concerning the Monty Casino character, cannot be described at all. We can describe in detail the reasons why we believe the Monty Casino character is a "conman". Yet not one of us has suggested any reason we should think of the Monty Casino character as being "Jewish". More importantly no source has suggested any reason the Monty Casino character should be thought of as being "Jewish". There is a lack of substantiation that the Monty Casino character is meant to be "Jewish". This should give us pause. We should not rush headlong and report in his biography that Peter Sellers "played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino". That assertion is not adequately supported by a source. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is nonsense. You are right that "It is not a "POV" that "Monty Casino" is a "conman"." We have the same reliable sources that point to that as to the tag "Jewish" too. As to the rest of it "we can describe" etc means absolutely nothing whatsoever. Personal preferences, opinions and thoughts mean nothing in the face of reliable sources, which is what is being relied on here. I do not care how you see the character: it means nothing at all – and that puts your opinion on the same footing as mine: it means absolutely nothing. All we are relying on are the sources: not opinions. As to the "lack of substantiation", again, it means nothing compared to the reliable sources. As to your last sentance, don't make me laugh: just to remind you, we have a hatful of those that support the current wording and nothing that questions or disputes it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—If you wish to make the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the character is "Jewish" despite a complete absence of any indication of this, you would need stronger sources, preferably sources that specify a reason for believing that the fictional character Monty Casino is "Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No; there are five sources which tell us this information and none, absolutely none which question, doubt or deny that point. You may not like the point that those sources make (and it's not a flattering point at all), but we reflect what the sources tell us, nothing else. -SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The reason why this fictional character is seen as being "Jewish" is important. That reason is absent, not only from your posts and the posts of other editors participating here, but that reason is absent from all of the sources thus far presented. We can only say that for instance Roger Lewis ("The Life and Death of Peter Sellers") feels that the Monty Casino character is Jewish. That is because Roger Lewis fails to provide us with a reason. He only provides an off-the-cuff and unsubstantiated interpretation. We are increasing its substantiality by stating as we do "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino", and of course we should not be doing that. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It may be important in some aspects, but not in our reporting of what is provided by the sources. Going outside what is written there is WP:OR or editorialising according to an agenda, rather than the verifiable reflection of sources. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bus stop - have you seen my reply to your earlier post under "Survey"? And indeed SchroCat's further response on that same thread? Alfietucker (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of sources regarding the Barclay's Bank ad character Monty Casino being "Jewish"

1. The book The Life and Death of Peter Sellers by tabloid writer Roger Lewis states "The Jews which Sellers played on 'The Good Show were oy-vay caricatures , with names like Geraldo or Izzy; and concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank"

This source does not say the character was Jewish, but that he was "to be seen as a Jewish conman", not that he was. This source is also considered un-reliable by most Amazon reviewers.

2. The Peter Evens book The Man Behind the Mask states ""A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds".

This does not state the character was Jewish but simply states Sellers was attacked as being antisemetic.

3. Adrian Rigelsford, book Peter Sellers: A Life in Character states "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man"

Adrian Rigelsford is not a reliable source as he has a history of publishing non-truths and being caught as such.

4. The newspaper The Northern Echo states "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino."

This seems accurate as to Sellers intent on the character Monty Casino and this intent on Sellers part should be in the article as a reliable source states so.

5. The actual commercials (Link removed as per linkvio) give absolutely no indication of the character's religion. None.

6. Ed Sikov's bookMr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers states "Peter's character is a con man called Monty Casino, who bilks the unsuspecting out of their quid, the suggestion being that Barclay's Bank offered protection against such shady scams. (The name plays not only on Monte Carlo's casinos but also Monte Cassino, where Spike Milligan nearly got blown up during World War II.)

This source makes no mention of the character being Jewish.

From all of these sources, the only information we get from reliable ones are:

1. A character Monty Casino was "seen" as Jewish. (this is by the tabloid writer Roger Lewis who might not be a reliable source).

2. Peter Sellers intended the character to be Jewish.

3. Peter Sellers was accused as being antisemitic with these ads.

From these sources I propose the line in the article be changed to:

"Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman, Monty Casino. Sellers intended the conman to be Jewish and the ads garnered accusations that Sellers was antisemitic."

--Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I endorse the wording change suggested by Oakshade above. The wording presently found in the article is not supported by sources. It would be "out of character" for Barclays Bank to be associated with the advertisements that are being implied. This is therefore misleading to the reader. As a little thought experiment—would we write at the Barclays Bank article that Barclays Bank used advertisements that portrayed a "Jewish conman"? I don't think we would. And the reason would be that sources do not support an assertion of that nature. I don't think it would matter whether that assertion was implicit or explicit. Even a hint of this would potentially be misleading to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Five sources have been provided that show you just do not know what you are talking about. So far no-one has provided any evidence to the contrary. No one has provided any reliable source that says "although described as a Jewish conman, the portrayal was actually..."; so far no-one has disproved any of the sources; and so far no one has come up with any other explanation of the characterisation from any other reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, stop editing and interjecting within my comments. You are violating WP:TPOC. Interjecting is not fine. You can retort my comments below mine. I've moved yours below.

Ridiculous. You're splitting pointless hairs on this one, and trying to justify it by using Amazon reviews? Do you even know what a reliable source is? - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, because he was accused of being anti Semitic because he portrayed what, exactly? How pointless is your comment here? - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If Riglesford had quoted something, or made a extraordinary statement, without any other sources also saying the same thing, you may have a point, but on balance with the other sources, no. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need to hide behind such phrasing: in line citations do that job. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So what? Sikov doesn't cover every single aspect off every portrayal, as much as the others don't either. But - importantly - he doesn't question the fact that others raised the portrayal either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you cannot edit other people's comments. That's violating WP:TPOC. You can counter my comments below.--Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's nonsense if the interjection is signed: it's certainly not against TPOC. But well done on ensuring that the counters to your "arguments" are now out of context. Good work. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—you were asked by an editor not to break up that editor's post. There are an indefinite number of editors participating in this thread. It can quickly become confusing if editors post in the middle of other editor's posts. Each of Oakshade's sources are numbered. Responding to those sources should be straightforward by means of reference to the source's identifying number. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been away for the majority of today and I have just this minute logged in. I really wish I hadn't, my god, what a load of bollocks! Oakshade, just accept that four sources outweigh anything you have to say. What makes you such an expert over the four sources we have? You say Riglefsford is unreliable, why do you consider yourself reliable enough for your view to be taken instead? Can you provide a decent, reliable source to say contrary to what is there already? Light show, take this article off your watchlist and go bother someone else. You troll this article every time a discussion emerges on the talkpage. You do bugger all for this article and do nothing to benefit any of the discussions surrounding it. Bus stop, can you enlighten me as to what your view is on all this? Your post confuses me. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto, instead of violating WP:NPA and attacking editors who wish to improve this project by calling them "trolls", refute the actual points made. Per your comments they completely stand as all you've done is attack the contributing editor. Comments like this are completely unhelpful.--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are being unhelpful by not accepting the fact that your POV does not outweigh the four sources. Also, take a look at Light show's previous history with this article, and I will let you draw your own conclusions. "Troll" is very mild compared to what I'd like to call him. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The four "sources" are simply not supporting the simple line "Jewish conman". I'm looking at content completely in regards to the "sources" provided and no POV. That's the point. Feel free to refute the analysis of the sources and show how they do support that content. Just saying "you're a troll" or repeating "there are four sources!" is completely ignoring the arguments and ignoring what the "sources" actually say. I think it should be noted in the article that Sellers intended the character to be Jewish and that people interpreted the character as Jewish as two reliable sources state, but in the commercials' complete form, there's nothing, not from any of the sources or in the actual commercials, that indicates the character is Jewish. If you feel an editor is being a troll, you can start an ANI agaisnt them. As violations of WP:NPA persist without proper discussion, I will start a wide community input on the matter. --Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time with all that ANI bullshite. I am a content creator and my time is better spent on creating quality articles for the project, rather than worry about people like Wikiwatcher. You seem to be loving this linking to NPA, but you are not in full view of the facts. If you look at the many diffs on this article and it's talk you will see that SchroCat, Dr. B and I are justified in our interpretations of him. Again, provide a source to prove otherwise, then I will stop calling it POV. I feel you can't do that. -- Cassianto^Talk,

We're trying to create content based on reliable sources and not POV. When there's a charge that Barclay's Bank and Peter Sellers made commercials featuring a "Jewish conman", the sources that simply mention the phrase "Jewish conman" can't be taken at face value and need to be scrutinized and, as the policy WP:VERIFY points out, the sources need to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:VERIFY states there needs to be "multiple high quality" sources. These "sources" just aren't that, at least to simply support the content this character is a "Jewish conman." As mentioned above, I believe per one of the sources that Seller's intent was that the character was Jewish and that can be mentioned per one of the sources. That the outcome of the character being a "Jewish conman" just isn't there per the scrutiny of the sources provided. --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Lewis wrote it in a reliable source, doesn't make it true, but it's still usable, even if other sources said otherwise. Truth is not required. However, a neutral POV is required, so it's hardly worth turning this single word into a POV debate, considering that many dozens of readers have already rated the entire Schro-Cass rewrite of the article as "heavily biased," even as a FA. --Light show (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightsow, you rated this however you want: the community decided sometime ago that it was an FA, and when you tried to have the FA status removed you were slapped down, once again by the community. Your further bad faith slurs on the article are increasingly meaningless, and when you tried to go to ANI (ironically for editing other people's comments) you were lucky that a topic ban wasn't raised against you.

Oakshade, the horse died a long time ago and your "critique" of the sources doesn't hold water in any way, shape or form, eve if you try and hide the arguments against your points by moving them out of the way. Four sources have said Jewish: your POV means as little as any other editor in the face of those sources. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

When getting personal comments like "the horse died a long time ago" when this discussion is less than 24 hours old, there's something strange going on here, like the above user is taking this personally. It's not personal. It's the desire to have proper content based on content from reliable sources. Where there is strong claim that Barclay's Bank produced commercials in 1980 that featured a "Jewish conman", the sources better be correct and can't be taken as face value as they seem to have up to this point. Four sources mentioning the word "Jewish" isn't going to do it alone. Upon actual scrutiny of these sources, they're just not supporting "Jewish conman." All that we can find is that Sellers intended the character to be Jewish. That can be in the article. But per the sources that are constantly referred to in this talk page, that the character in the Barclay's Bank ads is actually a "Jewish conman" is not supported. --Oakshade (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how "the horse died a long time ago" is a personal comment: I think we're veering into the Kafkaesque now. Could you also explain how I am "taking this personally"? Apart from the attempt by Lightshow to personalise it ("the entire Schro-Cass rewrite"), I'm not sure what you're reading into what piece of writing. I'll re-iterate: the only person questioning this is you. you have proven nothing. you have provided nothing to back up your assertions, aside from providing your POV having seen the ads. There are sources that back up the text as we have provided it and nothing to back you up. As a fifth source, see also the Advertising Archives and note the General keywords, which includes: "Jewish", or "All keywords, which includes: "Jews" and "Judaism". Five sources against your POV. I think it's time to move on from this increasingly pointless thread. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the earlier link to Lewis's (Link removed as per linkvio) "conman" ads, so had a look and have a few questions: 1) What's Jewish about the ads, as I personally saw nothing implied? 2)The Barclay's archive link above states that the ads were never shown, so why bother even mentioning it? 3) There's nothing by Barclays even describing the character played, so Lewis's description is obviously his personal take; 4) Why would a 300-year-old U.K. bank even do an ad as described by Lewis, since it would be self-defeating? 5) Does the name "Monty Casino" sound Jewish? If not, it implies the very opposite of Lewis's description.

If, as a few editors insist, it's vital to keep Lewis's description in, why not include some of Lewis's descriptions of Sellers' intended Jewish characters? --Light show (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

1 "I personally saw nothing implied": your POV is as meaningless as Oakshade's, mine and anyone else's. We rely on sources, not whatever our own personal interpretations may or may not be;

2 It was his last piece of filming and he had a series of heart attacks during the filming process. If it wasn't for that, then I don't think they would be mentioned, but as it's the last one, and the health issues came to a head at the time, etc... that's the reason they are in there;

3 I'm not sure why you are banging on about Lewis's opinion here: there are five sources that make the connection, not just Lewis;

4 I doubt anyone from Barclays was anywhere near the shoot when Sellers changed the character from the original one. Either way, if you can find a reliable source, then it would make the point an easier one;

5 ? Again with the POV?

Does anyone have any reliable sources that counter the five currently on offer? if not, then we can just keep going round and round in ever decreasing circles on this... - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, and voicing a personal POV is allowed per guidelines, such as your replies to #2 and #4. In any case, since you only indirectly answered one of the questions I had, #3, maybe someone else can chime in. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

How bizarre! We're talking about the basis for inclusion of information into the article and whether something should or should not be included. POV is among the worst determining factors for inclusion, which is why it's pointless. The only question of any real import that you raised was no. 2 and it was answered fully, along with all others that deserved an answer. Got a reliable source to counter the five that support the information so far? - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Use of term "Jewish" to describe conman character

Should the term "Jewish" be allowed to describe the conman Monty Casino character in a set of 1980 Barclay's Bank commercials? Shall the content be changed to "seen as" a Jewish character?

Background

In 1980, Peter Sellers performed in some commercials for Barclay's Bank. The commercials can be viewed here (Youtube video link removed as copyright violation. Not hosted by copyright owner). As you can see in the ads he plays a conman named "Monty Casino."

In this article, this character is described with the line, "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino." This despite the character's religion not being indicated or mentioned in the commercials.

The sources provided by three proponents who support the usage of the term "Jewish" are as follows:

• 1. The book The Life and Death of Peter Sellers by Roger Lewis states "The Jews which Sellers played on 'The Good Show were oy-vay caricatures , with names like Geraldo or Izzy; and concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank"

• 2. The Peter Evens book The Man Behind the Mask states as in relation to Sellers being condemned for playing derogatory Jewish caricatures: "A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds".

• 3. The Adrian Rigelsford book Peter Sellers: A Life in Character states "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man"

• 4. The newspaper The Northern Echo states "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino."

The users SchroCat, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld have been working extensively on this article for a long time and argue passionately for the usage of the term "Jewish." --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Survey

• Change sentence per the sources to: "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman named Monty Casino. Sellers created the Casino character which he intended to be Jewish."--Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Alternately, as per Binksternet's comment below, "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman who was observed to be Jewish named Monty Casino." --Oakshade (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is clearly a character that is not simply "intended" as Jewish but observed as Jewish by independent sources. Oakshade is wrong in thinking that outside observers brought to this RfC are going to dismiss the reliable sources and accept instead a novel formulation. This deserves a WP:TROUT for I-can't-hear-you behavior. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I actually AGREE with you. The character was "observed" as Jewish. I have no problem with the content saying the character was observed or seen as Jewish as that is what the reliable sources indicate. That was my point from the beginning and the I-can't-hear-you behavior came from a couple of users who failed to address our point despite it being described to them. As I've stated before, this isn't a black and white issue. --Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no sources describing Monty as Italian, or as a member of some non-Jewish religion, then the handful of sources saying 'Jewish' have the floor. I see no good reason why we should question Monty's observed Jewishness. Waffling the wording does not seem to be the answer. Monty is a character, after all, not a person. If people think the character is Jewish, and we can find no rebuttals or alternate theories, then that's what it is. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Hello again Binksternet, I'm not sure your logic is sound here. I've been working on a similar does-the-adjective-apply-or-not situation, elsewhere, something like this: journalists call Larry's theory a theory, and they call Larry's experiments by that term, and they call Larry a scientist. However, there are a few sources -- Nature being the more prominent -- which inserts the adjective pseudoscientific prior to theory/experiment/etc. It's not fair to discount all the reliable sources that simply call it science... but we also cannot pick winners & losers amongst the sources... so to maintain NPOV, we describe it as a theory[1][2][3] that the mainstream science journal Nature has called "psuedoscientific".

    Oakshade seems to be advocating similar language here. What do the primary sources say about the character? Do we have a script from the commercial, which calls Monty by the adjective Jewish? That says the director/screenwriter wanted the conman to be Jewish. Do we have any quotes from Sellers, saying explicitly "I was [playing] a Jewish conman"? That means Sellers interpreted the part as being a Jewish character. We have some quotes from third parties that demonstrably prove the conman was *perceived* as being Jewish, by some in the audience... but if that is all we have, then we need to be very careful, and attribute the use of Jewish to the particular people claiming "Monty was a Jewish conman" so that we do not mislead readers into assuming something untrue about the intent of the director and/or the intent of the actor.

    Robert Frost wrote a poem about winter, which many in the audience say is about death; the article on Frost's poem should explain the authorial intent, and then explain the perceived theme, as interpreted by the audience. But they *are* distinct. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Binksternet, and my comments below. We currently have a reliably sourced statement (with inline citation) in a simple, clean and correct sentence. What is proposed here is to try and undertake some form of linguistic gymnastics to a sub-standard sentence that is less simple, less elegant and more misleading than the status quo. I'm not sure why we would want to do that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. At first sight the distinction above between whether to call this an intended Jewish character or a character understood as being Jewish seems meaningful. Making such a fine distinction is commonly important for sensitive subjects like this. All the sources above are apparently only understanding the character as Jewish? (Is there any source for what Sellars actually intended?) To me it seems likely that we could tweak our wording to report this as an accusation about the intention, rather than an intention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Tweaking the wording per sources as being "observed", "seen as" or "understood as" Jewish as all I've been trying to do. Source #4 seems to indicate Sellers intended the character to be Jewish as it was reported he re-wrote the script so as the character would be Jewish. I'm not positive per the source though. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• He played the conman Monty Casino, which was condemned for being a Jewish stereotype the only reason to mention " jewish" is because of the negative reaction the caricature provoked.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• That is suitable wording. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• I agree this is suitable wording also.--Oakshade (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Agree that this is a decent rewrite, that is true to source#2, but just like the current article, it is silent on the question of intent (by the director / by Sellers / by Barclays), which is what source#4 says, and maybe source#1 (the latter is unclear to my ears). There is a big difference between prickly folks condemning a Jewish actor for daring to play a generic conman... on baseless political correctness grounds... and a Jewish actor, that rewrites the part of a generic conman to be a specifically-Jewish conman, after which said actor is then condemned for *intentionally* caricaturizing Jews. This is subtle, but it is a blame-question, and source#4 seems to pretty clearly blame Sellers for the caricature, whereas the sentence by TRPoD does not take a position. Does source#1 back up source#4? Is source#4 exceedingly reliable, for such a strong claim as they make, or is their sentence just another example of yellow/tabloid/provocative journalism? Am I making sense here? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose Veering into weasel words here and, as it stands, invites the {{who}} template to be added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe the injunction against weasel words was ever intended to be used for subjects that are truly controversial or uncertain. There are cases where treating a matter as uncertain is simply more accurate and prudent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that this is neither controversial or uncertain, and the linguistic somersaults suggested result in a suggestion that is both poor and weasels. - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as per Binksternet and SchroCat. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Need clarification as to what "Oppose" means. Binksternet agrees on TRPoD's rewrite. Do you agree with him on this?--Oakshade (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We need clarification as to what your objective is. --Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto, that's nonsensical. We're trying to gather a consensus on an option. I agree with TRPoD and Binksternet on the re-write proposal. As you wrote "Oppose per Binksternet", do you agree or disagree with Binksternet on the proposed re-write?--Oakshade (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Your persistence in forcing your POV over the sources used is nonsensical. --Cassianto^Talk 20:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Since you're refusing to answer if you agree with Binksternet on TRPoD's rewrite proposal, we can only assume you have no opinion on the matter. If you do, please share it, if not, fine.--Oakshade (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Enough please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Andrew asked above if any of the sources state the intent of Sellers, and should we trust those sources? It so, then the answer should be "yes", otherwise the "observed by XXX" would be more appropriate.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really: it's a little weasley, and how many people do you list in there? Lewis? Northern Echo? Riglesford? those who complained at the time (as per Evans)? We use in-line citations for just this reason. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If there were no controversy, the sources could indeed be used to argue for a simple statement of fact but there is controversy here, and it is not just POV: it regards a sensitive subject, and a relatively recently deceased person, and the sources are not academic secondary sources which explain their reasoning, so not particularly strong. (Strong accusations require strong sources.) Therefore policy guides us to look for way of avoiding a stalemate. So I suggested that a softening of wording is appropriate. We have good evidence of an accusation, and so we can clearly report that. No weasel words involved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

If your going to base something on "policy", perhaps you could outline which policy you refer to? This isn't an overly sensitive subject, and a 1980 death is a long way off "recent". There is also very limited evidence of "controversy" here: only Evans sort of refers to it as such. I'm also struggling to see a "strong accusation": we are not "accusing" Sellers of anything: we are reflecting what the sources say, that is all. I am still seeing horribly weasels wording on something straightforward, and something that is supported by a number of sources too. Quote me a sensible policy saying we should not reflect what the sources say in a very clear and matter-of-fact way, or show me a reliable source that questions Sellers's characterisation as being "Jewish conman Monty Casino", and you may convince me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NEUTRAL and WP:VERIFY are the policies. And this is an EXTREMELY sensitive subject and per the sources we have to get this right.--Oakshade (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense: we are adhering to both those policies. Just to make it clear, the text as it stands expresses what the sources say. It does not make any judgement or cast any aspertions in any way shape or form: that seems to be more in the mind of some readers, rather than in what has been written. This is not sensistive at all, and to try and claim it is is slightly ridiculous: we follow what the sources tell us, which is that Sellers portrayed "Jewish conman Monty Casino". Does any source—literally any source whatsoever—question those existing five sources? Does anything say, or even hint "although xxxx claims Sellers was portraying a Jewish character, this is not...blah, blah, bah? No. We have got it right according to the sources, your POV notwithstanding. - SchroCat (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems you're not familiar with the long history of antisemitism both in Britian and elsewhere and how caricatures of Jewish stereotypes like of being swindlers are hurtful (in case you think this is another POV, I'll be happy to provide you with an abundant of sources to demonstrate this). You keep in defending yourself by claiming I have some POV besides to ensure our content matches our sources. What "POV" exactly are you claiming I have?--Oakshade (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so bloody stupid! What an outrageous comment to suggest we know nothing of antisemitism. Grow up! -- Cassianto^Talk 21:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Calm down, my friend. We're trying to have a proper discussion and name calling is never helpful. SchroCat's response below was actually rather constructive. I recommend you join that trend. --Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Odd question to ask—and in such a ridiculously pointed way. I am, of course, aware of anti-Semitism in Britain, but I am not sure of the relevance here, or what it has to do with us using the information provided in five sources. Tip-toeing round the subject is not overly constructive, and neither is trying to force some form of censorship by using weasel words. Just in case you're not familiar, on several occasions in his career Sellers portrayed Jewish characters. To quote Spike Milligan, Sellers's portrayals of Jews were "less than adulatory. He never did a refined Jew; we even got lessons letters from listeners saying that The Goon Show was anti-Semitic." And let us not forget that Sellers was Jewish. (And this is before we get to looking at any of the other portrayals Sellers did that would now be shied away from for being politically incorrect). I'll repeat: we have five sources that point one way, and nothing has been put forward by anyone at all that questions those sources or puts forward any other suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also add that Sellers would give the Nazi salute to customs officers while walking through customs; the source for this is Sellers's son, Michael. (See Sellers, Michael (1981). P.S. I Love You!. Glasgow: William Collins, Sons. p. 80. ISBN 0-00-216649-6.). - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Excellent comment SchroCat! It may be the essence behind your inclusion of the "conman" sentence, which like the "salute" factoid, is totally out of context and misleading in the extreme. Sellers was a satirist and a comic, never afraid to make fun of things he despised, even in public. If you included the material surrounding the salute, along with his other off-screen and on-screen acts (ie. Dr. Strangelove's salute), it would clarify how obsessed you and your team seem to be to put Sellers in a totally and obscenely negative light from the truth, playing with his brief life as if it were a cricket ball. --Light show (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You really do spout some complete and utter bollocks WW. Your bad faith bile on this article has been a pain to anyone who has wanted to write a fair and balanced portrayal of Sellers. This article is a reflection of the sources, nothing more. If it was up to you, it would still be a very, very poor B grade hagiography with no truth to it at all. Move on and stop flogging the dead horse. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bad faith "bile" on this article has only seemingly been intended by one editor, who wrote when they first began editing it: I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. It seems to me that they succeeded in getting something "special" out of it, as this entire "conman" issue proves. --Light show (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll put this clearly so that even you may understand: there are five sources that support the current position. There are a number of editors discussing those sources and a possible alteration, and then there is you - and a complete and utter lack of sensible conversation from you, apart from more trite mud-slinging nonsense. If you can't be bothered to say anything sensible, don't bother saying anything at all - it really is too tedious to read your pointless whining over and over again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody has ever claimed those sources don't exist. This is all about those five sources (minus the un-reliable and directory listing ones) and what content should be written based on those sources. TRPoD above has put forth a very agreeable suggestion. We want the content to match the sources. Again, what POV exactly are you claiming I have? --Oakshade (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

For a start, it's not agreeable at all: too many weasel words here and, as invites the {{who}} template to be added. Secondly, the sources are clear (unless you're unable to read Lewis properly, or try and misquote him): Sellers played "Jewish conman Monty Casino". What we have in the article currently fits the sources exactly, is clear, well-written and does not mislead. Do you have a reliable source that questions Sellers's characterisation as being "Jewish conman Monty Casino"? If not, then we reflect what the articles do say: and that is what the current version reflects. - SchroCat (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Waving cherry-picked obscure sources to support a sentence means less than nothing without proper context, something studiously avoided in this example. Film critic Kenneth Tynan said, after his interview with Sellers, that one of the main "motive forces" for Sellers' ambition as an actor was "his hatred of anti-semitism." His close army friend David Lodge stated that 'there were elements of anti-Semitism expressed by some of the show's members, although not aimed at Sellers, but at others in the group: What I remember about Peter was the way he stood up for the little Jewish bloke on the receiving end of it. Another time he actually broke a chair up, very deliberately, piece by piece, to work out his aggression. (same link). Obviously Lodge is not one of the neutral editors here, but is that thunder I hear? --Light show (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous WW: there is nothing cherry picked about the source. Picking one source that claims something over a source that does not is cherry picking. As I've pointed out numerous times here, NO-ONE HAS FOUND ANY SOURCE THAT COUNTERS WHAT THE FIVE OTHER SOURCES SAY. See also the quote from Milligan above, and the Evans book. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"COUNTERS WHAT THE FIVE OTHER SOURCES SAY" (actually only 3 sources when discounting the un-reliable and directory listing ones) is just a red herring and misses the entire point of this discussion. Nobody here and no source is "countering" what these sources say. The sources are indicating the character Monty Casino was perceived as Jewish and, per The Northern Echo source, it appears Sellers intended it to be so and, per the Evens source, Sellers came under criticism for the caricature. SchroCat, you've accused me over and over again for having a POV, please inform us what exactly that supposed POV is? --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't miss the point at all: you are twisting those sources rather badly. They say that Sellers portrayed the character, not that he was perceived as playing it: that is where you are making a mistake. All this hot air and countless KB of argument because you have decided that Lewis should be read in a rather bizarre way? The sources say Sellers was "a Jewish conman, Monty Casino". They don't say he 'may have been', 'could be seen as', 'possibly construed as', or anything similar, but that he was that character. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose either alternative: The only logical and unbiased alternative would be to remove the entire sentence, as it's off-topic and irrelevant to an article bio, especially in that was never even broadcast. Other reasons, all POV of course, but fine on a talk page:

• It contradicts the general text in the source book, which highlights the fact that Sellers was noted for coming up with his own character names, and thereby implies that his using a clearly non-Jewish name like Monty Casino, shows Sellers' intent to appear as a neutral character;

• The Lewis statement, obviously cherry-picked, shows that the factoid about the TV ad is probably the least relevant aspect of Sellers' real Jewish characters in his career, and its isolated inclusion as stated in either proposal would be giving it undue emphasis. Schrocat's rationale earlier, that it was only included because it was his last acting role, is weak, since Lewis wrote many more relevant facts about Sellers' real Jewish characters, from the Goon Show on;

• That most of the proposals, debates and supporting arguments, for so minor an issue, appear to be flamebait and would best be discussed, or presented, on a stage.--Light show (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem sufficient to show that there was/is a controversy in published sources. Not to report this would mean non-neutral reporting. WP:NEUTRAL is one of the most important policies we have, and it tells us to report controversies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Commment/suggestion Given the (in)sensitivity involved by describing a conman casually as "Jewish" (presumably on no better grounds that Peter Sellers was half-Jewish), I understand why this might be an issue. I don't think we ought to censor the fact that it has been so described; but I'm surprised that the information at present is so baldly presented in the article, as this actually increases the offence by making it appear an unexceptional detail (rather like saying dog-eating Chinaman as a matter of course). Shouldn't we at least put "Jewish conman" in quote marks, immediately followed by the citations which so describe the character? Alfietucker (talk) 10:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

p.s. I posted this before realizing there were a whole stack of comments. I shall read and add further comment if appropriate. Alfietucker (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, any thoughts about this? Alfietucker (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry Alfie, I missed this one earlier. Yes, that would work - and a couple of sources can be used to reinforce the point. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my point. Should we wait to see what other editors think, or shall one of us go ahead and make the amend? Alfietucker (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd wait until at least the nominator has a say, just to make sure that there are no complaints of closing too quickly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfietucker—I think it goes beyond whether or not "Jewish conman" should be presented within quotation marks. Sources are not adequately supporting the phrase "Jewish conman" despite using that phrase. In this case there has to be a reason for viewing the character as "Jewish". The sources fail to mention why the Monty Casino character (a fictional character) should be thought of as being "Jewish". For this particular claim we should reject these sources as inadequately supporting the assertion that some are trying to put in the article. I think the sources provide inadequate support for the characterization of Monty Casino as "Jewish conman". Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I realize this is a very sensitive topic - that's why I made the suggestion as I did, even before I realized quite how much had already been posted on the issue (put it down to tiredness!). But I do see SchroCat's point, which is that it is Wikipedia policy to stay within the limits set by reputable sources - anything beyond that is WP:OR. We may personally think that there is nothing inherently "Jewish" about Sellers' performance, but to editorialise accordingly would be - as Schrocat has pointed out - a breach of WP:OR. That is why I suggested quotation marks, so it is clear that we are presenting an assessment made by the sources we have, rather than making it appear that the Wikipedia community tacitly accepts this characterization as unexceptional. Perhaps we should even mention that the portrayal was considered anti-Semitic, citing Peter Evans. Alfietucker (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I think a footnote saying that both the portrayal was considered anti-semitic (as per Evans) and was pulled by Barclays (per a couple of sources) could be added. If they are as footnotes then we deal with the issue at hand, as well as not giving too much weight within the body of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - I think that well addresses the racist issues raised while remaining strictly within the sources available. Alfietucker (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I have been vacant throughout much of this with this being the first opportunity to comment. . I think the suggestion made by Alfietucker is a fair compromise. I have stopped reading the idiotic ramblings of Light show/Wikiwatcher, so I won't even waste my time answering this. I would like to know one thing though; if the issue that this is being perceived as racism? Is it not possible for a "conman" to actually be Jewish? Can criminals not be CofE, Roman Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, Methodist, Buddhist? Why must everything be subject to political correctness? Let's not forget, this was the 1960s. Are we next going to accuse Sellers of being "disabilityist" for his depiction of Dr. Strangelove? --Cassianto^Talk 19:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Cassianto - before somebody else weighs in, just to say you have (unwittingly?) waved a red rag to several bulls. Because yes, it is a racist issue. It would have been a racist issue in the 1960s, let alone in 1980 when the ads were made. Alas, I guess there's still some people who don't get it (rather like the living British composer musing aloud recently before an audience what a pity one could not call a black person a "nigger" any more). Anyway, this is perhaps beside the point - which is that on one hand we can't stray beyond the sources without editorialising; and on the other, there is clearly enough dispute here to demonstrate that we can't take the portrayal of a "Jewish conman" as unexceptional. Hence my suggestion of using quote marks to indicate that this is how the sources represent Sellers' portrayal, and I think SchroCat's suggestion of a footnote for Evans's comment is a good one. Alfietucker (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Why have I waved a red flag? I am not being racist by suggesting that there are Jewish conmen out there. I would be very careful about suggesting otherwise. Are you and others seriously saying that making an observation that someone is both "Jewish" and a "conman", is the mutterings of someone who is racist? May I respectively observe that that is utter bollocks; it is possible to be both you know. It would however be racist for one to say that conmen are always Jewish. The source does not say this, so associating this with racism is both wrong and nonsensical. --Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's possible for a conman to be Jewish. What is also true, and the real issue, is that there is a long and inglorious line of anti-Semitic caricature where Jews are shown regularly cheating or misleading gullible goyim, so it is a very sensitive issue. And I have to agree with Bus stop is that there is nothing in the ads themselves that would identify Sellers' character as "Jewish". Our only authority for tagging the character he plays as "Jewish" is the published biographies and a couple of newspaper articles. However - for very legitimate reasons - it is Wikipedia policy that no editor can editorialise around what the sources say. The question is whether we then simply present it as a matter of fact, or allow that this is simply what the sources say. Hence my suggestion that we use quotation marks for "Jewish conman" followed immediately by citation, indicating that this description is as per the sources. Alfietucker (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Off topic, but amusing, is that you used the same phrase, "utter bollocks" an hour after SchroCat used it, a funny coincidence.--Light show (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WW, I can never remember whether it was Lincoln, Franklin or Twain that said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt", but you might be advised to take the saying on board.... - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I also used "utter bollocks" earlier when I critiqued on another's driving when I was cut up at a roundabout; what was even more coincidental WW was that I thought of your contributions to WP at the same time! --Cassianto^Talk 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose If it is correct that the commercials do not identify the character as Jewish then it should not be described here as such. There could be a mention of the sources that consider the character to be Jewish, but it should not be described that way. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• They don't identify the character as being a conman either, but that point has strangely overlooked. The reliable sources do identify the character as "Jewish conman Monty Casino", however. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—are you willing to entertain any wording other than that which is found in the article now? It doesn't have to be the wording changes suggested at the top of this Survey. Let me quote the relevant wording from the article: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank. Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265] Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems.[266][267]" I think we are especially concerned with this series of words: he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265] In light of the clamoring for change on the part of some of us, including myself, could you consider alternative wording? If so, please tell me where you see leeway for change. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already: I have indicated that Alfietucker's suggestion is a good one. It stays within policy, but adequately deals with the attribution of the description. I'm not sure why "clamouring" so vociferously should lead us to throwing out perfectly good policies? - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You refer to the "attribution of the description." I'm not sure that this description should be in the article, or that it is even the most important piece of information relevant to the general topic of the Barclays Bank advertisements. "The Northern Echo" source may provide better material relevant to the general topic of the Barclays Bank advertisements. Supposedly "The Northern Echo" source contains: "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino." My question to you, SchroCat, and to anyone else, is what more is known about the material found in "The Northern Echo" pertaining to the Barclays Bank advertisements? Bus stop (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so insistent about not having information in an article that is covered by five sources. Can you give a reason based on policy why we should censor what is there, other than simply on the basis that you don't want it there? - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The wording "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265]" is unnecessarily offensive. I'm also less concerned with an opinion of the Barclays advertisements than I am with Peter Sellers' approach to acting, which "The Northern Echo" source seems reference. You posted (at 15:51, 31 October 2013) that the material is found in "The Northern Echo, 11 March 2005, P 13". Have you seen that article? Can you post any additional wording that might come before or after the excerpt that you have posted? Is that newspaper article available online? Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not unnecessarily offensive: it's how it's presented by a number of different sources. If those sources said: "he's a conman, so he must be Jewish", then yes, that would be offensive. The current wording of the article is what is supported by those numerous sources and censorship is not the way to write a neutral text. AlfieTucker's suggestion to add quote marks around those words seem to be a sensible way to balance the personal opinion of some editors and the information provided in sources. Again, I'll ask: do you have any policy or guideline that says we need to leave out information from sources? I have read the Norther Echo article and there is nothing else of assistance in the remainder of the text. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The wording "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino" is a slur to Jews. This is just my opinion, and your_mileage_may_vary. That wording is a descriptive opinion of the Barclays advertisements. This is of interest to us. But of greater interest might be the mindset of Peter Sellers as he set out to make those ads. Therefore I am going to ask you again if you could please provide surrounding text from "The Northern Echo" article. The excerpt you've provided sounds promising because it refers to how Peter Sellers approached an acting project. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It's pointless me arguing with you any further: your intransigence over the use of policy-supported reliable sources is deeply depressing. I'm afraid that blind mindless censorship will win the day here and all on the basis of your self-admitted opinion only. - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop - have you noticed SchroCat's suggested fourth option at the bottom of this section? Alfietucker (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Alfie, I still prefer your version, which I think is stronger, but in the face of such biased and twisted intransigence, sadly censorship is the only thing that will quieten the opinion-driven, policy-rejecting minorities here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@SchroCat, I also liked your suggested elaboration on that edit re a footnote. It's a pity most people here, apart from Cassianto, have scarcely acknowledged the suggestion (though given the "noise" here that's perhaps not so surprising). Alfietucker (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

At Google News I get virtually no hits for the search term (in quotes) "Jewish conman". Doesn't this imply that standard journalistic outlets do not employ the term? Same thing at Encyclopædia Britannica. Bus stop (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bus stop - I'm afraid that doesn't prove much in this case. Remember, we are dealing with an advertising campaign that was being filmed in 1980, a time well before the internet and the on-line filing of newspaper reports which is more or less standard now. Yes, there have been some papers scanned, pre-dating 1995 or whenever it was that electronic copy began to be standard, which may be found in Google News; but I wouldn't be surprised if that didn't include pertinent press relating to Sellers' portraying in the Barclays ads. And, of course, it's hardly surprising that the term "Jewish conman" is vanishingly rare in today's press. Alfietucker (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is "vanishingly rare in today's press" because it is offensive. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're getting confused as to what "Oppose" and "Support" or other !vote terms in this survey means. When gauging consensus, we'll have to look into detail as to what the editor wrote rather than the !vote lead wording.--Oakshade (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As a fourth suggestions I'll offer the following: it's not a step I particularly like or want to take, but as a vociferous minority are clamouring for censorship, and as life is way too short to battle against such intransigence that flies in the face of all our policies and guidelines just on their own personal whims, will the following satisfy people:

"Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements filmed in April 1980 in Ireland for Barclays Bank. Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems."

Hopefully this will put an end to this farcical situation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nobody here "clamouring for censorship" or, with the exception of one user, the omission of the word "Jewish." There's just debate on how that characterization is presented in this article per the available sources.--Oakshade (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Jewish The word Jewish seems to give undue weight to the issue and should be dropped. Note that the article doesn't seem to say that Clouseau was French or that Fu-Manchu was Chinese. Having watched the commercials, the accent does seem a bit Jewish but the caricature is not as blatant as Beattie, say. What's more important is that the character is clearly a wide boy in the style of Arthur Daley or Del Boy. And the pun Monty Casino is really quite clever, IMO, and should not be overshadowed by the ethnic issue. Warden (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Due weight has no relevance here because no point is being made. Sellers just chose to play the character as a Jew. Nobody is trying to make a point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• If there's no point to it then we can do without the information. Per WP:SIZE, the article is too large and so we should prune such otiose trivia. Warden (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the size of Wikipedia has to do with things. Do you mean to refer to WP:LENGTH? If so, then please note the Content removal section: "Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length". At 58 kB of "readable prose size", this is hardly a monsterously over-sized article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Why mention he was a conman? Why mention the ad at all? Because we are writing an encyclopedia and these are facts about the subject. Maybe Wikimedia needs more money but I doubt one extra word will push them into bankruptcy.

More to the point, what is the reason you do not want this one word in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Because, as stated, it gives undue weight to the issue. This was a minor part. The characterisation and accent were quite insignificant when compared with other roles played by Sellers. For example, there's his "Goodness Gracious Me" portrayal of an Indian or his mangling of English when playing Clouseau. The article seems to say little about these but those caricatures were more significant and controversial. Warden (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Survey summary

Hatting misleading and one-sided unnecessary "summary": leave this to an uninvolved admin. rather than twisting to your own opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchroCat (talk • contribs)

It's been about a week since this RfC began and the discussion is getting exhausting so I hope there's an end soon. There does not seem to be a consensus on a specific wording, but perhaps there does seem to be one on the desire for a re-write of the line. Perhaps a compromise can be reached. If I've misrepresented what your preference is, please let me know and I will correct it immediately. Here's what we have... User:TheRedPenOfDoom's proposal: "He played the conman Monty Casino, which was condemned for being a Jewish stereotype." Appears to be accepted by TRPoD, Binksternet and myself and seemingly User:Elmmapleoakpine per their comments in the survey above (See Elmmapleoakpine's full quote below). 74.192.84.101 (an established user) feels it's a "decent rewrite" but is concerned it's silent on Sellers' intent. User:Alfietucker's proposal of preserving the wording but to "put 'Jewish conman' in quote marks, immediately followed by the citations which so describe the character." Appears to be accepted by Alfietucker and SchroCat (for SchroCat it's second preference over no change). User:SchroCat's proposal: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements filmed in April 1980 in Ireland for Barclays Bank. Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems." So far appears to be supported by SchroCat, but the proposal was recent and perhaps others might weigh in. User:Light show's proposal of Removing all mention of the commercials. This is advocated by User:Light show. User:Two kinds of pork's proposal to change line to "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman, Monty Casino who was observed as Jewish by [XXX]." This appears accepted by User:Two kinds of pork and Andrew Lancaster. No change. As far as we can tell, this appears to be the preference of Cassianto, Martin Hogbin and DR. BLOFELD. Per below SchroCat would prefer this but AlfieTucker's proposal is his second choice. Having trouble gauging User:Bus stop's preference although he seems to favor a changing in the wording in general per their comments. [5][6] AMENDMENT: User:Bus stop's proposal: "Sellers' final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank filmed in April 1980, directed by Joseph McGrath, in which con man "Monty Casino" attempts to bilk the unwary. Only three of an intended four advertisements were completed due to Sellers' worsening health." So far appears to be supported by Bus stop, but like SchroCat's proposal above, it's new and perhaps others might weigh in. User:Elmmapleoakpine seems in favor of removing the description of "Jewish". Full quote of Elmmapleoakpine's statement is "If it is correct that the commercials do not identify the character as Jewish then it should not be described here as such. There could be a mention of the sources that consider the character to be Jewish, but it should not be described that way." Elmmapleoakpine did not explicitly express which alternative they'd prefer. --Oakshade (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC) There is a reason that uninvolved admins tend to be the ones who do this and i suggest that is exactly what we do here too. 74.192.84.101 made a comment on RedPen's suggestion: he did not indicate his support and I think it best to wait for him to clarify his position before trying to allot him an opinion he does not have. My own preference is to leave the current wording alone, although AlfieTucker's suggestion is a very close second to that . - SchroCat (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Changed per these comments. --Oakshade (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC) If you are intent on summarising, either put all comments (as you have with the IP), or the uncommented supports (as you have with everyone else). To try and vote stack in this way will bring accusations of deliberately misleading or skewing the comments of others. I'd also add that trying to shoehorn an editors opinion (whether it be the IP or Elmmapleoakpine) without them actually indicating their opinion really isn't helpful. Elmmapleoakpine has opposed one form of words, he has not indicated which one he does prefer, so please do not assign an opinion to him until he clarifies his position. Even better, leave the discussion to be summarised by an uninvolved admin once the discussion has run it's course; the default duration is 30 days. Furthermore you have misrepresented what AlfieTucker and I have agreed on: not just the use of quote marks, but also a footnote to highlight the opposition to the portrayal and it's withdrawal shortly afterwards, on Sellers's death. Can I suggest you withdraw all you have written above? It seems to muddy more waters than it clarifies. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC) I agree with SchroCat that we should allow an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus and close the discussion. I can see no sign of a consensus to change the wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC) With 10 14 15 editors weighing in and only 4 want the current wording preserved, that's not even close to a consensus. I agree that an uninvolved administrator or administrators should assess all of this and hopefully form a compromise. --Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC) And no real consensus for a change, either. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC) There's definitely a consensus for change, it's just what the exact wording should be changed to is up in the air since there are several proposals and multiple different users with different wording preferences. --Oakshade (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Not enough at the moment, I'm afraid. As you don't seem to understand how this all works, perhaps your little misleading summaries could be put on hold for another three weeks, at which point an uninvolved editor or admin will look over it properly, and without the inherent bias you are brining to the situation. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Only 4 out of 14 15 advocating keeping the current wording is not enough to keep the wording. I'm very familiar with our policy WP:CONSENSUS, thank you.--Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC) Can we please just wait until this RfC is closed by the normal process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade is correct (at 00:27, 9 November 2013) that I am in "favor a changing in the wording in general". Please give me some time to formulate suggested wording and an explanation for my proposed changes. Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The present wording contains incorrect information or at least highly misleading information. The fictional character "Monty Casino" is not a "Jewish conman" despite being "reliably" sourced as "Jewish" by Roger Lewis in his 1997 biography called "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers". It is meaningless to say that a fictional character is "Jewish" if there are no indications of "Jewishness" to be found in the final production. It is possible that Sellers had in mind his conception of what a Jewish con man might be when acting the part. A source, "The Northern Echo", may be suggesting this. The advertisements for Barclays Bank are viewable on YouTube by using the search terms "Peter Sellers Barclays Commercials". If the character "Monty Casino" were "Jewish", I think it is self-evident that there would be indications of "Jewishness" to be found in the Monty Casino character. But that is not the case. (One editor on this Talk page hearing a "London Jewish accent" in the voice of the character would not in my opinion justify claiming that this is a "Jewish conman".) A source can be flawed and this is an example of a problematic source. This source does not suggest any reason for considering this character "Jewish". The wording presently in the article is misleading and should be changed. We have another biography, "Mr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers", by Ed Sikov, published in 2003, which covers the Monty Casino/Barclays Bank advertisements. In that account there is no mention of Jewishness. With the Ed Sikov biography as support I suggest the following wording:

"Sellers' final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank filmed in April 1980, directed by Joseph McGrath, in which con man "Monty Casino" attempts to bilk the unwary. Only three of an intended four advertisements were completed due to Sellers' declining health."

The Ed Sikov source can be found here. Bus stop (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

That Barclay's Bank would actually make ads describing a derogatory character as "Jewish" is quite an extraordinary claim and per our policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I wrote a detailed analysis of the sources above in the section Analysis of sources regarding the Barclay's Bank ad character Monty Casino being "Jewish", but I'll give a summery here.

• Source 1 by a tabloid writer does not say the character was Jewish, but that he was "to be seen as a Jewish conman". There's a big difference.
• Source 2 again does not state the character was Jewish but states Sellers was attacked as being anti-Semetic.
• Source 3 was written by Adrian Rigelsford who is not a reliable source as he has a history of publishing non-truths and being caught as such.
• Source 4 seems accurate as to Sellers intent on the character Monty Casino and this intent on Sellers part should be in the article as a reliable source states so.

Additionally, (removal of copyright infringing link) give zero indication of the character Monty Casino's religion. Sources simply using the word "Jewish" do not suffice as a source that supports the statement that the character "Monty Casino" is Jewish, just that Sellers intended the character to be so. If Barclay's Bank is accused of producing a commercial with the use of a derogatory character based on their religion, whether it be Jewish or anything else, the sources need to be exceptional but in this care are not.--Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagree that the Lewis source *definitely* says that Sellers was "seen" as a Jewish conman... i.e. that the *audience* interpreted him as Jewish. The other way to read Lewis, and methinks more natural, is that he's saying that Sellers-would-be-seen-on-the-television-screen, which is the literal-seen (using eyeballs to see pixels), not the metaphorical-seen (using mind to interpret the commercial's meaning/intent). So can we use Lewis as a source? Well, unclear to me, see my comment below. Can somebody paste the fore-and-after-paragraphs-on-both-sides of the quoted sentence from the Lewis book, please? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

See here for the Lewis text. Probably best you read it yourself, Oakshade tends to misquote. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How tiresome: I see that WP:ICANTHEARYOU is still the modes operandi her. I also see you've also managed to miss out the fifth source and also ignored all the points made by others above, as well as cram in some rather misleading points here: (Lewis a "tabloid journalist"? Really? That's just blatantly untrue). You're "comprehension" of what Lewis has written is also deeply suspect: he was seen on television: details of the character follow that statement. To suggest otherwise is a failure to read English properly. The rest of your "analysis" on the other points is also questionable and/or ridiculous. This just boils down to the fact that you cannot accept that your POV is utterly knocked into the gutter by five reliable sources. You have provided no reliable sources that counter those sources, with the exception of your own POV. - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As from the beginning, I won't respond to this user's personal attacks he lashes out at those who disagree with him and keep the discussion on focus from my end. Just so everyone knows what SchroCat 5th "source" is, it's this Advertising Archives directory listing with the keyword "Jewish" somewhere near the bottom.--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no personal attack, so stop trying to deflect the argument away from your rather misleading portrayal of the facts. You have not been fully open or straight with the framing of the original information - including missing off one of the sources until it was pointed out to you. Even when you did finally include the source, you blithely refer to "the keyword "Jewish" somewhere near the bottom". More properly - if you could be straight with sources for a moment - is from the Advertising Archives, which shows the General keywords, which includes: "Jewish", or "All keywords, which includes: "Jews" and "Judaism", which is a slightly stronger showing than it being "somewhere near the bottom". - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about intent: This thread is too long, so can someone copy-paste the proof or source that claims what Sellers intended, and how they knew? Also, IMO, that Barclays "keyword" rationale seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel and would not be a RS. --Light show (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see a sentence-fragment from a source that gives the intent of Sellers (how he intended to portray the character), the intent of the director-and-or-screenwriter (how they described the character to Sellers ... preferably a primary source straight from the original/final script). I seriously doubt there is a sentence-fragment in any source that proves *Barclays* requested specifically a "Jewish conman" for their commercials, but if there is... citation needed. Regardless of whether the quotes substantiating intent on the part of director/actor/backer exist or not, there is the question of perception, how the audience *saw* the character, and *interpreted* the commercials. We have reasonable proof at least some reliable sources saw Monty as Jewish, and thus we can say so in wikipedia, but condensing it down to "Jewish conman" with no clarification whatsoever seems pretty wrong, given the sources presented so far. The Lewis source implies -- but does not explictly say in so many words -- that 'Sellers [intended to] play a Jewish conman' ... which suggests intent by actor, and possibly intent by director-slash-screenwriter ... but there *is* another way to interpret what Lewis says. Sellers himself is Jewish, correct? That's what wikipedia currently says, with the quote about inheriting his faith from his mother. So is Lewis specifically talking about Sellers intending to *portray* Jews-in-general a specific way, or is he perhaps just talking about when Sellers 'acted naturally' in the literal sense of the phrase (as opposed to Doctor Strangelove who cannot be considered 'natural' under any sense of that term).

    Anyways, TLDR, I am with Light_show, intent is the key here, and we need very-explicit very-reliable sources that clearly show exactly whose intent, if we want the current wording to stick: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank. Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265]" Who says *Sellers* intended to portray a specifically-Jewish (as opposed to naturally-Jewish-by-default-since-Sellers-was-Jewish) conman? Who says *Barclays* asked for a series of commercials with a specifically-Jewish conman, as opposed to a specifically-Peter-Sellers commercial? The NorthernEcho seems to flat out say "it" (Barclays?) paid for Sellers to be a generic British spiv, and Sellers specifically decided to be a specifically-Jewish conman instead... but I've never heard of the paper. Wikipedia says they are "one of the top fifteen newspapers in their sub-region of the UK" which does not help me. Are they like the National Enquirer? The New York Post? The New York Times? Is that the *best* source we have, that is reasonably specific about whose intent led to what? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade, can you tell where the personal attack is in SchroCat's above post? Or is this another example of seeing what you want to see and ignoring what is actually there? --Cassianto^Talk 00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please keep on topic and discuss the actual issues of the content, sources and POV. As from the beginning I refuse to engage in mudslinging matches and only focus on the improving this article. I would advise everyone on this board to start doing the same. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And you stop accusing others making personal attacks when its clear that they have done no such thing. --Cassianto^Talk 01:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"failure to read English" is a personal attack. Please focus on the article content, sources and POV. If you disagree with someone, discuss what you disagree with and not attack their character. Just discuss the article and restrain from the insults.--Oakshade (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop being so bloody precious and take on board the advice I am offering you. Please stop assuming incivility in others and stop throwing wild accusations around like confetti. If one were to conduct themselves in an adult-like manner, then one would receive adult-like answers. If one behaves like a petulant child, then one should expect to be met with the same behaviour. Its simple; if you were to stop making these unfounded accusations, then these spin-off threads wouldn't occur and you will get answers to your questions. You have been told many, many times that unless you provide a decent, reliable source which says contrary to what is currently in the article, we would have no hesitation in honouring your request. The fact is you haven't, so nothing changes. Now please, for gods sake move on. -- Cassianto^Talk.

Not a "wild accusation" as he really did say "failure to read English". As for sources saying the character Monty Casino is not Jewish, it's impossible to prove a negative. No source is going to say "Monty Casino is not Jewish." My point has been from the beginning is that per the reliable sources, the character is only "seen as" or, as Binksternet pointed out above, "observed as" Jewish. This isn't personal POV but by the actual sources. It's fine that the content says the character was "observed" as Jewish per the sources. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not such a wild accusation when one starts looking at the evidence that's in front of us, and the increasingly bizarre way you have of "interpreting" what is written in plain English in front of you. Shall we try and examine the sources properly, without the slurs you seem intent on introducing?

Roger Lewis
Rather disingenuous and misleading to try and dismiss him as a "tabloid journalist". He's a respected author and biographer whose biographies include:

• Lewis, Roger (2010). Growing Up with Comedians. London: Century. ISBN 978-1-84413-808-1.
• Lewis, Roger (2009). Seasonal Suicide Notes: My Life as it is Lived. London: Short Books. ISBN 978-1-907595-00-4.
• Lewis, Roger (2007). The Real Life of Laurence Olivier. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 978-0-09-951366-7.
• Lewis, Roger (2003). Anthony Burgess. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-21721-2.
• Lewis, Roger (2002). Charles Hawtrey 1914-1988: The Man Who Was Private Widdle. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-21089-3.
• Lewis, Roger (1995). The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 978-0-09-974700-0. 1108 pages.

Now we've established he's more of a reliable source than your POV, let's examine what he wrote, your poor "examination" to one side: "concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank". I'm not quite sure how (or heaven forbid, why) you try to wheedle around this: he was on television and it was as "Jewish conman Monty Casino". End of story and no matter how many linguistic somersaults you try it goes contrary to what you are trying to force into the article.

Evans
You say "again does not state the character was Jewish but states Sellers was attacked as being anti-Semetic." Could I ask on what other grounds, apart from a Jewish one, he could have been attacked as being anti-Semetic? Even given the low level of your other arguments, this is rather paper thin. Was he accused of it for portraying a Frenchman? A Hindi? A Scotsman? A Christian? Good grief!

Rigelsford
Despite your assertions to the contrary, Riglesford can still be used, but only with care, I think. The academic (rather than criminal) charges against him were that he invented quotes, which is not the case here. The books used is a listing one, rather than a full biography, and, from memory, refers to the "Jewish conman Monty Casino".

Northern Echo
Even you have managed to admit that this is reliable.

Advertising Archives
Again, a description (in the keywords) about the ads being connected or related to, "Jewish", "Jews" and "Judaism". This certainly isn't enough on its own (although it's difficult to see what else it is referring to), but as a fifth source, it suffices to reinforce. On its own, it's certainly stronger than your POV.

I don't know how much hot air and kb of needless debate has gone on here, but trying to argue against five sources with nothing more than your own POV to back you up is tiresome in the least. Your inability to read what the reliable sources have provided is ridiculous and not once have you even bothered to discuss the refutations of your arguments in the lengthy thread above. Your endless stance of ICANTHEARYOU appears to be based on nothing more than an IDONTLIKEIT attitude towards one minor word. I am, after having to put up with your intransigence, running out of GF, but still have enough to suggest that you gracefully swallow your pride and withdraw the RfC: no-one will think any the worse of you if you do take such a magnanimous step. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, you've completely missed the point. This is where your WP:ICANTHEARYOU has being playing out since the beginning of this discussion. The sources, including the Lewis source, say the character was "seen as" Jewish. That's a huge difference than he "is" Jewish. That's per the sources. Adrian Rigelsford is not a reliable source. And no, "keywords" in a cryptic Advertising Archives out-of-context directory listing is not a reliable source either. You seem confident this RfC will result in no change of the wording so we'll let it play out and let wide consensus decide. --Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I've missed no point at all: you have misread Lewis, that is all. Which source specifically uses the phrase "seen as", or are you twisting the Lewis quote? - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

There are two readings to the Lewis-quote, the literal-seen-as (eyeballs watching teevee pixels) and the metaphorical-seen-as (audience intrepreting the character). Oakshade is seeing the latter, which does not seem the natural reading to me, which is why I'm interested in the fore-and-after-paragraphs. If the section is talking about audience perceptions, then Oakshade likely has a point. If not, then it just means Oakshade is mistaken about what Lewis meant. The prose is not very clear; some people say Lewis might not win the Nobel Prize For Clarity in any of his many books. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"SchroCat wrote: Could I ask on what other grounds, apart from a Jewish one, he could have been attacked..." Well, that seems like an obvious question, but it is not. Because of the fact that Sellers is Jewish, personally, himself. He *could* have been attacked for 1) being Jewish personally and 2) accepting a role playing the part of a conman. This is a *stupid* attack, but of course, not unheard of; I can dig up some historical examples of similar things, if the concept that such an attack is conceivable, seems unlikely to anybody. On the other hand, he *could* have been attacked for 1) being Jewish personally and 2) accepting a role playing the part of a generic conman then 3) rewriting that role at the last second to be a specifically-Jewish conman which 4) purposely caricaturized Jews. *That* seems to be the attack that source#4 is making... which is a very serious attack to my ears. Am I misreading something here? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a lot said by Peter Sellers about this. Supposedly a newspaper The Northern Echo reports: "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino." I would like to ask which of the editors among us has seen that? Or is it available online? What more is known about the article found in "The Northern Echo"? Is there a journalist's name associated with that? What surrounding text is there? Ideally, I would like to read the whole article, because Peter Sellers' thoughts matter, and an opinion of a biographer or other commentator might matter less, unless that writer is basing their information on information provided by Peter Sellers, concerning the fictional character in the advertisements. The advertisements themselves provide no indication that the "Monty Casino" character is intended to be "Jewish". There would be no way to deduce this from advertisements themselves. Does anyone have any more information about that article found in "The Northern Echo" especially the surrounding text, or does anyone have any other source in which Peter Sellers comments on this? Bus stop (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I am gobsmacked at how this generated such a massive discussion..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the change. I cannot see the problem. There are several stereotypical images of Jews but Jews are not stereotypically regarded as conmen. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at our own sourced Stereotypes of Jews article and you'll see Jews have been stereotypically regarded as "crooked", "dishonest", "manipulative" "greedy", "scheming"and "shady."--Oakshade (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

But not conmen. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's just skating around the obvious as those are obvious traits of con men. If you want specifically the word "conmen" sources in relations to Jewish people, it only takes a few seconds of googling to find that. [7]. You can also easily find the synonym "swindler" as a Jewish stereotype. [8]--Oakshade (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of synthesis there! - SchroCat (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the term 'conman' is not a very accurate description of the character; 'spiv' would, in my opinion, be a better term. This is more stereotypical of an English (often cockney) person, see Private Joe Walker for example. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be changing the subject there from the claim that Jews have not been been stereotypically regarded as conmen. Without a source explaining otherwise, just by watching the ads people might not have the term "Jewish" come to mind and, as you say, think more like a "spiv" or East London Private Joe Walker-like with no thought of religion whatsoever. That the article currently describes a derogatory character as "Jewish", as Alfietucker above indicates, so casually gives pause to those who might see the character as you have. --Oakshade (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade, more to the point, do you agree with Alfie's suggested remedy to the sentence? Perhaps you could discuss his suggestion in the Survey? - SchroCat (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Just by having "Jewish" in quotes seems a little weaselly and leaves a lot of ambiguity as to what the quotes mean. As with several other editors, I'm partial to TRPoD suggestion but I am glad this suggestion which seems to have some acceptance by users who previously didn't want any change doesn't use the term "Jewish" so casually. --Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Oakshade I don't think it's "weaselly" to put "Jewish conman" in quotes if we put the citations which so describe the character right next to the quote - i.e. we then immediately attribute the source of that description. Alfietucker (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD's version is horribly weaselly, and a much less easy structure of sentence to read smoothly too. Such linguistic twisting always jars. This version isn't weaselly: it separates the phrase into a closely cited phrase and the introduction of a footnote will add the fact about accusations of anti-semitism. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a fictional character. The reason that the character is seen as Jewish is very important. No source is providing a reason why the Monty Casino character should be seen as Jewish. At best we should be saying that a biographer named Roger Lewis in "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" opines that the character is "Jewish". We should definitely not be using wording like the article presently uses such as: "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino." As this is a fictional character (Monty Casino) it is important to the reader to know by what means Jewishness was creatively established and conveyed to the viewer. The product (the advertisement) is the result of not only the actor Peter Sellers but other actors as well. There are costumes involved. There were scriptwriters. There were advertisement designers. This is the product of an ad agency. What leads the writer Roger Lewis to think that the character Monty Casino is Jewish? Roger Lewis's reason(s) are important. But Roger Lewis provides no reasons. We should not be blithely and casually aping Roger Lewis's words "Jewish conman" as if there is no problem with the Roger Lewis source. That source happens to be highly problematic in support of the article's present assertion. It would not support the statement: "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino". As a fictional character, we would want to know the reason the character is perceived by the source as being Jewish. This important piece of information is missing from that source, rendering that source weak for the material it is intending to support in the article's present configuration. Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but you appear to be "talking past" the suggestion I've made, which is to put "Jewish conman" in quotation marks and put citations immediately next to it. Certain editors even call such use of quote marks "scare quotes", which is not my intention, but it does indicate that we're presenting an opinion rather than a fact which needs no such highlighting. Doesn't that make sense? And do bear in mind we can't invent sources which don't exist. Alfietucker (talk) 22:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't need reasons if none can be found. We represent the sources available, that is what WP:VERIFIABILITY is all about! and I suggest you take some time to familiarise yourself with it. It can be summarised so: "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". We have that ans have five sources that support that, not just Lewis. By putting the "Jewish conman" in quotation marks we are attributing this to specific sources; this is in line with policy (as opposed to the more flexible guidelines). To try and 'read into' the sources as to reasons behind things is to editorialise the situation and bring other agendas to bear where they are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

While verifiability is the minimum threshold, it is not the only concern.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.

I have not seen that anyone has identified what exactly is improved by the use of a derogatory stereotype. "Its in the sources!!!!!" is not very convincing as to why we would want a reader to know such a trivial detail.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

RPoD, I think are confusing a simple statement about a fictional character with an attack in a group of people. The article does not make any statement along the lines that all Jews are conmen, it simply states the well sourced fact that Sellers played a spiv/conman as a Jew. What if the character had been played as a Welshmen, Upper class Englishman, or Geordie? Would we be forbidden from stating that too? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

if the caricature plays into ethnic /racial stereotypes without providing any value to the reader, absolutely we would NOT include it just to include it. What is the value to the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, even if the character played an offensive ethnic/religious stereotype we should state that fact, but we should add criticism of the decision to play that character (as supported by sources). Secondly, in the UK at least, conmen are not stereotypically cast as Jews but usually played as smooth-talking upper class English, for example by actor Leslie Philips or the Sellers character Hercules Grytpype-Thynne. Sellers was having a bit of fun by playing the character as a Jew, must we censor that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, What is the value to the article? Without you providing any value proposition, your case boils down to "Its in the sources!!!!! which is WP:V clarified in the policy that merely being verifiable is NOT a guarantee of inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with 'played a Jewish conman'

What exactly is the problem with writing 'played a Jewish conman'?

Are editors saying that we should never mention the ethnicity/religion of fictional characters? Can we ever say. 'played a Welshman', 'played a Roman Catholic'.

Is it only when there is also a negative characteristic involved that we must not mention the ethnicity/religion of fictional characters? For example, must we not say, 'he played a Rastaferian bank robber' or 'he played a Spanish jewel thief', or 'he played a bad tempered Belgian'.

It there some special reason why 'Jewish' and 'conman' should not go together in WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Yes there is. Doc talk 09:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess you mean that there is some special reason why 'Jewish' and 'conman' should not go together. What is the reason? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I answered that point (from another poster) here. Alfietucker (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I also answered that point above. Firstly, in the UK the character played by Sellers would more likely be referred to as a Spiv rather than as a conman (although maybe we have to use the word 'conman' here because we have a source for that). A spiv would stereotypically be played by a cockney English person along the lines of Private Joe Walker. Conmen are stereotypically portrayed as smooth-talking upper class English, for example by actor Leslie Philips or the Sellers character Hercules Grytpype-Thynne. Playing a conman/spiv as a Jew is as much a matter of comic juxtaposition as it is of stereotyping. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

While I agree (as also stated above), the character comes across more a East London "spiv" and it might be surprising to those who watch the commercials that the character is described as a specific religion, he's definitely conning in the ads; the point of the ads being don't fall for swindlers/conmen handling your money, leave that to honest Barclay's Bank. (I recall coming across a source that made the very same description of the commercials but I forgot where.)--Oakshade (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the character is a bad person but he is not stereotypically Jewish. British swindlers are stereotypically smooth-talking upper class English, for example actor Leslie Philips or the Sellers character Hercules Grytpype-Thynne. Sellers chose to make the character a Jew for a bit of fun, and possibly because he was one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's a different answer. If one wanted to get hysterical, perhaps it could be said that an organization like the Anti-Defamation League might get offended, theoretically. But I think they are quite open-minded to the fact that con-men/women come in every race and religion, all throughout history. Doc talk 10:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is it wrong Doc to link the two? See my earlier post about it not being impossible that Jewish people can in fact be conmen. Wikipedia should not be censored but should adopt a neutral tone. The sources we are using are entirely neutral; it's others who are perceiving them not to be. -- Cassianto^Talk 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto—there are several problems here. We can't just address one problem and not the others. In this instance the article is saying "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265]" Despite the claims that there are "5 sources" I think that assertion is poorly sourced. I understand the argument that the exact phrase "Jewish conman" is found in one or more sources. But that is not sufficient in our instance. The reason is that Monty Casino is a fictional character. Anyone can look at the 3 ads on YouTube under the search term "Peter Sellers Barclays Commercials" and see that there is are no indications of Jewishness for the Monty Casino character. Fictional characters must be associated with cues or they are not "Jewish". There is no source for any cue for Jewishness concerning the Monty Casino character. That is no surprise—I don't think Barclay's Bank is going to produce an ad that likely would be perceived as being antisemitic. (That alone should raise some red flags concerning our article's assertion.) In the case of a real (not fictional) person, there is much less dependance on "cues". A reliable source simply saying someone (a real person) is Jewish may be good enough for our purposes. Before anyone jumps on that last statement and directs me to the Who is a Jew? article, allow me to concede that the question can in some circumstances be subject to additional considerations. But I will state almost emphatically that in the case of a fictional character there is a heavy dependance on the cues supplied by the creator(s) of that character. In this case it is an advertising agency which has created a complicated video containing countless pieces of information—none of which associate "Jewishness" with "Monty Casino". A source such as biographer Roger Lewis may feel that the fictional character is Jewish, but if Roger Lewis omits mention of a reason to think that the fictional character Monty Casino is Jewish, I don't think we have a source that connects the attribute of "Jewishness" to Monty Casino. What we have instead is an opinion voiced in an offhanded way. A key piece of information is missing from the Roger Lewis musings. Roger Lewis does not mention why we should think "Monty Casino" is Jewish. And any of us can look at the ads and see for ourselves that there are no cues that the Monty Casino character is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"that assertion is essentially unsourced"? Absolute nonsense and if you can't take an objective view on the fact that the sources are there to back up the statement, then there is little left to discuss, as you are obviously not going to agree with any normal reading of Wiki policies. The sources are sufficient as far as Wikipedia's policy on WP:VERIFIABILITY goes, and to try and go into some form denial about that verifiability does no-one any good whatsoever. Anything about what you can and cannot see is immaterial: it's editorialising, OR and POV and means absolutely nothing as far as any Wiki policy goes. Have you got any sources which deny, bring into question or doubt what the sources say? No, you haven't and your obstructive and intransigent behaviour here is unhelpful. - SchroCat (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—even if I were to concede that reliable sourcing supports the assertion presently in our article, we do not have to include in our article everything that is reliably sourced. A fictional character requires a reason to be considered "Jewish". Do you have a source providing a reason that we should consider Monty Casino "Jewish"? No, you don't. What you have is an offhand opinion. What is that opinion based on? We don't know. Roger Lewis is not telling us why Monty Casino is Jewish. Should we repeat a questionable claim such as this in our article? I don't think so. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"Despite much ballyhooing about '5 sources', that assertion is essentially unsourced. I understand the argument that the exact phrase 'Jewish conman' is found in one or more sources. But that is not sufficient in our instance." -- Yes it is, the phrase is used in a source, that is good enough for me and should be good enough for the project. I can't quite see the assertion that if Youtube makes no mention of "Jewish" then that out-trumps the sources we have. Youtube is not reliable, so cannot be used. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the sources are perfectly good. I know of no WP policy requiring 'cues' for fictional characters. I would also assert that most Londoners would recognise Sellers' London Jewish accent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin—no source mentions an accent. Bus stop (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And no-one has suggested that should go in the article. Given the fact the he can hear the accent, and you can't hear it, I think there is the lesson in why we stick only to the sources, and not to OR or POV. The difference here is that Martin has happily admitted his thoughts are unusable OR, while you still seem to be labouring under the opinion that your POV trumps the reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—just because something is reliably sourced is not sufficient reason that it has to go in an article. In this instance we know that no source provides a reason to believe that a fictional character is Jewish. Are you arguing that important information be included in the article? Or are you arguing that insubstantial information be included in the article? Again: we know that no reason has been provided by reliable sources that the character is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"no source provides a reason to believe that a fictional character is Jewish." Can you point me to any policy, guideline or practice that says we have to have reasons for why a character is portrayed in a certain way? If not, then provide a source that questions the portrayal? If not, then drop the stick and step away from the horse's carcass. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—you are failing to distinguish between real people and fictional people. What is the difference? A real person by-and-large need not have any obvious indication of identity. But the indication of identity is crucial concerning fictional characters. They are created entities. They do not really have any identity at all, other than the composite aspects of identity given to them by the folks putting together the presentation which in this case is a video containing sound and visuals and intended to advertise Barclay's Bank. The fictional character has no inherent identity. Our use of reliable sources should follow the distinctions between identities claimed for real people and claims of identity for fictional people. This may not be necessary in all cases, but this is called for in the instance concerning "Monty Casino". Roger Lewis, the biographer, did not provide a reason for his thinking that Monty Casino was Jewish and that has bearing on how we use that source. It can be used to show that in Roger Lewis's opinion the character is Jewish. But no, I don't think the Roger Lewis source supports the unambiguous statement presently found in the article: "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino." We can't overlook a distinction applicable here. That is between fictional entities and real people. Bus stop (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, thee is no policy, guideline or practice that suggests we follow what you want us to do, which would certainly be a new pathway. I tell you what, go to the MOS, discuss and get community consensus about this point and maybe it can be taken on board. Until then, we go by what policy advises us to do, which is to stick to the sources: something you are singularly failing to do. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"just because something is reliably sourced is not sufficient reason that it has to go in an article." – maybe not, but it was pertinent as inasmuch it was a description given by the author of the character of who he was speaking of. It is not for us to say if that description was right or wrong, it is for us to digest what has been said and for us to draw our own visual interpretations as to what that the character was like. We are not writing for lemmings here, we are writing for people who are able to make their own bloody mind up about things. Please provide a counter source to say otherwise, or leave it and walk away. --Cassianto^Talk 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto—The character is clearly a villain. All agree about that. But is this fictional character depicted to be a Jew? I don't think we should take a nonchalant stance on that question. I think that our article should have a source which tells the reader what is found in the Barclay's Bank advertisements that suggests to the viewer that the Monty Casino character is Jewish. That factor should also be mentioned in the article. For instance, if it is a "Jewish accent" that clues the viewer in to knowing that Monty Casino is Jewish, that should be mentioned in our article. But that substantial information cannot be provided to the reader in our article because no source is providing us with a reason to understand "Monty Casino" as a "Jewish" character. The ads themselves do not suggest the character is "Jewish". Our article is not accurately describing the advertisements. We need sources telling us that the Barclay's Bank advertisements employ indications of Jewishness for the Monty Casino character. Sources fail to say why Monty Casino should be considered "Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

FFS, whether the character is depicted to be a Jew is irrelevant. The source describes him as being Jewish that is good enough. Why are you reading so much into this. Quit with all this political correctness bullshite and show us a source that says contrary. --Cassianto^Talk 21:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And they don't have to say why either, unless you provide a policy or guideline that states we have to. Again, we're back to trying to censor something against the sources, based on what exactly? Your POV, and nothing else. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—what leads Roger Lewis to believe "Monty Casino" is Jewish? What would lead anyone to believe the Monty Casino character was Jewish? There is nothing. Have you looked at the ads? They are available on YouTube. Just use the search terms "Peter Sellers Barclays Commercials". The statement in our article reading: "he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino" should be followed by a source which tells the reader why the Monty Casino character is considered Jewish. If it is a "Jewish accent" then that should not only be indicated by the source but that piece of information should be included in our article. This is not insignificant information. There is a piece of significant information which is conspicuously absent. Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter what leads Lewis to believe it: he is one of five sources that make the connection. We are reflecting those sources, as per policy. We are not commenting on them, as per policy. Your POV leads you to think the character is not Jewish. That's all well and good for you. Another editor has said he does think the character is Jewish. It does not matter what either of you think about the character (and the other editor has happily indicated that his opinion is OR). We do not need to state why the character is considered Jewish: that is just inventing new policies and procedures on the hoof, and would put most film, drama and television articles in breach of this invented policy too. If you can show a policy or guideline that says we need to do what you suggest, then please provide it. If you cannot, then move on and stop flogging this particular dead horse. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—I don't get into personal conversations. You say that I have a "POV". I don't have a "POV". Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you do: it's your POV that Monty Casino is not Jewish, (despite what the sources are saying). It's nothing to do with a personal conversation. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—after numerous viewings of the videos of the ads on YouTube, I fail to see a shed of evidence of the Monty Casino character being Jewish. Is that a POV? I just fail to see what others are seeing. Bus stop (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't: another has said that they do. I appreciate that you both have differing opinions on this, which is why the verifiability policy of relying on reliable sources is so key here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We dont need to explain the thoughts behind the Jewish description. That is not given in the source. Are you suggesting we make up a rational behind Lewis's thinking? If yes, the answer is no, we will not. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

A completely different point

Whether or not the association of Jewishness with being a conman could be perceived as being offensive to some people, it is what we must say here, simply because: it is how the character was intended to be by Sellers, it is how the character was perceived by several sources, and it is how the character clearly is; to an English ear he speaks with the accent of a London Jew (something Sellers would have been very familiar with). WP must state facts as they are not how we would like them to be.

If it is agreed (which is presently not the case) that the connection between conman and Jew is offensive in some way, that point must be made elsewhere in the article, provided that we have a source for it. The character played by Sellers must be described as it is. Commentary on that character is a separate matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have already suggested a solution - putting "Jewish conman" in inverted commas immediately followed by the relevant citations - which has been getting some traction on the "Survey" thread above (SchroCat adding the suggestion that the perceived anti-Semitism, as per the Evans biog, gets covered in a footnote). Alfietucker (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how that addresses anything. We should state that the character portrayed by Sellers was a Jewish conman. This is a simple and well-sourced fact. No inverted commas are necessary or desirable. If it is agreed that this portrayal was or is considered offensive by some then this is a separate issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

With due respect, the "fact" - while as "well-sourced" as it can be - is not "simple". As things stand, you appear to be alone in thinking that "to an English ear he speaks with the accent of a London Jew" - not something that is evident to *this* pair of English ears. Such a claim, I submit, is WP:OR rather than a representation of fact, as is also evident from comments to the contrary by other editors here. As has also been pointed out, none of the sources explain how Sellers's character is meant to be Jewish: the nearest to an explanation is the claim by a newspaper report that he meant it to be so. Furthermore, there is also a source which indicates that the portrayal was considered offensive (Evans). So it's not really "a separate issue" but part-and-parcel of the same issue. Alfietucker (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfie, Just as a slight correction by way of clarification, there are five sources that support the connection, so to say he is a "Jewish conman" is adequately supported: to argue that the character isn't "Jewish conman Monty Casino" is OR or editorialising, as it goes against what the sources have specifically stated.

Martin, this is—to some of those who have commented here—a point that they do not seem to want to move on, and the least intrusive alteration to what is currently written is that which has been suggested by Alfie. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat - I appreciate you're accepting my edit suggestion. Just to be clear, I'm not disputing the existence of the sources: I was disputing the claim by Martin that Sellers' character is *self-evidently* Jewish, particularly his claim that "to an English ear he speaks with the accent of a London Jew". But, as you and I know, this is beside the point at issue regarding what might be said in the article. Let's hope we can move on soon. Alfietucker (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I accept that my own opinion on Sellers' accent is indeed OR and not strictly relevant but I would have thought anyone who has lived in North London would haver recognised it. My guess is that Sellers based it in a friend or relation of his mother. The sources on the other had seem pretty clear to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading all the comments on this topic, your POV only appears different. It's more like looking at a DNA molecule, as it twists and turns but essentially only revolves around itself, changing yet always staying the same. But at least you and the others have given new hope to aspiring biologists of the world, indicating that one does not really need an electron microscope to see DNA. --Light show (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat, in the vain hope this may sink in someday: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt". Read, learn and inwardly digest, WW - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm doing, which my comment illustrates. However, your perpetual PAs and inability to remain "silent" don't exhibit your brilliance either. --Light show (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Lightshow, your comment illustrates absolutely nothing of value in relation to this thread: it's off-topic gibberish and a pointless and needless dig at another editor. If you can't say anything sensible, or constructively add to the conversation in a helpful way, then silence is the best policy. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to talk about content and sources and not about contributors. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose the current phrasing which states: "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino." We should be careful in how we describe the character. We shouldn't just say that since a source calls the character a "Jewish conman, Monty Casino", it is acceptable for Wikipedia to state outright that the character was a "Jewish conman". Anyone can view the commercials for themselves on YouTube, although I'm not going to post the link here due to WP:ELNEVER. All viewers of the commercials would undoubtedly agree that the character's name was "Monty Casino". Substantially all would agree that the character is a "conman". But the number of viewers who would agree that the character is "Jewish" seems likely to be smaller. Oakshade, Bus stop, and I don't think he was Jewish. If Martin Hogbin says that being Jewish "is how the character was intended to be by Sellers, it is how the character was perceived by several sources, and it is how the character clearly is", then I disagree with Martin on the third part. The character is not "clearly" Jewish to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, do you have a preference as to the proposals for alternative phrasing as presented in the "Survey summary" section above?--Oakshade (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Of the choices listed in the Survey summary, my preference would be SchroCat's "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements filmed in April 1980 in Ireland for Barclays Bank. Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems." For my second choice, it would be between TheRedPenOfDoom's and Two kinds of pork's proposals, but I would not be able to express a choice between them without seeing what kinds of sources were provided for each. No change would be my absolute last choice of the six. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Metropolitan, you oppose my saying, 'since a source calls the character a "Jewish conman, Monty Casino", it is acceptable for Wikipedia to state outright that the character was a "Jewish conman" ', but I do not follow you logic.

If several sources had described a character as a 'Jewish moneylender who demands a pound of flesh' then that is how we must describe the character here. Doing so does not in any way mean that WP promotes the view that all Jews are likely to be moneylenders or to demand their pound of flesh it simply describes the fictional character in the way intended by the author and perceived by the audience (as described in reliable sources).

If this raises issues of ethnic/religious stereotyping then those issues should be addressed separately in the article, as for example in the Shylock article. However, this is not the Merchant of Venice it is Much ado about nothing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that with Shylock, there are about 60 mentions in the scripted dialogue of The Merchant of Venice that refer to Shylock as a Jew. In the Barclays Bank commercial, how many references are there in the dialogue to Monty Casino being a Jew? (None.) There's nothing in the text to pick up on that says Monty is Jewish. The only way to discern it is from the subtext, and that's something I'm not picking up on. (For that matter, I doubt Barclays picked up on it, either. Even if the ethnic humor of having a "Jewish conman" character in its commercials was acceptable in the U.K. in 1980, it would not have been acceptable in the U.S. at the time -- and Barclays already had operations in the U.S. then. The bank would not have wanted negative repercussions for its U.S. divisions if the character could be perceived by Americans as a "Jewish conman".) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be simultaneously arguing two diametrically opposed positions; that the character was not a Jew and that people might be offended by a Jew being portrayed in a negative light.

There is no mention in the script of the character being a Jew but we have a number of reliable sources stating that the character was a Jew and that this was Sellers' intention. I have lived in North London and knew Jews who spoke exactly like the character. Others do not recognise the accent and mannerisms, but whether I or others think the character was a Jew or not is irrelevant. Information in WP should be supported by reliable sources and we have several stating that the character was a Jew and there are no reliable sources stating that the character was not a Jew or that he was some other ethnicity/religion. That means that in WP we can say that he was a Jew.

I think it is quite plausible that Barclays would have been concerned that the advert might have caused some offence in the US (although it would seem that many Americans would not have recognised him as Jewish) and I would have no objection to stating this in the article, if we have a reliable source confirming the suggestion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think my positions are diametrically opposed or contradictory at all. The main reason I don't consider the Monty character to be Jewish is that I can't discern his ethnic background or religion from watching the commercials. The fact that some people might be offended by a Jew being portrayed in a negative light seems to be an obvious statement which is true generally, whether or not the Monty character is Jewish or not. I admit that I haven't read any of the sources which discuss these commercials so I can't comment on what those sources say about the Monty character. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the US subsidiaries of Barclays have to do with this! I'll point you in the direction of the Northern Echo source, which states "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino". As you can see, Barclays did not create the character: they created "a South London spiv": the character which appeared in the adverts was an invention of Sellers. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—I've asked you about "The Northern Echo" article in which you find the excerpt that you are presenting. Your response was: "I have read the Northern Echo article and there is nothing else of assistance in the remainder of the text." (16:25, 7 November 2013) You have said it is from: "11 March 2005, P 13". (15:51, 31 October 2013) Can you please post more of that article? Can you post any additional wording that might come before or after the excerpt that you have posted? Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, as I've said before: there is nothing else of assistance there! There is no other information about the ads in the article - just that. I'm not trying to hide anything: I've given you all the info there is. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Barclays may not have created the character, but they must have approved it or the commercials would never have seen the light of day. Suppose that the character Sellers came up with had been considerably more ethnically offensive than Monty Casino -- let's say a blackface character. If Barclays had a problem with that, they would have told their advertising agency, "We're not paying for these commercials. Either you get Peter to do these ads the right way or we're suing you [the ad agency]. If Peter is unavailable to re-shoot them for health reasons, then this entire ad campaign is worthless to us." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a single source to back any of this up, or is it just based on your supposition? As to being unavailable for health reasons, Sellers was dead before the the fourth and final ad was shot. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Are you all daft? Using Wikipedia's voice to flatly state--based on what a few writers THINK might be true--that Sellers was perpetuating a stereo-type with a long and sordid history is NOT on, not at all. 'Was seen by some as' is the absolute minimum--and even then I fail to see the relevance or importance of this particular claim to begin with. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting your thoughts with an insult to editors - it's not entirely helpful. We have five sources that make the connection. Not one single individual source - reliable or otherwise - has brought that description into question, or raised any questions against the portrayal. Please provide such a source if you have one to hand.- SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia's voice to flatly state what reliable sources state is exactly what we must do. This section is headed 'A completely different point' for a reason. There are two completely different issue: what Sellers did (as supported by reliable sources), which was to play a Jewish character, and what reaction or offence his playing of this character may have caused (as supported by reliable sources).

Metropolitan's example of a blackface character shows this difference very well. If reliable sources stated that Sellers had played a blackface character then we would use Wikipedia's voice to flatly state that Sellers had played a blackface character, however offensive this may have been. Of course, had this happened there would undoubtedly been a negative reaction reported in reliable sources that we should include in the article also.

So it is with the character he did play. It is a simple matter of fact (confirmed by reliable sources) that Sellers did intentionally play the character as a Jew. That is what we must say here, whether or not it is offensive, because it is what actually happened. Whether some editors here can recognise him as a Jew whilst others cannot is an easily explained and irrelevant fact. WP is based on what reliable sources say.

If there are sources that state that Sellers was criticised for playing this character we should state that here too but to the best of my knowledge there are none. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Lewis is not clear on what he means when he uses the term "Jewish con-man". Please see this. I cannot know what "seen on television as a Jewish con-man, Monty Casino" means. There is nothing obviously "Jewish" about the "Monty Casino" character played by Sellers. Nor are there any other clues hinting at "Jewishness" in the ads. The Roger Lewis biography was published in 1997. By 2003 Ed Sikov published another biography of Sellers. It goes into greater depth about the Monty Casino/Barclays Bank advertisements and it makes no mention of Jewishness. Please see the Ed Sikov source here. Bus stop (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

None of your links seems to show anything that makes the sources unreliable. There are no sources saying that we was not Jewish or that he was some other ethnicity or religion. So, as far as WP is concerned he is a Jewish conman.

As it happens Monty Casino is obviously Jewish to anyone who is familiar with London Jews but that fact is likely not discernible to anyone outside London. However, my opinion on the subject, and yours, is not relevant. WP works on reliable sources, and they say he was a Jew. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

We should not knowingly put misinformation in the article. The character is obviously Caucasian and male. But we would be misleading the reader if we said that Peter Sellers' character, "Monty Casino", was "Jewish". That character is not "Jewish" for the simple reason that no indications of "Jewishness" are found in any of the advertisements. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, there is certainly no misinformation going into the article. If no sources had made the connection between the ads and a Jewish portrayal, the yes, we would be misleading based solely on opinion. But the sources do make the connection, and we reflect those sources, no matter how uncomfortable that stereotype may be. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "But the sources do make the connection, and we reflect those sources, no matter how uncomfortable that stereotype may be." We need not "reflect" sources if sources are deemed incorrect. Just because something is sourced is not a sufficient reason to include that material in an article. Furthermore we need not use offensive terminology. I find what I think is evidence that "Jewish conman" might be offensive. At Google News I get virtually no hits for the search term (in quotes) "Jewish conman". Doesn't this imply that standard journalistic outlets do not employ the term? Same thing at Encyclopædia Britannica. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"if sources are deemed incorrect": major editorialising right there. Five sources say this and none - not one single single source - brings that into question. None of them. Not one. As to "offensive terminology", please see WP:CENSORED: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so". It is not unheard of and is not any basis for removal. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, your statement, 'That character is not "Jewish" for the simple reason that no indications of "Jewishness" are found in any of the advertisements' is your opinion. I do not know where you are from but to a Londoner the accent is quite clear. Just because you cannot hear it does not mean that it does not exist. It is hardly surprising that Sellers made his character a Jew and was able to do a good London Jewish impersonation because Sellers was a Jew who lived in London for much of his life.

WP though is not based on the ability of editors to discern accents but on what is said in reliable sources. As has been made quite clear before, there are several reliable sources stating that Sellers intentionally played a Jew and none saying otherwise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are not providing sources which are citing any reason for us to believe that the character is Jewish, and this is not surprising as there are no indications in the ads themselves that the character (Monty Casino) is Jewish. The Ed Sikov biography provides more in-depth treatment of the Monty Casino/Barclays Bank advertisements (than the Roger Lewis biography) and yet fails to mention anything about the character being Jewish. Anybody can look at the advertisements. (I can't link to them.) It is inconceivable that anyone would conclude the "Monty Casino" character was Jewish. I can think of no reason that we should perpetuate the notion that the character is "Jewish" in the absence of any cues to that effect. This would include cues in sources as well as cues within the advertisements. Bus stop (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, we do not need sources to state why the character was Jewish, just that he is - and there are several sources which state just that. Your opinion that it is "inconceivable" the character is seen as Jewish is noted, but two people have said exactly that. Both Martin Hogbin and I are the two who have and both of us happily admit that out opinions hold no water, although the reliable sources do. In case you are wondering, I lived in North London for a spell and the voice of the character is recognisable from my experiences. I'll reiterate: my opinion here means absolutely nothing whatsoever, although it does tend to reinforce the five sources that also make that connection. Again I'll ask: do you have any sources at all that bring the portrayal into question? - SchroCat (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Except that those sources do not say what you claim them to say: please point to those which--factually, rather than as opinion--state the character is 'Jewish' (your claim about the sources) rather than that is seems Jewish. Perhaps you should stop shifting the terms of debate back and forth.

You also seem obsessively determined to insert this bit of racial stereotyping into the article at all costs. Why would that be? Why is that one word important? What are the problems caused by its omission? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Calendar Watcher, there are sources which say exactly that. Perhaps you could read the thread in total (and yes, I know it's long and hideous to follow) but it does show that there are five sources which make the connection. Three of them are quite specific in what they write:

• Lewis: "The Jews whom Sellers played on The Good Show were oy-vay caricatures, with names like Geraldo or Izzy; and concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish con-man, Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their money in Barclay's Bank" (see Lewis, Roger (1995). The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. London: Arrow Books. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-09-974700-0.)
• Riglesford: "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man" (see Rigelsford, Adrian (2004). Peter Sellers: A Life in Character. London: Virgin Books. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-7535-0270-9.)
• The Northern Echo, 11 March 2005, P 13: "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino."

There are no sources which dispute the portrayal as such, or question any of the above sources. – SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) A compromise suggestion (apologies if this has been proposed somewhere above). Peter Evans says that the portrayal was criticised as anti-semitic. Can we not find the sources that made this criticism and quote them? Martinlc (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, There is a proposal from Alfietucker (talk · contribs) which comes close to this, putting the term "Jewish conman" in quotes and with a footnote to comments on the criticism. We can't make too much of this, because Evans doesn't really provide enough detail (and he is the only source that mentions this). In the source Evans comments on accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against Sellers for some of his Goon Show portrayals and goes on "A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds". (See Evans, Peter (1980). The Mask Behind the Mask. London: Severn House Publishers. p. 194. ISBN 0-7278-0688-2.) – SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I am absolutely against that. It is, in my opinion, offensive to 'apologise' for stating a simple fact about ethnicity or religion. It is like using a euphemism for any ethnic/religious group. No doubt every ethnicity/religion is proud of its self-identity so there should be no need to 'speak in whispers' when talking about these issues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin, you don't seem to understand the issue, which I think has just been explained very well by CalenderWatcher in answer to your post below "Offensive to Jews to censor". Alfietucker (talk) 10:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Offensive to Jews to censor

I hate to use the term 'censor' but censoring the fact that Sellers chose to play the Monty Casino character as Jew would offend me if I were Jewish (and I am sure that it would have offended the Jewish Sellers). Would the character's ethicity/religion attract so much attention if he were an Englishman, Rastafarian, or a Belgian? Should I assume that if a character with any negative characteristic is played as a Jew that the world would think that all Jews are like that? I would certainly hope not. Maybe there are some characteristics such as those as typified by Shylock that people use when they wish to denigrate Jews but must I assume that every time a bad character is played by a Jew it it taken to reflect badly on the Jewish people. I would find that thought offensive. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're absolutely right--in that you ought not to be misusing a word like 'censorship' when you don't understand it properly. You're also perpetuating the old logical fallacy 'Begging the question' when you frame your statement with '...the fact that Sellers chose...' when no such 'fact' has been established. Even if the various and sundry premises you put forth were well-established, your attempt at playing a reverse race card looks right silly, as even this Gentile can recognise.

A good go at getting out of the logical hole you've dug for yourself might involve supporting the following:

• That the 'Monty Casino' character is, in fact, supposed to be Jewish.
• That Sellers knew the character was, in fact, supposed to be Jewish.
• That Sellers intended for the character to be Jewish--or for his characterisation to be 'Jewish'.
• That Jews in general or specific Jews would not be offended by perpetuation of millennia-old stereotypes used to oppress and murder them over said millennia.
• That Jews in general or specific Jews would consider the non-perpetuation of millennia-old stereotypes used to oppress and murder them over said millennia to be some form of 'censorship'.
• That Jews in general or specific Jews would consider this 'censorship' to be somehow more offensive than the perpetuation of millennia-old stereotypes used to oppress and murder them over said millennia.

Until then, you're trying to flog a ridiculous 'thought-experiment' as if it had the slightest real-world validity. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

CalendarWatcher, I am fully conscious of the oppression and murder of Jews that has occurred over the history of the world and, no doubt, Sellers was too, but these problems are not resolved by getting ridiculously (and inaccurately) over-sensitive about ethnic/religious stereotyping. As I clearly said above, had the character played been the Shylock character, historically used by some to promote a negative image of Jews, there would at least have been an issue that needed addressing. Even in that case though, the correct way to deal with it would be exactly as in the Shylock article. We state the facts, than discuss the issues surrounding the given portrayal; that is the way to avoid persecution. Censoring wording has exactly the opposite effect, it promotes the view that there is something to hide, something bad.

As it happens though, there is no need to worry about stereotyping because the character portrayed is not a typical Jewish stereotype. Conmen are stereotypically played by suave upper class English characters not Jews. Had Sellers chosen to use his old Goon Show, English, Hercules Grytpype-Thynne character, the article should, quite properly, have referred to an English conman. I would personally be offended by attempts to censor the word English lest the world should think that all English were conmen.

Regarding your bullet points, the first three are not only obvious to anyone familiar with the London Jewish accent (but maybe not to other English speakers) but are supported by a number of reliable sources. The WP standard for verifiability is clearly met and I see no point in arguing about this further.

Regarding your latter points, almost everything offends someone but the Jews have a long history of using humour to fight oppression and I really do not thing you need worry about a London Jew having a bit of fun with a fictional character. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that the character would have been recognizable as Jewish (by his accent) only to a small portion of the intended audience, but not to most viewers? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly possible that some viewers would not recognise the accent. My guess would be that most Londoners would recognise it and that most viewers from outside the UK would not. I cannot say how many from other UK regions would recognise it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The argument against

Maybe I am missing something but the argument against saying that Monty Casino was a Jew goes something like this:

1) We somehow know that Sellers did not intend to play the character as a Jew and that he did not do so.

2) Some sources chose to call the character a Jew, either because they wanted to offend Jews by connecting the shady character with Jews or for some other, unknown, reason.

3) We should not state what these dubious and gratuitously offensive sources claim as fact.

Have I missed something? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you have missed pretty much everything. The argument is that claiming a character is a "Jew" without providing any context has zero positive encyclopedic value while at the same time has the effect of spreading hateful stereotypes. A net loss loss. WP:V is a minimal threshold, but simply being verifiable is not a guarantee that content must or even should be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is 'claiming' that the character is a Jew? Why are they doing this?

What do you mean by 'without providing any context'? He was a fictional conman in a bank ad, that is the context. Do you mean we have to supply some good reason why Sellers chose to play the character as a Jew before we can say that he did so. That is quite bizarre.

If, for some incomprehensible reason the Jewish Sellers had chosen to play a hateful stereotype we should still report that here, just as we report Hitler's 'antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

We would report it providing context and not simply advance advance hateful stereotypes. Without context the descriptor is worse than useless to the reader and the project. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin Just to add, to compare Sellers' portrayal of a "Jewish conman" with Hitler's antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology (why the quote marks?) is specious. While Hitler is utterly noteworthy because of his policies and ideology (World War II was one result), Sellers' final portrayal scarcely adds or detracts anything from why he is noteworthy. I'm also beginning to question Lewis's reliability, having come across this review of his Sellers biography. Alfietucker (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually Alfie, I'd have more concerns about the review if I were you. The second paragraph reads: "On What's New, Pussycat? he refused to shoot his scenes with Orson Welles (they had to be spliced together on the editing bench)". The problem is that Welles wasn't even in What's New, Pussycat?: he and Sellers only ever appeared together on screen in Casino Royale. That's just basic stuff which the reviewer really should have got right. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see how a reviewer working to a deadline might have confused two cameo-studded films; but that doesn't make any less the force of his (it seems well-substantiated) complaint that Lewis is "wilfully swinish", citing his gratuitous sentence on Terry Thomas (who of course suffered from Parkinson's Disease) saying he "died on January 8th 1990, with an unanswered letter from me amongst his dribbled-on effects". Somebody capable of writing this rather makes TRPoD's point about context (made below) all the sharper, in my view. Alfietucker (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You have not explained what you mean by 'providing context'.

You have not answered my questions. I am trying to find out exactly what your argument is. Do you assert that Sellers did not play the part as a Jew? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Context: who is calling the presentation "Jewish"? why do they think the presentation is "Jewish"? why would the presentation of the character as "Jewish" matter? what was the reaction / impact of the character being presented as "Jewish"? You know the standard context questions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Lewis does not explain why the "Monty Casino" character should be seen as being Jewish. WP:EXCEPTIONAL is applicable here because no one viewing the advertisements would perceive the "Monty Casino" character as being Jewish. A biography published several years later, the Ed Sikov biography, makes no mention of "Monty Casino" being Jewish despite that biography going into greater depth about the Barclays Bank advertisements than the Roger Lewis biography. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"no one viewing the advertisements would perceive the "Monty Casino" character as being Jewish": Bus stop you have said this numerous times and numerous times I have tol you that there are some people - three I think - who do perceive the characterisation as Jewish. Simply repeating your assertion doesn't make it right I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there is a Jewish accent displayed in the dialogue of the Monty Casino character. If such an accent is present it would be so feint that no person simply viewing the advertisements out of the context of a Talk page on the topic would hear it. One does not establish that a character is Jewish by means that can barely be detected—if detected at all. Find a source for the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that the Monty Casino character is Jewish. That source should state what indications there are in the advertisements that alert the viewer that the character is Jewish. Without such specificity a source suggesting that the character is Jewish is a weak source. We need a source capable of supporting the assertion that the Monty Casino character is Jewish. I don't think we have seen that source yet. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just because you cannot hear it does not mean that it does not exist. You can doubt away, but until you've walked around certain areas of London you may not understand. Having lived in a largely Jewish area of North London I picked it up. Martin Hogbin has also stated that he also picked up on it. I thought I had seen a third editor also say it, but cannot find the point amongst all the noise on this very long thread. Just to reiterate: there are five sources that make the connection and none - not one single, solitary source - that either puts forward a different conclusion, or brings doubt upon the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What any individual hears or doesn't hear is absolutely irrel. What is the value to the article for including the phrase? WP:V "Its in a source!!!!!!" is not a sufficient reason. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, if you're argument has shifted to "some people" - or only "three" as you put it (Sources? Editors here? - You're not clear on this.) - who only "perceive" the characterization as Jewish, not the character is Jewish, why do you so still steadfastly refuse any wording change?--Oakshade (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Oakshade Just to politely remind you that SchroCat did indeed suggest, some time ago now, an alternative wording which you yourself summarized here. Alfietucker (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Understand. He has said he prefers the current wording over the alternatives he's said he would accept or proposed. The sudden acknowledgement that "some people" (sources?) are "perceiving" the character as "Jewish" and not the character is Jewish is now leading to confusion as to what we're arguing. --Oakshade (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no confusion, except maybe on your part. I have been clear on what I was talking about and clarified it further below some time ago. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not entirely sure why or how you are confused, as what I have said is very clear: there are two editors here who have picked up the Jewish accent. This is purely opinion and carries as little weight as those who claim not to see any connection at all. Whether or not I "perceive" the characterisation is neither here nor there on the same basis. As to me "steadfastly refus[ing] any wording change", I have indicated that I may accommodate a possible change and have indicated one that I would be happy with if a change was forced (Alfietucker's). There are several overly bloated versions that put too much information in the main text for a minor set of advertisements and would over-stress the importance of the role, which is why the version I put forward slims down the information accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes there are no indications in the advertisements that the Monty Casino character is Jewish and no source makes any reference to any aspect of the advertisements that might suggest to the viewer that the character is Jewish. A later biography (Ed Sikov) which goes into greater depth about the Barclays Bank advertisements makes no mention of the Monty Casino character being Jewish. A reliable source can be reliable in some areas and off-base in other areas. I see little reason to perpetuate in our article an error found in the Roger Lewis source. One reason that it is highly unlikely that the Monty Casino character is Jewish is because Barclays Bank need not alienate customers by slighting a group of people regardless of which group of people that might be. All that Barclays Bank wants to do is show that when potential customers want advice on monetary matters, they should come to them. What does Jewishness have to do with that message? I don't know how Roger Lewis made that mistake—but perhaps what he was trying to say was that Peter Sellers was halachically Jewish. The bottom line in this matter is that we should not knowingly put misinformation in the article. A fictional character can be said to be established as Jewish if a factor truly establishes that. Do you hear a Yiddish accent? Has the character sprinkled Yiddish terms in his speech? Bus stop (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"an error found in the Roger Lewis source"? eerrrrmmmmm...??? Where did that come from? There is no source that calls it an error and no source that questions it. If it was just the Lewis source this would have been knocked over fairly quickly, but there are five sources that cover this, so to try and say it was a mistake is somewhat misleading. We are not putting "misinformation" into the article: again, although you do not consider the portrayal to be Jewish, other editors here do - and we are also backed up by the reliable sources too. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes you have a source. What is the value of including such trivia in the article? WP:V "Its in a source!!!!!" is merely a minimal requirement, not a guarantee. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Even Martin Hogbin, who prefers no word change, doesn't consider the portrayal as Jewish (more like a "spiv" he's said twice.) Which other editors here have said they consider the portrayal as Jewish?--Oakshade (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure he's said that the character isn't Jewish. If he has, could you point out that edit? @Martin, could you clarify, or is your view being "misinterpreted" here? - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that to a Londoner he is clearly Jewish. I am amazed at the arrogance of editors who, just because they can detect no Jewish accent, assert that the character cannot be Jewish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin—the Monty Casino character speaks English. Does he speak English with a Yiddish accent? Bus stop (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, you stated here, "I agree that the character is a bad person but he is not stereotypically Jewish" which seems to indicated you felt the character is not stereotypically Jewish.--Oakshade (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, we have five sources. You could call many things in many articles "trivia", because they are from someone or other's point of view, but considering Sellers was Jewish, I think this passes a trivia test. As I've said elsewhere, this was only a small set of roles - tiny considering Sellers's overall output - which is why your proposed text doesn't really work. At present we have a brief mention of the role (well supported by reliable sources) which covers the very basic elements of the role ("Jewish conman Monty Casino"). To bloat out the ads with your text puts too much emphasis on this tiny part of Sellers's life and gives it more emphasis than it deserves. A sensible approach (and one that also keeps the text up to an FA standard) is to either leave it approximately the same level of detail (either the existing text, or something along Alfietucker's suggestion) or to reduce it down - to remove most of the detail, rather than leaving in a half-arsed condition which doesn't provide the information from the five reliable sources and one that smacks of censorship. Such a version would be "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements filmed in April 1980 in Ireland for Barclays Bank. Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems". - SchroCat (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so in this comment you made you were referring to the sources that "perceive" the character as Jewish, not editors here. If you now acknowledge that the sources "perceive" the character as "Jewish" not that the sources say the character is Jewish, why are you still arguing as if the sources say the character is Jewish?--Oakshade (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade, please do not twist what I have said clearly several times now: there are two editors here who have picked up on the North London Jewish accent. As I have said countless times (and Martin has also said), our personal opinions mean nothing: the sources count and they all (ALL) point one direction. Again, and for the final time, please do misrepresent what I (or any other editor) has said. - SchroCat (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

And whether the sources say flat out "is Jewish" or merely that it is "perceived as Jewish" , what is the value of including that description in the article? WP:V "Its in a source!!!!!" is merely the minimal threshold not a guarantee that content should be in an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've covered my reasoning above; repeating your point doesn't refute mine (although I do not claim my point "wins" somehow), but perhaps you could focus on what I have written, as I have tried to address your concerns. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You mean this? There is nothing in there that explains the value of adding the word Jewish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually there is, even if you do not agree with it. There is still nothing in your oft-repeated assertions that explains why the need for crass censorship. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by TheRedPenOfDoom

The only thing that is there is your personal assertion that the ad's theme of "protect your money from jews" is as essential as "protect your money from conman" and that is an indefensible position. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC) That's complete fucking bollocks and you should be fucking ashamed of even considering that is what I am proposing. Strike that now. - SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC) There is no other way to read relentless assertions that the descriptor "jewish" is as essential as the descriptor "conman". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC) That's complete fucking bollocks and you know it. If that is the level you are going to sink to, then I'm drawing a line under any further conversations with you. It's a fucking disgusting thing to say and you should be utterly fucking ashamed of yourself. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC) I will withdraw my analysis if you provide any other rationale or interpretation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no censorship issue here. The concern is with misinformation. There is a disconnect between what sources imply and what is plainly observable in advertisements that are readily viewable online. We want to know what is Jewish about Monty Casino. He is a fictional character therefore it is a reasonable question to ask how Jewishness is established. There are no sources telling us how Jewishness is established therefore the referred-to disconnect persists. One source is the Roger Lewis biography. It seems to imply that the Monty Casino character is Jewish. But a later biography, the Ed Sikov biography, makes no mention of Jewishness, pertaining to the Barclays advertisements, despite the fact that the Ed Sikov biography delves into the Barclays Bank advertisements in greater depth than does the Roger Lewis biography. (The Ed Sikov biography is published about 5 years after the Roger Lewis biography.) I think we should expect a source to say what is seen in the Monty Casino character that is Jewish. I don't think it is obvious. I think it is obvious that we see a well-dressed Caucasian male. Is he Jewish? What would lead us to believe that? I don't think it would occur to anyone that the Monty Casino character was Jewish. Asserting that he is Jewish in the face of a lack of obvious clues to that effect invokes our policy of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I think a source is needed telling us why the character should be considered Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no misinformation issue here. As to "what is plainly observable", I'm still somewhat bemused by the fact that you consider your opinion to be paramount in 'not seeing a Jewish portrayal, but are adamant in refusing to see that others do see it (three others, actually). Having informed you that people see the Jewish connection, I find it reaching the proportion of staggering arrogance that you cannot accept that people have a different view. Simply repeating that there is nothing observably Jewish about the character is not going to change the views of people who do see it. As to sources "explaining" why they see something Jewish in a portrayal is slightly odd: can you show me a policy or guideline that says sources have to do that? There is no such policy or guideline and you are inventing a guideline to try and avoid putting something into the article you just don't want to see. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—No source has been brought forward which is providing a description of the so-called "Jewish" qualities present in the Monty Casino fictional character. What obvious signs are perceived by you that the Monty Casino character is "Jewish"? If the signs are not so obvious, shouldn't we want to have sources pointing them out to us? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, my opinion on whether he is Jewish or not does not matter. Five sources make the connection, three of them using the rather bald wording "Jewish conman Monty Casino". What do you have (other than your own opinion) that he isn't Jewish? - SchroCat (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

A source is not available saying what about the "Monty Casino" character is "Jewish". Why would no source mention a supposedly obviously Jewish factor found in the advertisements? Perhaps because the "factor" is not so obvious? Why doesn't the Ed Sikov biography of 5 years later perpetuate the idea that the "Monty Casino" character is "Jewish"? That biography goes into greater depth about the Barclays ads than either the Roger Lewis biography or any other source you are citing. You can't just claim a fictional character is Jewish if nothing concrete can be specified. It would be misleading to the reader to imply that the fictional character played by Sellers in the advertisements is Jewish. My contention is that the sources you are citing are reliable sources—but not for this information. For the assertion presently in the article—"he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino"—we should demand of a properly supporting source that it cite what it is about the Monty Casino character that is Jewish. I don't think we should blithely overlook the virtual absence of indications of Jewishness in the advertisements themselves. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

(EC) SchroCat, as you say you don't want to misrepresent what other editors say, I'll repeat the question: Which editors here have indicated they "perceive" the character as Jewish as you've claimed?--Oakshade (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me answer that. Myself and SchroCat both say that he has a clear London Jewish accent. Colonel Warden said that he could hear some Jewishness in the character. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Just repeating a similar response above, Martin Hogbin, you stated here, "I agree that the character is a bad person but he is not stereotypically Jewish" which seems to indicate you felt the character is not stereotypically Jewish. --Oakshade (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, just so we understand your opinion(s), "he is not stereotypically Jewish" and "he has a clear London Jewish accent". Care to reconcile the two statements?--Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

These are two separate points that do not need reconciling - I'm not sure what the point of your question is, but there is a clear difference between these two statements. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade, It really is not that hard to understand. Monty Casino clearly is a Jew but he is playing role of a conman. As I have explained a great length previously, conmen are not stereotypically depicted as Jews. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, you keep shifting your position. From "I agree that the character is a bad person but he is not stereotypically Jewish" to now "Monty Casino clearly is a Jew but he is playing role of a conman." It's getting difficult to respond to you as you don't seem to know what your own argument is.--Oakshade (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seem to be some exercise in zen reasoning or something. Five sources quite clearly state that the character was Jewish yet people here continue to argue that they really meant that he was not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

and no sources and no rationale have been put forward to say WHY this adjective is of any value to the article. WP:V is the minimal threshold for content, it does not however guarantee inclusion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"you say you don't want to misrepresent what other editors say": no Oakshade, I've told you to stop misrepresenting what people say. You've done it a number of times now and you are either willfully doing this, or are having problems reading and understanding some rather basic stuff; my AGF on this is reducing rapidly. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to my original question

So what exactly is the argument Against stating that Monty Casino was Jewish. Here is how it seems to me. From the argument above my first point seem incontrovertible.

1) We somehow know that Sellers did not intend to play the character as a Jew and that he did not do so.

Perhaps we could move on to point two now:

2) Some sources chose to call the character a Jew, either because they wanted to offend Jews by connecting the shady character with Jews or for some other, unknown, reason.

3) We should not state what these dubious and gratuitously offensive sources claim as fact.

back to the real question, what is the value of including racial and ethnic stereotypes? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. We include the facts that Sellers played a part in a bank add, that Sellers played a character called Monty Casino, and that Monty Casino was a Jew because this is an encyclopedia and it is aour job to include facts about the subject matter. Please stop changing the question. I am asking what exactly is the argument against including the fact that MC was Jewish. You and others obviously feel very strongly that we should not do so and I want to know the reason why this is.

Let me start by asking you a very simple question. Do you agree that Sellers did in fact play the Monty Casino character as a Jew? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Very simple answer: It doesnt fucking matter whether I think he did or not. It doesnt fucking matter whether you think he did or not. What matters is that we are writing an encyclopedia and not promoting ethnic and racial stereotypes. If there is a reason to include the loaded appellation "Jewish con man"" then as an encyclopedia we are required to place that loaded appellation in appropriate context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that my opinion or yours does not matter. What matters is what is said in reliable sources, and several of them say quite clearly that Sellers does play a Jew. Some editors seem to think that their own subjective and geographically isolated opinions override what the sources say. If you insist on using strong language to make your point why not make it to those who claim that they somehow know that Sellers did not play a Jew.

Finally, can you answer the intended question, which is whether Sellers played a Jew according to reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin—of course no editor claimed "that Sellers did not play a Jew". The problem here is that the evidence is not in the advertisements. Nor has any source has been presented identifying a factor present in the advertisements that would confirm or rule out the attribute of Jewishness concerning the character Monty Casino. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You keep claiming we need to include it because it is in a source . No we do not. WP:V is the minimal requirement, not a guarantee - please read it. You keep failing to answer the basic question of "What is the value of including a hateful racial and ethnic stereotype?" And there may be a value, but the value will ONLY be shown if the "Jewish" aspect of the character is shown by third party sources to have value and we cover and include that third party analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I do not agree that Sellers played the Monty Casino character as a Jew. We may have three published sources that refer to Monty as a Jewish character but the sources (as quoted in this discussion) provide no indication as to why the writers believed the character to be Jewish. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a straight answer to a simple question. I am not sure that all those who want the change agree with you but I would be interested to know. We seem to be having several different arguments at once which does not help resolve this issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Things we all agree on

In order to cool things down a bit and help us reach a consensus I am going to start by listing things I believe that we all agree on. Please just put 'agree' and sign if you do agree and explain why if you do not. I will add items as we get answers to try to determine exactly where the disagreement exists.

Please do not try to anticipate the future arguments of others. These are not intended to be trick questions or to be a setup for an ambush argument. Please all try to assume good faith. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not promote or propagate ethnic/religious stereotypes

Agree Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree Alfietucker (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• agree -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The above applies equally to all ethnicities/religions

Agree Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment - the statement really needs clarification before I (and I think anyone else) can agree or disagree. Firstly, not all ethnicities/religions labour under similar or comparable stereotypes: e.g. there is a long ingrained strain of anti-Semitism in European culture, ranging from Bach's Passions through the folk tales collected by the Grimm brothers and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for which there is no equivalent - at least among Anglophone nations - for followers of Christianity or Buddhism. In other words, it's questionable to say the least that one can draw equivalency between Monty Python's Life of Brian, which could be said to lampoon certain Christians (as opposed to Christ himself) and the Grimm brothers' tale Der Jude im Dorn, which is patently stereotyping Jews. Secondly, collateral to this, is the question what exactly we mean by stereotype. Clearly there is a difference between the portrayal of Shylock, which while stereotypical also raises disturbing questions which undermine complacent/lazy assumptions associated with that stereotype; and the way Brian's followers in Life of Brian are made to look ridiculous, but in a context which effectively questions the basis of so much belief (i.e. it is a negative portrayal but for a constructive end - the implication being that the followers being lampooned are not *trapped* by being so identified, but are capable of changing their assumptions); and a caricature of a "Jew" - for instance, as might be found in Der Stürmer - of which the intent is no greater than to suggest that's how the Jews are, no matter how they attempt to disguise their essential nature.

The statement as it stands seems to imply "one approach applies to all", whereas in fact different ethnicities and religions are in very different positions. This is not to condone offensive or abusive portrayal or language towards or from any religious or ethnic group: but until there is clarification about how we define "stereotype", I don't think either agreeing or disagreeing with this statement is meaningful. Alfietucker (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I take your point. I shall withdraw this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion is a policy that applies to all articles

• agree -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree Alfietucker (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored is a policy that applies to all articles

• Agree - We can all quote tangentially relevant policies. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree - which is why I suggested the solution of using quote marks and an immediate citation. Alfietucker (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Agree Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• agree that the policy says "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link." The appropriateness is the determinate factor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Would this fix it

Sorry to start yet another new section but I wonder if there would be any support for leaving the existing wording as it is but adding immediately after it, 'Sellers received some criticism for promoting negative images of Jews for playing this and other similar characters'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've said elsewhere that this was only a small set of roles—minute considering Sellers's overall output—and adding much more in the main text puts too much emphasis on this tiny part of Sellers's life and gives it more emphasis than it deserves. Sellers appeared in three stage shows; 24 radio programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); 79 films; 11 TV programmes or series (the tally of individual shows is higher); four advertisements; 14 albums and five singles: we do not even mention all of these, let alone bloat those mentions out with an explanation of how they were received or any "background" to the character. As per my addition to Alfietucker's suggestion, having additional relevant information in a footnote would be suitable to deal with any further information, rather than bloating the main text to give undue emphasis to this tiny, tiny part of his life. The other alternative is to remove all the character information: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements filmed in April 1980 in Ireland for Barclays Bank. Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems". - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree with SchroCat here. Martin's suggested sentence, well intentioned as it is, is WP:UNDUE. Alfietucker (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll also add that the same argument applies to Red Pen's suggestions too, which also has a couple of other minor issues too, which I have noted above. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that placing the "Jewish" conman in context may be excessive coverage of a minor aspect. BUT that would mean we do not include the "Jewish" at all. We either place the stereotype in context or do not include the stereotype. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily: if there is coverage in a footnote, rather than within the article, that would be acceptable. Placing it in speech marks (a la Alfietucker) would also be acceptable - along with the the supporting footnote. If we are going to remove "Jewish", I'd also press hard for the removal of "conman" too: the terms are from the same sources and the ad does not in itself identify the character as a conman. Some have seen him as a spiv (probably righty there), but if we're cutting one, then we should but the other too. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely don't see your equivalency. The point of being a conman is essential to the meaning of the ad (we are a banking service and will help protect you and your money from cons) and of the "sky is blue" obviousness. The point of being jewish conman - well that is entirely different level of both interpretation (ie identifying a London jewish accent, which is not of the "sky is blue" level) and cultural can of worms of jewish stereotypes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No: we are absolutely no-where near "sky-is-blue" territory here. - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no source calling our attention to anything that is felt to be "Jewish" pertaining to the character played by Sellers in the Barclays advertisements. But "con-man" is far more substantiated. A source goes into detail telling us reasons that "con-man" is an applicable term. The Sikov biography contains: He "bilks the unsuspecting out of their quid". He "swindles a young musician". He "cons a stately manor's aristocratic owner". And he can be seen "gulling a student out of his rent money". These are detailed reasons that the term "con-man" may be applicable. There are no comparable sources for the quality of "Jewishness". No source is suggesting any reason that the "Monty Casino" character should be considered Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not suppose anybody knows why Sellers chose to play the part as a Jew rather than as a (presumed Cockney) spiv but this is a matter of supreme indifference to us as we are not proposing to give a reason for Sellers' choice in the article. What we do know is that Sellers did make the choice to play the character as a Jew, so that is what we do say in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, it was just a suggestion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

What do we mean when we say 'Is a Jew'

I have started this section to try to resolve unintended conflicts. There is a WP article Who is a Jew? that goes into this subject in some depth. A very wide range of meaning can be attached to the phrase, 'Monty Casino was a Jew' and we may all mean different things when we say it.

When I say it I include a wide range of people, particularly including those who follow the strong British tradition of Liberal Judaism. Maybe others are referring only to stricter definitions for this ethnoreligious group. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this is really the issue here. We are not concerned with determining whether Monty's mother or father was Jewish nor whether he followed Judaism as a religion (because those issues are not raised in the Barclays commercials at all). The question is probably whether Monty is supposedly a member of the Jewish ethnic group (not necessarily of the Jewish religion). If, instead of being named Monty Casino, the character had a particularly Jewish-sounding name along the lines of "Isaac Cohen", there would probably be a consensus that the character was supposed to be Jewish at least by ethnicity. But in the commercials, the only clue as to Monty's supposed ethnicity is his accent. And not everyone here feels confident that they can place that accent with a particular location or ethnicity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No offence, but this is a bleedin' ridiculous discussion. If there aren't a wealth of sources explicitly stating the character was Jewish then "a character which biographer Roger Lewis describes as a "Jewish con-man" " is completely accurate. We're an encyclopedia, we're only here to record facts, and it is a fact that an author of a biography on Sellers stated that the character was Jewish. That's good enough for me and would seem to resolve what should never have been an issue in the first place. Prove to me that the Lewis source is entirely inaccurate and not a reliable source and then deleting any mention of it might be worth considering, but I see no reason as to why in writing the article we should exclude the fact that one author stated the character was Jewish, especially as it seems several other sources also do so. It still provides the same information, I'm happy with this. Somehow I think you're still going to be arguing over this into December. Time is precious as they say.. Enough, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld—have you seen the advertisements? They are readily available on YouTube and elsewhere. Do you see anything "Jewish" about the fictional character, "Monty Casino"? Can an otherwise "reliable source" be unreliable in some areas? I find an WP:ESSAY WP:MONKEYS reading: "There are also cases where it is possible to find a handful of reliable sources that made a claim that is false and never corrected themselves, even though it has become starkly obvious that the claim is false." Bear in mind that there is no source telling us what is "Jewish" about the "Monty Casino" character. Bus stop (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

THIS IS NOT OUR FUCKING OPINION, IT IS THE VIEW OF THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK! Dr. B has addressed that. Now for gods sake move on! --Cassianto^Talk 20:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto—have you seen the actual advertisements? As I mentioned to Dr. Blofeld, the advertisements are readily viewable online. I'd be interested to know if you see any signs within the advertisements of the fictional character being Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether we see any signs or not. If we did and it was reflected in what we wrote that would be POV pushing. We go on sources on WP, and that is what we have used. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that two biographers state that the character was a "Jewish con-man" in their very words. The Peter Evans source PeterSellers: The Mask Behind the Mask mentions in 1980 (year of the advert) that during Sellers's career he had received criticism for his portrayal of what were perceived to be Anti-Semitic characters right from the Goon days and states "A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino was attacked on the same grounds. It was about to be withdrawn when Sellers died. The commercial was immediately cancelled, the bank said." If the character was not controversial and not intended to be Jewish, why would the bank go to such an extreme measure and distance itself from it? I'm going to buy the book [9] to gain full access to the page. This should clear it up and be evidence of actual discussion of it being a Jewish character. I don't want to place too much weight on the issue in the article, if the book completely verifies the snippets I'm picking up in google books then perhaps a footnote mentioning that Sellers received criticism and that the advert was due to be cancelled because of the controversy should suffice.

For all it matters, yes I've seen his commercials. But to remove mention of him being a Jewish conman or described as such just because you perceive it to be nonsense isn't how an encyclopedia functions. We base what we write here on written reliable sources, read the guidelines. I see no compelling evidence to suggest that either of the biographers which explicitly describe him as a Jewish conman are unreliable authors, and the Peter Evans source to me clearly looks like a knowledgeable accurate account given the detail. I'll buy it shortly, might take a few days to be delivered. Once viewed I'll be in a better position to strengthen my argument. What would be wrong here is to ignore several book sources on Sellers because of some moral panic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you not notice the depth to which the Sikov biography explores the Barclays Bank advertisements in which we find the supposedly "Jewish" Monty Casino? It explains how the ads work: "Peter's character is a con man called Monty Casino, who bilks the unsuspecting out of their quid, the suggestion being that Barclay's Bank offered protection against such shady scams." Why does the Sikov biography not mention this supposed "Jewish" dimension of the Monty Casino character? Bus stop (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Who knows WTF Sellers was thinking with any of his characters?? Given that it's a fictional character, unless the person playing the character explicitly says the character is a certain ethnic or religious group or exactly what he is, there's always going to be different perceptions of something. It is a fact that Seller's Monty Casino character has been described or "supposed" to be a "Jewish con-man". Everything else is irrelevant but to the fact he's been described as such by authors of books which we would generally consider to be reliable sources. Who knows why Sikov didn't mention the character being Jewish? Perhaps he didn't think it was relevant or worth elaborating on, who knows? Unless you can find out why Sikov failed to mention the character being Jewish, then you're only going to be guessing aren't you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is reliably sourced is not a sufficient reason to add it to an article. In this instance there is excellent reason to understand that the sources are incorrect. I don't feel that we should knowingly put misinformation into this article. This is not a mysterious issue that can't be understood or discussed. We are not expected to be transcription monkeys. We should be talking about the advertisements but we are not. I am certainly not arguing that we should not be talking about what sources are available and what the sources say. But the sources are in fact talking about the advertisements. I've been posing a question: what in the ads indicates the Sellers character to be Jewish? This is not so mysterious. Is it something he says? Is it how he says something? Does an editor here detect a Yiddish accent? How does Jewishness manifest itself in the three advertisements, readily available for viewing online? If no one can substantiate that there indeed are obviously detectable signs within the advertisements that the character is Jewish, we should consider omitting the point as likely incorrect. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we don't need to mention everything in reliable sources on a subject. With Sellers we've already eliminated a wealth of material which is true but we can't cram into the article. We don't need to even mention the adverts at all really, they're not especially important to his career. But a number of reliable sources discuss the characters and at the time of writing I thought his adverts were worthy of inclusion given that multiple sources which seemed decent discussed them. I thought it helped make the article more comprehensive. I'll not say anything further until I get the book source, but if it makes it perfectly clear Sellers was criticized for characters which were perceived as Jewish including the Casino character that for me is enough evidence to at least mention in the article he received a backlash because of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I agree with you. I was completely baffled when a number of editors tried to assert that by some mysterious and undefined power they somehow knew that Monty Casino was not a Jew, despite a number of reliable sources clearly saying that he was. The only explanation that I could think of for such an obviously perverse opinion was that there was a misunderstanding as to exactly what was meant by a Jew. Maybe some people were referring to more strict forms of Judaism and were not familiar with the liberal Jews who are common in several parts of North London.

It seems from reading this thread that the argument of some editors that Monty Casino was not a Jew is not due to any misunderstanding so I agree that this thread is now pointless. I was just trying to shed a little light on why we disagree.

The only reason I can now think of for why some editors claim the character is not a Jew is some form of insular arrogance; because from my own personal perspective I cannot see any Jewish indicators, the character cannot be Jewish. Several editors have noted the London Jewish accent and I could go through the ads pointing out the other cues but, as you rightly point out, that is not how WP works; we do not write our own opinion but only say what can be supported by reliable sources. On the matter of Monty Casino's Jewishness the sources are unequivocal.

Finally, I agree with you that there are two separate aspects to this question. The first one, 'Was Monty Casino a Jew' is simple 'Yes, of course he was'. The second aspect is whether any offence was cause by this, and maybe other, portrayals of Jews by Sellers. This is debatable. I did suggest adding something along those lines but it was not well received. There is rather more to some of Sellers' performances than may initially meet the eye. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin—no editor claimed "Monty Casino was not a Jew". I've already pointed that out to you. Please see my post at 14:24, 13 November 2013. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK here's the quote from the Peter Evans book:

He says that Sellers was fascinated, puzzled and worried about religion from a young age and Spike Milligan once moved him to tears when he thought that Milligan was using a Jewish slur against him and taking the piss by giving him a candlestick from a synagogue for Christmas,. It then says this :

It is interesting, as Milligan [Spike] points out, that the impressions he did of Jews were often less than adulatory. He never did a refined Jew; we even got letters from listeners saying that The Goon Show was anti-Semitic. (A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino was attacked on the same grounds. It was about to be withdrawn when Sellers died. The commercial was immediately cancelled, the Bank said, as a sign of respect.)

This clears up the situation without the shadow of a doubt that Casino was perceived to be Jewish. In my opinion it is worth writing something on this in the text and adding a footer note at the Jewish conman quote. I'll see what I can come up with now. Can we please nip this "he wasn't a Jew" thing in the bud now? I've reworded the article to display what has been given as fact, this should be enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I added a bit along the religion mentioning in earlier life and that Milligan said he had a complex about being Jewish. The criticism of Jewish characters from the Goon Show Days and Monty Casino and the decision to cancel the ads, I've placed this in footnote i. Unfortunately Hogbin has reverted the Jewish conman bit back which gives Busstop and co an excuse to continue here, but I really believe the Evans source settles any doubt over this but Evans does indicate that Barclays received complaints from people who perceived his characters including Casino to be anti-Semitic. Sellers was a complex fellow, Casino could have been half Jew, a quarter Zorostrian a quarter Celtic for all we know, he was quite diverse in his sources for inspiration. I'd be happy restoring to described by as a "Jewish con-man" Hogbin which I hope you'll do once the RFC is over, it should be over right now IMO. Please let's nip this in the bud now and get on with something constructive. There is no case to be heard here any longer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My reversion of DrBlofeld's change

I have reverted Dr Blofeld's change of wording pending conclusion of the RfC for a several reasons.

1. It is wrong to change the article in response to continued barracking on the talk page before the RfC is complete.
2. Using scare quotes to state simple fact is deprecated by WP policy and in my opinion draws more attention to the matter.
3. I doubt that those who would like to remove the 'Jewish' would be satisfied anyway so we simply end up by degrading the integrity of WP without achieving a settlement

If there is indeed a strong consensus for Dr Blofeld's change, including those who would like remove 'Jewish', I would go with it but only as a compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This issue should never have got as far as RFC though should it? I've added a note anyway which clarifies the issue. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld—I think that your language "interpreted to be Jewish" is a step in the right direction. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. It did not need to be interpreted, we have a source saying that Sellers chose to play a Jewish character. Here it is again The newspaper The Northern Echo states "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino."

No interpretation is needed. If Sellers created a Jewish character then that character is by definition Jewish. Even if Sellers had played the character so badly that no one recognised it as Jewish (which was not the case) it would be a Jewish character. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen "The Northern Echo" article? Is there a title and/or an author associated with the article? Would it be possible for you to present more of that article besides the excerpt that you have presented? Ideally I would be interested in reading the whole article if possible. Bus stop (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, I have said on several ocassions that I have posted all the relevant information from the article. There is no other information about the ads in the article. Given your habit of constantly repeating things that have already been answered or told to you, I'm wondering if you actually read what people say to you. - SchroCat (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would be interested in reading context. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And has been previously reminded to you, While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. You have continually failed to present any reason why "jewish" is as important as "con man" in describing the character in the ads who swindles people from their money. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

[10] - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to supply a reason why we should not include it. For fictional characters it is normal to give a degree of detail. It is quite natural to include the ethnicity of the character, for example the Hercule Poirot article starts, 'Hercule Poirot ... is a fictional Belgian detective'. In the The_Goon_Show_cast_members_and_characters article we have 'Fred Fu Manchu, Chinese Bamboo Saxophonist', 'Cyril ... A Jewish character', 'Earnest Hearn... An American character', and 'Max Geldray – Dutch jazz harmonica player'. In the case of Monty Casino the ethnicity/religion is of particular interest for the Sellers article because Sellers changed the character from a South London spiv to a Jewish conman. We do not know why but he did. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

If "Jewish" is as important as conman, then it is not important because we can get rid of "con man" "In the commercials, Sellers plays Monty Cassino who tries to swindle money from unsuspecting citizens." If it is more important, then we would need to say "In the commercials, Sellers plays the Jew Monty Cassino who tries to swindle money from unsuspecting citizens." Or perhaps we should go with "In the commercials, Sellers plays Monty Cassino who tries to jew money from unsuspecting citizens.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom You're now being disingenuous. There is a significant difference between the neutral observation (assuming Evans's citation is indeed reliable) that Sellers played a Jewish character, and the statement in Wikipedia's voice that the character "tries to jew money" - which itself appears to condone the stereotype. Alfietucker (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the global and millennial long history of antisemitism, "Jewish conman" is NOT neutral observation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not an observation it is a fact, whether we like it or not. Please try to understand the difference between reporting a fact and giving an opinion. 21:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thousands of years of antisemitism is a fact. But we do not need to carry on that practice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And we do report antisemitism here in many articles, as we should. That is not the same as supporting or carrying out the practice. Do you really not understand the difference between the two? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No - the issue, unfortunately, is that Sellers - according to available sources - chose to portray the conman as a Jew. Obviously outside Wikipedia you or I would rather not mention this in a "neutral" voice; but it is our business here not to editorialise, to use NPOV, and arguably not to censor inconvenient information. I have already suggested using quote marks for this reason, which SchroCat approved but I think no one else here. This leaves us with Blofeld's wording here (see end of thread of previous subhead immediately above), which I think is reasonable so long as we don't have licence to editorialise; or SchroCat's suggestion: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements filmed in April 1980 in Ireland for Barclays Bank. Four adverts were scheduled, but only three were filmed as Sellers collapsed in Dublin, again with heart problems". Alfietucker (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Alfietucker—We leave out a ton of information all the time. Even a source such as the Sikov biography that goes into depth about the Barclays commercials makes no mention of Jewishness. There isn't a major Jewish presence in the Barclays commercials and there is clearly a major function played by the "con-man" dimension of the character "Monty Casino". We are clearly obligated as editors to provide reliable sources for material that we wish to include. But we are not required to include any material that can be reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're in favour of SchroCat's suggestion? Alfietucker (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is my suggested wording: "Sellers' final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank filmed in April 1980, directed by Joseph McGrath, in which con man "Monty Casino" attempts to bilk the unwary. Only three of an intended four advertisements were completed due to Sellers' declining health."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus stop (talk • contribs)

"bilk the unwary" is unecyclopaedic and not of FA standard; the current description of Sellers's health situation may work better than your choice here, so may be worth trying to re-word slightly. I'm also not sure I'd mention McGrath: it doesn't add anything, and wouldn't be linked in the text. (BTW, the possessive here is "Sellers's"). - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

WHAT you are grousing over "bilk the unwary" as "unencyclopedic" and yet having a cow over the thought that we might not include the unencyclopedic and antisemitic "Jewish conman"?????? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

[11] - SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You still have not provided any rationale for your insistence that we must keep the jew conman reference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

[12] - SchroCat (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not so very different from SchroCat's - just a difference in emphasis of detail. I'm happy with either, though I would slightly reword Bus stop's thus (changes in bold): "Sellers' final performances were in a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank filmed in April 1980, directed by Joseph McGrath, in which con man "Monty Casino" attempts to bilk the unwary. Only three of the intended four advertisements were completed due to Sellers' declining health." Any other thoughts? Alfietucker (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I support either Alfietucker or Bus Stop proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin—you say "I think you need to supply a reason why we should not include it."[13] I will give you three basic reasons. Reason number one: It is offensive. A simple search of Google News or Encyclopædia Britannica indicates that the term "Jewish con-man" is not used. Reason number two: The character isn't obviously Jewish and no source specifies anything that is Jewish about the character. (You say that you detect a Jewish accent but no source suggests that.) Reason number three is that the character (Monty Casino) functions within the advertisement as a "con-man", not as a Jew. The bad investment advice (self-serving investment advice) is represented by the "con-man". (Or "swindler", or "spiv".) Barclays urges the potential customer to seek good investment advice at Barclays. The advertisement cautions potential customers to avoid "con-men". Jews play no role in the advertisements. If you think that Jews play a role in the Barclays advertisements, can you please explain to me what that role is? Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@Bus stop – Until Marty McFly comes along in his Delorean and offers to take us back to 1980 to try and convince Sellers not to take part in the ads on anti-semetic reasons , the article stays as it is. Stop being so bloody precious and man up for god's sake! --Cassianto^Talk 22:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to apprise all, this same issue is playing out at the Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record article. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not "playing out" at all: as I have advised you on that talk page, the wording on that article can wait until the issue is settled in this RfC: whatever the final decision here, an appropriate edit can be reflected in the wording there. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You may object to my use of the wording "playing out" but can you please tell me what "Jewish" has to do with the Barclays Bank advertisements? The advertisements are not about Jews. The advertisements employ a character who attempts to "con" people out of their money. It is these people (potential customers) that Barclays Bank is courting in their commercials. "Jews" are 100% irrelevant to the commercials. Bus stop (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Bur stop, we've been over all this 1,001 times and I am weary with having to repeat myself. I am happy to let the RfC run its course without having to repeat yet again what I have already said countless times before. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The advertisements were not about Jews they were of a con man in a bank and it was a writers opinion that Sellers's depiction was Jewish. Nobody here is saying anything different and no matter how much you want it, you cannot change history; the "racist" connotations exist only to you and few others from the political correctness brigade. --Cassianto^Talk 13:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The racist connotations exist in the push to elevate the "jew con man" stereotype whether you see it or not or whether you want to believe it or not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—The advertisement involves a "con-man"; it doesn't involve a "Jewish con-man". It doesn't necessarily matter that you have found sources using that phrase. We are not required to repeat terminology verbatim from sources. We are not even required to include everything that is reliably sourced. I don't think we as editors are necessarily interested in elevating in importance a relatively minor point found in reliable sources. You feel that the character displays a Jewish accent. But no source supports your observation in that regard. Overtly the character is only Caucasian—not necessarily Jewish. There are no cues mentioned in any source pointing to the Jewishness of the Monty Casino character. Is there any reason to describe the Barclays Bank advertisements as involving a "Jewish con-man"? (The article presently reads: "he played Monty Casino, a Jewish con-man.") Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The advertisements were not about Jewish people, they were of a con man in a bank and it was a writers opinion that Sellers's depiction was Jewish. We describe the character as a "Jewish con man" as that is how the author described it. *We* don't think he is Jewish and we are not insinuating that he was Jewish. We are using the words that were used by an author more than 30 years ago. I am trying to think of a suitable analogy and, although It is a completely different crime, the use of "criminal" and "religion" is the same: What is going to happen in another twenty years, when someone speaks of 9/11? Are we going to be criticised in calling the hijackers "Muslim terrorists"? Or is someone going to challenge that, crowing that their religion had nothing to do with it? No matter how much you want to, you cannot change history; the "racist" connotations exist only to you and few others from the political correctness brigade. --Cassianto^Talk 13:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh good lord. you keep falling back on the false premise that just because its in a source we must use it. No, no, no, no. Jew con men were bad stereo types thirty years ago and they are still bad stereotypes. What is the value of including "jew conman" in the description? There may be one, but the value of the descriptor will need to be shown and placed in context by a reliable source that says WHY the "jew" portion of the portrayal was in anyway significant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

And why not? It's pertinent to the adverts inasmuch that it is an observation (whether it be right or wrong) made by a notable critic. Your the one flogging a dead horse here as you seem to be sticking your head in the sand. --Cassianto^Talk 15:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

how the fuck is it pertinent to the commercial about "let us protect your money from conmen" unless you are claiming the commercial is "let us protect your money from the jew conmen".? I assumed good faith that people were basing their insistence of including the stereotype based on a misreading of WP:V, but after it has been pointed out a dozen times that merely being verifiable does not guarantee inclusion and asking for any additional rationale and receiving none, the only assumption possible is that people have an intense desire to slap the antisemitic "jew conman" stereotype up "just because". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

RPoD, let me assume some good faith and explain the issue to you in detail:

Bad things happen in the world. People do bad things. We include these things in WP.

You may consider that Peter Sellers playing a Jewish conman to be a bad thing in that it promotes an ethnic/religious stereotype. That does not mean that we must not state that fact in WP. It does not even mean that there should be the slightest disinclination to state the fact here. Any badness in this action is down to Peter Sellers not WP.

It does not matter how offensive the action might be, it happened, and we should include it in the article. As I have shown above, it is perfectly normal to include ethnic information about characters and not to do so because it might offend someone is censorship. It also does no service to either the offender or the offended to hide the facts. People should know what Sellers did.

If we agree that the action was offensive, and that it is significant enough to include in a biography, and we have a reliable source that criticised Sellers' actions that we can state that fact too. That is the correct way to address this issue, not to pretend that it never happened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Without placing the appellation "jew conman" in context by commentary of third party sources doing an analysis of the stereotype, it is Wikipedia doing the "bad thing" of promoting stereotypes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I am completely baffled by your lack of understanding here but I am going to continue to assume good faith. I have stated just above, 'If we agree that the action was offensive, and that it is significant enough to include in a biography, and we have a reliable source that criticised Sellers' actions that we can state that fact too'. Did you not see that. That is a sensible discussion that we could have here. Whether to report a fact accurately is not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin—the article presently (but incorrectly) states: "he played Monty Casino, a Jewish con-man." He did not play a "Jewish con-man". He played a "con-man". There is nothing in the advertisements indicative of the presence of a "Jewish con-man". There is no need to mislead the reader about this. No source says there is any evidence in the advertisement of a "Jewish con-man". You have said that you detect a Jewish accent. No source supports you in your sensing of the presence of a Jewish accent. These advertisements are readily available online. In them we see a Caucasian con-man. We don't see a "Jewish con-man". A source such as the Sikov biography enumerates the reasons we should see the character as a "con-man". But neither the Sikov source nor any other source mentions any detail found in the three advertisements indicative of any "Jewish" quality observable in the Peter Sellers/Monty Casino character. No source identifies any cues observable in the advertisement that might suggest to a viewer that the character is Jewish. We should not be misleading the reader by saying: "he played Monty Casino, a Jewish con-man." Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

No, Bus stop. Three articles state quite clearly and openly that he played "Jewish conman Monty Casino". To argue otherwise is incorrect. It matters not whether you or I can or cannot detect elements of the portrayal: the sources state it quite bluntly and openly. No-one is being misled and no-one is being lied to by the current wording of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I blame Hogbin for his revert and giving this troll a chance to continue to spout his mouth off. Red Pen you're coming across as even worse than Busstop here. Obviously you both have a personal agenda with labelling a conman Jewish even though the sources back it up. If you didn't have an agenda you'd not be wasting your lives fussing over this when there's much better things to be doing. There is no issue here. My footnote more than explains that it was the public perception of his characters. What a bunch of time wasters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

These are trolls, pure a simple. Let's stop feeding them. Cassianto^Talk 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:CRYSTAL and maybe also WP:BLP

"...his fourth marriage was also about to collapse.[272][271]"

Did the marriage collapse? Or did Sellers die? If the latter, wikipedia should say "was reportedly about to collapse" or somesuch.

But the overall implication is that, the fourth wife was partly responsible for the heart problems, so maybe the whole thing needs to be junked/rewritten, unless [272] and [271] are *exceedingly* specific and also *exceedingly* expert/reliable/similar. Can someone look into the connotations here, please, that is familiar with the topic, and preferably also these specific sources? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to here, as I can't see the phrase you refer to (even with a text search). The only place I can see refs 271 and 272 together are "Sellers's fourth marriage to Frederick collapsed soon after.[271][272]" - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The ref order was around the wrong way which I fixed. I tweaked the sentence slightly to past tense. --Cassianto^Talk 18:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done SchroCat, the phrase I was referring to, is the one you found, but by the time you found it, Cassianto had already fixed it up.  :-)    I just wanted to make sure that wikipedia wasn't reporting *rumors* about the marriage being about to collapse, when in fact what historically occurred was that Sellers died prior to the marriage ending. Rather than say "soon after" I would lean towards something more definite like "the next week" or whatever, but the way it is now looks plenty solid. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring IP

IP, if you wish to discuss changes to the article, please stop edit warring and DISCUSS the changes you wish to make. You are at the limit of WP:3RR (possibly breached it, depending on your first edit) and I strongly advise you not to revert again. If you do then you could be blocked for edit warring. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)