Talk:Sam Fuld/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Is he related to the great former New York chief judge Fuld? John wesley 14:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion category

Sam Fuld's religion was originally stated as Jewish in the lead. I removed per WP:LEAD, as well as removing relevant categories, and because there was no sourcing as to religion. Now a Q&A was added as a reference in the "personal" section, substantiating text indicating he is half Catholic and half Jewish, with his mother being Catholic. Ordinarily, as I understand it, religion is determined in the Jewish faith by the mother. In any event, Fuld did not identify himself in this Q&A as Jewish, so I've taken out the categories again.

It's an interesting issue, so rather than revert back and forth I'd suggest that we discuss this here. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He did indicate that he celebrates both Hanukkah and Christmas. The traditional Jewish practice states that religion is passed with the mother, while Catholicism (I believe) says father - so if you wanted to go by that - he's be 'nothing'. But in modern times less-to-non observant people who find themselves in that situation almost always refer to themselves as half-and-half. There are other athletes who would be considered "half-Jewish" by that modern definition that are also listed in the category. I don't think the category itself implies "practicing Jew", just significant Jewish heritage. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of sites that reflect that he is Jewish. Johnny's understanding is correct only as to certain sects of Judaism, but not all (e.g., Reform Judaism). I've never read a reference to him being an Orthodox Jew, though, so I would go by the references as Wiki directs.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point. However, the three references added indicate that he was mentioned by Jewish newspapers, but without resolving his religion. Apart from that, I think that it hasn't been established that his ethnic/religious heritage (whatever it is) is significant enough to his notability to justify placing in the first or second paragraph. Surely Hank Greenberg should and presumably does mention his religion in the lead. But in this day and age I think it is an overemphasis. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they do. For example, MOT and Member of the Tribe are slang for Jewish (e.g., the first article says "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg fit the mold perfectly", and the second one says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13"; and the third citation of course clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.). He is no longer in the lead paragraph; he is now in the non-lead second paragraph, so I tried to be sensitive to that point with that move.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry you're right that it's not in the lead. But it's at the top of the second paragraph, which is still too prominently placed in the article, given the conflicting and somewhat tenuous sourcing. A casual (and perhaps inaccurate) reference to this gent as an "MOT", and the other sourcing you describe, strikes me as not definitive, certainly for a blanket statement that he is Jewish when it states elsewhere in the article that he is Jewish-Catholic, with his mother Catholic. As you point out, Reform Jewish people would say Sam Fuld is still Jewish; we don't know if he takes that position, and I think that flat-out saying he is Jewish without the source explicitly saying so is outright synthesis. What would resolve the issue is what Fuld himself says. Without that, I think there's not sufficient justification to place him in that particular category and/or to say that he is Jewish. It might even marginally be a BLP issue, not that there's anything wrong with being an MOT, obviously ;). So I'd respectfully suggest that you self-revert until we have better sourcing that doesn't involve our reading stuff into the sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It now is sensitive to your point about and complies with WP:LEAD, in that it is no longer in the lead. It is typical to indicate heritage, if it is indicated, in the early life section, where is where the person's parents are mentioned (presumably since it typically devolves from them), which is where it is now. Where religion/ethnicity/nationality is mentioned, if it is not in the lead that is the typical place it is found. It does not receive undue treatment, a mere two words. The references are not as you suggest casual -- they are actually quite central to the articles, which focus specifically on Jewish ballplayers. There is nothing other than POV that would suggest that the articles are innaccurate. Reform Jews are I believe the largest sect of Jews in the US, and under Reform Judaism one can be Jewish (fully Jewish, I might add) if one's father is Jewish. The sources for saying he is Jewish are many, and they are clear. There is nothing inconsistent ipso facto with him being Jewish and his mother not being Jewish, nor is there a reliable source to my knowledge that states that he is not Jewish. There is no requirement, where we have sources and there are citations to the sources, that we have a statement from him on top of it. I am not as you suggest "reading stuff into sources" -- the sources as I've indicated above with direct quotes are quite clear in stating that he is Jewish. I really see this as a non-issue. We've accommodated your salient points, by moving it out of the lead, and by adding three citations (more than any other point in the article). I think as-is this now complies completely with Wiki standards, and is better sourced than any other fact in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. There's really only one reliable source on his religion as would meet the high standards for a BLP, and that is the Q&A. That is ambiguous at best, says he celebrates Christmas as well as Judaic holidays. He could be a practicing Catholic for all we know. That is not for us to say, unless he says so. Given that he is the product of a mixed marriage, and has not said one way or the other, it's not for Wikipedia editors to say "he's Jewish" or "he's not Jewish." That's synthesis. The second paragraph also contradicts the accurate description of his background in the Personal section. Given that this is a BLP, I think that we have to tread carefully.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep on changing your arguments. First, you said there were no citations. Then, with three added, you said they did not indicate that he was Jewish (which was clearly incorrect). Then, when I quoted to you where each of the three so indicate, you assert baldly without any support (and incorrectly IMHO) that they are not reliable sources. There is nothing in the sources that you have referred to that is on its face inconsistent that he is Jewish, and we have three fine citations that indicate that he is. There is no requirement that we go further than this. We need not get his father's mother's birth certificate, a statement from him, or anything of the sort. The articles say he is Jewish, the citations are there, and that complies with Wiki standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's focus on the sources, please. In the beginning there were no citations. You and another editor added four. One was the only reliable one, and I say that because it was a Q&A with him in which he talked about his religion. The others are Jewish periodicals that just say flat-out that he is Jewish, which would be great and acceptable if we didn't have a Q&A with the man himself seeming to contradict that. That's why we have a contradiction in the article itself.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The first of the above cited sources that indicate that he is Jewish is written by Jonathan Mayo. If you are an avid baseball fan, you probably recognize the name. He is a senior staff writer for MLB.com, and has been writing for them on baseball and baseball players for a decade (after moving over from the New York Post). That, and the other sources, are reliable. In the interview he states what his parents' religions are, and that he celebrate Hanukah as well as Christmas, but never states -- as the articles do -- what his religion is. There are many, many Jews who celebrate Christmas, and some even called the tree a Chanukah bush, though I would not expect an Orthodox Jew to celebrate it. According to the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, only 82% of Jewish households never had a Christmas tree, suggesting that 18% of Jewish household have had a Christmas tree.[1] A study of Jewish households in DC found in 2003 that "35 percent of all Jewish households at least sometimes had a Christmas tree".[2] In a more recent study it was found that over a third of the Jews in Las Vegas, for example, have a Christmas tree,[3] and 21% of Detroit Jewish households with children always, usually, or sometimes have a Christmas tree in the home.[4] In fact, a breakdown of the 1990 survey shows that only 1% of Reform Jews had never had a Christmas tree.[5] If this interests you, you can read more at [6], [7], and [8]. Its simply not a contradiction.--Ethelh (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Source Quality

I have a similar issue with the Jewish question. First, I would point out that it likely refers to ethnicity rather than religion, which may qualify him if he is descended from Jews. However, we have no evidence of this. The three sources do not mention Judiasm or Jewish descent. We can infer that he is Jewish because he is featured in these Jewish magazines. However, are these sources reliable enough for wikipedia, especially when we must make inferences.

"Kaplans Korner on Jews and Sports". Sounds like a throwback to the plantation era. On a "Jewish News" website. What about "Jewish Sports review". Do we have "Caucasian Protestant Sports News" or "Ku Klux page on Negros and Sports"? Beganlocal (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily I think these kind of sources would be OK for most articles. The problem is A)this is religion, always a sensitive subject and above all B)there is contradictory information.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as mentioned above, they do in fact state that he is Jewish. No inferences needed, but an understanding of what MOT and Member of the Tribe means is necessary. They are both slang for Jewish. The first article by MLB.com's senior writer Jonathan Mayo says "Now, it just so happens that two of my favorites are also Members of the Tribe. Sam Fuld and Adam Greenberg ...." And the second one says "And a “welcome back” to Chicago Cubs outfielder Sam Fuld... That elevates the total of MOT back to 13". And the third citation of course clearly lists him on the "Jewish Sports Review" 2002 College Baseball All-American [The Jewish Sports Review is the only source for complete and up-to-date information about Jewish Athletes] First Team.). As to what Judaism is, it is a number of things in one -- religion, nationality (albeit dispersed, but the Jewish nation/people is an ages-old concept), and ethnicity. Finally, as discussed above, the other information is not contradictory.--Ethelh (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much irrelevant information relating to Sam Fuld. He barely has a Major League Baseball career, yet one of the most extensive biographies I have seen. Quoting every compliment the player receives and putting it on a Wikipedia cheapens the page. This needs to be addressed outside of me being warned for modifying what I deem permissible for a description of Fuld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.210.96 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. The article looks more like a fan website than an encyclopedia article. Not that he doesn't seem like a nice person. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal / Trivia section moved here

I'm moving this here for discussion, as it was titled "Personal", but is really a list of three trivia items. As the third item seems to be causing some contention, let's discuss it here before attempting to reintegrate these three things into the text of the article. Unitanode 19:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Each year during the baseball off-season, Fuld returns to Stanford University, where he is pursuing a master's degree in statistics.

• In June 2009 Fuld married Sarah Kolodner, whom he had met at Exeter Academy.

• Fuld's father is Jewish, and his mother is Catholic.Q&A with Sam Fuld

This was fine, but the change that you actually made -- and which you have now reverted me on three times in the past 24 hours -- related to the statement that Fuld is Jewish, which was not part of what you moved to the talk page. As discussed at length on your talk page, I believe that the reference and three supporting citations should remain in the article, and am puzzled by your deleting them while insisting on inserting the religions of his parents (who, under your -- incorrect, I would assert -- criteria, cerainly would not warrant reference).--Ethelh (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was obvious OR and synthesis, as I explained above. I posted on this some time ago on the BLP noticeboard, from which Unitanode responded. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is quickly becoming a case of Ethelh simpling posting over and over in a deflecting manner. It's been explained to your, Ethel, on numerous occasions. I'm now disengaging from you, as the discussion is no longer productive. I'd encourage you to remember, though, that reverting your insertions of BLP violations is not edit-warring, as you were told when you tried to report me. Unitanode 14:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unitanode -- That is a mischaracterization. What Frank did say was: "WP:3RR does not apply to information that is in violation of WP:BLP (among other exceptions). This situation may well fall under that category. Frank|talk 07:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)"[9] He then further clarified that by saying: "I agree it is not 100% clear-cut that it is a BLP issue....Frank|talk 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)"[10]. And, of course, the extensive discussion at [11] demonstrates how you were seeking to mis-apply a guidance that relates only to category tags, and not to the actual text of the article.

As it stands, among our 9 sources, a) we have an MLB.com Senior Editor stating that Fuld is Jewish, b) we have an organization licensed by Major League Baseball, the Major League Baseball Players Association, and the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum (Cooperstown) to identify and recognize Jewish major league baseball players indicating that Fuld is Jewish, and c) from a third source we know that Fuld or his representative or a close family member said Fuld is fine with it being reported that he is Jewish.[[12]

This is not deflecting the issue. It is the heart of the issue.

These are enough under WP:BLP to report that he is Jewish in the text of the article. Your effort this week to unilaterally revise WP:BLP[13] so that it would be expanded to support your position (a recognition that it does not do so today) was a violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which states clearly that "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits." --Ethelh (talk) 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, they're not. Unless he self-identifies, we don't call him that. This has been explained to you again and again. I'm finished arguing with you about it. BLP violations are to be reverted on sight, and any further insertions of "Fuld, who is Jewish" will be treated in that manner. Unitanode 03:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Of course they are sufficient, as evidenced above and at the indicated coversation. As mentioned to you ad nauseum, the only "self-identifies" test is one that is applies to the question whether a "category tag" can be applied. That's not the issue here, and the rest of BLP does not require that. So, simply put, there is no BLP violation here. You can't just unilaterally make up what BLP requires of non-category-tag information.

Plus, to add to the absolutely jaw-dropping aspect of what you are proposing, you keep insisting that it is OK for you to reflect the religions of Fuld's parents -- despite the fact that we have absolutely no "self-identification" by the parents, who are living people. You're not even applying your own (incorrect) rule in a consistent fashion.--Ethelh (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• My latest edit to the article remedies Ethelh's concerns regarding identifying the religion of Fuld's parents. I trust it's as acceptable to everyone else as I'm sure it is to Ethelh. Now, I'm off to bed. Unitanode 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That should resolve things. Frankly I have doubts that his religion is relevant at all, but let's not get into a lengthy debate over whether the "intersection" is worth mentioning. Enough.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article is unnecessarily long considering that he's a 29 year old with limited MLB experience. Does anyone want to help me trim the fat? I feel that most of those quotes are unnecessary and the info on how and how often he checks his blood sugar is irrelevant. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate. I'm about to bring it to GA, and will see what the thoughts are there, but the article is one of our better baseball ones. One to be elevated, not trashed.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You should use {{GA nominee}} at the top of this talk page to nominate it, don't do it manually. HeyMid (contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not planning on trashing this article. I will raise my concern at the GA review. With or without a pruning, this article could well meet GA status. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The lead may need to be expanded, however. HeyMid (contribs) 11:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sam Fuld/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

lead

• I'm not seeing citations for middle name or DOB

Added.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Place of birth shouldn't be in the lead per MOS:BIO
  • Fixed. HeyMid (contribs) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• What on earth does batting .600 mean? Don't assume that your reader is familiar with baseball

I've added an inline citation to the relevant wp article.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ditto "All American"

Ditto.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body, so this one seems a bit short for the length of the article

Lead expanded.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PL

• Why is there a quote mark at the end of Instead of carrying around the typical teddy bear or worn-down baby blanket when he was young, he carried a book of baseball stats with him all the time, like a security blanket."?
  • Fixed. Quote mark was apparently mistaken. HeyMid (contribs) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Diabetes

• also had Type 1 diabetes, but at the time hid the fact that he had it is pretty terrible prose

Agreed. Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

College

• You need a ref for that first paragraph

Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• One- or two-sentence paragraphs are discouraged and should be combined into other paragraphs

"Fixed" many ... let me know if what I've done was not sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor leagues

• The short paragraphs and al the quote boxes all over the place make this section look quite untidy

"Fixed" many ... let me know if what I've done was not sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• The injuries he suffered in 2004 suggests the reader has been told about the injuries before, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere

It is mentioned in the preceding section that covers his college years ("Diving for a ball in the outfield in his second-to-last game in college, he broke his shoulder, tore his torn labrum, and partially tore his rotator cuff"), but I've also now smoothed out the text.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why is All Winter League Team in bold?

Good catch. Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Major leagues

• Three headers without any content between them looks quite odd

I believe this follows an accepted format on baseball articles (Major leagues/team/year, with entries made under the "year" sections; I've worked on a few baseball GAs that use that format).

• The rest of the first paragraph under 2007 needs referencing

Done.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• More short paragraphs making it look untidy

"Fixed" many ... let me know if what I've done was not sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Fuld did not make the Cubs' 25-man playoff roster is unsourced

Ref added.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC) [And then sentence deleted ... at this point, it is less notable than when it was originally added]--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• You've got passages and direct quotes in the 2008 section that are unsourced

I believe those have now all been addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Recognition and awards

• Is this unsourced or are all these in the body?

All in the body.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

References

• You've got a few dead links

Addressed (I believe).

• Inconsistent linking of publishers and publications

Addressed (I believe).

• All publications should be in italics

Addressed (I believe).

• MLB.com or mlb.com? Pick one and stick with it

Fixed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• A few bare URLs

Fixed.

ELs

• That's a big link farm. What's the purpose of all those links?

Moved most ELs out of EL section and into text.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll stick this on hold to give you a chance to work on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, would you be able to do a source check on this article? The main contributor has a copyright investigation open so I want to make sure the article's clean. It should be, but can't hurt to check. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'll check when work starts on the above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My 2¢ It's a well written comprehensive article overall. I previously raised a question about the use of quotes, though. Quotes relating to his overcoming the obstacles of diabetes and his small stature are okay, but I wonder about the usefulness of quotes like "He's fearless", a quote box for a random nickname that doesn't seem important, and the comments by Santo, Piniella and Hendry. Of course Hendry and Piniella will speak highly of their own player. How useful do we all think these quotes are? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Piniella, certainly, will not necessarily speak highly of his player. But if the comment is just "I think he is a good ballplayer" -- then it is worthless. If it identifies what distinguishes him, then it is of value, as different ballplayers bring different attributes to the table, and what their management views as their notable attributes is of note, and not always discernible in statistics and the like. BTW -- one thing that we should add in is the Dick Fuld connection.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right that Piniella can be a critical guy, and these comments may distinguish Fuld from another player, but I felt I should raise the comment. Also, I noticed a piece of odd prose on closer inspection so in the next day or so I'll give it a more thorough sweep. What's the Dick Fuld connection? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Second cousins, I believe ... I read somewhere. When I have a chance, I'll look for the ref and toss it in, unless you beat me to it. [I've now updated the article w/the fact and supporting ref]. Interesting family -- his Mom has an article, his Dad might well qualify for one, and his second cousin is a major (and highly controversial) personality in the world of finance. Reminds me of Larry Summers in that sense, who also has a highly notable extended family.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article seems to overuse quotes and there are a lot of quote boxes—perhaps we could trim some of the less important ones? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed; deleted some quotes and other text entirely (as they are less notable now than they were at the time they were added), and moving some quote boxes into text.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments as of 4/3/11

It's good to see that progress is being made. There are still a few points that need to be addressed. Most notably, the lead is still too short to be a real summary and we still have a lot of short paragraphs as well as the quotes I mentioned above. We also have the matter of the link farm, which is still far too long—most should be incorporated into references or removed—and dead links. It's getting there, but there's a way to go yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is ready for GA, subject to your review and approval.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pass

Excellent work. Although the issues were mostly minor, there is a noticeable difference between where we started and where we've ended up. I'm going to pass this, since I'm content that it meets the GA criteria, but I still think the lead could do with being padded out a little more. Nice work, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Giveaway

The giveaway is notable because: a) it relates to the meme; and b) it is RS-covered significantly (as opposed to the typical giveaway -- for obvious reasons).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I get that reasoning, but I'm still inclined against it. Not so much that I'd bother edit warring over it, but if anyone else wanted to chime in either way that would be welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

We've both edited the same articles enough to know that without a significant hook, I don't willy nilly add such info to an article (as it is not IMHO notable). Here, IMHO, the hook is significant (I can think of only one other time I've been of that view re a giveaway). The RS coverage IMHO supports that. I don't feel a need to reflect all that there is to say about it (e.g., whose giveaway it replaces), but given that it relates to the other notable material, I see it as notable. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And I respect your opinion, as I do know your track record on these articles is pristine. Also, my argument in my own head is starting to sound a little like WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is enough reason to defer to you in and of itself. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why, that's the nicest thing that anyone has said to me all day. Thanks, Muboshgu, for exemplifying the highest in civility and the best in good manners, even in the midst of an intellectual discussion where we started from different points of view. Much appreciated. BTW -- I would agree with you, and feel free to ping me on a discussion, w/regard to most giveaways. There simply has to be something specially notable about it, to my mind, for it to warrant reflection in the article. Our best measure of that is the extent of coverage in RSs. Here, the RSs (including the # 1 baseball RS, MLB.com) are covering it with great fanfare, as reflected in the following articles devoted to it: "Rays add Caped Crusader to Legend of Fuld", "Rays to give away Fuld 'Superhero Cape'", and "First Super Sam Fuld giveaway". It's not just hooky, and connected to notable information (his breakout, and his "nicknaming" by the team and media), but also has full articles from the highest-level RSs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of RS--supported material

AHW has now repeatedly deleted RS-supported text to the effect that Fuld is Jewish. That is not appropriate, whatever AHW's personal POV and views may be. I imagine he will see this notice, and will understand it as a warning, as it is intended. Please don't edit-war, and please don't substitute your POV or OR for RS-supported text, leading you to delete the text. That is disruptive. I see that you are doing this throughout the project -- please stop. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not my pov that his father is Jewish and his mother is Catholic. That's just a fact. Having that background is not the same thing as being "Jewish" simply. I have no problem with mentioning his heritage or his religious beliefs, in fact, I endorse it. But that statement should reflect the cited facts reported in reliable sources. Fuld himself talks at length about his mixed-faith upbringing here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

AHW -- you have repeatedly deleted the fact that he is Jewish. Despite the RSs that say that. You're not a newbie. You know enough not to delete RS-supported text. As to you having a POV, it appears that you have one that is clouding your otherwise seasoned judgment, as you have been scurrying around make these sort of inappropriate deletions of RS-supported text. Nor have you given any reason for your deletion of RS-supported text. That's the first point. You've not addressed it in the slightest.

The second issue is separate. On the one hand, you delete the information as to the person who the bio is about. That's bad enough by itself. Then, on the second hand, while you deem that RS-supported info about the subject of the article, you then go ahead and insert information about people who are not the subject of the article. That, of course, is especially non-sensical given your first deletion. He has parents. There are lots of facts about them. What days they were born, where states they were born in, where they attended school, etc. Those facts are non-notable. The fact that you have a felt need to both delete his religion and include theirs is odd disruptive, and against logic.

Taking the two together, and seeing how you have been doing this at various articles, it appears that you are on some sort of tendentious editing spree that is disruptive. Please cut it out.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that his father is Jewish and his mother is Catholic. If we're mentioning his background in the article, that should be stated. That's what he himself states when asked, "My father is Jewish and my mother is Catholic". If he also specifically self-identifies as Jewish in either a religious or ethnic sense, you can add that too with a reference. That's why I don't really understand what this debate is about. By ancestry, his father is Jewish and his mother is not. By religion, it sounds like he wasn't raised in either faith specifically. The article should reflect his actual background. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're being disruptive, and edit-warring. 1) We have five RSs that say he is Jewish. That is the fact about him. RS-supported. You keep on deleting it. That's a disruptive violation of wikipedia's rules. 2) You then go on to talk, not about him, but about his parents. You've made no showing that that is notable for this article. As I said before, there are many facts about Sam Fuld. I know, as I've read every article used as a reference. There are also facts in those articles about what schools his parents attended -- but we don't insert that, and delete the fact that he went to Stanford. We have a bevy of refs, and I've added some, and I see that Jewish Sports Review also identifies him as Jewish (and they're criteria also requires self-identification). You're editing to delete HIS religion, supported by five refs, and add information on people other than him is, at best, non-sensical. But, since you are doing it throughout other articles, perhaps there is something else at work. I don't know. Suffice it to say, the fact that he is Jewish, supported by half a dozen refs, should be reflected. For now, I'll put that back. As to whether there is consensus support for your view that we must reflect his parents religions, I'll see if that appears magically. Please don't continue editing disruptively, as I've warned you already for this, and please take this warning as a formal warning for your related edits across the project. I've added additional refs reflecting that he is Jewish, and you've failed to provide any reason not to respect them.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive. I'm adding more specific and accurate information based on Fuld's own words, which isn't the case for all of your citations. The article should explain his full ethnic and religious heritage, if we're getting into it. Why should it be a secret, especially since Fuld is the one referencing it himself? If he self-identifies himself as Jewish, that can be added as well. You can compare this to Robert De Niro or John Travolta - they're both of partial Italian extraction and I'm sure we can find hundreds of sources that describe them as "Italian American". That doesn't mean we don't report their full background and non-Italian ancestry, especially since they reference it themselves. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you have now added the Catholic mother information yourself. That is a good step forward. However, I still don't understand why the phrase "Fould, who is Jewish" is there? What does it mean? If we're referring to his ethnic heritage, then that's already covered by the statement that his father is Jewish and his mother is not. If we're referring to his religious beliefs, he himself says he celebrates both Christmas and Hanukkah, and that "Christmas has always been a big deal", he has "best of both worlds", "We celebrate both". So clearly he is not simply Jewish by religion, nor does he claim to be. All he says is "My father is Jewish and my mother is Catholic". His word has precedent over a bunch of random columnists who compose lists of Jews. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To the contrary. You're being astoundingly disruptive. It is a core principle of wp that an editor should not delete text supported by half a dozen RSs. You've done that. Repeatedly. Despite that, I've tendered you the respect I feel you deserve as a fellow senior editor, and not to this point accelerated the matter. As I said, there are two issues. The first -- your deletions of the fact that he is Jewish. A fact supported by multiple RS references. That is uncalled for. The second, and separate, issue is whether it is notable to reflect not only the religion of the subject himself, but that of people other than the subject of the bio. You couple your repeated deletion of his religion, with your adding the religions of people who are not the subject of the bio. This is, at best, odd. At worst, it is ... worse than odd. In any event, while we report what his parents' jobs are, we don't report all manner of information about them (which can be found in articles that mention him) as I have delineated before ... because they are non-notable in this articles about him. The same with his uncle -- his uncle is Jewish, and that is reflected in his uncle's article. But nobody has felt a need to reflect that here. Not even you (but perhaps that is because his uncle is Jewish? I notice you were only pleased as to the addition of his mother's religion, and not his father's ... perhaps that is your driving force?). I recently worked with others to bring this article to GA status, and you've just now parachuted in, with no apparent interest in working to improve the article or interest in it, but just a desire to delete the RS-supported reference to the SUBJECT of the article, while adding info of others. That makes zero sense.

As far as my "adding" in the non-notable information about people other than Fuld, I simply as I said above I would do, for the moment did not delete it. As I wait to see if you have consensus support here. Which so far I do not see. As to what it means to say that Fuld is Jewish, it means what it says. The RSs support it. It is verifiable. If you have a problem with the RSs, that is your problem. Construe it as you like, as with all info on wikipedia. What you should not do, however, as it is patently disruptive and violative of the rules of wp, however, is delete RS-supported information about the subject of this article because you personally say you "don't understand". People can read the RSs, and draw their own conclusions. There's no need for you to engage in OR, or for me to try to share with you my knowledge in this area. I'm sure we would both enjoy the conversation, but it's not necessary. If you have a problem knowing what it means to be Jewish, read Einstein, or Brandeis, or all manner of texts on the subject that I can help direct you to, and join the relevant wikiproject and open up all manner of discussions there. As it stands, we have RS support for the statement. There is no issue to discuss. You've been around here long enough to know that.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what Richard S. Fuld, Jr. has to do with anything - his article says his parents are Jewish. Presumably if his mother was Catholic, his article would say his mother was Catholic? Anyway, I think you understand exactly what I'm talking about. This is amazingly simple stuff. Obviously a reference that interviews Fuld himself is more reliable than various lists of Jews or mentions of Fuld being "Jewish" among several others. If we wanted to describe his background, we would say his father was Jewish and his mother was Catholic, and that he was raised celebrating holidays of both faiths. That's what he says himself. If in another interview he chose to self-identify as Jewish, we could add that as well. Random mentions of "Fuld, Braun, Youkilis are Jewish baseball players" aren't really relevant here. You can find a reliable source that describes completely non-Jewish people as "Jewish". The Forward called Madonna "Jewish". I saw more than one reference to Daryl Zanuck being Jewish. Rapper Asher Roth was described as Jewish by a horde of sources written out by not-so-bright people, even a major British newspaper! But every time he is asked, he says his father or grandfather was Jewish, and that he himself is not Jewish. What that means is that we don't ignore references that are obviously more reliable, like an interview with the subject of the article, as opposed to a stray mention of someone being "Jewish", possibly written by a writer who is completely clueless. I'm sure you know this. Again, I ask, what is the meaning of "Fuld is Jewish"? If we're talking about his ethnicity, that's covered by the statement about his parents. If we're talking about his religious beliefs, he seems to explain them pretty well in the interview, and we can mention some of that. If we're talking about self-identification, well, maybe he has self-identified, but that source hasn't been produced. So what are we talking about? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, two issues here. Issue 1 -- the fact that Fuld is Jewish is sourced to RSs. A sampling of quite a few is now in the article, and there are many more that you can easily find. That should not have been deleted (in fact, it was a clear wp:van violation to do so), and has now been restored. Further deletions will lead to reports at the vandalism noticeboard about your deletions of RS-supported material relating to the subject of an article (again).

Issue 2 -- AHW's felt need to add information (after he deleted the same type as to Fuld himself) as to Fuld's parents. My thoughts on that are reflected above. My point as to Fuld's uncle is that -- as with Fuld's parents -- his uncle is a person other than the subject of the article. Why AHW has a felt need to reflect the religions of people other than Fuld (while deleting his religion) is not clear to me. His applauding the reflection of the religion of Fuld's mother -- but not his father -- does raise a level of concern as to his motivations, however. I've already responded to whatever other "points" I can see in AHW's remaining comments. What we're left with, is why is there a need in AHW's view to reflect not the religion of the subject of the article, but the religions of other people.

Fuld can be listed on the list of Jewish major league baseball players by Baseball America, but you won't find him on a list of "major league baseball players whose mother is religion x". It's simply not notable for purposes of this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Who cares what list we can find him on? We're talking about article text, not categorization. I'm sure I can find Bob De Niro on hundreds of lists of Italian American actors, and probably not one of French American actors, that doesn't change the fact that his article should and does explain his full background. Again I ask the question - what does the statement "Fuld is Jewish" mean? His ancestry (Jewish father, Catholic mother) is already explained. His religious beliefs, judging from his interview, are in between, rather than "Jewish". As for self-identifying as Jewish, he hasn't done so. So again I ask, what does this statement mean, "Fuld is Jewish", and why is it there? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I answered your question above as to "what does it mean". I think we should start a new thread as to why it is relevant to add information as to people other than the subject of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but we (Wikipedia) require sources supporting self-identification as Jewish in biographies of living people. Sources simply calling him Jewish without the support of such self-identification are not adequate to support a bald statement that "X is Jewish" per WP:BLPCAT and frequent discussions on the topic at WP:BLPN, the most recent being WP:BLPN#Nikki Yanofsky. We have reliable sources indicating that he is believed to be Jewish and these may well support the Jewish Major League Baseball players category (or may not, probably should be discussed at BLPN). The only way to clarify the situation is to include the religions of both parents. Since his mother is not Jewish, the situation is not even clear enough to state that he is ethnically Jewish - many Orthodox Jews would not consider him Jewish. If the Jewish community can't even agree whether or not he is Jewish, how can we make any bald statement about it not supported by his own self-identification? He has apparently chosen not to clarify his religion, and Wikipedia is not in the business of stating people's religion unless they themselves have done so. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's wrong for a number of reasons delineated in the below string. As reflected there, there appear to be a number of guidelines that you seem to be miscontruing, including those of synth and OR. Also, clearly you have no consensus for your view here; even AHW believes, by his edits, that no such requirement exists -- he added religions of people who are not even the subject of the article. And, as you know, Fuld does self-identify -- not that that is required. Wikipedia is in the business of reflecting what is in the RSs, that is notable about the subject of the article. This is reflected in the RSs -- wikipedia is not in the business of reporting that people have venereal disease and AIDS, based only on RSs, and then censoring out the fact that person x is religion y ... when it is amply reported in RSs. The Yworo Rule is not only not the wp rule, it flies in the face of WP:COMMONSENSE, for these reasons and those indicated below.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:BLP allows us to report "that people have venereal disease and AIDS, based only on RSs". That in my opinion would not be permitted by WP:BLP either, so your objection is a red herring. In most cases, that would fall not only under BLP's exhortation to "do no harm", it would also run afoul of WP:UNDUE, unless the subject were notable for having been arrested and convicted for knowingly and willingly spreading the disease, it would be completely inappropriate material for a BLP, even with multiple reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding information as to people other than the subject of the article

• AHW is seeking to add information as to people other than the subject of the article. Specifically, the religions of the parents of the subject of the article. Curiously, he did this while deleting information as to Fuld's own religion. That has since been restored, but does raise the possibility of some POINTyness at work. AHW also, above, expressed pleasure at the reflection of the religion of the mother -- but not the father -- further raising the possibility that a POV issue may be affecting his editing.

In any event, I do not see why it is notable what the religion of his parents is. His religion is relevant -- it is very widely cited, in all manner of RSs. Furthermore, there are books devoted to Jewish athletes, let alone articles and the Baseball America list and the Baseball Hall of Fame symposium. There is simply nothing on that order devoted to "Major League ballplayers whose mother is religion x" -- which is apparently the material that AHW is so desperate to include. I don't see it as notable. Comments are welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that Fuld is of the Jewish religion? He says he was raised celebrating Christmas and Hanukkah. Nowhere does he say that he was raised Jewish. Even if he was raised Jewish (of which we have no proof), the word Jewish refers to both an ethnicity and a religion, so yes, the meaning of the word in his case should be clarified (i.e. non-Jewish mother). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is no support for calling Fuld Jewish, only support for him being referred to as Jewish. His mother is not Jewish and we have no sources supporting self-identification as required by WP:BLPCAT, which applies "equally to biographies of living persons". The article is quite clear that his father is Jewish and that he is perceived by some as Jewish (this could be clarified), but does not establish that he considers himself Jewish. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd. There are many RSs reflecting that he is Jewish. That is the basis for reflecting he is Jewish . Our job is to mirror the RSs, to the extent that anything in them is notable about the subject of the article. That's it--it's pretty simple. And even AHW tacityly acknowledges that much ... he has sought to reflect the religions of the parents, on the basis of their having been reported in RSs as being religions x and y (and indeed, has done that throughout the project ... the issue is not as Yworo frames it in the least). The only issue here is whether the religions of people other than the subject of the article are notable in this article on the subject himself.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not absurd. It's policy. You can use RS's like that for non-living people, but for living people, self-identification is strictly required. Yworo (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm ... no. It's not. There was an effort to make that policy, but that effort failed. Perhaps you took part in the discussion, in which event you would know. (I think there were some good discussions in that string about the proposal suggesting that x would have to self-identify to be religion x, which even Popes do not do for RS-reporting as a general rule, but that no such "test" would be required for someone to be reported as being a cannibal, having a venereal disease (the origin of slander/libel rules, or having AIDs.) Also, if it were policy, we would have to delete reference to many cardinals, priests, etc. being Christian. In addition, not that it matters, but we know that Fuld self-identified, per JSR. Further, if your view were in fact the case, the references to Fuld's parents religions are the only references that would have to be deleted, as they are the only people in the article that did not self-identify where this is an issue. Finally -- check the title of this string. You are off in red herring land. But, I take it from what you are saying that you support the deletion of his parents' religions (they don't meet your personal test), and support the reflection of his religion (he has self-identified, to JSR).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. See WP:BLPCAT and the addendum which states to what it applies. The idea that "we would have to delete reference to many cardinals, priests, etc. being Christian" is ridiculous, the act of becoming clergy is such a statement of self-identication. Nothing says that the statement has to be in words, an act of commitment to a religion is also a statement. Yworo (talk)

I disagree for the reasons I stated. Are you aware of the effort, the failed effort, to make the Yworo rule the wikipedia rule? Also -- to the point, in this article, then, you of course agree with the deletion of the religions of the people who are not the subject of the article, correct? Which, if we were to bring you back to the subject of this string, as reflected in the title, is what we are talking about.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any failed effort. I'm aware that WP:BLPCAT, which is policy, states "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" and further states that "These principles apply equally to biographies of living persons." I'm also aware that in general when such an issue is taken to WP:BLPN, the consensus is generally that self-identification is required for article statements as well as categories - the general feeling being that if we can't add the category, we should not add the statement. Fuld is reliably-sourced only to be of Jewish descent, which many less discerning sources equate with being Jewish: they are however not the same thing. I've checked the JSR sources used on the article, and none have a statement of self-identification documented. Jewish sources frequently make assumptions based on parentage which harms their reliability for this specific piece of information. Yworo (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The failed effort was right on point. Though it is not required, as I said JSR -- which requires agreement by the subject that his self-identification be published before it identifies someone as Jewish -- identifies Fuld as Jewish. So, though it is not required, as I said you have it here. You've now avoided a number of times confirming what must be the case however -- the subject of this string relates to the identification of the religion of his parents ... I assume your above comments are made in good faith, and therefore assume that you support the deletion of the mention of their religions. Please, bring yourself back to the topic of this string -- it is reflected in the title to this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"which requires agreement by the subject that his self-identification be published before it identifies someone as Jewish" - how do we know this? If you can show me this policy, than that is the single source which would support the statement. Coatracking additional sources simply looks like synthesis, one good source is sufficient. You are probably right that we should rephrase the info about his father and mother more like "Fuld has identified his father as Jewish and his mother as Catholic". Yworo (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• I know it because I read it. As to coatracking -- you don't appear to understand the phrase. To coatrack is to hide issue x (the rack) by covering it with issue y (the coats). That has no application here. Where, as is the case here, there is controversy as to a point, it is proper to use more footnotes than usual. As to the last point -- what you are saying is in conflict with your first statements. You profess to believe that we can't identify the parents' religion unless they self-identify, yet your suggested alternative ignores your professed belief.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree on both counts. In the first case, the multiple refs hide the fact that none of them supports self-identification. I will however take your word for it that JSR does require self-ident and will leave well enough alone. However, don't be surprised if the statement continues to be removed by other editors due to the appearance of synthesis. Many editors see multiple refs for a single simple point as synthesis. WP:OR used to say something about an excess number of refs being a telltale for original research but I don't see that on the page anymore. Second, reporting what a family member has said, e.g. "My father is Jewish" is simply not the same a saying "Fuld's father is Jewish". It leaves open the (however slight) ambiguity that his father might not be Jewish and that the subject might have their own reasons for making a false statement about it. In any case, the only way to be clear about mixed-religion families is to clarify in such a manner. I suppose we could report his statement about his father and mother simply as that he has stated that he comes from a family professing multiple religions, without making a direct statement about who is what. One thing we don't know which is a possibility. He might also consider himself Catholic. JSR doesn't clarify in what sense he self-identified as Jewish or whether their requirements are ethnic or religious. Fuld could easily self-identify as a Catholic by religion and only ethnically as Jewish. We don't know. If this should turn out to be the case, we are doing him a disservice with the bald statement that he is Jewish. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • We will have to agree to disagree. 1) I don't agree that the Yworo rule is the rule here. 2) Readers can click through to the articles. 3) The text mirrors precisely what the text in multiple refs say (and, if you've checked, you know there are many more). 4) Feel free to roll them up into one ref, listing them all (I can't recall how, and haven't the time to figure it out). Synth is again not at all the case; synth is when you take an egg and flour and make a cake that you then serve up -- it is not when you have an egg, and serve someone ... an egg. This is precisely the opposite of synth. Of course, for synth you need more than one source -- but this is not at all the combination of 2 disparate facts to form a third. The furthest thing from it. 5) Also, reporting that Fuld said his father is Jewish (if he did say that) is no different from reporting that an RS said it ... actually, it is not even as good as an RS, as it lacks RS indicia. By your criteria, since the father didn't self-ID, his religion should not be reported. I think you are not being consistent here. 6) We know he doesn't practice Catholicism. Because JSR won't identify as Jewish anyone who practices a faith other than Judaism. Finally, the bald statement that he is Jewish is the same bald statement that all manner of RS uses to reflect that he is Jewish.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
      • When it comes to the religion of a living person, reliable sourcing is certainly necessary, but not sufficient in and of itself, and policy doesn't agree that multiple sources overcome this. We really shouldn't be relying on your professed knowledge of JSR policy, We should have a reference for that as well. Yworo (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm starting to wonder what the reason is for your inconsistency (see 5 in my last post). As to the larger issue, there is of course an inherent illogic in the rule that you would like, which would say that is fine to use an RS to support the statement that a person has VD or AIDs, but not that they are religion x. This isn't a forum, so it isn't the place to discuss it, but that's at the bottom of why we never adopted it as a rule. Even those people who hate religions can't possibly think that reflecting a religion is more injurious to the person than reflecting that they have VD or AIDS. In my opinion, it a common sense issue above all (and we do have a guideline about that). And, of course, this isn't an issue of multiple sources overcoming anything. I note that you would like to become a sysop one day -- I would suggest that before you apply, you brush up on some of the basic rules you have quoted at me. I imagine that your interpretations of the SYNTH guideline, in particular (a point I raised that you did not acknowledge), would damage your chances, and you really want to get that sort of stuff right before you toss your hat in the ring and have editors review your interpretation of wp guidelines. Just a thought.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
• I'm a bit disturbed, Yoworo. The subject of this article is reflected in the subject line. You've been avoiding it. By your self-professed "rule", the religions of the parents should not in your opinion be reflected -- because they don't self-identify. It would go a long way to not rebutting the assumption of good faith if you would confirm this as your thinking. You've eaten up a lot of acreage on red herring discussions. Please, come back to the subject of the string.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I posted under the wrong heading, posted again under the correct heading above, but you'd already replied here, so this is where the conversation occurred. I only intended to discuss the "Fuld is Jewish" statement and would have deleted my post under this heading if you'd not replied before I had a chance to do so. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the article should simply state that his father is Jewish and his mother is Catholic, and quote him perhaps about his religious upbringing, from the one reference I could find where he discusses his background. Surely an interview with the subject of the article is the best and (in this case, the only) source relevant to us? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
      • I've verified that Jewish Sports Review uses criteria equivalent to Wikipedia's. We can say he is Jewish, because they have adequate editorial oversight and only list people who self-identify as Jewish. We can't give the religions of the parents unless we can find a source which support self- identification. We won't find that for his mother, she's involved in the No Labels movement; her profiles all leave the religion field blank and I cannot find any other reliable sources in which she self-identifies. Her article doesn't list her religion either, probably due to lack of sourcing. As a side note, none of the sources we use to support Fuld's parentage even mention their names! Feel free to find some sources that support the names and occupations of his parents. Then find sources in which their religions are actually attached to their names rather than to "my/his father" and "my/his mother". Yworo (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest the following wording. I think it is in keeping with policy and sources:

"Fuld is one of the few Jewish baseball players in the major leagues. His father, who is Jewish, Kenneth Fuld, is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Professor of Psychology at the University of New Hampshire. His mother, who is Catholic, Amanda Merrill, is a New Hampshire State Senator. He is also a second cousin of former Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld." Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

• - Lets be quite clear - call him what you like , add a loosely termed citation but none of that will make him a full Jew - his mother will never be Jewish whatever you add to the article. As far as who is a Jew is concerned he is a half Jew. Who is a Jew#.22Half-Jewish.22 - to ignore that while presenting weakly reported he is a Jew articles is a ridiculous encyclopedic falsehood. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I don't see why we don't just report his full background and upbringing and let readers decide for themselves. That's how Wikipedia always does it. And that's especially true since we have a great citation, an interview, to back it up. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have NEVER put someone in the "Jewish" category, but ....

Let me first state that Epeefleche mentioned this discussion to me, and I gave him my thoughts as a User of Wikipedia and not as an Editor, but it seems like a pointlessly heated discussion, so I hoping I can shed some light on the subject.

If you want some interesting, humorous background reading, try this Short Story: Let Us Now Claim Famous Men.

As an editor, I don't believe I have ever added the Jewish category to anyone's bio article.

As a user, I come to Wikipedia ALL THE TIME to answer the question, "Is so and so Jewish?" And I have lazy, computer-inept family members who ask me the question all the time, because they still can't figure out how to get to wikipedia on their own.

And that is what an encyclopedia should do, answer the questions that people frequently have. Those of you who think this is silly that Jewish people bother with this, well, you obviously have never or not often had cause to ask the question.

As for how prominent the "jewish" angle should be in any article, I am happy to find it as a category. When I have the question, I am not interested in reading the rest of the article, anymore than a tennis fan wants to read about the whole draw at Wimbledon when the question in their head is "who won in 2008?" In fact, all I ever do to answer this question is pull up the bio page and search for "jew".

As to the question of whether I would want to know if Fuld is Jewish and whether half-jewish, half-catholic would matter to me, I refer you to Adam Sandler's Hanukah song: "We've got Ann Landers / And her sister, Dear Abby / Harrison Ford's a quarter Jewish / Not too shabby."

So if the degree of a person's Jewishness doesn't interest you at all as an editor, then don't ever make a note of it. But just know that there are obviously dozens of editors who do care to note it in an article, and thousands of users who care to read it on wikipedia. ShabbatSam (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note, and for the explanation of how you feel and the things for which you use Wikipedia. However, as mentioned in the previous discussions that spanned several pages, policy prohibits citing the religion of someone -- whether by category, or explicit statement in-text -- who has not either (1) self-identified, and/or (2) achieved notability in some measure because of said religion (i.e. priest, reverends, rabbis, and other religious-type figures). Unitanode 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a modification that simply changes the "Jewish" description of Mr. Fuld from a hard number (nine) to a general non-specific format. The one reference that states "nine" is contradicted by the article listing within Wikipedia, itself, that lists Jewish baseball players. Johnbtv (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. Welcome to wp. You were responding to a 2-year-old comment, re a different form of the article. By a now-fully blocked user. We just follow the refs -- whatever the refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the "welcome!" But I would submit that regardless of the age of the comment, the accuracy of my change is not in question. Would that be correct?? Johnbtv (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view, cherry-picked information

I'm not going to tag the article because I'm not well versed in the legalese on this website, but this is one of the most obviously fan-slanted pages on the internet for an athelete.

I specifically contest the use of the words "Internet Legend" regarding a Youtube video and Twitter tweets. It's simply not notable enough for Facebook.

I also think saying that the Cubs 'didn't give him a consistent chance' is superfluous and one can argue that they gave him a very generous change at major league baseball.

Also, every little fact about his seasons are recorded except for his negative statistics, even when those statistics are batting average and on-base percentage, two of the most important statistics in the sport.

I wash my hands of the Sam Fuld Wikipedia page, but I hope someone for the sake of Wikipedia's encyclopedic foundations corrects this article one day.Goblins77 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is RS-sourced material. It's fine - even if you may have written the RS sources differently, had you been a writer for the RSs. We simply reflect the RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sam Fuld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011170511/http://www.suntimes.com:80/sports/baseball/cubs/570503,CST-SPT-cub23.article to http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/570503,CST-SPT-cub23.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Sam Fuld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121009073505/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/20/PSPNEWSO3-rays-notebook/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/20/PSPNEWSO3-rays-notebook/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121106091339/http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6320204 to http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6320204
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121009073505/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/20/PSPNEWSO3-rays-notebook/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/20/PSPNEWSO3-rays-notebook/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121009072905/http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/12/121903/rays-of-fuld-becomes-instant-internet-legend/news-breaking/ to http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/apr/12/121903/rays-of-fuld-becomes-instant-internet-legend/news-breaking/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

I find this article to be well-sourced, but a lot of the information is overwhelming positive for a player with limited information about his struggles. I will admit that I am a Cubs fan and that Fuld was a fan-favorite, but this article makes him appear as if he was an elite MLB player. It does not mention any negative downsides or statistics about Fuld.

For example, The 2010 discuses Fuld's demotion to the minors. The latter off two quotes accuses the Cubs management for making a bad decision. Yet this section makes to reference to the fact Fuld batted .143 in 19 games. The 2013 section doesn’t even mention that Fuld had his worst season (statistically) with the Rays that season.[14] The Oakland Athletics (second stint; 2014–present) sections states: "For the season, Fuld batted .239 in 113 games overall" While this is correct, there is no mention that he batted .200 or .210 with the A's that season. Instead there is a composite of the three averages from that season that makes Fuld's performance appear better than it actually was in reality. This article does not contain any information post 2014 - Fuld did not make the A's 2016 starting roster after batting .197 in 2015 and injuring his shoulder.[15]

Another editor previously brought this up in the past, claiming multiple portions of this article have a Pro-Fuld Bias. While the information is sourced, that is does not mean it is neutral by any means. Anyone can find sourced to make a subject look better than it actually is by finding positive sources.

I'm not trying to attack or slander Sam Fuld, but I feel this article should be more fairly written. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sam Fuld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/spec-rel/041201aaa.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418230424/http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/fuld_sam00.html to http://www.gostanford.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/fuld_sam00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)