Talk:Ronen Segev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 13 January 2007, Ronen Segev was linked from Consumerist, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

The part involving PriceLine and ReputationDefender were previously reverted for reason of "not relevant, and were potentially slanderous (also not well sourced)." It seems to me that actions taken by the individual are relevant in an article about them. Further, it seems likely that Segev has gained more fame through posts on popular blog sites about his actions than through his musical career, these actions are at least as relevant to an article about him as his musical career is. Nothing there is potentially slanderous, or even libelous (what User:Hearty000 probably meant rather than slanderous) in that it does site sources showing that the events occurred. There are now several sources for each incident listed, some reprinting text of the original NY Post and United Press International articles (which are no longer available online) that the story came from, so "not well sourced" should no longer be an issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.98.239.238 (talk • contribs).

Contents 1 Blogs as sources 2 WP:BLP 3 Merge with Priceline 4 WP:BIO met 5 Any mention of Priceline incident. 6 Priceline (again)

[edit] Blogs as sources

According to WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources, blogs should not be used as secondary sources as they almost never meet the standard for "reliable sources". Even blog reprints of newspaper articles do not count as reliable sources. If a reliable third-party news account from a newspaper or news network is not found within the next few hours, then the text should be removed per WP:BLP. --Farix (Talk) 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC) *I have access to LexisNexis and I cannot find any New York Post article matching that description. Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Scratch that, found it. "Ronnie Segev." Darn you NYP! Mackensen (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That's better. Print versions of the article by the newspaper are perfectly fine by WP:RS. It's just that an online version makes it easier to verify the contents of the article. --Farix (Talk) 22:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the quotes in the blog match the print version. Mackensen (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP

Based on this policy I have removed the Priceline story from the biography. "Wikipedia is not a tabloid." As this article seems destined for deletion anyway (in my opinion), and since this minor incident (charges were dropped) seems relatively unimportant to his overall life and career, having it take up half the article was, to me, a clear case of undue weight. This is exactly the sort of case where serious editorial judgment argues in favor of restraint.--Jimbo Wales 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Acting as an editor or as Jimbo here? Because the part you're linking to says the following: "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." Seems like the Priceline information is "relevant to" the subject's "notability," this shouldn't be an issue. Undue weight, maybe that can be argued, but that's worth discussing at the very least. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on sourcing this isn't a private individual either, but a celebrity of some musical note. F.F.McGurk 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this material from the article:

Ver 1.0: In May 2005, Segev was jailed on charges of harassing Priceline over a purchased airline ticket; the charges were dismissed after he had spent forty hours in a holding cell. On January 12, 2006, he filed suit against both Priceline and the NYPD.^[1],^[2]

The problem (apart from what is discussed above) is the first sentence. Being jailed on charges implies having been tried, found guilty, and sentenced. What the rest of the text seems to say is that he was in fact charged, but the charges were dropped before he went to court. Could this be clarified? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem - the paragraph clearly explains that the charges were later dropped, but perhaps simply saying "In May 2005, Segev was charged with harassment over a purchased airline ticket through Priceline"? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ver 2.0: In May 2005, Segev was arrested on alleged charges of harassing Priceline over a purchased airline ticket; the charges were dismissed after he had spent forty hours in a holding cell. On January 12, 2006, he filed suit against both Priceline and the New York Police Department.^[3],^[4]

How does that sound? F.F.McGurk 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is notable or interesting at all. It is tabloid crap. --Jimbo Wales 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

United Press International and the New York Post aren't the Weekly World News or supermarket tabloids, and it mentions a minor footnote, a sentence. F.F.McGurk 00:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is worth discussing, but to me it seems pretty clear. If the reason he is thought to be notable is that he was harassed by Priceline, that's pretty much the end of it: this is a totally non-notable event, we don't have and should not have such articles. If the reason he is thought to be notable is his musical career, then this tiny event (which was only written about, apparently, in some very low-respectability places) does not deserve mention, and CERTAINLY does not deserve to be half the article.--Jimbo Wales 23:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We kind of do, and we quite possibly should, though. It's a continual debate. How are you coming at this, so we know exaclty where you're coming from? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do no harm" ... who benefits from having information about his arrest & temporary incarceration on a public encyclopedia? Does Mr. Segev benefit? Surely not. Does priceline.com benefit? Doesn't seem to help them. Do we the public benefit? I can't see how, other than for entertainment purposes. Yes, it is mildly interesting that a man was arrested for something pretty out-of-the-ordinary, but if you read the police blotters I imagine there are plenty of odd reasons for people getting arrested. Wikipedia is not the police blotter, and shouldn't be. Do no harm. 75.194.250.202 02:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we're not doing any harm. This was all over the place long before we got to it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

United Press International and the New York Post aren't respectable or WP:RS? It should be mentioned, but you're right, it shouldn't be 50% of the article. That's what we're trying to do here. He's notable for his music and the fact he's a local NYC (biggest media market on Earth) musical celebrity. F.F.McGurk 00:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

--The UPI article is an abridged copy of the NY Post Article. The NY Post is known for being tabloidish. - added by 162.84.178.205

Actually not really true. Textually they are quite different. F.F.McGurk 00:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, guys, this is supposed to be a serious biographical article, built to stand the test of time. As a person who had a clash with some firm, he's at best a very, very minor footnote, and as a pianist, he is considered by those who think "notability" is a good criterion notable. So I really think we should have an article about the pianist, not the guy who did a silly thing and got a night in the cells for it (which, if we are well rounded, most of us have, kof kof -- I would hate an article about me to focus on something I was embarrassed about). So I think we should be a bit more sensitive and leave it out. And that includes linking to a source that incidentally mentions the thing it is being used as a source for but covers the Priceline thing in detail. I must also add my voice to echo "do no harm". We are an encyclopaedia, not a scandal sheet! Please, let's take a serious view of it and treat the person in question with a bit of dignity. Grace Note 10:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• A "serious biographical article" would mention both. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't agree and you do not substantiate your view. The incident with Priceline will be forgotten in a short while. It's not instructive in the bigger picture of his life. It seems simply to add a taint to what is otherwise a rather run-of-the-mill person of his type. Jeff, I think it is a problem that the "smaller fish" will tend only to make the newspapers for bad reasons, on account of a bad thing's being considered more newsworthy than a good thing. Segev might be nice to his mum, but you're not going to see that in the press, so it doesn't make his bio. He might, to be more serious, be an important part of his local community, but that too is not worthy of notice for the media. Are you seeing this, Jeff, and if you do see it, do you not care? Do you feel that it is our job simply to scrape the web for all the shit we can throw at whomever we can throw it at? Assuming that you do not (and I do assume that you don't!), where are you drawing the line? And if not at this, why, precisely, do you think that this is of particular interest in the context of this guy? Grace Note 12:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • His notability is more because of the Priceline thing than his musicianship, really. It's why the majority of people who know of him know of him. That's the simple fact of the matter. Can (and should) we attempt to fill in more gaps from primary sources regarding his bio? Absolutely. Does that mean we need to make the piece a whitewash? I certainly hope not. I care about an accurate article that covers all aspects of his "notability," end statement. That includes the good as well as the bad. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Priceline

Perhaps we should consider adding this incident to the Priceline article and deleting this article? --24fan24 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Person is notable on their own, see the below section... F.F.McGurk 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BIO met

Per the WP:RS qualifying sources in the article (look in previous revisions as well) this person qualifies easily under WP:BIO. He's been covered by the New York Times, United Press International, the New York Post, and according to those sources, Timeout NY, NY 1 News, ABC News, FOX News, NPR, and CBS News on TV broadcasts. F.F.McGurk 00:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Why have you placed this here instead of at the AfD? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you can't cut and paste it if you think it should be there too. Presumably, no one "voting" at the AfD is going to do so without reading this page? Grace Note 13:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I think that it's extremely unwise to start adding other people's comments to an AfD. Secondly, it seems clear from the standard of debate that the majority of people who comment at AfDs don't read the articles' Talk pages. Finally, are you actually arguing that an AfD discussion should be taken to include the Talk-page discussion? That would be a significant change of policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any mention of Priceline incident.

So, on other celebrities, passing reference is made to controversies swirling around them, per undue weight and NPOV. Per WP:NPOV and the fact we aren't censored, there is no acceptable reason we shouldn't mention the Priceline issues at least in a single sentence once the article is built up to a paragraph or three.

In May 2005, Segev was arrested on alleged charges of harassing Priceline over a purchased airline ticket; the charges were dismissed after he had spent forty hours in a holding cell. On January 12, 2006, he filed suit against both Priceline and the New York Police Department.^[5],^[6]

Or do we shield the articles of people who happen to call and yell at the WMF? F.F.McGurk 14:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The concern here is that half the article is devoted to this one incident, which is considered "undue weight." If, as you say, we can bulk up the article otherwise, then the material can do back in. He's not notable because he got into a spat with Priceline. If he's notable, he's notable for his career. Mackensen (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think he's more "notable" for the Priceline incident than his music career. Consumerist didn't link here because of his piano skills. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • If he was, though, we'd have more sources on the event than one New York Post article. There's no supplemental coverage, no follow-up. Mackensen (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Why would there be? Are we only judging "notability" by how many stories in the mainstream press cover an event, or on how people know a name? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • It seems like there is some sort of determined effort to undermine the ideas of those that disagree with you. You are speculating and assuming bad faith when you suggest that the other editors aren't truly trying to make a fair and judicious decision. I thought this place was about showing good faith and wiki love? Newbiez12345

[edit] Priceline (again)

(I added this as its own section because it's been a month since it was discussed and I didn't want it to be overlooked) It seems to me that the article is now long enough that a sentence or two (as suggested by F.F.McGurk) would not give undue weight in the article, particularly since I agree the name is probably more well known due to the Priceline incident and Consumerist's coverage of it than for his musical career. Does anyone object to the sentence being added now that the main article would not be just as long as the bit about Priceline would be? --DanteComedy 21:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC) No response to this in over a week, so I'll go ahead and add it.--DanteComedy 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this::

1) The material has no basis here, and this issue has already been discussed and decided. Please seel BLP.

2) The user you reference who was pushing the inclusion is a banned user.

3) It is incorrect to state that the article has increased in length. It has not. newbiez12345

1) I'm looking at BLP and seeing no conflict with it. We have two verifiable secondary sources that mention the incident. Nor would we be the primary vehicle for spreading this information; a quick check of google shows me that of the top 5 hits, 4 are primarily about this incident (the fifth being the wikipedia entry). Further, it's pretty clear looking at the discussion that no consensus was reached; the discussion just petered out. 2) I'll admit that I didn't think to check this before using his argument. I wonder why. Anyway, subsequently being banned for something unrelated does not remove the validity of his argument (and the ban was unrelated; he was banned for being a sock, but it's clear from his contributions that he was not a sock generated for this discussion), nor does it remove the validity of the arguments other, non-banned users made to the same effect. 3) The article has increased in length. Before this discussion, the article was two sentences (or five sentences with the original information on the incident). Now it's five, and will be seven with the proposed two sentences added. One worry was that we were giving undue weight to the incident when it was more than half the article; it would be a much smaller percentage now.--DanteComedy 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP states that individuals who are not major celebrities are afforded a certain degree of privacy, especially material that could be controversial, hurtful in one way or another, or as user grace note above puts it: "not instructive in the bigger picture of his life. It seems simply to add a taint to what is otherwise a rather run-of-the-mill person of his type." It is very clear when there is any question on this type of issue that the mandate is to "do no harm." Google rankings are not by any means a serious way to give editorial judgement to a person's biography. Those type of things are fleeting, and the goal here is a long-term serious article about a musician. I think there was a clear consensus on this point. --newbiez12345

The mention of the Google rankings addresses BLP; it shows that we are in no way "the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" (if one even counts articles in the New York Post and United Press International as being "titillating claims" in the first place). The information is out there, and anyone doing basic reasearch on the internet about Segev will find out about the incident. Therefore, we are doing no harm by including information that is easily available elsewhere, nor are we the primary vehicle of the spread of that information.

Actually, Wikipedia has much more staying power than many other sites, and as such it is essential to maintain a higher standard of serious content within BLP. The entire policy is written around these principles. Remember BLP are supposed to be written "conservatively". --newbiez12345

There is no consensus that we have a goal of "a long-term serious article about a musician." That would violate NPOV; our goal here is an accurate article about the man, not to limit it to whatever particular thing the man is notable for. Again, he has gained more attention for the Priceline incident than his music career; as such it's something that should be included. It's an aspect of his life backed up by verifiable secondary sources and is the source of his notariaty; I don't see how you can object to a brief mention of it in his article.--DanteComedy 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP states:""In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."" This particular item is sensationalist and not notable. Why would you want to spread trivial things like that about essentially a non-public figure. Any mention of it, even a brief one, will be undue weight unless this person was a very well-known celebrity with numerous screens worth of content. --newbiez12345

Concur with newbiez12345. The matter has no relevence to the article. We're not a collection of controversy. Please do not take the lack of interest in the article as carte blanche to re-add controversial material. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)