Talk:Larry Seidlin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2007. The result of the discussion was to keep at that time. Due to lack of current interest and notability, the possibility of archiving, deleting and merging the article into the Anna Nicole Smith article is being discussed again as of September 2007 (see below). Should the discussion warrant it, it will be listed at WP:AFD accordingly.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


Contents

[edit] Merger/Deletion proposal

The 1st section below is the current discussion to merge Seidlin's article into Anna Nicole Smith's article with his own section there. This is a different discussion from the premature discussion of this subject which was done in the 2nd section below back in February 2007, and it's been generally accepted that he was indeed a notable person in February 2007 and the article shouldn't have been been proposed as an Article for Deletion at that time; it was kept, of course. Most people who vote to keep the article do so because of a rumored future national TV show, but currently there is no official word from either the alleged TV producer (CBS, through its syndication wing, CTD) nor Seidlin himself that a deal has been reached and no official confirmation that screen tests are even being done, just rumors. Please read the entire section including each argument/response and leave your own comment about your feelings over the merger proposal. If enough people propose a merger, it will be sent to WP:AFD again. Since Seidlin is no longer in the news and arguably not a historic figure, the comments for or against make take some time to show a broad consensus one way or the other as only 6 people have weighed in over a 3-week period, which in itself may be considered indicative of his non-notoriety. If you believe the article should be kept, please indicate how long you feel we should wait for the rumored TV show to be announced officially.

The comments are currently running 4 to 2 to keep it, though mainly to see if Seidlin's rumored show becomes reality. It is proposed that only logged-in users leave a comment so it eliminates the possibility of sockpuppets and so you can stand behind your words in name.--Bamadude 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger/Deletion discussion as of September 2007

Let's talk about a compromise and merge this old current news article into Anna Nicole's article. The nomination of this article for AFD (Articles For Deletion) that was rejected was done many months ago and was based on arguments made when this article was indeed newsworthy, but those arguments are now very old. It's no longer current news and it's definintely not a historical article that requires preservation now that 6 months have passed since this guy's name has even been uttered in the press. There's only been one person besides me who cares enough to even leave an opinion her since February 2007. He's no more important than any other judge handing down a decision in a celebrity case with the exception of Judge Ito, and even Ito should be merged into O.J. & Keating's articles. For chrissakes, Andy Warhol is tapping on this guy's shoulder and pointing at his Rolex! I love to hear what everybody else has to say about it now in September 2007, pro or con, to my specific point that this person is not a historical figure and the proposal to merge it into Anna's article under a separate subheader. As food for thought, consider this --- how important will this guy be to history 50 years from now? If you believe he'll be long-forgotten and not noteworthy, vote for merger. At least Anna will always be a historical article and he'll live on there.

I forgot to add that he gets one little blurb in Anna's article, so apparently nobody there believes he's very newsworthy either, but I disagree only in that context. There's nothing much there about the custody trial on her page, so why not let's set up a separate subheader/subsection for it there under Anna's death details and call it "Custody Trial" and merge Seidlin's historical contribution to the article and leave out his background, which is not newsworthy or historical anyway and stick to the pertinent facts?

Also want to point out that the rumored CBS TV show for 2008 is just that at this point, a rumor, and no official source has confirmed anything. It's amazing to me that anybody would sign this guy to a show anyway when 9 out of 10 comments I read about him are negative and it seems the entire legal community hates him. Also, according to Law.com, he's being investigated for "asking a lawyer for gifts and financially exploiting an elderly woman".[1] Sounds like he might become notoriously newsworthy again, or should I say infamous? Surely CBS investigated this before they considered offering him a contract; it could be why we're not hearing much about the alleged show.

Obviously, here in September 2007, this guy is not worthy of an encyclopedic article and his news worthiness as a mini-celebrity is long gone; i.e., his 15 minutes are up. Like the users below, I have once again nominated this article for speedy deletion (as I did months ago) and good riddance. Dear Anna Nicole fans: Please get over it, or do the right thing and post an article on Sugar Pie, the dog, who at least had more TV time than Judge Larry, although Sugar Pie wasn't nearly as good an actor as "Cryin' Seidlin".--Bamadude 03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

From nothing more than the fact that this has been AFD'd and kept, this is not an article that should be speedy deleted. Sorry. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Judge Ito has quite bit more notoriety not just because he got more "face time" than Seidlin in a much-bigger trial, but he also presided over the Keating/Lincoln S&L trial, which was a big story in its time. I agree that Ito is borderline in notoriety, but O.J. made a star of a lot of people who are notable to this day due to that trial. However, until Seidlin's show is officially confirmed by the network or the star himself, which neither have done to-date, the article is not historical or even newsworthy anymore and it should be deleted & merged into Anna's article. I feel the only reason people believe he's newsworthy and/or historical is because they are fans of Anna, so I say, why not create a page for Sugarpie the dog also? After all, Sugarpie was TV star, you know.

Also note that only 1 person besides me has weighed in on this debate since February 2007 prior to my initial post.--Bamadude 00:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I still say "keep", but not very strongly. It's not like wiki is running out of space, and this article is at least clearly written, even if it's short. At worst, keeping this article around will save somebody the trouble of rewriting it if this guy does something else interesting down the road. Also, could you keep new comments in the same part of the page, instead of placing them around the old conversation? It makes it hard to follow. Prgrmr@wrk 14:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
It's obviously best to make rebuttal underneath the statement you're rebutting if you want clarity.--Bamadude 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, he could become notable again, but the question is when will that happen, and how long do you keep it up and waiting for a reason for its very existence based on a rumor that hasn't been officially confirmed by any party to an alleged TV deal? Right now, no official citable source has gone on the record that the man has a TV deal with anybody, so his reason for having an article is based on pure speculation and gossip. Why don't we just archive the article locally (I can do this myself and so can anybody else with cut-and-paste) assuming Wikipedia doesn't offer a repository for articles like these and delete it now? We can then merge info on him into Anna's article.--Bamadude 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick search on google brings up this article [2] , which seems to be pretty sure he's in the process of creating a show, and it's less than a couple months old. Guess we have to "keep waiting" for him to become non-notable again. I originally suggested the idea of merging it with the anna nicole smith page, but I no longer think that's as good an idea, since this page has gotten longer in the meantime. I really just don't see the point, her article is long enough already. Prgrmr@wrk 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are a "gulla bull"! Read the original Access Hollywood. The original AH article is unsourced; it's just more gossip. AH is infamous for quoting anonymous sources, and these article that do that should never be used. Neither the network nor Seidlin has made an official statement. There are numerous pilots made that are never seen. Tom Selleck was in 6 failed pilots before Magnum PI.--Bamadude 01:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than making an insult against somebody who disagrees with you, why not provide new facts, or a link of your own proving that MSNBC was completely wrong? Saying that AH (whom I didn't even mention) is usually a terrible source doesn't really mean anything. You seem to be the only person who currently has a hate on for this article, and I seem to be the only person who cares enough to disagree. And in response to one of your previous comments, I'm not a fan of anna nicole smith, I barely even knew who she was until the media circus around her death. I'm just not a fan of deleting information simply because it might not be very useful, or because it's only interesting for a stupid reason. Prgrmr@wrk 02:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Come on, I was actually being nice with you. I don't have to provide a link saying MSNBC was wrong; all I have to do is look at the cited article to see that the source for the info is anonymous; and since anonymous sources are not solid sources per WP:V, they don't belong in the article. If it was solid and official info, these anonymous sources would go on-the-record. Access Hollywood is notorious for using the tabloid style of reporting by quoting anonymous sources, which could be either the reporter himself, reporter's cousin, the freakin' editor of the rag, or nobody at all. The fact that neither party to this alleged deal has made an official statement is prima facie evidence that there is no official deal. At best, he may be getting a "screen test". Why do you foolishly claim that I'm the only person who has a problem with this article --- please read the entire talk page and you'll easily see that you're sadly mistaken.--Bamadude 23:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I reread the discussion page again, and you're still the only person who currently says to delete this page. Also, most people's idea of being nice doesn't include calling the other person gullible or foolish (whether or not that's true). It's bad form to refer to the other debater's attributes while defending your argument. Regardless, there's currently no strong reason to keep or delete this article, other than the fact that it already exists and may become more important in the future. There are plenty of much shorter stubs about people who didn't even have his brief fame, and those aren't deleted. A google search for "Larry Seidlin" gets about 65000 hits, which is a large number for a "non notable person". The first hit is this wiki article, but that's normal for most topics the last couple years. Prgrmr@wrk 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To say that I'm the only recent poster who advocates merger into Anna's article is a smokescreen, as it's also a fact that only 2 recent posters have discouraged it. In other words, only 3 users cared enough to post a comment about this article in the last 2 weeks, which says volumes about this non-notable article that should be merged. If/when he gets a show, we can put it back up, but waiting for an alleged show that nobody has confirmed is ridiculous.--Bamadude 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I initially found Seidlin to be non-notable, and just a sponge for attention; however, given that other events and stories are arising considering his rumored television show and his legal issues, I'd say we should keep the article for now. If nothing else, Lance Ito still has an article, and I don't think he's generated any publicity since the OJ Trial. If nothing arises from the show, then maybe this can be deleted. PeanutCheeseBar 00:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I knew my initiative to merge this article with Anna probably wouldn't invite anything here but users sympathetic to the man at this point in time; otherwise, why would they be here? Since we're keeping based on gossip, the day when we get more gossip that says he's not getting a nationally-syndicated show OR if we get a majority of user comments here who believe he should be merged with Anna by the end of the year, the article should then be sent to AFD.--Bamadude 14:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy if this guy fades completely into oblivion by then, but it probably won't happen. As a point of interest, I'm not sure why you complain about "users sympathetic to the man at this point in time", since nobody here has actually said they like seidlein. Actually, everyone I've noticed (including myself) has said the opposite. So next time this topic comes up, try not criticising the other side, it doesn't help. Prgrmr@wrk 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not true and you know it, and your previous words do not reflect any contempt for Seidlin. Anybody who would vote for this article to remain based on sheer gossip is obviously sympathetic to Seidlin and not objective. The facts as we know them do not support keeping the article.--Bamadude 22:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious that you claim to know what motivates anyone who wants to keep this article. And I don't think that talking about deletion is productive, if you think it should be deleted, put it up for AfD. Though last time it was up, it was about 30 to 3 in favor of 'keep' and closed after only 2 days. As far as I know, notability (or lack thereof), is arguable, and lack of editor interest in editing this article is not germane to whether it is 'kept' or not (despite what the banner says at the top). Withholding 'keep' opinion until it matters, R. Baley 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Curious that you think user popularity makes an article worth keeping? You could easily find thousands of local bands who have no national profile and no historical or newsworthy reason to have an article that if an article were created on them, you could easily round up 50 users who would want the article to stay because they're fans. Problem is, Wikipedia isn't a fan site; it's SUPPOSED to be a encyclopedic site of articles which are historical or newsworthy. Seidlin doesn't meet that criteria.--Bamadude 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Also curious that your only input is to make a smart-ass remark that makes no sense as it's been pointed out that the article was sent to AFD prematurely 7 months ago when Seidlin was indeed newsworthy; he's not newsworthy now and the only thing keeping his article alive is gossip --- please follow the bouncing ball, R.B. Next time, try making a remark that makes some sense; sorry I lost my head as I'm clearly pissed at ignorance and I apologize.--Bamadude 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil response. Now this is even more of a time waster, if that's possible. See ya at the AfD (assuming that's necessary). Bouncing out, R. Baley 00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
(Note: If the above exchange is confusing, the page/conversation has been re-factored by Bamadude here. R. Baley 21:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC))
R.B., you dolt --- that's not a reformatting! Look at the edit and you'll see that I only moved the 1st edit down and inserted a new paragraph in front of it; the previous wording is still there word-for-word with an added sentence actually APOLOGIZING for going off on your earlier ignorance, which is not nearly as bad as this last statement you made. And it makes perfect sense in full continuity as edited. Why don't you come up with an argument or point that make sense instead of trying to find fault --- are you a Republican?--Bamadude 22:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, you are SOOOOO cool with that "bouncing out" line, R.B.; as if you couldn't get any cooler, you prove us wrong again. Apparently you believe your smart-ass remarks are civil, but my remarks aren't because they're the polar opposite of your own beliefs; in other words, free speech is OK as long as nobody's feelings get hurt and we all think the same way as you. FYI, if you'll read my earlier comments, I've already resigned myself to waiting out this guy's long 15 minutes of fame and will have a lot of I-told-you-so's to send when the gossip of him possibly getting a show becomes old history when (I predict) his rumoured pilot fails to impress the brass at CBS, and I predict his AFD will sail through next year if not earlier. Seidlin couldn't carry Ito's robe or mallet, much less a real star like Judge Judy's, but as Dennis Miller says, "of course, that's just my opinion . . ."--Bamadude 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I hypothetically start my own gossip page in hopes of getting a TV show? I was that nerdy guy with the "I love Famous People" hat standing beside OJ Simpson's lawyer in that interview right after a reasonable bail (yeah right) was determined. I really don't think anyone is going to remember who this jerk is five years from now. Probably won't even make it as a Jeopardy question. Well...maybe. I'll take, "People That Have No Reason To Exist" for two hundred, Alex. (the above unsigned statement was made by FirehoseYoMama at 08:59, September 27, 2007.)

I stand by removing the tag about "deletion being discussed". At best, it's being argued about, and that was my way of making it clear that I don't want to feed a troll. If nobody says anything new (and useful) on this topic, and it's not actually up for AFD, I'll remove that tag again in a couple days. Nobody wins arguments, not even with the help of sockpuppets. Prgrmr@wrk 15:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The user FirehoseYoMama above is not a sockpuppet of mine; it's an apparently new user who failed to sign properly, so I added the tag for him. Just because there are others who are weighing in against you doesn't mean there's foul play --- only a little sanity being submitted for a change. His IP address is in Virginia and I'm in Alabama, so it's definitely not me. You could have looked that up if you cared to in checking your facts before making accusations, but of course, that would be going against the grain with the typical Wikipedia user verification proces of opening the mouth and making a fool of yourself instead. And you if remove the tag until a substantial amount of time has passed to allow for other users to weigh in on the subject, I'll put it back up.

Right now the count is 4 to 2 in your favor, which isn't an overwhelming lead, and with all of the KEEP votes either people who are obviously biased fans, or using misinformation to make a judgment (the Feb 2007 AFD vote), or on the borderline in their feelings to keep or dump it. YOU even state you don't care for the man having his own article, so isn't this really just a power play for the sake of argument so you can win it?--Bamadude 17:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I don't like him having any attention, and the fact that I think this article is worth keeping are completely unrelated. My personal opinion of the man has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the article. Seriously, stop telling me (and everyone else who doesn't agree with you) why I want to keep this article, it's very annoying. I am not a "biased fan", a "gulla bull", a "rabid fan", an "anna nicole smith fan", or making a "power play". The only reason I'm even here is because this page happens to be on my watchlist, which I never clear out. Prgrmr@wrk 18:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You obvious don't suscribe to the notion of free speech. I can tell you what I think of you whether you like it or not and I can repeat it as much as I like --- I'm an American;look up the 1st Amendment. In my opinion, based on your own words and my interactions with you, you are a "biased fan" of Larry Seidlin the Crying Judge; a "gulla bull" (gullible) as I stated before because you believe a Hollywood tabloid web site that used an anonymous source was legit and you cited it as a valid source; a "rabid fan" because you have added numerous edits to this page voting to keep the article; an "anna nicole smith fan" which is "prima facie" evidence as you're here arguing for a nowhere judge in her case that virtually nobody likes; and making a "power play" because none of your arguments hold water, so you just want to win regardless of your case as you stated in the first line of your last statement, which was nothing more than a personal defense and not related to the article, so why so defensive if the truth doesn't hurt? At least I cite the sources for my statements as you can see in this statement itself; where's yours citations for your beliefs?--Bamadude 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Telling you to be civil and stick to the debate does not impinge on any rights of free speech. I don't need to cite sources when telling you what things are not true about me, and explaining your own incorrect opinions about me does not count as citing a source. The only thing I'm a "rabid fan" of here is not removing information without a good reason. The last thing I have to say regarding this topic is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, which I believe still applies to your desire to delete this article. I won't respond again on this topic until the article is actually put up for AFD, or somebody actually posts new information instead of new noise. Prgrmr@wrk 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?? Sticking to the debate? Now that's "the pot calling the kettle black"! How about your recommendation (and your other 3 comrades' as well) to keep articles based strictly on Hollywood gossip? How about if I also sound authoritative and quote Wikipedia:Verifiability, which certainly applies to this article more than anything, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." Hollywood Access is a tabloid site and the article you base your entire opinion upon uses anonymous sources to cite their claims that Seidlin is allegedly being tested for an alleged fall 2008 show --- it's all garbage if no one official will confirm it. And what do you call "civil" --- someone who keeps their mouth shut and doesn't disagree with you or point out the holes in your arguments? To quote Bob Dylan, "it ain't ME, babe".--Bamadude 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger/Deletion (old discussion in February 2007)

I listed this page for deletion as being a non-notable "10 minute of fame" type person. Hallibrah 03:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, and think this article should remain. If nothing else of interest happens regarding this guy after the Anna Nicole Smith crap fades away, maybe this article can be condensed into a paragraph under Anna Nicole Smith, but deleting it completely doesn't make any sense. He's certainly met the "notability" requirement for wiki, and his name is bound to appear in small references for years to come, prompting people to wonder who he is. Prgrmr@wrk 05:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Though I do think the article needs to be deleted if he doesn't get a show (as there's nothing else very notable or important that he's done, aside from presiding over this case and "acting out", which PLENTY of judges do), I don't really think that his article should be merged or integrated with Anna Nicole Smith's; though he "put on a show" during a trial over her body, I find it hard to find reasoning behind why people's reactions to his actions and statements should be in someone else's article. --PeanutCheeseBar 13:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to stay, you're crazy to think he is not notable. I've had conversations with multiple people over the past few days about Seidlin, many of which have brought the topic up with me. If Judge Lance Allan Ito has a page Seidlin should have one as well. Really we are talking about the same notability with both, the only difference is that Ito was on tv for a longer period of time.--Jragozine 18:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Ito may have been on television longer, in what I believe was a much higher-profile case, but aside from presiding over the OJ case, there isn't much about him that is notable or separates him from other judges. In a way, the same goes for Seidlin; he simply chose to shorten (and sensationalize) the trial, and draw more attention to himself. The result is that this article has fluctuated in terms of quality, with much POV or opinion-based information being included. I don't completely agree with Hallibrah's notion to delete the page (hence my voting "Keep for now"), but at the same time, there is not a lot of coverage in the article about negative consequences or controversy for his actions and statements; without that, the article just doesn't seem fleshed out enough, and gives off the appearance that there aren't any consequences for what he did (save for being parodied on SNL). --PeanutCheeseBar 20:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
My point is that if Ito has a page Sheidlin should too, if you don't want Sheidlin to have one than Ito shouldn't either. You say that they have no distinction over other judges besides presiding over a particular high profile case...well isn't that enough distinction? Isn't that what makes them household names? Famous or infamous they are still famous. There are pages for far less noteworthy, spend your time getting those deleted and I won't be as frustrated with this topic.--69.209.158.39 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
When considering whether to delete an article about someone, I think you have to ask "How many people may want to look up info about the person on Wikipedia?" Right now, for Judge Seidlin, the answer is "a lot". I vote to keep it. --JHP 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues in February 2007

I don't know who created this article, but it was blatantly riddled with POV problems, and the article needs immediate attention given that the article is about someone of current importance in the news. (The article subject might also be lacking in notability.) Chicken Wing 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't confirm the details of his life prior to becoming a judge, though I am loathe to remove them without making this article more of a stub than it already is. I already attempted to remove some of the POV of the article, though it needs some polishing. The only thing that is consistently inferred whenever I read about Seidlin is that he likes drawing attention to himself, and gives more credence to the idea that he might want his own television show. That aside, I hardly think he's notable. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the above who believe Seidlin is not notable. The man is live on television currently on multiple news networks for hours at a time. He has been making a name for himself and shows like "On the Record" have had highlight clips of the Judge. A search on Google News responds with over 3,500 articles with his name in it. I do believe he is notable. I actually searched for him earlier the day and was surprised to find no Wikipedia article about him. Even for the sake of argument, let us say he is not "notable," does it really hurt to have an article about a Florida Judge on Wikipedia? I'm simply perplexed. {User: Jragozine} 23:00, 21 February 2007 {UTC}

Given the reports that are being shown on the news, the man is obviously just trying to get attention, and I don't think there is much that is notable about that. That aside, what other notable or extraordinary things has he done in his life (and that separates him from other Florida judges) to merit being listed on this site? Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't just serve to indicate the man exists, it also reinforces the fact that he did something important. Short ofpresiding over the Anna Nicole Smith case, I daresay he isn't unlike any other judge out there with far-fetched dreams of having his own television show; he simply was lucky enough to get the case. --PeanutCheeseBar 12:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I say take the entire 'Anna Nicole Smith' section out until it is cleaned up of non-neutral statements.

Cheese Head,

Have you watched any of the proceedings? How can you say this guy doesn't deserve an article? He is on TV all the time now, more than that he is a straight crack-up.

The only "notable" thing he's done is flagrantly drawn attention to himself. Sure, he's getting a lot of attention now, but unless he actually DOES end up getting a television show (as some people people suspect he's trying to do), he'll likely fade from public view, and be nothing more than a pockmark on history's ass, for lack of a nicer way to say it. The only reason he's remotely notable now is because the media tends to report on foolish or inane matters, and since they want something to show, he's giving it to them; anybody else could have done the same thing in his position. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Not True,

Cheese, You obviously haven't followed the case closely. This guy judgement has been very interesting and what I thought was fair. Moreover, what is your source for him apparently starting a show? You have a reference? I heard a bunch of people say it but where is the source? So far it is entirely speculation and should be excluded from the article. 67.177.53.16 05:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? There's an external link within the article to a FOXNews story about his antics. That aside, I just don't think one attention-whoring judge is worthy of an article, considering that there are probably several other judges like him out there; Seidlin was just lucky enough to get the case. If he 'has' to have an article, in the very least, the POV material that people keep editing in needs to be removed, and more attention should be drawn to the criticism of the way he conducts his courtroom. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you shure that Larry Seidlin is also Michael Corleone? ;-) (Look at the picture.. I just don't know how to replace it..)

I suspect that the Corleone pic was a spoof...I put the original picture of Seidlin back in. --Waters' Gate 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

why does it say immediately that he is a Jewish American? How is the most important bit of information about this judge? --69.113.38.124 16:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Question as to why I used the expression "overtly theatrical" - Simple - The BBC, a respected media organisation used it, and a reasonable man would suggest that a Judge of many years standing would be unlikely to respond in such a fashion when he has clearly tried a number of cases before. Also, if the clip, cited as evidence is viewed, the behaviour of the judge can be reasonably adduced as being out of character for a figure of seniority within the judiciary. By all means have the discussion here - but don't just delete the whole paragraph, which contains some 1st hand evidence of the character and disposition of the subject of the article. Stevingtonian 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In popular culture

An episode of Law & Order had a character obviously inspired by this man. --164.107.222.23 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have a source we can include it. --W.marsh 15:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information

The article doesn't currently state that he was the Judge in the Anne Nicole death, paternaty suit thing - surely this is important as it's what he's notable for. [[Guest9999 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)]]

  • There's some anon who periodically removes all unsourced information... feel free to add information with a source. The article does mention the Anna Nicole proceedings though. --W.marsh 14:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birthday

I checked on birthdatabase.com, and it seems Seidlin's real DOB is May 24th, 1950. It is the only person who even fits his name and age within 10 years, not to mention it has him listed as living in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.