Talk:Martin Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to actors and filmmakers on Wikipedia. | ||
Hi I made this page redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see why one is any more important. In the UK most people would probably expect to see the journalist who seems to be on TV daily Aldaden 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi - Let me help explain why. It's not a question of importance. It's that in Wikipedia terms one is clearly more preeminent than the others.
For example, I'm sure that the English journalist is very well-known in England in his one sphere. Just as the basketball player is in Canada. But Wikipedia is international and does not cater to one nation more than others. No disrespect to the various Mr. Lewises - but neither a financial journalist known to TV viewers just in the UK on one niche topic over the span of the last few years - nor a basketball player popular in Canada in recent years are on the same level of international prominence as someone with a three-decade history of high-profile accomplishments in multiple fields in the entertainment world. Any UK wiki users looking for the financial journalist - or Canadians looking for the basketball player - will immediately see the DAB. and locate the niche person they are seeking. One need only read the main Martin Lewis article to see that this individual is more prominent than the others under this name. Similar precedent include Paul Simon, Jerry Lewis, etc. Also, as you can see regarding the horrendously long qualifier that is required for this particular Martin Lewis, it is simply impractical to try and pigeonhole him. The Amnesty/Secret Policeman's Ball element is what in my opinion gives him the edge. Yes I am speaking as the creator of this article but I'm also speaking as an experienced Wikipedian as well. 23skidoo 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Seconded. Mr Stephen 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Third in support of 23skidoo's reasoning. Keeping a broad international perspective on Wikipedia articles is very important. Good practical solution. Davidpatrick 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi. my reasoning on where the link should go was not based on looking at the person, or trying to decide which Martin Lewis was more international. As I am newer to Wikipedia editing, the first thing I did was look on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page where what immediately caught my eye was: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?"
So was thinking which Lewis would they be more likely to be searching for?
Martin Lewis the journalist has a regular newspaper column in the UK and is often on national television several times a week(breakfast TV, newsmagazines and very often often a guest on the national news). He's talking about something that is incredibly important to everyone - money! - which makes a lot of people very interested in following up on what he says. Add to that an big internet presence with his absolutely huge website (an article for which is being created here)
Given this, I would imagine that on the internet as a whole, the majority of Martin Lewis searches would be for the journalist. And the fair thing to do would be to link to the disambiguation page That's my way of looking at it anyway. Aldaden 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. You make some valid points. And thank you also for being civil in your presentation! Alas not always the case here on Wikipedia as you'll find! There is no doubt that the financial journalist is prominent in the UK and has been for at least 3-4 years. If wikipedia was purely seen in the UK - and was biased towards currency over longevity (no fiscal pun intended!) - then that would be one thing.
What we try to do as wikipedians is look at the really big longterm picture. It our duty as Encyclopedians. So we try to weigh up and balance things. eg Topics and people that have resonance all over the world. We also try have to take into account the longevity of someone's career and the extent and impact of his/her achievements. And the number of other prominent people and events impacted as seen in other articles. If you have 2 or 3 people - all with the same name - and all with approximately the same level of prominence in their respective fields - equally known in just one nation - and the same span of years in the spotlight - then you have a level playing field and there is some equivalence. And no one individual could be perceived as being more prominent or impactful than another. Having read all the articles carefully, I think 23skidoo makes a very valid case that this is one of those individuals where the overall impact, duration and breadth warrants the designation he has accorded. Good luck with your upcoming article and welcome to the wikipedia community! Davidpatrick 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
___________________________________
Forgive me but is this not an Amero-centric bias?
I'm rather new to all this and was mulling around here. I live in the UK, am University educated and am widely read. I've never heard of the American Humerist Martin Lewis, but like many in the UK I use MoneySavingExpert.com.
For me the idea that this is "Keeping a broad international perspective on Wikipedia articles is very important" is a wee bit ludicrous. While Martin Lewis (humourist) is originally from the UK according to the article, his name and knowledge seems to be of US focus. His journalism in US publication and broadcasts.
I hate to seem contrary, but aren't we in-fact simply seeing an USA bias here. This isn't about an internationalism, this is about a hegymony of one country on Wikiepedia. Personally I'm an amero-phile, yet I have noted the tendancy for people to judge someone known in the US as more important than elsewhere.
The argument about currency is a valid one. Judging by the article Martin Lewis (humourist) has been around for a very long time - yet Martin Lewis (Money Expert) has a political context too. His work has been commended by the UK parliament for helping social change and has been a campaigner.
From my perspective the simple answer is for Martin Lewis to head to a multiple page of all the Martin Lewis's and let people pick. However I suspect sadly, as it seems more experiences Encyclopedists are involved in this, it is always very tough to change peoples minds.
Forgive me if the form of this is incorrect, but I'm new here.
Paul _____________________________________
Welcome Paul! And everyone is equally welcome on Wikipedia - newcomers and ancient Encyclos alike! Your post was technically fine except that it appeared at the top of the page - and it would be more usual to post under the last entry. So I've taken the liberty of moving it for you.
Your points are very well taken - and I understand where you're coming from. Speaking for myself as an American Anglophile I'm always striving to encouage a broader perception and ensure that this is not US-centric. And i think most others share that view too. Given that this version of Wiki is in the English language - there tends to be a bias towards topcs and people of interest to Americans, Canadians (well the English-speaking ones!) Brits and Australians. So there is a sort of Anglo-American-Aus bias.
I can't speak for 23skidoo but i do know from his history that he's been around wikipedia for a pretty long time and he knows the ropes. and has a good rep. for being very fair. I've seen his work on a lot of very British topics (eg the excellent James Bond articles) so I know he's sensitive to that US vs UK matter.
Unless I'm mis-reading him I don't think this is about the America-ness of the older Martin lewis. I get the impression that 23skidoo is making the case that the impact of the older guys work has been on an international scale and not confined just to the commendably good impact that the finance guy has had just in his own country. (for which he certainly deserves kudos and his good rep)
I read 23skidoo's article and did some googling - and most of the projects did seem to have a worldwide impact. And over a long period of time. The Beatles and Who DVDs and especially the stuff with Pete Townsend, Sting, and Eric Clapton etc etc And of course the Amnesty world tour which was a huge deal at the time. Interesting to note that he mainly seems to work with you Brits! Personally I'd downgrade anyone who worked with Wham but that's just me!!! I guess the supportive quote from Bono sorta canceled out George Michael!!!! Overall I think 23skidoo has made a good case for prominence based on international impact of the many projects, the very lengthy span of the guy's work and the amount of other articles that link to the projects. So I hope you dont think this Yank is being a stuffy old "geyser" (SP?) but I think 23skidoo has it about right. Hope you find yourself contributing on a lot of topics here on Wikipedia. I for one would value someone making the game of cricket comprehensible to us Yanks! So please see if you can help on that article!
BTW - I note that looking up "cricket" on Wiki takes us straight to the English game and NOT to a disambiguation page. Surely the insect was around (and in America!) long before the Engish game!!! Maybe wikipedia is more British-centric than you think! regards Davidpatrick 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________
Nobody's doubting the veracity of 23skidoo's page about the comedian. This issue is whether this page should be a disamiguation page or not. The only argument I've heard against is "He's the best-known Martin Lewis." That sound pretty specious to me. Surely the point is to meet users' expectaions. Unless Wikipedia already knows which Martin Lewis a user is searcing for, it should direct one to a disambiguation page first.
And, yes, perhaps this does mean that the Cricket page is wrong.
Cheers, richi. 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Quick semantics
Just to make sure things are clear here -- the Martin Lewis under discussion at this article is British, based in America. I saw a few references above to him being an American comedian which is incorrect. The rationale why I feel he should be listed here as the "undisambiguated" Martin Lewis is based upon the following: 1. His involvement with a large number of major personalities, and most notably his involvement in establishing the Secret Policeman's Ball which has been acknowledged as an ancestor of Live Aid, etc. Plus his continued international involvement in other areas. And second -- how would you disambiguate the guy? You can tell by reading the article that this is an individual who simply cannot be conveniently pigeonholed. I know -- I tried to do so. I spent nearly 3 weeks sweating over this article because it was such a pain in the butt to try and give a sense of this guy without becoming to top-heavy on one. Is he just a comedian/humorist? No. Is he just a producer? No. The term here is "polymath" but it sounds so highfalutin that to use such a term is rather meaningless at least when it comes to disambiguating him. The attempt that was made a few days ago really didn't work very well, well-intentioned though it was. By comparison, the financial journalist -- who really is only known in one part of the world, and the basketball player here in Canada, are easier to pigeonhole because they specialize in one major activity. A good precedent to use is Paul Simon. There are presently two very well known Paul Simons on Wikipedia (plus some lesser known ones. There is a preeminent American politician, and there's a singer. Well the singer has a wider range of fields of endeavor than the politician as a singer, songwriter, producer, activist and even actor; the politician is best known for one field only and that's politics. So therefore it makes sense that the singer would get undisambiguated namespace. There is also a third reason why I feel this Lewis deserves undisambiguated namespace -- there are simply more articles that link to Martin Lewis -- as in this Martin Lewis -- than the others. And I haven't even really had time to go through all the articles where I recall his name appears but it hasn't been wikilinked yet. 23skidoo 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Page moved back
The article was moved again and the reason given by the user for moving the article is that the financial journalist is more famous than a fellow who has produced some of the most famous concerts ever, is a well-known radio host, and has many other accomplishments under his belt. Before this thing goes to "Requests for Arbitration" which I am prepared to go to if necessary, let's get that consensus I requested first. If someone can provide documented proof that the financial journalist is more famous on the international stage than this Martin Lewis, I invite them to provide it here before the article is moved again. But for now I don't believe consensus yet exists to move this article. 23skidoo 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
__________________________
I was just about to add a comment when I saw the article was moved again. I was unsure if I should wait to see if it settled down - but I think I will... Once again, I cannot understand why it's being discussed who is more important or international. I'd suggest it's simply impossible to judge someones importance when we all have different backgrounds/interests and I don't quite understand why it would be part of Wikipedia to make judgments like that.
Surely it should be about helping the user find the article they're interested in as fast as possible rather than putting the person deemed most important at the front? Looking at the alexa ranking of martinlewis.com (6,556,379) compared to the ranking of Moneysavingexpert.com (avg 3033 but 1464 today) - and bearing in mind moneysavingexpert's Martin Lewis sends a weekly email to 650,000 people, I'm pretty sure I know which one people are more likely to be searching for. This in no way detracts from the work of Martin Lewis (comedian/humorist) - reading the article brought back memories of watching the Secret Policeman's Ball as a kid and I'm glad I know more about him now.
Before this talk page I had no idea that editors were expected to judge people's importance and decide who should get the top-spot. I never imagined people would object to a nice fair disambiguation page (though giving someone/something the main page because you're absolutely sure the vast majority of searches will be for them I can understand)
Apologies - I realize I'm completely new at this an perhaps have no right to make judgments on a well-established system or question experienced users.
This is the last I'll say on the matter as I'm more interested in the moneysavingexpert website - this is really more of a side issue to me. regards Aldaden 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the Martin Lewis page has been redirected the disambig page without consensus. From reading this page it is pretty clear that 23skidoo is the main advocate of directing Martin Lewis to the humorist, but the majority of other correspondents advocate disambiguation. Martin Lewis clearly is an ambiguous term by the very nature of this debate. I don't think it is controversial to direct the page to the disambiguation page rather than a specific instance. I have not heard of the humorist, and some people have not heard of the financial journalist. Who cares? Disambiguate and everybody is happy. --Danrees 11:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
__________________________
Just to point out as a matter of interest (and a likely reason why there are more users advocating disambiguation here) that Martin Lewis (Financial Journalist) did talk about this issue in a blog entry yesterday. --MartinBrook 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all 23skidoo is certainly not the only person who feels as he does. I strongly support his position I have explained the reasons why I think his position is correct above. And I have bent over backwards to put it as clearly and nicely as i can. How many more times must it be said that Wikipedia is not a popularity contest like a flavor-of-the-month club whereby prominence in the past 2 or 3 years in just one locale in just one niche topic - makes a person equal in stature or lasting achievements to an individual whose accomplishments have had an impact over a 30 year span and whose works are known throughout the world rather than in just one country. As confirmed by links to the article. That would be a ludicrous way for us all to run what is utimately an encyclopedia of use to people all over the world. It has rightly been said that we should not be favoring topics or people just because they are American or based in the USA. But conversely neither should adherents or fans of one individual from just one country (an individual with no likelihood of ever being known outside his own country) impose a faux "they're all the same standard" merely because they happen to be familiar with a person with that same name who has just achieved a strictly local popularity (ie local to only one country) in the past couple of years.
I have just read the above note by MartinBrook and I looked at the blog of the financial journalist and frankly I am a little dismayed. The website proudly proclaims on its browser banner that he is "UK's only Money Saving Expert" (which seems like a strange boast; surely there is more than one expert in a nation with a population the size of UK). The writer headines his blog entry "uh oh here comes yet another bigger, badder Martin Lewis" - and then complains about the situation and says "Shame…. just when I thought I was making it somewhere in the Martin Lewis world…" He reveals that he tried to buy the "www.martinlewis.com" domain name from the owner a couple of years ago. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is a person who seems keen to have some prominence accruing to his name.... He then provides a link to Wikipedia - tipping his readers (in case they don't know) "'anyone can alter it"
Looking at the site it is clear that he is good at campaigning on issues relating to his specialist topic and of stirring up his adherents to become involved in grass roots activity to change things they don't like. That is (in my opinion) commendable stuff when it is used to protect consumers on financial matters. But it is NOT the way decisions in Wikipedia should be made. We are not an edition of "American Idol" or "Pop Idol". This is not about who has the biggest local fan base this week. Wikipedians make value judgements all the time based not about whether one individual is more well-known to an enthusiastic local fan base this particualr week or year. But about worldwide prominence over a sustained period of time that comes with accomplishment and longevity of activity. Otherwise in any case where there is an article about more than one person with the same name we will find ourselves imposing an artificial lowest common denominator standard - based on fan support. Any article about someone who has achieved prominence by dint of achievement can then be moved to a disambiguation page because there is an article about someone with the same name who is famous only in his/her own country for more recent activity. And that is clearly not right.
Read all the articles of the various Martin Lewises. Look at all the articles that link to them. There is not remotely an equivalence, 23skidoo's assertions are fair and he has made a very good case. Davidpatrick 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The question isn't Who is better known?, the question is If disambigation is needed, should it be the first page that a user lands on when they type in the name of the thing they're searching for?
It comes down to confusing users. I don't give a rat's backside who Martin Lewis is. I do care about Wikipedia being a useful resource for real people all over the world.
I take back my call for Cricket to be a disambiguation page -- in this case, I believe users are likely to expect the search term to be ambiguous, or at least not be surprised to find that the insect they're searching for is actually-a-ball-game-and-perhaps-you'd-like-to-click-here.
However, if it's not abundantly clear that users know that their search term is a homonym, the primary page should be a disamiguation page, IMHO.
People in the UK have probably never heard of the polymath, even if he is British. Just like people in the US haven't heard of the journo.
I vote disambiguate for this and other examples where it's not clear that the search term is ambiguous.
richi 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ambiguation question
I dont even have a wiki account but thought I might add my 2 cents (sorry if I have broken some rule). I agree with richi, as there clearly is ambiguity as we are sat here discussing the matter I think there is no real reason not to a have a disambiguation page.
Definitions of ambiguity on the Web:
1) an expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context 2) unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. No worries about breaking roles -- anyone can post comments, etc. The thing is a disambiguation page already exists and is clearly indicated at the top of the article. If someone is looking for one of the other Martin Lewises (or perhaps Martyn Lewis - note the spelling, or even a Martin Lewis we don't know about yet), it's pretty easy for someone to find what they're looking for. There's quite a bit of precedent for this sort of thing elsewhere on Wikipedia, for example Paul Simon, the example I gave earlier. 23skidoo 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Changes to disambiguation text
I have just noticed that the text has been changed slightly to include direct links to Martin Lewis (financial journalist) and Martyn Lewis (journalist). This seems like a good solution to me.
Now perhaps there could be a link to me too (my middle name is Lewis :) --MartinBrook 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Content removed
A discussion thread has been removed by me as it was a violation of WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP as it made unsupported claims regarding the subject of this article. Please remember personal attacks are not allowed on talk pages and that talk pages should only be used for discussions relating to how an article can be improved, not the conduct of other editors. 23skidoo 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unsourced statements
Per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed. Please stop restoring it. If you can support these claims with reliable sources, fine. Otherwise, they do not belong here. --Orat Perman 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- I totally agree. This article seems nothing more than a fan site. I have added a lot of {{fact}}, and they should not be removed until valid references are put in.If you want to honour the man—and he has been involved with many artists in showbusiness—then do some work on the article. --andreasegde 15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. 23skidoo 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Russell Brand
An anon IP added the following to the lead: "Was interviewed on the 23/02/2008 edition of the Russell Brand Radio SHow on BBC Radio 2. Pin Pin." The "Pin Pin" part triggered my decision to remove this. If someone can confirm the information and wants to place it in the article in its proper location and without any weirdness, go right ahead, although it's not particularly notable to indicate everytime a person is interviewed on radio or TV, otherwise we'd need to list every time this person was interviewed regarding the Beatles or what-have-you. 23skidoo (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
