Talk:Sacha Baron Cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sacha Baron Cohen article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Sacha Baron Cohen was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: November 13, 2006
News On 19 April 2008, Sacha Baron Cohen was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website.
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Persian descent is general knowledge

Just Google mother of Iranian descent, Borat Baron Cohen and see the thousands of "sources"...all fed from WIKI that is based on the contribution of someone dedicated to highlighted people of Iranian heritage.

Amazing, how like a bacteria in a petri dish, this bit of "info" has grown into a colony.

And, why is it interesting that his anscestor are Iranian..Iranian (Parsim) are not so exotic in Israel. We have them here a dime a dozen. Yemenites are just as exotic..as are Ethiopian, Bulgarians, Tunisians, Ukranians...

You name it ....we got it!

But, sadfully, Baron Cohen is just anothe Vuz Vuz (Ashkenazi.European Jew)..who like all of us..would like some authentic mid east blood in our veins..(and we probably do..some place) 212.150.13.15 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


I added the Persian descent to the page, and I've also referenced it, I believe the reference is strong enough, its on yahoo-movies. So I hope all the controversy ends here, as we all know that his mom is of Persian descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havashavas1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noam or Noel?

There seems to be some confusion about his name on the main article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.55.18 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goldman Sachs

As the source doesn't mention it, and Baron Cohen seems not to have any of the usual academic qualifications required for being a quant (at least a masters in maths, physics, engineering etc.), I have removed the phrase

as a quantitative analyst specialising in index arbitrage

from the sentence mentioning Baron Cohen's time at Goldman Sachs. Soobrickay (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racist

This probably isnt the place, but I find it strange the lack of mention that Borat's character can be in some ways trying to reinforce islamohobia. In kazakhstan there is perhaps one of the more liberal islamic-linked countries, and the primordial 'untersmech' he portrays them as does nothing to improve the impression that ignorant people recieve about muslims and their culture. What Borat shows is disgusting and does not take place in Kazakhstan (although admittedly there may be some anti-semitism, as there often is racism between Jews and muslims at the moment). My point being, isnt it quite clear that Cohen is making a disgustingly racist and unfounded caricature of muslims or at least slavs/arabs, no better than any of the anti-semitism shown in the film, he is no better than that he tries to 'educate' us about, as he is definetly not 'educating' us about decent everyday muslim Kazakstanis. I am just wondering if I am the only one why this racism isnt explored in detail in the article. BTW parts of the film I did find funny, mainly the ignorance of some of the people Borat questiosn, however portrayal of innocent people as 'dangerous islamic sub-humans' dosent really go far to supporting Cohen's anti-bigotry line. If a muslim or anyone at all had tried this showing a Jew as an antiChristian or anti-muslim, there would be hell to pay rest assured.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I am dyselxic if your wondering about any spelling issues.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do, you'll have to find reliable sources to put it in. See WP:RS. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think you are COMPLETELY missing the point of Borat, it is simply to make people laugh, it is in no way and was never supposed to be educational. Anyone that says otherwise (including Cohen/his producers) are just trying to dodge legal troubles/put Borat in the wrong light.RaseaC (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rant

you people are all clowns. who cares if he's iranian, european, or whatever else? and why is he referred to as a jewish british comedian instead of simply a british comedian? is chris farley a catholic american comedian? yes, cohen's jewish heritage plays a role in his act, but i think the fact that he's jewish is blatantly overstated throughout this article. from reading the arguments on this talk page it seems as though some editors are intent on shoving the fact of his jewish heritage down the reader's throat and personally i think it takes away from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source that Cohen's mom is a persian jew

It's here. Or is that not good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not good enough, first because there is doubt about the source of this information - see extensive discussions on this talk page and in the archives. Second, even if it were a useable source, all it would show is that Baron Cohen's mother is a descendant of Persians. That is not the same thing saying that she is Persian, let alone that Sacha Baron Cohen is Persian. It is definitely not a source that would justify adding Category:Persian Jews to this article. He is clearly not Persian. Gwernol 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it OK to say that his father is of Welsh descent, but not that his mother is of Persian descent? Here is another link ("I'm feeling lucky" search for "sacha baron cohen ethnicity"). Also, I have read most of the discussions, but none of them have really been agreed upon.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Because you are not saying he is of Persian descent you are saying that he is Persian, which is different. We have a reliable and undisputed source that says his father is Welsh. We have one disputed source that says his mother is of Persian descent - it doesn't say how far back that Persian ancestry is. We have exactly zero sources that say Baron Cohen is himself Persian. Gwernol 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Because you are not saying he is of Persian descent...". No, I am saying he is of persian descent. I would argue that the mentioned sources are reliable. You might want to see nndb.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
But you are trying to add the Category:Persian Jews, not the Category:Jews of Persian descent, so you are trying to say he is Persian. The nndb source is directly taken from the yahoo source. Gwernol 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was before. If you read the title of the topic, it says "Reliable source that Cohen's mom is a persian jew" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, here is a source not taken directly directly from the yahoo page.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If there appears to be a problem with using the Guardian newspaper, usually a reliable source, as a reference (as seen in the enormous bulks of discussion above), then why would anyone think that a random internet website with no credited author and no cited sources would be reliable? (And that description includes the NNDB; btw, see what Jimmy Wales had to say about the NNDB, [1]). Aside from that, the Wikipedia article cites a Times Online article from 2007 that explicitly states that Baron Cohen's maternal grandmother was from Germany.[2] All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, whatever, I'm not going to waste my time arguing.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent/Forbes/Guardian articles mentioning Goldman Sachs

It should be noted that apparently a journalist or journalists used potentially incorrect information presented in this article as a source for their article. As a result, please do not use these Independent/Forbes/Guardian articles as references for a career at Goldman Sachs:

  • {{cite news | publisher=Forbes | url=http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1990387.ece | title= Baron Cohen comes out of character to defend Borat | date= [[02 October]], [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-12-18}}
  • {{cite news | publisher=The Guardian | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/02/usnews.useconomy | title= The Wall Street wizards find gold in these ills | date= [[17 November]], [[2006]] | accessdate=2007-04-10}}

—  X  S  G  17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable sources to attest to this fact? Wikipedia can't use original research and the Guardian is a respectable source. 24.196.229.149 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources have no qualifications to be talking about Cohen's employment history. They did so anyway, without providing even the least bit of evidence for their claims. It's a reasonable assumption to assume these references are no good. --- RockMFR 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Slashdot is running a story today saying it was a circular reference. The info entered Wikipedia in November 2006 via an anonymous editor. British papers apparently used Wikipedia to write the stories then a year later those articles were used as refs in Wikipedia. The Slashdot story is http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/19/1452244 and cites http://techdebug.com/blog/2008/04/19/wikipedia-article-creates-circular-references/ -Colfer2 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it's covered under WP:COMMON. Wikipedia was edited to include a reference saying that Sacha Baron Cohen worked at Goldman Sachs. This was quickly edited out, as it has no factual basis; within days of the edit, however, a newspaper article came out mentioning that Sacha Baron Cohen worked at Goldman Sachs. Occam's Razor and common sense would indicate that the journalist in question relied on Wikipedia for his research. Just because it's mentioned in a respectable source doesn't mean it's true. Bcdm (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it stated repeatedly, here and on Slashdot, that the Independent article of November 18, 2006 used Wikipedia as a reference. Apart from the circumstance that both say Cohen worked briefly at Goldman Sachs and the Wikipedia edit comes first, what evidence is there to this effect?

It would seem an unusual practice, to say the least, for a reputable newspaper, and I'm not impressed by use here and on Slashdot of the qualifiers "apparently" that then go on to be ignored as the writer and subsequent writers treat the assumption as established fact and go on to criticise the newspaper.

I think it's time to step back and ask: what evidence to those making these serious claims have to support them? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article does not assert that, and is now free of any claim about Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Pretty obviously it was a joke on his name Sachs, and a follow-up joke by JP Morgan employees. As for British journalism, it has many strengths, but most UK newspapers are not edited the same way as US newspapers and magazines, e.g. with fact checkers. Instead, they are author-driven. Anyway, the article seems OK now? -Colfer2 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The article seems OK now, but don't use those newspaper articles in this article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Now we have another speculative claim to deal with: that the original claim in this article "Pretty obviously it was a joke on his name Sachs, and a follow-up joke by JP Morgan employees." If one is trying to argue that our articles are supposed to be based on fact, it ill becomes one to make stuff up like this. We won't get to the bottom of this matter while people are still making things up like this. Don't claim that it was a joke unless you know it was a joke. Don't claim that the Independent or Guardian articles used this article as their sole source unless you know this to be the case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a Talk page, not an article. It does not have to be encyclopedic. (I made that comment.) -Colfer2 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My point is that we won't get anywhere closer to the truth if, in discussing the article, we make stuff up. We may not have to be "encyclopedic", but it would help if we didn't engage in idle guesswork and pass it off as fact on this page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make it up, I pointed out the similarity in the names, in case others had not noticed that aspect of the situation, and the ensuing sequence of events. You can judge for yourself whether you find it important. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I've cleaned up the header templates, and archived all the pre-2008 content. Feel free to unarchive anything that might still be useful or remains unaddressed, or add any further content to the archive. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)