Talk:Sinbad (actor)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 14 March 2007, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of a hoax.
We are sorry about that. You can help improve Wikipedia by participating.
All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
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.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:
Peer review Sinbad (actor) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Sinbad (actor) 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: March 26, 2007
This page is listed on the bounty board

Abeg92 has pledged to make a donation of $5 to the Wikimedia Foundation when this page is improved to featured article status.  

This bounty expires 9 April 2008.

Contents

[edit] Archived discussions are at Talk:Sinbad/Death hoax

[edit] Various

I don't know where to post this, sorry. The Sinbad article contains this sentence: "The show proved to be family-worthy, but was cancelled due to low ratings." Is it the place of this article to assert whether or not the show is "family-worthy", or whether or not the show "proved" this to be the case? What does "family-worthy" even mean?

Good catch. -- Zanimum 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinbad hosted "Sinbad's Summer Soul Music Festival" during the late 90's. The festival featured live performances from an array of performers with R&B / Soul classic releases from the 70's and contemporary R&B/Pop artists of the 90's. A unique quality of this annual festival is that it took place in various Caribbean locations during consecurtve summers. Sinbad delivered clean comedy. Whether he delivered adult or G rated source material, he could do so obsenity free. He put forth a positive uplifting persona that empowered the audience to laugh at themselves, at his jokes and at outside negative forces. He was gifted at viewing his own personal life and experiences with a comedic eye. He captured that view and communicated it to the audience in his words and appearance. Was there ever a larger man in baggy, spontaneously colored bright shirts and matching baloon pants, with red hair and goat T that could look more serious and funny at the same time? Almost forgot, he could work a room with counter-attacks on hecklers and sharp aboservations of audience members. (Mike Prather)

I saw a much-matured Sinbad here in Charlotte not too long ago. I agree with the other posters, how trivial is a Maxim poll? Isn't Maxim geared to a demographic that is exactly the opposite of Sinbad, Whoopi, and Margaret in the first place? They wouldn't have seen the Music Festivals, would they?65.82.105.98 18:42, 15 March 2007 (UT

[edit] SNL

Didn't Sinbad play Black Lightning on a Saturday Night Live Skit? He showed up at Superman's funeral, but no one recognized him. Anyone care to comment?

He did indeed, though it isn't really worth placing in this article. The script can be viewed here:http://snltranscripts.jt.org/92/92gsuperman.phtml Google is your friend. - 24.10.95.220 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
But the appearance on SNL is noteworthy, so it should be mentioned. 4.232.135.159 17:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, as one of the few people who read "Black Lightning" comics, it was hilarious and worth at least one line.65.82.105.98 18:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been added that he hosted the show, which is much more important than just an appearance in a skit. -- Zanimum 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary is NPOV

This trivia piece does not adhere to WP:LIVING so I'm taking it out. It's malicious POV, so in order to stay it would have to be super-relevant, and it's just not. It's gone. — coelacan talk — 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Someone complained that I had not waited for consensus before removing this. We don't wait for consensus when it is a damaging statement on a living person. Read WP:LIVING. This is damaging, so it must be cited and highly relevant. Even if it were cited, it's not relevant. What one readers' poll of one magazine decided about Whoopi is not a notable contribution to Wikipedia. — coelacan talk — 23:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I considered removing the thing about his placement by them, but I decided against that. Maxim's third worst was Whoopi Goldberg who, although I'd concede she's had a downturn, won an Oscar and a Mark Twain Prize for American Humor. Their second is Margaret Cho who, even if I dislike her politics even more than I dislike Goldberg's, is quite funny. To put Sinbad in the same breath with those two is, oddly enough, the biggest honor I've heard bestowed on him. Even if the honor is unintentional I'd think I'd be quite proud of not appealing to Maxim's readers.--T. Anthony 09:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of removing it entirely. It's a malicious hitpiece; it's POV; it's not a notable reference, it's linkspam for Maxim. Furthermore it's not an opinion poll at all - there is nothing on the site indicating that any readers were polled (I removed that misinformation, which is definitely malicious). Worse, it doesn't even have a byline, it was written anonymously! George100 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal name

There is nowhere to indicate that "Sinbad" is his legal name, in accordance with WP:MOSBIO, the opening paragraph should thus read: David Atkins (born November 10, 1956) better known as Sinbad, ... --Zimbabweed 20:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have amended this as you suggested.Manning 04:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

{{Editprotected}}

In the light of the recent issues, would someone mind adding references to his Air Force AWOL quotes and material. I have found the following http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n8_v52/ai_19448531 and http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1264/is_n7_v23/ai_12798635/pg_3. Thanks. --Ali'i 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Further: Here is at least a second-hand source for the Fresh Prince "pirate or comic" quote, although it's possible that they got that from us. More sources coming. --Ali'i 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This would be good to use for the family stuff, and other general biographical information. --Ali'i 19:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This article is only semi-protected, meaning only new (less than 4 days) or unregistered users can't edit it. You should be able to edit it. John Reaves (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it had been changed since I originally posted these. Thanks. --Ali'i 12:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia reporting should be included?

The fact that Wikipedia screwed up "Sinbad's death" so horribly should be noted within this article, perhaps under pop culture.[1] --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet another vandalism of yet another Wikipedia page is irrelevant to the subject matter of this article. If it belongs anywhere, it would be more appropriate to refer to it in the article of criticisms of Wikipedia or some such article.--H-ko (Talk) 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
, says the Wikipedia apologist. The fact is notable and it can be cited with reputable sources, therefore there is no reason why it does not belong on Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You really don't know whether H-ko is seeking to preserve the reputation of Wikipedia, or simply mistaken. Even outside of the nicey-nicey world of Wikipedia, you shouldn't launch personal attacks with so little foundation! —SlamDiego 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The subject of the article (Mr Adkins) has publically discussed this matter,[2] which has received international attention as a story about him as well as about Wikipedia. —SlamDiego 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say it didn't belong on Wikipedia. I said it seemed more appropriate in an article about problems with Wikipedia. Hence the link to the article on criticisms of Wikipedia. Do you expect every page that gets vandalized to have a comment put on it stating that was the case? If so, practically every page here would need to have that added. --H-ko (Talk) 00:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The vandalization became news about Adkins. In fact, it's the first news about Adkins that I've read in a while. I expect Adkins to be covered in the article about Adkins. Is that really too much to ask? —SlamDiego 01:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
People create hoaxes all the time. The only reason this hoax became newsworthy was that "look, look, Wikipedia did it!" We don't mention the whole "Screech is dead" hoax, yet it's longer lasting, and he even uses it in his standup routine, if I remember correctly. -- Zanimum 14:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny any of that, but none of it argues that a report doesn't belong in the article about Adkins. The “Screech is dead” hoax may be longer-lasting, but it doesn't seem to have drawn nearly so much notice. Perhaps the media has a propensity to jump on stories about the failure of Wikipedia; if so, that could be briefly mentioned in an explanation of the significance of the hoax. —SlamDiego 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, it was a 9-minute hoax (11, if you include a later insert that lasted for 2 minuts). While the person who was responsible for the hoax may be an idiot, that attribute is more appropriate for the person who spread "the news" without noticing that the article contained no references whatsoever to his death. Ah, but maybe BLP's should be always semi-protected. --Otheus 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how long it lasted and the fact that Wikipedia was directly involved and whether it's a slow news day, it's still front page news all over the world and it has at least temporarily raised Sinbad's profile considerably. [3]. It should be mentioned in the article. News sources occasionally become part of the news, and they cover that fact as objectively as they can. The fact that this shouldn't have been a big deal at all (I agree) doesn't remove the fact that it is. - Richfife 16:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not a news source. It doesn't have "slow news days". There will be more and more hoaxes like this, and while they may all deserve coverage in (say) Wikinews, they most certainly do not all deserve coverage in the affected articles. What does (or should) our Elephant article say about Stephen Colbert? —Steve Summit (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't the news source here; reports (albeït that they are about Wikipedia) from other media are. Wikipedia should not be in the business of refusing to report something because it shouldn't have happened or shouldn't have acquired the significance that it did. Wikipedia especially shouldn't be in such business when this works to sweep its own embarrassments under a rug. Presumably, as there are “more and more hoaxes like this”, they will be treated as less-and-less newsworthy by the AP (&c), and will not be something to report here. (Likewise, more recent Ponzi schemes are relatively uninteresting, though early instances are significant.) —SlamDiego 22:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I meant to say, Wikipedia is not a news conduit, either. I'm not trying to sweep anything under a rug -- document this incident at Criticism of Wikipedia or Wikipedia in popular culture if you think it's notable, or perhaps start an article on Wikipedia hoaxes. But someone coming to the Sinbad (actor) article wants to read about David Adkins, not about some quickly-forgotten Internet hoax that happened to involve him. —Steve Summit (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't suggest that you, in particular, want to sweep anything under a rug. But Wikipedia needs protocols that make it difficult for it to hide its embarrassments, exactly because such could damage its value at intersections. (It would be a shame, but not as great a great shame, if Wikipedia were unreliable about just itself.) If the importance of this hoax for the story of Adkins per se recedes, then the article can be revised accordingly. (Wikipedia is, after all, a living project.) —SlamDiego 10:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I fully support vandalism in an effort to out wikipedia's shitty unreliability. Paul Reiser was recently dead for almost 24 hours before anyone caught it. Maybe Wikipedia should not only own up to its own idiocy on appropriate pages but also figure out that maybe people wouldn't do it if they spent less time trolling for vandalism and more time checking for factual inaccuracy and plagiarism. -- Isaac Bickerstaff 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
What the blazes are you talking about? Perhaps putting a death date into an article is indeed vandalism? -- Zanimum
The vandalism that I've seen isn't plausibly explained as motivated by some meta-desire to improve the reliability of Wikipedia. —SlamDiego 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Please look at this edit by User:67.4.233.93. A direct copy and paste from the Ebony interview. I'll leave it for someone else to decide what to do. AlistairMcMillan 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed almost all of it and added a reference that article, since I left the part about him going AWOL and almost being discharged. Someone else may want to incorporate more of the information, in a non-copyright violation sort of way. --MattWright (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Quoting writing by an Ebony writer is a copyvio. Quoting something Sinbad said to Ebony isn't. -- Zanimum 18:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and there was a lot of writing by an Ebony writer that was removed. Somebody copy/pasted 3 paragraphs. --MattWright (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of events concerning the hoax

Here are the facts, as obtained from the article's edit history (see also here):

  • on 10 March, the rumour of his death was first circulated on the internet [4]
  • at 20:36, 14 March 2007, the postulated death of Sinbad was first inserted (see edit here) by an anonymous user with the IP address 167.7.17.3.
  • at 21:48, 14 March 2007, the erroneous news of his death was partially removed by another anonymous user, and
  • at 21:54, 14 March 2007, an anonymous removed another part of the erroneous information.
  • at 22:22, 14 March 2007, User:Gilliam from the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol restored the article to its previous and correct state.
  • In the subsequent 36 hours, the article was edited more than a hundred times by many different users, including many vandals and was subsequently protected from editing at 17:48, 15 March 2007.
  • by March 16, the hoax had been reported by more than 200 news sources in several countries [5], typically with titles such as "Wikipedia falsely reports Sinbad's death", leading to a new wave of commentary over the unreliability of wikipedia. People Magazine (via people.com) [6] had also reported on this event.

[edit] Hoax started before us

Read the section in the article. -- Zanimum 20:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The article claims that the rumor started before Wikipedia, but it links to an article which says the rumor seemed to have come from a hacked-into page on Wikipedia. So perhaps the rumor did start with the vandalized page here? - Brian Kendig 20:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It gained popularity once there was a link to us, but he started receiving sympathy calls last Saturday. Thus it started before us. -- Zanimum 21:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the following line of mine was removed makes me suspicious that this was all a publicity stunt. Deleted (See 19 March 2007: "Likely connected to the rumors and confusion was the death the same day of fellow American comedian Richard Jeni by suicide, which was being reported in the media." 5Q5 18:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the text here. I did so, because it is original research, and not in the source. We cannot just guess at reasons. Hope this helps. --Ali'i 19:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The same thing happened on the "Dog the Bounty Hunter" page, only nobody flipped out. It was quickly changed. Could it be the same person? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.177.33.58 (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Excessive footnotes?

The "Erroneous death report" section contains six links to the same footnote. It's really strange to see the footnotes go [9] [9] [10] [9] [9] [11] [12] [9] ... Is this really necessary? Isn't there some proper way of saying, "This section uses information from this article"? - Brian Kendig 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying that too little referencing is what got us into this situtation, and while I disagree that this is the case (it was simply that people can link to old revisions) I am certainly a believer that we should footnote as much as possible within reason. To me, this is within reason. -- Zanimum 21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There are two places in that section where two consecutive sentences both link to the same footnote. Is this really the proper method for footnoting? If an entire paragraph uses material from another source, should every sentence in the paragraph have the same footnote to it? - Brian Kendig 19:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "This page has been cited as a source"?

Um, {{onlinesource}} is for news articles that cite Wikipedia as a source about other topics. In this case, the article is about Wikipedia, so the template is inappropriate. —Keenan Pepper 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allowing Real Time Editing of Biographies by anyone

This is going to at some point be a very expensive liability for Wikipedia. Disallow any editing of biographies unless the edit is first cleared through an assigned gatekeeper trusted by Wikipedia. Nothing is so urgent that a biography of a person with access to good lawyers should be left wide open for hours to slander by vandals.Piperdown 23:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is only the nature of the beast. Everyone should verify what they read online before jumping to conclusions. The general public is often gullible and lazy. I'd place more blame on consumers of information than I would wikipedia. No, that is not what other's might think, but then again, those people are likely to be gullible and lazy. In the same way that rewriting the way wikipedia is used by users is a lazy way of dealing with the problem. The answer is to make wikipedia more popular and a better experience so that more people will use it and these sorts of "Sinbad" errors get corrected swiftly. Had many editors been watching this article very closely, this might not have happened, but why would someone, after all it's Sinbad? Anyway, lesson learned! Testerer 05:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV text?

"Unfortunately, The Sinbad Show had too small a following, and was cancelled, with the last episode airing April 21, 1994." editorializes. While I liked the show, its not the place of an encyclopedia to decide whether its cancellation was unfortunate, fortunate or otherwise. I would suggest simply removing the "Unfortunately, "

I've removed it. -- Zanimum 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous death report

I'm going to remove this section. It's ridiculous that we are acknowledging vandalism of this article within this article. I can understand the stuff that is in Jimmy Wales, Daniel Brandt, and John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, but simple stupid vandalism? We certainly don't mention Colbert in the elephant article, and I see no reason why we should mention Sinbad's "death" here. --- RockMFR 16:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it's notable for now. After all, the Mooninite scare was notable, and other pranks were no doubt heard and rendered notable as well, so...why not include it? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Rickyrab. It's newsworthy and important. Just because it makes us look stupid, doesn't mean it's not notable. In fact, good for us for admitting mistakes. -- Bouncehoper 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree we should keep it. First of all, the talk page for the article is the most logical place to go for the facts and for the discussion. It will also help wikipedia to learn from the matter, though I don't really see much of a 'mistake' from the wikipedia. Jens Nielsen 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, elephants have thousands of years of history, a unique biological structure, unique mating and death rituals, extinction threats, etc. Sinbad and any other celebrity, on the other hand, depend on their public perception. As this smaller hoax (which became bigger only through AP/Reuters latching on) is part of his permanent public image, debatably it should be kept. -- Zanimum 14:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the fact that this article was vandalized should be put into the article. Many articles are vandalized all the time. Just last night, right after WrestleMania, Edge's article was vandalized when it falsely reported his death. It even had a whole paragraph on how he 'died' (such rubbish). Many articles on Wikipedia are vandalized all the time, and just because the news picked this up should not be stated. As stated before, Wikipedia is not a news site. This should be removed. WiiAlbanyGirl 05:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The hoax

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? It's very notable, it was in many newspapers across the globe.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because <Comments that would violate WP:CIVIL self-censored> - Richfife 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, while the hoax spread to Wikipedia, it didn't originate on Wikipedia.--H-ko (Talk) 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
wikipedia was the catalyst. that is to say, origination is an arbitrary standard as a reference point. the_undertow talk 23:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
None of the press coverage I've seen characterizes this as a hoax which we fell for, rather than a misreport started here, pointedly including the stories we're linking to. Why isn't this properly characterized in the main article?
--Baylink 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia falsely reports Death of American Comedian Sinbad (read: Jimmy Wales reported this error himself.)
Sinbad Alive And Well Just To Spite Wikipedia (read: Sinbad living for the sole person to anger that evil Wikipedia that tried to kill him.)
Wikipedia: Kills then resurrects Sinbad the comedian (read: Wikipedia killed Sinbad)
So many of them make it sound like we made purposeful choice to edit him as dead, not just a random anon. One article, the first one on EURweb, actually acknowledges that Sinbad was receiving phone calls of condolence before it was posted on Wikipedia. -- Zanimum 19:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw something about this on G4's "The Feed", but that's it. — Deckiller 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving this Talk page vs Refactoring

I am new to this page, but I have seen a lot of deletion of content which I am sure upsets those who posted it. There are two ways to deal with lengthy talk pages. Most editors prefer the Archiving method. That's where the entire talk page is saved after it gets too long and a special archival box with a link is put in the upper right of the page. Important unresolved current discussions can be pasted to the new fresh page if needed. See Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. What has been gong on here is called the refactoring method. See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. 5Q5 18:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, half the comments I've deleted border on irrelevant, or were covered in full somewhere else. If they want to debate the policies of Wikipedia, they should go to those policy pages. If people want to report media coverage, they should go to the Wikipedia in the press page, or Signpost's Tipline. And then most of the rest was simply repeating things already discussed. -- Zanimum 19:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I had to fail this as a good article, as it is certainly not well written. The lead needs to be expanded from two sentences per WP:LEAD, plus most of the sections house one-sentence paragraphs, which we can't have in a GA. Combine the paragraphs and make it flow nicer.--Wizardman 12:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article one of Wikipedia top-30 of March 2007

For your information:

In the month of March 2007 (following the Sinbad death hoax) this article got about 18.000 page views per day on average, putting it in the top-30 of most viewed wikipedia articles.[7] Jens Nielsen 15:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snopes humor...

Snopes has an article detailing the death hoax, quoting the AP, "Actor-comedian Sinbad had the last laugh after a Florida-based Internet reference site announced he was dead." Hmmm... wonder what they could be talking about? ;-) Wonder why Snopes doesn't mention what it was. Also, the story box sounds vaguely familiar too: "Sinbad (actor) Sinbad Sinbad speaks with Zama American High School students in Sagamihara, Japan Birth name David Adkins Born November 10, 1956 Benton Harbor, Michigan, United States Died March 14, 2007 (aged 50)" Funny stuff. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/sinbad.asp --Ali'i 20:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marisa Tomei

With the exception of later addition Marisa Tomei to the cast

What do we mean by later addition? Marisa Tomei was only in the first season, from the very beginning. I think this section should only say "Other than the caucasian Marisa Tomei who was only in the first season, all students at Hillman... --WPaulB 02:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sinbad is a tax deadbeat

Sinbad is a tax deadbeat according to the California Franchise Tax Board. In particular, Sinbad owes about $2.1 million in taxes.

List can be found here.Dailukmuk 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)