Talk:Joe E. Ross

Casting on The Phil Silvers Show

This comment was in the article and was moved here:

This cannot be right as Ritzik didn't appear until the second series. He could have been hired on the spot but if that was the case Silvers and Hiken were not 'planning' the show they had already filmed a full series..!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.205.230.50 (talk • contribs) 08:49, February 13, 2007 (UTC)

File:JER.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:JER.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Personal information section

I'd like to resolve the issue around the deleting of the personal information on Joe Ross. The source is reliable and, in fact, one of the few in-depth examinations of the Ross' life. Yes, he doesn't sound like an overly pleasant man, but he also sounds like he liked who he was and didn't try hiding it from people. To avoid having the section be totally negative I added that quote about him being a man of sweet character. I'd be happy to add more positive info on his life if we can find it, but simply deleting negative info about a subject--especially when the info is reliably sourced--is not allowed per Wikipedia guidelines. Any thoughts on how to resolve this?--SouthernNights (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with "deleting negative information" or "adding more positive information"; it has to do with the source. It's an obvious attack-piece on Ross. I obviously welcome what others have to say about it. Meanwhile, per WP:BRD, I have reverted to the long-standing version while discussion takes place. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Blogs are rarely good sources, and the WFMU-blog does not seem to meet WP:NEWSBLOG. That said, Nesteroff is probably enough of an expert for it to eke by, but per WP:BLOGS, a blog being used as a source in this way should ideally be repeating information that has already been printed in reliable third-party sources (my emphasis). This is hardly confirmed to be the case with the "King of Slobs" article. For instance, a statement like: "He was married eight times and they were all ex-hookers" would need to be confirmed by a third-party source. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for slow response. This is a news report from an extremely legitimate news source, WFMU. And the fact the station calls this a blog doesn't make a difference. As per Wikipedia Identifying Reliable Sources guidelines, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write." This is absolutely the case since the author of the report is Kliph Nesteroff, a writer considered to be a show-business expert (and also notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry). Finally, the report is not an attack piece--it examines the life and career of a colorful man who had an extremely colorful life.

I'm leaving the current version of the article up for now, but I want to note that you deleted this section several times over the last year. Unless you can state a valid reason for removing this section I will reinsert it. Unfortunately, deleting reliably source information because it's from an "attack piece"--which as I said, isn't even true--is not valid under Wikipedia guidelines in this instance.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already stated a valid reason. If it's reinserted without consensus, I'll continue to remove it. Your "argument" about Nesteroff is nothing I haven't said already. The fact that he has a Wikipedia article is completely meaningless. If you want to use the blog as a source, you'll need to show that the material (e.g. his marriages to eight different prostitutes) has been confirmed by third-party sources. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The material is all sourceable to the New York Examiner it turns out, so we don't have to worry about whether the WFMU blog thing is a "third party source" or not.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I had little doubt someone would have the admin's back sooner or later. I guess I'll have to sort through this pile of shit piece-by-piece to find out how much, if any, of it is actually true. Congratulations, the both of you. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I removed the line about Ross' personal life being "as troubled as the characters he played"; sourced or not, that's using Wikipedia's voice to state an opinion. The rest of the filth will sadly have to stay until I can sort through it. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm glad you managed to find a reason that someone might disagree with you other than that you're wrong. It must be a comfort. I didn't even know SouthernNights was an admin. I suppose I'm building up treasures in heaven.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm wrong? Perhaps you can show me just where the fuck I'm wrong. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think so. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, you need to stop the personal attacks immediately. Per Wikipedia guidelines, it's not acceptable behavior. Otherwise, thanks for expressing your opinion on all this, alf laylah wa laylah.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Mmmhmm. Do I need to stop beating my wife, too? Perhaps you could point out some of these "personal attacks". Joefromrandb (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the use of "The New York Examiner" better known as Examiner.com

This section is mostly sourced to the website Examiner.com Mel Neuhaus (April 7, 2011). "OOOOH! OOOOH!...DVD Takes a Spin With Car 54". New York Examiner. which is not considered a reliable source and appears to be on the spam blacklist.[1] Regardless of how politely people have been asked, this material should be removed unless sourced to a credible source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know where that reference to the Examiner came from in the discussion. The source is the radio station WFMU, and the author is a well-known show-business writer, meaning the source meets the reliability per comment above.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Have you read the original article and researched who wrote it and who published it?--SouthernNights (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the stuff currently sourced to examiner.com. It was being misidentified here as the "New York Examiner", which doesn't exist and is not a newspaper and is not currently considered a reliable source. It's on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. There should be inclusion of his personal life, and it doesn't have to necessarily be positive if that is the general opinion of actual sources, but it needs to be reliable sourced. I also note that if you try to include a link to the examiner.com article, then you are warned about it. I took a look at the WFMU source and even if people end up deciding it's a reputable source, we were misquoting it, putting the words of Ross's colleague into Ross's mouth. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, any thoughts on the WFMU reliability per the points raised above (leaving out the Examiner, which again I think doesn't have anything to do with the WFMU article). And we definitely want to fix the quote issue. --SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

After checking into the Examiner issue, it turns out the editor who commented above about the Examiner inserted that reference. I wouldn't have done that, and this edit did indeed introduce misleading info. I've reverted the section to the original WFMU sources--please check it out.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I found it on Newsbank, which didn't say anything about it being examiner.com. It was sourced there to "The New York Examiner" and I didn't realize that it was examiner.com. Tra-la, won't do it again!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's how the citation looked to me on Newsbank, which is why I didn't realize that it was examiner.com:

OOOOH! OOOOH!...DVD TAKES A SPIN WITH CAR 54

New York Examiner (NY) - Thursday, April 7, 2011

Author/Byline: Mel Neuhaus

Anyway, it was an honest mistake.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. That's understandable. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WFMU as a source, specifically.

Okay, I took a look at the WFMU article and I have some mixed feelings and questions.

• Reliability for small matters of fact Generally, I think WFMU could be used as a source for certain matters of fact (record release dates, some tour info, etc.) and I could see it being fine as a general source for some transcriptions for interviews there is some other way to verify. If they can't be verified it gets a bit more borderline for me.
• Reliability for interpretation and opinion This seems much less reliable to me, overall. Any article that contains a sentence like It's also probably false, but who cares. should be considered with additional skepticism. A look at the WFMU sources also include blogs we wouldn't consider on their own merits.

Our version of Imogene Coca's opinion is that she hated working with Ross and referred to him as "that awful man.", but the original text (from an interview not controlled by the author) is much milder and vague about the actual words were said, let alone whether she specifically hated working with him, I have long been intrigued by Joe E. Ross anecdotes and when I met Imogene Coca, I asked her if she had any. She just blushed, muttered something about "that awful man" and changed the subject. I think a "changing of the subject" has been jazzed up as evidence of an opinion not stated. Since she was actually in the middle of declining to talk about him, there's no context about why she would think he was "awful" or how strongly she meant it. Without reference, it could be because he didn't answer her phone calls the previous week or something that had nothing to do with their working life together. My point is that it's dangerous to stray too far into speculation in the interest of having a more interesting story, which I believe the WMFU article does at times.
Finally there's a BLP and Due Weight issue with the "Wives" quote. The due weight is that a bunch of women are being called "hookers" solely from a single quote, from a single colleague, who seems more vague about it all in the WMFU article then how we've included it. The BLP issue is that the eight (or eleven according to the WMFU article, so who knows) women that are being called "hookers" should be presumed to be alive if we haven't heard otherwise, including but not limited to his last wife, Arlene. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that I'm not against negative material being added, but we should take extra care that we're not relying on the over-interpretation of primary sources in their most negative or entertaining light. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent points on BLP possibly still applying to his widow/ex-wives. I disagree about your take on Coco, but I'll go with what you recommend. I've rewritten the section slightly to add in a larger perspective without referencing any of the specifics which might cause BLP issues. I think the section is now NPOV and gives enough personal info to suit me. Thoughts?--SouthernNights (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks good. The WMFU article seems to be be supported by primary source interviews (mostly done by the author for the other website he's associated with) and the book King of of the Half Hour: Nat Hiken and the Golden Age of TV Comedy by David Everitt (2000, Syracuse University Press). A lot of these quotes are retired burlesque comedians telling anecdotes about each other which our source doesn't even completely believe. The direct quotes from interviews probably shouldn't be used to generalize, or phrased in a way that we think the speaker must have been telling the truth. I did have a thought that it breaks credulity that any human being who had more than half a dozen wives would confirm to anybody that every single one of them, first to last, was an ex-prostitute. It seems more possible that it would be secretly half-true than that someone would tell anyone about it, unless they happened to also be some sort of comedian. Anyway, WFMU can be used to reliably (mostly) relate what people said, but I'd call it shaky the truth of what they said. It would be good to get a look at the Syracuse University book to compare what was sober boring fact and what was friendly elaboration about a notorious entertainment figure. And, if you take a look at the first four minutes of this, you'll be treated to an early television appearance of a type of Wikipedia editor I'm sure you have encountered. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL at the video.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent input here, Elaqueate.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, many thanks to you, Elaqueate.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are both very kind but do not thank me prematurely. I have some hard things to say about this multiple wives business that was re-inserted. The WMFU article cites this interview to back up their claim about "number of wives, all hookers". Please look at the part of the interview where that comes up. Nesteroff introduces the numbers in the question and it's nested right there with the funny anecdote Nesterhoff says is almost certainly a falsehood:

Hank Garrett: Yes! Joe E. was living in some housing complex and they had hired him to do a show. Horrendous. They were paying him a hundred dollars. Joe E. was working, suddenly felt ill, sat on the edge of the stage and keeled over.
Kliph Nesteroff: Oh wow.
Hank Garrett: His widow went to collect the hundred dollars. They gave her fifty. They said, "He never finished the show."
Kliph Nesteroff: Oh my God.
Hank Garrett: Yes, exactly... and Joe E. was married to... hookers.
Kliph Nesteroff: Yeah!
Hank Garrett: Yup.
Kliph Nesteroff: (laughs)
Hank Garrett: (laughs)
Kliph Nesteroff: And he went through something like ten or eleven wives...
Hank Garrett: The one I knew was [number] eight. He introduced her as his "dialogue coach."
Kliph Nesteroff: (laughs)
Hank Garrett: (laughs)
We can't put jokey speculation in as a sourced biographical claim. I was taking WMFU and the author as a reliable source in the sense that if they say somebody said something in an interview with them then it is probably true that they said the words. Looking at the transcripts puts that into doubt. Even with that WMFU is making no claim that the people interviewed are relating verifiable fact. We shouldn't make that jump either. Right now we have exactly one person, a burlesque comedian, as our only source of information about a possible(?) eight or more wives, having met and known exactly one. The single comedian is not a reliable source for this claim to be presented as a known quantity in Wikipedia's voice. It would be a great story if it were true but we have no confirmation that it wasn't a simple exaggeration, or a joke made in the interview. More than eight wives is an extraordinary claim, and it requires a better source than I see here. The worst part is that the quote in the article is so significantly different from what was said on the transcript. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Joefromrandb made a good change to the article on the married issue and it seems to resolve this issue. I'm also good with the current version if everyone else is.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is better. I was worried that we were straying into Yogi Berra territory, where someone becomes so notorious for exaggerated incidents that it's easier to believe other exaggerations. But it looks good now, thank you. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Phrase lifted straight from obit

This "He was stricken while performing in the clubhouse of his apartment building in" is lifted straight from the obit it's sourced to. I can't figure out how to rephrase the sentences to avoid this since the obit is so short. The information is relevant since he was working when he died. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone translate this phrase from the obit section, please?

" Jay Leno writes on delivered the eulogy." Makes no sense to me.76.31.182.125 (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe E. Ross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502013545/http://snbauthor.blogspot.com/2012/05/nightclub-ads-long-ago-on-miami-beach.html to http://snbauthor.blogspot.com/2012/05/nightclub-ads-long-ago-on-miami-beach.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Career

Can someone provide information or a link that might explain what is meant by - the Schuster circuit out of Chicago - ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterHOP (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)