Talk:Peter Sellers

Tabloid trivia?

This paragraph seems to be stuck in the section on Being There without any meaningful context. Besides, it sounds like something out of a children's storybook. Thoughts?

In March 1980 Sellers asked his fifteen-year-old daughter Victoria what she thought about Being There: she reported later that, "I said yes, I thought it was great. But then I said, 'You looked like a little fat old man'. … he went mad. He threw his drink over me and told me to get the next plane home." His other daughter Sarah told Sellers her thoughts about the incident and he sent her a telegram that read "After what happened this morning with Victoria, I shall be happy if I never hear from you again. I won't tell you what I think of you. It must be obvious. Goodbye, Your Father."

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My thought is that you should move on. Showing the relationship between Sellers and his children is hardly trivia and your continued poisonous attitude to this article is a waste of everyone's time and effort. The consensus at PR, FAC and still is that it is appropriate. You really should take this off your watchlist and move on. Try spending time examining the copyright status of images instead: it would be more beneficial to the project than your ongoing toxic postings here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please go away WW and do something constructive with your time. --Cassianto^Talk 08:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

punctuation

I have on several occasions tried to insert a comma in a title after Pink Panther and before reference to a divorce, to separate the film from the divorce as they are not connected. A certain Wikipedia contributor keeps scrapping it. If the divorce is not connected to the film The Pink Panther then surely there should be a comma between the two? There is another title where this issue might be appropriate. Whitespeck (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)whitespeck

You are trying to insert a serial comma in an article that does not use serial comas. Stop trying to edit war your personal preference into an article that does not use the punc style you are trying to use. I'll also point put that as this is a list of the main events in Sellers' life, they are intrinsically connected. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed infobox

I am wondering why this article needs the infobox to be collapsed. It only contains six different parameters, and does not disrupt the article. It is the first infobox I've seen that's completely collapsed. Why? Beerest355 Talk 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

More for the reason as to why the article needs an infobox altogether? Anyway, that has been argued before and this was a happy compromise. I see no harm in having it collapsed as it only contains information which is repeated in the lead section. This hides the repeated information and the ugly box, while maintaining the metadata which is needed on google etc. I plead ignorance on the last bit as I don't understand it, but the rest is common sense to me. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. If the consensus is for it to be collapsed, then I have no problem with it. Beerest355 Talk 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Beerest355. Infoboxes are a bit of a tenacious subject on WP, with Camp for and Camp against. Sellers had a rough time with an infobox tug-of-war which blighted the article for a good few weeks. A comprimise was sought and we have ended up with this. The beauty of this is that those for an infobox get to keep it for metadata reasons while those against get to banish it from the screen and get to marvel at the wonderful Allan Warren image you see before you. Hope you liked the article! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and you have totally valid points. This article was the very first time I've seen a collapsed infobox. But then again, it was also the first time I ever witnessed such a major effort by two editors to remove an infobox totally, or eliminate a celebrity's personal life section, or argue intensely to keep a poor candid image in the lead over various professional and dignified portraits. --Light show (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2013

You still got a massive case of sour grapes over changing a poor article into an FA? Why must you start throwing childish insults at EVERY thread that opens here? Move on WW, it's too tiresome. (and, by the way, there is a consensus: just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean that a consensus is lacking. - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No infobox

I'm not sure who voted to support the infobox but in my opinion the infobox (especially collapsed) is a complete waste of space and looks much better and more professional without it. Usually the chief article writers decide on whether they wish to use an infobox or not in the article. I see no benefit that an infobox brings, the lead summarizes the important information nicely. I don't want to open up an old can of worms but I'm being honest when I say I'd love to see the infobox vanish and replaced with a neat image like the Bernard Lee and John Le Mesurier article etc.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement and would be much happier to see it disappear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. Lets delete it as soon as possible! -- Cassianto^Talk 23:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

One word: Ridiculous! --Musdan77 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Your right, it was ridiculous. That's why we deleted it. -- Cassianto^Talk 07:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks much better now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A data point for you editors (I'm only a reader). When I looked up Peter Sellers and saw that there was no infobox, I assumed the page had been vandalized. Infoboxes are the first thing my eye goes to when reading biographies. Birth years / death years / birth locations / years active help my brain place people in wider context. Not seeing that familiar box felt oddly disorientating in a way that's hard to verbalize. Just be aware that the lack of infobox jarred a reader into learning how to add a comment on a talk page. 98.216.107.241 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

"Birth years / death years / birth locations / years ..." – All of which can be found within the first paragraph of the lead section, thus making the infobox unnecessary repetitive drivel. -- Cassianto^Talk 14:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The title of an article adds no information that cannot be gleaned from the first paragraph, but that does not mean a title is unnecessary repetitive drivel. A title is a guidepost. When you pull up a webpage and your brain spends half a second figuring out what it's looking at, your eyes will focus on the title instinctively. You won't even think about where to look, because all articles have a title in the same exact place. I understand that for you an infobox doesn't pull its weight, but for many people the infobox is the central anchor. Reading a biography without an infopage feels like navigating a foreign city that doesn't have street signs. (If my analogy does not carry across the Atlantic: street signs are standardized in the US. You never realize how much you relied on standardized signs until you travel abroad and need to frantically scour your field of vision to locate a street name) - 204.213.244.97 (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (same person as 98.216.107.241)

With respect, that is far too much of a science for it to be illustrative. The salient fact is that the box is repetetive and IMO redundant and ugly. That is unavoidable. Birth name, birthplace, death date, deathplace, notable parts, medium of entertainment for which the subject is concerned in can all be found within the first paragraph of the lead section. Why on earth would you want that repeated??? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I for one am pro info box as it provides a quicker reference point than the lead paragraph does without the reader having to re read the entire lead. Especially when the lead is so long! -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes far too often attract and give prominence to all sorts of irrelevant nonsense that isn't supported in the text of an article. An unhealthy part of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent IP edit warring re: Infobox

172.191.112.76, Despite your summary on this edit, you are indeed involved in edit warring. You have ignored the message on your talk page to discuss the matter on the article's page and simply reverted again, despite the consensus gained here. Please desist from warring against the article's consensus, and instead discuss your thoughts here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Instead of turning the Sellers article into a permanent war zone, with various editors trying to restore the infobox and others quickly deleting it, I think a new consensus should be provided. Recall that originally the infobox was summarily deleted without a rationale, on 7/16/12. The deletion was supported 4 minutes later by another editor apparently overjoyed.

Subsequent to that period many editors have argued for restoring it. Some, like User:Doc9871, commented that "the reality is that if you start looking at GA's and FA's, they pretty much all have an infobox." Whereas User:Musdan77 explained their use, "to repeat the purpose: to summarize key facts, allowing readers to identify (those) key facts at a glance." And over the last few weeks there has been more edit warring over this by other editors(?). An updated consensus is warranted, IMO: Should Peter Sellers infobox be restored?

Support. As I discovered last year, practically all of the people mentioned in Sellers' article, except Sellers, has an infobox. --Light show (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Bad form Light Show. The consensus was gained less than a month ago in the thread directly above this one. Your argument about infoboxes for other people named in the article is largely pointless and irrelevant and the fact is that the box is neither needed nor required. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not by my count: User:Beerest355 only wondered why it was collapsed, and User:Musdan77 called removing it "ridiculous!" If we include the recent IP editor, the consensus is for restoring it. --Light show (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a vote. Consensus is about the strengths of the arguments: there were no arguments for keeping the thing during the last discussion, so the overwhelming weight of argument was to remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Some people must have awfully boring lives to keep bringing this up..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that people keep "bringing this up" tells you that it shouldn't have been removed without discussion in the first place (talk about going against status quo). --Musdan77 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It was: see above thread. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I said "in the first place", meaning a year ago (by the person I was speaking to). And the "above" is not a discussion for consensus, and certainly doesn't follow the way you've been saying it should in this thread. You can't have it both ways. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There were no arguments in the above thread that argued for the retention of the infobox. On that basis it represents the consensus of the tome and the box was removed. If you wish to overturn that consensus you will have to bring arguments based on the MoS or policy that it should be included. - SchroCat (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Number one, there were dissensions against removal -- the removal that went against the status quo. As I said, I gave reasons based on the MoS a year ago (and they still stand up). And the above, from what I can tell, went from the start of discussion to the removal in about 7 hours?! And you think that's the right way to find consensus? There were no "arguments based on the MoS" to remove it. Stop contradicting yourself. And I don't know how you got Cassianto to change his mind. He was very much for the collapsed version, but then went against that as well. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I can see one person (you) saying "one word". You offered no argument against the removal. You may have dissented, but there was no reasoning behind it, which is pointless: Wiki doesn't !vote - it needs to discuss to come to a consensus. I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that the consensus wasto remove. It's in the threadabove and there were no sensisble answers against that consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – The bloody infobox and rather irrelevant and groundless rational which has formed the basis of Light show's support. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Restore the dreaded and allegedly demeaning infobox. Doc talk 22:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

To overturn the status quo you have to make arguments based on policy or guidelines which support the change. Could you please add which guideline or policy you are basing your decision on? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Oh, wait: that's the thing that's been the issue. WP:ILIKEIT. Just as good. Consensus is the policy, and I don't need to explain my position in forming it. Doc talk 23:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As we don't !vote, but discuss based around guidelines and policies, I don't really see what you're basing your choice on, apart from personal preference. That's not enough to overturn the status quo, unfortunately - SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am under no obligation to explain in detail to you (again) why I think the infobox would be more beneficial to the article than detrimental. And vice-versa. It would be like a person of one political ideology attempting to convert someone of the exact opposite ideology. We fundamentally disagree on this, and that's just how it is. That is all. Doc talk 00:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but it's not going to overturn the consensus of the status quo, that's all. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what consensus is going to always be on this issue, Mister. Your smugness on this issue will be less concrete as the consensus is formed. "The status quo is just never going to change" is a really sad argument here. Doc talk

Please don't lower yourself to ad hominem comments, they don't help matters, do they? All I have tried to do is to show that when you refuse to give any arguments to overturn the consensus, then you are unlikely to end up changing the status quo. I'm also not aware I have said that I have said "The status quo is just never going to change": could you provide a diff to show where I have said that? If you can't, perhaps you could try not to put twisted words in my mouth, please? - SchroCat (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your desire for consensus, ie. "I am not contradicting myself at all when I say that the consensus was to remove." Note that nearly 100 other editors had no problem with the infobox from 2007 until you deleted it a year ago, without discussion, warning, and obviously without consensus. Hence, you are contradicting yourself. And as the comments here prove, there is still no consensus or approval of allowing an editor to wave their scepter and dismember the article structure, a format contributing to its FA status. --Light show (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And you can also stop with the snide ad hominem comments too please. As I have already explained, the thread above this contains a discussion to remove the infobox. There were no arguments based on MOS or policy against that removal and that discussion now constitutes the current consensus. What you are trying to do in this conversation is to overturn that consensus - all very acceptable under WP:CCC - except that we don't seem to be moving towards overturning that consensus, as I've not seem any substantive comments showing why it should be done, apart from comments below from Musdan77 referring to a previous discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support reinstatement. I gave my points based on WP "guidelines and policies" back at Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 1#Is infobox recommended for this bio.3F (for those who want to know where the discussion started) -- and started before you did. And it still stands (my position and the MOS). --Musdan77 (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the MoS does stand: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article". - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not an argument to remove it. That just says that it can go either way -- with consensus -- which was not found. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not an argument to add it either, which is something you have singularly failed to do. You need to do more to overturn the consensus of the status quo, which is that there is no infobox on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add one in the first place. Articles don't start life with an infobox in place, they are added by someone. Where was the consensus for that? Why is it you people insist on having a consensus to remove an infobox yet there is no mention of a consensus to add one? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a stroll down history, shall we? This article was created in 2004. The infobox was not yet developed for a few more years. When it was, it was added here. Not long after that the infobox basically became an accepted standard on WP for many reasons. It stayed on the article for 5 years with no opposition (if someone did remove it in this period, it was quickly reverted). Then, someone decided he didn't like it and removed it without discussion. This brought much debate with solid points from both sides. A collapsed infobox was "a happy compromise." But then the same person who removed it the first time decided once again that it should go, but this time there was no discussion for consensus, and going against status quo, it was removed. In fact, it wasn't even a vote. It was: "in my opinion" it should go; and "I agree"; and "Lets delete it as soon as possible." This all took place within hours, then it was removed. This is not even close to how consensus is to be found on Wikipedia. That's why it was totally "Ridiculous!"

SchroCat, [I don't want to keep replying above. It's better at the bottom.] I was the only one in that (very short) section, but there was another in the previous section. You keep saying the same things, and I keep saying how you're wrong (and even two-faced). I could copy and paste the points I made a year ago -- plus add to it, but my main grievance is not that there isn't an infobox but the disgraceful way in which it was removed. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

For the third time in this discussion—and to the third person—I'm again going to ask that you please don't lower the thread to ad hominem comments. If everyone could please stick to the substantive issues then it'll be less unpleasant for all. In terms of your comments, and contrary to what you have written, the infobox is not "an accepted standard on WP". They are present on some articles (about half, I think) and not on others. The MoS defines the community consensus on the matter when it says that they are "neither required nor prohibited for any article", which is a long way from being "an accepted standard". Most of the rest of your comments all contain misleading errors ("someone decided": no, actually a few people did, rather than one; "the same person who removed it the first time decided once again that it should go": I think it was different people involved, although I really don't want to have to trawl through ancient history to find the diff, etc). End of the day, I'm still not hearing anything that shows that the consensus has changed to now include the infobox. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A couple of points Musdan77:

• "The infobox was not yet developed for a few more years. When it was, it was added here" -- Where was the consensus to add it then?
• "Not long after that the infobox basically became an accepted standard on WP for many reasons." -- Accepted yes, obligatory NO.

-- Cassianto^Talk 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, saying, "stick to the substantive issues" I guess is your way of only responding to what you want to, and ignoring other issues that you don't want to answer or have no answer for. There's nothing untrue about saying, "the infobox basically became an accepted standard on WP." How many articles contain them has nothing to do with it (and I'm sure that the great majority of biographical articles do have them). You say that my comments contain errors, but then say "I think" and you don't want to look at the history. You can't say something's not true if you don't know. I didn't just make stuff up. I did the work of searching the history.

Cassianto, 1) Normally, when an infobox is added, it goes by BRD. And as I said, it was not opposed for about 5 years. And that's when consensus had to be found, because there was opposition on both sides. 2) No disagreement there. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, when I say stick to the substantive issues, it's not about only dealing with subjects I want to. It's rather obvious from the context that it's in conjunction with asking you not to resort to ad hominem comments and remain on the subject. If you did the work of searching the history, could you provide the diffs? - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The status quo of the article, as it was for five years, with nearly 100 different editors tacitly approving the infobox, speaks much louder than any editor's unilateral removal. To add insult to injury of the article, it was removed without even the courtesy of a rationale, much less a prior discussion.

Almost all bio FA's have an infobox. Even in this article, almost everyone mentioned has an infobox. Just click on any of the names in the article. Some examples:

Goon Show: Michael Bentine; Spike Milligan; Harry Secombe. Influences, friends, associates, costars, etc.: Peter Cook; David Schwimmer; Sacha Baron Cohen; Monty Python; Paul Scofield; Dashiell Hammett; Oscar Rabin; Henry Hall ; David Lodge; Dorothy Squires; Kenneth Horne; Ted Ray; Alfonso Bedoya; Alec Guinness; Herbert Lom; Cecil Parker; Michael Relph; George Martin; Boulting brothers; Terry-Thomas; Mario Fabriz; Leo McKern; Richard Lester; George Bernard Shaw; Sophia Loren; Marcel Pagnol; Stanley Kubrick; James Mason; Shelley Winters; Norman Granz; Peter Ustinov; David Niven; Slim Pickens; Adlai Stevenson II; Harry Kurnitz; Anatole Litvak; William Peter Blatty; Britt Ekland; Billy Wilder; Dean Martin; Kim Novak; Ray Walston; Peter O'Toole; Capucine; Woody Allen; Laurence Olivier; Vittorio De Sica. Family: Daniel Mendoza ; Dickie Henderson; Michael Sellers (son)

Why, with the overwhelming guideline support for not deleting the infobox, is it not restored? Truly amazing! --Light show (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

1. WP:CCC, which is what happened, and it wasn't "unilateral", except in the sense that only one editor can make the edit: the decision was backed up by others.

2. "Almost all bio FA's have an infobox". Way off the truth there. A significant proportion don't have infoboxes. Of the names you mentioned I clicked on two of the names: neither of them have infoboxes and one of them is an FA.

3. There was a consensus to remove: it was done so. There is, as yet, no consensus to return it. There is nothing "Truly amazing" about that, except in your inability to accept that something has happened that you disagree with. - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to my comment that "Almost all bio FA's have an infobox," you wrote, "Way off the truth there." Here are some biography FAs you can browse to prove they almost all have one, the exact opposite of your statement: Music biographies, Art, architecture and archaeology biographies History biographies, Literature and theatre biographies and Royalty, nobility and heraldry biographies. That's a few hundred. Do the math on those. When you reply with your results of around 1%, feel free to restore the infobox. We'll all appreciate it. --Light show (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

From the first link you provided I went through the first line of FAs: Charles-Valentin Alkan, Walter Bache, John Barbirolli, Thomas Beecham, Georges Bizet, Adrian Boult and Benjamin Britten are all there and none have infoboxes. I'm not sure that means that they "almost all have one"? And I'm really not sure that it proves "the exact opposite" of my statement: quite the reverse, in fact. - SchroCat (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I could also have continued into the second line, where Rebecca Clarke (composer), Frederick Delius, Josquin des Prez, Edward Elgar, Gabriel Fauré and Kathleen Ferrier are all also without infoboxes... - SchroCat (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Light show, if truth be known, you don't actually care about the Sellers infobox do you? You have had a problem with SchroCat and I from the word go. Against your wishes, we expanded the article and eventually scored it an FA rating. This resulted in a barrage of ad hominem comments, and resistance against all of our hard work. Next up, and having failed in your quest to ruin the newly FA awarded expansion, you went ahead and added some frankly dodgy images. Again, these were obviously removed by us due to their licensing and various other reasons (see here, here, here. As far as you and your editing history (in terms off Sellers) is concerned, we have had to stand guard on the article ever since (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,here,here, here, here, ..etc. As sure as god made little apples, the cliché WP:OWN tag was then hurled at us because you could not get your own way here. Our policing and improvement of this article has right royally pissed you off and now, every opportunity you get, you create problems and bitch and snipe at all our hard work. Finally, and having realised that the infobox subject is a tenacious one, you have now thrown some four star petrol onto the simmering fire of an old argument with the plain objective to cause trouble. This is why you have brought it up. My advice would be to go away and concentrate on something else. -- Cassianto^Talk 05:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstatement (again?), supporting local editors. Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

LightShow, It's astonishingly hypocritical of you to delete the comments of others because you don't like then, saying that they are personal attacks. I have left all the ad hominem comments directed at me and you should have the decency to leave the comments in place. I seem to remember you tried this little trick previously just because you don't like something. I'd advise you to self-revert if you have any decency at all. - SchroCat (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Lightshow, you are at 3RR. Do not revert again or I will report you. - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, I have taken this to ANI, as I said I would if you continued. --Light show (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Except it's not: you posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, not Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of an infobox. I had no prior interest in this discussion and came to the article looking for a piece of information (Sellers's final wife's name) that would normally appear in an infobox and is not present in the intro. The information is also not easily located given the section structure of the article (i.e., lack of a personal life section). The lack of an infobox is a bit unusual for a figure of such stature and it can significantly impede location of important info as it did in my case. If editors are opposed to infoboxes per se, precluding an infobox in this case is not the way to go about expressing such an opinion or trying to effect policy change. Some of the discussants above need to check out WP:OWN. —  AjaxSmack  03:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you basing this on any particular aspects of the MOS or policy? Could I also ask that you highlight where you think there is evidence of ownership? As there is none, and as accusations of such are uncivil, could you strike your comment if you are not prepared to provide a diff? - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How bloody boring; a driveby editor armed with a cliche OWN accusation. Let me ask you a few things AjaxSmack:

• You say: "Sellers's final wife's name that would normally appear in an infobox and is not present in the intro." -- Frederick's name should not be one of the first things a reader should see. She was important in his life towards the end of his life and was an incredibly minor actress.
• You Say: "The information is also not easily located given the section structure of the article (i.e., lack of a personal life section)." -- The article is in a chronological order as are many other FAs.
• You say: "If editors are opposed to infoboxes per se, precluding an infobox in this case is not the way to go about expressing such an opinion or trying to effect policy change." -- what piece of made up bit of policy would that be then? Can I remind you that its is not obligatory for an article to have an infobox.

"Some of the discussants above need to check out WP:OWN" -- You need to check out WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There we go, one cliche guideline for another. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, infoboxes are not compulsory, none of the editors of this article want one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Character of "Jewish" con-man?

In the section about Seller's last work in a series of commercials for Barclay's Bank, the article describes him as playing "Jewish" con-man Monty Casino. There is a reference that used the term "Jewish" to describe him, The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. However, the actual commercials give no overt indication this character is Jewish. You can watch all of them here and see for yourself. In the commercials, Casino is just a sleazy con-man with a London accent with zero indication of religion. In another reference about the character, Mr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers makes no mention of the character's religion. The "Jewish" part just seems the first book's author Roger Lewis' opinion.

I suggest removing the word "Jewish" or at least indicating this was the opinion of biographer Lewis.--Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Peter Evans comments on accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against Sellers for some of his Goon Show portrayals and goes on "A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds". (See Evans, Peter (1980). The Mask Behind the Mask. London: Severn House Publishers. p. 194. ISBN 0-7278-0688-2.) I think that as two reliable sources highlight this aspect—especially as one of them says the portrayal was attacked—probably satisfies the inclusion of the term and without needing any other explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the character Mony Casino was Jewish, it just means Sellers was accused of anti-semitic with some vague un-specified interpretation that the Casino character was Jewish. There's still no indication that the character is Jewish. --Oakshade (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There are two independent, reliable secondary sources that say the character was Jewish. Your POV says otherwise. Guess which one stays in the article? - SchroCat (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The Peter Evan source doesn't say he's Jewish and the actual commercials make no indication he's Jewish, just that Sellers was accused of antisemitism due to the ad. It's only the Lewis POV source says so. I think we're going to need wider community input on this. --Oakshade (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

See also Riglesford: "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man" (see Rigelsford, Adrian (2004). Peter Sellers: A Life in Character. London: Virgin Books. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-7535-0270-9.) I'm not sure why you wish to keep flogging this dead horse, but feel free to set your POV against what is now THREE reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Rigelsford, who has a history of questionable journalism and shady practices, is not a reliable source. Again The Peter Evan source does not say the character was Jewish, just that Sellers was accused of antisemitism due to the ads. Only ONE possible reliable source interprets the character as being Jewish. I have no problem as it being written as the character as being interpreted as Jewish by a biographer, but not that the character is Jewish. Additionally, the actual ads, not interpretations of them, give zero indication that the character is Jewish.--Oakshade (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Source four: The Northern Echo, 11 March 2005, P 13: "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino." Need any more, or do you still hold that your POV is a stronger basis for editing Wikipedia than anything that can be shown to you? - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't POV. There's nothing in the ads that indicate the character is Jewish. Maybe that's what Sellers intention was and haveing that in the article is fine due to the possible source you just provided, but still there's nothing "Jewish" about the character.--Oakshade (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"There's nothing in the ads that indicate the character is Jewish": staggeringly, and I know you may have difficulty in understanding this, but that is your POV. Actually I have also seen them, and my POV does not agree with yours. Quite simply, no-one will care what your or my POV is, but refer instead to the reliable sources. I've shown you four sources that suggest otherwise and it matters not what you or I think about the matter: the sources are key. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

What is "Jewish" about this character? You've only given one reliable source with the opinion the character was Jewish, one by Adrian Rigelsford who is not a reliable source, one that gives zero indication the character was Jewish but that Sellers was accused of antisemitism and one that indicates Sellers intended the character to be Jewish. Again, what is it about this character that indicates his religion and specifically the Jewish religion?--Oakshade (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've given you four sources. You have given nothing but your POV. Guess which carries more weight? - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This has turned into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you've ignored every explanation that all but one of your sources don't indicate the character is Jewish and one unreliable source that say's the character is. the Sellers biography Mr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers by Ed Sikov simply says the character is a "con man" and makes no indication that the character is Jewish.[1] SchroCat, what about the character Monty Casino is Jewish? --Oakshade (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As Schrod says a whopping four sources support what is written. Unless you can demonstrate at least the same number of sources to prove otherwise you haven't a case here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Only one source supports what is written and the actual ads, arguably the most important source, does not support what is written.--Oakshade (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

FOUR sources, as you can't count. The ads only lead to your interpretation, which is as meaningless as everyone else's POV. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As you're in a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about only ONE reliable source you've provided indicating the character is Jewish, before we get wide community input on the matter, SchroCat, what about the character Monty Casino is Jewish?--Oakshade (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Move on Oakshade, there is nothing to see here. I think the plethora of reliable sources speak for themselves here. --Cassianto^Talk 16:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually only one reliable source indicates the character as Jewish. This isn't about Sellers intent of the character being Jewish doesn't exist. One of the sources shows that and I have no problem with that being in the article in that context. This isn't a black and white issue. --Oakshade (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's bullshit. You've been shown more than one reliable source, and your inability to take on board that your POV is as meaningless as everyone else's when stacked against the reliable sources, is now bordering on trolling. Stop flogging the dead horse and either provide a source that states the character isn't Jewish, or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Are we to believe that Barclays would run a series of advertisements that would portray a Jewish person as a "conman"? Our article presently says: "Sellers's final performances were a series of advertisements for Barclays Bank. Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino.[265]" "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". I have seen the advertisements. I don't see any obvious cues that the character is intended to be Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Troll/stalker alert. Of course Bus stop your recent disagreements with Schrod and I with another Jewish related article have nothing to do with your post here.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld—I happen to have this article on my Watchlist. If not for having this article on my Watchlist I would be unaware of this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As per the above, if you've got a source that says otherwise, them show it. If not, move on. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, for the fifth time, what about the character Monty Casino is Jewish? --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And for the nth time, my POV, along with yours is meaningless, especially when there are four' reliable sources that state the information, and nothing that remotely questions those sources. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

And of the nth time, only one reliable source possibly states he was Jewish - actually it states " he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino" (emphasis mine). "Seen" is not the same as "was" or "is". All the other "sources" you provided are un-reliable like from un-reliable source Adrian Rigelsford, or simply show Sellers intended the character to be Jewish, which I have not problem of being in the article. As stated above, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" which you have simply not provided. Repeating over and over again "I have provided FOUR sources that says he's Jewish" whilst completely ignoring all of the faults of those "sources" is not acceptable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No. You are acting like a troll. You are not listening to what is being explained to you and you somehow think that your POV is a better basis for including information than anything else. Either provide something that says he wasn't Jewish, or that questions the other sources. If you can't, then take your trolling elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Same team, same games. It's not simply what factoids are cherry-picked and force-fed into the article, but what general details are kept out or ignored from the same Lewis book, which BYT, is considered trash by most Amazon reviewers. The result is that an insignificant bio detail, based on an opinion by a tabloidish writer, is strongly defended, yet a key detail to Sellers' career, as he told Kenneth Tynan, is removed from the article body and hidden in the Notes section. The saga continues, therefore, as once pointed out, and as apparently many others also noted. --Light show (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you realize how pathetic you really are supporting anything which criticizes this article purely because you couldn't even get it to B class? You're a nobody here, what you say has no bearing on the discussion. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering how close you came to being topic banned last time you dragged something so pointless to ANI (when community consensus was stacked very heavily against you), I would have thought you may have learnt to be a little more circumspect in your comments this time round. Sadly not. Still the same of drivel you're spouting... - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

With a consensus of three concerned editors to you and Dr. Blofeld's, why are you both obsessing and arguing about keeping such an insignificant word, just a piece of opinion trivia in the article? The article is already "incomprehensible" and unlikely to be read, so aren't you guys satisfied yet? --Light show (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for you, at least) the opinion of the community at PR and FAC was against you on that point. When you ridiculously raised the possibility of a review, you were again turned down by editors much better than you (and me too, for that matter). For all your gripes and moans, you have done nothing positive for this article, and I'm surprised that you still bother to have this on your watchlist, unless it really is only to try and pour petrol onto any flames that appear on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not petrol, but water. Between your flame attacks and Blofeld's ABFs, even the water simply becomes steam. That's me on the right. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're making less sense than normal and still not bothering to add something positive to the argument... - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, now you're simply name calling and completely failing to address the issues with the sources (all "FOUR!" of them) provided. There are faults with all of them in regards to simply calling this character "Jewish".--Oakshade (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No: you are acting like a troll and I am identifying you as such. - SchroCat (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's just name calling and not at all addressing the issues of the sources you've provided. All of them have been properlly challenged and you've not addressed to challenges at all and your only defense of these sources is "you're a troll!." You'll have more credibility of you actually counter the challenges to the flawed sources you've provided to support your POV. --Oakshade (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it's identifying your poor approach to this whole matter and not listening to what anyone is saying. I have provided a numver of sources and IDIDNTHEARTHAT is all you can come back with, endlessly repeating "only one source", as if the mantra is going to fool everyone. As to credibility, I stick to the reliable sources, and not try and deny what is staring me in the face, or try and force my POV onto an article, despite what I can see and read. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of sources regarding the Barclay's Bank ad character Monty Casino being "Jewish"

1. The book The Life and Death of Peter Sellers by tabloid writer Roger Lewis states "The Jews which Sellers played on 'The Good Show were oy-vay caricatures , with names like Geraldo or Izzy; and concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank"

This source does not say the character was Jewish, but that he was "to be seen as a Jewish conman", not that he was. This source is also considered un-reliable by most Amazon reviewers.

2. The Peter Evens book The Man Behind the Mask states ""A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds".

This does not state the character was Jewish but simply states Sellers was attacked as being antisemetic.

3. Adrian Rigelsford, book Peter Sellers: A Life in Character states "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man"

Adrian Rigelsford is not a reliable source as he has a history of publishing non-truths and being caught as such.

4. The newspaper The Northern Echo states "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino."

This seems accurate as to Sellers intent on the character Monty Casino and this intent on Sellers part should be in the article as a reliable source states so.

5. The actual commercials which can be seen here give absolutely no indication of the character's religion. None.

6. Ed Sikov's bookMr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers states "Peter's character is a con man called Monty Casino, who bilks the unsuspecting out of their quid, the suggestion being that Barclay's Bank offered protection against such shady scams. (The name plays not only on Monte Carlo's casinos but also Monte Cassino, where Spike Milligan nearly got blown up during World War II.)

This source makes no mention of the character being Jewish.

From all of these sources, the only information we get from reliable ones are:

1. A character Monty Casino was "seen" as Jewish. (this is by the tabloid writer Roger Lewis who might not be a reliable source).

2. Peter Sellers intended the character to be Jewish.

3. Peter Sellers was accused as being antisemitic with these ads.

From these sources I propose the line in the article be changed to:

"Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman, Monty Casino. Sellers intended the conman to be Jewish and the ads garnered accusations that Sellers was antisemitic."

--Oakshade (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I endorse the wording change suggested by Oakshade above. The wording presently found in the article is not supported by sources. It would be "out of character" for Barclays Bank to be associated with the advertisements that are being implied. This is therefore misleading to the reader. As a little thought experiment—would we write at the Barclays Bank article that Barclays Bank used advertisements that portrayed a "Jewish conman"? I don't think we would. And the reason would be that sources do not support an assertion of that nature. I don't think it would matter whether that assertion was implicit or explicit. Even a hint of this would potentially be misleading to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Five sources have been provided that show you just do not know what you are talking about. So far no-one has provided any evidence to the contrary. No one has provided any reliable source that says "although described as a Jewish conman, the portrayal was actually..."; so far no-one has disproved any of the sources; and so far no one has come up with any other explanation of the characterisation from any other reliable sources. - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, stop editing and interjecting within my comments. You are violating WP:TPOC. Interjecting is not fine. You can retort my comments below mine. I've moved yours below.

Ridiculous. You're splitting pointless hairs on this one, and trying to justify it by using Amazon reviews? Do you even know what a reliable source is? - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

yes, because he was accused of being anti Semitic because he portrayed what, exactly? How pointless is your comment here? - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If Riglesford had quoted something, or made a extraordinary statement, without any other sources also saying the same thing, you may have a point, but on balance with the other sources, no. - SchroCat (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

No, we don't need to hide behind such phrasing: in line citations do that job. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

So what? Sikov doesn't cover every single aspect off every portrayal, as much as the others don't either. But - importantly - he doesn't question the fact that others raised the portrayal either. - SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Folks, you cannot edit other people's comments. That's violating WP:TPOC. You can counter my comments below.--Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That's nonsense if the interjection is signed: it's certainly not against TPOC. But well done on ensuring that the counters to your "arguments" are now out of context. Good work. - SchroCat (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat—you were asked by an editor not to break up that editor's post. There are an indefinite number of editors participating in this thread. It can quickly become confusing if editors post in the middle of other editor's posts. Each of Oakshade's sources are numbered. Responding to those sources should be straightforward by means of reference to the source's identifying number. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been away for the majority of today and I have just this minute logged in. I really wish I hadn't, my god, what a load of bollocks! Oakshade, just accept that four sources outweigh anything you have to say. What makes you such an expert over the four sources we have? You say Riglefsford is unreliable, why do you consider yourself reliable enough for your view to be taken instead? Can you provide a decent, reliable source to say contrary to what is there already? Light show, take this article off your watchlist and go bother someone else. You troll this article every time a discussion emerges on the talkpage. You do bugger all for this article and do nothing to benefit any of the discussions surrounding it. Bus stop, can you enlighten me as to what your view is on all this? Your post confuses me. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Cassianto, instead of violating WP:NPA and attacking editors who wish to improve this project by calling them "trolls", refute the actual points made. Per your comments they completely stand as all you've done is attack the contributing editor. Comments like this are completely unhelpful.--Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You are being unhelpful by not accepting the fact that your POV does not outweigh the four sources. Also, take a look at Light show's previous history with this article, and I will let you draw your own conclusions. "Troll" is very mild compared to what I'd like to call him. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The four "sources" are simply not supporting the simple line "Jewish conman". I'm looking at content completely in regards to the "sources" provided and no POV. That's the point. Feel free to refute the analysis of the sources and show how they do support that content. Just saying "you're a troll" or repeating "there are four sources!" is completely ignoring the arguments and ignoring what the "sources" actually say. I think it should be noted in the article that Sellers intended the character to be Jewish and that people interpreted the character as Jewish as two reliable sources state, but in the commercials' complete form, there's nothing, not from any of the sources or in the actual commercials, that indicates the character is Jewish. If you feel an editor is being a troll, you can start an ANI agaisnt them. As violations of WP:NPA persist without proper discussion, I will start a wide community input on the matter. --Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time with all that ANI bullshite. I am a content creator and my time is better spent on creating quality articles for the project, rather than worry about people like Wikiwatcher. You seem to be loving this linking to NPA, but you are not in full view of the facts. If you look at the many diffs on this article and it's talk you will see that SchroCat, Dr. B and I are justified in our interpretations of him. Again, provide a source to prove otherwise, then I will stop calling it POV. I feel you can't do that. -- Cassianto^Talk,

We're trying to create content based on reliable sources and not POV. When there's a charge that Barclay's Bank and Peter Sellers made commercials featuring a "Jewish conman", the sources that simply mention the phrase "Jewish conman" can't be taken at face value and need to be scrutinized and, as the policy WP:VERIFY points out, the sources need to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:VERIFY states there needs to be "multiple high quality" sources. These "sources" just aren't that, at least to simply support the content this character is a "Jewish conman." As mentioned above, I believe per one of the sources that Seller's intent was that the character was Jewish and that can be mentioned per one of the sources. That the outcome of the character being a "Jewish conman" just isn't there per the scrutiny of the sources provided. --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Lewis wrote it in a reliable source, doesn't make it true, but it's still usable, even if other sources said otherwise. Truth is not required. However, a neutral POV is required, so it's hardly worth turning this single word into a POV debate, considering that many dozens of readers have already rated the entire Schro-Cass rewrite of the article as "heavily biased," even as a FA. --Light show (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lightsow, you rated this however you want: the community decided sometime ago that it was an FA, and when you tried to have the FA status removed you were slapped down, once again by the community. Your further bad faith slurs on the article are increasingly meaningless, and when you tried to go to ANI (ironically for editing other people's comments) you were lucky that a topic ban wasn't raised against you.

Oakshade, the horse died a long time ago and your "critique" of the sources doesn't hold water in any way, shape or form, eve if you try and hide the arguments against your points by moving them out of the way. Four sources have said Jewish: your POV means as little as any other editor in the face of those sources. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

When getting personal comments like "the horse died a long time ago" when this discussion is less than 24 hours old, there's something strange going on here, like the above user is taking this personally. It's not personal. It's the desire to have proper content based on content from reliable sources. Where there is strong claim that Barclay's Bank produced commercials in 1980 that featured a "Jewish conman", the sources better be correct and can't be taken as face value as they seem to have up to this point. Four sources mentioning the word "Jewish" isn't going to do it alone. Upon actual scrutiny of these sources, they're just not supporting "Jewish conman." All that we can find is that Sellers intended the character to be Jewish. That can be in the article. But per the sources that are constantly referred to in this talk page, that the character in the Barclay's Bank ads is actually a "Jewish conman" is not supported. --Oakshade (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how "the horse died a long time ago" is a personal comment: I think we're veering into the Kafkaesque now. Could you also explain how I am "taking this personally"? Apart from the attempt by Lightshow to personalise it ("the entire Schro-Cass rewrite"), I'm not sure what you're reading into what piece of writing. I'll re-iterate: the only person questioning this is you. you have proven nothing. you have provided nothing to back up your assertions, aside from providing your POV having seen the ads. There are sources that back up the text as we have provided it and nothing to back you up. As a fifth source, see also the Advertising Archives and note the General keywords, which includes: "Jewish", or "All keywords, which includes: "Jews" and "Judaism". Five sources against your POV. I think it's time to move on from this increasingly pointless thread. - SchroCat (talk) 05:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the earlier link to Lewis's "conman" ads, so had a look and have a few questions: 1) What's Jewish about the ads, as I personally saw nothing implied? 2)The Barclay's archive link above states that the ads were never shown, so why bother even mentioning it? 3) There's nothing by Barclays even describing the character played, so Lewis's description is obviously his personal take; 4) Why would a 300-year-old U.K. bank even do an ad as described by Lewis, since it would be self-defeating? 5) Does the name "Monty Casino" sound Jewish? If not, it implies the very opposite of Lewis's description.

If, as a few editors insist, it's vital to keep Lewis's description in, why not include some of Lewis's descriptions of Sellers' intended Jewish characters? --Light show (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

1 "I personally saw nothing implied": your POV is as meaningless as Oakshade's, mine and anyone else's. We rely on sources, not whatever our own personal interpretations may or may not be;

2 It was his last piece of filming and he had a series of heart attacks during the filming process. If it wasn't for that, then I don't think they would be mentioned, but as it's the last one, and the health issues came to a head at the time, etc... that's the reason they are in there;

3 I'm not sure why you are banging on about Lewis's opinion here: there are five sources that make the connection, not just Lewis;

4 I doubt anyone from Barclays was anywhere near the shoot when Sellers changed the character from the original one. Either way, if you can find a reliable source, then it would make the point an easier one;

5 ? Again with the POV?

Does anyone have any reliable sources that counter the five currently on offer? if not, then we can just keep going round and round in ever decreasing circles on this... - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, and voicing a personal POV is allowed per guidelines, such as your replies to #2 and #4. In any case, since you only indirectly answered one of the questions I had, #3, maybe someone else can chime in. --Light show (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

How bizarre! We're talking about the basis for inclusion of information into the article and whether something should or should not be included. POV is among the worst determining factors for inclusion, which is why it's pointless. The only question of any real import that you raised was no. 2 and it was answered fully, along with all others that deserved an answer. Got a reliable source to counter the five that support the information so far? - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Use of term "Jewish" to describe conman character

Should the term "Jewish" be allowed to describe the conman Monty Casino character in a set of 1980 Barclay's Bank commercials?

Background

In 1980, Peter Sellers performed in some commercials for Barclay's Bank. The commercials can be viewed here. As you can see in the ads he plays a conman named "Monty Casino."

In this article, this character is described with the line, "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a Jewish conman, Monty Casino." This despite the character's religion not being indicated or mentioned in the commercials.

The sources provided by three proponents who support the usage of the term "Jewish" are as follows:

• 1. The book The Life and Death of Peter Sellers by Roger Lewis states "The Jews which Sellers played on 'The Good Show were oy-vay caricatures , with names like Geraldo or Izzy; and concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank"

• 2. The Peter Evens book The Man Behind the Mask states as in relation to Sellers being condemned for playing derogatory Jewish caricatures: "A commercial he made for Barclays Bank in which he played a conman called Monty Casino, was attacked on the same grounds".

• 3. The Adrian Rigelsford book Peter Sellers: A Life in Character states "In 1980, Sellers shot three adverts as Monte Casino, a Jewish con-man"

• 4. The newspaper The Northern Echo states "In 1980, it signed comic actor Peter Sellers to play South London spiv Harry Hodges in a commercial. On the first day of shooting, he got rid of the writer and created his own character, a Jewish con man called Monty Casino."

The users SchroCat, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld have been working extensively on this article for a long time and argue passionately for the usage of the term "Jewish." --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Survey

• Change sentence per the sources to: "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman named Monty Casino. Sellers created the Casino character which he intended to be Jewish."--Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Alternately, as per Binksternet's comment below, "Filmed in April 1980 in Ireland, he played a conman who was observed to be Jewish named Monty Casino." --Oakshade (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is clearly a character that is not simply "intended" as Jewish but observed as Jewish by independent sources. Oakshade is wrong in thinking that outside observers brought to this RfC are going to dismiss the reliable sources and accept instead a novel formulation. This deserves a WP:TROUT for I-can't-hear-you behavior. Binksternet (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I actually AGREE with you. The character was "observed" as Jewish. I have no problem with the content saying the character was observed or seen as Jewish as that is what the reliable sources indicate. That was my point from the beginning and the I-can't-hear-you behavior came from a couple of users who failed to address our point despite it being described to them. As I've stated before, this isn't a black and white issue. --Oakshade (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If there are no sources describing Monty as Italian, or as a member of some non-Jewish religion, then the handful of sources saying 'Jewish' have the floor. I see no good reason why we should question Monty's observed Jewishness. Waffling the wording does not seem to be the answer. Monty is a character, after all, not a person. If people think the character is Jewish, and we can find no rebuttals or alternate theories, then that's what it is. Binksternet (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, as per Binksternet, and my comments below. We currently have a reliably sourced statement (with inline citation) in a simple, clean and correct sentence. What is proposed here is to try and undertake some form of linguistic gymnastics to a sub-standard sentence that is less simple, less elegant and more misleading than the status quo. I'm not sure why we would want to do that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. At first sight the distinction above between whether to call this an intended Jewish character or a character understood as being Jewish seems meaningful. Making such a fine distinction is commonly important for sensitive subjects like this. All the sources above are apparently only understanding the character as Jewish? (Is there any source for what Sellars actually intended?) To me it seems likely that we could tweak our wording to report this as an accusation about the intention, rather than an intention.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• Agree. Tweaking the wording per sources as being "observed", "seen as" or "understood as" Jewish as all I've been trying to do. Source #4 seems to indicate Sellers intended the character to be Jewish as it was reported he re-wrote the script so as the character would be Jewish. I'm not positive per the source though. --Oakshade (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

That Barclay's Bank would actually make ads describing a derogatory character as "Jewish" is quite an extraordinary claim and per our policy WP:VERIFIABILITY, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I wrote a detailed analysis of the sources above in the section Analysis of sources regarding the Barclay's Bank ad character Monty Casino being "Jewish", but I'll give a summery here.

• Source 1 by a tabloid writer does not say the character was Jewish, but that he was "to be seen as a Jewish conman". There's a big difference.
• Source 2 again does not state the character was Jewish but states Sellers was attacked as being anti-Semetic.
• Source 3 was written by Adrian Rigelsford who is not a reliable source as he has a history of publishing non-truths and being caught as such.
• Source 4 seems accurate as to Sellers intent on the character Monty Casino and this intent on Sellers part should be in the article as a reliable source states so.

Additionally, the commercials themselves give zero indication of the character Monty Casino's religion. Sources simply using the word "Jewish" do not suffice as a source that supports the statement that the character "Monty Casino" is Jewish, just that Sellers intended the character to be so. If Barclay's Bank is accused of producing a commercial with the use of a derogatory character based on their religion, whether it be Jewish or anything else, the sources need to be exceptional but in this care are not.--Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

How tiresome: I see that WP:ICANTHEARYOU is still the modes operandi her. I also see you've also managed to miss out the fifth source and also ignored all the points made by others above, as well as cram in some rather misleading points here: (Lewis a "tabloid journalist"? Really? That's just blatantly untrue). You're "comprehension" of what Lewis has written is also deeply suspect: he was seen on television: details of the character follow that statement. To suggest otherwise is a failure to read English properly. The rest of your "analysis" on the other points is also questionable and/or ridiculous. This just boils down to the fact that you cannot accept that your POV is utterly knocked into the gutter by five reliable sources. You have provided no reliable sources that counter those sources, with the exception of your own POV. - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As from the beginning, I won't respond to this user's personal attacks he lashes out at those who disagree with him and keep the discussion on focus from my end. Just so everyone knows what SchroCat 5th "source" is, it's this Advertising Archives directory listing with the keyword "Jewish" somewhere near the bottom.--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no personal attack, so stop trying to deflect the argument away from your rather misleading portrayal of the facts. You have not been fully open or straight with the framing of the original information - including missing off one of the sources until it was pointed out to you. Even when you did finally include the source, you blithely refer to "the keyword "Jewish" somewhere near the bottom". More properly - if you could be straight with sources for a moment - is from the Advertising Archives, which shows the General keywords, which includes: "Jewish", or "All keywords, which includes: "Jews" and "Judaism", which is a slightly stronger showing than it being "somewhere near the bottom". - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about intent: This thread is too long, so can someone copy-paste the proof or source that claims what Sellers intended, and how they knew? Also, IMO, that Barclays "keyword" rationale seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel and would not be a RS. --Light show (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Oakshade, can you tell where the personal attack is in SchroCat's above post? Or is this another example of seeing what you want to see and ignoring what is actually there? --Cassianto^Talk 00:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please keep on topic and discuss the actual issues of the content, sources and POV. As from the beginning I refuse to engage in mudslinging matches and only focus on the improving this article. I would advise everyone on this board to start doing the same. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

And you stop accusing others making personal attacks when its clear that they have done no such thing. --Cassianto^Talk 01:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"failure to read English" is a personal attack. Please focus on the article content, sources and POV. If you disagree with someone, discuss what you disagree with and not attack their character. Just discuss the article and restrain from the insults.--Oakshade (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop being so bloody precious and take on board the advice I am offering you. Please stop assuming incivility in others and stop throwing wild accusations around like confetti. If one were to conduct themselves in an adult-like manner, then one would receive adult-like answers. If one behaves like a petulant child, then one should expect to be met with the same behaviour. Its simple; if you were to stop making these unfounded accusations, then these spin-off threads wouldn't occur and you will get answers to your questions. You have been told many, many times that unless you provide a decent, reliable source which says contrary to what is currently in the article, we would have no hesitation in honouring your request. The fact is you haven't, so nothing changes. Now please, for gods sake move on. -- Cassianto^Talk.

Not a "wild accusation" as he really did say "failure to read English". As for sources saying the character Monty Casino is not Jewish, it's impossible to prove a negative. No source is going to say "Monty Casino is not Jewish." My point has been from the beginning is that per the reliable sources, the character is only "seen as" or, as Binksternet pointed out above, "observed as" Jewish. This isn't personal POV but by the actual sources. It's fine that the content says the character was "observed" as Jewish per the sources. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not such a wild accusation when one starts looking at the evidence that's in front of us, and the increasingly bizarre way you have of "interpreting" what is written in plain English in front of you. Shall we try and examine the sources properly, without the slurs you seem intent on introducing?

Roger Lewis
Rather disingenuous and misleading to try and dismiss him as a "tabloid journalist". He's a respected author and biographer whose biographies include:

• Lewis, Roger (2010). Growing Up with Comedians. London: Century. ISBN 978-1-84413-808-1.
• Lewis, Roger (2009). Seasonal Suicide Notes: My Life as it is Lived. London: Short Books. ISBN 978-1-907595-00-4.
• Lewis, Roger (2007). The Real Life of Laurence Olivier. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 978-0-09-951366-7.
• Lewis, Roger (2003). Anthony Burgess. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-21721-2.
• Lewis, Roger (2002). Charles Hawtrey 1914-1988: The Man Who Was Private Widdle. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-21089-3.
• Lewis, Roger (1995). The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 978-0-09-974700-0. 1108 pages.

Now we've established he's more of a reliable source than your POV, let's examine what he wrote, your poor "examination" to one side: "concurrent with his death he was to be seen on television as a Jewish conman Monty Casino, urging viewers to invest their monty in Barclay's Bank". I'm not quite sure how (or heaven forbid, why) you try to wheedle around this: he was on television and it was as "Jewish conman Monty Casino". End of story and no matter how many linguistic somersaults you try it goes contrary to what you are trying to force into the article.

Evans
You say "again does not state the character was Jewish but states Sellers was attacked as being anti-Semetic." Could I ask on what other grounds, apart from a Jewish one, he could have been attacked as being anti-Semetic? Even given the low level of your other arguments, this is rather paper thin. Was he accused of it for portraying a Frenchman? A Hindi? A Scotsman? A Christian? Good grief!

Rigelsford
Despite your assertions to the contrary, Riglesford can still be used, but only with care, I think. The academic (rather than criminal) charges against him were that he invented quotes, which is not the case here. The books used is a listing one, rather than a full biography, and, from memory, refers to the "Jewish conman Monty Casino".

Northern Echo
Even you have managed to admit that this is reliable.

Advertising Archives
Again, a description (in the keywords) about the ads being connected or related to, "Jewish", "Jews" and "Judaism". This certainly isn't enough on its own (although it's difficult to see what else it is referring to), but as a fifth source, it suffices to reinforce. On its own, it's certainly stronger than your POV.

I don't know how much hot air and kb of needless debate has gone on here, but trying to argue against five sources with nothing more than your own POV to back you up is tiresome in the least. Your inability to read what the reliable sources have provided is ridiculous and not once have you even bothered to discuss the refutations of your arguments in the lengthy thread above. Your endless stance of ICANTHEARYOU appears to be based on nothing more than an IDONTLIKEIT attitude towards one minor word. I am, after having to put up with your intransigence, running out of GF, but still have enough to suggest that you gracefully swallow your pride and withdraw the RfC: no-one will think any the worse of you if you do take such a magnanimous step. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat, you've completely missed the point. This is where your WP:ICANTHEARYOU has being playing out since the beginning of this discussion. The sources, including the Lewis source, say the character was "seen as" Jewish. That's a huge difference than he "is" Jewish. That's per the sources. Adrian Rigelsford is not a reliable source. And no, a cryptic Advertising Archives out-of-context directory listing is not a reliable source either. You seem confident this RfC will result in no change of the wording so we'll let it play out and let wide consensus decide. --Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)