Talk:Jerry Seinfeld

Hannah Montana?

Anyone got a reference for this appearance - I know Larry David was on the show but I don't think Jerry Seinfeld ever was? Nedtrifle (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to delete that ref - until someone shows me a video.Nedtrifle (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Former Scientologists category

Appropriate? The sources that I've seen about Seinfeld's association with Scientology are that he simply took a few classes. I don't know that it's appropriate to say that he was actually a Scientologist at any point, therefore he could not be a former Scientologist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See the source:

Oppenheimer, Jerry (2002). "Chapter 19: The Dianetics Kid". Seinfeld The Making of an American Icon. HarperCollins. pp. 113, 129, 131. ISBN 0-06-018872-3.

Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Seinfeld as a Vegetarian

I have read various online sources that claim that Jerry Seinfeld is a vegetarian. The Animal Liberation Front website claims that Seinfeld is "an outspoken vegetarian who won't let people eat meat in front of him." I do not know if the ALF meets the criteria for a reliable source, which can be cited in scholarly papers.

Another source, The Rocky Mountain Collegiate, posts that Jerry Seinfeld is a vegetarian.

I would expect that Seinfeld could very well refrain from meat. How do we confirm if he does or does not eat meat? If Seinfeld does forgo meat in his diet, I think this is a notable fact to add to his Wiki page.

--Buekerc1 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, ALF is certainly not going to be considered a reliable source, since they have an obvious agenda, and I'm assuming the paper you refer to is the student paper of Rocky Mountain College. Student papers are notoriously bad at confirming information before publishing it. So, we need to find an actual reliable source somewhere. I'll try Google. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this [1], not a reliable source in and of itself, but it does cite the People Weekly 1995 Entertainment Almanac. News archive search came up empty for "Seinfeld+vegetarian." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found other sources indicating that Jerry Seinfeld does not eat meat. One source, Vegetarian Times (VT) [2] lists Jerry Seinfeld as a vegetarian. Another text, a book titled God Wants You Healthy! [3] by Dennis Urbans also lists Seinfeld as a person who does not eat meat. A third source, HealthNews.com [4] references Seinfeld as a meatless eater. Yet, in 1988, the aforementioned Vegetarian Times lists Jerry Seinfeld as a person rumored to be vegetarian, but is not [5]. The same source with two incongruent indications.

The VT citing Jerry Seinfeld as a rumored to be- but not actually- a vegetarian is dated in 1988. The issue referencing him as a (or a one time) vegetarian was published in 1999. --Christopher Bueker (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he's a vegetarian, since there was a whole episode about vegetarians being wierdos. His girlfriend thought he was a vegetarian because he ordered salad when they went out. The next time he saw her, he faked enthusiasm for mutton.(Huey45 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

I really don't think we should go down that road. The TV show and the real Seinfeld cannot be assumed to be the exact same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I thought the episode was making fun of people who ate mutton. A good example of why we use sources instead of our own opinions. Seems there are sufficient sources for this. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit

Is this really needed in the article the information about the lawsuit. Reading it, it seems to be saying the same thing as the Seinfeld for the woman having the lawsuit in order for publicity for her book. Is it important enough?Phil Nolte (talk) 11:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

citation/cleanup tag

The article has 40 references and a pile of external links. It might be helpful if the persons supporting the tagging could identify which areas they feel are in need of further verification by sources, either by listing them here, or by replacing the one big tag with targeted {{fact}} tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone through the article and removed several unsourced statements and cleaned it up a bit. I took the liberty of removing the cleanup tag as I don't see any glaring problems. If there are specific problems, please identify them here so they can be fixed. (Or you could always just fix it yourself if able to do so). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

too much genealogical information

This was discussed once before and is now in the archives. Does anyone else find the first part of the section on his early life pointless and annoying, since it is not actually about his early life but rather a description of his ancestry? It's not about Jerry Seinfeld's life at all until the second paragraph. I don't think this is information our readers are generally looking for, an encyclopedia article is meant to detail the major points of a person's life, not their entire family tree, unless it is relevant to why they are notable, which is clearly not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I took it out. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Mizrahi or Sephardi (or both) ?

Not all Syrian Jews are Mizrahi; some are Sephardi, and some are both. How does Wikipedia know that Seinfeld is Mizrahi?184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC).

Removing mentioned categories, since no indication he self identified as Mizrahi or Sephardi whatever it means. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientology

• Seinfeld is an actor and comedian, and a former Scientologist. He became an adherent of Scientology in 1977. Seinfeld self-identified as a Scientologist to his friends. He attempted to recruit those he knew to become active with the organization. He attempted to reach the Scientology level of "Clear". When interviewed by The Washington Post on his views of the Time magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" that called Scientology a "ruthless global scam", Seinfeld said he felt it was "poor journalism". Listed by The Globe and Mail among "ex-members" of the Church of Scientology, in a 2009 article.

• For a time starting in 1977 Seinfeld was associated with, and defended, the Church of Scientology, but is now listed by The Globe and Mail as an "ex-member". He has denied ever being formally a member of the church, and has described himself at times, both on stage and off, as "not religious."

This was deleted witht he edit summary "rm Self-reference and balancing WP:CK, see WP:RS WP:PSTS".[6] the entry at List of Scientologists was also deleted. I'm not sure how Wikipedia:Common knowledge fits into this, or really why this was deleted.   Will Beback  talk  23:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• This article diff the content was removed since it was supported by Wikipedia Self-reference, and no reference at all, which both do not qualify WP:RS.
• list article diff Main source used to support the church membership is a book by Jerry Oppenheimer - is an author who has written several unauthorized biographies of public figures and interview in Playboy.
• All I could dig up myself using Google News and Google books got tabloid controversy associated with my query.

Generally we need to think about WP:BLP, so maybe better references could be provided per WP:RS, see also WP:PSTS. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that self-sourcing isn't allowed, but we could easily copy the citations from the "List" article. I don't understand your assertion that the Oppenheimer book is not a reliable source simply because it's unauthorized and because he's done an interview with Playboy. Neither factor automatically make a biography unreliable. The Washington Post is a well-respected newspaper and the subject himself admits to being involved with Scientology at one time. I don't see any sources which dispute his involvement, but we could add those if we find them. Overall, the claim that this material is inadequately sourced and violates WP:BLP seems spurious.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree sources at the list should satisfy us, but those are weak. When interviewed by The Washington Post on his views of the Time magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" that called Scientology a "ruthless global scam", Seinfeld said he felt it was "poor journalism" does not indicate anything about membership, though I could not dig The Washington Post exact quote, could you bring it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted that text and the refs above. I don't know that Seinfeld's opinion of Time's article is particularly important. The biography by a major publisher does not seem like a week source. Is there a better biography?

Here are some excerpts from newspapers:

• His wife "definitely" wears the trousers, he says, but then he describes how he dabbled in Scientology about 30 years ago and still uses some of their practical techniques for settling rows, each putting their side of the argument and then working it out, "keeping it rational", he says.
  • The richest comedian in the world is doing stand-up in a cheap dive. Now that's funny; He famously made his name, and a ton of money, with 'a show about nothing'. Where will he go next? Camilla Long hits New York with Jerry Seinfeld to find out ahead of his one-off British appearance. Sunday Times. London (UK): Mar 27, 2011. pg. 14
• Jerry Seinfeld: Says he dabbled in it when he was in his twenties and that it helped his stand-up act.'
  • SCIENTOLOGY'S FAMOUS FACES Anonymous. AM New York. New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 2011. pg. 3, 1 pgs
• The roll call of celebrities who have reportedly joined and then abandoned Scientology includes Nicole Kidman, Van Morrison and Jerry Seinfeld.
  • Oscar-winner quits Scientology over same-sex marriage stance: Haggis leaves group where 'gay-bashing is tolerated': Resignation letter claims 'disconnection' still used Xan Brooks. The Guardian. London (UK): Oct 27, 2009. pg. 22
• Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has credited his Scientology faith for making him a better comic. [..] He told America's Parade that a high school teacher turned him onto Scientology almost 30 years ago. "It was interesting," he said. "Believe it or not...it's extremely intellectual and clinical in its approach to problem-solving, which really appealed to me." [..] "In my early years of stand-up, it was very helpful. I took a couple of courses. One of them was in communication, and I learned some things about communication that really got my act going. They (Scientologists) have a lot of very good technology. That's what really appealed to me about it. It's not faith-based. It's all technology. And I'm obsessed with technology."
  • Scientology helped Seinfeld in comedy career Anonymous. BreakingNews.ie. Cork: Oct 22, 2007.
• In real life, Seinfeld, while he says he is not a member of the Church of Scientology, took pains during an interview to defend the controversial sect. He said he had taken Scientology courses years earlier and found them to be very "pragmatic" and helpful. He said he was "interested in Eastern religions generally," apparently thinking Scientology to be one of them. "I think the stuff I learned there really did help me a lot," he said. When reminded then that Time magazine had just run a cover story about Scientology that included charges it was a "thriving cult of greed and power" and a "ruthless global scam," Seinfeld scowled and dismissed the article as "poor journalism."
  • So Long, `Seinfeld.' Let Me Show You to the Door.; [FINAL Edition] Tom Shales. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Apr 16, 1998. pg. B.01

So he readily admits it in print.   Will Beback  talk  00:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, self admitting could be fun, see Jerry Seinfeld On Scientology: "It Was Very Helpful. I Took A Couple Of Courses", at The Huffington Post:

"I last really studied, oh, it's almost 30 years ago. But what I did do, I really liked, in terms of it's very...it was interesting. Believe it or not...it's extremely intellectual and clinical in its approach to problem-solving, which really appealed to me. I actually got to it from my auto mechanics teacher in high school, who was into it, and he was telling me about it. In my early years of stand-up, it was very helpful. I took a couple of courses. One of them was in communication, and I learned some things about communication that really got my act going."
"It was just things about understanding the communications cycle... Even the volume at which I'm speaking now is the right volume for where you're sitting. I'm almost performing, in a way."
...
"They have a lot of very good technology. That's what really appealed to me about it. It's not faith-based. It's all technology. And I'm obsessed with technology."

I bet it has something to do with Clip from Season 3 Episode 6: Boy, those Scientologists. They can be pretty sensitive... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's no further objection I'll restore the material with the citations above.   Will Beback  talk  05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still leaning towards non-inclusion, after reviewing the provided sources. Let's see what others think. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain why you think that this undisputed, well-sourced, neutral material should be deleted? If he said that he dabbled in "Jews for Jesus" at one time in his life, and if that fact were frequently mentioned in articles about him and about the group, would we also delete that?   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit, the case for inclusion has been well-made, and there are some strange arguments against sources turning up here (we don't discount a book because the author has written lots of books, for example). I don't think you've made a good case under {{WP:RS]] for removal. Will would be right to restore the deleted material to this article and the list article. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on this discussion I am restoring it to the list of scientologists, the arguments for inclusion are consistent with wikipedia's sourcing guidelines as well as WP:V and the text is supported by the sources as shown in this discussion. Additionally self identification is now necessary for claims of religious membership.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as WP:V goes per The Washington Post source kindly brought by User:Will Beback above: In real life, Seinfeld, ... he says he is not a member of the Church of Scientology.... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is what the material you deleted said - he's not currently a member.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. However the extent of his involvement with Scientology and whether or not he was actually a member is not entirely clear. He admits taking courses. If we find his involvement worth mentioning, which I still not entirely convinced, I'd prefer MSNBC source wording Seinfeld admits he dabbled in Scientology coupled with Washington Post Seinfeld denies membership. My intention is to provide a fair reflection of reliable sources, inline with WP:BLP. Jerry Oppenheimer book or Playboy interview ( do we have a quote ?) still do not appear encyclopedic secondary sources, but more along lines of tabloid content. I would not mind if you open WP:RSN discussion on those sources, more eyeballs better. In case Jerry Oppenheimer book is found reliable I'd recommend clear attribution: According to Jerry Oppenheimer ..., According to Jerry Seinfeld ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Playboy interviews are famous in journalism for their thoroughness. They are nothing like a tabloid in that respect. You've given no reason why the Oppenheimer book should be regarded as less than reliable. Could you please draft the text you'd like to see? in this article? Meanwhile, I'll restore the entry to the list, since that doesn't seem to be such a concern.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Playboy might as well be a solid encyclopedic material, I'm not an expert on this source. My issue with Oppenheimer book is that it is contradicted on membership point by other sources, not only by Seinfeld himself, but also by secondary sources. See for instance Jerry Seinfeld: Much Ado About Nothing By Josh Levine, page 19-20: "... not long after graduating from college, that Seinfeld enrolled in a couple of Scientology courses ... he took only those first courses and did not continue as a member afterwards ...". The Josh Levine book discusses the controversy in a context of Seinfeld <-> Roseanne Barr, Tom Arnold competition, which appears to evolve into food fight. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a significant difference in between the reputaiton of the authors, it doesn't make sense to argue, in essence, "Smith says X but Jones says Y, therefore Smith is wrong". In any case, the text at hand simply says:

• ''For a time starting in 1977 Seinfeld was associated with, and defended, the Church of Scientology, but is now listed by The Globe and Mail as an "ex-member". He has denied ever being formally a member of the church, and has described himself at times, both on stage and off, as "not religious."

It seems that Levine and the other sources, including Seinfeld's own comments, are sufficient to support that text. If you prefer we can change "associated with" to "dabbled in".   Will Beback  talk  07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds even more concise with associated and reflects the sources well. How about list inclusion considering secondary refs denial? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Could you post the text you're suggesting?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seinfeld has admitted dabbling in Scientology when he was in his twenties., though he has denied being a member of the church.The association was reviled to the public eye in 1992 by Roseanne Barr star of the sitcom Roseanne.

Feel free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Which article is this for? Can you explain your deletions/changes?   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This is for Jerry Seinfeld, improvement of the current partial restoration providing concise reflection of sources. List article should be trimmed though, explained above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the addition of the Roseanne material helps. More relevant material from the Levine book would be that he has defended his past and Scientology. If we want to say how his involvement has been received by others, we'd want to cast a wider net then just his authorized(?) biography. Otherwise the material looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for review, Will. I'd suggest then cutting Levine's quote to The association was reviled to the public eye in 1992.. If we feel that there is need to expand, we can go into "I don't represent them in any way" - "he did feel compelled to denounce a cover story" duality on page 20.

I've been notified about BLPCAT discussion, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that to be included in lists and categories "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" so we kill not only List of Scientologists entry but Category:Former Scientologists CAT also. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The BLPN discussion is ongoing, so let's wait to see how that turns out. I think it's stronger without the Roseanne bit, which sounds like we're hearing one side of a feud between them.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a citation mistake. the text says "though he has denied being a member of the church" citing the Washington Post article. However he does not deny (nor admit) membership in that article. Is there another source we can use instead? Otherwise that assertion should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Levine, page 20 Seinfeld said to WP: I was never in the organization and I don't represent them in any way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you correct the text: changing the citation and the assertion, "denied being a member of the church", to something more like, "said he was never in the organization"?   Will Beback  talk  23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• If he says he has done a few communication courses, but asserts that he never was a member, then per BLPCAT he should not be listed or categorised as an (ex-)Scientologist. Self-identification is the decisive criterion. --JN466 23:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sitting around stoned in the 70s along with a number of people we played with ouija boards, didn't make us spiritualists, devil worshippers, occultists, or even fans of the Father Brown stories by GK Chesterton. John lilburne (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Speak for yourself. I loved reading those Father Brown stories. I mentioned the case of the stolen fish knives, "The Queer Feet", to someone just the other day - it's a rare example of gait analysis in fiction.
    • Like with any article, let's reflect the best sources. If the subject says he took classes but didn't join then that's what the article should say. No big deal.   Will Beback  talk  11:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
      • And the significance of not becoming a member is what? Some people invite Jehovah Witnesses in for an argument and a coffee, doesn't mean that we should include that in an encyclopaedic biography. Others may look at houses in Bucks but move to Herts, we wouldn't put in "Looked at a properties in High Wyckham, but decided to stay i n St Albans". So why this thing that didn't result in anything? One assumes that there are millions upon millions that never joined the Hubbardistas. John lilburne (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It's probably better to avoid jocular terms like "Hubbardistas" when referring to followers of a religion.
        • People's faiths are an important, yet often very personal, matter. While location and even domicile are also important factors in a person's life, a person's spiritual path is very different than their real estate purchases. I don't think they can really be equated, except that they are both issues which should be covered as appropriate in biographies.   Will Beback  talk  11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Their non-faiths, and their non-houses? Maybe we can list that he isn't a Shinto priest, and doesn't live in Ulan Bator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Huh? I don't think anyone has asserted that the subject has any connection to Shintoism. This thread is getting weird.   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
              • That is because the driver (accepting any factoid that can be sourced as a viable entry) behind all of this is weird. Especially when it results in contemplating adding stuff about things that didn't happen. Back in the 1950s they'll have been plenty of RS of people declaring that they were NOT communists, would that be an appropriate for entry into their BLP? John lilburne (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
                • I recommend adding people who have denied still beating their wives as well (Category: Former wife-beaters is clearly called for!) The only person able to say what a person believes is ... that person. Adding material to the contrary is quite against common sense and logic, but is found in far too many BLPs and other articles on Wikipedia. Is there a battle line? Then I am on the side of keeping such rot out of articles entirely. Note the Donald Trump BLP has a long section on why he is not a Presbyterian, even though he belongs to a Presbyterian church, and calls himself a Presbyterian! This is the future of Wikipedia? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)