Talk:Donald Sterling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

CAN SOMEONE REMOVE RELIGIOUS VIEW? I FEEL IT'S LIKE LISTING PEOPLE. IT'S NOT WRITTEN FOR ADAM SILVER OR DAVID JOEL STERN, FROM NBA ALSO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alienca448 (talkcontribs) 22:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Donald Sterling's PR people are hitting this article to try and make him seem nicer watch out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.189.245.38 (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, they will have to try harder. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like there are a lot of unfiltered speculative references being utilized. Thetruthspeaker09 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

You are going to have to provide more details on what you are referring to.—Bagumba (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Date of racist audio recording[edit]

WRT "On April 9, 2014, TMZ Sports released an audio conversation recorded by V. Stiviano, Sterling's girlfriend" TMZ reported this on 4/26. The incident allegedly took place on 4/9 but it was reported on 4/26. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.247.50 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Both Conservative and Liberal talking sources are all-atwitter about the tape recordings. Rush Limbaugh says it is false (and pretended) outrage because his racism has been known in Los Angeles and sports circles for a decade. There is nothing 'new' here. [1] [2] -- FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know where this tape came from?
California is a two-party state, which means that both (or all) parties on a call must be agree to the recording (or it may be subject to a legal exception, as on a 911 call, or one subject to a warrant), or it can be charged as a criminal offense. My guess is that if the recipient of a call picked up the phone while their message machine was running, and it taped the call, the originator of the call could not complain because they were aware that they were being taped from the start. I imagine that the girl friend taped it and released it after the arrangement faltered . Activist (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Stiviano claims that Sterling consented to the recording.[3] 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Multiple blankings of sourced material[edit]

There have been multiple recent blankings and changes of name on Sterling's main page without giving any reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.25.191 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP concerns[edit]

I have raised this article on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Some things are just so obvious and over the top they do not fall into this category. Editing can be succinct and his racism is already noted in the article. Include the most reliable sources. -- AstroU (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The importance of the tape is being considered in reliable media sources. Activist is right to ask the question. Other WP editors ask about the illegal taping and its motivation. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Article being vandalized tonight[edit]

Lock this puppy up, someone's having a field day vandalizing it in the wake of the audio tape of his girlfriend being told "don't bring black people to my games". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.239.232 (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


I cosign the need for this page to be locked due to the current (April 2014) controversy. Musicologism (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


I've placed a request here for the page to be locked. I'm not familiar with the process, so I'm not sure if there's anything else that needs to be done. Patency (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be locked due to excessive vandalism. JGKlein 16:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2014[edit]

SOURCE [1]

(Copyright violation removed.)

99.101.139.45 (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We can't have any copyrighted materials on Wikipedia. Please read WP:COPYVIO. (tJosve05a (c) 20:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wife or girlfriend[edit]

The personal life section says he married Shelly Stein in 1957 and they have three children. In the controversies section, it says he has a girlfriend named V. Stiviano. So, is he still married to Shelly Stein and has a girlfriend as well, or is he divorced from his wife or has his wife passed away. Someone really needs to address this confusion.173.216.248.174

This article from ESPN says that he is still married to Shelly Stein as of today (in the passage that's third from the bottom). If I had to speculate, since she will determine who takes over the Clippers when Sterling retires/passes away, it seems like a marriage only in the legal sense. Patency (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
LA Times wrote a month ago that they've been married for 50 years, and describes V. Stiviano as an "alleged mistress", although I wouldn't suggest that term in this article (I think it's used here to convey his wife Rochelle's perspective, as filer of the lawsuit; the NY Times described Stiviano more recently as Sterling's "former girlfriend", which seems like a good term). The original TMZ article said "Sterling has been separated from his wife Shelly for years", and other gossip sites seem to agree, though in established news sources don't seem to include that, and they were seen together at a game last week. (Again, according to TMZ, "she remains a key player in running the team...") Agyle (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I changed the text from "girlfriend" to "woman" seeing as how it's quite unclear as to what this lady truly is. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm changing "woman" to "girlfriend or former girlfriend". It's a meaningful omission not to acknowledge what almost all sources say was a significant personal relationship between the two. Sterling, the Clippers, and the NBA are trying to distance her by using the term "woman" in their efforts at damage control, but nobody has contradicted the characterization of girlfriend or former girlfriend. If you really think there's credible doubt over this, I'd add "alleged", to make it "alleged girlfriend or former girlfriend". I'd put more weight on The New York Times at having fact-checked their description of "former girlfriend", but gossip sites and some other newspapers are referring to her as his current girlfriend. Agyle (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Well the way I see it is that he was probably just an old man using a younger girl for sexual relations, but changing it back to "girlfriend" is fine with me. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Or perhaps, it more accurate to say: She was probably just a younger girl using an old man for real estate and cars... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.235.46 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For BLP and general editing purposes, note that, according to Stiviano's lawyer, Stiviano and Sterling "never had a sexual or romantic relationship and that descriptions of her as his mistress in the media and in a lawsuit filed by Sterling's wife are erroneous." Harriet Ryan, "V. Stiviano was not Donald Sterling's mistress, her lawyer says", Los Angeles Times, April 30, 2014. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Readers naturally want to know their relationship, and she has been reported by many as his mistress. For WP:NPOV, I just wrote that the lawsuit called her his mistress, which her lawyer denied.—Bagumba (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

ADL and SPLC[edit]

Where are they? If Sterling was White the first line of his WP page would say: Sterling is a white supremacist! That clearly shows the bias of Wikipedia...!--109.23.159.201 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on your brief edit history, I'd say you're more than a little preoccupied with the issue of race. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
"if sterling was white"

Sterling is white though, unless you're one of those white supremacist-nationalist types who don't consider Jews to be white, then whatever. There is also a whole section devoted to his purported racism by the way. ShawntheGod (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean if Sterling was white. Do you have a RS stating that he is not white?173.216.248.174 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Jews are not white. We are descended from the Israelites, who are Semites. Also compare Stop Islamization of America with Electronic Intifada for example of Wikipedia's anti-Jewish bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Look I really don't care about Jews and 'whiteness', the term "white" is just an unscientific term created by racist European imperialists. It has no validity, it's entirely based upon perception, with some social connotations behind it. Some consider certain Jews to be white, some don't. Phenotypically Donald Sterling appears to be "white" and I see nothing in the article that even calls him "white" though. ShawntheGod (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Baron Davis heckling[edit]

Mention of it was removed from the controversy section. Ideally, controversy sections should be reorganzied altogether per WP:CSECTION. In the meantime, I'm noting the Davis heckling here, as I've seen it mentioned enough in sources that it is WP:DUE weight to add back somewhere and WP:PRESERVE the original text.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So he called a player out for not hustling and being out of shape? There is a weight concern here, and its not the players center of gravity. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
If the media singles it out repeatedly, then its due weight. Understand your concern, and I woudnt want it added either unless the weight of sources support it. I'll see if I get to it.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is coverage in 2010 when the story first broke, more in 2012, and this from recent uproar that references the Davis incident. This is more than a trivial event that was just mentioned once and forgotten about.—Bagumba (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that's better though it should be rolled into the Clippers section, somewhere in the chronological order. In fact the controversy title should go completely and have each section stand on its own, but that's only a suggestion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

TMZ liability for publishing illegal recording ?[edit]

i'm not sure where the tape came from, but here it looks like TMZ published a secret tape by the girl friend that might be illegal under California law. what is the responsibility of the media here? thanks.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.108.8 (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful with original research here. Lets wait for reliable sources to talk about explicitly in relation to Sterling before adding anything to the article.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's what wikipedia says about the relevant law[edit]

Telephone recording laws

Twelve states currently require that all parties consent to the recording: California,[2]

The California Supreme Court has ruled that if a caller in a one-party state records a conversation with someone in California, that one-party state caller is subject to the stricter of the laws and must have consent from all callers (Cf. Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)[3]

QbR54190dfcv (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

According to TMZ Sports, the woman making the recordings "told friends the Clippers owner WANTED her to record him and he knew he was being recorded ... partly because he frequently forgot what he said and the tapes refreshed his memory" at http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/28/donald-sterling-v-stiviano-settlement-conversation-book-deal-life-clippers-audio-recordings/
-- Avanu (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It is important to understand what these laws say: They require consent from the speaking parties in order to allow the recording to be submitted as evidence in a court of law. They are not requirements simply in order to permit recording. Recording a conversation without satisfying these requirements is not illegal. It simply means that the recording cannot be submitted as evidence. Sean Ross207.237.89.3 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should go around publishing our own amateur legal analysis of those recording laws. Stiviano's claim that Sterling consented to the recording (per the TMZ page ([4] or some other link) should be cited in the article though, with inline attribution as we have no way to know whether the claim is true. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish is not an ethnicity[edit]

Judaism IS a religion and it definitely isn't a race like some have suggested. There are Jews of ALL races the world over.

Judaism HAS distinct ethnic groups in itself, but that does not make the entire group an ethnicity. Ashkenazic (German or Eastern European), Sephardic (Spain and Portugal), Mizrahim (Middle Eastern, North African) and smaller subgroups exist.

These include: Indian Jews (Bene Israel), Romaniotes (Greece), Italian and Chinese Jews. The customs are different, so are the base languages as a whole etc..

The reason people make these distinctions is for one of two reasons 1) Antisemitism (easier to hate people who are separate from you) 2) To make claims that one can be Jewish while being a Christian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leatgrinberg (talkcontribs) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are Jewish ethnic divisions. Donald is probably an Ashkenazi Jew, I think that the article should be more specific though. ShawntheGod (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I would vote for that field being kept blank. That he's Jewish can be put in the Religion field (assuming there's evidence he's a practicing Jew). Moncrief (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnicity. Please don't post ignorant comments denying we are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jewish ethnicity and identity is itself a complex and often fraught subject that could fill bookshelves. In any case the article only states that Sterling is the child of "Jewish immigrants", a statement that is not in dispute. Since this article is a biographical summary or synopsis of Sterling's life and business career and not solely about his history of discrimination and recent racist comments, I would like to see this article state what country his parents immigrated from and what language was spoken in the home he grew up in. -lsiden

Why are you curious about what language was spoken in his home? (just asking) Allen Roth 207.237.89.3 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity. Anyone of any race can follow the Jewish religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.2.83.167 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One place to look for further information about the concepts of Jewish ethnicity and Jewish culture is the article on Who is a Jew?. It has a particularly pertinent section discussing Ethnic and cultural perspectives. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply practicing the Jewish religion does not make a person Jewish. You have to be ethnically Jewish in order to be Jewish. Converts to Judaism are not real Jews because they are ethnically something different. Case in point: Black Hebrew Israelites. Chinese and Indian Jews are real Jews because although they have Chinese and Indian descent, they also have Judean descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:D4FA:7B16:D650:EB82 (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Everybody should know that being Jewish is a race and a religion. In this entry the Jewish categories are missing.--212.88.15.138 (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been three main types of objections to the "Ethnicity: Jewish" currently in the Infobox, which has been a subject of many removals and replacements.
1. "Jewish is not an ethnicity". While many books, journals, and newspapers discuss Jewish ethnicity, there is a widespread belief that Jewish ethnicity or Jewish people (other than in the religious sense) do not exist, sometimes as part of historical arguments about whether the holocaust occurred or political arguments about the basis for Israel's existence. As the discussion so far illustrates, this makes consensus regarding Jewish ethnicity difficult. Just for some background, a basic Oxford definition of ethnicity is "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition", while Collins describes the related term "ethnic" as "relating to or characteristic of a human group having racial, religious, linguistic, and certain other traits in common".
2. "Not relevant to infobox" Given that Sterling stated he was a Jew, and discussed characteristics of Jews, while publicly addressing the racist comments associated with him, an argument could be made that this is relevant to the subject. While this article doesn't delve into the details of what he said, the comments, and the context of Sterling being Jewish, have been the subject of widespread discussion in articles and editorials, particularly in Israeli and Jewish-focused periodicals.
3. "Source does not establish claim". This is a two-fold issue: whether Wikipedia requires a source that verifies ethnicity through self-identification vs. third-party identification, and whether an ambiguous statement about Jewishness can properly be inferred to refer to ethnicity. On the first issue, WP:BLP, including the section on categorization (WP:BLPCAT), and the guidelines on categorization at WP:EGRS, provide no guidance on how a claim of ethnicity can be established, other than through the catch-all "reliable sources". EGRS says that some categories, such as sexuality and religion, should require public self-identity, and some people argue that the guidelines implicitly apply to other characteristics such as ethnicity or gender. The second issue also hinges on inference; while Sterling says "I am a Jew", he does not explicitly clarify whether he's referring to ethnicity, religion, race, or another meaning. Similarly, articles that refer to Sterling or his parents as Jewish do not clarify explicitly that they're discussing ethnicity.
While I consider (1) a fringe view, I don't see a way to resolve the challenge short of a rather involved dispute resolution process. (2) is simply a subjective opinion, and since only one person has claimed irrelevance, perhaps consensus could be reached on that point. The self-identity issue of (3) seems solvable by including both references in which Sterling says he's Jewish and other sources say he's Jewish, but the issue of meaning seems to me to be the strongest case for excluding the claim. While the article can certainly state that Sterling said "I'm a Jew" or other statements about his being Jewish supported by reliable sources, I've seen no reliable sources that explicitly state the sense in which the terms were used, so "Ethnicity: Jewish" may not be clearly verifiable. Verifiability guidelines WP:V emphasize that "sources must support the material clearly and directly".
Among sources to consider are the currently-cited CNN reference:
Some independent claims references that might be used:
Some references in addition to those already in the article about the ethnicity of Sterling's parents:
Agyle (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Related articles on race relations[edit]

Racial integration and Social integration are closely related to the current issue, and could use some work.--Pharos (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Scott Sterling[edit]

There are two paragraphs about Donald Sterling's son Scott under Personal life. This seems excessive as Scott is not notable in his own right and this is a biography of Donald. I recommend trimming it down or removing completely. Bahooka (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with trimming.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Trimming, yes; removal, no. His son's troubles are relevant to his own bio but the current level of detail is not necessary.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Made an attempt at trimming while retaining information on both the shooting and the drug overdose, just with less detail. Bahooka (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I went further. I listed the fact he was deceased over an apparent overdose. The current information was a bridge too far.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently, the article does not say anything about his son Scott other than that he "died at the age of 32". No cause of death is given. I did not look into the article history to see who removed that information or what they said when doing so. I ran across an LA Times article that said his son's death was later ruled to be an accidental combination of embolism and "narcotic medication intake", involving injection of a narcotic that was formulated to be taken orally, and that diabetes and oxycodone were contributing factors. Apparently, injecting an oral medication "led to blockages in his blood system". —BarrelProof (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
From another (semi-deleted) conversation below, I believe I found the edit that removed that information. It was by Collect, saying "OD of son is not particularly relevant unless this BLP connects Sterling with drugs directly". But personally, I think I disagree with that view. I think that the highly notable death of his son (notable enough to have been the subject of several articles in major news sources), who was apparently a quite troubled person, is highly relevant to the biography of his father and should be included in the "personal life" section. The shooting at Donald Sterling's home by his son Scott also seems potentially relevant and worth including. I might think otherwise if the shooting was somewhere else, but it was at Sterling's home. On top of that, there was the phone call by Sterling to intervene in the matter, which police characterized as "an attempt at intimidation or influence peddling". —BarrelProof (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Insufficient to violate WP:BLP. The death of a son may be notable, but cause of death is rarely of encyclopedic value unless one has allegations that the father in some way caused the death. If the cause of death is improperly included, WP:BLP calls for its exclusion. The "influence peddling" inference you seem to wish to add would require extremely strong sourcing, which has not been given. Collect (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. A biography is something that describes personal life as well as business pursuits and public acts, and anyone who attempted to publish a serious biography of someone without mentioning how immediate family members died or significant incidents of violence that happened at the subject's home would be criticized heavily by their peers as providing only a dubious and partial account. As long as there are reliable sources for such information, it should be included. The notion that mentioning that something happened means that the subject caused it to happen is pretty far fetched. Significant things happen and family members are born and die in every person's life. That doesn't mean that everything bad that happens is the fault of any particular person, and readers ought to be aware of such things. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
RfC started. Collect (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Kim Hughes[edit]

The Clippers refusing to cover prostate surgery for coach Kim Hughes was deleted with explanation "There is zero evidence this decision was made by Sterling. Unless a RS makes a direct claim Sterling was involved (and the source used aint reliable) then this should remain out." First of all, the sentence says "The Clippers in 2004 declined to pay ...", and did not specifically attribute it solely to Sterling. It is not uncommon to discuss the actions of a company in conjunction with its owner. In this case, it is not WP:OR, as reliable sources discuss this decision by the team in articles about Sterling. Yahoo Sports wrote "the Clippers organization (read: Donald Sterling, noted worst person in the world) declined to cover the costs."[5] The New York Times wrote "As the N.B.A. investigates racist remarks that have been attributed to Sterling, the longtime owner of the Clippers, the story of Hughes’s surgery — which was not revealed for more than five years — helps illustrate the reign of a man who has often been described as the worst owner in professional sports."[6]Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Yahoo article bases the entirety of its story on the Howard Beck article, which does not name Sterling as being involved in the decision. The purpose of this text only serves to paint Sterling as miserly. Neither the two sources provided, nor the Beck article which is the origin of the story make any direct claim to Sterling, so yes, this is OR. Furthermore, this is misleading text, as one might surmise that the surgery was covered by the insurance, but not that particular doctor. This is a contentious claim, which requires strong sourcing of which we don't have.Two kinds of pork (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The reasoning that there is no proof that Sterling makes any decisions regarding a company that he owns is a weak argument to censor actions of that company that are attributed to Sterling's ownership in multiple reliable sources. In fact, that was a actually a defense of Sterling's in a past deposition for a lawsuit with coach Bill Fitch: "Sterling a) claimed he had nothing to do with firing Fitch, b) had no role in drafting or signing players, and c) had no idea what a guaranteed contract was."[7][8] Curiously, unsourced, promotional prose like "The Clippers have signed higher-priced veteran free agents", with no demonstrated link to Sterling, are not being questioned with the same line of reasoning.—Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Weak argument my ass. The text as (was) written easily, and perhaps intentionally, implied Sterling was involved in denying a potential life saving procedure to one of his employees. Which is contrary what the most thorough RD States Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

O

WP:BLP[edit]

Applies to Sterling and the third parties mentioned. I recognize a desire to point out the evil person as an evil person, but Wikipedia still requires some rational balance, and attacks on unrelated people are not an option. (Including the aside that his son died from drugs, etc.) Collect (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

All the recent deletions are of material that pass WP:BURDEN, and satisfies WP:BLP. The fact that now this person has become at the center of a major controversy, does not mean than the article needs to be pruned. On the contrary. Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, you are wrong, Calling a person an "alleged prostitute" is a contentious claim. Referring to the death of his son as being from drugs is a "contentious allegation." All the material so cavalierly reverted was removed for sound reasons, and I would note that WP:BLP places the onus on the 'person adding the material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, it seems the contrary of "pruning" is "expansion" and I suggest this BLP is already a prime example of recentism and tabloidification of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Deletions[edit]

Political affiliation[edit]

This deletion: [9] described Sterling political affiliations, and contributions to political candidates. As a public figure that material is relevant and should be included. Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

He has never been noted for his political affiliations, and it is quite clear that none of the controversy surrounding him has anything whatsoever to do with his political affiliations or his donations. Heck, we don't even know if he has ever voted. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Sterling[edit]

This deletion [10] is questioned as well. There are abundant sources related to this very unfortunate incident, which ties Donald Sterling to it. see https://www.google.com/search?q=Scott+Sterling Cwobeel (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And I note you struck this one out upon reflection. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Castro[edit]

This deletion [11] refers to what Sterling said about Castro. It does not fail BLP as it is a comment made by the subject of the article and referred to in reliable sources. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeating any allegation that a living person is a prostitute seems to be a contentious claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

General discussion on deletions[edit]

It seems there might be some misinterpretation about WP:BLP to mean nothing negative can be said about a person. On the contrary, it required that it be verifiable and is neutral by reflecting due weight of sources. IMO, multiple reliable sources discussing an aspect over many years (i.e. when it first occurred, and then years later) seems to merit a mention. I encourage editors to follow the bold, revert, discuss model of editing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. What WP:BLP states is that the onus is on the person adding the contentious material. In the case at hand, WEIGHT, RS, NPOV and other factors all coincide. I suggest that there is currently quite a bit of "negative" material in the BLP at hand, and that piling Ossa upon Pelion is contrary to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
BLP mandates the deletion of contentious material that is unsupported by RS. The rules for inclusion may be derived from what is excluded.
All that is not mandated to be deleted can be included, and all that is allowed to be included should not be deleted; BLP therefore assures that there should be no deletion of contentious material with a reliable source. Edit summaries should not include contentiousness as a sole rationale. Edits should not be made on this basis alone. Discussions should not include contentiousness as a sole argument.
Also, you are at 4RR. Anarchangel (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Show me your "reliable source" allowing any statement that Castro is a prostitute. Really -- have you no sense at all about why WP:BLP exists? It is to prevent real harm to real people' and promulgating claims that a person is a prostitute has a very real likelihood of causing harm to that person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I was reminded by someone who is a lot cleverer than I am that it is those who demean prostitution who are at fault for causing the guilt and subsequent harm of ill repute. An evil cuss arguably makes the prostitute's job harder; in this case, the old joke is reversed: they get paid AND they get to leave afterwards. However, what is really at issue is a reliable source. I disagree, I think Forbes is pretty much the best you can get. This writing just sings, too:

Sterling has great tolerance for chaos, or revels in it. Alexandra Castro, the young woman he sued in 2004 when he acknowledged paying for sex, portraying her in court as a $500-a-night prostitute, is still often a guest at Clipper games." Like Berliners Celebrating Wall Going Down, Clippers Greet New Post-Sterling Day-You know how it’s always darkest before the dawn? Suddenly, it’s morning in Clipper Nation! -Forbes.

This is perfect for citing the text in the article: "Sterling described Castro as a prostitute." Simple. To the point. Fights fire with fire. If anyone has a problem with that, I suggest that is their problem. Maybe if it gets said often enough, the intolerance will eventually cave in. And there is the ABC News article, too. I guess the Sporting News is not reliable? Imo, that does not mean we have to remove it from the article, though; it need not stand the test of verifiability, since it is not supporting statements in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Um -- last I looked Castro is a "living person" and may be harmed by Wikipedia repeating allegations that she is a prostitute. That is a big reason why WP:BLP exists -- the idea that random people on Wikipedia can harm a living person in that way is abhorrent to many editors. I would note that Castro appears eminently non-famous. Collect (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I heard you the first time. There is no need to lecture me on this matter again, or twice on the same page. I was aware of the dangers of gossip and innuendo long before I was a WP editor. But this is a matter of public record. And as I already said, Wikipedia protects by requiring substantial RS, and the citation given satisfies this requirement. RS allows contentious material. You have answered none of my points. Am I to take it that you concede them? Anarchangel (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it may be a BLP problem if we say in the article that Castro is (or was) a prostitute – at least if we do that in the absence of her referring to herself as such or being convicted of prostitution. But it is not a BLP problem to report that Sterling (very publicly and repeatedly) characterized her as a prostitute. That is simply a very well documented fact that has been reported in many reliable sources. I think it is also not entirely true that Castro is non-famous. She is famous enough that her mere presence at basketball games after settlement of the lawsuit has been considered noteworthy enough to be reported in at least one reliable source that I have noticed. Her continued presence at such basketball games, after becoming the center of significant attention, also seems to be evidence that she has not been trying very hard to retain a strong sense of privacy by staying out of the spotlight. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Name change section?[edit]

Is the following of importance to this BLP?

Donald Tokowitz and his wife asked for a change of name on December 9, 1959 to a surname of Sterling according to Supreme Court of California records, citing the financial benefits of a clearer surname and the difficulty among his peers to pronounce "Tokowitz"; the petition was granted.[4]

I fear I find it of remarkably little relevance to the person at hand - interesting as it is that he changed his nname, that fact is already in the BLP. Collect (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Considering the petition to change his name cited the financial benefits of the name change, and seeing that he became a billionaire, it seems relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worth including for other reasons. One is that it identifies when he changed his name (particularly that it was after he was a married adult). Relatively few people ever change their name, so I think it's worth including some detail about that in the article (since there's a reliable source that discusses it). What he told the court about why he wanted to change it was probably more a matter of what he thought the judge would consider as acceptable reasoning than evidence of his private thinking, but still seems worth including to me – although it sounds like a very plausible rationale if clients and clients seemed to find his prior name difficult to remember or pronounce. (I know someone personally who recently changed his surname for that same reason.) —BarrelProof (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a biography of a high net worth individual, and as such information about a change name is relevant. Just think of the reader (I am one, and I fond that information to be pertinent.) To another point to Collect (talk · contribs): Do you know about WP:BRD? If so, after a BOLD edit and a follow up revert, it is your responsibility to engage in a discussion and not to edit war as you did. Cwobeel (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

"High met worth" does not make the fact he considered his name hard to pronounce anything much more than trivia. We already clearly mention the name change. It is like saying "Geroge Gnarph has a lot of money so it is reasonable people should be told he had a hangnail in the past." It has no encyclopedic value at all. As for the snark about BRD and the accusation of "edit war" , I find it uncalled for utterly, and should not only be redacted, but outright apologized for. Collect (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that most people who read that some noteworthy person's name has been changed would have a natural curiosity to learn what the circumstances were and what motivated them to do that. Was his name changed by his parents when he was 4 years old? No. Was it because he was adopted or his mother remarried to someone with a different last name? No. Was it because he was trying to become an entertainer and his talent agency recommended it? No. It was changed when he was a married adult, for reasons of his own choosing without any particular reason to choose "Sterling" other than that he liked the sound of it and thought it was easy to remember. I think it is desirable to include that information in the article to satisfy that natural curiosity. But I don't think we need to include the phrase "the petition was granted". That is obvious from the simple fact that his name then became the name he requested. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Article about claims regarding charitable activities[edit]

An article was published today that I found interesting:

Pringle, P., Mozingo, J., and Jennings, A., "Sterling foundation ads tout good works, but verifying them isn't easy", Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2014.

Would it be worth including something about that in the article? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I will certainly take a look at the article. A note for another time: the more specific your suggestions, the more specifically they can be answered. Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Implicit accusations of criminal acts has a very high bar which the claims did not meets. This has been discussed above I understand. Collect (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I wish you were right. Sterling's acts of misrepresentation as shown in the linked news story should be illegal. Anarchangel (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that the spotlight is shining on Sterling, and given the LA Times track record in investigative journalism, I'd expect more is going to come to the surface about the Sterling Foundation. Regardless, a section about his foundation should be part of this article. Cwobeel (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Amazingly, there is zero mention of his foundation in the article at this time. Cwobeel (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I did a quick check on Google, and it seems that there is very little about his foundation prior to the scandal. The LA Times article can and should be used to start a section on this, and include the cancellations of gifts received in the aftermath such as the $3MM cancellation from UCLA. Cwobeel (talk)

Here are a few sources:

  • Sterling Foundation Awards Scholarships And Grants [12]
  • How Donald Sterling Tried To Blot Out His History Of Racism By Giving To Charity [13]
  • Donald Sterling: Does $5K Buy an NAACP "Lifetime Achievement" Award? [14]

Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

Under Sterling's bio's section on discrimination lawsuits, two very different cases are mistakenly conflated into one.

Please change the first paragraph to the following: "The Housing RIghts Center of Los Angeles filed the first housing discrimination case against Sterling on behalf of 18 tenants in February of 2003. The lawsuit featured several racist statements allegedly made by Sterling to employees, such as "black people smell and attract vermin" and "hispanics just smoke and hang around the building" as well as Sterling's intent to rent only to Korean tenants because "they will pay the rent and live in whatever conditions I give them." Part of the HRC case's resolution including U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer awarding the plaintiffs' attorney $4.9 million in attorneys fees. While the final terms for the plaintiffs were confidential, the same judge said the fees were justified as the settlement obtained by the plaintiffs against Sterling was one of the largest of its kind and the public benefit terms were significant and wide-ranging. The U.S. Department of Justice then sued Sterling in 2006 for housing discrimination in using race as a factor in filling some of his apartment buildings. The suit charged that Sterling refused to rent to non-Koreans in the Koreatown neighborhood and to African Americans in Beverly Hills.[56] In November 2009, ESPN reported that Sterling agreed to pay a fine of $2.7 million to settle claims brought by the Justice Department and Davin Day of Newport Beach[citation needed]that he engaged in discriminatory rental practices against Hispanics, blacks, and families with children.[57] "

76.94.199.13 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done (with some minor copyedit refinements, including separating into two paragraphs since the idea seems to be to distinguish between the discussions of two different lawsuits). The sourcing seems like it could still use further improvement. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC Scott Sterling "cause of death"[edit]

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus, that the "cause of death" of Scott Sterling should be mentioned in the article, although it shouldn't be overly long (probably 1-2 sentences to avoid giving it undue weight). Armbrust The Homunculus 06:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ought this BLP allege or imply in any way that a son (Scott Sterling) of the subject died of a "drug overdose"? 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Discussion[edit]

I suggest that such allegations are not of encyclopedic value in the first place, and also violate WP:BLP by making allegations about the son of a living person which do not have strong factual sourcing (the sources were immediately after the death and stated "possible" which is insufficient here, IMO). There is no reason to assert notability of the son whatsoever. Collect (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose use of non-notable son's death as a means of implying anything whatsoever in the BLP about the father. It is sufficient to note that the son is dead. Collect (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC) And the official cause of death, but limited to that information. The "abuse" rumours are still invalid here. Collect (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include -- at least insofar as an autopsy determined that the death was a result of a drug overdose (see e.g. [15] and [16]). If there's to be a decision to keep the material out of the article, it should be a decision rooted in a proper understanding of the facts, not in an erroneous impression that the death might not have been the result of an overdose in fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The sources provided in edits to the BLP did not include any actual results, but there is still an issue as to WEIGHT to be given in the father's biography here. Noting the death is one thing, cause of death is a distinct issue here. Collect (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include – The death of an immediate family member is an important and significant event in a person's life, and the circumstances of that death are also important and relevant. Omitting that information from a biographical article about his father would be a strange omission. Sterling's son's death was highly notable and has been reported in various reliable sources. Some of the sources discuss the matter in significant detail – not just as mentions in passing but as the sole subject of several lengthy articles. The best such source that I have noticed so far is the one identified above: [17]. Citations to two other articles devoted to the topic of his death were just deleted from the article: [18], [19]. Not only were the source citations removed, but his age at death was also removed (even though there was no mention of the cause of death in the article at the time and the sources were certainly sufficient to establish the death and the time of death and age at death), and I really can't fathom why. The latter two articles were early and preliminary reports, but the other one was not. Donald Sterling's son died an accidental death in late 2012 from injecting narcotic drugs. That is a simple fact that has been well established and widely reported, and it is highly relevant to the biography of Donald Sterling. It is not a mere "allegation". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The sources you initially gave were absolutely in the nature of rumour. That the actual report came out two weeks ago does not mean your earlier sources were usable at all. Meanwhile "the man had a son who died" may be relevant - "the man had a son who died of drug abuse" may well be stretching the envelope of relevancy. BLPs are not collections of "every factoid we can find about the person" - the intent is to create an actual encyclopedia article. Collect (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Your reply repeatedly refers to those as being sources that I initially gave, or as my sources. However, those sources were in the article before I came along. They are not mine. It was only by reading them that I learned any of this. The only source that I personally dug up is the more recent one, and I didn't really go looking for this stuff – I just read one of the other articles and the web site suggested that I also read the newer one. I'm pretty confident that if I went looking, I would find more. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include. It is a very unfortunate incident, but it is biographical. Cwobeel (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include. But no more than a sentence or two. This is a biography of Donald Sterling, not Scott.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include As part of WP:BLP, WP:PUBLICFIGURE says text is not removed merely because it is "negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Most readers would want to know why a child died before a parent.—Bagumba (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include The circumstances surrounding the death of a family member of a famous person is relevant.—Chris!c/t 00:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include Brief summary information (e.g., a sentence) on the subject's son's death is relevant to biographical coverage. Preliminary autopsy findings reported in January 2013 were confirmed in an intermediary April 2013 coroner's statement, prior to publication of the coroner's final report. Most detailed contemporary coverage on this topic seems to come from the LA Times and the Associated Press. Reliable sources seem to agree on the basic facts, though the LA Times and many recent sources use "accidental drug overdose", while a widely published April 2013 Associated Press article uses "drug-related accident" (I think they're using it as a polite euphemism for accidental overdose, but I could certainly be wrong). The nearly identical April 22 & 23 stories from the LA Times provide the most detailed coverage of the death. Language of "cause of death" from primary sources can be difficult for layperson interpretation, so I would go with probably go with both the LA Times and AP secondary source summaries (i.e. say that he died of an "accidental drug overdose or drug-related accident"), and skip the part about a pulminary embolism. Sources:
  • Associated Press (2013-01-01). "Scott Sterling, son of Clippers owner, found dead; drug overdose suspected". Press-Telegram. The son of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was found dead of an apparent drug overdose at his Malibu home, authorities said Wednesday. … 'Sheriff's homicide and Los Angeles County coroner's personnel at this time believe that Sterling died of an apparent drug overdose,' the statement said. 
  • Associated Press (2013-01-02). "Heat rally early, rally late and then cruise through overtime". The New York Times. The son of the Los Angeles Clippers’ owner, Donald Sterling, was found dead, apparently of a drug overdose, at his home in Malibu, Calif., the authorities said. 
  • Blankstein, Andrew; Stevens, Matt (2013-01-03). "Son of Clippers owner is found dead at home". Los Angeles Times. Scott Sterling, the son of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, was found dead in his Malibu home in what authorities said Wednesday appeared to be some type of drug overdose. ... Sheriff's detectives said preliminary evidence suggested Sterling died of a drug overdose but stressed a cause of death would be determined in the coming weeks by the coroner's office. 
  • Associated Press (2013-04-22). "Death of Sterling's son accidental". ESPN.Go.com. Coroner's investigators say the death of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's son was a drug-related accident. Los Angeles County Coroner's officials said in a statement Monday that Scott Ashley Sterling died from a pulmonary embolism after injecting narcotic medication meant to be taken orally. 
  • Blankstein, Andrew; Stevens, Matt (2013-04-22). "Death of Scott Sterling, son of Clippers owner, ruled accidental". Los Angeles Times. Scott Sterling, the 32-year-old son of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, died as a result of a pulmonary embolism and 'narcotic medication intake' in what Los Angeles County coroner's officials classified as an accidental death, authorities said Monday. Sterling was found dead in his apartment on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu on New Year's night. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officials quickly determined his death did not involve foul play but appeared to involve some type of drug overdose. 
  • Blankstein, Andrew; Stevens, Matt (2013-04-23). "Death of son of Clippers owner is ruled accidental". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officials quickly determined that his death did not involve foul play but apparently stemmed from a drug overdose. … Dr. Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner for New York City, said that although injecting narcotics meant for oral use is common among drug addicts, doing so does not often result in death. 'Usually the person dies of an overdose of the drug,' Baden said. 'It must be extremely severe to kill the person.' 
  • White, Chris (2014-05-01). "Donald Sterling stripped bare: Disgraced Clippers boss is a violent bully who paraded NAKED in front of kids and their friends, calls Christians STUPID and whipped son with a belt and told him to stop eating 'like a n***er'". Mail Online. Scott turned to drugs - and died from an overdose last year age 31. 
  • White, Chris (2014-05-02). "Donald Sterling abused son, is responsible for his OD death, friends say". New York Daily News. Scott Sterling died of an accidental drug overdose last year at age 32, and the siblings say they believe his dad bears the responsibility for the tragic demise. 
  • Telander, Rick (2014-05-03). "Beloved Magic Johnson once was as reviled as Donald Sterling". Chicago Sun-Times. In case you didn’t know, Scott Sterling became a drug dealer, shot his best friend 12 times in the legs as a teenager and died of a drug overdose at 31. 
  • Heisler, Mark (2014-05-05). "Forget racism, with child abuse allegation Sterling's accused of crimes vs. humanity". Forbes. Eyewitnesses allege that Donald abused his son, Scott, who died at 32 of what was ruled an accidental drug overdose, after a troubled life that included his arrest for wounding a friend with a shotgun. 

––Agyle (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

  • There is little likelihood that the accusation of "abuse" etc. would pass the WP:BLP cncerns,though the official autopsy report does take the cause of death beyond rumour at least. Collect (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • If there was coverage by multiple reliable sources, accusations could be mentioned per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; they wouldn't automatically be dismissed merely because they are negative and/or allegations.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Allegations of major crimes are not what is covered by that bit -- it covers things like divorces and affairs, alleging a person is (for example) a murderer based on allegations from unnamed sources is still verboten. And making allegations about the "crimes" of a non-notable son (the rumour of an attempted murder of a friend) is still improper as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • My favorite is the "shot his best friend 12 times in the legs" quote. If I recall correctly, that is a reference to 12 pellets from one shotgun blast. (I think there were two blasts, but only one that inflicted injury.) That is not what I would personally refer to as shooting someone 12 times. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include, briefly. -- AstroU (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include WP is suppose to summarize WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Only use information about the son if there are sufficient reliable sources, such as Forbes, Daily Mail, LATimes, NY Daily News, etc. From a quick look, this appears to be both significant, and well sourced. It would, in the circumstances, be inappropriate NOT to mention it. We need to be impartial. We cover the good, the bad, and the ugly if that is what the reliable sources are doing. And in this case, they are. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
    • IOW you would use not only the OD but also the accusations of abuse by the father as mentioned in such reliable sources as the Daily Mail for such allegations? Collect (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC) (accusations from siblings, but no contemporaneous claims of abuse and beatings) Collect (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. From the responses above, that would be far beyond a brief mention. Sterling had a son. He died at 32 due to (whatever the sources say). Done. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I can tell you right now that we will not be using the Daily Mail to verify anything remotely contentious on this article. Other than that I have no interest in this discussion. --John (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing more than one sentence is really needed. AIRcorn (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I'm not entirely sure it's important to argue over this minor factoid. As long as nobody quotes the Daily Mail, I'll go along with whatever the consensus is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unencyclopedic, badly sourced and irrelevant. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Include - Per User:Agyle - It's exhaustively covered in RS and seems relevant to Sterling's life. A single is certainly due. I'm not sure what the nom means by "allegations". Is there any doubt it was a drug overdose? NickCT (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relationship with V. Stiviano[edit]

The article currently only says V. Stiviano is Sterling's "female friend". There was text in the article before saying Sterling's wife's lawsuit against Stiviano portrayed her as a mistress, but that Stiviano's lawyer said the description was inaccurate (LA Times). It was removed under claims of a WP:BLP violation.[20] However, BLP asks for verifiability, and it's supported by reliable sources that Sterling's wife made the claim in the lawsuit. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV allows attributed biased statements, and WP:NPOV is maintained by adding Stiviano's denial. Plenty of reliable sources report that Stiviano is his alleged mistress (New York Times CNN). It would seem more concise to state the facts of their non-trivial relationship neutrally, rather than leaving a vague statement about Stiviano being a "female friend." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagumba (talkcontribs) 22:49, 8 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Birthdate[edit]

His birthdate of April 26, 1934 was hard to find, and was later cited in the lead, but the citation was later removed claiming it was "redundant". Either someone can add it back, or at least there is this thread here when someone inevitably removes his birthdate as uncited or drops a {{Cn}} tag.—Bagumba (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see his birth date or birth name mentioned in either that Bolch article or the Wharton article that you just added a reference to. Are you sure those are in there? Can you quote the paragraph or sentence in which it is stated? —BarrelProof (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Here's an LA Times article that includes his birth date and links to a voter registration record to verify it: [21]BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bolch article had "Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti issued a statement condemning the billionaire, who turned 80 on Saturday." This one you found is more explicit.—Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The LA times "article" is an opinion column, and should not be used at all for claims of fact in a BLP. Collect (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be focused on the headline and commentary aspects of the article, which have nothing to do with its use in the article, which is to support a factual assertion. The article is being used to verify the birthdate, and it is a very good source for that. It discusses that topic in detail and shows exactly where that information can be found in public records. The article is not being referenced for its commentary, but rather for its factual content, which is highly reliable. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
We have two sources -- one of which is not opinion based, and one which is. We use the one which is not an editorial opinion column. We do not need to "explain that public records exist" where a proper reliable source per WP:BLP is presented. Simple. Collect (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The citation is for verification of the birth date, which seems hard to find in the Wharton [Bolch] article (requiring back-calculation based on noticing a comment about the person having a birthday, checking the publication date of the article, finding the date of the preceding Saturday, and subtracting 80 years). The Wharton [Bolch] article is also unclear about whether the author really put any thought into that question or attempted to verify it. The LA Times Hiltzik article, on the other hand, covers that question in detail and verifies it from public records. It is not at all "opinion based" about the birth date. Therefore, I think it is a much better source for the birth date. I also believe Bagumba's comment above agrees with me about the Hiltzik source being better (for the birth date). However, I will refrain from edit warring over the question for the time being to see whether anyone other than Collect and myself want to comment further on the matter. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with BarrelProof here; it's clearly stated factual information reported as such in a reliable source. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I think both LA Times references are solid, but agree with Barrelproof that there's no reason for more than one, and the originally cited article by Bolch seems preferable. The editorial would also be fine as an RS for that particular fact in this case; it was written by an LA Times columnist, and the Times has a reputation for fact-checking and publishing corrections even in editorials like that. But a second reference is redundant. I'm restoring the Bolch citation since there is currently no reference for the birth date. Agyle (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
As the column by Hiltzik explicitly says "... and his documented birth date, April 26, 1934."[22], it seems the birthdate in that reference is more readily verifiable than Bolch's article which merely says "... who turned 80 on Saturday."—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

(od) Bolce (the actual article from LAT) is more than sufficient for a pretty simple claim of his birthday - while the other source is primarily oriented to his political affiliation or lack thereof as an editorial issue. Without any real reason for the opinion column - stick with the least contentious source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A "real reason" is that years later (if not already the case now), someone wanting to verify his birthdate would have to open up a calendar to determine which "Saturday" the article was referring to. Not the end of the world, but the Hiltzik column, even if your claim that it is biased was true, can still be "reliable in the specific context"—per the guideline WP:BIASED—for stating a person's birthday.—Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
When in doubt - use the most objective source. Anyone with access to any computer (d'oh) can instantly find out dates. Actually, scads of RS fact articles available for this [23], [24] states that Saturday, April 26 was his birthday and so on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Of the sources you identified, The Daily Mississippian is a student newspaper—which some might consider amateurish and not reliable enough—and the second source has the same "his birthday was Saturday". I'm sure you could eventually find another source that explicitly says "April 26, 1934", but I am at a loss why the Hiltzik column is not reliable in the context of reporting Sterling's birthday.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The second has the AP caption Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling sits courtside at the NBA basketball game between the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Clippers in Los Angeles on Sunday. On Saturday, April 26, 2014, the NBA said it is investigating a report of an audio recording in which a man purported to be Sterling makes racist remarks while speaking to his girlfriend. and the text the 80-year-old owner (his birthday was Saturday) could be a former owner by the end of this week. would seem sufficient -- unless Saturday fell on two separate days that week. WRT "it is only a student newspaper" I would note that student newspapers are frequently used on Wikipedia - including The Harvard Crimson and many others. [25]. This paper is a member of the "Mississippi Press Association" and appears to be considered RS. [26] Collect (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Bagumba, I'm similarly at a loss why you don't accept the other proposed sources as reliable or verifying, but whatever; maybe everyone will agree on this one?
The Daily Beast says the same date too, but is editorialish. Agyle (talk) 04:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Argyle: I'm happy with any source that explicitly says his birthdate. Look at the thread: it's Collect who is the only one who has objected to using the Hiltzik article previously that BarrelProof presented. I'll accept any of your sources as well.—Bagumba (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The Cruz International Business Times article seems adequate to me also. It's nice to be able to reference something that explicitly says the birth date. I think the Hiltzik article is better, because it is much more explicitly discussing the birth date, but the IBT article is fine. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the AP links to usage of the Daily Mississippian [27], and the DM is affiliated with the AP directly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Privacy Concerns[edit]

The article currently says:

"Dennis Prager, Joyce Carol Oates, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ask if Sterling 'has been unfairly stripped of his privacy ...'"

This misses the point of the source. The source is referring to these three figures because of their disparate nature. This WP article cites it in such a way as to say these three people are the ones inquiring as to concerns about privacy when the source is simply using them as evidence of the range of critics. The source states:

"Such disparate figures as the conservative commentator Dennis Prager, author Joyce Carol Oates, and former Los Angeles Lakers great Kareem Abdul-Jabbar have questioned..."[5]

The source is questioning the privacy concerns and gives the disparity of these three figures as evidence. The WP article does not utilize the sourced material in that manner.—Jdbarras (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made an edit based on my above rationale. If anyone disagrees revert and/or discuss.—Jdbarras (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I see the change was reverted. Can you explain why my rationale was flawed at least? We can't just use parts of sources but ignore the gist of the source being used as far as I know, and there is a talk page where we can actually discuss it rather than just reverting without giving a reason.—Jdbarras (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Which change are you referring to? I still see the "Such disparate figures as" phrase that you added.[28]Bagumba (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2014[edit]

please delete the line "Ethnicity: Jewish" JUDAISM IS NOT AN ETHNICITY!! IT IS A RELIGION! JUDAISM AS AN ETHNICITY is a popular theory propagated by NAZIs. While there are different ethnicities that run amongst the jewish diaspora (Ashkenazi, Sephardic, etc) Judaism itself is not an ethnicity. Furthermore, since when does ethnicity appear in the BIOGRAPHY SIDEBAR!!! Do we need to have Ethnicity: Caucasian in the sidebar for Ted Bundy? Donald Sterling is not Jewish and does not subscribe to Jewish beliefs. He has changed his name, partially to avoid having a Jewish last name. He is a negative character in the American press, and the Ethnicity: Jewish line is very obviously added by someone having malicious intent. It is true that he came from a Jewish family, and that should be included in the article. Ethnicity: Jewish There is no "Jewish" category for ethnicity on wikipedia! ETHNICITY: JEWISH NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SIDEBAR. You can consult wikipedia articles on Nazi eugenics and the Nazi mission to establish Jews as a RACE and eradicate them completely. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW ANTI-SEMITISM ON WIKIPEDIA!!! Pepperdas (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Green tickY Religion is usually added to the infobox if the living person makes a statement in which his/her religion is described, which is not the case here. And i agree about the "ethnicity" descriptor as Judaism is not an really an ethnicity despite having some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture. Cwobeel (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That statement is not well informed. A great many people are Jewish without being religious. Our own article on this topic reads: "an ethnic minority in every country in which they live (except Israel)…" It would be unwise to gainsay Sterling's own self-identification in this area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Judaism is not an "ethnicity" or at least there is no consensus amongst Jews of what it means to be Jewish. Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a ridiculously ignorant statement. Are you really asserting (by implication) that someone who does not have Jewish religious beliefs is not Jewish? Not even an Orthodox Jew would take such a view. You are really showing the limitations of your understanding here. Do some reading (you can start with the wikilink I gave you) and come back when you're ready to have a serious informed discussion about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know about "ridiculously ignorant", but just wanting to disassociate a guy who has become despised from Jewishness is not reason enough to change his infobox. If you want to engage in the "Who is a Jew" debate then you should mount your argument in the Jews article, where I'm sure there's most likely a raging debate. Anyway the article on Jews clearly states:
"Generally, in modern secular usage Jews include three groups: people who were born to a Jewish family regardless of whether or not they follow the religion, those who have some Jewish ancestral background or lineage (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), and people without any Jewish ancestral background or lineage who have formally converted to Judaism and therefore are followers of the religion." (Emphasis added)—Jdbarras (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Denial that Jews are a race and ethnicity is the same thing as Holocaust denial and is inherently anti-Semitic. It is a common tactic used by communists/socialists and Muslims and also people who are ignorant about Judaism. Judaism is an ancient religion. Like most ancient religions, the ethnicity and the followers of the religion are the same thing. For example, Greeks believed in Greek mythology. Romans believed in Roman mythology. Egyptians believed in Egyptian mythology. Likewise, Jews (who are called Jews not because of our religion but because we are from Judea) believe in Judaism. Unlike Judaism, modern religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are universalist religions that are not centered upon a single ethnicity. Many people like you who argue that Jews are a religion and not an ethnicity are speaking from a Western, Christian-centric mindset. Just because Christians are not an ethnicity doesn't mean that the same rule applies to Jews. Unfortunately, there are also many assimilated Jews such as Pepperdas who agree with the Christian-centric view because they are ignorant about their own history and identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:D4FA:7B16:D650:EB82 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that the ethnicity part of the infobox should be removed because it is not relevant to the article. Most articles about people on Wikipedia state the person's nationality in the infobox, but not the ethnicity. So just for consistency, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:F241:7A00:D4FA:7B16:D650:EB82 (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:BLPCAT (which applies to infoboxes as well) makes self-identification the key criterion for determining whether a classification of this sort is appropriate. Editors here should be wary of second-guessing what a BLP subject says about themselves. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

"Controversy" in section name[edit]

The name for the section of his remarks about blacks and his ban seems to have changed many times to include "criticism" or "controversy". Seem like the section name would be more neutral per WP:CRITS, and not include those words. I would suggest something like "Racial remarks and lifetime ban". I'm sure readers could decide for themselves after reading whether it is a controversy without the section name needing to be biased.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions, Bagumba, but there is nothing "biased" about the accurate and proper use of the term "controversy" in the section heading. It is unarguably the case that Sterling's remarks have provoked an ongoing controversy in the news media -- and if it were not for that resulting controversy, there would be no reason to devote a section of the article to his remarks. As for WP:CRITS: to begin with, it's not even a WP:Guideline, only an essay. Moreover, it is primarily a discussion of criticism, not a proper discussion of the issue of controversy. And lastly, are you aware that we have a very large category tree for articles dealing with all sorts of controversies? Clearly the brief mention of the term "controversy" in the WP:CRITS essay misses the mark by a wide margin.
While I would agree that the term "controversy" is at times mis-applied, in this case it's use should be utterly uncontroversial. Seriously, if the uproar over Mr. Sterling's remarks doesn't constitute a "controversy", that word needs to be flat out retired from the lexicon. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
If it was as "utterly uncontroversial" as you believe, it's surprising that you have had to add it into the article three times already. Appreciate, you discussing it here now; however, WP:BRD suggests discussing to reach consensus after the initial revert, not continuing to revert while the discussion is ongoing.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Please note that what I said was that "it's use should be utterly uncontroversial". As far as I can see, the only reason it has been removed is because of a mistaken belief that it's use is disallowed. That, however, is simply not the case. As I explained above, WP:CRITS is NOT even a WP:Guideline -- it is only an essay. There is a huge distinction, something like the difference between an article published in a popular magazine and an article published in a peer-reviewed journal.
I was hoping that you and the other editor would respond to the substance of my remarks -- and without invoking WP:CRITS. As I've already said, it is unquestionably the case that Sterling's remarks have provoked a huge controversy in the media (and the public), and that controversy is the reason there is a section in the article about his remarks. If not for the controversy there would be no valid reason to devote an entire section to the issue. That being the case, it is entirely appropriate, fair and justified to use the word "controversy" in the section heading, and I see no compelling reason to do otherwise. Not in this case. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The essay was consistent with my rationale, so I cited it. I'm sure you aren't implying that your argument that cites no essay is automatically stronger than an argument that uses an essay. I have no problem if there is consensus from others to follow your edit suggestion. Otherwise, WP:No consensus advises that "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."—Bagumba (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, I was really hoping that you would respond to the substance of my remarks. Yes indeed, I am most assuredly asserting that my argument is stronger than an argument which merely cites an essay without addressing the substance of the issue. That is no substitute for real discussion. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
While I agree with much of what Cgingold said (Sterling's comments were controversial, a Wikipedia essay is not a justification, it's fine to use the word controversy in section headings), I think it's fine to not use controversy in this case, and find the current section headings ("Racial remarks and lifetime ban" as a subsection of "NBA ownership") to be quite descriptive and adequate. The alternative used in one edit was "Racial remarks controversy and lifetime ban", which is longer, sounds a little awkward, and I don't see as adding anything of significance. In the end it's an entirely subjective choice how to title sections, and you can only rationalize so much. My personal preference is for the current version over the alternative. Agyle (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Agyle. The reason I am insisting on using the word "controversy" is because it was precisely the controversy over his remarks that resulted in his lifetime ban by the NBA -- and to the very existence of that section of the article. If Sterling had made those remarks but it had not generated a huge firestorm of controversy, his remarks would merit at most a passing mention in the article (if that) -- and we would not be debating the section heading (!). One more thing: banning the use of the word "controversy" in this case -- where it is so clearly called for and justified -- would set a terrible precedent for Wikipedia, so I sincerely hope you will reconsider your position. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The preferred style is to not use "controversy", the reason being (to my read at least) is that it is neutral. The bottom line is that the information about the remarks, that were certainly controversial are given their just due in the article. I hope that your use of the word "insist" was a slip, as digging in your heels never seems to do anyone much good around here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing biased, nor is there a violation of WP:NPOV by using the term "controversy" in the section title - when that term accurately reflects the content in that section. Cgingold makes a compelling argument for inclusion of the term and his argument is backed by reliable sourcing as well - which is a policy and not an essay. The New York Times, L.A. Times, ABC News, CNN have all used the term controversy in conjunction with this story. And additionally, if you think about it, there really has been more than one controversy generated as a direct result of his comments. It's just my personal opinion, but I think the NBA/ownership/fine/lifetime-ban angle of this story will be the real story here.

Having said that, as far as inclusion of the term "controversy" is concerned, it's just a matter of personal preference and consensus - one way or the other. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we place in the lead that Sterling maintains that he is not a racist?[edit]

Why wouldn't we place in the lead the very important stance maintained by Sterling that he is not a racist? This seems to me to be material of primary biographical importance. Please see this edit and this edit and this edit. Bus stop (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included for neutrality. MOS:BEGIN advises, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." If Sterling's statement is included, opposing views would need to be stated as well, but that would be too detailed for the lead. The lead should simply state the facts that he was banned for the NBA for racist comments. POV whether he is a racist or not should be expanded in the body, not the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Sterling's statement of not being a racist was not in the first paragraph, it was inserted at the end of the sentence in the second paragraph, which was the appropriate place for it to be. His statement (a single sentence) was also sourced, verifiable and on-topic. I don't see any violation of policy (NPOV) by including his statement, and the opposing view is already there, it clearly states he made "racist comments" which is a POV statement.
Additionally, WP:PUBLICFIGURE via WP:BLP, says that If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant and well documented, it belongs in the article - even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. It goes on to give an example of a politician that allegedly had an affair. It says that the allegation belongs in the biography - citing those sources, and if the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. If the second paragraph in the lede is going to include a POV statement about "racist comments" made by a living person, and we have a statement by that individual denying he is a racist, then his denial should also be stated as well. Any further content or discussion about his comments and other POV's can be expanded in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The opposing view of Sterling's statement that he is not a racist would be an assertion that he is a racist, not that he (merely) made racist comments. As such, Sterling's statement about himself does not add neutrality. Moreover, it is a minority view (and self-serving), and is not appropriate for the lead. As for the racist comments themselves, I don't think there was any debate that it belongs in the lead, precisely because of WP:PUBLICFIGURE.—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible that Sterling's statements could be considered to be self-serving in this instance, sure it could be. So what! We determine whether the statements they (BLP) make are sourced, verifiable, relevant and notable and then present them in the article in a NPOV. Sterling's denial of being a racist and his statement meets all that criteria. It's not our jobs as editors to make assumptions about what living biographical subject's motives are for the statements that they make in regards to controversies and/or scandals that have affected their lifes. And obviously anything that Sterling says about this controversy is going to be a minority view (his view), should we delete everything he has to say about this controversy from the article because it's his view - a minority view. WP:BLP does not expressly forbid us from presenting the biographical subject's view on a controversy in the lead where the controversy is mentioned. To the contrary, BLP encourages us to present the subject's view of the controversy/scandal.
However, I think we could re-word the sentence a little bit to clarify that he was specifically asked about the racist comments he made and his response. When asked about the racist comments that he had made and were recorded on tape, Sterling told Anderson Cooper in an interview that "I'm not a racist," and also said that he had made a "terrible mistake" and was "here to apologize."[29] Now the sentence is not an "opposing view" or "self-serving", nor is there any "assertion" being made, it's simply what the man said in response to a specific question he was asked in regards to the racist comments that he made. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I never had a problem with Sterling's statement that he is not a racist being in the article. I was objecting to its previous inclusion in the lead, which the original poster was proposing. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, kind of figured that out. If the original poster wants to propose a re-worded sentence, I see no reason to exclude it in the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
If we are interested in fleshing out an outline of the subject of the biography we do not omit something as a basic as his reaction to claims that he is a racist. This is a biography. We are not even talking about "neutrality" or "opposing views". My edit is placing in proximity to material referencing him as a racist, his view on whether he is a racist or not. This is not being placed there for purposes of balance (neutrality, opposing views). This is information about the subject of our biography. It is relevant to material already there and it is important for revealing the man to us. That is what a biography is primarily about—revealing the substance of the person being written about. My sentence reads: "Sterling maintains that he is not a racist, nevertheless he has apologized and asked for forgiveness" and it is followed by two sources. No one else but Sterling can apologize and ask for forgiveness. Sterling's view that he is not a racist is prime biographical material. If you are writing a biography and you already deemed it worthy of mention in the lead that he has made "racist comments" then it follows that you would include the very relevant points that he doesn't consider himself a racist and that he has nevertheless apologized and asked for forgiveness. Bus stop (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sterling's making racist comments does not automatically imply he is also a racist. Therefore, I don't think his comment about not being a racist is needed in the lead. However, if it is going to be included there, it should be balanced by opinions of those who do think he is a racist based on various lawsuits regarding his real estate management, and also the charge from Elgin Baylor.—Bagumba (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Our lead makes reference to "recordings of him making racist comments". Good quality reliable sources provide us with a response from Sterling to that charge. Why shouldn't we provide Sterling's response in proximity to that charge? For instance a source says: "'I'm not a racist,' Sterling told CNN's Anderson Cooper in an interview that will air Monday. I made a terrible mistake. I'm here to apologize." In a biography one endeavors to convey to the reader the sort of person that is the subject of the biography. It makes little sense to me to omit Sterling's response to this serious and negative charge. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The details you desire for Sterling's own claims are already in the body. If you also want it in the lead, why would the lead not also include the majority view that many believe he is a racist. Personally I'd leave the debate whether he is a racist or not out of the lead, having only the undisputed fact that he made racist comments in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion it is appropriate at this point in the article (the lead) to apprise the reader that Donald Sterling has articulated that he is not a racist and that he has apologized and asked for forgiveness. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I concur that it is appropriate and have added his response to the recording in his interview with Cooper to the lead. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Rochelle / Shelly[edit]

The legal name for Donald Sterling's wife is Rochelle but she apparently goes by Shelly. This article used "Rochelle" five times and "Shelly" five times. The last section of the article is about "Personal life" which has "In 1955, Sterling married Rochelle ("Shelly") Stein, with whom he had three children..."

I edited the article to use "Shelly" throughout as most of the news coverage has been using that version of her name. I used both names in the infobox and left 'Rochelle ("Shelly") Stein' in the personal life section as it's possible she used "Rochelle" at the time and later switched to using "Shelly".

News articles about legal proceedings seem to be using her legal name, Rochelle Sterling, though identify her as "Shelly" in photo captions.[30] --Marc Kupper|talk 18:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering--would she be sufficiently notable to have her own page? Is anyone able to find much about her specifically (independent of her husband), for example her philanthropic engagements?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Image[edit]

I remember there being an image on this page, do you know what happened to it? Tutelary (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted on commons, it seems. Removal diff is here.
Mmm, I should've figured as such. Thanks for the quick answer. Tutelary (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Playoff success[edit]

The following was removed by an editor with explanation of "relevant to an article about the team but not here where it is tangential trivia"

The franchise has never advanced past the second round of the NBA Playoffs.

For sports owners, brief summaries of the success or failure of their teams are standard to provide context of the owners performance. The Clippers have never won a championship under Sterling, so it's relevant how close they have been. Stories about Sterling in multiple reliable sources at varying times have mentioned that the Clippers have never advanced past the second round of the playoffs:

  1. "N.B.A. Bars Clippers Owner Donald Sterling for Life". The New York Times. April 29, 2014. The team managed just one winning season in Mr. Sterling’s first 24 years as owner, and still has never made it past the second round of the playoffs. 
  2. "Donald Sterling: Slumlord Billionaire". The Nation. April 26, 2014. The Clippers have made the playoffs only four times in Sterling’s twenty-eight years as owner, never advancing past the second round of the playoffs. 
  3. "With ruling, Clippers get biggest win". ESPN. July 29, 2014. It was the first championship moment for a franchise that has never made it past the second round of the NBA playoffs. 
  4. "Donald Sterling drops opposition to Clippers sale, feels 'fabulous'". Los Angeles Times. June 4, 2014. The end of the Sterling era apparently will come just as the team finally seems poised for big things. The Clippers made it to the second round of the playoffs this spring — their farthest advance in the post-season — and have drawn a bigger audience behind stars such as Blake Griffin and Chris Paul. 

Mentioning this seems due weight for his biography. It's summarized, and not a detailed season-by-season play-by-play of original research, trivially linking the team to him.—Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


The problem is that it is trivia not related specifically to the subject of the BLP. Period. It has no encyclopedic value to anyone trying to find out about the living person who is the subject of the BLP. There is no source given to assert that this record was due to Sterling personally in any whatsoever. The premise that is relevant would also have us add to the Cubs owners and players over the years "never won a World Series" as though that were encyclopedically related to the person. It isn't. Collect (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, we add things to biographies because of due weight in sources, not because all bios need to blindly mention things consistently. Whether or not he was an absentee owner is irrelevant to the fact that sources regularly associate his ownership with his team's performance.—Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Racially insensitive instead of racist[edit]

User:Nomoskedasticity has reverted my edits twice. I think we should change racist to racially insensitive when the word is not used under inverted commas. Otherwise, it sounds like Wikipedia thinks the remarks were racist, which would not be encyclopedic. It is fine to keep the word "racist" when President Obama uses it, as it is under inverted commas. But I think it is problematic when it is not a direct quote. It does not sound neutral to me. Besides, it could attract a lawsuit from Sterling (who is a lawyer). So as I tried to do, we would change, "In April 2014, Sterling was banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million by the league after private recordings of him making racist comments were made public." to "In April 2014, Sterling was banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million by the league after private recordings of him making racially insensitive comments were made public." in the lead (which already has the word "racist" once in a direct quote; it seems overkill to use it twice!); and "The lawsuit featured several racist statements allegedly made by Sterling to employees, such as that "black people smell and attract vermin" and "hispanics just smoke and hang around the building" as well as Sterling's alleged intent to rent only to Korean tenants because "they will pay the rent and live in whatever conditions I give them". "The lawsuit featured several racially insensitive statements allegedly made by Sterling to employees, such as that "black people smell and attract vermin" and "hispanics just smoke and hang around the building" as well as Sterling's alleged intent to rent only to Korean tenants because "they will pay the rent and live in whatever conditions I give them"." in the "Discrimination lawsuits" section. This would sound more neutral and encyclopedic to me. What do other editors think?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

We should, of course, convey what the sources say about this topic. "Neutral" in this context does not mean softening expressions, making them softer than what is in the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Under inverted commas/quotation marks, sure. But it does not sound neutral or encyclopedic when the word is used by Wikipedia IMO. What do others think?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I find "racially insensitive" to be a euphemism for the more succinct term, "racist". I think we need to be clear that the comments are being called "racist", not the person. I don't think there is much if any debate that the comments are considered racist. As such, I think we should follow WP:NPOV, which suggests: "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice ... Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, many people don't think the remarks were "racist," but rather clumsy/outdated and unfortunate. So I feel like "racially insensitive" would be more neutral. But happy to hear from more editors of course.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we can agree that many sources called the remarks "racist". Is it your contention that calling the remarks "racist" also implies intent on Sterling's behalf? Personally I don't think it does, but I'd at least like to be clear the source of disagreement. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
My point is that when we are citing specific sources, it is fine to use the word "racist" as a direct quote I suppose. But otherwise we should be using a more neutral term (in this article as it stands today, only change it twice as I explained at the beginning of this thread). I think "racially insensitive" is probably the most neutral phrase. There is also "racially charged," but that still sounds a bit accusatory. But using the word "racist" without a direct quote sounds very accusatory and potentially slanderous IMO. I am just trying to make the article sound more neutral/encyclopedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You are using the word "neutral" in a way that doesn't align with the meaning that matters here, in WP:NPOV. Worth a read. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Many sources use the phrase "racially insensitive," like Forbes (twice), the San Francisco Chronicle, MSNBC, USA Today (twice), The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc. Now, some of those sources use both "racist" and "racially insensitive," but we wouldn't be straying from the sources at all by using the phrase "racially insensitive."Zigzig20s (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the same token, we wouldn't be straying from the sources at all by using the phrase "racist". I don't think it's relevant the number of instances that use "racially insensitive"; we can find the same number of sources (if not more) that use "racist". What is the motivation to euphemistically refer to "racist comments" as "racially insensitive comments"? There are few if any sources that debate that the comments were not racist. Moreover, the book Education, Democracy and the Moral Life offers that "A remark can be unquestionably racist without the person making the remark being a racist, or making the remark for a racist reason or motive."[31] I'm still not seeing the issue with neutrality.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

He misspoke. There's no consensus at all that those were "racist" remarks. Many people don't think they were. But I guess where we really disagree is that I don't see "racially insensitive" as euphemistic. I see it as a neutral. I don't think Wikipedia should be passing judgements.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess the difference in opinion is that you believe "racist comment" implies intent, while I do believe it only describes the content of the comment. It is also not supported by the book I quoted earlier. I'm willing to reconsider if you can convince me, perhaps though other sources, that saying a person made a racist comment semantically implies intent on the part of the speaker.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I agree with you that no one has ever applied the "racist" term to Donald Sterling himself here (although we could add some referenced info about how he was witch-hunted and persecuted in the media, but that is slightly off topic for now). However, I find it problematic to say that those remarks were "racist." I think they were "politically incorrect," "clumsy," "thoughtless," yes. But I don't think the intent of the remarks were to dehumanize people for the color of their skin at all. And I think it is passing judgement if we imply that that was the case. So I still feel like using that word under inverted commas is fine, but otherwise we should be looking for a more neutral term. I would much rather change it to "clumsy" or "thoughtless," but I would be fine with "racially insensitive" if it seems more pertinent to most editors.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd welcome others' input as well. I think it is OK to call the comments racist, as I don't believe it implies anything about the person's intent in making them.—Bagumba (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
My point is that we shouldn't be passing judgements on the remarks he made, which is what I think the word "racist" does (to the remarks). That seems unfair and non-neutral/unencyclopedic to me. Let's wait and see what others think though.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Donald Sterling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)