Talk:Joe E. Ross

Casting on The Phil Silvers Show

This comment was in the article and was moved here:

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

File:JER.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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

Personal information section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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