Talk:Jerry Seinfeld/Archive 2

RfC: "Jewish American": 1) in infobox; 2) in introductory paragraph.

 * As he is one of the most prominent American Jews in contemporary culture, it most definitely deserves to be mentioned here IMO.

dispute over: 1) the relevance of "Jewish American" in the "nationality" field in the infobox; 2) whether "Jewish American" is the proper description used in the opening sentence of the introductory paragraph. The link leads to an article about notable Jewish persons whose citizenship is American. As he is one of the most prominent American Jews in contemporary culture, it most definitely deserves to be mentioned here IMO.

Involved editors
*I don't have anything to add beyond the conversation below. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I do, I would also like further comment on whether it's appropriate and/or necessary to have a "family history" included in the article, see section titled "Jerry's grandfather" further down the page. We might as well try and settle all of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

 * Oppose saying 'Jewish American' in the lead sentence and infobox. It should say 'American', just like it does in the articles of Fanny Brice, Lenny Bruce, Mel Brooks, Larry David, and even Jackie Mason...  Dlabtot (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the wikilink is to "American Jews" which is a substantially different wording.  As precedent in infoboxes is for nationality to be in the nationality section, clearly "Jewish American" is not a "nationality." Not even a close call.  Consensus clearly so far is that "Jewish American" is not something to be in the lede, as it is clear in the article that he comes from a Jewish background.  (My only involvement has been to try getting a compromise) Collect (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak support Mainly because of these statements:
 * According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism in accord with Jewish Law.
 * Judaism shares some of the characteristics of a nation, an ethnicity, a religion, and a culture, making the definition of who is a Jew vary slightly depending on whether a religious or national approach to identity is used.[25] 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.
 * American Jews, or Jewish Americans, are Jews who are American citizens or resident aliens. Soxwon (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That passage isn't relevant to the discussion. It doesnt establish that ethnicity is significant to this subject at all. --neon white talk 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Standards (WP:MOSBIO) say not to emphasise ethnicity unless it is particularly significant. It has not been established so and i cannot see it likely to be for this subject considering the precedent of other similar subjects. --neon white talk 21:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Jewish American"
I dispute that we need a first-sentence identifier of Seinfeld as a "Jewish American." I understand completely that his comedy springs from the Jewish tradition in America and that it's relevant that he is Jewish. But I dispute that the fact that he was raised Jewish is necessary as a first-sentence qualifier to "American." Other Wikipedia articles on people who happen to be Jewish don't contain such qualifiers, generally, and the first sentence is the place only for the most general of information. Seinfeld does not refer to being Jewish all that often in his comedy (though of course it's hardly a secret), and I really fail to see why his religion is relevant enough to put in the first sentence. The first paragraph, sure, but not the introductory sentence. Moncrief 00:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I still mildly disagree on the relevance issue, but not nearly enough to contest the point RMoloney 00:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity should be included, that's pretty obvious. As for Seinfeld mentioning it – it exists ("Elaine, let me tell you something about the Jewish people"), although I can't recall the specific episode at the moment. Drone2Gather (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His nationality is American, not Jewish, which is not a nationality (there's an Israeli nationality, but that of course is different). To Drone2Gather: making that kind of change will require finding consensus. That is a big change and WP:BLP is policy. Also, do not accuse other editors of vandalism as you did on my talk page when it is clearly not. Please see WP:ASSUME.  freshacconci  talk talk  19:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Jewish" defines nationality. It distinguishes us from gentiles. Please do some research on the subject, as it is a part of what I am and how I grew up (see your talk page). Drone2Gather (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It may define your nationality for you, but does it define Jerry Seinfeld's nationality? Is that what he says about himself?  Since he's still alive, unless you have a verified reference from a credible source, we have to adhere to the biography of living persons policy. Banaticus (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll find a source that confirms that Seinfeld is a Jew. On the way, I also might find some sources confirming that he lives on Earth, that dogs bark and that the Pope is Catholic :-) Drone2Gather (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * freshacconci was right, Seinfeld's nationality is American, not Jewish. He's not an Israeli expatriot living temporarily in or otherwise visiting the US.  His religion, his ethnicity, whatever, please just source your edits and conform to WP:BLP, ok? ;) Banaticus (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When you are born to Jewish parents (actually, even a Jewish mother is enough) you are automatically Jewish by nationality unless you openly renounce it. "Israeli" and "Jewish" are not the same; there are Israeli non-Jews as well as Jewish non-Israelis. Many Jewish families live outside of Israel without having any actual connection to Israel, yet they are Jewish by nationality. I wonder how many times I'm going to have to explain this... Drone2Gather (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The link already existed in the article, there wasn't a need to move it. 2) The link specifically calls him "American Jewish" -- you can't ignore the "American" part simply because you were raised with a particular viewpoint ("it is a part of what I am and how I grew up").  Please, again, use a verifiable link to a credible source that says exactly what you're saying when you reference it when changing the nationality of a living person, in accordance with WP:BLP. Banaticus (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I imagined, I have to explain it again. "American Jewish" consists of two words: American – his place of residency and citizenship, and Jewish – his nationality. As for your warning on my talk page – too bad you are attacking me with these vandalism warnings when my edits are clearly made in good faith. Drone2Gather (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Nationality -- as a citizen of the US, as a person who lives and works in the US, as a person who is apparently comfortable with all of that, his nationality is at least partially American, unless you're saying that he's disowning the US, that he's claiming that his sole nationality is Jewish. You haven't given a link that says that Jerry Seinfeld has ever made such a declaration or even feels like that.  You can't disown a living person person from the nationality of the country that they continue to live in, work in, maintain citizenship with and are apparently comfortable with, without a good verifiable reference from a credible source. Banaticus (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a look, here's a quote:
 * "The word citizenship is often used in a different sense from nationality... nationality can refer to membership in a nations (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination)."Drone2Gather (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to keep having what's becoming the same discussion in two places at once. You pick the place, either Wikiquette_alerts or here, then I'll continue that discussion in that place. Banaticus (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, please post a clarification on my talk page regarding your "stop vandalizing or you'll be blocked" template. I've erased it, but it still looks bad on my history. When we're clear on my good faith, I'll gladly continue the discussion as we both want the best of Wikipedia's interests. (I gotta sleep soon, so it'll most likely be tomorrow.) Drone2Gather (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So... here? Drone2Gather (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the last little while, another user has responded there and you responded and yet another user responded, so the discussion should likely continue over there since it hasn't continued here in the meantime. Banaticus (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now for the content dispute. I just want to ask, is anyone actually claiming that Seinfeld is not Jewish? Of course Wikipedia articles do need to be verified, but I'm just wondering if this fact is actually doubted/debated by anyone or if this whole quibble is just over where to mention it and whether "Jewish" is a nationality, a religion, an ethnicity, a culture, or some combination thereof. For the record, I do not think nationality is the right answer. Where is the country called "Jewish"? Judaism is a religion, but Jewish is a culture, of which Judaism is a part. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It really doesnt matter what it is, we can be pretty certain it isn't a nation and therefore not a nationality. --neon white talk 15:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just noticed your comment. Jews are a nation!!! Please stop the revert cycle and wait until RFC is closed. Drone2Gather (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Jewish American it is. Drone2Gather (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we may have had a disconnect here. Seinfeld could be defined as a "Jewish American" but there is not agreement that that constitutes his nationality, indeed I think it is clear from the above conversation that consensus is quite the opposite. I have no objection to him being characterized that way in the lead of the article, as it is accurate, but it does not belong in the infobox as his nationality. If there is still disagreement on this then I suggest a request for comment be initiated to involve even more previously uninvolved editors. Let's not edit war or keep going around in circular debate here. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Manual of Style (biographies) on how intro paragraphs should be written - Opening paragraph #3 - "Nationality - In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable... Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."
 * While some cases could be made that Seinfeld uses frequent references to Jewishness in his comedy and on his show (and thus fits the requirement of relevance), the opening "Seinfeld is an American Jewish comedian" does not tell me that. You should add something that would demonstrate this to the intro, similar to what's in Woody Allen's intro ("For inspiration, Allen draws heavily on literature, sexuality, philosophy, psychology, Jewish identity, European cinema and New York City, where he was born and has lived his entire life". All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with "fleshing" this out further into the article if warranted, but not in the lead sentence unless his ethnicity is why he is notable which doesn't seem the case here. I agree that there is quite a bit a Jewish references on the tv show, but again, that could be fleshed out in the approriate sections if properly sourced and given proper weight. Anyways, this is a digression from the original edit war over including ethnicity in the lead sentence. --Tom (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Grrrrrrrr... until we've finally reached consensus... Anyway, a request for comment can be a good idea. All Hallow's Wraith – I assume you know Seinfeld and the unique brand of humor he has created together with Larry David, who is also Jewish. It has "New York Jewish" written all over it. Can we at least try and exercise just a tiny bit of wp:common sense? Drone2Gather (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)While he is, indeed, Jewish, the use of "Jewish American" does not reflect "nationality"  as it also refers to religion. While some other articles use the term, it is unclear that it is the best way to handle this. WP does not, in general, otherwise use religion as the qualifier on nationality. Why not just say he is an American who is Jewish? The fact is not contested AFAICT, just the wording. (seeking compromise here) Collect (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason religion/ethincity cannot be mentioned in the lead of an article provided it is of sufficient importance to the subject but should not really be used in conjuction with a nationality as this is likely to mislead. --neon white talk 12:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a message to all contributors: if you can, please refrain from editing the controversial section(s) of the article, until a compromise or consensus has been reached. Ultimately, it does not matter what the article actually says for what? 48 hours? 72 hours? This is the perfect place to work out your differences: here on the article talk page. May I suggest you use the following format. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What controversial section are you talking about? This looks like run of the mill trolling. Way to much feeding is going on here. Please wrap this up so folks can move on to "real" improvements of this project. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead section seems to me to be the most controversial at the moment (and we're talking about violations of 3RR and such here). However, as I agree and see the possibility of this being blown out of proportion (god, I only just noticed the BLP/N thread), I have cut down on the templated sections I subst'ed below. I shall invite D2G and neon white to comment on the compromise wording of the lead section below. I'm glad you've been able to sort out the infobox according per the MoS, hopefully everyone will be able to agree that that is a non-controversial solution. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * compromise wording of the lead section?? What compromise is needed or deserved here? Has anybody read WP:MOSBIO where it deals with this "issue" specifically? I came here from the BLP board and it seems like a number of editors have reverted this bio back to it's "stable" version. Leaving ethnicity out of the lead sentence and info box as is the "standard" for 99.99% of bios. At some point, just chalk this up to, er, whatever, and lets all move on. Seriously, is there more here than one(?) tenatious editor bent on pointing out that Seinfeld is Jewish in the opening sentence? Ethnicity is covered in the early life section as it should be. Anyways, I will chill for now and let others chime in. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom, my role as the "lone Jew protecting him or herself from (sometimes-not-so) subtle antisemitism" is well known in this world. Please quit trying to "shush" this discussion, let alone the "trolling" assumptions. I'm starting to doubt who might be really trolling here. Drone2Gather (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you babbling about? I have been dealing with this type of trolling for, er, 3 plus years now in this project. You have been the "lone Jew protecting him or herself from (sometimes-not-so) subtle antisemitism" in this project for how many days now? I will let others decide who not to feed, thank you very much. --Tom (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Compromise wording (lead section)
Anyone edits this paragraph:

... is an American comedian (etc.), who is Jewish, whose style is often described as ...   is my suggestion for clear compromise wording. Collect (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article American Jews talks about notable Jewish persons, who are also citizens of the US. Therefore, the original wording seems to work fine: "is a Jewish American comedian." Your wording, although obviously suggested in good faith, is of lesser grammatical quality. Drone2Gather (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not look at the obvious consensus above which does not support your argument?  As for grammatical quality, I had my four years of Latin and I assure you my suggestion is grammatically correct.   Have you noted the other opinions voiced above? Collect (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary consensus was Jewish American. At first, I wanted to point out that he is Jewish by nationality, but the objection seemed to concentrate around the fact that he is both Jewish and American. As you can see here, I have agreed with the compromise. Everything else happened afterwards. Drone2Gather (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting since I do not read the colloquy as you appear to do. Collect (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Collect. I appreciate you trying to reach a consensus here, but adding ethnicity to the lead sentence goes against MOSBIO and is unneeded, period. We do not do this for 99.99% of the bios out there. Why do it here? I have yet seen a good reason to deveate from the established MOS. Anyways, cheers! --Tom (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are certain subjects where it is acceptable, primarily where ethnicity is significant in terms of the notability of the subject. There are precedents such as Martin Luther King, who is referred to as American even though his african-american ethnicity could be said to be significant considering he is most notable for his civil rights work. However we are talking about a comedian here, ethnicity has very little importance to this guy's notability? Richard Pryor is also a good precedent to look at, very known for using his african-american ethnicity in his comedy but is simply refered to as American. --neon white talk 21:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My aim was to present a compromise which Drone, in all good conscience, should leap at, and which would not be unconscionable to others. As he seems unwilling to accede, I am perfectly happy with keeping his religion/genetics out of the lede.  Seems a shame, really, that he did not jump at this offer. Collect (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll accept that if everyone's fine with it. If you examine my edit history, you can see that I am very conscious as far as grammar goes. I saw that the Seinfeld article was in need of improvement and genuinely took it as a project. Not only have no one mentioned a thing about my positive contributions, no feedback whatsoever has been received about helping me with the grammar/cleanup issue, as you can see under the last heading on this talk page. Is this how editors are being welcomed here? Drone2Gather (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad that my attempts to glorify the contributions of the Jewish people to this world are being interpreted as trolling, while editors that deny the existence of a Jewish nation are being praised. Fuck this, I'm withdrawing from this witch trial and moving on. I am sure the Wikipedia community can find better ways to represent itself. Drone2Gather (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting your political views. --neon white talk 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you consider than many who are editors do not wear their religions on their edits. Collect (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, thank you for the thought. I'd suggest you look at other editors who are doing the same, but from another view, such as who simply denies the existence of the Jewish nation. It's a pity that antisemitism can be felt even here on Wikipedia. Drone2Gather (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Cut that right out right now Stop with accusations of antisemitism. This is a content dispute. You have stated that you are here to "Glorify the contributions of the Jewish people to this world. " Obviously, you are the one with an agenda, the rest of us are just trying to make an article that makes sense. All articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Perhaps you should review the article on Uncle Leo. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This was actually funny, kudos :-) As for my point – tell me that denying the existence of the Jewish nation is not antisemitism. Drone2Gather (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has absolutely nothing to do with it. The concept of a jewish nation is not one that is excepted by many if any academics. If you do a little research you will find the idea that 'jewishness' can be defined as a whole is largely an anti-jew view in the same way that it is largely islamaphobes that maintain the idea of a pan-islamic nation. You're knowledge of the subject is highly questionable. --neon white talk 21:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those "academics" mean as little to me as Ahmadinejad's Holocaust-denying "scholars". I grew up as a Jew in diaspora and was definitely taught that my nationality is Jewish. Drone2Gather (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one is disputing that certain members of ethnic groups are preoccupied with the ideas of Nationalism and Collectivism and believe their loose commonality to be a national identity but the majority, in most cases, largely do not and as wikipedia is based on academic sources you are not going to have a very successful time as an editor if you reject them in favour of personal views. --neon white talk 10:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguing with you is futile as you will always find ways to retaliate with more pseudo-scientific nonsense, naturally filtered for political correctness and Wikipedia's written civility boundaries. I suggest that you take your views to UN, along with Iran and friends. Maybe they'll applaud you for "having an open mind for questioning history." Also, if you want to be taken seriously, learn how to spell. Drone2Gather (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the last warning you will recieved for your disgraceful civility towards other editors, either learn to discuss matters civily or you will be blocked, simple as that. You wont recieve a further warning. Wikipedia is not based on your, or anyone else's, personal political views. We have style guidelines that have been decided by a consensus and are accepted by the majority. In this case it was decided that ethnicity should not be emphasised in a lead paragraph unless of significant importance. This has been explained for more times that is reasonable. --neon white talk 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking my people by denying their existence. My "beef" with you is not over wording in the article, it is over your repeated racial slander. I told you several times how offensive your remarks are, yet you do not seem to care one bit. Drone2Gather (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'If your "beef" is not related to the improvement of this page, then it does not belong on this talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Enough warnings have been given. An admin will sort it out hopefully with a permanent block. Until then i suggest everyone ignore the comments. --neon white talk 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Folks, can we please "close" this thread and stop the off article forum discussion?!? Talk pages are NOT meant for this type of discussion. Please, unless there is more to add about improving this article, lets end this. If folks have a "beef", please take it to an admin board or ask an uninvolved party to give there opinion. Anyways, just a general point of order. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

i hope an uninvolved admin will warn this user about standards for conduct when discussing matters related to israel and palestine according to arbcom. sad that even the jerry seinfeld article of all things should have to suffer from this tripe. untwirl (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he has a point, a Jewish American is defined as simply an American professing faith in Judaism. Soxwon (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Drone bases the claim on the Jewish mother, per halachic law, if you look at his posts. We have no basis for asserting that Seinfeld is a "practicing Jew"  that I know of, and a number of sources linking him, at least casually, to Scientology.   I can not imagine listing anyone as a "Scientologist American" . Collect (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * so you think its ok to start spouting off that editors are antisemites over a wording and placement dispute regarding his religion??  untwirl (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read above. Neon white keeps promoting his antisemitic point of view by denying that the Jewish nation exists. The argument is no longer about wording or placement, it is about keeping racism out of Wikipedia. Drone2Gather (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I say that? No, I said he had a point with regards to content. Whether that amounts to anti-semitism or not is up to you. Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I never called anyone an antisemite. I called the claim antisemitic. To Soxwon, Jewish is not only a faith. A person born to a Jewish mother is Jewish, even if that person is a complete atheist. Most editors seem to be under this (and other types of) misapprehension regarding the subject. I have realized that I can't change the world of Wikipedia so I'm moving on. As I said on my talk page, I might take this all the way up to Jimbo Wales. Until then I'll restrain from nourishing this discussion, since at the end of the day, it accomplishes nothing.
 * In any case, thank you Soxwon for being one of the only editors here to actually try and see my point. Drone2Gather (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jerry's grandfather
According to this Wikipedia article Jerry's grandfather, Simon Seinfeld, migrated to Ellis Island from Aleppo, Syria. However, the New York Times also stated that Jerry's grandfather migrated from Stanislau, Ukraine. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.114.144 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In accordance with your source, the following sentence has been removed from the article:
 * "His grandfather was a Turkish carpenter known as 'Selim Hüsnü' who migrated from Aleppo, Ottoman Empire to the USA in 1909 and took the name 'Simon Seinfeld'."
 * Please do not re-add it as it appears completely bogus, unless a source can be found (which I seriously doubt) as a matter of fact – it is bogus as I've found the correct info and inserted it. You may also notice that Simon was his paternal grandfather – the Aleppo story might be true if we're referring to the maternal side; I'll look it up later. As for your query, the NY times is obviously the reliable source out of the two. Drone2Gather (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To summarize it: I've done my part as for finding reliable sources and established Jerry's roots from both sides of the family: he is half Ashkenazi and half Sephardic (half European and half Mideastern). I see no valid reason for removing this information as WP:OR as the NY Times is a reliable source. Anyone thinking otherwise? Drone2Gather (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously I thought otherwise. I don't think his family tree going back three generations is particularly relevant to his bio. If you examine this edit I did two things, which is why there are two remarks in the edit summary. I removed the genealogical information, and a sentence tagged with a  tag. I didn't mean to say that the family history was OR, but rather the other sentence. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's actually two generations. Judging by the previous discussion (nationality) you might think that I'm somewhat biased (since I'm Jewish myself) but I think the history of Jews in diaspora is fascinating, especially when it comes to an immensely influential figure such as Seinfeld. Specifically, the European-Arab mix, which is quite surprising to anyone who knows him, not necessarily fans. Would you like to take it to WP:3O/WP:RfC? As for the tag – it's fairly fresh, I'd give it at least a month or so. I'll try and find the source myself. It generally seems to me that editors here are quick to remove. As long as it's not defamatory, I see no reason to "aggressively remove it" (as stated in the respective policy). Drone2Gather (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't think either of these things, verified or not, are particularly important to his bio, be they sourced or not. This is an encyclopedic article, not a book-length biography. The purpose is to summarize the significant events of Jerry Seinfeld's life and career, not document his family history. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are obviously in disagreement here, so I'll repeat my proposition: would you like to take it to WP:3O/WP:RfC? Drone2Gather (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)Minor point: Sephardim were from Iberia, thence to North Africa. As a result, many of their traditions differ from the Ashkenazim, but they are both equally "Jewish." As a practical matter, one group speaks Yiddish, the other, Ladino. Collect (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "Sephardim" originates from the Hebrew word ספרדים, which literally translates as "Spaniards." Basically, after the exile of Spanish Jews by the end of the 15th century, some went to Eastern Europe and some to the Arab countries in the Mideastern region. The term describes the latter. Therefore, it relates to Jews whose roots can be traced to Southwest Asia and North Africa. Drone2Gather (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would submit that Morocco and the other North African countries are neither in "Eastern Europe" nor in "Southwest Asia", and are definitely not "Mideastern." I also consider "Iberia" to be the proper geographical term, since the Moors ruled much of what is now Spain and Portugal.  Okay? Collect (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Mideastern region at large, as the countries surrounding the Mediterranean sea, in SW Asia and N. Africa. Technically, you can count the European countries (Spain, Portugal etc.) as well. Drone2Gather (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas -- no one else uses that definitions --- Egypt and countries in Asia Minor are considered "middle east" by most folks. Greece on west is considered Europe by most, and west of Egypt is called North Africa.  It works best when you use common meanings. Collect (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar
Am I the only one who thinks the grammar in this article is in desperate need of improvement? I'll do what I can, but I don't really have the time to proofread the entire thing. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Drone2Gather (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Buekerc1 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, ALF is certainly not going to be considered a reliable source, since they have an obvious agenda, and I'm assuming the paper you refer to is the student paper of Rocky Mountain College. Student papers are notoriously bad at confirming information before publishing it. So, we need to find an actual reliable source somewhere. I'll try Google. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I found this, not a reliable source in and of itself, but it does cite the People Weekly 1995 Entertainment Almanac. News archive search came up empty for "Seinfeld+vegetarian." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I doubt he's a vegetarian, since there was a whole episode about vegetarians being wierdos. His girlfriend thought he was a vegetarian because he ordered salad when they went out. The next time he saw her, he faked enthusiasm for mutton.(Huey45 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC))
 * I really don't think we should go down that road. The TV show and the real Seinfeld cannot be assumed to be the exact same person. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, I thought the episode was making fun of people who ate mutton. A good example of why we use sources instead of our own opinions. Seems there are sufficient sources for this. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

too much genealogical information
This was discussed once before and is now in the archives. Does anyone else find the first part of the section on his early life pointless and annoying, since it is not actually about his early life but rather a description of his ancestry? It's not about Jerry Seinfeld's life at all until the second paragraph. I don't think this is information our readers are generally looking for, an encyclopedia article is meant to detail the major points of a person's life, not their entire family tree, unless it is relevant to why they are notable, which is clearly not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I took it out. Dlabtot (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

citation/cleanup tag
The article has 40 references and a pile of external links. It might be helpful if the persons supporting the tagging could identify which areas they feel are in need of further verification by sources, either by listing them here, or by replacing the one big tag with targeted tags. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through the article and removed several unsourced statements and cleaned it up a bit. I took the liberty of removing the cleanup tag as I don't see any glaring problems. If there are specific problems, please identify them here so they can be fixed. (Or you could always just fix it yourself if able to do so). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Former Scientologists category
Appropriate? The sources that I've seen about Seinfeld's association with Scientology are that he simply took a few classes. I don't know that it's appropriate to say that he was actually a Scientologist at any point, therefore he could not be a former Scientologist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See the source:
 * Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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


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


 * His mother is described elsewhere as Shephardi Mizrah, which I assume means she's Mizrahi if you're trying to draw a distinction with other Shephardi Jews. He's listed as an example of a famous Mizrahi Jew on the wikipedia page on Mizrahi Jews. The definition wikipedia uses is 'The term Mizrahi is used in Israel in the language of politics, media and some social scientists for Jews from the Arab world and adjacent, primarily Muslim-majority countries' which suggests that if his family hails from Syria he should be counted as Mizrahi (unless you know better about 'rites' and so on). He himself is from Queens though so I'm inclined to agree with the above guy re; self-identification (though "whatever it means", come on dude, you're editing an encylopedia, look it up!). 94.193.220.27 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jewish
Is there a concern that the subject does not self-identify as Jewish? If so that's easily remedied with multiple sources.  Will Beback   talk    23:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We talk about ethnicity in the body, still from here in the Midwest he appeared as comedian from New York. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Let me rephrase the question: why did you delete the Jewish categories?   Will Beback    talk    23:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to restoring them? I'm not keen on the "Jewish-" categories as a whole, but if there's a category for Jewish comedians then the subject belongs in it.   Will Beback    talk    12:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to restoring them. I think Jerry Seinfeld belongs in the categories Category:American Jews, Category:Jewish actors, and Category:Jewish comedians''. Bus stop (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.   Will Beback    talk    11:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If his parents were Jewish, then I believe that would be appropriate to mention, that he came from a Jewish family. Other then that I do not believe it neccessary to go into any detail. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"Marriage Ref" show
There was an article in the New York Post that a contestant on the "Marriage Ref" show blamed Seinfeld for ruining his marriage. I believe the New York Post is a legitimate source. Here is the link: 'Marriage Ref' Contestant Blames Seinfeld for Divorce. I believe this can go into the Personal life section. Any objections? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with Seinfeld's personal life. If anything it should go to the show's page. Hot Stop talk-contribs 07:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is fine. Is there agreement that the New York Post is a good source? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Seinfeld responded to the contestant's claims. Seinfeld produced the show.  I would say that this could belong in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is another source: N.Y. Man Blames Jerry Seinfeld for Reality-TV Show Divorce: 'It Is His Show'

Did Jerry Seinfeld Call people asking if they wanted to buy soap ?
I remember being called and being asked if I wanted to buy soap and the voice sounded like Jerry Seinfeld. Can someone confirm or deny that Jerry did call people and asked them to buy soap as part of a social test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.106.9 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Polish/Ukrainian/Syrian
It has been said that Jerry's ancestry is a combination of Polish, Ukrainian, and Syrian. Is this correct?184.147.232.157 (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

this israeli bedouin looks similar to jerry seinfeld --87.68.243.47 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://up.arab-x.com/Mar12/nUQ30827.jpg
 * http://up.arab-x.com/Mar12/FBO30902.jpg

Scientology

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

This was deleted witht he edit summary "rm Self-reference and balancing WP:CK, see WP:RS WP:PSTS". the entry at List of Scientologists was also deleted. I'm not sure how Common knowledge fits into this, or really why this was deleted.  Will Beback   talk    23:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * For a time starting in 1977 Seinfeld was associated with, and defended, the Church of Scientology, but is now listed by The Globe and Mail as an "ex-member". He has denied ever being formally a member of the church, and has described himself at times, both on stage and off, as "not religious."
 * This article diff the content was removed since it was supported by Wikipedia Self-reference, and no reference at all, which both do not qualify  WP:RS.
 * list article diff Main source used to support the church membership is a book by Jerry Oppenheimer - is an author who has written several unauthorized biographies of public figures and interview in Playboy.
 * All I could dig up myself using Google News and Google books got tabloid controversy associated with my query.
 * Generally we need to think about WP:BLP, so maybe better references could be provided per WP:RS, see also WP:PSTS. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that self-sourcing isn't allowed, but we could easily copy the citations from the "List" article. I don't understand your assertion that the Oppenheimer book is not a reliable source simply because it's unauthorized and because he's done an interview with Playboy. Neither factor automatically make a biography unreliable.  The Washington Post is a well-respected newspaper and the subject himself admits to being involved with Scientology at one time. I don't see any sources which dispute his involvement, but we could add those if we find them. Overall, the claim that this material is inadequately sourced and violates WP:BLP seems spurious.    Will Beback    talk    23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree sources at the list should satisfy us, but those are weak. When interviewed by The Washington Post on his views of the Time magazine article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" that called Scientology a "ruthless global scam", Seinfeld said he felt it was "poor journalism" does not indicate anything about membership, though I could not dig The Washington Post exact quote, could you bring it? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've posted that text and the refs above. I don't know that Seinfeld's opinion of Time's article is particularly important. The biography by a major publisher does not seem like a week source. Is there a better biography?
 * Here are some excerpts from newspapers:
 * His wife "definitely" wears the trousers, he says, but then he describes how he dabbled in Scientology about 30 years ago and still uses some of their practical techniques for settling rows, each putting their side of the argument and then working it out, "keeping it rational", he says.
 * The richest comedian in the world is doing stand-up in a cheap dive. Now that's funny; He famously made his name, and a ton of money, with 'a show about nothing'. Where will he go next? Camilla Long hits New York with Jerry Seinfeld to find out ahead of his one-off British appearance. Sunday Times. London (UK): Mar 27, 2011.  pg. 14
 * ''Jerry Seinfeld: Says he dabbled in it when he was in his twenties and that it helped his stand-up act.'
 * SCIENTOLOGY'S FAMOUS FACES Anonymous. AM New York. New York, N.Y.: Feb 8, 2011. pg. 3, 1 pgs
 * The roll call of celebrities who have reportedly joined and then abandoned Scientology includes Nicole Kidman, Van Morrison and Jerry Seinfeld.
 * Oscar-winner quits Scientology over same-sex marriage stance: Haggis leaves group where 'gay-bashing is tolerated': Resignation letter claims 'disconnection' still used Xan Brooks. The Guardian. London (UK): Oct 27, 2009. pg. 22
 * ''Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has credited his Scientology faith for making him a better comic. [..] He told America's Parade that a high school teacher turned him onto Scientology almost 30 years ago. "It was interesting," he said. "Believe it or not...it's extremely intellectual and clinical in its approach to problem-solving, which really appealed to me." [..] "In my early years of stand-up, it was very helpful. I took a couple of courses. One of them was in communication, and I learned some things about communication that really got my act going. They (Scientologists) have a lot of very good technology. That's what really appealed to me about it. It's not faith-based. It's all technology. And I'm obsessed with technology."
 * Scientology helped Seinfeld in comedy career Anonymous. BreakingNews.ie. Cork: Oct 22, 2007.
 * In real life, Seinfeld, while he says he is not a member of the Church of Scientology, took pains during an interview to defend the controversial sect. He said he had taken Scientology courses years earlier and found them to be very "pragmatic" and helpful. He said he was "interested in Eastern religions generally," apparently thinking Scientology to be one of them. "I think the stuff I learned there really did help me a lot," he said. When reminded then that Time magazine had just run a cover story about Scientology that included charges it was a "thriving cult of greed and power" and a "ruthless global scam," Seinfeld scowled and dismissed the article as "poor journalism."
 * So Long, `Seinfeld.' Let Me Show You to the Door.; [FINAL Edition] Tom Shales. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Apr 16, 1998. pg. B.01
 * So he readily admits it in print.   Will Beback    talk    00:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, self admitting could be fun, see Jerry Seinfeld On Scientology: "It Was Very Helpful. I Took A Couple Of Courses", at The Huffington Post:
 * I bet it has something to do with Clip from Season 3 Episode 6:  Boy, those Scientologists. They can be pretty sensitive... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's no further objection I'll restore the material with the citations above.   Will Beback    talk    05:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still leaning towards non-inclusion, after reviewing the provided sources. Let's see what others think. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you think that this undisputed, well-sourced, neutral material should be deleted? If he said that he dabbled in "Jews for Jesus" at one time in his life, and if that fact were frequently mentioned in articles about him and about the group, would we also delete that?   Will Beback    talk    06:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AgadaUrbanit, the case for inclusion has been well-made, and there are some strange arguments against sources turning up here (we don't discount a book because the author has written lots of books, for example). I don't think you've made a good case under {{WP:RS]] for removal. Will would be right to restore the deleted material to this article and the list article. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} Based on this discussion I am restoring it to the list of scientologists, the arguments for inclusion are consistent with wikipedia's sourcing guidelines as well as WP:V and the text is supported by the sources as shown in this discussion. Additionally self identification is now necessary for claims of religious membership.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as WP:V goes per The Washington Post source kindly brought by User:Will Beback above: In real life, Seinfeld, ... he says he is not a member of the Church of Scientology.... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is what the material you deleted said - he's not currently a member.   Will Beback    talk    06:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see what you mean. However the extent of his involvement with Scientology and whether or not he was actually a member is not entirely clear. He admits taking courses. If we find his involvement worth mentioning, which I still not entirely convinced, I'd prefer MSNBC source wording Seinfeld admits he dabbled in Scientology coupled with Washington Post Seinfeld denies membership. My intention is to provide a fair reflection of reliable sources, inline with WP:BLP.  Jerry Oppenheimer book or Playboy  interview ( do we have a quote ?) still do not appear encyclopedic secondary sources, but more along lines of tabloid content. I would not mind if you open WP:RSN discussion on those sources, more eyeballs better.  In case Jerry Oppenheimer book is found reliable I'd recommend clear attribution: According to Jerry Oppenheimer ...,  According to Jerry Seinfeld ...  AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Playboy interviews are famous in journalism for their thoroughness. They are nothing like a tabloid in that respect. You've given no reason why the Oppenheimer book should be regarded as less than reliable. Could you please draft the text you'd like to see? in this article? Meanwhile, I'll restore the entry to the list, since that doesn't seem to be such a concern.   Will Beback    talk    20:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Playboy might as well be a solid encyclopedic material, I'm not an expert on this source. My issue with Oppenheimer book is that it is contradicted on membership point by other sources, not only by Seinfeld himself, but also by secondary sources. See for instance Jerry Seinfeld: Much Ado About Nothing By Josh Levine, page 19-20: "... not long after graduating from college, that Seinfeld enrolled in a couple of Scientology courses ... he took only those first courses and did not continue as a member afterwards ...". The Josh Levine book discusses the controversy in a context of Seinfeld <-> Roseanne Barr, Tom Arnold competition, which appears to evolve into food fight. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a significant difference in between the reputaiton of the authors, it doesn't make sense to argue, in essence, "Smith says X but Jones says Y, therefore Smith is wrong". In any case, the text at hand simply says:
 * For a time starting in 1977 Seinfeld was associated with, and defended, the Church of Scientology, but is now listed by The Globe and Mail as an "ex-member". He has denied ever being formally a member of the church, and has described himself at times, both on stage and off, as "not religious."''
 * It seems that Levine and the other sources, including Seinfeld's own comments, are sufficient to support that text. If you prefer we can change "associated with" to "dabbled in".    Will Beback    talk    07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds even more concise with associated and reflects the sources well. How about list inclusion considering secondary refs denial? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you post the text you're suggesting?   Will Beback    talk    00:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

{{od}} {{quotation|Seinfeld has admitted dabbling in Scientology when he was in his twenties. , though he has denied being a member of the church. The association was reviled to the public eye in 1992 by Roseanne Barr star of the sitcom Roseanne. }} {{reflist|close=1}} Feel free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which article is this for? Can you explain your deletions/changes?   Will Beback    talk    22:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is for Jerry Seinfeld, improvement of the current partial restoration providing concise reflection of sources. List article should be trimmed though, explained above. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the addition of the Roseanne material helps. More relevant material from the Levine book would be that he has defended his past and Scientology. If we want to say how his involvement has been received by others, we'd want to cast a wider net then just his authorized(?) biography. Otherwise the material looks fine to me.   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for review, Will. I'd suggest then cutting Levine's quote to The association was reviled to the public eye in 1992.. If we feel that there is need to expand, we can go into "I don't represent them in any way" - "he did feel compelled to denounce a cover story" duality on page 20.
 * I've been notified about BLPCAT discussion, WP:BLPCAT is quite clear that to be included in lists and categories "unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question" so we kill not only List of Scientologists entry but Category:Former Scientologists CAT also. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The BLPN discussion is ongoing, so let's wait to see how that turns out. I think it's stronger without the Roseanne bit, which sounds like we're hearing one side of a feud between them.   Will Beback    talk    22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a citation mistake. the text says "though he has denied being a member of the church" citing the Washington Post article. However he does not deny (nor admit) membership in that article. Is there another source we can use instead? Otherwise that assertion should be removed.   Will Beback    talk    22:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Levine, page 20 Seinfeld said to WP: I was never in the organization and I don't represent them in any way. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Can you correct the text: changing the citation and the assertion, "denied being a member of the church", to something more like, "said he was never in the organization"?   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is non-controversial I'll do it myself.   Will Beback    talk    12:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If he says he has done a few communication courses, but asserts that he never was a member, then per BLPCAT he should not be listed or categorised as an (ex-)Scientologist. Self-identification is the decisive criterion. -- JN 466  23:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sitting around stoned in the 70s along with a number of people we played with ouija boards, didn't make us spiritualists, devil worshippers, occultists, or even fans of the Father Brown stories by GK Chesterton. John lilburne (talk) 11:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself. I loved reading those Father Brown stories. I mentioned the case of the stolen fish knives, "The Queer Feet", to someone just the other day - it's a rare example of gait analysis in fiction.
 * Like with any article, let's reflect the best sources. If the subject says he took classes but didn't join then that's what the article should say. No big deal.    Will Beback    talk    11:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And the significance of not becoming a member is what? Some people invite Jehovah Witnesses in for an argument and a coffee, doesn't mean that we should include that in an encyclopaedic biography. Others may look at houses in Bucks but move to Herts, we wouldn't put in "Looked at a properties in High Wyckham, but decided to stay i n St Albans". So why this thing that didn't result in anything? One assumes that there are millions upon millions that never joined the Hubbardistas. John lilburne (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably better to avoid jocular terms like "Hubbardistas" when referring to followers of a religion.
 * People's faiths are an important, yet often very personal, matter. While location and even domicile are also important factors in a person's life, a person's spiritual path is very different than their real estate purchases. I don't think they can really be equated, except that they are both issues which should be covered as appropriate in biographies.   Will Beback    talk    11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Their non-faiths, and their non-houses? Maybe we can list that he isn't a Shinto priest, and doesn't live in Ulan Bator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? I don't think anyone has asserted that the subject has any connection to Shintoism. This thread is getting weird.   Will Beback    talk    00:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is because the driver (accepting any factoid that can be sourced as a viable entry) behind all of this is weird. Especially when it results in contemplating adding stuff about things that didn't happen. Back in the 1950s they'll have been plenty of RS of people declaring that they were NOT communists, would that be an appropriate for entry into their BLP? John lilburne (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend adding people who have denied still beating their wives as well  (Category: Former wife-beaters is clearly called for!)   The only person able to say what a person believes is ... that person.   Adding material to the contrary is quite against common sense and logic, but is found in far too many BLPs and other articles on Wikipedia.   Is there a battle line?  Then I am on the side of keeping such rot out of articles entirely.  Note the Donald Trump BLP has a long section on why he is not a Presbyterian, even though he belongs to a Presbyterian church, and calls himself a Presbyterian!   This is the future of Wikipedia?   Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To Lilburne, I don't see a problem with a hypothetical issue of reporting that someone who has denied being a communist, especially if the original accusation has been widely reported. Should we say to BLP subjects "It doesn't matter how often you've been accused, or how often you've denied it, or how many sources the matter has appeared in. We're not allowed to mention it because we can only report on the political affiliations which you acknowledge, not those you deny." I don't think that makes good sense.   Will Beback    talk    23:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A WP BLP shouldn't be thought of as the natural place that one comes to in order find out things that aren't true about someone. John lilburne (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the logical place to include the fact that a person has denied an association with is frequently quoted in mainstream media sources? We already include that in this article: are you suggesting deleting the denial and only including the controversy? That wouldn't make any sense.   Will Beback    talk    03:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the logical place ... Probably some debunking site (wikibunkum?) snopes seems to have most of it covered. I'll repeat who goes and reads a biography to find out things that have been said about the subject that are untrue? Perhaps you think that we should insert gerbil denial into the Gere article, or space lizards into all the POTUS articles (its gotta be true non have denied it). Perhaps we can add the OTTO story back into the Middleton article under the heading "Dog controversy" or "The dog that never was". The issue here is that bty repeating the crap the articles one is introducing the untruth about someone to people that probably never knew about it. John lilburne (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "The association was reviled to the public eye in 1992.", are you sure that's the word you meant to use? I know some people do revile Scientology (not in a neutral encyclopaedia though, surely!) but it sounds like an odd comment to include in the article. 87.254.66.133 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it enters the article here. Maybe "revealed" is the intended term. Bus stop (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Most intelligent people, like Jerry, try various self-improvement techniques. There is a wide spectrum that ranges from being opposed to something to being interested in trying something to trying it to being involved with it to becoming a spokesperson or a leader in it. Trying to pin down where a celebrity is on this spectrum is impossible from WP RSs such as newspaper articles, which reflect mostly the opinion of the individual journalist. The only good source for such a determination is the celebrity himself or herself. And even then their position on the spectrum may very well change over time. This may all seem obvious, but nevertheless we can get carried away with the technicalities of researching RSs, NOTE, etc., all of which may not be very relevant. You can call Jerry a Scientologist because he gave it a try for awhile. You can call him an ex-Scientologist because he let that go. I doubt he thinks of himself as either one. In addition, he is currently interested in practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique, according to that organization. Greta Garbo, Bob Dylan, and thousands of others tried Transcendental Meditation but didn't stick with it. So what? It's all relative, friends. It's not encyclopedic. Fixed, precise answers that will please everyone don't always exist. WP should understand this reality and add a policy that avoids such rigid pigeon-holing as membership in a general 'list of practitioners'. Otherwise, much time and energy is wasted in trying to determine something that simply cannot be determined. David Spector (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, today's cover story about Seinfeld in the New York Times Magazine quotes him in regard to his association with Scientology: “I took a couple classes in 1976.” TimidGuy (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
“Dennis Miller has called him "probably the greatest joke writer ever. ... I find interviews with Jerry to be about as illuminating as anybody in the culture. ... He's probably the funniest comedian of our generation."”

That may be the view of Dennis Miller (whoever that is), but my view is that Seinfeld has absolutely no sense of humor and that the show is one of the most inane human endeavors I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. ---Dagme (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 one external links on Jerry Seinfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101210063632/http://www.microsoft.com:80/windows/watchtheads/video/newfamily/ to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/watchtheads/video/newfamily/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150810061600/https://www.greater.com.au/ to http://www.greater.com.au
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150810061600/https://www.greater.com.au/ to http://www.greater.com.au
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100414005333/http://www.harpercollins.com:80/books/9780061251344/Deceptively_Delicious/index.aspx to http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780061251344/Deceptively_Delicious/index.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131010151510/http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Jerry_Seinfeld.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Jerry_Seinfeld.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130907043744/http://www.bienfaits-meditation.com:80/en/david_lynch_foundation/abcnews_jerry_seinfeld to http://www.bienfaits-meditation.com/en/david_lynch_foundation/abcnews_jerry_seinfeld
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100425053733/http://www.944fest.com:80/Media/Jerryskids.html to http://www.944fest.com/Media/Jerryskids.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

So much vandalism
I've just reviewed every edit over the past three weeks. I can see nothing constructive&mdash;other than RVVs, but some of the vandalism still remained. I'd appreciate another editor sanity-checking my revert. I've also requested pending changes protection ... richi (hello) 20:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jerry Seinfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040605175309/http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/100greatest/list.jhtml to http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/100greatest/list.jhtml
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ranker.com/list/comedy-central_s-100-greatest-standups-of-all-time-v1/celebrity-insider
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716221221/http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/AppleMovies/mov/jerrysteinfield.mov to http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/AppleMovies/mov/jerrysteinfield.mov

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jerry Seinfeld. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223132219/http://www.forbesautos.com/advice/toptens/billionaire/02-bill_gates.html to http://www.forbesautos.com/advice/toptens/billionaire/02-bill_gates.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

hungarian or rather ukrainian ancestry
If Kalman Seinfeld's father was born in Ivano-Frankivsk raion according to links, maybe it is more accurate to rephrase sentence from "hungarian jews" to "ukrainian jews" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.76.183 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Sale of Fake Porsche to the Car Collection section...
Under the car collection section of the article would it considered trivial or relevant to add info about lawsuit filed against Jerry Seinfeld after he sold a fake 1958 Porsche 356 A 1500 GS/GT Carrera Speedster at auction in Amelia Island, Florida to a company whose mechanics later confirmed that the car was fake. In response Seinfeld promised to refund the $1.5 million purchase price plus compensation but after weeks of no response from Seinfeld or his lawyers the buyers filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the Southern District of New York. I do have references to the news articles and I'm current looking on the court's website for a copy of the lawsuit paperwork. YborCityJohn (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Law & Order Cameo ?
Does anyone know if Jerry ever did an uncredited cameo on "Law & Order"? The specific episode was from 1990 titled "The Reapers Helper". The scene in question involved one of the detectives interviewing a witness/suspect. Detective on screen right, witness/suspect on screen left. In the background, but very noticable, is a person that could be Jerry's twin, leaning against a filing cabinet and watching the discussion like someone watching a tennis match. I about fell out of my chair when I saw it and need some confirmation please! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

How is something retrieved in 2007 and the article from 2012?
On source note 83 it says " "Jerry Seinfeld on Importance of Meditation for PTSD". ABC News. December 13, 2012. Archived from the original on September 7, 2013. Retrieved March 7, 2007. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.36.73.100 (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Already solved.Alexcalamaro (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Age when dating Shoshanna Lonstein
According to the cited source, the two of them met and were seen eating together when she was 17 and still in high school (and he was 38). He denies that they were officially dating then, but that seems like and important detail to include in the article Monkski23 (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What did his parents do for a living?
I find it very odd that this article makes no mention of what Jerry’s parents did for a living. Was his father a raincoat salesman like he was on the Seinfeld show? I assume that his mom never had a job, because most mothers in the 1950s were homemakers. Seinfeld429 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I just found out that Jerry’s (real-life) father was actually a sign painter. I remember that fact being in this article a few years ago. I wonder why it was deleted. Seinfeld429 (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

At the age of 16, he spent time volunteering in Kibbutz Sa'ar in Israel
In this young age he vould not be a voluntier. He was part of educating program. In this time they worked easy kobs snd study about israel with few trips. 2A02:3038:407:8F2B:81FB:FEA2:98D6:1866 (talk) 12:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Typo, or an I missing something?

 * On September 19, 2017, Netflix released the stand-up comedy special Jerry Before Seinfeld. It follows Seinfeld as he returns for a stand-up routine at the New York City comedy club Comic Strip Live, which started his career. It is intercut with documentary clips and his stand-up special.

Wait a minute—how can a special be intercut with itself? Is it possible this writer meant simply, "It is intercut with documentary clips", implying that the rest is footage of Seinfeld's performance that evening? Or are these "documentary clips" actually footage of the events surrounding that performance (rather than clips of, say, past performances, Seinfeld's childhood, etc.—which is what "documentary" would actually mean in this context, IMHO)? I have many other questions, most of which don't relate to this article or subject, but I'll hang up now and take my answer off the air. – AndyFielding (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Ridiculous wording"
How is He is best known for having played a semi-fictionalized version of himself ridiculous wording? I even added two sources that state this. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it ridiculous wording, but it can come across as non-neutral and/or presumptuous. I usually either take out the "best" or reword it. "He played a semi-fictionalized..." It doesn't, to me, seem worth arguing over "best". I'm assuming this is in the lead, in which case it should be a reasonable assumption that if it wasn't a big deal then we wouldn't be mentioning it in the lead in the first place. DonIago (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and it looks like I'm in the minority on this one. The IP never bothered to give any kind of clarification. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)