Talk:Jon Finkel

Untitled
Some of the questions that need to be answered in this article:
 * A player of what? Golf? Tennis?
 * What do we mean by 'highly successful'? What has he won? Is there a ranking system?
 * Some basic biographical facts would be useful. When was he born? What nationality is he?

DJ Clayworth 15:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dating

 * I think there should be some mention of how he went on a date with a total BITCH. http://gizmodo.com/5833787/my-brief-okcupid-affair-with-a-world-champion-magic-the-gathering-player --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there shouldn't be. It's not important.   lifebaka ++ 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The date itself isn't important, and the attacks on his date are certainly inappropriate. The article that his date wrote, OTOH, generated enough media attention that it might arguably be noteworthy, obviously subject to WP:NPOV. MisterFancyPants (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't really call attempts to add it to Wikipedia "media attention". Media attention would be other news outlets running the story. Jay32183 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, like CBS? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20100604-501465.html98.206.218.218 (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * SNAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.58.18 (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the newsworthiness of the current coverage, I believe that his dating situation should be covered in an objective fashion. Such as "In August 2011, Finkel's name became mentioned in national media such as CBS News and the Washington Post after [the blogger] wrote a disparaging article describing a pair of dates and denounced Finkel for failing to mention his success and World Championships of his career on his OKCupid profle on Gizmodo. The resulting outpouring of popular public sentiment supporting Finkel for being unfairly maligned as a nerd captured widespread attention, interest spurred by changing American social norms regarding dating and the Internet." - Eli Kaplan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.100.188 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The "CBS News" (really a curated blog) article even says "This is typically a non-news item, except for the fact that it addresses social etiquette in an ever-evolving online culture." That tells me that its relevance is not so much to Finkel but to something like online etiquette.  Powers T 14:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disagree, a few blogs mentioning this non-event does not count as newsworthy. Aside from that, your synopsis is clearly not at all objective.  If you read the article, she does not "denounce" him she merely is disappointed by the fact that it was not mentioned.  And even then, she was upset only because she wouldnt have had to waste her time and his going on a date that she knew she wouldnt be interested in.  Nearly everyone in this discussion is too close to Magic, including myself (been playing since 1994). Its all a retailiatory and defensive response to something that all Magic: The Gathering players have faced our whole lives: mockery for enjoying a game that is almost as "geeky" as it gets.  Crying about it on an Encyclopedia is not what Wikipedia is about.  Go play on www.encyclopediadramatica.com if you want to talk trash. Also, please provide some sort of proof that the support of internet trolls somehow spurred the "changing american social norms regarding dating and the internet" you speak of.  Frankly, nobody gives a crap about two dates between a shallow woman and a nerdy card playing world champion. People arent saying "man, since that whole thing with that blogger and Jon Finkel, I am SO much more careful about online dating" Let it go.  Do not include this self-aggrandizing bullcrap in the article. 68.37.178.94 (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never played Magic, think it's lame as fuck so I'm not biased by it. While that suggested wording is off, this has been covered by Forbes and the Washington Post which is frankly far more notable than winning a Pokemon tournament. The fact she publicly outed his identity (including links to this article), on a geeky website no less, is a very interesting part of the story. He's received a ton of public support. Hell, a Playboy Playmate of the Year offered to go on a date with him! It's fair to say that more people know of this guy BECAUSE of this incident (I know I do) so to not include it is, to use your word, bullcrap. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The date is not more notable than his championship or his hall of fame status. If those things weren't already true, her article would not have gotten any attention at all. The thing about this type of issue is that it seems significant right now because people won't shut up about it. In a few months, no one will care. People who want to read a biography about Jon Finkel, won't care that this is missing. The good sources bringing this up aren't about the date, they're about her article. So just as Powers suggested, if this is included in Wikipedia, it's significance is not to Jon Finkel, but to online etiquette. Jay32183 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Never played Magic. In fact, I'd barely heard of it and hadn't heard of Jon Finkel until I heard this story. However, that said, I just did a Google News search on "Jon Finkel". 16 of the first 19 hits are about this event. It's been covered on Forbes, the Washington Post, CBS. If Finkel is notable at all then without question the dating thing should be mentioned, even if just briefly. I fail to see any rationale whatsoever for not including it. Robinr22 (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you completely miss my point. None of those places would have covered this story if he weren't already famous. A random girl talks about a random guy online and nobody cares. A random girl talks about some one who already has a fan base, the fan base cares, but not for long. This is being made into a news story because people want it to be a news story, not because it is newsworthy. Since the sources don't allow for more than a single sentence, it isn't significant. Jay32183 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A passing reference to the fact that the incident was so widely reported would probably be worth adding. A "single sentence", like you say the sources merit, would be about right - something like "In 2011, an article about several dates Finkel had been on was picked up by Forbes, The Washington Post and CBS, evoking comments from actress Felicia Day and Playboy model Sara Jean Underwood" seems to encapsulate things. It's not like we're desperately trying to cut down on a massively bloated article here, content would be nice, and another event to point to for notability wouldn't hurt given the history of Magic players being nominated at AfD. GRAPPLE   X  02:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jay32183 - You are correct that I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that, if Finkel wasn't famous, this incident wouldn't be reported on? That is entirely true but that is not the test for whether something should be included. For example, both the David Beckham and Ryan Giggs articles includes a section on their alleged extra-marital affairs. These would be entirely insignificant and would never have been reported if it wasn't for the fact that both the individuals involved are famous. The test here is not whether you personally think the information should be included. As long as the information is presented in a neutral manner, is verifiable and does not constitute original research then it doesn't cause any problems in Biographies_of_living_persons and is safe to include. The only possible issue is whether the entire article itself is notable. If it is then it seems absurd to say that what is probably the most widely reported incident involving Finkel shouldn't be included. The sentence suggested by Grapple X seems suitable and should be included. Robinr22 (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a huge difference with the extra-marital affairs of others. Sources allow for more than a single sentence. If all you can get is a single sentence it is insignificant. Wikipedia would look stupid by including it. People wanting to research Jon Finkel years from now will not care about this issue. It has very little impact on his life or his significance. This is the type of stuff you should want to avoid. Jay32183 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that I still don't agree. None of the issues that you mention are in any way relevant to whether the information should be included. It's not about whether it is relevant to him or whether it has any impact on his life (though I would wager that this kind of publicity would be very significant) or whether anyone will care about it in ten years time. I don't think anyone will care about the fact that he is a hedge fund manager either but that is in there. This is the only reason that I have ever heard of him. A Reddit comment thread started by him on precisely this issue recieved 4,500 comments. There are articles in Forbes, The Washington Post and CBS among others talking specifically about this issue. It has recieved far more widespread coverage than the fact that he is a Magic world champion. Wikipedia policies exist on this type of issue so as to provide consistency. Based on what you have said, I can see no reason at all why a simple sentence referring to this issue can't be included. Can you provide any reasoning based on Wikipedia policies as to why this information should not be included? If not, then I will insert the sentence above. Robinr22 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you agree as long as you never add the information to the article. It does not matter how many sources cover it, because they all say the exact same thing, which is nothing. We have no meaningful content. We can get one sentence that does not contribute to anyone's understanding of Jon Finkel. Wikipedia does not include all information that can be found on the internet. Just because you didn't hear about him before this doesn't mean that this is the most significant information concerning the topic. It means you weren't paying attention to this type of information. The information is not relevant to this article, it's tangentially connected. Adding the article makes the article stupid. Keep the article intelligent. If you want to talk about stupid things, start a blog and stay away from encyclopedias. Jay32183 (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm doing my best to be reasonable here but I have to point out that it isn't up to you to be the sole arbitor of what goes in this article, especially not on the grounds that the suggested edit is "stupid". That said, in terms of my request that you provide some supporting arguments based on wikipedia policies so that I can get a better understanding of your objection, I take it your response is no? Am I right in thinking that if I, or any other editor, add this information then you will simply revert it without further discussion? If that is the case then I think it best to get some additional opinions to try and establish a consensus and avoid an edit war. I will submit a request for comment on the appropriate noticeboard.Robinr22 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be necessary. There seems a clear consent. I'll find the sources and add it now. GRAPPLE   X  03:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been following this discussion since the beginning, but couldn't really make up my mind on where I stand. Now that GrappleX's sentence is in the article I feel it is quite hollow although I liked it when s/he first suggested it. It doesn't really convey anything meaningful, though. What does it tell us? "Finkel has to come to the attention of CBS/Felicia Day etc. because he dated somebody". What does that say about Finkel? Nothing?! In my opinion it is okay to have that kind of information in the article, but it would probably helpful to add a second sentence to enlighten the reader what this was all about. Why did CBS etc found it worth mentioning? This might in turn give the reader some clue why it is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. OdinFK (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It literally amazes me the amount of brain cells wasted discussing someones date on wikipedia, where the only reason attention is here is via failblog on the interwebs; http://dating.failblog.org/2011/09/14/dating-fails-poor-man-finkel/ 80.192.22.60 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There's been attention from major media outlets, all more notable than Failblog. Odin, we don't write why we think a media outlet covered anything, that's WP:OR, POV and frankly irrelevant.  They covered it, and they're not Steve Blog-O-Rama. The question is "Is this notable?"  The fact that it's more notable than him being a Magic The Gathering champion (The Washington Post never wrote a story about that, far as I'm aware) or a hedge fund manager. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. Of course I don't think we should take a look into our crystal ball to divine why CBS found it worth mentioning. Actually the paragraph about the incident was changed and right now I think it is perfectly fine. It's not just  CBS took an interest>, but just enough to give the reader an idea what this was about. OdinFK (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, I've removed the paragraph about this story. While it might have brought Finkel's name to the attention of many people who hadn't heard of him before, and received brief coverage from major news organisations, it really doesn't add anything to the article: the 'story', such as it is, is utterly trivial. It might possibly belong in the Gizmodo article (since they're the real subject of the coverage), but is it a significant event in Finkel's life or career? I don't think so. Robofish (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still very much against this. It is trivial. We don't add trivia to Wikipedia, which is part of Wikipedia policy. Although we shouldn't need a policy. "It's stupid and meaningless, but it's not against the rules" is a horrible way to add content. I can't see why people are having trouble understanding that. I understand everything that the people arguing for adding it are saying, and they are outright wrong on every point. Jay32183 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be frank, this just screams WP:JDLI to me. The inclusion of a widely-circulated news item about the man, which concerns him centrally, and is sourced to undeniably reliable sources and therefore passes WP:V with flying colours, should not be disputed this much. Numbers suggest that inclusion is desired, and verifiability and relevance are both satisfied. As a result, I can't see any logical reason to remove it beyond "I don't like it". GRAPPLE   X  23:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I haven't seen a single argument that actually makes a case to remove it based on anything other than "It's stupid and trivial", which aren't really good reasons, even if you accept that it is stupid and trivial, which I don't. Incidentally, @Jay32183 Wikipedia:Trivia doesn't say that you can't include things that could be considered trivia, just that they shouldn't be presented as lists of miscellaneous information.Robinr22 (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Team Pantheon
Luis Scott-Vargas's article has a section on Team ChannelFireball. Would it make sense to have a section on the Pantheon here? Jon is more or less the captain of Team Pantheon after all. OdinFK (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. I've mentioned Team Pantheon a few times in various career sections of pro player articles, and it would be nice to have a page to point towards. Yet it occurs less natural to me to include that in this article than LSV and Team ChannelFireball, and I seem to recollect Finkel saying he wouldn't continue to go to all the PTs going forward, which would, I think, make his Wiki article a less ideal place to add a Team Pantheon section. I can't remember where I read/heard this though; it might have been this podcast, but I'll have to listen to it again to be sure. Hahahopp (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Listened to it again, and that wasn't it. I did find where I'd read it, though; it was this article on a Swedish website (from December '14). His response to question #12 can be roughly translated to "The plan is to only go to the PTs I really want to go to. After this season, that probably means about one PT every other year". Hahahopp (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)