Talk:Reuben Sturman

Reefer Madness

Schlosser details Sturman's success and demise in great detail in his book Reefer Madness. Much more detail could be added to this article using such source.Rokor 19:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that the book covers most of the article content right now?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish-American"

WP:MOSBIO has been brought up as a reason to remove the very relevant introduction of Sturman as a Jewish-American, and while squabbling over guidelines I can't see how it motivates the removal since it only says:

The opening paragraph should give:

...

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.)

Interpreting non-specifications as if they shouldn't be around at all is to me inappropriate. As Sturman was a son of Russian Jews I feel it's relevant to write "Jewish-American" in the lead and I don't feel the MoS should be used as a deterrant to remove it. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a moot court.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The WP:MOSBIO is NOT "non-specifications" as you state. It is a pretty solid guidline so we avoid this kind of bias. State the persons NATIONALITY in the header and MOVE on. If you want to talk about the guys ethnicity and Jewishness, feel free to do so ad nauseum but NOT in the lead header. Why is this hard to grasp?? hmmmm?? --Tom 14:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm. What bias would that be? Pointing out that people are Jewish? Do you know anything about Sturman other than what you've read here? And most importantly: why are you so hell-bent on keeping the fact that he was Jewish out of the lead? Please motivate your standpoint instead of repeating it over and over and implying that I'm stupid because I don't agree with it.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I know you aren't suppose to feed the trolls but here goes....I never said you were stupid, just asked what your agenda was. Biographies don't include ethnicity in the header, only nationality, period. I don't know this guy Sturman from a hole in the ground and don't want to know him. My agenda is to stop people with an agenda in here. Any third party will read this thread and then we'll see where the chips might land. Anyways, please put Jewish-American back, no wait, let me...--Tom 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's not common practice to put ethnicity in biographical articles and I understand the reasons for it, but I feel that adding a "Jewish-Somethingorother" is a valid exception due to the complex nature of having a Jewish identity. It's pretty similar to how you might describe ethnic groups that don't really have a rather self-evident nationality like Norwegians or Italians.

And thank you, Tom. I hope other contributors will weigh in with their views on this matter.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is your agenda??

Why is it SO important to label ANYONE as XX-American?? I'll assume good faith and ask you to look at EVERY other biography on Wikipedia. Please point out ANY other one so I can go edit it. Thanks --Tom 14:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Jews invented the concept of the hyphenated-American.

There's no proscription against it and there's absolutely no harm in telling it. Being described as "Jewish" is no less relevant in this case because Sturman was very careful about stressing his Jewish heritage. It's every bit as relevant as pointing out that he was American.

I see from your talkpage that this isn't the first time you're at odds with users about details that you for one reason or another disagree with. Please revert your changes or show that you have some form of consensus for your info removal. I can only see an overly strict interpretation of guidelines so far.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, I put back Jewish-American...--Tom 17:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Doc Johnson into this article

• I vote yes. By itself, an article about a company that produces sex toys is, to me, worthy of deletion. Doc Johnson is only noteworthy because of its connection to Reuben Sturman, so I think it should be part of this article. Robotman1974 02:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. If we have articles about objects in sci-fi series, we can certainly have articles about reasonably notable sex toy companies. The valid reason to redirect it in this case would be because there's not enough content. Peter ^Isotalo 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link to Doc Johnson because it's a link to a site which sells products not any information

63.26.120.10 (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)eric

Playboy

According to this article, Reuben distributed more magazines than Playboy in the late '60s?174.89.103.174 (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reuben Sturman. 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/20070101002138/http://www.reviewjournal.com:80/lvrj_home/1997/Oct-29-Wed-1997/news/6322832.html to http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Oct-29-Wed-1997/news/6322832.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)