Talk:Benjamin Becker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Related to Boris Becker[edit]

Any relation to Boris?  David Kernow 21:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will make an addition to the page as such.
I added a sentence noting this, and it was promptly removed. I'm willing to discuss this topic here, rather than simply reverting the edit, but, come on, not relevant? Did you read the title of the ESPN article I cited? "Germany's Other B. Becker". As for all the other people he's not related to, they don't show up as "B. Becker" in the listing of players at Wimbledon. I, and I suspect lots of other people, saw "B. Becker" and wondered whether he is related to the other famous tennis player. What exactly is the disadvantage of including this information? Rks13 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first thing I thought of when I saw his name...is he related. I too made a small edit mentioning it in the article, but it seems there is at least one editor who is making it his prime objective to remove any mention of who he is NOT RELATED TO. I guess he does not get out much.Juve2000 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we think it's relevant to put on the article who he isn't related to just because they happen to share a profession and a last name, we've got a lot of work to do on the site updating all other similar scenarios.Thebof (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it is relevant, for the following reasons:
  • It is clear that many people think he is related, or are uncertain whether or not he is and therefore come to Wikipedia to check.
  • Several users have erroneously edited the article stating that he is related. Of course this isn't in itself a reason to explicitly state that he is not, but it does add weight to the first point above and would possibly give us less work in reverting such erroneous edits.
  • Many newspapers and other sources have included this as a relevant fact when discussing him.
Personally I view Wikipedia as a tool to (a) reflect other sources and (b) provide useful information to readers, rather than some pure "logical" view of things. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At last, a reasonable debate rather than edit wars. Point 1: If I was curious to know if two people were related and looked on Wikipedia to see if they were and found no mention of it, I would be happy they weren't related as if they were, the article would mention it rather than list people they aren't related to. See Novak Djokovic and his brothers for just one example.Thebof (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that supposes that Wikipedia is 100% accurate and follows all its rules to the letter and also that every person who comes here looking is aware of that fact. Some will correctly infer there is no relation from the absence of a note, others will not be sure and maybe go off to another site to check, while a few may conclude from its absence that he probably is related but we just happened not to mention it. A subset of this last category will then edit the page to state that he is related. Seems better to me just to mention the fact once and have done with it. This need not set a precedent for all other people in the same walk of life who share a name, but there are some cases where a lot of people will assume a relation and it doesn't hurt to clarify.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Amakuru, you've changed the article and said it's now consensus on the talk page when the only thing that's changed is comments from the two of us and nothing has been agreed. Logic there defies belief. I can't be bothered to keep changing it. As I stated earlier, there's some work to do updating lots of other articles where people with the same surname and profession aren't related.Thebof (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if you think I've acted out of line, but as far as I can tell you're the only person today who has suggested not including the fact that the two are not related, whereas myself and User:Zarcadia have both already reverted it to include the fact. And on the talk page above, there are three users who think it ought to be shown as well. Therefore it seems that the balance of opinion is currently in favour of inclusion, and until that changes it is logical to include the text. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, if the majority want it, then I'll leave it there. I'm all for democracy. My thoughts haven't changed though and I'll leave it at that.Thebof (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the statement does need to remain (and I'm not entirely convinced), then surely it shouldn't be in the lead? With all the things that Becker achieved in his career, devoting nearly 20% of his article summary to noting that he is unrelated to someone seems bizarre. danno_uk 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good point. The lead should only include facts that are stated elsewhere in the body of the article, and given the small size of the lead at present the "no relation to Boris" point isn't important enough to include there. I've started a new "early life and family" section which now houses it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had actually meant this more in relation to the entry on Boris's page (had both pages open and got a bit confused about which talk page this conversation was on!). I will make a similar amendment there and see what happens... danno_uk 16:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell he isn't related to Walter Becker, either. Or any of the other people at Becker, from which I learn that Howard Becker is a famous disambiguation page. -Ashley Pomeroy 20:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The page struck me as being written by someone from Becker's fan club, so I rewrote it to make it a little more neutral and to remove some less relevant information (his participation in the Davis Cup meeting against Croatia was especially important because Boris Becker launched his line of sports wear there? Really??). I also updated the information until the end of 2007. I'm still not happy with some bits, but it looks a little better to me now.Undyne (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Benjamin_Becker&oldid=1206214026"