Talk:Sacha Baron Cohen/Archive 2

He settled the case with the palestinian[edit]

Someone should hammer Cohen with a proper note of these events. From what I have heard, he misrepresented him, the location they were meeting in, and even mistranslated his words, in the film Bruno. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.35.74.164 (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persian descent is general knowledge[edit]

Just Google mother of Iranian descent, Borat Baron Cohen and see the thousands of "sources"...all fed from WIKI that is based on the contribution of someone dedicated to highlighted people of Iranian heritage.

Amazing, how like a bacteria in a petri dish, this bit of "info" has grown into a colony.

And, why is it interesting that his anscestor are Iranian..Iranian (Parsim) are not so exotic in Israel. We have them here a dime a dozen. Yemenites are just as exotic..as are Ethiopian, Bulgarians, Tunisians, Ukranians...

You name it ....we got it!

But, sadfully, Baron Cohen is just anothe Vuz Vuz (Ashkenazi.European Jew)..who like all of us..would like some authentic mid east blood in our veins..(and we probably do..some place) 212.150.13.15 14:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Persian descent to the page, and I've also referenced it, I believe the reference is strong enough, its on yahoo-movies. So I hope all the controversy ends here, as we all know that his mom is of Persian descent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havashavas1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many Persian Jews there are in Israel? His mother could very well be a Mizrahi... Gamer112 (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not limited to wiki: guardian.co.uk, yahoo movies...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.209.98 (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki-copying Guardian reference has been discussed ad nauseum. Yahoo Movies isn't a reliable source. Aside from that, there's the fact that his mother's parents are German Jews, not Persian Jews, so aside from being unsourced, it isn't factually correct. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 03:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that out about his mother's parents? Can you cite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.209.98 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to an Israeli mom of Iranian heritage is in more than just one article. The article clearly needs to be updated to reflect a partial Iranian heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.188.185.139 (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noam or Noel?[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about his name on the main article.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.55.18 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i heard it is Noam, not Noel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.230.127.167 (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs[edit]

As the source doesn't mention it, and Baron Cohen seems not to have any of the usual academic qualifications required for being a quant (at least a masters in maths, physics, engineering etc.), I have removed the phrase

as a quantitative analyst specialising in index arbitrage

from the sentence mentioning Baron Cohen's time at Goldman Sachs. Soobrickay (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist[edit]

This probably isnt the place, but I find it strange the lack of mention that Borat's character can be in some ways trying to reinforce islamohobia. In kazakhstan there is perhaps one of the more liberal islamic-linked countries, and the primordial 'untersmech' he portrays them as does nothing to improve the impression that ignorant people recieve about muslims and their culture. What Borat shows is disgusting and does not take place in Kazakhstan (although admittedly there may be some anti-semitism, as there often is racism between Jews and muslims at the moment). My point being, isnt it quite clear that Cohen is making a disgustingly racist and unfounded caricature of muslims or at least slavs/arabs, no better than any of the anti-semitism shown in the film, he is no better than that he tries to 'educate' us about, as he is definetly not 'educating' us about decent everyday muslim Kazakstanis. I am just wondering if I am the only one why this racism isnt explored in detail in the article. BTW parts of the film I did find funny, mainly the ignorance of some of the people Borat questiosn, however portrayal of innocent people as 'dangerous islamic sub-humans' dosent really go far to supporting Cohen's anti-bigotry line. If a muslim or anyone at all had tried this showing a Jew as an antiChristian or anti-muslim, there would be hell to pay rest assured.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am dyselxic if your wondering about any spelling issues.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to do, you'll have to find reliable sources to put it in. See WP:RS. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you are COMPLETELY missing the point of Borat, it is simply to make people laugh, it is in no way and was never supposed to be educational. Anyone that says otherwise (including Cohen/his producers) are just trying to dodge legal troubles/put Borat in the wrong light.RaseaC (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RaseaC, I think you are missing the point. It's about making Sascha Baron Cohen and all the people involved in the film making, as well as the film company itself, rich. They know that by making an audience laugh, latter one forgets how much money they're shoving up Sascha's place where the sun doesn't shine. Sascha is an upperclass sociopath. He doesn't care about the people he's humiliating. He gets all the fame and even more money. The audience gets blinded by looking up to him, forgetting about his victims that are/were left with no money, but humiliation. These victims get lynched on the streets or at their job, so they end up at a psychiatrist. And then people wonder why there's so much unemployment and why the costs of health care and taxes are rising? For being a jew, he should know where he's coming from and what it is like to be stigmatized. You better show Sascha the middle finger and care about his victims. Because once you are his victim, be aware you can't sue him or the film company as the fascist judges have shown. Guest Account (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And nobody point to his sparse charity work because if he really did give a shit he'd unload half of his income. He hardly works for a living, anyway.

For that matter, nobody making over 10 mil a year does. 207.210.29.71 (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borat, as is made plain in the movie, is not a Muslim. BTW, less than half of Kazakhstan is Muslim: Russian orthodox is more common.Ordinary Person (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rant[edit]

you people are all clowns. who cares if he's iranian, european, or whatever else? and why is he referred to as a jewish british comedian instead of simply a british comedian? is chris farley a catholic american comedian? yes, cohen's jewish heritage plays a role in his act, but i think the fact that he's jewish is blatantly overstated throughout this article. from reading the arguments on this talk page it seems as though some editors are intent on shoving the fact of his jewish heritage down the reader's throat and personally i think it takes away from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.143.47 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source that Cohen's mom is a persian jew[edit]

It's here. Or is that not good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not good enough, first because there is doubt about the source of this information - see extensive discussions on this talk page and in the archives. Second, even if it were a useable source, all it would show is that Baron Cohen's mother is a descendant of Persians. That is not the same thing saying that she is Persian, let alone that Sacha Baron Cohen is Persian. It is definitely not a source that would justify adding Category:Persian Jews to this article. He is clearly not Persian. Gwernol 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it OK to say that his father is of Welsh descent, but not that his mother is of Persian descent? Here is another link ("I'm feeling lucky" search for "sacha baron cohen ethnicity"). Also, I have read most of the discussions, but none of them have really been agreed upon.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are not saying he is of Persian descent you are saying that he is Persian, which is different. We have a reliable and undisputed source that says his father is Welsh. We have one disputed source that says his mother is of Persian descent - it doesn't say how far back that Persian ancestry is. We have exactly zero sources that say Baron Cohen is himself Persian. Gwernol 19:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Because you are not saying he is of Persian descent...". No, I am saying he is of persian descent. I would argue that the mentioned sources are reliable. You might want to see nndb.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are trying to add the Category:Persian Jews, not the Category:Jews of Persian descent, so you are trying to say he is Persian. The nndb source is directly taken from the yahoo source. Gwernol 19:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was before. If you read the title of the topic, it says "Reliable source that Cohen's mom is a persian jew" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.115.203 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a source not taken directly directly from the yahoo page.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there appears to be a problem with using the Guardian newspaper, usually a reliable source, as a reference (as seen in the enormous bulks of discussion above), then why would anyone think that a random internet website with no credited author and no cited sources would be reliable? (And that description includes the NNDB; btw, see what Jimmy Wales had to say about the NNDB, [1]). Aside from that, the Wikipedia article cites a Times Online article from 2007 that explicitly states that Baron Cohen's maternal grandmother was from Germany.[2] All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, whatever, I'm not going to waste my time arguing.--75.164.115.203 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! Here it's another source where you can see that his mother is of Iranian heritage : http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/29/film.media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.51.169 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Wiki-copying 2006 Guardian article has been discussed here (and in the discussion archives), for a long, long time. It will likely continue to be brought up well into 2015 or so, unless Baron Cohen falls into obscurity sooner. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independent/Forbes/Guardian articles mentioning Goldman Sachs[edit]

It should be noted that apparently a journalist or journalists used potentially incorrect information presented in this article as a source for their article. As a result, please do not use these Independent/Forbes/Guardian articles as references for a career at Goldman Sachs:

{{cite news | publisher=Forbes | url=http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1990387.ece | title= Baron Cohen comes out of character to defend Borat | date= [[02 October]], [[2007]] | accessdate=2007-12-18}}
{{cite news | publisher=The Guardian | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/02/usnews.useconomy | title= The Wall Street wizards find gold in these ills | date= [[17 November]], [[2006]] | accessdate=2007-04-10}}

— X S G 17:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any verifiable sources to attest to this fact? Wikipedia can't use original research and the Guardian is a respectable source. 24.196.229.149 (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have no qualifications to be talking about Cohen's employment history. They did so anyway, without providing even the least bit of evidence for their claims. It's a reasonable assumption to assume these references are no good. --- RockMFR 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot is running a story today saying it was a circular reference. The info entered Wikipedia in November 2006 via an anonymous editor. British papers apparently used Wikipedia to write the stories then a year later those articles were used as refs in Wikipedia. The Slashdot story is http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/19/1452244 and cites http://techdebug.com/blog/2008/04/19/wikipedia-article-creates-circular-references/ -Colfer2 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's covered under WP:COMMON. Wikipedia was edited to include a reference saying that Sacha Baron Cohen worked at Goldman Sachs. This was quickly edited out, as it has no factual basis; within days of the edit, however, a newspaper article came out mentioning that Sacha Baron Cohen worked at Goldman Sachs. Occam's Razor and common sense would indicate that the journalist in question relied on Wikipedia for his research. Just because it's mentioned in a respectable source doesn't mean it's true. Bcdm (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it stated repeatedly, here and on Slashdot, that the Independent article of November 18, 2006 used Wikipedia as a reference. Apart from the circumstance that both say Cohen worked briefly at Goldman Sachs and the Wikipedia edit comes first, what evidence is there to this effect?

It would seem an unusual practice, to say the least, for a reputable newspaper, and I'm not impressed by use here and on Slashdot of the qualifiers "apparently" that then go on to be ignored as the writer and subsequent writers treat the assumption as established fact and go on to criticise the newspaper.

I think it's time to step back and ask: what evidence to those making these serious claims have to support them? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article does not assert that, and is now free of any claim about Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Pretty obviously it was a joke on his name Sachs, and a follow-up joke by JP Morgan employees. As for British journalism, it has many strengths, but most UK newspapers are not edited the same way as US newspapers and magazines, e.g. with fact checkers. Instead, they are author-driven. Anyway, the article seems OK now? -Colfer2 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems OK now, but don't use those newspaper articles in this article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have another speculative claim to deal with: that the original claim in this article "Pretty obviously it was a joke on his name Sachs, and a follow-up joke by JP Morgan employees." If one is trying to argue that our articles are supposed to be based on fact, it ill becomes one to make stuff up like this. We won't get to the bottom of this matter while people are still making things up like this. Don't claim that it was a joke unless you know it was a joke. Don't claim that the Independent or Guardian articles used this article as their sole source unless you know this to be the case. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Talk page, not an article. It does not have to be encyclopedic. (I made that comment.) -Colfer2 (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that we won't get anywhere closer to the truth if, in discussing the article, we make stuff up. We may not have to be "encyclopedic", but it would help if we didn't engage in idle guesswork and pass it off as fact on this page. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make it up, I pointed out the similarity in the names, in case others had not noticed that aspect of the situation, and the ensuing sequence of events. You can judge for yourself whether you find it important. -Colfer2 (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't make it up - I did. I had never thought of the link between his name and Goldman Sachs as a joke. But for those of us simple enough to see, it stares us in the face. I fully expected my change to be corrected immediately. It was perhaps six months later when I checked back, and to my delight found that not only was my joke still there, it was referenced by a major newspaper. Sweet. The weirdest thing is, even though I know deep down that all this came from my imagination, the JP Morgan thing and the Guardian article threw me into wondering if it was not perhaps true after all. Too bad no newspapers also quoted him as having been in the Artist's Rifles... An SAS unit... Haha. Lighten up guys. It was a joke alright. But so is Sacha Baron Cohen. In any case, neither he nor Goldman Sachs have ever confirmed or denied his having been employed there.216.9.247.67 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives[edit]

I've cleaned up the header templates, and archived all the pre-2008 content. Feel free to unarchive anything that might still be useful or remains unaddressed, or add any further content to the archive. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News july 9th 2008 can an editor maybe include this?[edit]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0708081bruno1.html

Could someone incorporate this into the article. It just came out today! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.134.154 (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borat character[edit]

"The drunken boys in the camper van tried sueing(sp?) Baron Cohen because they claim they were guaranteed (after filming) that the film would not be shown in America - they lost their case and girlfriends!!"

This passage of text struck really odd to me, but I'm not used to editing articles. Should it just be removed? (Photodeus (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Also, there needs to be more detail in the article about Borat's roles in the Ali G TV shows.--MartinUK (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary[edit]

I just want to let everyone know that I made a mistake with my edit summary. I accidentally wrote "I saw the arguements on the talk page. The thing I'm adding doesn't say his mother IS Jewish; it says that some sources say she is" but I meant to say "I saw the arguements on the talk page. The thing I'm adding doesn't say his mother IS of Iranian Heritage; it says that some sources say she is". I got "Iranian" and "Jewish" mixed up; I wasn't trying to deceive anybody. Sorry.--Parthian Scribe (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Is there a photo of him available that doesn't cut off the top of his head? 206.21.167.48 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Bruno.jpg[edit]

The image File:Bruno.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language correction[edit]

I removed the statement that he speaks Polish in "Borat", because he merely repeats a very bad pronounced "yagshemash" ("how are you?", or rather "ha-a-ya"). It is like claiming that he speaks Japanese whenever he screems out "Ta da!" - the same level of irrevelance. Merewyn (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supergreg in early career?[edit]

I see no mention of Cohen portraying the viral-video character Supergreg - should we add it? Max.inglis (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

Since Baron Cohen's father and grandfather were Welsh, and his mother an Israeli living in Wales, why is he described as an 'English' comedian? ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 22:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it back to English. You seem to be not able to tell the difference between nationality/ethnicity. And anyway, no broad consensus was reached for it to be changed, you're also bias as a Welsh nationalist. So, you're "Opinion" is bias and in direct violation of NPOV.--Hawklin (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong on two counts. I am not, and have never been, a Welsh nationalist and I resent your implication that I edit with any sort of agenda in mind. (If I was I would surely have changed his nationality to 'Welsh' not 'British'.)

I live in England, have an English wife, and consider ny children to have dual heritage. That is because nationality is determined not by place of birth, but by parentage. Joanna Lumley and Sir Cliff Richard were both born in India. Do you now propose changing their nationality from English to Indian? I have reverted your edit. ♦ Jongleur¹⁰⁰ ♦ ^talk 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still need Consensus before making any such edits, Jongleur100. Hawklin, please remain civil. Continue to revert (Both of you) like this and you will violate 3RR and I will report you both. Honestly, I don't have the time or patience for this shit when i am very hung over. Good day.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CON and WP:CIVIL.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What rubbish are you speaking of, parentage and ancestry has nothing to do with nationality, it is solely due to self-choosing, what the person identifies with. Someone growing up in Ireland for their life and describing themselves as Irish but with English Parents is Irish, not English, not British, IRISH. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity[edit]

"A number of shill companies and Web sites have been created in order to draw potential interviewees into interviews by creating an illusion of legitimacy."

I have no idea what this sentence means. Can someone explain, and then rewrite it so that makes some sense? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sentence but I don't see what its place there is for it in this section. The term 'shill' is also non-NPOV when you can easily say dummy, front or "shell" (as in the referenced source) in its place. Seems like someone doesn't like his tactics. I think I'll edit the Bruno section - do we really need a movie and character section? It is also fairly disjointed in its flow. Max.inglis (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also wouldn't it make more sense to have the big characters in the career section in chronological order instead of alphbetical? Max.inglis (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rove[edit]

Under the "TV, radio and magazine appearances" section there is a sentence that reads:

Baron Cohne also featured Rove! on the 28th of June, 2009.

this is true, however he was in his Bruno character and this sentence implies that he was out of character.

Can someone fix this?Wikiyeswikino (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstani[edit]

This page, as at 5th July 2009, includes the word 'Kazakhstani'. Surely this should be Kazakh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.59.74 (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies Middle Section[edit]

In the Controversies section there is a paragraph in the middle of a long list of bulleted points. It breaks up the bullets and doesn't seem to fit in where it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.169.231 (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up Family section[edit]

The Family section was a mess of distracting and unnecessary citations. Wikipedia policy is that "controversial" content requires sourcing. I've not seen any controversy in this Talk page about routine information in this section. I also removed peacock terms like "acclaimed and "renowned". Sourced or not, use of these is discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. J M Rice (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just "controversial" material requires citations. Are you kidding? Taking a look at any member of WP:FA (featured articles) and you'll see citations everywhere. One of the criteria of a good or featured article is citations. All Hallow's (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, are you kidding? Featured articles do NOT have footnotes at every statement of fact. No, you do NOT see footnotes on routine information that hasn't been challenged. The policy is "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" (Wikipedia:Verifiability) Footnotes are NOT necessary here. Do not revert my edit again. Please note the Three-revert rule J M Rice (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not revert my edit again"? What? You really expect me to let you delete every single reference from an entire section? Why would anyone want to do that? As WP:V says, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"; WP:V certainly does not say that anything that isn't "contentious" - a highly debateable term - should not be sourced. Everything that isn't glaringly obvious should have a reference backing it up, especially in a WP:BLP. I honestly can not believe I even have to argue about this with someone. Literally, that is unbelievable to me. BTW, if you think some of the references repeat each other, I suppose you could remove some, but every piece of information should be referenced at least once. All Hallow's (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Citing Sources, which is a style guideline approaching policy, states fairly clearly that "Since per WP:V each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable, at the editor's discretion it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired to affirm the statements made." Other portions of that guideline and the WP:Verifiability policy make clear that providing citations to demonstrate the verifiability of every claim made in an article is considered beneficial. (Although there is, I believe, a working consensus that it is not necessary/appropriate to reference claims made in summary form in the lede when those claims are properly referenced when set forth in the more detailed discussion in the body of an article.) While there often are legitimate differences of opinion over whether certainly claims have been excessively referenced, there is certainly no support in relevant policy or guideline for removing legitimate citations entirely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Citing references" sometimes consists of providing some source to justify inappropriate "peacock terms" by attempting to attribute quotes published by some overheated reviewer or gushing tabloid reporter. IMHO, the removal of the peacock terms, good. Removal of citations for the biographical/genealogy information in the "family" section, not so good. If the genealogical information in this section is left unreferenced, it might be questioned (at this talk page or elsewhere) as "controversial content" for that very reason. The sources are quite necessary, if this information is to be retained. It seems to me that if the genealogy discussion in the text is objectionable, then that very different topic should be discussed, rather than arguing over whether the cites for that discussion need to be removed. Steveozone (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I only objected to the removal of the citations themselves, not to removal of "peacock terms" or any other edits. The citation-removal was the only part I reverted. All Hallow's (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I AGF'd that you AGF'd, and I still do. I'll also still AGF regarding the removal of sources (edits that were ultimately reverted), although it would be easier if those edits had been distinct from the "peacock problem," with a separate edit summary. Perhaps the two distinct types of edits should have been done separately, rather than in one edit under a broad justification. The controversy might not have been prevented, but at least it would have been focused. Steveozone (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While "non-controversial" content may not necessarily need references, if they're already there, there are few reasons to remove them. One valid reason might be to reduce "stacked" refs, such as the five refs for "dancer". Except perhaps for the Sun, they seem like reasonable sources, but perhaps a couple of those could be used to reference something else in the article? Gimmetrow 04:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

"prompting Eminem to exit the venue with fellow rappers D12 (staged as a malfunction, Eminem was in on the gag with Cohen and even rehearsed it, as exposed about a week after the show)."

Needs a little tidying up

Sacha's family are not observant Jews[edit]

The article makes reference to Sacha and his parents being observant Jews. The term "observant Jew" usually implies that the person observes or at the very least, has respect for the Torah and Rabbinic commandments of Orthodox Judaism. Sacha's family associates themselves with some type of reform Judaism that does not insist on any observance.

To illustrate my point, it would be obvious to any observant Jew that Jewish Law expressly forbids a Cohen (a Jew from the priestly family of Aaron, brother of Moses) from marrying a convert!

(see Leviticus 21:14, Maimonides' Laws of Forbidden Relations 18:3, and Talmud Kiddushin 78a)

To call Sacha's parents "observant" when they have (according to the article) given their blessing to a marriage which is forbidden by Jewish Law is truly ridiculous.

Please review the use of the word "observant". It is simply not true

First, no, Reform does not insist on a specific level of observance. However, one can be the most observant Jew possible and still attend a Reform temple. You don't have to be Orthodox to be observant. Period. Second, having a surname of "Cohen" does not necessarily mean he's a Cohen. Shocking, but true. Third, any and all of this is going to have to be backed up by reliable sources. The fact that his observant parents blessed it is sourced. The information you've presented here is not. --13² 13:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. 13² is absolutely right. P.D. (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree the author of this thread is mistaken. Here's my $.02:

1) True, his last name is Cohen. But you can read the wonderful wiki page about the Kohenim and it explains perfectly that this last name does not necessarily mean they are from the priest class. Furthermore, even an observant Kohen may choose to marry a convert and forego his son keeping the Kohen status. Him marrying a convert says nothing about a lack of observance. Quite the opposite--a non-observant Jew may not require his spouse to take up the faith.

2) On NPR, in an interview with Terry Gross, Cohen explains that he is not Orthodox but he does keep kosher and observe the sabbath to a degree when he is home with his family. To me, that would qualify someone as observant. There's not much more to this term than literally what it means--someone who observes Judaism to some degree. It in no way implies that they are orthodox. Usually it means they aren't--otherwise they would probably take the title of "orthodox" as opposed to "observant." Also, and I may be wrong here, but I do believe that he had some extensive Jewish schooling in England.

In any case, it's safe to say that Sasha Baron Cohen is an observant Jew, and that his family is observant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Accipio Mitis Frux (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stop removing the citation needed tag unless you can provide source[edit]

The paragraph that reads "He said at the time that Borat could not make it to the awards as 'he is at a conference in Iran at the moment,' referring to the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust. Baron Cohen also referred to that same Iranian conference as a "holocaust denial conference", saying that Borat was the "guest of honour" and jokingly describing it as a "very important conference" is unsourced. I have tagged it as needing a citation, however someone keeps removing the tag. don't remove the tag unless you can provide a source, in fact, someone removing it raises questions as to why they have a problem with someone flagging it. Please stop doing this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.84.250 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind showing me a diff of when this was removed? I can't seem to find it. Whoever removed it, at the very least, needs be given a short message letting them know not to do it. --13² 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew name[edit]

Why is Cohen's (unreferenced) Hebrew name in the lead line of the intro? He is not an Israeli and doesn't appear to be a regular Hebrew speaker. Wouldn't it be more appropriate in the Background section? — AjaxSmack 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Removing the Hebrew name now. Kuragin (talk)

I think the article should say, "Baron Cohen is Jewish", rather than what it presently says, that "His family is Jewish." The source presently in place supports that he is Jewish. I find this wording in the source presently in place: "Brought up in an Orthodox Jewish family by a Welsh father and an Israeli-born mother, Baron Cohen remains a devout Jew and his fiancée, the film star, Isla Fisher, is to convert to Judaism before they are married." Bus stop (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV, radio and magazine appearances[edit]

Why does this section include his appearances in Madagascar, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street?Ordinary Person (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Married[edit]

Sacha Baron Choen and Isla Fisher were recently married in a intimate ceremony. It was a traditional Jewish ceremony that occurred in Paris on March 15, 2010. This small intimate affair took place in front of a small number of close relatives. Fisher shared the news with others through email the next day expressing apologies by stating that she was thinking of everyone who was not present and that she and Sacha ultimately wanted the wedding to be "just us!".

Sacha and Isla also have a two year old daughter named Olive.

^[1]

References

^ http://omg.yahoo.com/news/sacha-baron-cohen-and-isla-fisher-get-married/37847

He belonged to this apparently,interesting[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habonim_Dror —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.230.45 (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of double-barreled surname?[edit]

I have been trying (so far in vain) to find any source for him having an actual double-barreled name. Does anyone have proof that his father (and previous generations) used the double-barreled "Baron Cohen" as their surname before Sacha became famous? Other sources have claimed that "Sacha" "Noam" and "Baron" are his given names, and that "Cohen" alone is actually his surname. His father may have simply been known as "Gerald Cohen", so calling him "Gerald Baron Cohen" as if it was a given first name and a double-barreled surname may be a retronym, recently converting his given middle name into the first half of a surname. Double-barrel surnames almost always are the result of marriage, so a "Cohen" back there somewhere would have to have married someone with the surname "Baron", and the name established then. Anyone know? Bricology (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering that his first cousin Simon Baron-Cohen was publishing articles with the family name Baron-Cohen when Sacha was still in secondary school (1985), I think we can safely conclude one member of his family was using the surname long before Sacha became famous. I guess it's possible Sacha received the given name Baron and family name Cohen while his cousi ns and probably his brother had the family name Baron Cohen but that seems a bit far fetched. More likely any sources which claim Baron is a given name have no idea what they're talking about and didn't do the most basic of research so should be ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether or not his cousin was using such a name; one doesn't receive one's surname from a cousin, but from one's parents. That is the issue at hand. Under "Early life", it states "His paternal grandfather, Morris Cohen, who was from Pontypridd, Wales, had added 'Baron' to his surname." To support this claim, two references are cited. The first is to an earlier edition of Marquis' Who's who in Finance and Industry, but a search of Marquis' website brings up no such name, and a Google search of "Morris Baron Cohen" returns only 8 hits, all but one having to do with the "Morris Baron Cohen Ethiopian Fund", apparently a recent formation. The second reference makes no mention at all of his grandfather's surname being "Baron Cohen", other than this: "A spokesman for the store said: 'The Baron Cohens have owned the shop for many, many years.'" Consequently, someone either needs to properly source the claim or remove it. That's the way WP works. Bricology (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi or Sephardic?[edit]

Is Sacha Ashkenazi or Sepharade? --KpoT (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested to know his origin too. I refer to the Israeli side. Does anybody know anything pre-paternal? His father is clearly a Jew from Israel but may he himself have been Czech? Polish? German? Romanian? Hungarian? Ukrainian? Russian? Or may he have been a sabra (Israeli born). Even so, there would have to be some external origin from before the 1880s. Evlekis (Евлекис) 23:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His ancestry is Ashkenazi. His paternal grandfather, Morris Cohen, was a Welsh Jew. He was born in Wales to Annie and Isaac Cohen, Jewish immigrants from Poland. I can't quite place the parentage of his paternal grandmother, Miriam Nichelby/Nicholsby/Nichelsky (spelt three different ways in three different places), but it sounds Ashkenazi. His father was born in London, England, in 1932, under the name Gerald Cohen. The "Baron" wasn't added until later. His mother is the daughter of Hans Weiser and his wife Lizel. They were German Jews. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to lede[edit]

Please discuss why you think it is "better grammar" or indeed why any changes are necessary to a well-written, concise lede. If you make the changes again without discussion, this could well be considered edit warring. The onus is upon you to explain the changes that you would like to make and get consensus for them. Replacing "He" in the second sentence with "Baron Cohen" is not better grammar, it is needless repetition of his name where the pronoun "he" avoids this. Also your changes to the wikilinks mean that people can no longer click on the Oscar and Golden Globe links to read about the ceremonies themselves, which could be of interest to people outside of America, who are not necessarily aware of the history and tradition of theses two award ceremonies. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who made the change without discussing... so please don't edit war. Overuse of words like "he" is not acceptable in formal writing. As for the links, ~~I will restore them~~ I see that they have already been restored. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're wrong all down the line. The changes were made by an IP,[3] and I simply undid them,[4] as it did nothing to improve the lede, and as I pointed out above, stops people from clicking on the links Golden Globes and Oscars. You have insisted on putting that material back (BOLD) and I have reverted as you have so far not explained why "it's better grammar", Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not an academic journal or scientific paper (so not "formal writing"), there is no overuse of "he" either, the lede goes SBC, he, SBC, he etc., please take a look at Johnny Depp and note the use of "he" to avoid repetition of Depp's name.

I see from your talk page that you seem to have a rather 'confrontational' style of editing which has already resulted in several blocks, this notice informs you that you need to discuss and not continually revert if you are unhappy with the content. Whilst wishing to assume good faith, I will report you immediately to ANI if you insist on adding back the changes initially made by the IP as I have better things to do on WP than to be at loggerheads with "I didn't hear that" editors. Oh, and the lede and the Bruno sections are copyvios (all I've had time to check for now), so need to be rewritten anyway. It would be a bit pointless getting into a wrangle over stuff that needs to change anyway. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sacha Baron Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Sacha Baron Cohen. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://omg.yahoo.com/news/sacha-baron-cohen-and-isla-fisher-get-married/37847

[1]