Talk:Sacha Baron Cohen

Useless Link?

(http://www.brunomovie.tv/) This link does not have anything to do with the movie, seems as if someone just made this to get ad revenues. The blogs are fake, and it seems whoever made it wants to seem as if he is from the movie production staff. Since I don't do much editing, I will ask others to do it? 74.229.85.148 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cohen is hilarious... to homosexuals

The other 90% of humanity who are straight are, putting it mildly, not impressed with this loose cannon on deck!

I guess you have to be "savvy" to homosexual culture to get his jokes, or even find him amusing. 71.253.143.114 14:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You're logical....to ignorant bigots.

Really? I guess that includes 68% of my state, who definitely view homosexual agenda as a threat, and voted so last tuesday... 70.105.45.145 21:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

68% of your state does not equal 90% of humanity.

90 % of humanity... STRAIGHT!!!??? Please, don't make me laugh, despite of that, sexuality doesn't matter.

I don't find him funny at all... -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 07:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

include Persian descent

Why does the intro refer to him only as Jewish/British when he is also half Persian. His relgion is Jewish but his ethnicity is English, (father), and Iranian, (mother).Dariush4444 14:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true, his ethnicity is neither Persian nor English, but Jewish (Ashkenazi). As for the whole Persian thing, it seems to have been created on Wikipedia and then spread over to the Guardian's article. I'll fix up the early life section and source as best as possible. Mad Jack 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sasha's mother is not of Iranian descent. Ethnicity is a key part of Baron Cohen's schtick..so maybe it should be addressed...but in the case of Sasha facts are more important than fiction..so. Sasha's maternal grandmother, while of dark complexion was born in Frankfurt Germany to German Jewish Parents, Grandparents, etc. Sasha's maternal grandfather was Hans, was also German born. I have a copy of the family tree on the maternal grandmother's side going back a number of generations..No Iranians there.

Do you have a source? Mad Jack 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also a Persian Jew, and when people ask me my ethnicity, I say Persian, and when they ask my religion, I say Jewish. Are you sure that he is not of any Persian ethnicity? I have seen it on many other sites, and he does bear a striking resemblance in facial features to me and my cousins, who are of Persian Jewish descent.

He also bears a striking resemblance to Roberto Benigni, maybe his ethnicity is Italian then? 2 things. 1 - Persian Jews are not Persian ethnically. They are Mizrahi. It's a distinct ethnic group, just like Russian Jews are Ashkenazi ethnically. #2 - Baron Cohen is not Persian Jewish, much less Persian. It's something that someone, probably Persian Jewish himself or herself, added to Wikipedia a long time ago. As of August 2006, no online sources mentioned anything about his mother's family being from Iran and it was removed, although again restored by an anon user with no source. Then, as of roughly September, October, November, several sources on the web mentioned the whole Persian Jewish thing - using the exact same wording as Wikipedia, of course, and no doubt having no other source than Wikipedia. It's a classic example of why uncited content should be removed immediately from Wikipedia. If not, Wikipedia invents a piece of information, spreads it around the net, and then when needed, can simply cite a website that used Wikipedia as a source and say "See, we were right after all!". I have no doubt that the person who gave a detailed geneology and said Cohen's mother is of German Jewish origin is completely correct. But of course, those happy go lucky editors who valiantly restored the "Persian Jew"ish thing can now point me to the Guardian profile that uses the exact same wording as Wikipedia did and say they have a reliable source. Mad Jack 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Madjack, you obviously know nothing about geneology and race. Persian Jews ethnicity and culture is Persian, and their race is Iranian. They are not semetic. All of the genetic testing on Persian Jews have shown that they identical to other Persians. There is no such thing as the "mizrahi" race. Mizrahi, refers to any Jew from the east.

The website that we linked to was evidence that his mother is of Persian origin. There is no proof that they cited wikipedia. It is from an independent media source. It is a well known fact in Israel that he has Persian origin. You are obviously not Israeli or you would know this. You need to stop vandalizing the page because it is against Wikipedia's regulations. Also, dont try your racial propoganda with me because my major in uni was near eastern history and I can assure you Persian Jews are exactly the same as their muslim counter parts.Dariush4444 03:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Im from Israel and its pretty common knowledge Cohens whole Iranian origins. And that guardian article is from before it was posted on Wikipedia, and i highly doubt that the Guardian would use Wikipedia as a source when they write.

Persian Jews are Mizrahi Jews, which are, of course, Semites (read up our article!), one of the Jewish sub-ethnicities. The Guardian article, which uses the exact same wording as our Wikipedia article did, was from September, months after the information was on Wikipedia. You will not find a single reliable source that predates Wikipedia. "Well known in Israel" is not a reliable source. What are the Israeli sources that ever stated his mother's family being from Iran? That's what you would need to cite. You've also (predictably!) deleted that his mother is from Israel, a fact that DOES pre-date Wikipedia and can be reliably cited. As for NNDB, that is not a reliable source. Mad Jack 03:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Years of genetic testing on Iran's Jewish community has proved that Persian Jews are NOT semetic any more. Their ethnicity was exactly the same as other Iranians. This is scientific fact, not POV propoganda that you are posting. Dont try to pass your opinion as fact, this is an encylopedia not a political platform....Your source is not reliable or acceptable therefore I will keep editing the post as for as long as required.Dariush4444 04:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you will. No doubt about it. Wikipedia invented this and now we are going to keep enforcing it in. Just great. I blame this on myself, frankly. When I demanded a source in August I shouldn't have been scared off by this and should have kept demanding an actual reliable source. But I was too stupid to. I didn't think the media would use Wikipedia and pick up on this, and now of course, they have, so we've become our own source. Mad Jack 04:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

guys no need to have an entire arguement over this. its not an issue of whether Cohen is a Mizrahi Jew or another kind of Jew, the fact is he is Jewish and his mother is Israel of Iranian origins, just like about half a million other Israelis who are of Iranian origin. Brad32 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not even arguing about that, since that has nothing to do with this article. What I am saying is that the poster that says his mother is 100% German Jewish in origin (see [1] [2] ) is almost certainly correct, and that Wikipedia invented this "Persian Jewish" thing in regards to Cohen, and that I am a dumbass because I didn't remove it from Wikipedia back when there was no source for it (as I could and should have), because now all these articles that copy Wikipedia's info have sprung up and we've invented our own source. Mad Jack 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont mean to be offensive in any way when i say this, but the Guardian is definately NOT going to use Wikipedia as a source. So unless proven otherwise, just let it go for now. I dont see any legitimate evidence that Cohens mother is of German heritage, and you certainly dont get someone looking like Cohen from a mix of German and Welsh parents. So unless the poster has hard proof that his mother is German, than lets leave it.Brad32 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? (regarding his looks) Obviously an 100% Ashkenazi Jew like Cohen can look like that or even darker. How about Jon Lovitz? The Guardian mention is brief and at the bottom of a larger article that does not mention it.[3] It says exactly what Wikipedia had there for months: "Born

October 13 1971, second child, grew up in Hampstead Garden Suburb, north London. His Welsh father, Gerald, runs a menswear shop and his mother, Daniella, is an Israeli of Iranian heritage. Two brothers." The older Guardian article (now cited) - an actual interview with Cohen from February 2002 - goes into a little detail about Cohen's mother but does not mention anything about her being Iranian. Mad Jack 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I remember noone had the Iranian or Persian thing on here before that article. But the Guardian article is still one article more than any proof of a German origin with his mother. So so long as there is no hard proof of a German background, than it should stay as it is. Brad32 04:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article is dated September 29, 2006. This is the September 21st version of this Wikipedia article. The text is nearly identical to the Guardian article published a week later. "Baron Cohen[2] was born into a middle-class Jewish family, the second of three sons of Gerald and Daniella Baron Cohen . His father owns a menswear shop in Piccadilly and is originally from Wales, while his mother is a native Israeli of Iranian heritage." What I am saying is that we should just leave "A native of Israel" in the article. I am not proposing that we add in that her ancestry is German Jewish just as I am saying that we should not include the Persian info because it is almost certainly false and the only sources we have for it are either mirror sites of Wikipedia or sources that almost obviously took their info from here. Mad Jack 04:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My goodness. Is there any particular reason that you're so militant about this? the Guardian is NOT going to use Wikipedia as a source, no legitimate newspaper or website or anyone would. And as other posters have pointed out, its pretty common knowledge in Israel that his family are of Iranian origins, in fact it would be impossible for any family to be of pure Israeli origin as it is a country of immigrants. Im not sure if you have some agenda but i really dont understand why you are being so adament about their being no reference to his Iranian origin. Just let it go until that member comes up with a source that he is in fact German.Brad32 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can tell that the Guardian's one-liner at the bottom of their page is nearly identical to the sentence we had on Wikiepdia. You'd be surprised that reliable sources do indeed use Wikipedia, especially when they have no reason to believe it is inaccurate. What is this "common knowledge"? If it's such "common knowledge" in Israel, where is the source for it? A single Israeli paper (which are available in English) that mentions it? I am militant about this because I am sick, sick, sick, sick, sick of information starting on Wikipedia, then making its way around the net and then coming back here as a reliable source, which is obviously the case here. I am also mad at myself for being such an idiot and not removing the Persian Jew stuff from this page in August, when no source could have been cited for it. If I had done so, as I should have, then we wouldn't be having this conversation because neither the Guardian nor any other paper would have ever reported it, pure and simple. What I am now trying to do is stop patently false information from continuing to be spread. Mad Jack 04:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the article in the Guardian and it's pretty clear that they paraphrased the Wikipedia entry. They did what I do for essays sometimes: they pasted what was in the entry and then moved words around and merged two sentences. If you look at the history of the entry leading up to the date of the article, you can see that the wording of the entry was more similar to that of the article around a week before it was written than at any time before that, suggesting that what was in the Guardian article came from the Wikipedia entry (if it hadn't come from the Wikipedia entry, the probability of the entry's looking most like the article around the time of the article's publication would be pretty low). I think his mother's half should just be left at Israeli. Jeremy Peter Green 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

An article in the Guardian is "proof"? No, it is a source that can and should be checked. I spoke to Sasha's grandmother to check if MAYBE there is an Iranian Jew or non-Jew on her husbands side of the family. No..Her husband was born in Leipzig Germany to two Eastern European Jews..whose background was very European, based on their blond coloring. They have no record of any oriental blood...except the tradtion, which many German Jews liked to believe in, that they date back to Jews who fled the Spanish Inquisition, or have old Yemenite ties.

Maybe the local historian of Ronshausen Germany, the small town where Sasha's hailed from, will put some info on the web..and then we will have a 'real' source...

Now, I just wait for Borat to come to Israel....212.199.119.26 21:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a Persian Jew, and please trust me when I say that I am of Persian ethnicity (with some strains of Jewish no doubt ofcourse). I know that there are some similarities between Persian and Jewish features, but he seems to lean toward a Persian face. To me, he looks nothing like Roberto Begnini. Although I am a main culprit of profiling, I think we should search for some proof or go into questioning Sasha Baron Cohen himself about whether he is of Persian or German ancestry so we can settle it once and for all.

You guys have done a great job, there is definitely room for investigation regarding this matter. However you have not convinced me that the Guardian and yahoo and everyone else took their source from wikipedia. Even though that might be the case until it’s proven we can not throw out sources that have been proven to be reliable. Even though you guys might think this is a case of self citation of false information (and rightly so) ad hominem and appeal to majority are not going to help your argument. Just because the guy who added the Persian thing vandalized some other article it doesnt make the Persian addition wrong. It does however, give you a reason to question his edits but it doesn’t mean everything he has posted is wrong. Also just because you and probably a lot of other people think the guardian and yahoo got it wrong it doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You need some sort of proof. I already know his mom’s half Persian, this is a well known fact in Israel. I also hope they confront him about it so this issue can be settled for good. However until you guys know for sure that the guardian and yahoo and any other reliable source took their info from wikipedia you can not take out the Persian part out. 11:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)~~

I dont understand why madjack has such a problem with Cohen's Persian heritage. Are you really that racist? What exactly do you have against Persian-Jews? I just dont understand, there is so much evidence that says he is half Persian, yet you still try and deny the facts!74.108.66.84 00:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's racist. He actually has a good reason for his belief which I believe he should investigate. But until he does and gets some sort of proof (Which I know he can't cus sacha's mother IS of Persian heritage) he shouldn't take the Persian out. Klymen 20:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am vicious racist, according to various Wikipedia users at various times. According to these users, I hate Persians, Armenians, Irish, Italian, Romanians, Jews, English, WASPy Americans, Canadians, Catholics, Asians, Muslims, Greeks, Polish... (Gee, where does that leave me??? Maybe a Martian) In fact, every time I come around and remove some ethnicity piece because it's either factually incorrect, is in the header of the article when it shouln't be according to WP:MOSBIO, or simply can not be sourced, I get the usual accusations from whichever Wikipedia representative who "protects" the articles of whichever group, etc. Ethnic pride is a serious thing on Wikipedia, and downplaying it is a hard, though sometimes fun, job. In this case, I kinda ended up screwing myself by not being harsher in August and removing the information then. Now, as a reward, I get reliable sources which, on a daily basis, replicate Wikipedia's info and are then used as sources. And how do you know that his mother "IS of Persian heritage"? Did Kristy Scott respond to your e-mail? Also, can someone explain to me what this whole "common knowledge" thing in Israel that his mother is "of Persian heritage"? How is this common knowledge transmitted or expressed? Has it been expressed in a reliable source before September 29th? In fact, can anyone find a single reliable source pre-dating September 29th that mentions anything Iranian or Persian about his background? Betcha you can't.... :-) Mad Jack 08:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, it seems I can't investigate much more as nothing is out there! A recent Rolling Stone interview mentioned his 91 year old Israeli grandmother, though of course they did not say she was Persian, which they probably would have had that been the case. No reliable sources pre-dating September 29th went into his mother's background - probably because being of German Jewish origin in Israel isn't particularly exotic. Oh, well... I know one day some reporter or profiler will go into details or ask him if he speaks Persian, and then this conversation can be over in a mili-second and the mistake can be set right. Mad Jack 08:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing Cohen article

Please stop vandalizing this article. You are not the grand arbitrator of what is and is and is not a reliable source. And Yahoo Biographies is quite reliable regardless of YOUR POV and baseless speculation. Besides Cohen's Persian background was reported on CNN as well as the G4 program "The Feed" Reverting. --Mehrhad123 Nov 11,2006

PERSIAN DESCENT IS GENERAL KNOWLEDGE=

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)

Racist comments

The article states, that the audience booed at him, and indicated that the reason for this is, that the audience does not know his humor. This is not an NPOV comment, since people may boo at racist comments, no matter if they are made as humor or not, and no matter if he is jewish himself or not. I think this should be corrected in the article, but since I haven't been following the article's edits myself, I'd like some of you guys who know the article better, to do it. Dybdahl 19:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe his deal is a method of comedy, not sure correct term is, that makes fun of the racist and the racist thoughts within the mind of the audience. Sarah Silverman does this as well. People are laughing at the jew joke or the black joke but they are also laughing at the person laughing at the racist joke and in many cases this is the same person. --Gbleem 20:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is factually incorrect. In his MTV appearance introducing Gnarls Barkley, Cohen commented that his new movie has "discussions about politics for adults, and even some jokes about jews for the children," but he was not booed. I watched the original broadcast and the audience actually laughed and applauded. MTV pulled the intro from subsequent broadcasts (presumably because they deemed it too risque, especially the part about Jessica Simpson's vagina), but this youtube clip affirms that the "racist" joke was actually well received: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ylqf7hqiiQ&mode=related&search=

Youth Education

It's no accident that Sacha Baron Cohen is so successful, even at a very young age he was turning heads -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/03/09/ncohen09.xml=

Sweet Julie

"and is engaged to Australian model-actress Isla Fisher, even though she is not his sweet Julie that he has often referred to."

This makes me laugh but might be better in the funny page or whatever you call it.

More seriously its Ali_G of course that refers to "sweet Juile" and not S.B.C. --212.159.12.139 18:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Racist

Borat Character: This is reverse racism. Every muslim must find this character extremely offensive. Mr Cohen being Jewish should be more sensitive to this but then again he probably already knows this. Very clever. He obviously thinks he is much smarter than the average audience member. People wake up!!

Bruno Character:This is again reverse racism. Jewish man creates situation comedy from a Nazi gay Austrian character. It is streotypying Austrian's and by inference Germans as somehow still all Nazi. This is emphazised by the fact the character is gay. I am sure they must find this deeply offensive. We are in the European Union. Surely there are laws against this type of obvious racist humour.

Oh for God's sake sign your damn posts. Your comments make little sense and reveal more about you that they do about your complaint. You are obviously not Muslim, or you would have spelled that correctly, so how can you state that "every muslim [sic] must find this character extremely offensive"? Have you checked with the Islamic community? Have you even asked a Muslim? You are in no position to speak about what is "extremely offensive" to a community to which you do not belong. The leaps of logic required to follow your comments about the Bruno character are absurd. He is "stereotypying" [sic] "Austrian's" [sic]? By inference this also stereotypes Germans? This is emphasized by the fact that the character is gay? I correct myself: there is no logic here, at all. What is a stereotypical Austrian (given Austria's position as a continental crossroads, I don't think there is such a stereotype)? The Nazis exterminated homosexuals along with Jews and Catholics and Gypsies, among others. How on earth does "the fact the character is gay" have anything whatever to do with German Nazi stereotypes? It certainly does not emphasize any of your imagined stereotypical aspects, and the fact that the character is depicted with other non-stereotypical Germans and Austrians (and others) defeats your claim that Baron Cohen is stereotyping "Germans as somehow still all Nazi". He is depicting a single individual, not a nation or an ethnicity. Then, again, you refer to the "offended" party in the third person. Your umbrage seems to be based on some assumed role as the protector of other ethnic groups to which you do not belong. This attitude seems to me condescending at best, and racist at worst. How dare you accuse someone of reverse racism when you yourself are expressing racist patterns of thought? I think, sir or madam, that you are a troll. Just because you don't "get" the joke doesn't mean that no one else does, and hardly qualifies you as an authority on ethnically based satire. You don't like it? Stop watching it. Leave the broadcasting of opinions to someone with an informed opinion.

And lastly: talk pages are for the discussion of the article itself, not for the posting of opinions about the subject of the article, idle speculation, or chat. Canonblack 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do I begin? - answer to above comment

Borat character - Muslims have to find Borat offensive - see link | Baron Cohen to be sued by Kazakhstan

Bruno character - Please always bear in mind Cohen is Jewish. His viewpoint and the historic prism he looks through must start there. This character clearly arises from the holocaust during WWII and Cohens motives for its creation are obvious. The links between the Austrian and German cultures are well documented. As we have brought up WWII, which is exactly what Cohen wants to do, around 60% of Waffen-SS members were non-German, many were Austrians! Hitler, an Austrian, tried to exterminate homosexuals so its ironic the character is a homosexual. It was a deliberate move to make the character a homosexual as this creates a juxtaposition. These elements help as pointers as to how we should view the character when we hear the Nazi comments the character makes. The reverse racism is emphasized through the irony of the character being gay. Without the homosexual element I doubt this character would have the same impact but it is still a racist characterization. It has no place in our modern world and bears no relationship with modern Austria or the new unified Germany or their peoples.

Guys please… come on. This guy is a comedian (and a fine one in my opinion), not a hate monger. Comedy is a form of art, take it as is. Why do people waste energy bitching about stuff like this? I’ll never know. Besides, why isn't anyone bitching about "Ali G" being racist or sterotypical? White wanna be rapper? Hmmm... Typhoid Orchid 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

not true, u urself said said he is a "fine comidian" so y dis him in sayin that bout 1 of his charaters?

Strange. The unsigned poster has simply expressed my hunch: Baron Cohen is a Jewish chauvinist who stereotypically caricatures traditional Jewish "enemies" (Muslims, with a touch of Stalin-another Judeophobe- flavor & Germans/Austrians). I dont care much for this kind of comedy, but when I saw a few pieces I instantly felt that something was wrong with this kind of humor. I'd say it's just-how to put it ?- aggressive Jewish nationalist propaganda, in the guise of irreverent mockery, against "historical" (real and imagined) "enemies" of the Jewish people. A few good outrageous gags, but they boil down to ethnic/nationalist stereotyping. Mir Harven 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat is Muslim? Really? Where did you find that? Cohen is making fun of people's ignorance. He's done that with all his creations. If you are scared by it, chances are you're in his target demographic :) Dave420 15:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat is not explicitly a muslim, but the character comes from Kazakhstan, where muslims are a strong majority. So this is a strong subliminal message to the people it's aimed at... other with the same racist views. Which underlines this the most is that Baron Cohen's earlier characters, similar to Borat, was from Albania, another country with a majority of muslims.

Okay, AnonyPoster, straight from Borat's MySpace page:

Religion: I follow the Hawk

So he's some kind of pagan or animist; that is to say, NOT FRIGGIN' MUSLIM! Besides, Borat's Kazakhstan bears little relationship to the real country, so why should its religion be any different? Cohen most likely chose Kazakhstan because most people know nothing about the country and he could therefore project any image he wanted, NOT because he's out to get Muslims. You need to stop taking offense for groups you don't represent, learn a thing or two about arguing logically, start signing your posts, and get over yourself. --Funkmistress 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, and Ali G wasn't a sort of quasi-Paki-by -association: something suppresed later by inventing a faux-Scottish ancestry ? That's a good trait of a surrealist comedy: you can fool people, get your message through, and later claim it didn't happen at all. They claimed to have seen-mistakenly- what was rubbed on their noses. Mir Harven 00:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A few facts are in order. First of all, Muslims are NOT a majority in Kazakhstan. They make up 47% of the population, making them the largest religious group, though closely followed by Russian Orthodox (44%). To suggest that making fun of a Kazakh is automatically making fun of Muslims--that's like saying that making fun of an American is automatically making fun of Catholics (who constitute the largest religious group on U.S. soil). It's a non sequitur. There is nothing indicating that Borat is a Muslim. He never identifies as a Muslim or performs any Islamic practice. On the contrary, when the racist rodeo guy in the film tells Borat he should shave his mustache so he won't be mistaken for a Muslim (also a non sequitur), Borat doesn't take offense or try to correct the guy; he nods in agreement! What kind of Muslim would do that?

Of course, Borat doesn't identify as Christian, either, and in the film he appears to "convert" during his encounter with the Pentecostals. But this isn't because he was originally Muslim. Borat doesn't seem to have any "original" religion. Or, we should say, the movie and show never deal with that aspect of Borat's background. You can speculate that he's pagan or atheistic or whatever, but I think the larger point is that this is all besides the point, since Borat is simply not a fully fleshed out character. He's not supposed to be.

The movie's rodeo scene exposes anti-Islamic and anti-Arab bigotry in much the same way that other scenes expose anti-Semitism. So much for the claim that Cohen's routine is pro-Jewish but anti-Islamic. marbeh raglaim 21:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably laughed twice while watching this idiotic film, which in my opinion was along the lines of the film, "Jackass". I really did not think it was funny when he suggested that the nice Jewish couple had turned into cockroaches and he felt he had to throw money at them in order to keep the elderly Jewish couple from murdering him and his friend. That was disgusting. Or, that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. That kind of trash feeds on the subconcious of conspiracy-oriented people who believe that may have been possible. Please don't tell me to relax and laugh because the nonsense that Cohen spewed was exactly the same junk that the Nazis used to promote that ended up with the Holocaust. Yeah, for some, it's all funny until people start getting killed because of callous and hateful words.

Nevertheless, my biggest issue with the "Borat" film is how he manipulated people into spewing anti-Semitic garbage. Yes, he lowered the guard of his victims by pretending to dislike Jews, but through his edits, we don't really know how far he had to go in order to achieve his goal. Some people by nature will not disagree with someone simply to be polite. For those that made anti-Semitic comments beyond what Cohen solicited, I offer this challenge: Send me to any English-speaking country in the world and give me a topic to get people to hate, and I will in short order assemble a mob to support that hateful subject. For example, send me to Nigeria and I will find a mob to hate French people. Send me to England and I will find a mob to hate people from Romania. It is easy to find people to make hateful statements. In fact, about 15 years ago, just for laughs, I was at a public gathering where I started making hateful comments about my own heritage. Before people finally figured out that I was joking, I did find some people who agreed with my hate-mongering. How funny would this film be if Cohen had gone into poor predominantly Jewish neighborhoods and tried to elicit anti-Christian or anti-Muslim rhetoric from unsusecting victims? Not funny at all. Either was what he did in "Borat". So, what Cohen did was nothing new and established nothing regarding anti-Semitism in his victims. I think the article should make some comment regarding this "trick" and counter Cohen's analysis about the causes of anti-Semitism. Jtpaladin 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You make some reasonable points. I personally disagree; I think the movie is both hilarious and insightful. There is a long and venerated tradition of exposing bigotry by making fun of it. This tradition includes everything from The Great Dictator to All in the Family. This approach will never be everyone's cup of tea, and there will always be people who complain that this kind of comedy trivializes the seriousness of racism, perhaps even encouraging the very attitudes it attempts to mock. (Even Chaplin later expressed some regret over having made The Great Dictator.) I do not share this perspective, and I think that comedy of this sort serves an important purpose, even if it has a potential to be misunderstood (which is true of all satire). Of course, you are entitled to feel differently.

I agree that there is definitely an element of manipulation in Cohen's stunts, and not all viewers will discern it. Still, all discussions about comedy aside, I think his stunts serve as a wakeup call to those who believe that anti-Semitism and related prejudice is dead in our society. It still lives on, but at the margins, and it is significant that many of these bigots feel embarrassed at having their views flagged across the nation.

I think reverse-racism is really irrelevant to Cohen's purpose. It is possible to get humor from that subject too (several African-American comedians have), but the purpose of "Borat" is to unmask the old, traditional prejudiced attitudes that much of the American public has forgotten about.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox. If you want to include criticisms of Cohen's routines in the article, you need to find real sources that espouse this point of view. marbeh raglaim 15:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Which son?

"He was born into a middle-class Jewish family, the fourth of three sons of Gerald Baron Cohen and his wife Daniella" --- He's the fourth of three sons? I dont get that. Can anyone explain that to me?

Nope. It was vandalism that hadn't been reverted. Thank you for spotting it! Mpntod 13:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

That's Ali G math for you.

lol, must admit thats quite funny. Wolfmankurd 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm almost positive he went to Oxford. --Smorse13 05:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

keep checking KarlJohannes 08:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Causing offence

It seems that most sources (including [http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,656096,00.html the Observer'e has offended people in the same way The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers offended people: as in, not the majority. He himself is jewish, he himself is not racist, but, like an HBO spokesman said, he is using the prejudices and idiocies of society to elicit reactions, showing just how stupid society is. Some people are uptight, and those are the people who do not like Ali G. I think this merits an edit. Lockeownzj00 01:40, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Auschwitz

"And Bruno, a gay Austrian fashion show presenter with a Nazi streak, advocating that ugly people be put on a train and sent to Auschwitz"

I saw this episode and I don't think that he said Auschwitz. He just said "a camp." It was hilarious, not racist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.153.254.101 (talk • contribs)

From [4]: 'Bruno chats with fashion guru Leon Hall about which celebrities should be kept "in the ghetto" or sent on a "train to Auschwitz"' - MattTM | talk 04:35, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just watch the episode? He clearly just says packed up onto trains and sent to a camp.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.120.88 (talk • contribs)

I have seen the episode several times. I also own it on DVD, and you may be thinking of a different episode, but there very clearly IS an episode in which he asks leon hall which celebrities should be kept 'in the ghetto' and which should be sent 'on a train to Auschwitz'.--Alex 00:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He says Auschwitz. Jporcaro 13:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Baron Cohen vs. Baron-Cohen

Both are used in the article. It seems that Baron is his middle name while his cousin Simon has a hyphenated last name.--Wasabe3543 14:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that Baron Cohen is actually a compound surname that can either be hyphenated or not, depending on the owner's preference. In UK usage, using it without the hyphen might be a problem because "Baron" is also a title of nobility. — Dale Arnett 04:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: My previous guess was spot-on. I saw the second-season DVD for Da Ali G Show at my local Wal-Mart, and when I looked at the back, it gave his surname as "Baron Cohen". — Dale Arnett 06:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro needs to be clarified

What is an MC? -- Pierremenard 10:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever wikified that. -- Pierremenard 23:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Ali G is an emcee. More like a gangster wannabe character, so I changed that (though the wikipedia entry for "gangster" is not really what I had in mind. JianLi 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

He is/was an MC. Arniep 23:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ali G is most definitely an MC. He MCd on his and Dangerous Dave's pirate radio station in Staines, as clearly seen in his film. Dave420 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumed Vandalism

I've removed the bit about him being life partners with "Salvatore lombardo". 69.140.12.199 23:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Supergreg?

Is he also the meme character Supergreg? I see debate on this but am never sure, I dont think Sacha has acknowledged it in interviews.

http://archive.salon.com/ent/video_dog/comedy/2006/11/03/supergreg/index.html names Sacha as Super Greg. Also, Super greg currently redirects here, even though there's no mention. There really should be -- super greg was quite the internet phenomenon in 2000. It deserves at least a sentence here, both to highlight yet another of Sacha's characters, and as an example of his pre-borat publicity. 71.146.177.138 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Serbian/Persian?

Does anyone have a source for either of these claims (i.e. that his father is of Serbian Jewish descent and his mother of Persian Jewish descent)? Both were added by anon users and I can not find verification for either anywhere online (i.e. that didn't originally come from Wikipedia). Mad Jack 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone have any proof that his mother is Persian? If not, I'm going to delete that bit. Jeremy Peter Green 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Most sources say that his mother is an Israeli; her family might have been Jewish Iranian before they moved to Israel.--70.187.164.53 19:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy, Cohen's Iranian heritage is well known in Israel and has been mentioned in numerous television segments. I'm told that the British media has mentioned this fact as well on several occaisions, but, like you, have not been able to find an internet source that confirms this. Nevertheless, I think it is reasonable to make mention of it and, as such, will be reverting your edit.

Its pretty well known in England and over in Israel about his Jewish Iranian origins, heres a link http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1883923,00.html

Daniella's mother, Leisel Levi was born to Betty nee Eisemann and Albert Levi (Both being in Germany a number of generations in the towns of Fulda and Mosbach before settling in Frankfurt on the Main.) Daniella's father Han's Weiser was also German born. I have no details about Han's parents..but can check it out. Weiser is not a Persian Jewish name. (There are those in the family who like to believe there is Yemenite, Gypsy or some other Easten genetic sources...but i doubt that is the source of this Iranian myth. MethinksWhat does this mean!!?taking over reality....(212.199.119.26 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC) a cousin of Ali G.)

Better picture?

I think a better picture should be put up. In that picture he has his Ali G facial hair, but when he isn't working on a project, I believe he goes clean-shaven. I also don't think the picture is flattering. Jeremy Peter Green 01:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The photo of his "Bruno" character is now up. Just64helpin 22:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Random rant

Isn't this man wonderful? The delicious sense of irony when he, as a Jew, has an audience chanting "Kill the Jew, kill the Jew" in a redneck bar in middle America. Only he ,as a Jew could get away with this satire, and as Ali G: asking the question "Is it 'cos I is black?" when clearly we know he is not, but this fact misses his target completely.

What is a clear sign of his talent though, is his ability to improvise witty reposts during live interviews, which could not come from any kind of rehearsal or preparation. If you're a fan and not seen the "Posh and Becks Interview" for Red Nose Day in the UK, you must attempt to download it online. [unsigned]

i soo agree with you, Sacha is a really funny, talented guy and comidian, it has nothin 2 do with sexuality if u ask me, and he is also talented for emprovising alot of borat and Ali G...he's great!!! [i agree wit unsigned]

Photo

Is there a photo that would meet fair use guidelines and is of Cohen himself, not of him as one of his many alter egos? Just wondering. NickBurns 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the picture should be from Rickey Bobby. My reason for feeling that is because, his charictor looks the most like him. P.S. I apologise for any spelling or grammar inacuracys.--Uber Cuber

Agreed. It's hard enough to find him anywhere in the media besides a personality. 24.136.160.205 23:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

facial hair

how does cohen manage his facial hair between his 3 characters of borat, ali g, and bruno?

Seemingly he is able to grow facial hair very quickly. Which seems understandable because he looks like a very hairy guy. Though I have noticed his moustache in the Borat movie looks fake compared to the moustache from Da Ali G show clips. --The Lone Bard 06:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

According to Borat, it takes him 6 weeks to grow the moustache. As far as the Borat/Bruno segments on the Ali G Show go, they would have all been prerecorded in one hit, long before the studio filming of the series proper. FiggyBee 07:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat and hatred

I've edited out the line about Borat have a "hatred" of Jews and gypsies, because this is to completely misunderstand the character. He may hold very strange beliefs (Jews and gypsies being sub-human, women being inferior to horses, etc) but he doesn't have a hatred of anything - which is exactly why the character works so well.

Tim

er I think saying Jews are sub human counts as hatred. Arniep 20:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

According to S.B.C., Borat is a "dramatic demonstration of how racism feeds on dumb conformity, as much as rabid bigotry". So I think it's fair to say he doesn't hate Jews as such, he's just too stupid/uninformed to know any better. FiggyBee 07:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think stupidity results in hating people for their race, that still doesn't mean they don't hate them. Arniep 12:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seen the movie yet? It's bigotry, but in the sense that he's trying to point out how ignorant the character is. Tommyt 17:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard of satire?

There is a big difference between ignorance and hate... although they are related since hate usually comes from ignorance they are not the same thing. Borat is ignorant, very ignorant, in his views about Jews and Gypsies among others. But he has never expressed hate for them. More possible fear. Daboulion

GA nod

This article should not receive a GA because there appears to be a topic of dispute/part-time edit war going on.... Mad Jack 22:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Persian

Is Cohen fluent or partly knowledgeable about his mom's language?Khosrow II 04:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as you can tell from the film Borat, he seems to speak fluent Hebrew. (Yes, I know you're asking about Persian, but neither Cohen, nor his mother, nor any ancestors before that spoke or were Persian; it's just an incorrect piece of info I can't revert out of the article at the moment) Mad Jack 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First of all, there are many Jews that cannot speak Hebrew at all. Secondly, his mother was an Iranian Jew, who later moved to Israel. Do you know how many Israeli politicians and Israeli citizens there are of Iranian descent who still know how to speak Persian and cook Iranian food? Also, Judaism is a religion, not an ethnic group, therefore, it is very acceptable that after thousands of years of living in Iran, Iranian Jews came to see themselves as Persian Jews. Here are some pictures of Israeli;s: [5][6][7][8][9][10] Those are pictures of Israeli Jews who are either of Iranian descent or who moved to Israel from Iran (mostly after the revolution). Notice the Iranian flags they are waving and that the signs are in Persian (reading Norouzetan Pirooz, meaning happy New Years, also, if you knew Persian, you would know that they even refused to use the term mubarak which is Arabic, and which is commonly used instead of pirooz, and instead went with pirooz, a Persian word). They are against the regime of Iran, as well as most Iranians are, but that does not mean they just give up their culture and other nation. So before you make a comment like the above, please be more open minded. I'm 100% sure Cohen's mother speaks Persian, as she moved from Iran to Israel (am I correct in saying this?), and therefore, there is a very good chance that Cohen himself is either fluent or atleast has some sort of understanding of the language. Also, the president of Israel (I believe it is the president) originally from Iran, and he speaks fluent Persian and eats Iranian food!Khosrow II 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, his mother, Daniella Weisser, wasn't an Iranian Jew. She is of German Jewish descent. In April, a vandal inserted the Iranian Jew stuff into the article. At the time, Wikipedia was the only place you could read about his mother being an "Iranian Jew". Ditto for August. In September, a Guardian writer made the mistake of paraphrasing us, and from then on Wikipedia's turned fiction into fact. And no, she didn't move from anywhere to Israel. She was born there. That's been clearly established in sources pre-dating Wikipedia. Sorry to disappoint you, I guess. This is why you will never ever read anything in the media beyond the Wikipedia paraphrasing "an Israeli of Iranian Jewish" or "of Persian Jewish" descent. As for Moshe Katsav, yes, he IS in fact, an Iranian Jew, on that there is no disagreement. Anyway, I can't wait until Baron Cohen does an interview with someone and they ask him if he speaks Persian. Mad Jack 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting, we'll have to wait. How do you know the Gaurdian paraphrased Wiki? I have found even more sources, including yahoo which states that his mother is of Persian Jewish origin.Khosrow II 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert! So we'll get even more reliable sources to prove this very true information. As for the Guardian - This is what Wikipedia said: [11] "Baron Cohen[2] was born into a middle-class Jewish family, the second of three sons of Gerald and Daniella Baron Cohen . His father owns a menswear shop in Piccadilly and is originally from Wales, while his mother is a native Israeli of Iranian heritage". This is what the Guardian said the next week. [12] "His Welsh father, Gerald, runs a menswear shop and his mother, Daniella, is an Israeli of Iranian heritage. Two brothers." It's pretty obvious. The Guardian was the first media source anywhere post-Wikipedia to report this "breaking news" to the world. You won't find a single source pre-dating it. Mad Jack 17:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen, and the Khazar-Jew Theory

Perhaps Sacha Baron Cohen subscribes to the theory that most Ashkenazi Jews are originally from Khazaria since he chooses to base his famous Borat character out of Khazakhstan, which is roughly the same area that the Khazars/Ashkenazi Jews are proposed to originate from (see The Thirteenth Tribe). --172.151.71.190 16:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Actaully kazakhstan is of a totally different region. Its in central asia. Also khazars have no relation to kazakhs aside from a similar sounding name. -Duhon13 November 2006 (UTC)

The western portion of Khazakhstan actually corresponds partially to historical Khazaria. The central and eastern portions are more Oriental, though. --152.163.100.11 02:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Source for the "Controversies" Section

I read a news item this morning that editors of this article might find useful:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/&articleid=289827

It also has a little bit more to it than just the lawsuit.

CheersNinaEliza 17:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

MordIpa 29th November 2006 wrote: Excuse me but Sacha Baron Cohen, as proud of his Jewish heritage as he obviously is, is certainly not an observant Jew despite the articles quoted in the text.

It should be clear to everyone that many of the things this comedian does are totally against Jewish law. Most Jews in Britain and Israel keep some kind of kashrut and observe the Sabbath in some way. That doesn't make them observant and God fearing Jews. Indeed, no observant Jew would send his children to the youth movement "Habonim-Dror" which is a secular Zionist cultural movement that preaches against Orthodox Judaism. I can understand though that compared to the average American Jew who keeps almost nothing of his/her heritage he might be seen as some what "observant" by non-Jews.

The article describing him as an observant Jew indivertibly promotes anti-Semitism. A potential Jew hater would point to the perverted and disgusting things Mr Cohen does on screen and be led to believe that this immorality is acceptable in Judaism which it most certainly is not. The conclusion being that Judaism is immoral and perverted which indeed was the essence of Hitler’s theories about Jews.

In conclusion, I am sure that if you asked Sacha himself he would find the notion of him being described as an observant Jew as totally hilarious. Please remove this untrue and potentially harmful statement.

Ali G pic?

We need a pic of Ali G to go w/the pics of Borat & Bruno. I'd do it myself but I don't know how...Tommyt 17:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure

I speedy failed this because the article isn't stable. Wait a month or two, or until the article doesn't have so many daily edits or reversions, and renominate it. With the number one and most controversial movie in America, this comedian has too much going on for him to have an article stable enough to be adequately assessed.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 04:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that not only CAN an article about a man with a #1 film in the country be a Good Article, we should strive to make more of them especially during the time when this page is likely to receive large amounts of visitors. However, at the moment, the article contains a piece of information that is contested and almost certainly false, so the article certainly shouldn't get a seal of approval for keeping it in when it could just as easily be deleted without any effect on the article's quality or content whatsoever. Mad Jack 05:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. The Persian heritiage is a fact and there are reliable sources behind it. However once you prove the sources are wrong you can take it out. Until then stop vandelising. Also your whole "We're not obligated to put any information on wikipedia" makes no sense. Even if we're not obligated to put anything what makes you the person who gets to decide what we're obligated to put and what we're not. 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it make you that person. That's why we have community discussion. I was making the point that there is a contested piece of info that can easily be removed without any effect on the article - and that is indeed the case, whether it's fact or not. Did Kristy Scott respond yet? Mad Jack 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mad Jack, there is really no such beast as verified-contested information. The only way verified information is removed is if there is consensus that it really is unencyclopedic, or if it violates WP:BLP (or WP:SNOW). Stating his Persian heritage does't even remotely fall in either category; just about every WP bio has a few heritage statements. Also, I have no idea if you are familiar with the GA criteria or not, but your battling over the Persian issue alone violates #5. Waiting would be advisable.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know very well that #5 is being violated. That was my exact point, in fact, and the primary reason, at this time, why this couldn't be a GA right now. There's no beast as "verified-contested" information, but there is such a beast as information that is not verified because a source is suspected to be unreliable or to have made a mistake. The problem is not stating his Persian heritage because it's irrelevant; the problem is not stating his "Persian heritage" because it's not factually correct. Mad Jack 08:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You stated "The problem is not stating his Persian heritage because it's irrelevant; the problem is not stating his "Persian heritage" because it's not factually correct." and that makes sense to me. Your previous arguments are sound (that wiki is outsourcing its own original research and then referencing its spawn). I will comment out the until a valid source can be located.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

mtv movie awards

is there a source for him getting booed or why they pulled his clip from subsequent rebroadcasts? i watched the clip and to me it doesnt sound like he is getting booed what is the consensus opinion on this? http://youtube.com/watch?v=77lU0bsj5DY KarlJohannes 08:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

In 1989, Baron Cohen joined the Habonim Dror Jewish Youth Group and appeared in Neil Simon's play Biloxi Blues, thus igniting his passion for acting. At Habonim Dror, he became an outstanding ga-ga-ball player, winning the Habonim UK ga-ga championship on multiple occasions. In 1992 he led his country to a silver medal in the world ga-ga ball championships, coming second to the undefeated Australian Habonim team. His acting plans soon went on hold, as Cohen left London for Israel, where he spent a year at the Rosh Hanikra Kibbutz, learning more about his roots and faith.[13] He returned to Israel in 2005 to coach the Machon Frisbee team in the play-off match at Kibbutz Revivim. Machon came back to defeat Chalutz from 2-8 down to win 10-8. Baron Cohen was awarded the kibbutz's highest honour for his efforts.

I've removed this as the bit about ga-ga ball championships sounds like nonsense. Find any other references to "world ga-ga ball championships" on google? The other bits look like copyvios from [here. Stevage 07:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that ga-ga is a very popular game within the jewish youth moevements, such as habonim. There is no world championship, but many Jewish youth movements have an anuual tournament.134.7.248.137 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew

Sacha is fluent in Hebrew.--80.230.59.96 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Germany ancestry

Finally! See [14] "Sacha’s grandmother was an acclaimed ballet dancer who fled to London from Hitler’s Germany." Mad Jack 05:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Madjack: I am new here, but I have read all of your arguments and checked up on this a bit myself and I definitely see where you are coming from. I can't understand why people are being so rude to you for trying to make this page as accurate as possible. Personally, I commend your efforts. Why is it that the Persian Jew thing can't be deleted now and replaced with the correct info? His supposed Persian ancestry is still alive and well on the page. Wikipedia is one of the main sources that people use on the internet and I'm sure thousands of people are seeing this false information every day, especially with the popularity of Borat. We need to put up the correct info asap to stop this false information from going any further. Please tell me if there is any reason this can't be changed now, as I am brand new to this and don't want to do it unless I know it is consistent with the rules of Wikipedia. Instances like this make me feel as though Wikipedia can potentially be a very dangerous tool- someome can just pull some bogus nonesense out of their ass and pretty soon the whole world will believe it. Kinda scary, don't you think? Karabeara126 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)karabeara126

The bogus nonsense you speak of is common knowledge and is backed by creditable sources. Until you can decisively prove that his mother is not a Persian Jew, it should stay. Klymen 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That article also says that he is "the youngest of three boys" rather than "the second of three boys." Karabeara126 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)karabeara126

Well, you can certainly try and delete it (and it should be deleted, I still say, until someone can present something that doesn't look like it came from Wikipedia), but you may be reverted by someone. Mad Jack 09:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Borat Punched after SNL appearance

The news bit that Cohen was punched while in character with Hugh Laurie present has a questionable source. I cannot find this in any reputable news sites, and you would think it would be pretty big news. Furthermore, the quote about having sex with the man's clothes makes no sense, and frankly sounds made up. I have seen everything Borat has done, and I have never heard him make a nonsensical joke like that. 67.161.26.190 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Request For Comment

One side of the issue

For the past few months there has been an ongoing dispute over Sacha Baron Cohen’s mother. There are more than four reputable sources that say she is a Persian Jew. At the same time some users believe that these sources have taken their information from a vandalized wikipedia article and thus the Persian Jew should stay out. This argument was led by Mad Jack, however the final consensus was to keep the Persian Jew until contrary evidence was to show up. At the moment there are no decisive evidence to suggest that the news agency “The Guardian” or “Yahoo’s Biographies” and other sources mentioned have taken their information from the Wikipedia article. Recently the user Abu ali has revived this dispute by continuously taking out the Persian Jew without providing any evidence to suggest that the sources are wrong.

Here are the sources:

1. http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1883923,00.html
2. ^ http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808442126/bio
3. ^ http://www.juf.org/news_public_affairs/article.asp?key=7568
4. ^ http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2877/

The other

Oh is there a request for comment on this officially? Excellent. And there has been no "consensus" between anybody as far as I can tell. It's pretty black and white:

• Before September 29, 2006, not a single source could be found that mentioned anything Persian. Yet this Wikipedia biography had the one line that his mother was "of Persian Jewish origin" or heritage, etc. People used the "common knowledge" argument to keep it in
• September 29th was the first time it was mentioned anywhere. The Guardian had a one-line at the bottom of its article[15] that exactly mirrored what our Wiki article looked like at the time.[16]
  • I.e. Wikipedia - "Baron Cohen[2] was born into a middle-class Jewish family, the second of three sons of Gerald and Daniella Baron Cohen . His father owns a menswear shop in Piccadilly and is originally from Wales, while his mother is a native Israeli of Iranian heritage.".
  • The Guardian - "second child, grew up in Hampstead Garden Suburb, north London. His Welsh father, Gerald, runs a menswear shop and his mother, Daniella, is an Israeli of Iranian heritage. Two brothers."

• • • That is not a valid argument; there are so many ways to say “Israeli of Iranian origin” Klymen 04:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I'd say it's a pretty valid argument, considering that it seems the Guardian "broke" this news and just happened to chose to break it in the exact same wording as we did. Mad Jack 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • There are so many flaws in your argument I don’t even know where to start. Just because the wordings, according to you, seem to be similar it doesn’t mean the guardian took it from wikipedia. Even if the wording of this sentence which has 5 words was exactly the same, you still have not proven that the guardian took it from wikipedia. How do you know there wasn’t a reliable source X which both of them took it from. I think you should go over this http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ start by reading this one http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html Klymen 06:19, 14 Dec"ember 2006 (UTC)
          • "How do you know there wasn’t a reliable source X which both of them took it from" - if you find me that source - i.e. a source pre-dating September 29th, 2006 that says that, I'll give you a million bucks Mad Jack 06:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't have to provide you with anything. The Guardian is fine as it is. You need to change you argument. Perhaps something that is not based on a Post hoc fallacy? 136.159.133.91 06:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
              • I do not comprehend. You made a point and I responded to it. Why are you going outside your point now into, if you forgive the figure of speech, more of the usual pointlessness? Mad Jack 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • The X source was an example to prove to you that the similar wording can have other explanation than yours. My argument is that Sacha Baron Cohen mother is a Persian jew. I provide reliable sources to back it up. You say that is not true and have yet to put forward an argument that is not based on fallacies or your own speculation. If you can’t make sense out of that let me know and I would be more than happy to try and explain it better. Klymen 06:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yes but your example did not prove that "the similar wording can have other explanation than yours". Anyway, isn't this a request for comment thingy now? Why are we discussing it again? Mad Jack 07:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • • • Yes it did. Your reasoning is that since the wording of A is similar to B then the only explanation is that B took it from A, I'm saying although plausible that may not be the case and I have proved that by saying both A and B could have taken their source from X. I don’t have to prove A and B took their source from X to prove that your reasoning is wrong. Since it is a fact that A and B could have taken their source from X your argument that A took it from B does not cover all the possible events. Thus to assume it is the only possible event is wrong. However you are right regarding this discussion, I have said all I had to say we just have to wait for some 3rd party input Klymen 07:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not exactly rocket science to figure out what happened there. From that point on, we got a multitude of sources (like film reviews, commentaries, etc.) that used that exact same line or a version of it. Obviously, they took it either from the Guardian (which took it from us) or just took it from us. Either way, bad. No sources mention any more details - like where in Iran they are from, whether he speaks Persian, etc. etc. etc. - nothing else except the one party line that Wikipedia supplied (and nothing predating September 29th). Nothing with Baron Cohen's personal involvement has ever mentioned it. That's really about it. Mad Jack 03:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I believe mad jack has every reason to be suspicious regarding this matter, I would like to note that there is no solid evidence to prove that the guardian has taken its information from wikipedia. This is completely based on Mad Jack’s (An some other users) own speculation and opinion. I would also like to note that the guardian is known to be a reputable source and has been used as a reference for many articles. It is highly unlikely they used wikipedia. Also it is highly probable, if the information provided on the Guardian article was false, someone would have noticed it and it would have been fixed by now. My own opinion regarding this matter is that the Persian Jew should stay until evidence to the contrary is presented. If I am not mistaken this is something that Mad Jack can also agree on?

No, I wanted it out. The longer it stays here, the more sources, reliable and not, pick up on it or accept it as fact, especially during this period of high media activity regarding Baron Cohen. (Wikipedia is, and has been since at least November, the #1 Google match for a "Sacha Baron Cohen" search) Mad Jack 04:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I know you want it out. I hope this will resolve the issue once and for all. Klymen 04:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe keeping it on the article would increase the chances of finding contrary evidence regarding this matter, if such evidence actually exists. If it is false, and someone who has evidence to prove it comes across this article, he will be able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that his mother is not a Persian Jew. However in the past few months that the Persian Jew has been in the family section nothing more than speculation and personal belief has been presented as a rebuttal.

I hope this matter is resolved as quickly as possible so I can actually get back to studying for my finals 136.159.133.91 04:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly I think that The Guardian took it from here, and I wish I could proove it but I can't. I don't think that it is entirely "common knowledge" that Wikipedia is a questionable source, and I'm sure that many people use it everyday without questioning the content. The Guardian could have been "fooled" by the nature of Wikipedia just as easily as anyone else. Anyhow, Sacha Cohen has been around for quite a few years as Ali G. If his mother has any Persian roots, there has to be something somewhere that would have said this before us. If not, then I don't think that it should be included in the article. Mad Jack has, in my opinion, made a strong case that these "sources" may very well have used this article as their source. Therefore, in this matter, their credibility is in question and the content of those articles shouldn't be used unless it is somehow possible to find and check THEIR sources as well. Somehow I bet that would lead us right back to this very article. Until someone uncovers some concrete evidence, this information should definitely be kept out of the article. Karabeara126 09:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I can’t believe a reliable source is being discredited without any evidence and out of simple speculation of few. I don’t have to provide any more evidences; I already made my claim that his mother is a Persian Jew and presented the evidence. You guys are the ones who are making the counter claim and thus it is your responsibility to provide your evidence. And until such evidence is provided what is verifiable should stay. Klymen 02:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've kept searching and searching and I can't seem to find anything that is more than a couple months old that says anything about Sacha's mother being Persian. Is anyone able to use LexisNexis? Searching for this on Google almost seems like searching for a needle in a haystack. Karabeara126 07:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the recent Rolling Stone article that talks about Sacha's maternal grandmother fleeing Nazi Germany. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/sacha_baron_cohen_the_real_borat_finally_speaks/page/4 It says nothing about her having Persian heritage. She was from Germany, as our article currently states. Still looking for an older one that addresses Persian heritage... don't think one exists though. Karabeara126 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • We're talking about her mother, not her grandmother. Besides feeling Germany is not the same as being German. I'm sure there were Persian Jews in Germany. Infact her mother's name is Persian Jewish name. Although that doesn’t prove she’s a Persian Jew the same way the guardian does but I thought I let you guys know since we’re pushing logical fallacies as arguments. Klymen 12:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • What is her mother's name and how do you know it? Mad Jack 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • If I’m not mistaken her mother name is Daniela which is Hebrew for “God’s judgment” or something. It is a popular name among Persian Jews and Persians in general. I don’t have any online support for any of this however so don’t worry about it too much ;)

update: all I can show for this is this myspace website http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=95217943 and this: http://cleo.lcs.psu.edu/boy_names.html#D

You know in Iran you’re not allowed to name your kids foreign names, like if I had a son in Iran I wouldn’t be able to name him Jack. But I know you can name your kid Daniel/Daneilla in Iran. Just some information I thought you might find interesting. Klymen 10:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Klymen 09:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• • No, there's nothing that A. precedes September 29th (when the Guardian unwisely put in that bit) and B. that offers anything other than the one sentence "of Iranian descent" or "of Persian descent". I checked in August (see one of the posts above) and could find nothing at all back then. I removed it from the article then but someone restored it. Mad Jack 08:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • First off I would like to apologize for taking out your references, (Not sure If I did, but if I did I’m sorry, It was an accident). Second of all I’ve already told you, the date argument can’t hold because you’re basing it on a post hoc fallacy. Klymen 12:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

I just edited the "personal life" section of this article. I didn't remove anything; I just tidied up the language a bit to make it sound better. When I saved the changes I accidentally didn't put a description of what I did, so I'm just telling you guys here instead. Sorry about that! That was actually my first edit ever- I hope you will forgive me! Karabeara126 09:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Joke

That Borat speaks Hebrew is far from a 'supreme joke' as stated in the article. POV, please.

Also, under 'Contoversy', his woolly undergraduate explanation for what's obviously a guise for being a sexist, racist ignorant churak who plays to the frat boy gallery, is far from convincing. However, in this age of religious warring and global instability, I sleep safe at night knowing Cohen's satire strikes to the heart of the real issues.

Also, for those interested in effective satire, and Cohen's source for his one-tick pony act, see Chris Morris of Brass Eye. --TresRoque 00:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Marlin Fitzwater interview

I added a minor reference to said interview because that was the only Ali G interview to cease in the middle; whereas the Andy Rooney interview ended without a single question being seriously answered. It was also my very first edit. Yay! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shabeki (talk • contribs) 10:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Ban Vandals, Please

I have noted that at 06:15, 13 JAN 2007, an anonymous a****** added "poo" to the caption of the main Sacha Baron Cohen photo. I have removed the word from the caption. What is the procedure for banning such vandals? Relgif 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction to original comment here: "SaturnYoshi: We are still waiting for you to define 'Homosexual Humor'"

It does seem to be a subject you know quite a bit about. But you are not communicating to the rest of us the gist of your argument. I myself have NO idea what "Homosexual Humor" is, or why you think the heterosexual Cohen would be a purveyor of it. Frankly, I venture that you are yourself confused about the issue, and about yourself. But that's just my opinion. One you practically BEGGED me to share with you. So I have. Relgif 12:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed to be the authority figure on "Homosexual Humor". An anonymous user had said that only gays find Sacha Baron Cohen to be funny. I was just remarking that as a gay individual, I don't find his brand of comedy to be the least bit funny. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, SY, I see I was mistaken. Way mistaken. The confusion derives, not from your fault, but from other commentators not signing and indenting their comments properly. I apologize, but will let my misinterpretation stand, as it led me to the important point that proper formatting, everywhere on Wikipedia, is crucial, is not "optional". Lack of organization does, we see, lead to faulty, and sometimes unfair, conclusions. (Frankly, I still can't make heads or tails out of who said what, but don't much care at this point. The important thing is that I know I was wrong about you. I'm sorry.)Relgif 06:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

i think Sacha is funny and really cool and i enjoyed the comedey veiw of every thing he does and im straight,so it has nothin 2 do with sexuality, besides he is a comidian and an actor.... 9:32, 20 January 2007

Junglist vs Journalist

For reasons I don't understand the description in the first paragraph of Ali G as a Junglist - one I don't necessarily agree with - had been changed to 'Journalist' in December last year (2006). Ali G certainly is not a journalist. I corrected the error and it was changed back. I will continue to remove the journalist description unless anyone can suggest a sensible reason why it should stay Tripper 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Infobox pic

I think the infobox picture should be a Sacha as himself picture instead of Borat who doesn't look like him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.197.237 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree

Persian Mother?

I just came upon this issue entirely by accident, and with some time to kill have just spent an hour or so researching it. I'm sad to say that I now believe in all probability User:Arniep is correct in saying [17]:

OK OK OK OK :-I It looks like this is a right royal cock up. I have done research. The persian info was added by an anon ip Special:Contributions/72.68.157.109 on 15 April 2006 who also vandalised the Eric Stern article ten minutes later:

"Not to be confused with the good looking, sixteen year old, ramaz student and pimp, Eric Stern from Manhattan, New York".

So it's highly unlikely to be reliable - and yes it does look like all these sites got the info from WP :(

Having a life-long knowledge of The Guardian and its errors (it's not nicknamed "The Grauniad" in the UK for nothing) I can quite believe the author of that article reproduced the Wikipedia claim without verifying it. If so it's no surprise that no-one has been able to prise an admission of this from her (as User:Klymen said he planned to do, but apparently has not). If this is the case it was deeply unprofessional, and most of the blame for the debacle that has followed must rest with her.

Several pieces of circumstantial evidence support Arniep's assertion above:

• I have extensively trawled Google looking through pretty much every mention of his 'Persian/Iranian mother' and have found none predating April 2006.

Doesn't prove that the Article was taken from Wikipedia or that his mom is not persian. Post Hoc Fallacy 209.52.60.83 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Yahoo Movies bio cited as one of the 'reliable sources' did not make this claim in March 2006, according to web.archive.org [18].

Again it doesn't prove that the Article was taken from Wikipedia or that his mom is not persian. Post Hoc Fallacy209.52.60.83 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• An anonymous Israeli IP writes reasonably convincingly of being Baron Cohen's cousin and knowing nothing of Persian ancestry [19].

Yea and I'm god and I think the earth is flat, change the text books. Someone saying they're Sacha Baron Cohen's cousin on wikipedia is not a verifiable source. Guardian is.209.52.60.83 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• An Israeli article written in March 2006, before the vandalism, makes no mention of Persian ancestry when it says 'His mother is originally from Israel' [20] (near the bottom)

I can show you an article about math that doesn't say 2+2 = 4, thus it must be wrong. What doesn't get mentioned in an article doesnt make it wrong.209.52.60.83 00:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are missing the point. I don't claim to be able to prove, or even to know, whether either (a) his mother is of Iranian descent or (b) The Guardian took its information from WP. Thus logical fallacies don't apply: I already called this 'circumstantial evidence' above - no proof is claimed. My point is that the weight of evidence gives sufficient reason for doubt. Random832 states the case well below [21]. SeanLegassick 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. The claim is his mother is a Persian Jew which is backed by more than enough reputable sources. The other side claims that the sources took that from a vandalized Wikipedia article. Yet this claim is backed by gut feelings and speculations. Gut feelings and speculations are not sufficient reason for doubt. I think you're missing the point 209.52.60.83 19:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand the argument perfectly. You and others wish to defer responsibility to The Guardian and other sources for this. I think that's the wrong call, the suggestion that this may have originated from WP vandalism is based on considerable circumstantial evidence - circumstantial yes, but rather more than 'gut feelings and speculation'. Why is this so important? We know for sure that his mother was born in Israel, that his grandmother fled Germany. If there is an Iranian connection it's not immediate. I really don't see your motivation here, whereas mine is clear: to take a precautionary approach to a poorly sourced and controversial fact about a living person[22] and thus protect Wikipedia's integrity.

I don’t have a motivation. Persian Jew is verifiable. The fact that you think such a statement would be controversial shows your own motivation. Also circumstantial evidences are defined as facts. None of the stuff said by Mad Jack or you are proven to be facts. They follow the fallacies stated by Klymen. Thus you guys have no circumstantial evidence. 209.52.60.83 19:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please don't impugn my motives, I've made clear what mine are and clearly you have some or you wouldn't be bothering with this. It's self-evidently controversial, otherwise there wouldn't be debate. Personally I have Iranians in my family so would be delighted to discover that he has Iranian ancestry, but as of yet I'm not convinced. I think you should go and look at what circumstantial evidence is - yes, we do have quite a lot. SeanLegassick 19:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I know perfectly fine what circumstantial evidences are and I don't mean to offend you but I'm not sure if you do. The only evidence that has been put forth is that fact that the wikipedia article is older than the Guardian article, thus the Guardian must have taken it's information from wikipedia. This as I am sure you know is a post hoc fallacy and does not prove the point it is trying to prove. Also just for your information, I believe the Grandmother that fled Germany was from his dad side. Also there have many Persian Jews in Israel, His mother being born in Israel doesn't mean there is no way she can be a Persian Jew. I suggest you try and contact the author of the Guardian Article. Don't wait for klymen to do it. That would be the best way to settle this issue.209.52.60.83 20:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that contacting the reporter is probably a good way to get resolution. It may not be straightforward, and of course we can't guarantee she'll respond; if I had sourced from WP for a newspaper article I wouldn't admit it. As regards evidence, the fact that you keep invoking logical fallacies when circumstantial evidence by definition isn't the construction of a logically sound proof suggests that you don't entirely understand. But I grant you that the other known family history doesn't demonstrate much, just suggests the heritage if it exists is not immediate.

The problem is that if the situation is as Jack, I and others are suggesting seems likely, it is going to be hard to prove. We're unlikely to find a source for 'Israeli mother who isn't Iranian' after all, and unlikely to extract an admission of sloppiness from a professional reporter. The easiest way to settle this would be demonstrate that the proposition is true via a source that predates the WP vandalism, or at least claims to source the information from Baron Cohen or someone close to him. All the sources that have been cited so far are sub-hearsay in claimed authority, mainstream publication or not. SeanLegassick 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, the Rolling Stone article that I posted a link to above specifically states that it is his MATERNAL grandmother who fled Nazi Germany.Karabeara126 10:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a sad indictment of what can go horribly wrong with Wikipedia's verification policies when WP is misused by publications that WP itself regards as reliable. Journalists and other professionals must be taught not to rely on Wikipedia without further verification!

Anyhow I have no particular axe to grind here, I'd be quite happy to discover that Baron Cohen's mother is of Iranian descent, but at this point incredibly surprised. I also suspect that given the nature of Baron Cohen's sense of humour he may well leave this misconception uncorrected if he knows of it, finding it an amusing layer of fiction on his public persona.

Even if I'm wrong then I don't believe that anyone has sufficient evidence to demonstrate this without doubt, WP:RS notwithstanding. At this point I'd want to see a direct cite from Baron Cohen himself or his family, or a source pre-dating 15 April 2006.

Wikipedia appears, in this case, to have corrupted rather than captured human knowledge. I don't see any way to undo the damage, but I strongly believe the claim should no longer appear in the article. (Sorry if this seems hyperbolic over a minor point, but I'm a big WP advocate and this sad case has shaken my trust in the process).

SeanLegassick 13:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, as you may have guessed, I fully support the removal of this from the article ASAP. In fact, it seems the request for comment one user set up never came through. It's time we did something about this. If there's no response to this comment within 5 days, I'll remove it again. If there is a response - presumably from the opposition - then we need to set up some kind of discussion where a clear consensus can be reach - preferrably to remove it. But inaction isn't a good option. Mad Jack 19:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

His mother is Persian

It is a well known fact in Israel, that his mother is a Persian Jew. There are many sources that confirm this. The Persian mention can NOT be removed under Wikipedia's rules and regulations. The evidence comes from reliable, unbiased, sources. Therefore if anyone removes the fact that his mother is Persian, I will keep correcting the mistake for as long as it takes to stop the vandalism. I will also report any user who removes the Persian mention to Wikipedia authorities. 74.108.66.84 18:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If I hear this "It is a well known fact in Israel" nonsense one more time! Believing this the first time is why I didn't remove it in August, which I should have. Israel is not in a media blackout. If something is well known there, even if it isn't true, you'd be able to find me a ton of Israeli online sources that said it (pre-April 2006, that is). Anyway, unless someone has a valid reason or sets up a request for comment, I'll remove it by my deadline. We've had enough stalling. I firmly believe that, in front of a large cross-section of Wikipedians reviewing this case, the consensus would to remove it. Mad Jack 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is some proof. You may remmember that Borat missed the Ronnie Barker awards because he was guest of honour at the Holocaust Denial conference in Tehran. But there are no reports of him speaking at that conference, and as he is jewish, it is most unlikely that he would support such a conference. The only possible explanation is that he accepted the invitation to be guest of honour at the conference so that he could get a ticket to fly to Iran to pay his relatives a visit. 81.157.25.64 23:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Mad Jack 23:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To respond to anon IP 74.108.66.84's comments:

• You claim that it is 'well known in Israel' but your IP is US, and the only Israeli contribution to the discussion (from IP 212.199.119.26) claims not.
• There is clearly more harm to WP's reputation from including a false fact, than from failing to include an incidental true fact. In this case I strongly believe we should err on the side of caution and remove it from the article.
• There is no rule or regulation to say it cannot be removed at all. There is significant reason for doubt about a fact concerning a living person, and as such it is completely reasonable to err on the side of caution. I will back Mad Jack up on his deletion when the week has expired, and you are free to report away. I have argued my reasons extensively, and you have not responded to substantive causes for doubt.

As for the second objector, Mad Jack's response is sufficient I think!

SeanLegassick 08:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that 81.157.25.64's comment was a joke, btw.... :-) Mad Jack 08:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole discussion is a #*#*** joke! Everyone knows that Cohen is not Persian. He is Kazakstani!!! Watch the ####ing film. Duh. 81.157.25.64 09:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess that answers that question :-) SeanLegassick 09:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I brought this up at the Village Pump and the basic consensus seemed to be that we should use our judgement here to do what's best for Wikipedia, following the Ignore all rules policy. So I maintain that it's best for Wikipedia that we remove this dubious piece of information in lieu of a source that is definitely not based on Wikipedia vandalism. SeanLegassick 10:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sacha_Baron_Cohen#Request_For_Comment to get both side of the argument. My argument is backed by “reference-able” sources; mad jack is all based on fallacies … until you find something that says the guardian is wrong. Assumptions, post hoc fallacies won’t hold. I’ve been over this about 50 times and am getting sick of dealing with it. Klymen 02:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Klymen, you seem to be the only person who is agreeing with yourself (save for a few anon users, I guess). That's not good for consensus. We've had more than a few people on this very page and on others agree that the information should be removed. If I were you, I would set up a request for comment or something where something even clearer can be reached, but right now, the majority seems to be in support of removal. Mad Jack 03:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Klymen, I read all sides of the argument thoroughly before reaching the conclusion that it is impossible to show that The Guardian didn't pick this up from Wikipedia (please make sure you've read my reasoning), and therefore as a precautionary measure the information should be removed. Logical fallacies are not relevant here because we don't need to prove that the information is wrong, merely cast sufficient doubt. Note that the most important point is that it's far more damaging to include a false fact than to omit an incidental true fact.

there are four sources that say she is a Persian Jew. Just cause Jack and a couple of kids think they're wrong doesn't make it false. If 100 people say the earth is flat it doesnt make it flat. What is verifiable should stay 209.52.60.83 23:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please engage with the arguments made, and refrain from stupid comments (I'm unfortunately far from being a kid). The main point is that there is no necessity to include this particular point, and there is reason to doubt its veracity. Please make more substantive points. SeanLegassick 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if the kid comment offended you. But beside that; there is also reason to doubt that earth is flat, but noone argues that. Wikipedia's policy is that what is verfiable makes it to the article. This is verifiable and what is verifiable should not be taken out because of someone's opinion and 'original research'. I think we need an admin over here. I would love to see this resolved. Here is another source

http://www.mndaily.com/article.php?id=69903 209.52.60.83 00:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've already seen that source. Unfortunately it doesn't resolve it for me - it was written well after the WP vandalism and well after the Guardian article that it seems started this 'fact'. Note that just because something is verifiable that doesn't mean it has to go in (see WP:IAR for example). I'd really love to see a source prior to April 2006 for this, or a source from someone who's actually interviewed Baron Cohen or a member of his family. Unfortunately when it comes to pop culture trivia like this the mainstream media is far from infallible, this isn't the same as citing a peer-reviewed journal.

I don't know how much energy I have for an edit war on this, I don't particularly care about the rather trivial fact in question, and ultimately I can see WP:V winning out because you can always throw (post WP-vandalism) sources at us.

I do care about Wikipedia and I fear that if it comes to light that this is a fabrication initiated by a piece of WP vandalism that spread out into the world, it'll be fuel for the anti-WP crowd.

Do read the discussion I initiated at the at the Village Pump about this and let me know what you think from the perspective of doing what's best for Wikipedia and best for this article. SeanLegassick 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you, jack or klymen are wrong. I'm saying just because the wikipedia article outdates the Guardian article it doesn't mean it was used as a reference for it. You and Jack both believe that the Persian Jew in the Guardian was taken from wikipedia and the only evidence you have to back that is the fact that wikipedia pre-dates it. You have to admit that is not enough to prove the guardian is wrong. I have read the request for comment section for this whole thing, and I believe the Persian Jew should stay until it is proven to be wrong. It is verifiable and in the past few months that it has been up, no one has been able to prove that the Guardian was wrong. Jack's argument is all based on his opinion regarding this matter. 209.52.60.83 00:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Without getting a response from The Guardian journalist we obviously can't know where she sourced her information. That much is obvious. I will make three further points and then step out of this for a while as it's getting tedious:

• The Guardian is far from an infallible source, just google for '"The Guardian" corrections' to see the mistakes they've already caught. The fact that we treat media articles as 'reliable sources' is potentially troublesome, they are nowhere near as 'reliable' as peer-reviewed journals for instance. Especially in a case like this where it isn't at all clear where the Guardian article got the info if not from WP, it's not like it was an interview or anything, I doubt she could find an online source for it as it seems there weren't any apart from WP at the time the article was written.
• I've really looked far and wide for a pre-April 2006 source for this information; as I don't have any axe to grind here I'd actually be overjoyed to find one and stop worrying about this probable case of WP inaccuracy. (And it hasn't escaped my attention as I've searched that Klymen has been trolling about on Iranian message boards looking for backup. That doesn't seem like a commitment to veracity to me, that seems like a partisan desire to have Baron Cohen be Iranian. Which I quite understand, but such partisan desires do not good WP editors make)

He has? The guy sounds pretty logical. I'm suprised he's been looking for backup. 209.52.60.83 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's far more damaging to Wikipedia to have this fact in the article if it turns out to be wrong than it is to omit it if it's true. The editors here that keep adding it appear to be more committed to their own goals than to the quality of Wikipedia. Seems a shame.

SeanLegassick 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you say you were going to contact the journalist in question? What happened with that?

SeanLegassick 08:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, I'm interested. I may try and contact her myself, but if Klymen already tried that and didn't get any response then there's not much point in me bothering... SeanLegassick 00:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct Klymen above, there are many more than just 4 sources that says she's a Persian Jew. The problem is, as has been explained, is that they're the same type of sources that just go around repeating each other. Again, "when in doubt - keep out" - which seems to be the logical step until this gets into wider discussion and an even clearer consensus can be reached. Mad Jack 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to say who gets their information from what. Thus simply assuming that Guardian took it from wikipedia is not enough for reasonable doubt. If you can prove that the Guradian took their information from wikipedia then by all means, I would delete the Persian Jew myself. Also, no I am not Klymen, however I do know the guy. 209.52.60.83 19:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced

"that's a post hoc fallacy" aside, I think it's safe to say that a claim on which there is not a single source antedating an uncorrected unsourced addition to wikipedia (which no-one's disputing) is "poorly-sourced", and therefore should be removed per BLP (the other criterion, that it's controversial, is self-evident.) --Random832(tc) 15:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "that's a post hoc fallacy" aside, The core logic behind the circumstantial evidences provided by Mad Jack and others are based on the fallacy. Last time I checked circumstantial evidences were facts.

To draw an analogy, what if some newspaper (we'll say the Grauniad, again, just to make the analogy work better) had said John Seigenthaler Sr was involved in the Kennedy assassination - would we take that as reliable? --Random832(tc) 15:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not arguing for the retention of the Iranian 'fact', that's a poor analogy. Amongst other things, if someone was allegedly involved in the JFK assassination, it would surely be covered in quite a number of sources. However, there's no reason to think the Iranian mother thing would be covered in many sources. Also, sadly the only reason we realised that instance of vandalism was because Seigenthaler wrote a scathing article criticising wikipedia so he had strongly denied it. This is not the case for the Cohen thing. The key issue here is that the quality of sources is probably not sufficient at the current time given that media sources which don't mention where the details come from are risky when the 'information' has been in wikipedia. Comparison's to the Seigenthaler just confuses things Nil Einne 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

photo

The new photo seems to be an exact copy of http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070115/070115_cohen_vmed_8p.widec.jpg. Is this a copyright violation? Abu ali 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Simon Baron Cohen

The article about Simon Baron Cohen says that he and Sasha are first cousins. This article says they are second cousins. Which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.145.200.110 (talk) 00:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

The inconsistency has now been fixed. According to both articles they are first cousins. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 17:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't inherit "Baron" as a surname as an honour, I'm sure. Secretlondon 09:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Um what? Baron isn't an honour in this case, see the article Nil Einne 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Israel & Judaism

It says that he is not a religious Jew, but he is proud to be Jewish. What does that mean? Does it mean he defines himself as a Secular Jew or does it just mean he doesn't go to the Synagogue that often? Does it mean that he doesn't partake in the religious aspects but simply is "Culturally or ethnically" Jewish? Does it mean that he doesn't believe in God? Help me out here - Olockers 11:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

our job here is to report what he says. the question of what he means is best left to the reader ابو علي (Abu Ali) 12:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, i just wanted to know if anyone had any info that could clarify this as it seems a little ambigious to me. thanks anyway.Olockers

Persian Jewish

His mother is an Iranian Jew from Israel.

Is Cohen really Super Greg?

There is absolutely zero evidence presented in this article that affirms Mr. Cohen played the character of "Super Greg" (a character created for the Lee Jeans viral ads circa 2000-2001) other than a similar looking appearance. Why does a search for "Super Greg" on wikipedia redirect here? Does anybody have proof?

Though they look similar, the super greg character is entirely too small in frame to give benefit of the doubt.

See for yourself: http://zmax.org/supergreg/sgdotcom/

If Mr Cohen indeed played the character of Super Greg please provide a valid source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.148.72 (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

A quick google brings up this Salon article [[23]] 71.146.177.138 01:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bruno.jpg

Image:Bruno.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Respect valid and sourced content on Wikipedia.

Racist visitors to Wikipedia continue to remove a legitimate and cited sentence stating that Mr. Cohen's mother is an Israeli of Iranian heritage. They replace it with links to small reports that neither expand on this matter nor do the links even work. Although you may not like Iranians and have xenophbic ideas, please respect Wikipedia rules and stop vandalizing legitimate information.69.255.101.99 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you respect the rules as well and remain civil and stop accusing editors, about whom you know nothing, of being racist. Pay attention to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and think that perhaps they just may be making an error. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the above discussions, there's a good chance the Guardian link copied uncited material from Wikipedia. If his mother was of Iranian heritage, wouldn't there would be more reliable sources saying so, instead of one website that used very similar wording from Wikipedia? The Iranian link was originally added by an IP on April 15, 2006 , which is the same IP who vandalised the Eric Stern page a few minutes earlier. Before April 15, 2006, there was no reliable source that mentioned his mother's heritage. Anyway, this is a circular discussion and the Guardian link is a very dubious source. The report was written by Kirsty Scott. I think this is worth bringing up with The Guardian themselves. They have contact info, saying we do not always get things right and should you feel it necessary to correct or complain about an article, the means for doing so are printed below. Spellcast 02:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: For the sake of preventing future edit wars, I've sent an email to reader.at.guardian.co.uk (as provided in the above contact page) regarding the factual accuracy of the Persian statement. I'll keep you posted if they reply. Spellcast 14:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cohen's Mother's Iranian Heritage is Valid

So the default rule is to question valid sources such as the Guardian newspaper and in the mean time keep non-functioning links on the article page? That is shameful and Wikipedia is better than that. CambridgeBayWeather, you are basically saying that it is not civil to accuse someone of racism but because they are making a mistake, they should be forgiven. I am all for thAt except for the fact that these xenophobes CONTINUE TO VANDALIZE MR. COHEN'S ARTICLE AND DENY HIS MOTHER'S IRANIAN HERITAGE. CambridgeBayWeather, I hope that you understand that his Iranian heritage does not degrade his links to Israel nor is it inaccurate or insulting. In fact it is a source of pride for many Iranians and Israelis should also feel blessed to have such a population with such a diverse background. Finally, it is idiotic to assume that every newspaper reporter has used wrong Wikipedia information unless proven otherwise. If nothing else, it is an insult to Wikipedia. KEEP YOUR BIGOTRY OUT OF WIKIPEDIA!!.66.255.177.98 21:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I love the accusation, repeated ad nausem and brought up nearly every single time when this comes up, that anyone who questions that his mother is supposedly from Iran must be a racist. That's a way to win arguments. Mad Jack 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mad Jack, we are conceding that she is an Israeli to satisfy staunch supporters of Israel. We are merely adding that she is of Iranian heritge. This fact is supported by references. Why else do you think the word Iranian is deleted EVERY SINGLE DAY from the article.

"Why else do you think the word Iranian is deleted EVERY SINGLE DAY from the article"? Um - because she isn't Iranian? Also, thanks for the "we are conceding that she is an Israeli to satisfy staunch supporters of Israel" comment. Anyway, see WP:Weasel words, which the "some sources" version of the article violates. Mad Jack 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Th "weasel words" argument has no basis here. She is of Iranian heritage and there is proper reference for this fact. By using the word concede, I was merely trying to end the back and forth and allow the facts to be stated in a comprehensive way. Don't be mad, Jack.

"She is of Iranian heritage" - how do you know? It appears to be a Wikipedia invention, which doesn't speak well for the practice of allowing unsourced info to nestle in articles until it's picked up by major media outlets and provides us, indeed, with a source. Mad Jack 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Cohen's Heritage

Please help keep Wikipwedia a civil and objective source of information. Sacha Baron Cohen's mother is an Israeli of Iranian heritage. This fact was added to the article about him. Time after time, hateful vandals have been removing the word Iranian and replacing it with worthless non-functioning citations. It is not with shame but pride that Mr. Cohen's full ancestry is described on Wikipedia. Please help to stop bigotry on Wikipedia.69.255.101.99 02:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we can, once and for all and forever, the bigotry argument? I give more value to the "keep Wikipedia accurate" and "avoid creating a situation where Wikipedia ends up citing itself" arguments. Mad Jack 08:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to delete information that's true, it's just that the Guardian link looks extremely dubious with almost identical wording to Wikipedia and all. I sent an email to the Guardian about a week or so ago, but to no reply. So instead of using our energy to continually revert each other, perhaps it will be better spent with a quick email to reader.at.guardian.co.uk as shown in their contact info? I think it's better to go the source of this issue, instead of having this circular discussion. Spellcast 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I just hope the response isn't something vague like "we verified this information", with no explicit source stated. Mad Jack 17:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've done a Lexis-Nexis search on this question. There are about 40 newspaper and magazine articles that mention that Cohen's mother is from Israel, but only two that claim that she is of Iranian or Persian ancestry. Of these two, one is, of course, the infamous Guardian article. (The other is a fairly recent and not presumptively reliable Canadian newspaper article that lists Cohen among a whole bunch of "figures of Iranian origin.") If it does turn out that the Guardian article was based on an unverified claim in Wikipedia itself, then we really do need to put this issue to bed once and for all. P.D. 19:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There were a whole bunch more of these around November 2006, from sources like the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and a couple of newspapers. They all had the exact same wording, "of Iranian origin" and "of Persian origin", with no other details or information, all obviously taken from the same source. There were none preceeding November or late October 06, and none after Wikipedia took the piece of info off. Mad Jack 07:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

E! clearly states that his mother Daniella Baron Cohen born in Israel; of Persian Jewish origin [24]. Arash the Archer 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that an "E" celebrity profile, which is culled from internet sources just like Wikipedia, the IMDB, the NNDB, etc., would be a reliable source? Mad Jack 22:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I really got disappointed when I read this discussion, the best way to finish this mess is just to contact him/his office directly to check it; after that the users who tend to revert it, can be considered abusers of WP for their goals and maybe according to WP:BLP deserving indef block --Pejman47 22:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that contacting him or his office would work. His career is based on fooling people into thinking he is something he's not. So why would fooling Wikipedia be any different? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

if someone is comedian doesn't mean he is not a wise guy. As I know this question has not been asked from him till now, and if (with a low probability) he decides to "fool" us, there will be no shame to WP because it showed we tried to get information from the most accurate one. --Pejman47 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any evidence that Baron Cohen intentionally created the Persian thing (or even knows about its widespread internet existence). He has given a lot of details about his personal life in actual out-of-character interviews, so.... Mad Jack 05:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Iranian heritage of Cohen being censored? There is an entire section on Israel and Cohen, and yet his Iranian roots info are being withheld. That's just stupid partisan editing.

WP:V clearly states nobody is supposed to be judging sources as long as they are verifiable. It is against WP rules:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

Who are you to judge that all the sources that I have provided are reliable or not? Im restoring the sourced information until a source actaully states the contrary.--Zereshk 23:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"nobody is supposed to be judging sources as long as they are verifiable" - that seems to be a contradiction. A source is or is not verifiable for a particular reason, and that reason is indeed something that can be under discussion by Wikipedia editors. It's true that "verifiability, not truth" is the criteria for WP:V, but there is no actual obligation to include a piece of information that, though verifiable, there is excellent reason to believe is not factually correct. It's not something as important to Baron Cohen's notability, as, say, that he starred in a film called Borat that made millions at the box office, so not including this particular disputed piece of information is akin to "couldn't hurt, might help". This whole thing seems to have inspired very lengthy discussions. It was brought up at the village pump and at RFC (Request for Comment), though I'm not sure of the results. I've no problem with this being brought there or elsewhere again for a wider view and a thorough consensus. Mad Jack 03:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• No there is no contradiction. WP:V says: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
• I have provided 9 sources that have clearly spelled out his Persian roots. Have you any source that proves the opposite? I dont think so.
• What is your "excellent reason" based on? A hunch? A dislike? A bias? What proof do you have to offer, except for speculation that The Guardian is "not reliable"? Iran has the larget Jewish population in the ME outside of Israel. Andre Agassi, Catherine Bell, and Christiane Amanpour are all Iranian celebrities by origin. So there is actually more "excellent reason" for Sasha being Iranian rooted, than for not being.--Zereshk 07:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The excellent reasons have been outlined in the long, long, long discussions above on this talk page. It appears that the Guardian took a description of Baron Cohen's family background, word for word, from this article. No sources preceeding September 29, 2006 contained this information, except for, of course, Wikipedia. What on earth do Christiane Amanpour or Catherine Bell have to do with this discussion? Or Persian Jews? Nothing. I know that there are Persian Jews, but that doesn't mean that Baron Cohen's mother, nee Danielle Weiser, is one. In any case, the only new thing I can tell you is that this needs to be taken to Request for Comment or whichever other methods of problem-solving exist on Wikipedia. I see nothing new being brought to the table here; all the sources you give are either not reliable (NNDB) or simply sites that repeat the same exact info in the same exact wording that Wikipedia, and then the Guardian, did. Mad Jack 08:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think so. You say: "It appears that the Guardian took a description of Baron Cohen's family background, word for word, from this article". Do you have proof of this claim, other than your own personal theory/speculation on dates?--Zereshk 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Do you have proof of this claim, other than your own personal theory/speculation on dates" If I had explicit proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sure, it's speculation, but it is very good speculation and it is almost certainly the case. Having examined this issue, several editors here appear to agree with me, so I am not alone in saying that this has merit. Mad Jack 03:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP gives more weight to published sourcing than to mere speculation against it. Claiming that all 9 sources are unrelaible and that they all got their information from WP is not only wishful thinking, it's also arrogant. Last but not least, I'm also not alone in my position.--Zereshk 21:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, many of the sources you gave are indeed unreliable (what makes NNDB a reliable source? Jimmy Wales has said it isn't). The point is that every single source, reliable or not, uses the exact same language and similar wording in describing this particular piece of information (the same wording as the Guardian, starting on Sept. 29th, and Wikipedia for a few months before that date). Mad Jack 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already had an RFC, but that doesn't seem to have settled this. The only solution is getting a reply from The Guardian. I think more people should send a quick email to The Guardian (as seen in their contact info) and ask how Kirsty Scott, the reporter of this article, obtained her info about Sacha being Persian. I emailed about a week or two ago, but to no reply. Also, I'm assuming the article was an actual interview with Sacha. But you'll see that he doesn't mention anything about being Persian. It's listed as a random "fact" on the bottom of the article. If they did get their info from here, I can't help but think how much they would want to admit "Yes, we copied our info off Wikipedia". So before replying to this message, be sure to send a quick email because this isn't going to be solved without getting a reply from them. Spellcast 09:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's wishful thinking. You people dont have the slightest iota to refute that he has (God forbid) Iranian roots, other than your own original research and speculation. That's just sad.--Zereshk 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Iranian/Persian Heritage of Sacha Cohen's Mother

Here's another link that mentions Sacha Cohen's mother as being of Iranian/Persian heritage: http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/contributor/1808442126/bio

And another: http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Sacha_Baron_Cohen/1170251#fullBio

How about a mention of his mother's Iranian/Persian heritage from his own site:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=135232094

People rant about the bigotry argument but they make up all kinds of bizarre conspiracy theories about how a great wrong was committed in Oct 2006 when his mother was said to be of Iranian heritage.

It's time to put this issue to rest.129.174.227.32 01:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's be rational here for a second. Anyone can see that's not his actual MySpace. It's a cut-up version of this very Wikipedia article. And it's not cut up very well, because whoever created it left a few of the reference numbers after the sentences![5]. We've discussed Yahoo and Hollywood.com, which are websites with no credited authors, meaning they don't pass WP:RS anyway, and, quite obviously get their information from Wikipedia and the like. The fact is that there are no reliable sources preceeding the September 2006 Guardian article (and thus, preceding the Wikipedia content from around that time). Since the Persian thing was removed from Wikipedia, less and less sites have been showing up with it. Mad Jack 03:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mad Jack's version of being rational:

1. Any site that mention's Cohen's mother's Iranian heritage is automatically assumed to be using Wikipedia as its source. 2. When this piece of information about Cohen's mother's Iranian heritage is removed from Wikipedia, fewer folks know about it. This is logical, but Mad Jack assumes that this means the information is incorrect or that Wikipedia is a bad place to obtain information. Mad Jack's logical reasoning skills are not up to muster.