Jump to content

Talk:Martin Lewis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Martin Lewis

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 05:50, 20 May 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1


Opening heading

Hi I made this page redirect to the disambiguation page. I don't see why one is any more important. In the UK most people would probably expect to see the journalist who seems to be on TV daily Aldaden 10:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi - Let me help explain why. It's not a question of importance. It's that in Wikipedia terms one is clearly more preeminent than the others.

For example, I'm sure that the English journalist is very well-known in England in his one sphere. Just as the basketball player is in Canada. But Wikipedia is international and does not cater to one nation more than others. No disrespect to the various Mr. Lewises - but neither a financial journalist known to TV viewers just in the UK on one niche topic over the span of the last few years - nor a basketball player popular in Canada in recent years are on the same level of international prominence as someone with a three-decade history of high-profile accomplishments in multiple fields in the entertainment world. Any UK wiki users looking for the financial journalist - or Canadians looking for the basketball player - will immediately see the DAB. and locate the niche person they are seeking. One need only read the main Martin Lewis article to see that this individual is more prominent than the others under this name. Similar precedent include Paul Simon, Jerry Lewis, etc. Also, as you can see regarding the horrendously long qualifier that is required for this particular Martin Lewis, it is simply impractical to try and pigeonhole him. The Amnesty/Secret Policeman's Ball element is what in my opinion gives him the edge. Yes I am speaking as the creator of this article but I'm also speaking as an experienced Wikipedian as well. 23skidoo 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Mr Stephen 13:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Third in support of 23skidoo's reasoning. Keeping a broad international perspective on Wikipedia articles is very important. Good practical solution. Davidpatrick 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


Hi. my reasoning on where the link should go was not based on looking at the person, or trying to decide which Martin Lewis was more international. As I am newer to Wikipedia editing, the first thing I did was look on the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page where what immediately caught my eye was: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?"

So was thinking which Lewis would they be more likely to be searching for?

Martin Lewis the journalist has a regular newspaper column in the UK and is often on national television several times a week(breakfast TV, newsmagazines and very often often a guest on the national news). He's talking about something that is incredibly important to everyone - money! - which makes a lot of people very interested in following up on what he says. Add to that an big internet presence with his absolutely huge website (an article for which is being created here)

Given this, I would imagine that on the internet as a whole, the majority of Martin Lewis searches would be for the journalist. And the fair thing to do would be to link to the disambiguation page That's my way of looking at it anyway. Aldaden 17:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. You make some valid points. And thank you also for being civil in your presentation! Alas not always the case here on Wikipedia as you'll find! There is no doubt that the financial journalist is prominent in the UK and has been for at least 3-4 years. If wikipedia was purely seen in the UK - and was biased towards currency over longevity (no fiscal pun intended!) - then that would be one thing.

What we try to do as wikipedians is look at the really big longterm picture. It our duty as Encyclopedians. So we try to weigh up and balance things. eg Topics and people that have resonance all over the world. We also try have to take into account the longevity of someone's career and the extent and impact of his/her achievements. And the number of other prominent people and events impacted as seen in other articles. If you have 2 or 3 people - all with the same name - and all with approximately the same level of prominence in their respective fields - equally known in just one nation - and the same span of years in the spotlight - then you have a level playing field and there is some equivalence. And no one individual could be perceived as being more prominent or impactful than another. Having read all the articles carefully, I think 23skidoo makes a very valid case that this is one of those individuals where the overall impact, duration and breadth warrants the designation he has accorded. Good luck with your upcoming article and welcome to the wikipedia community! Davidpatrick 18:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________

Forgive me but is this not an Amero-centric bias?

I'm rather new to all this and was mulling around here. I live in the UK, am University educated and am widely read. I've never heard of the American Humerist Martin Lewis, but like many in the UK I use MoneySavingExpert.com.

For me the idea that this is "Keeping a broad international perspective on Wikipedia articles is very important" is a wee bit ludicrous. While Martin Lewis (humourist) is originally from the UK according to the article, his name and knowledge seems to be of US focus. His journalism in US publication and broadcasts.

I hate to seem contrary, but aren't we in-fact simply seeing an USA bias here. This isn't about an internationalism, this is about a hegymony of one country on Wikiepedia. Personally I'm an amero-phile, yet I have noted the tendancy for people to judge someone known in the US as more important than elsewhere.

The argument about currency is a valid one. Judging by the article Martin Lewis (humourist) has been around for a very long time - yet Martin Lewis (Money Expert) has a political context too. His work has been commended by the UK parliament for helping social change and has been a campaigner.

From my perspective the simple answer is for Martin Lewis to head to a multiple page of all the Martin Lewis's and let people pick. However I suspect sadly, as it seems more experiences Encyclopedists are involved in this, it is always very tough to change peoples minds.

Forgive me if the form of this is incorrect, but I'm new here.

Paul _____________________________________

Welcome Paul! And everyone is equally welcome on Wikipedia - newcomers and ancient Encyclos alike! Your post was technically fine except that it appeared at the top of the page - and it would be more usual to post under the last entry. So I've taken the liberty of moving it for you.

Your points are very well taken - and I understand where you're coming from. Speaking for myself as an American Anglophile I'm always striving to encouage a broader perception and ensure that this is not US-centric. And i think most others share that view too. Given that this version of Wiki is in the English language - there tends to be a bias towards topcs and people of interest to Americans, Canadians (well the English-speaking ones!) Brits and Australians. So there is a sort of Anglo-American-Aus bias.

I can't speak for 23skidoo but i do know from his history that he's been around wikipedia for a pretty long time and he knows the ropes. and has a good rep. for being very fair. I've seen his work on a lot of very British topics (eg the excellent James Bond articles) so I know he's sensitive to that US vs UK matter.

Unless I'm mis-reading him I don't think this is about the America-ness of the older Martin lewis. I get the impression that 23skidoo is making the case that the impact of the older guys work has been on an international scale and not confined just to the commendably good impact that the finance guy has had just in his own country. (for which he certainly deserves kudos and his good rep)

I read 23skidoo's article and did some googling - and most of the projects did seem to have a worldwide impact. And over a long period of time. The Beatles and Who DVDs and especially the stuff with Pete Townsend, Sting, and Eric Clapton etc etc And of course the Amnesty world tour which was a huge deal at the time. Interesting to note that he mainly seems to work with you Brits! Personally I'd downgrade anyone who worked with Wham but that's just me!!! I guess the supportive quote from Bono sorta canceled out George Michael!!!! Overall I think 23skidoo has made a good case for prominence based on international impact of the many projects, the very lengthy span of the guy's work and the amount of other articles that link to the projects. So I hope you dont think this Yank is being a stuffy old "geyser" (SP?) but I think 23skidoo has it about right. Hope you find yourself contributing on a lot of topics here on Wikipedia. I for one would value someone making the game of cricket comprehensible to us Yanks! So please see if you can help on that article!

BTW - I note that looking up "cricket" on Wiki takes us straight to the English game and NOT to a disambiguation page. Surely the insect was around (and in America!) long before the Engish game!!! Maybe wikipedia is more British-centric than you think! regards Davidpatrick 00:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC) _____________________________________

Nobody's doubting the veracity of 23skidoo's page about the comedian. This issue is whether this page should be a disamiguation page or not. The only argument I've heard against is "He's the best-known Martin Lewis." That sound pretty specious to me. Surely the point is to meet users' expectaions. Unless Wikipedia already knows which Martin Lewis a user is searcing for, it should direct one to a disambiguation page first.

And, yes, perhaps this does mean that the Cricket page is wrong.

Cheers, richi. 21:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quick semantics

Just to make sure things are clear here -- the Martin Lewis under discussion at this article is British, based in America. I saw a few references above to him being an American comedian which is incorrect. The rationale why I feel he should be listed here as the "undisambiguated" Martin Lewis is based upon the following: 1. His involvement with a large number of major personalities, and most notably his involvement in establishing the Secret Policeman's Ball which has been acknowledged as an ancestor of Live Aid, etc. Plus his continued international involvement in other areas. And second -- how would you disambiguate the guy? You can tell by reading the article that this is an individual who simply cannot be conveniently pigeonholed. I know -- I tried to do so. I spent nearly 3 weeks sweating over this article because it was such a pain in the butt to try and give a sense of this guy without becoming to top-heavy on one. Is he just a comedian/humorist? No. Is he just a producer? No. The term here is "polymath" but it sounds so highfalutin that to use such a term is rather meaningless at least when it comes to disambiguating him. The attempt that was made a few days ago really didn't work very well, well-intentioned though it was. By comparison, the financial journalist -- who really is only known in one part of the world, and the basketball player here in Canada, are easier to pigeonhole because they specialize in one major activity. A good precedent to use is Paul Simon. There are presently two very well known Paul Simons on Wikipedia (plus some lesser known ones. There is a preeminent American politician, and there's a singer. Well the singer has a wider range of fields of endeavor than the politician as a singer, songwriter, producer, activist and even actor; the politician is best known for one field only and that's politics. So therefore it makes sense that the singer would get undisambiguated namespace. There is also a third reason why I feel this Lewis deserves undisambiguated namespace -- there are simply more articles that link to Martin Lewis -- as in this Martin Lewis -- than the others. And I haven't even really had time to go through all the articles where I recall his name appears but it hasn't been wikilinked yet. 23skidoo 22:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page moved back

The article was moved again and the reason given by the user for moving the article is that the financial journalist is more famous than a fellow who has produced some of the most famous concerts ever, is a well-known radio host, and has many other accomplishments under his belt. Before this thing goes to "Requests for Arbitration" which I am prepared to go to if necessary, let's get that consensus I requested first. If someone can provide documented proof that the financial journalist is more famous on the international stage than this Martin Lewis, I invite them to provide it here before the article is moved again. But for now I don't believe consensus yet exists to move this article. 23skidoo 11:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

__________________________

I was just about to add a comment when I saw the article was moved again. I was unsure if I should wait to see if it settled down - but I think I will... Once again, I cannot understand why it's being discussed who is more important or international. I'd suggest it's simply impossible to judge someones importance when we all have different backgrounds/interests and I don't quite understand why it would be part of Wikipedia to make judgments like that.

Surely it should be about helping the user find the article they're interested in as fast as possible rather than putting the person deemed most important at the front? Looking at the alexa ranking of martinlewis.com (6,556,379) compared to the ranking of Moneysavingexpert.com (avg 3033 but 1464 today) - and bearing in mind moneysavingexpert's Martin Lewis sends a weekly email to 650,000 people, I'm pretty sure I know which one people are more likely to be searching for. This in no way detracts from the work of Martin Lewis (comedian/humorist) - reading the article brought back memories of watching the Secret Policeman's Ball as a kid and I'm glad I know more about him now.

Before this talk page I had no idea that editors were expected to judge people's importance and decide who should get the top-spot. I never imagined people would object to a nice fair disambiguation page (though giving someone/something the main page because you're absolutely sure the vast majority of searches will be for them I can understand)

Apologies - I realize I'm completely new at this an perhaps have no right to make judgments on a well-established system or question experienced users.

This is the last I'll say on the matter as I'm more interested in the moneysavingexpert website - this is really more of a side issue to me. regards Aldaden 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the Martin Lewis page has been redirected the disambig page without consensus. From reading this page it is pretty clear that 23skidoo is the main advocate of directing Martin Lewis to the humorist, but the majority of other correspondents advocate disambiguation. Martin Lewis clearly is an ambiguous term by the very nature of this debate. I don't think it is controversial to direct the page to the disambiguation page rather than a specific instance. I have not heard of the humorist, and some people have not heard of the financial journalist. Who cares? Disambiguate and everybody is happy. --Danrees 11:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

__________________________

Just to point out as a matter of interest (and a likely reason why there are more users advocating disambiguation here) that Martin Lewis (Financial Journalist) did talk about this issue in a blog entry yesterday. --MartinBrook 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


First of all 23skidoo is certainly not the only person who feels as he does. I strongly support his position I have explained the reasons why I think his position is correct above. And I have bent over backwards to put it as clearly and nicely as i can. How many more times must it be said that Wikipedia is not a popularity contest like a flavor-of-the-month club whereby prominence in the past 2 or 3 years in just one locale in just one niche topic - makes a person equal in stature or lasting achievements to an individual whose accomplishments have had an impact over a 30 year span and whose works are known throughout the world rather than in just one country. As confirmed by links to the article. That would be a ludicrous way for us all to run what is utimately an encyclopedia of use to people all over the world. It has rightly been said that we should not be favoring topics or people just because they are American or based in the USA. But conversely neither should adherents or fans of one individual from just one country (an individual with no likelihood of ever being known outside his own country) impose a faux "they're all the same standard" merely because they happen to be familiar with a person with that same name who has just achieved a strictly local popularity (ie local to only one country) in the past couple of years.

I have just read the above note by MartinBrook and I looked at the blog of the financial journalist and frankly I am a little dismayed. The website proudly proclaims on its browser banner that he is "UK's only Money Saving Expert" (which seems like a strange boast; surely there is more than one expert in a nation with a population the size of UK). The writer headines his blog entry "uh oh here comes yet another bigger, badder Martin Lewis" - and then complains about the situation and says "Shame…. just when I thought I was making it somewhere in the Martin Lewis world…" He reveals that he tried to buy the "www.martinlewis.com" domain name from the owner a couple of years ago. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is a person who seems keen to have some prominence accruing to his name.... He then provides a link to Wikipedia - tipping his readers (in case they don't know) "'anyone can alter it"

Looking at the site it is clear that he is good at campaigning on issues relating to his specialist topic and of stirring up his adherents to become involved in grass roots activity to change things they don't like. That is (in my opinion) commendable stuff when it is used to protect consumers on financial matters. But it is NOT the way decisions in Wikipedia should be made. We are not an edition of "American Idol" or "Pop Idol". This is not about who has the biggest local fan base this week. Wikipedians make value judgements all the time based not about whether one individual is more well-known to an enthusiastic local fan base this particualr week or year. But about worldwide prominence over a sustained period of time that comes with accomplishment and longevity of activity. Otherwise in any case where there is an article about more than one person with the same name we will find ourselves imposing an artificial lowest common denominator standard - based on fan support. Any article about someone who has achieved prominence by dint of achievement can then be moved to a disambiguation page because there is an article about someone with the same name who is famous only in his/her own country for more recent activity. And that is clearly not right.

Read all the articles of the various Martin Lewises. Look at all the articles that link to them. There is not remotely an equivalence, 23skidoo's assertions are fair and he has made a very good case. Davidpatrick 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't Who is better known?, the question is If disambigation is needed, should it be the first page that a user lands on when they type in the name of the thing they're searching for?

It comes down to confusing users. I don't give a rat's backside who Martin Lewis is. I do care about Wikipedia being a useful resource for real people all over the world.

I take back my call for Cricket to be a disambiguation page -- in this case, I believe users are likely to expect the search term to be ambiguous, or at least not be surprised to find that the insect they're searching for is actually-a-ball-game-and-perhaps-you'd-like-to-click-here.

However, if it's not abundantly clear that users know that their search term is a homonym, the primary page should be a disamiguation page, IMHO.

People in the UK have probably never heard of the polymath, even if he is British. Just like people in the US haven't heard of the journo.

I vote disambiguate for this and other examples where it's not clear that the search term is ambiguous.

richi 17:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguation question

I dont even have a wiki account but thought I might add my 2 cents (sorry if I have broken some rule). I agree with richi, as there clearly is ambiguity as we are sat here discussing the matter I think there is no real reason not to a have a disambiguation page.

Definitions of ambiguity on the Web:

1) an expression whose meaning cannot be determined from its context 2) unclearness by virtue of having more than one meaning wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. No worries about breaking roles -- anyone can post comments, etc. The thing is a disambiguation page already exists and is clearly indicated at the top of the article. If someone is looking for one of the other Martin Lewises (or perhaps Martyn Lewis - note the spelling, or even a Martin Lewis we don't know about yet), it's pretty easy for someone to find what they're looking for. There's quite a bit of precedent for this sort of thing elsewhere on Wikipedia, for example Paul Simon, the example I gave earlier. 23skidoo 22:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to disambiguation text

I have just noticed that the text has been changed slightly to include direct links to Martin Lewis (financial journalist) and Martyn Lewis (journalist). This seems like a good solution to me.

Now perhaps there could be a link to me too (my middle name is Lewis :) --MartinBrook 13:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Content removed

A discussion thread has been removed by me as it was a violation of WP:ATTACK and WP:BLP as it made unsupported claims regarding the subject of this article. Please remember personal attacks are not allowed on talk pages and that talk pages should only be used for discussions relating to how an article can be improved, not the conduct of other editors. 23skidoo 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

Per WP:BLP, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed. Please stop restoring it. If you can support these claims with reliable sources, fine. Otherwise, they do not belong here. --Orat Perman 04:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. This article seems nothing more than a fan site. I have added a lot of {{fact}}, and they should not be removed until valid references are put in.If you want to honour the man—and he has been involved with many artists in showbusiness—then do some work on the article. --andreasegde 15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. 23skidoo 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Russell Brand

An anon IP added the following to the lead: "Was interviewed on the 23/02/2008 edition of the Russell Brand Radio SHow on BBC Radio 2. Pin Pin." The "Pin Pin" part triggered my decision to remove this. If someone can confirm the information and wants to place it in the article in its proper location and without any weirdness, go right ahead, although it's not particularly notable to indicate everytime a person is interviewed on radio or TV, otherwise we'd need to list every time this person was interviewed regarding the Beatles or what-have-you. 23skidoo (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I have moved the article. I see there has been a history. This is the only fair, and neutral, way. Argument's about this subject notability over others of the same name in Wikipedia are subjective and do not follow a neutral point of view. However, the title of this might be rather untidy. If a consensus decides an alternative, I'd be happy to assist in the move. The JPStalk to me 14:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  • With respect, longstanding consensus has held that this is the preeminent Martin Lewis. There has been no "move warring" - in fact the last time this article was moved was some 2 years ago. There was also an issue created with "What Links Here". A thorough examination of applicable policy and guidelines was undertaken before I did this revert, in the event Wikipolicy has changed. To the best of my knowledge, it has not. 23skidoo (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I can see to reference at all to policy. Links to the article can be corrected. What policy supports your view that this subject should be given priority over the others? The JPStalk to me 15:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh dear. This argument again. I'm afraid I have to very strongly disagree with "longstanding consensus...this is the preeminent Martin Lewis". This topic doesn't mean enough to me - and probably to most other people - to fight and I don't have a clue about the wikipedia arbitration process. But that doesn't mean that there ever was consensus - just recognition that The US based Martin Lewis has a few stubborn Wikipedia editors that won't have the idea of a neutral disambiguation page. The UK Martin Lewis now has a weekly email that goes to 2,634,533 people a week, he has his own weekly TV program accross the UK, and he's on other major TV and radio shows several times a week
Wikipedia:Disambiguation says 'Ask yourself: When a reader enters a word in the Wikipedia search box and clicks “Go,” which article does he expect to see?' - Well at this stage I even stick my neck out and guess 8 out of 10 people searching for Martin Lewis on Wikipedia are looking for the financial journalist. Even so I'm not arguing that the financial journalist sould be on this page - Just disambiguation Aldaden (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international resource. The fact that people in one country out of the 192 nations in the world (per the UN) may be looking for an article about a financial journalist by a certain name is a very good reason to have that person's name listed in a DAB notice at the top of the Primary Article of that name. And I am restoring that well-deserved DAB note. But it is not a reason to assume that a Primary Article should no longer be a Primary Article. There is a difference between accomplishment and impact in multiple spheres over a thirty year span with projects that have left a significant international footprint compared to prominence in a single nation on one niche subject. Wikipedia does not pretend that all people with the same name are of equal prominence internationally. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But my point is that the UK Martin Lewis has become so prominent in the UK that I believe if you add up all searches for Martin Lewis performed over the internet from the world as a whole, most searches on the english wikipedia for 'Martin Lewis' will come from the UK and be for the UK Martin Lewis - I can't emphasise enough that 2.6 million people get an email from him weekly! Consider another example. Suppose there was a European political called 'David Letterman' who did a lot for international projects and charities. Would anyone ever suggest that his article should take over the main 'David Letterman' article because he had an international perspective and many international accomplishments and impact on multiple spheres? Even if 99.999% of people were looking for the US presenter when they typed in 'David Letterman'? In my humble opinion Wikipedia should be about being neutral, it's not its place to rank people and decide who's best unless there's an overwhelming reason and no dispute (which there clearly is in this case) - Don't know how that squares with Wikipedias official policy Aldaden (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
By the way - Why is there such negative reaction to a Disambiguation page? Is it such a great insult to the US based Martin Lewis that he would have to appear among lesser mortals? Aldaden (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
With respect to editors Davidpatrick and 23skidoo, I can't help but notice that the two of them are responsible for adding Martin Lewis' name to nearly every Wikipedia article that mentions him.
Davidpatrick has been especially prone to dropping Mr. Lewis' name. He is responsible for mentioning him in the following articles: Channel 4, List of humorists, Julian Lennon, Lindsay Anderson, Peter Cook, Sam Peckinpah, Dudley Moore, Eric Clapton, Miramax Films, Bono, Michael Nyman, The Rutles, Jennifer Saunders, French & Saunders, Sting, Victoria and Albert Museum, The Quarrymen, Pete Townshend, Donovan, John Williams (guitarist), NME, The Atomic Cafe, Bob Geldof, A Hard Day's Night (film), Steven Van Zandt, Billy Connolly, Alexei Sayle, Interactive Achievement Awards, Andrew Loog Oldham, Pleasure At Her Majesty's, Sky (band), Joan Jett, Sirius Satellite Radio, The Secret Policeman's Balls, Portsmouth Sinfonia, Old Vic, Glenn Ford, Kim Fowley, Wham, Won't Get Fooled Again, Genya Ravan, Harvey Weinstein, The Huffington Post, Bob Wenstein, Gryphon (band), Benefit concert, VH1 Divas, Monty Python's Complete Waste of Time,
23skidoo has been less prolific, but he is the primary writer of the Martin Lewis article and has added Mr. Lewis' name to Rock Around the Clock, Bill Haley & His Comets, and Deep Impact (space mission).
23skidoo argues that "longstanding consensus has held that this is the preeminent Martin Lewis," but Aldaden's observation that "the US based Martin Lewis has a few stubborn Wikipedia editors that won't have the idea of a neutral disambiguation page" strikes me as more accurate. Orat Perman (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


First of all - can we please remember Wikipedia's policy: "Be polite" "Assume good faith" "No personal attacks". Secondly - among the many elements that come into regard when determining a Primary Topic are chronology, impact, geographical factors. Take for example the American who was instrumental in organizing Live Aid - Ken Kragen. If Wikipedia had existed in 1985 - he would immediately have had an article about him - and as the primary person (and at that time only prominent person) of that name - he would have become the Primary Article. Now it's 2003 and a young meteorologist called Ken Kragen starts to become popular in let's say Scotland. This Ken Kragen becomes a hugely popular weather forecaster on Scottish and then subsequently national British TV. Has is hugely popular. He is interviewed in the British media about climate change and every time there is any weather-related news. Has very significant amount of traffic on his official website where he offers long-term weather forecasts and tips about weather-proofing your home. Has a daily email with weather updates that is sent to millions of British people. Google searches for "Ken Kragen" (emanating from the UK) are considerable. He quite rightly has an article written about him called "Ken Kragen (meteorologist)" or "Ken Kragen (weather forecaster)". But his fame does not extend beyond the UK. He is a British phenomenon. Not known outside his own country. And given the speciality of his chosen field - extremely unlikely to become so. At that point it is very appropriate that a DAB notice directing people towards "Ken Kragen (meteorologist)" be added to the Primary Article. However, it would not be appropriate to retroactively determine that the Primary Article about Ken Kragen should now be re-titled "Ken Kragen (lawyer)" or "Ken Kragen (activist)" and have "Ken Kragen" go to a DAB page. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Now we are getting into all sorts of factors and I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage as I fully admit I don't know Wikipedias full policy on what's more important, but I would once again suggest that overall shouldn't it be about people getting to the article they want quickly - and I really very strongly believe that the majority of people on the english wikipedia would be looking for other Martin Lewises. And another important point you raise is who was there first. I believe the Martin Lewis page was a disambigous page and this whole argument started when the US based Martin Lewis was moved onto it by 23Skidoo. I wish I was more sure of this - perhaps someone who is more adept at looking over history pages that have been mixed up by various moves and removes can help - but if this were the case it knocks out the case that US Martin Lewis was there first with consensus. Aldaden (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Were it not for Wikipedia's policy of assuming Good Faith - one might detect a whiff of something emanating from Orat Perman's comments above. Insinuations that are put in perspective by a simple look at Wikipedia statistics:

23skidoo has made 35,768 edits on 13,896 distinct pages.
Davidpatrick has made 2,431 edits on 512 distinct pages.
Orat Perman has made 89 edits on 26 distinct pages.
Davidpatrick (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue as it relates to Primary Article is not about which article is posted first but whether one subject qualifies as a Primary Topic. Otherwise Wikipedia would be a prisoner to the sequence in which articles are added rather than being in service to facts. Let us say that there was a successful heavy metal band named "Mozart" who had a rabid fan base. When Wikipedia starts, an eager young fan posts an article about "Mozart". Before a classical music buff has posted an article about the famous composer. The first editor doesn't pretend that it is the only "Mozart" - it just happens to be the first article called "Mozart" on Wikipedia. Pretty soon along comes someone else and renames the first "Mozart" article as "Mozart (band)" and starts a "Mozart" Primary Article. With a DAB notice to to "Mozart (band}". No disrespect to the band. Just acknowledgement of the fact the first Mozart had achieved notability before the second Mozart - and in spheres broader than the niche of heavy metal. The heavy metal fans - who probably out-number classical music fans using Wikipedia - are not lost. They are smart. They see the DAB notice. Click on it. And one second later they are at the other Mozart article. No enormous tear in the fabric of the universe. Just a respect for facts. That is why Primary Articles have DAB notices at the top of the page. Davidpatrick (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But the idea is coming up that there was originally a consensus that the US Martin Lewis should be the primary article. My memory of the situation (and yet again I emphasise I could be wrong as it was a while ago) is very different and I recall it as more a case that you and 23Skidoo dug your heals in. I recall -
  • The Martin Lewis page was a disambiguous page every time I went to it from when I first searched for it.
  • 23Skidoo moved the US based Martin Lewis onto the main page (Can't remember if there was consultation as I wasn't watching)
  • I disputed that and returned the disambigous page (see the very first post at the top of this page)
  • 23Skidoo moved it back and I basically gave in as you were more experienced Wikipedia editors and I had no idea of what to do next other and express my opinion on this page.
If you read this page from the top all the contributions from other people at the time then it's pretty clear that there was not any consensus that the move was correct in the first place. Aldaden (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that I'm being attacked on the basis that I created the article initially and that somehow I have an agenda when I could just as easily accuse other parties involved in this discussion of being agents for the UK Martin Lewis. But I'm not doing that as I believe in Wikiquette. I will put my record up against anybody's short of Jimbo Wales himself in terms of my fairness. The fact is when this article was moved - 2 YEARS after anyone else expressed a damn about it - I went to see if a Wikipedia policy change had occuirred with regards to naming of articles. Policy changes happen - one of these policies resulted in me terminating one major aspect of my contributions to the project which was the uploading of images. I know full well policies change. I went and checked articles like Paul Simon to see if it had been moved to Paul Simon (musician) for example. Perhaps naming policy had changed. But to the best of my research it had not, and that combined with an unexplained allegation of move warring relating to something that happened more than 2 years ago, led me to the decision to override the move. The fact remains that things like e-mail hits and Ghits are not considered viable indicators of who is more preeminent than the other. I don't have the time to do the research for you -- this fact has been established via precedence in AFD and notability discussions. Martin Lewis has been involved with projects related to the Beatles, has been featured on CNN, was involved in establishing the Secret Policeman's Balls charity benefits for Amnesty International, is involved with the American Cinemateque organization, was instrumental in introducing both Billy Connolly and Alexei Sayle ... and yes he had connections to Rock Around the Clock and Bill Haley's Comets, too. And they fall under my main baiywick (pardon the spelling). Most notable in terms of the naming argument is that his career dates back to the 1960s, compared to the financial journalist who is of more recent vintage. That's where I made the decision that the move was unnecessary. If policy has been changed with regards to titling of like-named articles, please cite it because I couldn't find anything. 23skidoo (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just add that no - I'm not an agent for the UK Martin Lewis though I am interested in his site Moneysavingexpet.com which I'm a fan of and started the article for. It was only as a side isssue I care about the Martin Lewis article. What annoyed me 2 years ago was that a disamgious page was changed without consultation (that I saw anyway) to a page about a person I'd never heard of before and because Martin Lewis (UK) was in the media constantly (too much - with the credit crunch I can't turn a TV today without him being there) and I knew without a doubt that US based Martin Lewis was not the Martin Lewis most people going to the English Wikipedia would be looking for.
Today I wouldn't even have bother contributing (I said everything I wanted to 2 years ago) until you used the term "longstanding consensus has held that this is the preeminent Martin Lewis" - That was simply never the case. I disputed it from the beginning as did others Aldaden (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Aladen, you explain yourself well and fairly. We don't need to fight. I am sure that we can all maintain calm about our discussions. So thank you for being civil and explaining your POV. 23skidoo is far more active as an editor than I am. Nearly 36,000 edits on just under 14,000 articles.. But I have done over 2,500 edits on 512 different pages. And absolutely no disrespect to you - but you have contributed 337 edits to 61 different pages. So I would tend to defer to 23skidoo in terms of wiki experience and policy issues. Certainly he/she has much more experience than I do. I have looked at the article you started and it is a very well put together article. And given the prominence that person has in the UK I can understand where you're coming from. It is a not uncommon issue on Wikipedia. We all tend to be personally aware of people who are visible in the country we live. I think the issue here relates to where the person's work is known or has an impact. And over a considerable period of time. Films, DVDs, record albums etc etc featuring the Beatles and Monty Python, Sting and Pete Townshend etc etc are inevitably going to be popular outside of just UK and USA. There were some requests about a year or 18 months ago for citations to back up this article and I recall adding a few. I think 23skidoo added some. It wasn't hard to do. The stuff this guy has done over a 30 years plus career in the UK and the USA working with a lot of high-profile people is written about all over the place. According to the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune (and multiple other respected news sources), just this year this guy arranged for NASA to beam the Beatles song "Across The Universe" into outer space - the first time that NASA had ever done this. That's quite a big deal. And it was a very widely reported news story that according to Google was picked up all over the world. See: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/01/america/Beatles-Space.php as just one of many stories online. This is not in any way disrespectful to the British finance expert about whose website you have written an excellent article - but there is a difference in impact that is felt outside of just one country, outside of just one niche topic, and indeed in multiple spheres. And over three decades. Having a Primary Article on someone whose name comes up in different countries and on different topics doesn't diss your guy. As long as your guy is listed in a DAB notice at the top of the page (which I reinstated today because I think it belongs there) then all is fair in the universe. Davidpatrick (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Still not convinced, but, to be honest, when we're on our death beds, we will cry at the time we've wasted in this discussion. I commend some of the above patient comments. As David says, so long as there are correct DAB notices at the top (though, when I came to it, it was a bit messy - just keep the link to the communal dab page, rather than listing a few. I understand the logic, though the finance journalist's increasing prominence does question it. Like Aldaden, I think a DAB page would be the most neutral way. However, I made a pledge after my last wik break to not get stressed over silly wiki politics. The JPStalk to me 20:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you JPS for your civility too. In the long run we will all probably regret countless thousands of hours on Wikipedia! There should always be a DAB notice at the top. I understand your suggestion that it should be just a link to the communal DAB page. However, I think that in deference to the good points that you and Aldaden have made about the financial journalist's increasing prominence in the UK - I think the DAB notice at the top of this Primary Article should reference that particular person - with the others to be found on the DAB page. That way those in the UK who are seeking the finance guy don't have to go to a separate DAB page to find him. Davidpatrick (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so prominent any more

The UK journalist Martin Lewis is the 11th most searched for name in the UK according to this Guardian article making the claims above that this famous chap in America is so much more notable than the others that we go to his article when pumping the name Martin lLewis in Wikipedias search. The debate about moving this article needs to happen again given these new claims, I am quite happy to take it to WP:RM. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

11th? I've heard the number 1 most searched for and that's what the article you linked to says -'At the end of last year, Martin Lewis says he "was the most searched personality in the UK, unbelievably beating Barack Obama by 11%"' I think this was the original source '“Money saving expert” Martin Lewis the most searched-for personality in the UK; Barack Obama in second place,' and it's been reported very widely - Popped up in my google reader about a dozen times. Aldaden (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:RM would be a good idea! Aldaden (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree this should be taken to WP:RM. --Orat Perman (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. I'll leave it to someone else to modify the incoming links to Martin Lewis. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Martin Lewis → Martin Lewis (humorist) — See comments above. There are two prominent people with this name, allowing "Martin Lewis" to be disambiguation seems far simpler than all this arguing. Fluteflute Talk Contributions 13:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

After some consideration I have reverted the move for the time being. The discussion regarding moving the page was only open for a few days. In the past one or two users have occasionally advocated a change, but there has never been a consensus, and in this case 2 people agreeing to the latest proposal hardy constitutes a consensus either. This has been the primary article under this name for several years and there has never been a real consensus for a change. I created the page and I wasn't even notified of the RM proposal. The large number of articles linking to this page, coupled with the extensive sources in this article, and Lewis' well-documented contributions to many fields worldwide over a 40 year period - Beatles, Amnesty International's charity concerts, Monty Python, The Who, Huffington Post, etc - establish that this Martin Lewis is the primary subject under this name. 23skidoo (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-read this page. There was never any consensus for this page to be the Martin Lewis page in the first place - Not for any length of time. The fact that this has been the primary article for years should have no bearing since it was never here with any consensus. If you really wanted consensus why didn't you put up a "request move" notice up to move it back? Or were you worried that it might not go your way? Aldaden (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with Aldaden. I have looked at the history. This article has been the primary article for a considerable period of time. This issue has been raised very occasionally over the years. Almost always by supporters of the financial journalist of the same name who is popular in just one country. 23Skidoo has explained the position well about Wikipedia being an international website and the difference between popularity in one nation on a niche topic vs prominence and major impact over a considerable period of time and in many fields of popular entertainment and media. There has not been overwhelming consensus for change. 23Skidoo did the right thing in restoring the situation. I also think Davidpatrick did a good thing by restoring the direct DAB link to the financial guy. That way if there are Brits who come to this article thinking looking for an article about their financial guy there is an instant one-click link to that article at the top of the page And all the people from everywhere else in the world who are fans of the Beatles, Monty Python, The Who, Pete Townshend, Sting, Bono who are seeking more information about the person who has worked with all those artists over the past few decades etc etc etc will arrive at the article they would be seeking.--Dendennis (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Also very respectfully - I have absolutely no wish to go over the arguments. They are clearly detailed above and and to respond to your comments would just repeating. My issue is not with the arguments for and against the article being here. My strong issue is with anyone saying it came here and has remained here with consensus. I'm happy to see arguments for and against the article being debated and I am quite happy to say that my opinion is not always the right one and I may well be wrong in this case. But this article being here has been debated almost from day one. Just because I backed off and let Skidoo have his way (I had absolutely no idea how to take the argument to a higher Wikipedia level and still don't) does not mean that consensus was reached. And the fact that it has remained here so long doesn't mean there was consensus - Look what happened - Even a Move Request and discussion where every contributor was pro-moving couldn't get it moved with Skidoo guarding his original unilateral decision. So please - debate the article being here with any arguments you like, but please don't use the argument that it came here with any consensus or that the reason it remained here was because of consensus - and following from that any argument that it should remain here because of the length of time it has been here without that consensus - just seems really unjust to me. Aldaden (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should clarify something. "Martin Lewis" was originally when I first found it (and I think for a looooong time before) a Disambiguation page. I came on one day to find that Skidoo had moved the humorists article onto it. I immediately moved it back to being a disambiguation page and made the opening comment at the top of this page. If consensus was the goal then it should have been debated then with the article remaining Disambiguation until consensus was reached. Instead Skidoo immediately moved Humorist here again and would not let it be moved and insisted that his decision should be the default rather than disambiguation be the default until consensus was reached. That's why the argument over consensus and length of time this article has been here being used as an argument by Skidoo riles me so much (and gets me posting these unnecessarily long arguments over an article that I don't really care about!) Aldaden (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Aldaden - Thank you for keeping your comments civil. This is what makes Wiki a pleasant environment. Not everyone includes words such as: I am quite happy to say that my opinion is not always the right one and I may well be wrong in this case. That is a very mature approach which I commend. I've just read your notes. You say that you "don't really care about" about this article yet you've taken time to write a couple of paragraphs about it. Which is fine. All of us have opinions. So your notes deserve a response. Knowing that sometimes our recollections can play tricks with our memories (I certainly find that happening to me occasionally!) I thought I should take a moment to check the history - just to see the actual timeline. Your recollection was "Martin Lewis" was originally when I first found it (and I think for a looooong time before) a Disambiguation page. I've checked the history. The passage of time between you first finding the DAB page and editing on it and Skidoo making his change was actually a grand total of just eight days! Your first visit and edit was on 13 August 2006. Skidoo moved the primary article on 21 August 2006. Just eight days. The DAB page itself was created just a couple of weeks earlier. The mind plays trick on us all! I'm not an expert on all things Wikipedia but I do know that Skidoo was/is an administrator with a very large number of edits under his/her belt and therefore wasn't acting blithely but with some knowledge of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. (I got very politely reprimanded by Skidoo for making some Wiki mistakes!) I have to say that Skidoo seems to be a very civil editor with a reputation for acting decently as an administrator. Anyway, I digress. As you say, there is no point in going over the arguments yet again. My point here is that I think Skidoo's actions were in order and I agree with Skidoo on the underlying points he/she has made about this article. But I do think it was important that there be a DAB link to the financial journalist at the top of this article so I added that. So anyone looking for an article about that guy will find it easily. I trust you agree that that should stay intact. Since as you say, you don't really care about this article, I think we can all now move on with honor intact and save our huff 'n puff for things we really do care about! Davidpatrick (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No - I am absolutely convinced that the Martin Lewis page was a disambiguation page. Maybe it wasn't called a disambiguation page, and maybe it wasn't on the URL "Martin_Lewis_(disambiguation)" at the time - and the history system on Wikipedia is so complex I'm not sure how to check. The reason I seem to be coming back to this page is not really about the article itself now, it is sheer frustration that I bent over backwards at the time asking for consensus to be agreed before any Martin Lewis became the primary. That consensus was never reached and yet the word consensus is being used now as if we who think it should be moved are going against some sort of long standing agreement. It's just laughable.Aldaden (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Lewis/Archive_1&oldid=1088802027"