Talk:Bouncer (doorman)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Bouncer (doorman) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 24, 2008

Contents

[edit] Unsorted early comments

There is an occupation "doorman" that is separate from the occupation "bouncer". Hotels, office buildings, and expensive urban condos and highrises often hire someone who sits or stands near the door and helps to ensure that no one has unauthorized access to the building. Residential doormen often also accept packages, assist people with luggage, and even open the door for people entering and exiting.

So... can we make "bouncer" a separate article? Avocado 23:06, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I utterly and completely agree. The two occupations cannot be likened together as in this article. How can you possibly say that a "doorman is a bouncer working in a hotel"? Just ridiculous. --JackLumber 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree. A hotel doorman and a bar bouncer are as related as a casino security guard and a mall rent-a-cop. There needs to be two seperate entries. I added substantially more "meat" to this article before signing in - if the article is split, please retain this information under "bouncer". Youspeakmylanguage 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
BTW: I've been a bar bouncer for three years. Youspeakmylanguage 20:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot disagree more than I do with the assessment nd recommendation put forward by Jacklumber and Youspeakmylanguage. Aside from a bit of strangeness which was pointed out below, the article here does a remarkable job of summing up the professional performance of bar security. The quibble about the word 'Doorman' is makes little sense when one considers that nouns can shift what they refer to based on their surrounding context. If I use the word, "car," no one objects to it's meaning both "automobile" and "a section of a passenger train. The same is true when it comes to the "bouncer/doorman" question.

Sorokahdeen 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)sorokahdeen

Inside the industry in the UK the use of Bouncer is very much depreciated to the point where the SIA and BIIAB get quite upset about terms like “Bouncer” Training courses Mjwalshe 14:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the SIA and BIIAB tell us that we are "door supervisors" which is just as alien a term, if not more so, than 'bouncer' in the industry. Pienamo 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who the hell thought up this line? "Many clubs enjoy tailoring the appearance of their powerful bouncers to increase the likelyhood of you attacking one of them, at which point they will overpower and ruthlessly punish you." I've seen bouncers approach someone, and they don't try and instigate a fight at their first chance. In fact, in the only case that i've actually seen the bouncer hit someone first, it was because he was brandshing a broken bottle and threatening to attack someone. 70.113.23.254 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Many people seem to have a real problem with us, but Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a soapbox. We're okay people really, most of us. Violence is the last resort, and only then if you are doing it out of defence or protecting someone else. The skill of a good bouncer lies in his or her ability to talk a situation down. It'd be nice if people were more positive about us. We may not always be a pleasure to deal with, but we're looking after everyone's safety. Pienamo 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with User:70.113.23.254 (I wonder if he would let me just call him 'user') the line he cites is beyond ridiculous if for one practical reason that no one seems to take into consideration: bars and nightclubs can be sued for the actions of their employees. No bar-owner would retain an employee or crew of employees that he knew to be habitually violent. The Numbers fail to add up in that the cost of defending a lawsuit far outstrips the value to a bar of any security employee hired to provide security. Whatever else you may say about us (more than a decade of experience in my case) we are low-paid employees and easily replaceable. Sorokahdeen 17:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Sorokahdeen

Here in the UK the bouncer stereotype of large muscular men seems to be fairly accurate - probably more as a detterant against violence, although I have witnessed several people being phsically ejected from bars, etc for hurling verbal abuse at the bouncers. This seems to go against the "persuasive verbal techniques" mentioned in the article. Those are just my experiences though - I imagine something like that would be quite hard to find a reliable cite for. 86.16.36.41 10:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality and factual accuracy disputed

This article generally lacks neutrality, claiming that bouncers "will supplement their wages by collecting "tips" from patrons in order to bypass a line or enter a club that has already reached its legal capacity". Expressing that bouncers "often prefer[…] intimidation and loud verbal threats" is also a bad thing to do in Wikipedia. I further find it peculiar that the article claims it to be normal for bouncers to call the patrons "nancy bitches". In addition, the article needs references. The article is so badly written that it probably should have been deleted. 84.48.89.77

I'd have to agree. I've worked the industry for five years, and I've never collected a "tip." I've also never referred to a drunken customer as a "nancy bitch," nor have I worked with another crowd controller who has used such an insult in my presence. I've taken the liberty of removing the section regarding bouncers being payed less than police officers, soldiers and other security officers. I'm inclined to believe that pay rate depends on the employer, the nature of the work and the bar/club/venue a bouncer has been contracted to protect. Besides, I'm earning far more in security than I was earning in the Air Force. I've also added that the professional term for a "bouncer" is "crowd controller," as this is the license we must possess in Australia in order to work in this particular area of security (oh, and because "bouncer" is a label, not an occupation). If anybody disagrees with this, go ahead and change it, although it would be appreciated if you would explain why on this page. Gamer Junkie 05:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to clean up the article. It should probably be moved to Bouncer (security), Bouncer (profession) or something like that. 129.177.48.69

[edit] The Legal Rights (UK) section added

That sounds rather original researchy to me, does anyone have a reference for this? I'm not from the UK myself, but I've never heard of bouncers "arresting" random people off the street there. That's a rather strange accusation to make without a reference to back it up. Besides that, wikipedia isn't supposed to give advice like that, I know it's in the policy somewhere, I remember reading it. I just don't remember exactly where I saw it. Still, anyway, that section really needs a reference if it's to stay in the article in its current form. Errick 17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The section in question was also very poorly written and unencyclopedic. I have replaced the paragraph with a brief summary, but unless a reference is found then this should also be removed. I have also removed all uses of "arrested", since without further explanation it is not clear what this means (A bouncer / doorman is not a policeman and does not have the power to legally arrest anyone inside or outside of the club. The suggestion that nightclubs buy land outside the club in order that their staff can attack passers-by (which of course would still be illegal) seems dubious if not ridiculous without a reference and I've also removed that. 85.210.134.104 07:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

I hope the fact that I just undid a number of changes will not lead to Nazamo taking it personally (this is a 'good' article for edit wars, sadly). I think that the lead paragraph should remain more succinct - short and not too detailed. I have kept the section on use of force, though its heavily in need of references.

The change to 'notable bouncers' into 'notable names' is a (maybe too strict?) following of the WP:MOS style guide, which says that the title of an article should not be reused in the section names unless necessary.

MadMaxDog 08:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Come a LONG way

Just to pat ourselves on the back, compare THIS version (only a month ago!) with the current one. What a little friction and energy can do ;-) MadMaxDog 11:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has one of the best pictures I've ever seen on a wiki. Someone had to say that. Kevin S. 21:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Never did like that picture... it's such a Roadhouse cliche. Nevertheless, this article is very good now. Perhaps it's time it was submitted for FA review? Gamer Junkie 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is cliche - and it's STILL great. Wonder how many times I will have to defend that image during the GA/FA nomination process, in lieu of actual discussion about the article contents.Ingolfson (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A change of the Law in Canada

An FYI: see this site on how Bouncers are now (well, as of Aug 23rd/07) officially classified and licenced under the catagory of Security Guard in Ontario Canada. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

Per the quick-fail criteria of the GA nominations process, any article with cleanup or expansion banners, such as the one currently in the History section, must be failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy the issues brought up by any such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. If you feel this review was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That banner is ridiculous. How big would this article be if we chose to represent the history of bouncers from every country and culture on the planet? Gamer Junkie T / C 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asserting that the banner is correct. I'm saying it violates the GA quick-fail criteria and thus causes the article to fail the GA nomination. Remove it and renominate the article if you want. VanTucky 01:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Very well. I'll do that. Gamer Junkie T / C 01:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just tried for over half an hour to google ANYTHING. No luck. I'm amazed that we have so much in the history section at all. Even with various different search combinations (such as "history" or different country names added to the search terms) all I get is modern stuff if at all - most of it is barely connected blog-stuff and such. And there seems to be little real lit about it anyway (except modern-day tell-alls). Ingolfson (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

All I get is stuff related to this and various anime/manga shows. I believe we have the entire earthly sum of bouncer-related knowledge ever written already here. Gamer Junkie T / C 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Aaah, you give up too early. I have added some more research and regulation stuff, including some from Singapore, and I have found a ref for Glenn Ross (a real stub of a ref, but still good!). So what's missing? Oh, yes - ANOTHER 30+ minutes spent on trying to get more on history of other countries, and NOTHING. For all we know, bouncing was invented in the US and then spread (but only to English-speaking countries - which may explain part of our problem). Ingolfson (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work with Glenn Ross. As for history, if somebody else can do better, they're more than welcome to chip in. We could try to find Wikipedians related to security across the world and ask them to add stuff related to their respective locales. That would probably take forever, though. Gamer Junkie T / C 12:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the "Excessive force" section could really use a ref or two. Murderbike (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As no activity has been made to improve this article as suggested, I'm failing it. Noble Story (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Would the suggestion you're talking about be the one and only comment directly above your own? Did you even read the article? Perhaps you could add some suggestions rather than make it seem like you simply read the above comment and failed the article. Considering you've failed it, I would assume you agree with the above editor. I do not. I believe "excessive force" is covered quite well already. Would you please explain why you believe it isn't? I'm sorry if I'm coming off as slightly hostile, but explanation comes with the territory when you make such judgements. Gamer Junkie T / C 05:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the previous comment. Also, following suggestions is not automatically the correct thing. The first paragraph could easily and correctly be referenced by simply copying over some references provided in other locations in the article (which I will do in a second). The article will be re-assessed/renominated, but as Gamer Junkie said, a comment from you regarding the fail would be appreciated. Ingolfson (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
So, what shall I say? I'll be honest, and admit I'm wrong. I reviewed the article, shall I say, rather hastily. I would say that my reason for failing it was definitely wrong. Please use re-assessment, or whatever you deem necessary. My sincere apologies. Noble Story (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Most people would have come up with some nonsense or thrown in a technicality or two. Your honesty is appreciated. Gamer Junkie T / C 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets resubmit. Force section is now referenced, respectively the claims toned down to more clearly match the refs. Ingolfson (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Profiling

This line from the article "...separation based on race or cultural group." is troubling me. In Canada I believe it is illegal (yet still occurring, based on complaints by banned individuals) to refuse someone entry to a club based on race. Should the line be allowed to stand without any mention of the 'racial profiling' debate? --Byron Bell (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to be too blunt, but why is this a problem? The claim is referenced, and it is easily understood and well known that this IS or at least has been the case in many eras and or parts of the world. Try getting into certain clubs in the US South as a black. Or as a Turk or Russian into some German discos. Or as a punk into a upper-class nightclub.
So how does the question of whether this is racism or legal enter here? You might try to include such a link (to profiling), but I am concerned that it might be a bit heavy-handed (because it would make that particular part the article take off on a tangent). Maybe a subsection, if you want to go to the trouble of researching profiling in regards to bouncers, might make more sense. Ingolfson (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

This is a very unusual article on an interesting subject. It is very well written and informative, and is quite thoroughly cited. However, there are some rather serious issues preventing the article from reaching GA status.

  • You should use the cite web template for your website citations. This site is probably the best place to go for this conversion.
  • What about the rest of the United States? Only California and New York is mentioned. Maybe it would be helpful to make a fork article for bouncing in the US?
  • There's only one image. More images should definitely be included.
  • The lead is not comprehensive enough for a GA. It should be sufficient to stand alone as a summary of the whole article.
  • The 1800s section is pretty choppy and would be better off with some of the paragraphs merged together.
  • Anything recent about bouncers? It stops at the 1930s.
  • I have some doubts about the reliability of some of your sources. Blogs and websites like "Witnessjesus.com" wouldn't really fall under this definition.

If you have any problems with this review, feel free to contact me on my talk page or go to WP:GAR. bibliomaniac15 Midway upon life's journey... 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed doesn't quite begin to state it. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR FA STATUS HERE!!!
  • You should use the cite web template for your website citations. This site is probably the best place to go for this conversion.
Sigh. Yeah, yeah, yeah. May do.
  • What about the rest of the United States? Only California and New York is mentioned. Maybe it would be helpful to make a fork article for bouncing in the US?
Definitely not. Wasted effort when apparently we cannot even get this article to suit people. I do not think that THIS article is improved by listing regulations from all 52 states (which you do not seem to suggest, granted). However, this means that according to your comment we still should remove those two sections to make this article better. Why?
  • There's only one image. More images should definitely be included.
Eh, I just spent 20-plus minutes on Flickr trying to find more (before reading your comments). No luck at all. I also do not really agree that lots of images are a requirement for GA ("available and appropriate").
  • The lead is not comprehensive enough for a GA. It should be sufficient to stand alone as a summary of the whole article.
Will see what we can do.
  • The 1800s section is pretty choppy and would be better off with some of the paragraphs merged together.
Will look at it. Disagree, this does not need any merging in my opinion. Ingolfson (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything recent about bouncers? It stops at the 1930s.
Most recent stuff we found is blogs, and most of the up to date stuff is in the main article. If you read the talk page, you will see how difficult it is to get modern refs unless you go out and buy some of the tell-all books (which may or may not be good refs and are unlikely to have stuff on 1930-1970s).
  • I have some doubts about the reliability of some of your sources. Blogs and websites like "Witnessjesus.com" wouldn't really fall under this definition.
Since when does a GA article have to reference what is effectively a "See also" section to exhaustive levels? We thought we'd be better off by doing so (and we kicked out all people who were not referencable at all) but apparently we should have kicked them out alltogether? All it claims to ref is the fact that somebody was once a bouncer. Any others you find dubious?

Sigh. This is about as frustrating as getting a quality image on Commons. I think I'll take a break now before I get too irritated. Ingolfson (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly getting that way. Are we going for GA or FA here? It might not be perfect, but I'd say it's pretty damned good. The website Witnessjesus.com shouldn't be problem at all. So what if it's a religious website? It confirms the information we have here. It's not a blog or rumour mill, so I see no reason why it shouldn't be used. As far as the exhaustive list goes. I'd be adding more information from other countries not listed at all before adding more information on the minor legal and ethical differences between the 52 states of the United States. I'd imagine such a list would be chopped down and merged into a general description for US security to decrease article size pretty quickly anyway, so no. I was also under the impression that we're to use as few images as possible. Especially when we can't find free-use alternatives. Gamer Junkie T / C 03:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
So what do we do? Fix the ref styles (a pet peeve of mine, I dislike the cite web format), do some more post 1930s research and maybe the odd other US state and then either call for a re-assessment or - ha! - resubmit again? Ingolfson (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, let's just get it up to FA standard so we can get a GA rating. Personally never cared about the ref styles, myself. They're just footnotes and not even part of the article proper, not to mention a pain in the arse to change, but I'll do it anyway if that's what it takes. I tried finding modern info that wasn't related to blogs and forums, but didn't get much. I'll keep trying anyway, I suppose. As for US states... no. I'm not going to focus all of my attention on one country's various minor discrepancies and subtle law differences. If an American editor wants to come in and take care of that, fine. As for me, if they want more detail, it'll pertain to countries that aren't listed at all yet. I'd rather shoot for a global perspective. Particularly considering neither of us are Yanks. Gamer Junkie T / C 14:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, course charted, then. How about we nominate for FA as well, to flagellate us a bit more? (Just kidding) Anyways, I don't think I will have the time / interest to work on this more before the next weekend. See you then. Cheers. Ingolfson (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Feelin' the same here. Whoever gets to it first then, eh? I'll probably add a bit more in a couple of days. Probably. Gamer Junkie T / C 09:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Went through Flickr again, checked all Wiki-compatible resuts for "Doorman / doormen" "bouncer" "security guard"... for over half an hour. No luck. tried some historical image sources, nothing either. We will have to stick with the photo we have. Ingolfson (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually there was one other useful picture - directly there on Commons! I missed it the last time round, because it needed some light touching up before it looked okay, but it's actually quite good. Ingolfson (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
To be done:
  1. References format as per below
  2. Lead expansion
  3. Try to find material post-1930s
  4. Maybe one or two more US States

Ingolfson (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Another picture certainly helps. Good work. I'll leave the references format and US states to you, and that's only if you want them. I don't consider either to be necessary in the slightest for a GA pass. Lead and modern material are definitely on the agenda. Gamer Junkie T / C 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
After some dicking around with it, I strongly disagree with a forced conversion to cite web format. For example, the second reference (by the Security Industry Authority). When I correctly fill it in using the tool mentioned, one is left with:
  • either a very foreshortened ref (which doesn't even correctly add the name of the doc, so I have to add it by hand)
  • OR, if I also add the author (i.e. the "Security Industry Authority, Great Britain" and provide it in standard link brackets) a garbled ref which shows three links, of which only the third link is the main ref itself.
    • However, if I unlink the author, to make it clearer which is the actual ref, then I actually reduce the information provided, because the user doesn't there is actually an article about the author/organisation too.

It can't be a positive step in an article to reduce this kind of information.Ingolfson (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't get the real lit

Its frustrating - there's serious academic research about bouncers (see the bottom of the list for just some examples [1]) and yet I can't get more than five-liner abstracts, because all those fine academics don't want their work to be freely accessible. Grrrr... Ingolfson (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Found some. It's a single source, but it's a goldmine... Ingolfson (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible unintentional self-contradiction

In the Use of force section:

Despite popular misconceptions, bouncers in Western countries are normally unarmed. [16][17] Some bouncers may carry weapons such as expandable batons for personal protection, [18] but they may not have a legal right to carry a gun or other weapon even if they would prefer to do so.

References only point to the Au training allowing Security Officers to take the course. I think it would be advantagious to find a Reference to what the Au Law says about Security carrying such a weapon as this bit sounds self-contradictory ( but for the life of me I cant seem to rectify it :/ ). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you stating that although crowd controllers can take a course that allows them to carry certain weapons on their person, they aren't actually allowed to do so anyway? Such a reference seems somewhat redundant. The course would be entirely pointless if this was the case. Gamer Junkie T / C 05:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, this is a generic statement, which is also hedged for the very reason that laws of various nations will differ. If we go totally afield, I am sure there are few laws that would prevent a bouncer in a bar in the Congo from carrying an automatic rifle (okay, I am drifting off topic here - but the point is that exceptions in some country's laws don't invalidate the point). Ingolfson (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, I have a problem with "Some bouncers may carry weapons such as expandable batons for personal protection" ... followed by a reference to a training course. How does that Ref support the statement? The inference is that once trained, they can carry, but this should be supported by a Ref to a law stating so. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be assuming that the security industry isn't bound by laws and regulation acts. There are countries that allow it and countries that don't. Heck, there are parts of countries that allow it and parts that don't. Would you prefer it if we added this or a list of laws from various countries? It would help if you'd tell us how you would like the situation remedied. Gamer Junkie T / C 07:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be against citing or requesting whole lists of laws! We'd end up in the same fallacious avenue of 'improving' the article as if we had actually spent time on the request to add lots of other US states to the "By country" section. Ingolfson (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I also note that the "Some bouncers may carry..." statement wouldn't even be wrong if they carried the baton illegally. Ingolfson (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The list thing wasn't really serious. I was being annoying. And the baton thing would, of course, only apply to places where people can actually carry them. Gamer Junkie T / C 11:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)