Talk:Gary Weiss

Journalist?

Based on my search, Gary Weiss has not been a journalist for over two years. The "American Journalist" and "Investigative Reporter" cats should be removed. Looks like his blog is pretty dormant, too. I'll also recommend removing that cat.--Powder Blue Tuxedo 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

He used to be a journalist and an investigative reporter (maybe, but that information is uncited in the text, so we don't know for sure). If it turns out to be true, then shouldn't the article still be included in those categories, since he used to do that kind of work? Cla68 23:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I guess my comments were inspired by the standard set here. Henry Blodget was a freelance reporter turned finance columnist whom User:Mantanmoreland at one time felt undeserving of the category American Journalist. I assumed Mantanmoreland would appreciate the opportunity to be consistent.

On that note, I'm eager to get Mantanmoreland's retrospective impression of the comments he made here, regarding the appropriateness of editing one's own article.--Powder Blue Tuxedo 04:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith removal of cited, referenced text from article

Mantanmoreland, you deleted the following text from the article:

Libel suit

In 1996, Gary Weiss and Business Week magazine were named as co-defendents in a libel suit brought by Julian Robertson, founder of Tiger Management Corporation, over an article written by Weiss in Business Week that Mr. Robertson felt contained erroneous and malicious information about him. The suit was withdrawn by Robertson in January, 1997 after Business Week agreed to retract some of the statements it had made about Robertson in the article.

That passage is cited and referenced. The reference was extremely valid, since it was the very magazine that Mr. Weiss was working for that confirms the facts. Before removing cited text, you're supposed to discuss it here on the discussion page first. I'm going to re-add the text you deleted, and you can discuss it here on the discussion page why you think it shouldn't be included. I'll also add a warning on your user talk page about deleting cited text without discussion. A lot of the rest of the text is uncited, so feel free to delete that text, or else add inline citations. Cla68 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Amoruso, please see above. You're not supposed to delete cited, referenced material without discussion first. You've also been warned on your talk page. Cla68 00:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The section in question was properly removed. In an article of this size, devoting an entire section to a ten-year-old, withdrawn libel suit grossly skews the POV of the article. Your description of the editors' note was incorrect, and the fund manager who brought the suit later went belly up, but that is kind of beside the point given the obvious inappropriateness of its inclusion. --Mantanmoreland 07:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Article citation problems

About half of this article is uncited. I'm going to give the regular editors of this article (who seem to share close, mutual interests and goals) a week to get the rest cited, then I'm going to start deleting uncited text, which is not only allowable, but encouraged. Cla68 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may...I'm not certain the Gary-Weiss.com blog references will be sufficient, based on the strong reaction User:Amoruso had to just such a citation very recently here.

Care to comment Amoruso (I'll copy this to his talk page to be sure he gets it)?--Powder Blue Tuxedo 07:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I finally gave up with working with this article's editors after they removed all of the tags without doing anything to cite the article. I just nominated this article for deletion. I've never seen an article more obviously being used for promtion of the article's subject. Classic example of the genre. Cla68 08:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)