Talk:Sheldon Adelson

A gold mine

There's a lot of good information to glean from the current New Yorker article about Adelson.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=all

--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Potentially Libelous Original Research

The intro states:

Adelson has also been criticized for aggressive union busting against employees of his Las Vegas casino properties.[4]

The source does not make the claim of "aggressive union busting" and our article provides a single source. [1]

However, related to the topic of unions, the source only says:

But there is nothing comical about the intentions of Freedom's Watch. Adelson has waged some bitter anti-union battles in Las Vegas, so naturally FW lists "standing up to Big Labor's radical agenda" as one of its core "issue areas that are generational in breadth and scope," whatever that means. Other core concerns: the dangers of radical Islam; stopping the legalization of controlled substances; and "advancing a conservative agenda and market-based solutions to pressing domestic problems."

Please see WP:OR and WP:Biographies of living persons.

If the claim is true, it should be pretty easy to source. I think I'll remove it from the article until that time. Doright (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have readded some information concerning his union battles, although I used a quote directly from the source rather than a paraphrase. I think the result should be sufficient for all parties involved. --John Bahrain (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheldon won the libel suit WP:POV WP:Weight

Sheldon won the libel suit yet the intro states:

Adelson has also been accused of pursuing "despicable business practices" and having "habitually and corruptly bought political favour" by the conservative Daily Mail of London, although Adelson successfully sued the newspaper for libel in 2008. [5]

I wrote in my edit summary: correct POV which egregious emphasized and repeated the libel and subordinated the fact that he actually won the lawsuit.

Utilizing the same source changed the text to:

For what was described as "a grave slur on Mr Adelson's personal integrity and business reputation," Adelson successfully sued the Daily Mail of London for libel and won a judgment in 2008 costing the newspaper about £4 million. Adelson said he would donate the damages to the Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London. [5]

However, my edit was reverted without comment or even an edit summary by User:Waywardgamblingaddict. Despite the suggestive user name of the editor and the limited contributions to WP [2], I of course assume good faith. Please see WP:Weight. Doright (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about combining the facts to make it even more NPVO:

The conservative Daily Mail of London accused Adelson of pursuing "despicable business practices" and having "habitually and corruptly bought political favour." Adelson successfully sued the newspaper for libel in what was described as "a grave slur on Mr Adelson's personal integrity and business reputation." In 2008 Adelson won a judgment costing the newspaper about £4 million. Adelson said he would donate the damages to the Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London. Carol Moore 00:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

this article reads like a POV, anti sheldon adelson article. i am mostly concerned that much of the biography section is being used to apply undue weight to his criticisms. besides the overwhelming degree of negative info, there are also subtle POV-sounding jabs that don't seem npov. for example, about his wife, it's written that she "is a physician who works with drug addicts." i am pretty sure this could be written better. she runs the Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse, which is a little different than just "working with drug addicts." anyone else see what i am talking about? Theserialcomma (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at the whole article, it first obviously is very disorganized and needs to be reorganized first, including making sure that any repeating refs are properly formatted. Maybe I'll do it, maybe I won't. After that we can deal with POV issues - though obviously ones like above could be fixed even in current disorder. Carol Moore 15:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

OK, I fixed up as much of this article as I volunteered to, taking out some, not all POV. Biggest problem is these messy autogenerated ref name references; also long URLs refusing to fit into links. Have fun fixing!! Section on China COI is a bit confusing but is supported by one good ref and one dubious one, so needs clarification. Maybe tomorrow if no one else fixes. Carol Moore 16:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

i think you did a wonderful job. thanks a lot. it really reads a lot better, and looks much more encyclopedic and npov Theserialcomma (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Adelson has come under fire (from whom?) for his close involvement with Freedom's Watch (when? and where does it mention his close 'involvement'?) , which has unsuccessfully financed several Republican congressional candidates and had intended to raise as much as $250 million to attack Barack Obama's presidential campaign. (is this relevant to the sheldon adelson article?) Adelson has also been criticized for aggressive union-busting against employees of his Las Vegas casino properties. (criticized by whom? POV wording?)

Adelson is noted (noted by whom?) for his vehement opposition to peace negotiations in the Middle East (he doesn't want peace in the middle east? wow. is this a citable claim? or is it pov speculation?) and his attempts to influence (influence? pov?) Bush administration foreign policy in the region; according to a June, 2008 profile in The New Yorker, "He is fiercely opposed to a two-state solution; and he had contributed so generously to Bush’s reëlection campaign that he qualified as a Bush Pioneer." Adelson has also reportedly sought the ouster of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for, among other things, Olmert's efforts to drive peace negotiations (now it just reads like someone is trying hard to make this guy look like he's really opposed to peace) . (Adelson has been a close ally of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu) (this is not controversial, i don't think.)

i'll stop there. if sources/npov amendments can't be made, do you think we should just remove the questionable statements? since this is a bio of a living person and all Theserialcomma (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Material should not be summarily removed unless all sources are not reliable (in one case one was and other was questionable but supported reliable one) or if the material is NOT reflected in the text. If you want the article to be more specific about who said what you should read the original source and correct it accordingly. (Or those who support vague WP:RS facts also might do so.) If there is POV language, tame it down. If you think there are too many negative - but WP:RS - facts, find more positive ones. But there are people who even with the most neutral sounding description might sound unsavory to some. Carol Moore 23:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

personally, i have no issue with all of this controversial stuff staying in the article, as long as it's npov and properly sourced. in fact, i believe that a balanced article will have controversy and criticism when it's warranted and executed properly. but as it stands now, most of the controversial stuff do not appear npov or sourced well, and from my understanding of the biography of living persons, it should be removed if it's contentious, poorly sourced, or not npov until it is made so. i.e. "Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic." [[3]]i am going to look over the questionable pov section and try to fix it, but if i'm unable to fix it and no one else does so, i think it would be appropriate to remove it until it is added properly. do you think that is fair? i have no intention of disrupting the article by removing all the major criticism to try to turn this into some puff piece; i am just looking for npov and proper sourcing to respect the bio of a living person. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what section you refer to in last sentence. It is obvious some people were against whole sale deletions. However, if they are not willing to do the work to defend statements or sources, then they should not complain if removed. That goes for me too :-) However, announcing what you are going to remove or giving an alternative here like I did above and then inserted in article often best way to go. Carol Moore 02:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

here is what i believe should be removed until it is better sourced, but i will wait to make the change until you let me know if you agree. if you disagree, i won't do it: "There have been allegations of a quid pro quo by Adelson on behalf of the Chinese government while procuring the rights to construct a casino in Macao. Court documents allege that Adelson used his influence with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to quash a proposed bill that would have prevented the US Olympic Committee from voting in favor of the Chinese bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics.[5][19]"

the paragraph in question has two sources. the first is http://macaudailyblog.com/macau-casino/las-vegas-sands-macau-gaming-license-may-be-in-jeopardy, which appears to be a blog, and so it should probably be removed. the second source is http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/30/080630fa_fact_bruck?currentPage=all, which does not appear to accuse him of "quid pro quo on behalf of the chinese government," nor does it mention any court documents that directly allege adelson using his influence with Tom DeLay to quash a proposed bill. The article actually says "In their trial testimony, both Adelson and Weidner portrayed the bill’s demise as having resulted from the press of other legislation, rather than as a deliberate move by DeLay to help his benefactor." i could be wrong, so i am not going to make any changes until someone verifies this, but the article doesn't seem to match up directly with what the source says. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just read this last part after making changes so will go back and make it conform better with article. Also, I don't know how all of controversy ended up in the lead again, but I took it out - and understand why someone else took out controversies as redundant. Are we agreed it belongs in controversies and not the lead??Carol Moore 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

i agree that the contentious material should not be in the lead. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Adelson has generated controversy for his close involvement with the right-wing 527 lobbying group Freedom's Watch, which has unsuccessfully financed several Republican congressional candidates and originally had intended to raise as much as $250 million to attack Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Obama and McCain have both stated they want such groups to stay out of the presidential election. A Freedom's Watch spokesperson said it now will focus on congressional campaigns"

i am trying to take this 1 paragraph at a time so as not to overwhelm myself (or you!). the previous paragraph reads like a synthesized POV attack based on what the actual source states. the source is here http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90907225&ft=1&f=1070 and only states about adelson "This year's anticipated conservative offense once was going to include Freedom's Watch, a new group financed largely by casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Insiders claimed it would raise $200 million, $250 million or more, and spend much of it attacking Obama." This doesn't sound like much of a criticism to me. plus, phrases like 'adelson has generated controversy' are just bad for a bio of a living person. unless a source states that as a direct quote, it's too vague. i am relatively sure the controversy is there somewhere, but it's not in the source provided, and i don't think the onus should be on editors like us to prove a criticism true. we should probably adhere to WP: BLP first. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

the sentence "Adelson is noted for his vehement opposition to peace negotiations in the Middle East " really is inappropriate unless this is truly verifiable. the next sentence goes on to talk about Israel-Palestine, not the entire middle east. to say he's vehemently opposed to peace in the middle east is a really bold claim that also seems incredibly POV. it might actually be true, don't get me wrong, but the source provided does not back the claim. i would call this one a blatant BLP violation until the claim can be vigorously defended through reliable sources. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On Freedom's watch, I agree it is more a fact than a controversy and should just be moved up to contributions section. On Middle east, I agree that it should conform to the source but frankly was waiting for complaints before I did a compare and contrast. :-) Since this is an important issue to me, I shall proceed to make changes. (re my note on previewing changes here, I meant controversial ones, including mass deletions!, not the hopefully less controversial ones I've been doing. fyi. I'm happy to see cooperative editing going on :-) Carol Moore 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

is there a source that states why it's controversial that "Adelson opposed the 2007 Annapolis Peace Conference.[5]"? so far, i have checked the sources provided, and have been unable to find any controversy there. the fact that he supposedly objects to something isn't controversial in itself until a reliable source comments on it. also, "Adelson has been a close ally of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who hopes to retake that office.[21]" - is this even controversial? Theserialcomma (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

also, i would like to rewrite this paragraph "The conservative Daily Mail of London accused Adelson of pursuing "despicable business practices" and having "habitually and corruptly bought political favour." Adelson successfully sued the newspaper for libel in what was described as "a grave slur on Mr Adelson's personal integrity and business reputation." In 2008 Adelson won a judgment costing the newspaper about £4 million. Adelson said he would donate the damages to the Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London.[22]" i feel as it is now, it gives too much credence to the libel of which the newspaper was found guilty. i was thinking maybe just restructuring the paragraph to state something along the NPOV lines of 'Adelson successfully sued the Daily Mail of London for accusing him of pursuing "despicable business practices" and having "habitually and corruptly bought political favour." Adelson said he would donate the £4 million in damages he won to the Royal Marsden cancer hospital in London.[22]' by the way, thanks for your patience. i really appreciate the work you are putting into this. you are a god among mere mortals. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

would you be opposed to changing "In 2007 Adelson founded the 527 lobbying group Freedom's Watch, a group that advocates America's continued involvement in the war in Iraq, and is run and supported, in part, by former officials of the Bush administration.[15] It has unsuccessfully financed several Republican congressional candidates and originally had intended to raise as much as $250 million to attack Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Obama and McCain have both stated they want such groups to stay out of the presidential election. A Freedom's Watch spokesperson said it now will focus on congressional campaigns.[16]" to more stick-to-the-relevant-facts (freedom watch does have its own article) text, such as "In 2007, Adelson founded the Freedom's Watch, a lobbying organization that is supportive of the Bush Administration's position on the War in Iraq and the War on Terror". i am a little concerned that going into detail about the group's attacks on obama and their new focus on congressional campaigns is a little off-topic and pov for being in a section about his financial contributions. yes, he did finance this organization, and yes they are pro-bush, pro-war, and anti-obama, but is this all really relevant to this article? the organization does have its own article, so maybe this info should be there. i am willing to leave it as is if you think it's all relevant info, but as it is, it does strike me as a bit pov Theserialcomma (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the lawsuit change as long as mentions what they said, which is relevant. As for the other two, the allegations are that he's using wealth to try to influence policy in a big way. I think the New Yorker is trying to make this point but frankly need to study article more to make it perfectly clear the author thinks this is controversial. I don't think it's our job to clean up his act, any more than it is to dirty it up. Plus now that I've gotten interested in this fellow - who makes Mr. Saban look like a saint - I think I'll do some more research on him. Carol Moore 12:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

right. i don't believe it's our job to clean up his act either, but i do think we should aggressively remove BLP violations until they can be added properly. the controversy and criticism is real, and should not be censored in any way, but it should be stated in a way that adheres to BLP or should be removed until it is fixed. believe me, i am well aware that this guy is very controversial, but his wikipedia needs to read like an encyclopedia, not an attack piece. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

possible BLP violation

the opening paragraph has the unsourced sentence "Since then, shares in Las Vegas Sands Corp. have fallen almost 95%, reducing his wealth proportionately." While I don't necessarily doubt that shares in his company have fallen a lot (not sure if it's 95%, but that's not really my concern as long as it's properly sourced), I am worried that "reducing his wealth proportionately" may be untrue, along with the fact that it's unsourced. Until someone can source this claim about his wealth, it shouldn't remain. Biographies of living people have rigorous standards, and a sentence like this does not live up to the BLP standard Theserialcomma (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Much of Adelson's wealth is in investments that are hard to sell. This makes it difficult to estimate anything like his true worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.200.228 (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel Hayom

Sheldon Adelson who is a close friend of Israeli preminister Binyamin Netanyahu started a newspaper in Israel in 2007 called Israel Hayom (Israel Today). Some say that this newspaper is set up specifically to help Bibi. It's his way of influencing Israeli public opinion and pushing the discourse and votes during election in a certain direction.

http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/Sheldon-Adelson-adelson-Las-Vegas-Sands/10/21/2010/id/30615 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.171.229 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Philanthropy and his school

The "Philanthropy" section states "Adelson donated over $25 million to the The Adelson Educational Campus in Las Vegas to build a high school." I don't see how paying for the creation of a school necessarily qualifies as "philanthropy", especially a school that is named after him (thus adding to his prestige), a school that he may control (he is listed on the school's website as the First Vice President of its Board) and a school that may, for all we know, be an income generator for him. In lieu of compelling evidence to support the information about the school being left in the "Philanthropy" section, I would suggest that it be moved elsewhere in the article. Bricology (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

But isn't this what Philanthropy is? So many of our hospitals, schools were once built by Philanthropy (Carnegie Hall, Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Library all come to mind). Surely if we are to include George Soros as a leader in Philanthropy, we'll have to include Adelson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.113.199 (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous editor from San Clemente wrote "But isn't this what Philanthropy is?" Not exactly. Philanthropy isn't just paying to own and control a business, which is what it appears that Adelson did. He effectively "bought" a school which he then named after himself. He at least partially controls it, and we have no way of knowing whether or not he profits from it. The school charges tuition and it is not a nonprofit. Contrast that with the largest philanthropic project today: the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which is a nonprofit, is transparently operated, and exists to transfer wealth from the Gateses to people and groups they have no control over. By your reasoning, I could buy a supermarket, name it after myself, declare myself its Manager, offer a 15% discount to senior citizens, and call it "philanthropy". Bricology (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

2012 Political donations

June, 2012: $10,000,000 [ten mil] to a Super PAC supporting Romney

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2012/06/13/exclusive-adelsons-pro-romney-donations-will-be-limitless-could-top-100m/ "Forbes has confirmed that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, along with his wife Miriam, has donated $10 million to the leading Super PAC supporting presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney–and that’s just the tip of the iceberg." 24.0.113.90 (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)