Talk:James McGibney

False Claim of Educational Degrees

McGibney claims to have an AA and a BA degree from Chadwick University, a well known diploma mill in the biography about him by Business_Week magazine. Yet his supporters keep coming by and deleting this reference. Additionally, there are no references (except self-promotional references) showing proof of any degrees from Boston University or Harvard Business School. Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not his supporter, never seen this article before today and all I know about him was I see in the article. His degree from Boston University is reported in the Las Vegas Sun, a reliable source. I do not know how reliable Celebzter is, but primary sources are ok for non-controversial personal information which a degree is. You say these two degrees shouldn't be listed because they are self promotion but it is ok to put he "claims" to have degrees from a different university. Either they all belong or none of them. GB fan 03:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed WP:OUTING info. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So you just reverted the information I put into the article without reading it? GB fan 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You also removed it the information with the LV sun source here without ever reading the source? GB fan 03:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey I ain't perfect and thought it was from the same source. But now as you can see many sox accounts are being formed to edit this article. I request you do a check user on both of those editors, Via View and Bullyville, since they are all the same company to find out how many other sock accounts they have. Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't make claims that things are not well sourced when they are and then say that you have not even looked at the sources. If you feel a sock puppet investigation is warranted then start one. The second account I just blocked is not a sockpuppet because I told them to pick a new name, they just picked another bad name. GB fan 03:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

So how do I do it? And how do I stop these people from constantly reverting the article? You're the expert, so please help me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I they continue to revert they will be blocked. I suggest you do not file a sock puppet investigation, but if you want to the directions are at WP:SPI. GB fan 03:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GB fan there is a rapidly growing sockfarm here..can you take a look [[1]] and possibly throw some blocks around. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for Chadwick University claim is unreliable

WP:BLP is clear about WP:USERG sources like Business Insider's investor profiles being disallowed for pages about living people. The claim that James McGibney has degrees from Chadwick seems to be based solely on this source (I can find no other sources) and the claim seems to have originated on this Wikipedia article.

I suggest we remove this claim and protect the page so it cannot be re-added. AceWriterOfFacts (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As the source for this has been questionable reliability, I have removed this degree from the article. It should not be reinstated until a discussion has determined that the source is reliable or a reliable source is found. GB fan 23:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Prove that Business Week magazine is an unreliable source. The person claiming it as unreliable as hardly an unbiased source as he has tried four times to edit this article and has several blocked accounts. Business Week & Bloomberg Corp. is a billion dollar company in the business of reporting about business and, as you can plainly see, it was established in 1929 and is quite reliable. It is not a tabloid or a blog or some random person's edits. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Businessweek.

This clearly qualifies as a reliable source pursuant to Wikipedia's guidelines here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources Dead Goldfish (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I would further point out that Business Week magazine is hardly a User Generated Source (as claimed by the person formerly known as ViaViw / BullyVille, Slingerville, and now known as "Ace Writer of Facts", who has been busily attempting to whitewash this article. If someone wishes to claim that a source is unreliable, it burden of proving that claim is clearly upon them. Just saying it is so isn't enough. Dead Goldfish (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Normally, one would think that mentioning a subject has a degree from a school sourced to Businessweek, would be non-controversial. However, in this case, the fact has been disputed by the subject, who is pursuing the issue with Businessweek, In addition, the institution has a less than positive reputation, so the claim is not innocuous, but may be viewed as a BLP violation. Consequently, I am removing the claim, and suggest that restoring it ought to require more than a single reference, in view of the claim by the subject that it is not true.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are in possession of some secret, personal research that shows that this individual is "pursuing the issue with Business Week." And this is relevant, how? Business Week is the equivalent to the NY Times. Just because someone doesn't like the article in the Times does not mean that it goes away. If you have some inside knowledge about this, that clearly shows that you edit is not free from bias. And until you have something from Business Week showing that it is removing the information or is inaccurate, the post stays. You do not get to pick and chose what sources you like and don't like. Business Week is an acceptable Wikipedia source. Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been questioned by multiple editors now, it should not remian unless there is consensus to readd it. You can raise the question of reliability of the source at WP:RSN if you still feel it is reliable. Do not readd before there is consensus to do so. 00:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"Multiple editors"?! You're joking, right? Because the only ones questioning it are the subject of the article (hardly an unbiased person) and you. You seem pretty fixated on whitewashing this and I wonder why. And you're saying that it is my saying that Business Week is reliable is simply not true. The publication is what it is and it meets the Wikipedia guidelines. Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I questioned it and Sphilbrick seems to think that it is questionable. Just because it is on the Business Week site does not mean it is reliable. There is nothing as to where the information came from or an author for that page. It is questionable whether it has been reviewed by anyone before publishing. I am not whitewashing anything, I am ensuring our WP:BLP policies are adhered to. We lose nothing by leaving it out for a few days until it is discussed. On the other hand it can do harm if left in and it is untrue. GB fan 00:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is times when editors do edits based on non-public information. When information comes in through the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team editors can act on it and the information is non-public. There is no problem with that. GB fan 01:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So where is this information that came through the volunteer response team at? How do you know that it is a legitimate issue or just the subject of the article trying to whitewash things from Wikipedia? It seems a useful way to game the system to me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is within the volunteer response system. That is the job of the volunteers to assess the information to determine if it is legitimate. Sphilbrick has access and has determined it is legitimate enough to act on. The degree information is not that important that we lose anything by it not being in the article for a while. GB fan 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thus far about the only educational degree of McGibney's that I can firmly establish is a high school diploma from Monroe Woodbury HS in Central Valley, NY from 1992. Chadwick "University" confirms in a written statement that he was a student there and that he "graduated" on June 12, 1996, with a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (BSBA). Which confirms the Business Week magazine article. A copy of that written confirmation was provided to Wikipedia staff, as well as to the editorial board at Business Week (in case he is trying to whitewash information there). Thus, I think this information should be replaced in the article. Harvard says they've never heard of him. Dead Goldfish (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, yet another source for McGibney's claim of having a Chadwick University "degree" has emerged: a press release bio of him put out by his former employer at Rudolph & Sletten. It seems McGibney can't keep his story straight on which "degrees" he has since his claims are clearly inconsistent. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny how McGibney's fan base has been busily trying to white wash this page again. I have found three separate sources for McGibney's Chadwick "degrees" - to include a biography put out by one of McGibney's former employers! A consensus was already reached that this information needs to stay - and stay it shall. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not see consensus on this page that this information should remain. Regardless, it no longer appears to be reliably sourced. Businessweek no longer mentions this degree, and "marketvisual.com" and "interop.com" don't appear to be reliable sources. If you disagree, you can discuss those sources at the reliable source noticeboard. Until we have solid sources, the material should remain out of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus at WP:RSN that said the Businessweek source was reliable, the problem is that source has now been changed to remove the information. There is no explanation there as to why they removed the information, so we have to assume they are doing it in because of information they received. The other two sources do not appear to be reliable sources. GB fan 00:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

In the fourth paragraph of the article there is a broken link to USPO. The link should either be removed or fixed.--Rockfang (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I expanded it to [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]]. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheaterville defamation lawsuit section

I am looking at the this section and question whether it belongs in the article. The section is about a lawsuit against a poster on one of the websites that is owned by the company that McGibney is the founder and CEO. The website was not sued. The article is around 550 words long and about 130 of them are devoted to this one paragraph. This appears to be undue weight to an issue that isn't about McGibney. GB fan 19:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. McGibney has gone to great lengths to inset himself into that personal controversy, as evidenced by these news articles here and here and here and here . And here McGibney announces the fact that he has joined a class action lawsuit against these posters.

And right here you can find an article in the UK Daily News in which it is clearly stated that the lawsuit is against McGibney & Cheaterville in which the couple were wrongly 'outed' by McGibney and company as being "gay, married, and looking for sex." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2401151/Happily-married-couple-sue-Cheaterville-com-finding-photos-malicious-posts-online.html

Seems pretty clear to me that this information deserves to be in here. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That is not what the article says. GB fan 21:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the section as giving undue weight to a controversy about a living person. As it was written it says that the lawsuit was against a third party if that is not true then we need to write it differently. It should not be reinstated without discussion of how it pertains to McGibney with proper reliable sources. GB fan 23:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with your unilateral decision to remove this material without even attempting to allow a consensus to form here. It seems that you are in a bit of a hurry to pull the trigger here. Dead Goldfish (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with the decision but the section as it was written even after you edited after your last post here did not mention anything that said it pertained to McGibney. It expressly stated that the website was not sued. In articles about living people we err on the conservative side and remove things that might shed a bad light on the living person unless well sourced. In this case it could be construed as guilt by association. If you can rewrite the section so it shows how it involves McGibney it can be reinstated. GB fan 23:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a sitewide consensus that we take special care with negative material regarding a living person. In most articles, if there is a dispute about the inclusion or exclusion of some item, we ask for a consensus to form before deciding whether to include it or exclude it. However, in the case of living persons, we err on the side of exclusion, until such time as we can be sure it deserves inclusion. While this section is about the lawsuit, I understand you feel the university degree should be included. have you attempted to contact the University to see if they can confirm or deny the degree? They might be able to shed some light on it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So if I contact this university and they confirm issuance of a degree, how do I get that information included into this article then? Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So I contacted Harvard College directly and got an email response saying they've never heard of the guy. So it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As noted in a section below, reporting the results of your direct contact to the university constitutes wp:OR, and is thus not usable. (If that contact resulted in identification of relevant reliable sources, then those sources can be used.) However, the statement it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard is bordering on a personal attack, salvaged only by the itseems although others may feel differently. There are a number of reasons why you might have failed to obtain confirmation other than that the subject has a fake degree, and even if tru, we do nto make such claims absent proof from reliable sources. WP:BLP applies to talk page, not just article pages.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hunter Moore judgment

While I am loathe to contribute to an article which I think should be deleted due to non-notability (unfortunately I didn't see the deletion discussion while it was ongoing), I also think it's important to note that his judgment against Hunter Moore was a default judgment. In other words, McGibney won only because Moore ignored the lawsuit, and not because McGibney proved his case in a court of law. That's a pretty huge difference, so it should be noted in the article. HillbillyGoat (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The last discussion was no consensus, so it's entirely possible that more eyes could get it deleted if it were nominated again. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone could please contact me in the event that it's nominated again, that would be great. In the meantime, I've cleaned up the section about the lawsuits. The reasons for this are that it was poorly written and formatted; it also appears to have be written by a supporter, and thus lacked a disinterested third-party viewpoint. I also changed the lawsuit information to reflect that they were both default judgments, so the article is clear about the circumstances of those judgments. HillbillyGoat (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

HillbillyGoat, I've chosen to nominate it based on this conversation. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look for it. HillbillyGoat (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Claim of Harvard Education by McGibney

I would like to propose the removal of any information contained in the article with regards to claims by James McGibney of having participated in any Harvard education programs, classes, or courses. Such claim seems, in my opinion, to be completely and utterly false. This is especially true since Harvard has specifically stated that they never heard of the guy. As we all know, it is not uncommon for people to make false biographies of themselves and pass that along to the news media. A lie that is repeated often does not transform into the truth simply due to repetition. So I am proposing that the phrase "claims to have attended Harvard Business School for his executive education" be removed from the article. Until such a time as McGibney is able to provide proof positive of his enrollment & completion in the Harvard Business School this information should remain out, in my opinion. Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

To add to this, the articles in which this claim has appeared only say that he claims to have gone there, not that he actually did. At no time is there any news source that says definitively and as a matter of fact that McGibney went there. Plus Harvard's own written statement saying that he never went there. Thus, there is no evidence to support this claim. Dead Goldfish (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, we cannot conduct original research in this manner, so any information you received through your own investigations is irrelevant. If reliable sources say he went to Harvard, for Wikipedia's purposes he went to Harvard, period. The more pertinent question is http://celebzter.com a reliable source? Gamaliel (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I failed to get that site to open. Is it working for you now?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Its a broken site no longer working. Plus, FYI, its basically a blog written by one girl who talks about fashion and celebrities. Dead Goldfish (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Gamaliel, its not my original research. Anyone can contact Harvard themselves and Harvard will be only too happy to tell you that McGibney is full of BS. Harvard does not appreciate it when people make false claims of credentials. They have a specific website for dealing with this kind of stuff on account of all the fakes running around claiming degrees. http://www.hbs.edu/mba/registrar/general/Pages/general-verification.aspx Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What you describe is considered original research under Wikipedia policies. Gamaliel (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dead Goldfish's claim is fairly easily replicatable by anyone who can be bothered, so should not be completely irrelevant - it should contribute to the evaluation of sources. Is a random celebrity-focussed blog a reliable source? Not really, and it's highly unlikely they did any sort of fact-checking like this. If there's no good source for the Harvard claim, it should not be included. Podiaebba (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are a million reasons why we should discount amateur research: verifiability, accuracy, etc. What is most likely going on here is that his "executive education" refers to some kind of non-degree certificate program and DG inquired about degree programs. Regardless, Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that we should not be conducting such amateur research and it should not factor into our editing. The real issue is whether or not the source in question is a reliable one, but since I've found the same information on his own website bio, it's now a moot point and I will swap out the sources. Gamaliel (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Before discounting my "amateur" research, you should have taken a moment to click on that Harvard link and read it a little better. Thus, you would have seen that Harvard is willing to verify enrollment in BOTH degree AND non-degree programs. Specifically, the second link in on Harvard's page offers the ability to conduct Non-MBA Program Verifications, such, "For Harvard Business School Executive Education Certificate Program attendance (AMP, OPM, PMD, etc.) please contact Harvard Business School Executive Education at 617.495.6555 or e-mail executive_education@hbs.edu." Thus, this research is easily verifiable for its reliability and accuracy. You do not have to depend upon my word here. You can pick up the phone yourself and call them, or email them, and after you hear the laughter die down upon the mention of James Alex McGibney's name, you will get an ear full from angry staff members about how false claims of Harvard credentials cheapen the system and hurt the public. This type of "research" is no more amateurish then looking out the window and verifying that the sky is still blue. Dead Goldfish (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You aren't, as far as I know, a professional historian or journalist or researcher, so yes, you calling up Harvard would be amateur research. Even if you were, it would still be original research. No matter how easy or reliable it is, it is still prohibited by Wikipedia policies, especially when living individuals are involved. It is not verifiable in the sense that Wikipedia policy uses the word verifiable. Wikipedia articles rely on published sources and not on original amateur research. Gamaliel (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

And you are missing the point that WP:OR is fundamentally about adding information to articles. The evaluation of sources often involves research which can be construed as "OR". The problematicness of this is much alleviated in cases like this one where there is a very straightforward way for the research to be replicated. Now, I'm not suggesting any negative information on this point be added to the article; that would be OR. But it can certainly inform whether or how the information is presented. I would argue anyway that the claim of attending Harvard for unspecified "executive education" is too vague to be useful and should be excluded regardless of the verification issue. I mean, this could be attending one public lecture on something business-related! Podiaebba (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"I mean, this could be attending one public lecture on something business-related - Podiaebba." Funny you should mention that. See http://bayimg.com/CAieLAafC Dead Goldfish (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point that we don't conduct amateur research on living individuals. It doesn't matter how easy it can be replicated. Aside from the fact that we shouldn't be doing it in the first place, there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the accuracy of the results, especially when it comes from an editor with an obvious agenda when it comes to the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What results are there to be suspicious of when all you have to do is stick your head outside to see if the sky is blue or, in this case, that McGibney clearly does NOT have a Harvard Business School Executive Education? Dead Goldfish (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That link you placed in the article is to a Harvard Business School page with the words "Executive Education" in giant letters in the top. Gamaliel (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, Gamaliel, if you think you can go to a public three day seminar, get a certificate of attendance, and then appropriately claim to your human resources department that you have a Harvard Business School Executive Education on your CV, then by all means, do so. That's between you and your employer. But before you do so, I would URGE you to please read the following Wikipedia article on resume fraud. Just please do not expect the rest of the world to buy into your gross exaggerations. When you say the words "I attended Harvard Business School for my executive education", (which is ESXACTLY what James McGibney did), the vast majority of the 7.7 BILLION people on this planet would take it to mean that you actually went to Harvard Business School for something more than a public three day seminar that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can attend if they are willing to pay. This is the exact equivalent to my taking a CPR & First Aid class that the Mayo Clinic here in Jacksonville, FL offers once a month and then claiming on my resume that I "attended Mayo Medical School for my medical education". Yes, the first aid class is being offered by the Mayo Medical School (just like the seminar is being offered by the Harvard Business School), but neither event legitimately constitutes an "Executive Education." Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)