Talk:Ronn Torossian

Relevance of political commentary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Content was removed from the lead without explanation, then restored and then removed by a third editor asking for explanation as to the content's relevance. The content summarizes the initial paragraph of the Ronn Torossian#Commentary and reception section. That indicates its relevance to me. Jojalozzo 03:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Total amount of third-party coverage of that aspect of Torossian's biography: Zero. That indicates its irrelevance to me. We are not here to give Torossian a platform to spread his views, nor are we here to criticize him ("virulent"? Seriously?). Huon (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think opposition to mentioning political commentary in the article lead is arising from POV more than UNDUE. As I said above, there is a whole section of the article devoted to Torossian's commentary and I count about ten third party sources that support content in that section. If keeping some version of the content in that section represents consensus then mention of it in the article lead is appropriate.

The removed sentence in the article lead was "As a political commentator he is a vocal supporter of Israel's nationalist policies, and an opponent of President Obama's foreign and domestic policies." In my view this does not criticize him and there is no use of "virulent" (which I agree should be removed from the main body content). Jojalozzo 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which third-party source supports content about Torossian's work as a political commentator? Huon (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian is a pr guy. That is all. He knows media and publicity. For his opinions on national affairs or foreign to be weighted for an encyclopedic reference it has to have impact or value to the standing of those issues. Otherwise he just has opinions. I have opinions, you have opinions and everyone who edits Wikipedia has opinions on anything and everything; those aren't critical for a public biography if those opinions do not influence on broad scale. That's my opinion on this. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the lead so that it refers to his political views in general, and not only to his written commentary. While I disagree with Huon that his political is not notable - a notable person writing commentary in notable publications is certainly notable - there is no question that his political views are highly relevant and notable. They are discussed extensively in almost every one of the profiles cited - the NYT article, the Forward profile, the Atlantic piece - and should therefore certainly be included in the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth can you not bring yourself to weight the lead appropriately? Currently the body of the article contains just over a paragraph of sourced information on Torossian's political views and their reception, which is about reasonable weight according to how reliable sources cover him. It's slightly more than a quarter of the "Commentary and reception" section. Now, a guideline for a well written lead is to have approximately one sentence about each major section. So that would justify less than half a sentence about his political views, but this article's lead currently has two (and a bit) sentences about his political views. We could dispose of the first of them "Torossian is known for his strong support of Israel's right-wing political factions" without losing very much at all. The lead is also too long already; WP:LEADLENGTH suggests that for this article a two paragraph lead would be more than sufficient. Removing that first of the two political-views sentences (the one I just quoted), the Business Week quote (but keeping its citation as a reference for the preceding clause) and mention of the book (which I don't think plays a very major role in his notability?) would get the lead to a more sensible length and a more neutral tone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add: If "a notable person writing commentary in notable publications is certainly notable", why has no one but Torossian (and us) taken note? Huon (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with a consensus to remove content related to Torossian's political opinions if there are no good sources for it. My position is that the lead should reflect the body of the article and given the existence of a significant section on his political commentary it seemed appropriate to include something about in the lead. If we consider the political commentary section to be undue, I'd recommend that content about political commentary be removed. Jojalozzo 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph in the opening sequence, "Torossian is known for his strong support of Israel's right-wing political factions... His views, and his aggressive PR tactics, have won him both opponents and supporters," is redundant to the one appearing in the "Commentary and reception" section that opens with, "As a political commentator, Torossian is an avid supporter of Israel's right wing, an advocate for the Israeli faction that supports Jewish settlement in the Occupied West Bank..."

It doesn't belong in the opener as that is not what he is known for. He doesn't have followers, neither US nor Israeli law makers seek his guidance for their policy issues, and no one on Wikipedia that I can see has used any of his opinions on Israel, Middle East or President Obama as references in any Wikipedia articles. What does that say about what he is known for? He is on shows like Entertainment Tonight and E!, Fox 5 News, CBS and the like for comments on the careers of Jay-Z, A-Rod and Justin Bieber, or brands like Campbell's Soup or Virgin Airlines, but media does not seek him for comment on foreign policy. Any honest search of media will show you that. All I ask here is to be fair and objective. He is known for PR and marketing. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jojalozzo: your comment does not address the points that I made, so can I assume that you don't object to the changes I propose?

Does anyone else object? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any secondary sources that discuss his written commentary, so I'm not sure there's a need for any mention of it in the article. The sources in the commentary section are primary sources which offer no basis at all for making statements about the impact of those written works. There are sources that mention his opinions in private conversation but I'm not aware of any secondary sources that discuss his written political statements. Ravpapa says there are such sources but I'm not seeing them. I'd appreciate hearing what those sources are and what they say about the written commentary. Jojalozzo 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To make immediate mention of someones interest as their whole being isn't fair. Simply because someone follows along, does not make them consumed by it. There are many secondary sources that feature Torossian commenting on many topics outside of politics. There are segments on Bloomberg and CBS that the topics touch on Sports and the Media in general. Further there are larger number of sources of his written commentary on the Media and other topics as well. 'A person with his pulse to the media' seems like a more suitable lead in. Torossian is a PR executive and he does PR - I don't see where the ball should fall anywhere else. Southjimkelly (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems every single commenting editor agrees that all political messages must be removed. Should i go ahead and do so? 213.215.38.251 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: It is true that that there are no third party sources discussing Torossian's published commentaries - political or otherwise - and therefore the arguments for removing the third paragraph of the lead which discusses those commentaries might be valid. However, as I noted above, Torossian's political views are discussed in almost all the sources, in some cases prominently. Therefore, the paragraph of the lead discussing those views should certainly remain. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC: mention of commentary in lead

Should

• A) mention of Torossian's written political commentary be included in the lead,
• B) mention of his spoken political commentary be included in the lead or
• C) mention of both his written and spoken political commentary be included in the lead?

Jojalozzo 00:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

(Clarifying questions only, please.)

B - I am aware of no sources that discuss Torossian's written commentary but his spoken commentary is prominent in most articles about him. Jojalozzo 00:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Point of Information - Going to The New York Observer, Torossian comments on topics of PR, New York, Walmart, etc. More than one topic... As another POI, I am a staff member of 5WPR Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• D - none of the above. Huon (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(No need to reprise the discussion above, but for new issues and concerns, please use this section to keep the survey section succinct and uncluttered.)

I've gone ahead and removed Torossian's political commentary from the lead, for which there was near-unanimous consent above. I've also removed the "known for his strong support of Israel's right-wing political factions" part, which was both unsourced and, IMO, factually incorrect. He's known for being a PR person, not for his political views, which, excepting a single opinion piece in the Atlantic Monthly, mostly have been ignored by third-party sources. I'd say we should also remove the last paragraph of the "career" section and the first paragraph of the "Commentary" section, neither of which cite reliable third-party sources and both of which unduly emphasize comparatively irrelevant aspects of Torossian's biography.

I also have to note that there were quite a few tiny barbs in the article. The "Occupied West Bank", mentioned twice? Who calls it that? Certainly not Torossian, our "source" for those parts, and even Goldberg, certainly not a friend of Torossian, just calls it the West Bank. And how is it relevant to Torossian that Girls Gone Wild went bankrupt? Huon (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

On second thought I removed the first paragraph of the "Commentary" section, the part dealing with Torossian's commentary, myself. It was a blatant WP:UNDUE violation. In the absence of third-party coverage, why quote at length his opinion on Obama or Israel and not LeBron James or the NBA or vacation in Cannes? Neither is appropriate. Huon (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of 5WPR clients

For the sake of balance, this list needs to be based on what clients of the company are mentioned in reliable source articles about the company, not a list of clients picked by Wikipedia editors cited to particular examples of that representation. Doing so opens the section to giving a slanted view of the work that the company has done, and does not represent the reality of clients that have been notably represented by the agency. I have, for now, commented out the entire list, and will readd clients based on which ones are mentioned in discussions of the company. Revent^talk 03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is now cited to three articles, from Business Week, Business Daily, and PR Week, and includes only the clients that are explicitly mentioned as clients in those articles who have Wikipedia articles (and I attempted to include them all). This is opposed to the previous version, which had 12 different citations to articles that were mostly press releases or stories about various clients themselves, or about PR efforts that Torossian was involved with. Given that there are now 18 bluelinked clients listed, all of whom were selected by the writers of RS coverage of the company itself, please don't readd more based solely on the fact that you can 'prove' that they were a client. Doing so opens the content of the list to selection bias. Revent^talk 05:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and thank you for sorting this out. Good job. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Torossian as quoted in The Atlantic

Jeff Goldberg in The Atlantic quotes Torossian regarding an appropriate Israeli reaction to terrorism. This quote does not belong in the article, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, Torossian is an often-quoted person, with comments about many topics published in reliable third-party sources. Foreign politics or Israeli security is a topic he's rarely quoted on - in fact, the Goldberg piece is the only third-party source that discusses Torossian's political stance in some detail. We wouldn't repeat Torossian quotes on the timing of TV series about female politicians; why should we repeat Torossian quotes on killing Palestinians? Doing so gives his political views undue weight. Secondly, while I personally don't have an opinion on that quote's veracity, Torossian yesterday came to #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and vigorously disputed it. For such a claim in a BLP I'd like to see a better source than an opinion piece discussing what Torossian supposedly said to the author, who clearly has an axe to grind, when they were alone. Thirdly, the quote isn't needed nor useful for its stated purpose either. It's not related to any representation by Torossian, so it cannot show what "lunatic fringe" Torossian has represented. And I doubt our readers need quotes to tell what the lunatic fringe of Israeli right-wing politics is. In fact, I'd read Nbauman's edit summary as an attempt to include Torossian in the "lunatic fringe" he represents, a claim not supported by Goldberg who applies the label only to Torossian's clients, not to Torossian himself. For these reasons I'll again remove the quote. Huon (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-help keeps no record. So I can't see what his complaint is. What was his vigorous dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbauman (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 September 2014

I do not know but it's pretty obvious—two people had a discussion and one published an account which the other denies. When a reliable source writes an analysis of the issue it might be suitable for this article, but until then it's just undue cherry picking. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me. Torossian had an on-the-record interview with Goldberg, who published his quotes in The Atlantic, from which it was repeated in many other WP:RSs. Torossian never challenged the quote or denied he said it, not in the publications that repeated it or in any source that I could find on the Internet. Torossian has still not challenged that quote either in Talk or in any Wikipedia venue.

Now Huon, an anonymous Wikipedia editor (as we all are) says that Torossian was on wikipedia-en-help yesterday, where he "vigorously disputed" it, but Huon doesn't tell us exactly what about the quote Torossian disputed, or whether Torossian challenged the accuracy of the quote at all. Huon doesn't give us Torossian's own words, so we don't know what Torossian said. wikipedia-en-help is not verifiable, because they don't keep a record.

I don't think this second-hand non-specific complaint is enough reason to delete it. If Torossian wants to challenge it, let him complain here in the Talk page, as his employees do, or let him complain to Wikipedia through the official channels, where people who know Wikipedia policies and libel law can decide whether it meets Wikipedia standards. Alternatively, show me a WP:RS where Torossian denies it. --Nbauman (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a hands-off policy on this article since Huon's rather aggressive editing of it. But I would like to point out that his statement "Israeli security is a topic he's rarely quoted on - in fact, the Goldberg piece is the only third-party source that discusses Torossian's political stance in some detail." is patently false. Torossian's political views are discussed in just about every profile of him - in the Forward profile, in the Jerusalem Post profile, in the New York Times profile. Moreover, it is a subject about which Torossian himself writes in published columns in notable journals on a regular basis. All these references to Torossian's documented and discussed political views were in the article at one time or another, and all have been excised, mostly by Huon, in most cases following complaints by Torossian himself at the help desk.

It is clear to me why Torossian wants this article clean of his extreme political views - because he fears it might scare away clients. It is less clear to me why Huon has chosen to accede to pressures Torossian has put on us - through his own complaints or through the minions of various sockpuppets working on his behalf - to censor this article.

An accurate biography of Ronn Torossian must include a review of his political views and commentaries, including direct quotes from his own writings. The article as it stands is a whitewash. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what angle you're trying to take - looking around - you can see that Torossian has been quoted on Current Events, PR and Marketing insights more often than anything else. Here are some recent pieces where Torossian was quoted, that has nothing to do with politics. 1 2 3 64567 - Forcing the prominence of his political beliefs is unjust, especially when the sources of his Pr/Marketing viewpoint's greatly outnumber anything that has to do with politics.Southjimkelly (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello... Jim? Why are you so interested in this Ronn person? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Look at all of Torossian's writings over the years. There is plenty to review. The only place and time something like that is ever written is in that one piece not written by Torossian many years ago now. The Wiki article as it is now already asserts his political leanings and there is no dispute that he is right leaning when it comes to the middle east. You don't need to reassert it with added effect like a sensationalist media program, especially with a comment that has yet to be replicated since it was claimed to be from him nearly a decade ago. Nothing like it before or after. Whoever feels this must be there is looking to make a statement, not an encyclopedic entry. Look at Torossian's own writing if you must. But it's also not necessary to make the point. He is ideologically right and the article says it already. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Judae1, you work for Torossian. Does Torossian deny that he said, "I think we should kill a hundred Arabs or a thousand Arabs for every one Jew they kill"? Yes (he denies it) or no?

I'm coming late to this game, and I don't know who's employed by or related to Torossian and who isn't. Besides Judae1, could we have a disclosure for each of the other participants: Do you have any financial or other relationship to Torossian or his PR firm? For the record, I don't. --Nbauman (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nbauman, Thank you for asking and acknowledging that I am perhaps the only one who is fully open about who I am and what I do. Among the others who edit this article are some people who have a genuine concern for Wikipedian integrity and others who seem to also want to paint the subject of this piece in a particular light - it is to that I offer challenge. I added my two cents as a matter of fact because I know the man and have worked at 5W for some time now. That gives me an insight that many do not get to know, and I feel it is appropriate to share that on the talk page - not in the article itself. Ronn is ideologically right on Israel and is passionate about that, but he is not genocidal, nor is he an advocate for it toward anyone or any group. Ronn denies he said that to the writer, and I was not present; yet neither was anyone else here commenting or anyone else; that makes it a he-said/she-said situation. My point in communicating here is simply to state that he has written a lot over the years, has spoken in hundreds of places and has blogged, tweeted and just about everything else one can do to spread one's ideals and ideas, and nowhere else can anyone point to another comment even similar to that. Consider that point.

Then to address Ravpapa's comment below, "Torossian's political views and political activities are a minor and undiscussed part of his biography..." I do not believe I have said that. All I have said is that this one "quote" in question is not necessary or useful for an encyclopedic entry.

Thank you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Judae1, where did Ronn deny that? To you personally? In a verifiable WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Disclosures

I second NBauman's suggestion of full disclosure. Considering the history of attempts by partisans involved in this article to influence editors by contacting them directly or through Wikipedia channels, I think it is a good idea that all of us be upfront about any contacts we have had with the subject. I will start off.

• User:Ravpapa: I have been editing this article on and off since 2011, when it was brought to my attention because of a series of vandalous attacks on articles about two former clients of Ronn Torossian. These attacks were done by a number of sockpuppets, which resulted in a community ban of these bogus editors. During the course of this episode, I had numerous conversations with the sockpuppets on my talk page, which included, among other things, veiled threats of lawsuit by Ronn Torossian himself (though the sockpuppets never explicitly acknowledged any connection with Torossian). In addition, User:Judae1 contacted me twice privately through Wikipedia in-mail, once to explain his relationship to Torossian and his own view on Torossian's opinions and sensitivities, and once to comment on this version of the article, which I had written in an attempt to make order out of the numerous and conflicting edits that made up the story then. Other than that, I have had no connection, commercial or otherwise, with Torossian, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never corresponded or spoken to him directly. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• User:Diannaa: I came across this case in the summer of 2010, when a now-banned editor, User:Babasalichai, repeatedly posted at WP:EAR and other notice boards in attempt to get support for inclusion of poorly sourced negative information on Rabbi Pinto. That article and articles on other NYC rabbis and a NY businessman and his company were all under attack by banned user Babasalichai, named sock accounts, and IPs, which usually geolocate to NYC. Here is the article in the NY Times; scroll all the way to the bottom to see the Wikipedia connection. I still watch-list the rabbi articles and several other articles that were under attack. Though the attacks on the BLPs stopped some time ago, banned user Babasalichai still attempts to edit this article and posts on its talk page. User:Southjimkelly is very likely a sock of Babasalichai, based on tells in this edit. I am not affiliated with Torossian or the rabbis or with any of the material I edit on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• User:Huon: I am a regular helper on #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, and that's where I encountered Ronn Torossian and this article. He (or someone claiming to be him, something I would likely be unable to tell apart from the "real" Mr. Torossian, not that the distinction would have any impact on my actions) has come to that channel several times over the past months to complain about perceived bias in this article, and while he exaggerates, he also raises valid points where the article content is not in line with the standards of BLP. Such violations should be resolved or removed. I have no connection, commercial or otherwise, to Mr. Torossian beyond our encounters in the help channel. Huon (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record

I feel that Huon's and Judae's contentions that Torossian's political views and political activities are a minor and undiscussed part of his biography require a more substantial rebuttal. Here is a review of the main sources of this article:

• The Forward profile: About half of the profile deals with his political views, including the headline ("Publicist Scores With Rappers, Right-wing Politicians"). A typical quote: "The political figures he works with tend to stand to the far right of the political spectrum — expressing sentiments consistent with Torossian’s own days as a rough-necked agitator in Israel, when he was escorting bulldozers into East Jerusalem to help force out Palestinian residents... 'You were one of those crazy militant guys, weren’t you?' Jameel Spencer, P. Diddy’s business partner and confidant, once asked him. Torossian just smirked at the fond memories."

• Jerusalem Post profile: about a half to two thirds of the profile focuses on Torossian's political views. The profile opens with the story of his political activism in Jerusalem, when he moved into a Jewish-owned building in the middle of Arab East Jerusalem. "[He] was on the cover of every daily paper in Israel, two days after moving here in 1997".

• Business Insider profile devotes four paragraphs to Torossian's political views, emphasizing his support of the Likud party and the Christian Right.

• The New York Times profile devotes four paragraphs to Torossian's political views, starting with his mother's support for Israel and Torossian's early involvement in political demonstrations, and continuing with an anecdote about his encouraging a political client to visit the Occupied West Bank city of Hebron.

• The Jeffrey Goldberg commentary.

Finally, there is Torossian's own political commentaries, published weekly in a notable publication (FrontPageMag), which Huon has disallowed because the columns have not been specifically discussed in third-party sources - a claim which certainly raised my eyebrows, considering the extensive amount of discussion of those views in the profiles cited above.

As I have said before, the claim by Huon that Torossian's political views are not discussed by third party sources is completely false. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions to Huon, who has nonetheless insisted on aggressively removing almost all references to Torossian's politics from the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The book

I have removed the reference in the lead to Torossian's book. The sentence is unsupported in the body of the article, and the book does not come near to meeting any of the criteria for notability in WP:NB. It is published by a vanity press, it has not been reviewed or even mentioned in a single notable publication, and, in fact, the only reference to it is a one-line listing of the book in a list of business books published that week, appearing in a Shanghai newspaper. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd call the Shanghai Daily a notable publication. While the book doesn't belong in the lead, outright removal doesn't seem appropriate either. There's also the review you added way back when, though I'd agree that's not as good a source as the newspaper. On an entirely unrelated note, I'm happy to see that you now agree that Torossian's writings which are not the subject of third-party coverage should not be added to the lead. I'll move the book to the "career" section, which probably is the best place for it. Huon (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, BenBella Books doesn't appear to be a vanity press. Huon (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Huon, I think that, before you continue editing this article, you should write a disclosure statement in the section above. I am not suggesting any conflict of interest. However, you have admitted on this talk page to at least two conversations you held with someone alleging to be Torossian at the help desk, and your aggressive editing of this article has consistently reflected the point of view expressed by Torossian or his partisans: specifically, the exclusion of all information regarding his political activities, and inclusion of information on his book. I think the other editors of this page need a full disclosure of the conversations you have had with people representing themselves as Torossian, what was discussed in those conversations, and what, if any, conclusions were reached. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Later: I found a review of the book in a notable publication, so I guess the book really does deserve mention. I added the reference. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not, in my mind, mean that you needn't disclose any communications you have had with representatives of Torossian. And, where did you get the idea that I had changed my mind about including Torossian's political views and writings in the lead? I never hinted at such a thing. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to disclose nothing, and I resent the inquisitorial nature of these requests. If there's a problem with my edits, you should provide an explanation based on the content, not based on whom I may or may not have communicated with. According to the rules of the IRC help channel, I am prohibited from publishing logs without the consent of everybody else who participated, which I did not seek, nor do I intend to seek it in the future for the purpose of "disclosure" here. The help channel is public, and if someone were to doubt my word on what was said there, I could probably get other helpers to comment here and confirm my accounts of those conversations. The help channel does not reach any "conclusions"; my conversations with Mr. Torossian have consisted of him complaining about perceived biases and me explaining Wikipedia's editorial standards. If the points raised by Mr. Torossian were valid, I have edited the article in line with BLP or other relevant guidelines, which mostly consisted of the removal of unsourced or inappropriately-sourced content used to promote a view that's not expressed by any reliable independent sources.

Of all Torossian's various writings, that book is the only piece that has received third-party recognition of any kind. For example, he's mentioned as author of the PR bestseller “For Immediate Release” by Fox News. His writings on politics, Israel and vacations in France, however, all have received no third-party recognition whatsoever. I have yet to see any independent reliable source refer to Torossian as a "frequent columnist for FrontPage Magazine", for example. So, Ravpapa, since I seem to have misunderstood your stance, please clarify: In light of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, do you think Torossian's writings which are not subject to third-party coverage should be discussed in the lead and/or the body of the article, and do you think the removal of those of his writings which do get mentioned in third-party sources is warranted? Huon (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Huon, the reason I and other editors of this page felt that you should disclose any conflicts of interests is that you have, on this talk page and in your edits of the article, have consistently ignored material in reliable sources, and have edited with a clear POV that reflects Torossian's own stated opinions about what the article should say. You have insisted that the book he wrote has been referred to in notable sources, when the only source you could find (until today) was a one-line reference in a Chinese newspaper reporting its publication. You have deleted all material on Torossian's political activities, ignoring the fact that these activities constitute nearly half of all the content of the main sources referred to in the article. You have, moreover, done this in an aggressive manner, running roughshod over arguments, posting condescending comments on the talk page, and stating categorically that you will remove material you find not to your taste, even if it is appropriately sourced and balanced.

We know that partisans of Torossian have made numerous attempts to slant this article, including sockpuppetry, threats, and attempts to suborn editors. Under the circumstances, if Torossian or someone representing himself as Torossian makes direct contact with an editor, through the help desk or any other channel, the appropriate thing to do is make the full content of that conversation public on the talk page of this article. I refer you to the posts of Salimfadhley above and in the archives, who did just that.

Your refusal to disclose the content of conversations you had with Torossian, and your umbrage at the request, only increases the suspicion some people may have regarding what was discussed and what was concluded. You write, "if someone were to doubt my word on what was said there... " But we cannot doubt your word of what was said there, because you refuse to disclose what was said. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard for your specific request for an explanation, you are again ignoring all the posts made on this talk page. I repeat - for what is perhaps the fourth or fifth time - two one-line mentions of Torossian's book, one in a Chinese newspaper, and one flagrantly inaccurate reference to the book on Fox News as a best-seller, do not constitute notability by any standard in Wikipedia. As for your contention regarding Torossian's political views, discussion of those views constitutes about half of the cited profiles of the man. The clearest statement of those extensively covered views appear in his own published commentaries in notable journals. However, if you have decided unilaterally to ban all reference to those columns in the article, you should at least allow statements of those views that are covered by third parties. It is not a problem to find them, they appear in almost every profile cited in the article. However, you consistently delete these, with aggressive comments that you will delete them again if anyone tries to restore them.

I don't think I can state this any clearer than I have above. But, then, you have either failed or chosen not to understand this in every discussion on this talk page. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, please go ahead and propose specific changes based on reliable third-party sources. But claims of "ignoring reliable sources" could go both ways. It wasn't me who misrepresented Torossian's publisher as a vanity press, who dismissed the Shanghai Daily and Fox News as not "notable publications" or who claimed that an argument while a third person was away on the phone constituted an on-the-record interview. The fact is, the sources for the book are, while still weak, far better than the third-party coverage of all of Torossian's other writings combined, yet you'd prefer to omit what secondary sources say in favor of your own analysis of primary sources. To do so, you ignore the distinction between Torossian's own opinions and his work for his clients (claiming, for example, the New York Times coverage of the West Bank visit Torossian organized for Vallone was an indication of Torossian's political views when the NYT makes no such claim). The Jerusalem Post discusses his past views in some detail, and the activities of his two-year visit to Israel are already mentioned in the article, but of his current views, all we learn is that he says, "I am a Jew and a Zionist at my very core" - with no third-party interpretation of what that statement may mean. Similarly, this Forward article discusses (and is already cited for) his youthful activities; of his current political opinions it only says he backed Bush despite quibbles with the Republicans, quote: "I vote as a Jew, and I vote on Israel." That's again in line with the Jerusalem Times quote. Other than that, there's lots of stuff about his clients, and very little about his own views. In fact, the New York Times says in 2005 that Torossian emphasizes the non-political aspects of his work and explicitly distanced himself from his activist past, quote: "I can't be holding a protest sign up to the cameras, and at the same time stand next to Puff Daddy as his spokesman." Even the Atlantic Monthly piece, written in 2008, says the discussion with Torossian happened "several years ago", in 2004 at the latest. There is not a single one third-party comment on Torossian's post-2004 political opinions. Nowadays, reliable third-party sources don't care about his politics but about his opinion on crisis management and SEO (note that he's again introduced as author of "For Immediate Release", not as columnist for "FrontPage Magazine"). Huon (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ravpapa, my apologies, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. Please review Huon's edits to the English Wikipedia (and, if you like, monitor their activity on the help channel, which last time I looked involved Huon dealing with dozens of questions per week or more), and then tell us if you seriously believe there is a possibility that Huon might have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Company ranking

I've removed the claim that the company is the 24th-largest in the US by fees. The O'Dwyer list cited as a source ranks only those companies who supported "fee and employee totals with income tax and W-3 forms" - and it's pretty clear some very large firms, including for example Rubenstein Associates, simply do not do so. Thus it's not 24th-largest in the US, but 24th-largest among those US companies who supplied internal documents to O'Dwyer, which is a pretty useless criterion. Even comparing the companies in the New York Observer list to the ones in the O'Dwyer list, there are enough large companies in the former list but not the latter to mean it's not in the top 25 by fees among all US PR companies. Huon (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)