Talk:Alex Lasry

@Whisperjanes which of these sentences / sources fail verification or are editorialized

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_J._Lasry the version you have just reverted, you say those sources failed verifrcation even though they are from credible medias and this time I just use as much as original sentence as possible. Geeky1127 (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Geeky1127: When I say that many of the sources "failed verification", what I meant is that they don't meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Even if the source is reliable, it needs to support all of the information in the sentence it is verifying. Information can be included if it is written in a neutral way and it is backed up by the sources that are supporting it. But I felt like most of the writing didn't meet those standards. Some examples of sentences I saw issues with:

• In a 2020 interview, he stated that he had only previously been to Wisconsin once before: “When I came here I think what most surprised me about Milwaukee is the fact that Milwaukee has all of the same things that any other city, especially any other big city, has.” - This sentence is sourced to one or two sentences that Lasry says in a 30 minute interview. Since it's coming from a primary source, and not being reported on as a secondary source, I don't see how it is significant enough to include in an encyclopedic biography - it feels like it's giving undue weight to a comment he made.
• You wrote His campaign is mainly funded by Wall Street and sports teams. The source you used does not mention he was "mainly funded" - it just says he had funding from "sports, entertainment and Wall Street." The other sources don't seem to support that sentence either.
• ...despite the fact that his father Marc Lasry want Republican Party to win Senate - As far as I can tell, the source doesn't even mention Alex Lasry, only his father, so I don't think it has a place in a section about Alex Lasry's career. When I said "editorializing" in my edit summary, this was one of the examples I meant, because it's considered editorializing to combine two sentences together with a phrase like "despite the fact" when the source doesn't make that comparison/conclusion itself.
• Before his announcement, he just cutted in line to get early COVID vaccine and showed it off on social media though later he said he was just lucky and the shots would have gone to waste if he didn't use it. On the other hand, 94% of Wisconsinites were still waiting for vaccines at that time. - This sentence isn't worded neutrally, and I'm not sure if it was reported on widely enough to give it due weight to be included (I haven't checked though). Either way, the article source doesn't say he "cut in line" or "showed it off" on social media, so it would at least need to be rewritten.
• I'm also confused by this sentence: Although he claimed that he supports Black Lives Matter, he locked up NBA players in Bucks team to stop them from not playing playoff games and join the BLM protest when the Jacob Black protest broke out. I don't see the source saying he locked up NBA players to stop them from not playing and joining a BLM protest? I have no idea where this sentence is coming from.
• and George Hill, who was in Bucks and led that protest then, blame Lasry for trading him away because of that. - Lasry isn't mentioned in the source, and I don't see the article saying he "blamed" the trade on the protest, just that he prepared himself for that possible outcome.

That's the majority of the article, minus the last part on the political position. To be honest (and I'm not trying to be harsh), so much of the edit seems to show what you are thinking as a writer rather than reflecting what the sources are stating. I think it's hard to edit contentious topics and biographies of living people when you're a new editor, and it's possible you have a conflict of interest with this topic enough that it is affecting what you are writing. Either way, there are lots of issues currently with these edits, and they shouldn't stay in the article with the way they are now. I'll remove it until these issues are addressed. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Mfield, Anubus2013, LeBron4, Qwerfjkl: Pinging other editors who have been involved in these edits in the last few days, in case there are other comments. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Whisperjanes on needing better sourcing for highly politicized (borderline opinionated) statements about a living person. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Also, and this is a more minor issue, but the grammatical quality of the deleted content is not up to standards for a U.S. Senate candidate article. Also, if someone would like to clean up the formatting on this talk page so its more clear who said what, that would also be great. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"In a 2020 interview, he stated that he had only previously been to Wisconsin once before: “When I came here I think what most surprised me about Milwaukee is the fact that Milwaukee has all of the same things that any other city, especially any other big city, has.” - This sentence is sourced to one or two sentences that Lasry says in a 30 minute interview. Since it's coming from a primary source, and not being reported on as a secondary source, I don't see how it is significant enough to include in an encyclopedic biography - it feels like it's giving undue weight to a comment he made." It is right, I accept it.

For "You wrote His campaign is mainly funded by Wall Street and sports teams." In other it listed how much his funding is from these grous and instead of just "mainly" i will use the concrete number in this source instead.

"...despite the fact that his father Marc Lasry want Republican Party to win Senate" This sentence should not belong to "Alex Lasry" so I won't undelete it.

"Although he claimed that he supports Black Lives Matter" in the source there is a proof, in order to prove it and avoid editoring I will use the oroginal sentences in the sources instead.

Besides "" this is his own twitter that show off cutting line in vaccine. and it si widely known so should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky1127 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I think the scandals and political positions are either from credible source or directly from his own campaign video. And I just fully use the sentences of original sources as much as possible. So I think I follows the rules, If you think it isn't, instead of just deleting please change into what you think obeys the rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky1127 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Geeky1127: I'll repeat what I said on my talk page here - That's not how WP:BLP issues work. If there is problematic material on Wikipedia on a biography of a living person, it should be deleted, discussed and fixed on the talk page, before adding it back to the article. It's not meant to stay in the article until someone has enough time to fix errors - things should be accurate and neutral if they're going to be included in an encyclopedia article.

To be blunt, you need to slow down with your edits and understand why others have reverted them up until now before adding back the same content to the article continuously. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There are only 2 people who keep deleting it,one only edit this page and another who only deleted once is a fan of bucks, His basketball team. So I don't think anyone without interest connection is unsatisfied with those part. Bisides since you are not satisfied you can fix it by your self. No one know why you think this part has error better than you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeky1127 (talk • contribs)

@Geeky1127: I don't mind giving more advice on the edits, but I don't think I have enough time to spend on this, truthfully. I also want to remind you that there have been more than two people who have reverted this set of edits - in the last few days Anubus2013, LeBron4, Mfield, and myself have all reverted these same edits, and another person above agreed with some of the concerns that were brought up.

I hope I didn't come off too harsh above - I'm trying to say it would probably be better if you worked on the edits on the talk page before posting them, because I still think there are some issues with the edits. And I think it's important to know that when someone reverts an edit on Wikipedia, it's often best practice to follow WP:BRD and come to a consensus before adding content back in - especially if multiple people have a concern with the edit.

Also, it seems like you've broken the 3 revert rule, so please revert / delete your most recent revert edit (seen here). - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, as I examine some more of the content at issue here, I just want to throw in this also -- things can be technically true but still not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not Facebook, where we air out every political tidbit that we find on Youtube or the Intercept or whereever. Some of this information just doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. See also WP:RECENT. And again, the current grammatical quality in the discussed section is not up to Wikipedia standards, especially for a candidate for a U.S. federal office. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree. On that note, I could only find two sources for the vaccine criticism, so it seems like recentism and undue weight to include it. For now, I edited it down to 2 sentences (although I think it would be better as one if it warrants inclusion). There was also original research of the tweet by saying he was "showing it off on social media", so I removed that.

I'm also going to remove the Scandals section heading. Three sources isn't enough to have a section about controversies, and criticism sections should usually be avoided anyways. I'm removing the sentence about "yelling" and the paragraph about George Hill - the first is taking one sentence from a single article to imply he tried to "stop [players] from not playing playoff games and join the BLM protest", which the source doesn't state - the second is a paragraph written with a source that doesn't mention Lasry, so I don't think it belongs in this biography. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/33-year-bucks-exec-alex-lasry-covid-vaccine-75565955

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/30800506/milwaukee-bucks-executive-alex-lasry-33-got-lucky-covid-19-vaccine

https://www.wpr.org/bucks-exec-alex-lasry-says-he-jumped-vaccination-line-pure-happenstance I think as to his vaccine scandal there are much more news report than 2 so it should be kept as what it was. Geeky1127 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram, Reddit, IMDb, Ancestry.com, Find a Grave, and ODMP. It do not have youtube, Geeky1127 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Geeky1127: That's 4 sources then (the WPR source was already included) - so I think having one or two sentences is fine, then, unless others disagree. Thanks for finding more. I don't think it should be kept as what it was, though - half of the sentences weren't referenced with a source, multiple parts used editorializing words and phrases ("but", "On the other hand", "though"), a tweet was used for original research, etc. If you have improvements on what I wrote, feel free to suggest them here.

Also, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "It do not have youtube". If you mean WP:USERGEN doesn't list Youtube - yes, it lists some other sites, as well as mentioning "video and image hosting services" in the second sentence. Youtube does host user-generated content, even if it's not explicitly mentioned. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Whisperjanes Anubus2013 is just vandalize by deleting everything even if they meet the staandard.

@whisperjane @asdasdasdff anubus2013 is just an account inly focus pn vamdalizing contents about alex lasry, need to do something. Geeky1127 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Just want to clarify the "standard" -- simply having information with a reference is not sufficient to put it in an article. Wikipedia has volumes of writing about the standards for what kind of content actually belongs in an article. I left a lot of that stuff included on my recent edits (just cleaning up the language) to be conciliatory and try to end this perpetual edit war, but Anubus2013 has a very good point that the material probably fails on various concerns with WP:CRIT, WP:NEUTRAL, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOT -- and these concerns should be treated with additional sensitivity because this is a WP:BLP. To put that in plain English (if you're not interested in reading all of those Wikipedia articles) the content is (a) needlessly critical, (b) not written from a neutral point of view, (c) deals with minor "recent events" that have little relevance to the overall topic, and (d) include a lot of unrelated anecdotes, tweets, and opinions of random third parties -- That kind of content generally does not belong in a Wikipedia article, just as it would not belong in an old-school Encyclopedia article. And all of that has to be given additional scrutiny and care because this is an article about a living person, not just an article about some 1000 year old historical figure or a faceless bureaucratic organization. It may be possible to include some of that content in a form that is less objectionable to Wikipedia standards, but that kind of content development should happen here on the talk page rather than constantly reverting each others edits on the article. Hope that helps. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

But he do not follow standard, nust delete everything that is not good fir lasry but neglect others even from the same source and clame that source is only neutral only whem criticizing Lasry Geeky1127 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction,″neutral″ change to "not neutral" Geeky1127 (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The source isn't why he's deleting the content. The standard is about the content itself. Like I said previously, content that is (a) needlessly critical, (b) not written from a neutral point of view, (c) deals with minor "recent events" that have little relevance to the overall topic, and (d) include a lot of unrelated anecdotes, tweets, and opinions of random third parties, are generally not appropriate for a Wikipedia article -- and the bar is even higher for an article about a living person. It's absolutely inappropriate to include a bunch of attacks from political opponents in a Wikipedia article of a living person, unless there's extensive neutral reporting on the topic that clearly establishes the facts. The stuff he's removing is generally accusations and opinions from political opponents where the underlying facts are not known -- Wikipedia is not a venue for airing random political accusations and insinuation. Some of the content may be able to be included, but it has to be written from a neutral point of view, per Wikipedia standards, with sources that establish facts, not a set of conflicting opinions and innuendo. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@whisperjane I think what his contribution is when he serve as senior vice president and manage private/public partnership to triple Buck's worth should be included. I originally think it is Down by Manager Fagin. Howeever the article provided by anubus2013----who deleete it, just prove he is the one who manage it thus thosee should be included as his career accomplishment Firstly, @anubus2013 himself is not an normal account that never edit any article other than vandalizonng contents about lasry. and his own link https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/06/10/senate-race-lasry-campaign- shown that he is managing the team during his tenure, so all the contents you deleete is linked to Lasry and his contribution.Besides in https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/local/2018/05/31/milwaukee-bucks-have-named-good-city-brewing-their-first-tenant/644871002/ it mentions "Built with $250 million in taxpayer support" without the content you delete just because that vandalizing account delete, Where that 250 million come from, which is the public/private partnership, is not shown. If you can't understand, Let me show you in this way:https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/02/16/bucks-executive-alex-lasry-enters-u-s-senate-race-wisconsin/6769241002/ in this link it shows Lasry serve sa senior vice president of milwaukee bucks, https://amp.jsonline.com/amp/7641938002?__twitter_impression=true in this link it shows Alex Lasry on that position is running this team. Thus how Bucks team get this funding and triple its worth during his tenure, should be part of his career contribution and get included in "career" section. SInce you think it do not belong to it, I do not add it back by myself, but i'd recommend you to add it back in a way you think is proper.

Just FYI - the first link is broken. And thank you for starting this discussion. I'm having a hard time understanding what content you want included with which references, so if you could suggest an edit here with new sourcing, that would be great (but I understand if you don't have the time). I do think the last source seems good to use.

And I agree with everything that Asdasdasdff said above. So Geeky1127, can you please stop saying Anubus is "vandalizing"; it seems uncivil. Removing content because it is poorly sourced, poorly written, and/or a BLP violation is WP:NOTVANDALISM. In fact, poor-quality content should be deleted from any article. And if someone wants to add it back in, they usually should start a discussion on the talk page to gain consensus on a new version of the edit. I think you might be misunderstanding how the term "vandalism" is usually used on Wikipedia, so you might want to read the "not vandalism" link above. - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the delete unless a version can be written that more clearly demonstrates how Lasry was involved in obtaining the funding for Fiserv. The deleted section was just a history of the funding of Fiserv Forum, seemed like it belonged more in an article on Fiserv Forum, or in an article on Scott Walker. The deleted section did not even mention Lasry. But just want to conclude where I started -- It could be an interesting addition to the article if some journalism can be found that explains how Lasry was actually involved. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree; I'd also like to see sources talking about Lasry's specific involvement.

Also, I've again deleted the COVID-19 tweet that has been included as a source in the article. Although the explanation for Geeky's revert that It is his own twitter, which is his own speech that shows his own meaning! is something, it didn't address any of the issues I pointed out in my edit summary. So I'll repeat it here again, since I'm tired of the edit warring. The tweet does not verify anything in the sentence preceding it (the sentence itself doesn't even mention the tweet). And there is already more independent sourcing referenced. Why this explanation wasn't convincing in the first place, I have no idea. But in addition to that, Twitter is generally an unreliable source per WP:RSPTWITTER. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there has been 5 source, no need to add the tweet. Geeky1127 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Fiserv Forum Labor agreement

For now, I've removed the section on the Fiserv Forum labor agreement.[1] I have no issue if someone wants to rewrite it neutrally, if they can find adequate sourcing. But the current sources are lacking, and at this point, the paragraph is basically unsourced and contains promotional phrasing and marketingese.

The first source only says he announced the agreement,[2] the second only has a quote from Lasry saying he was "part of [the] development agreement",[3], and the third say he presented a briefing.[4] None of those sources support what was written in the article. The final sentence doesn't mention Lasry, and it doesn't seem like it would make sense without the previous sentences for context anyways. Feel free to point out if I missed something - but as of now, it seems like that section is WP:OR. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality problem of this article

Since there is someone who keep adding POV sing without initiaking any discussion, I initiate this talk page to let those who add it talk about this Article's neutrality— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madisonsocdem (talk • contribs) 21:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ten or so single purpose accounts adding positive or negative information that isn't WP:DUE for the purpose of influencing an election.Slywriter (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Your reply do not give anything about what part of its content is not neutral and how to fix it. Hopw you can talk about this. We need to solve problem instead if just blaming. Madisonsocdem (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The entire article. It is written for voters in an upcoming election, not the general public. Just because a local paper writes something does not make it WP:DUE for inclusion. That tag may draw neutral editors to review who do not care one bit about a Senate race and can rewrite this to be an encyclopedic article, assuming it is kept.Slywriter (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

By that if you mean it contains too much contents that will hurt him in the election it do not violate WP:DUE unless there is a credible source of opinions that will help him in the election. "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." and the view of him do not have the scandals listed in the article definately fits the standard of "small minority" here because there is no credible source of that opinion. Madisonsocdem (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Notice:"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources" is there any reliable source that says otherwise? I see none. Madisonsocdem (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

This article has a history of being too positive and too negative. Given that you have shown no interest in Wikipedia beyond this race, you should read WP:ADVOCACY. And as the content I just removed shows, actions of the Bucks are being applied to him without any reliable sources linking him to those corporate actions. The stocks and covid 'skip the line' also is likely undue and if not for his Senate campaign wouldn't even merit a sentence in newspapers, much less paragraphs on Wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite frankly, you deleted a lot of stuff that was well-sourced with a high standard of national and local journalism from Alex's page. I've been open to ideas of how weighted and/or neutral what's been posted on this page has been, especially as a newcomer here and therefore I've sat this out for a few days. I've seen good edits done by others than you that I agreed with. However, I think you've deleted much that actually passes the standards you keep citing. I know you want to moderate here but deleting well-sourced things about Alex's father in the personal life section, for example, specific to details of their family's life that are potically relevant isn't helpful. I think you should stop. Lordbuckinghambadger (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1093837509 is not relevant information.Slywriter (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The part you add is about his father who has his own wiki page, I agree with User:Slywriter that it should not be here and has moved what you have added to Marc Lasry's wiki page Madisonsocdem (talk) 04:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Those source literally mentioned how lasry involved in, besides I add another media report that further confirm his role in the deal. Madisonsocdem (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Note Both accounts involved have been banned as sock-puppets of Geeky1127. The good hand-bad hand editing was cute. Slywriter (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Should the bucks deal part be added back in a neutral form?

Recently many many sockpuppets of User:Geeky1127 keep add a paragraph about bucks deal that is written in a biased way to this page. I agree with the decision to delete it since it is obviously pushing for an agenda instear od writing encyclopedia, However, there are a lotov media coverage that shows he helped to negociate in the deal on becalf bucks. https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/10/26/bucks-believe-their-15-wage-goal-can-be-model.html https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/06/10/senate-race-lasry-campaign-clarifies-15-wage-claim-fiserv-forum/7641938002/ and https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2019/11/20/eyes-on-milwaukee-bucks-beat-hiring-targets-on-fiserv-forum/#google_vignette so I think it may need to be addd back n a neutral way.