Talk:Gary Weiss

Article probation

Restrictions...Editors are directed:

(A) To edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account;

(B) To edit only through a conventional ISP and not through any form of proxy configuration;

(C) To edit in accordance with all Wikipedia policies and to refrain from any form of advocacy concerning any external controversy, dispute, allegation, or proceeding; and

(D) To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page.

Do not remove this notice — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Weiss, Mantanmoreland, and Wikipedia

An article in the press is stating that Weiss used an account called User:Mantanmoreland here in Wikipedia to push POV in the Naked Short Selling, Patrick Byrne, and Overstock.com articles. The article is here [1]. I've committed not to edit this article, but anyone else should feel free to add this material and cite it to the link I posted here. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm for the article but I have doubts about its usability here, without confirmation elsewhere.--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, but... with BLP and all, we might need articles from more than one newspaper in order to include it. The end of the article talks about user SlimVirgin and she's had several hundred news articles about her and still that doesn't seem to meet BLP to put all the negative controversy in an article. Hmm the register has another thing at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/24/byrne_back_conspiracy_theory_with_cash/ which is not about Weiss, but about a wikipedia and wall street conspiracy. Unfortunately, there's no mention of the current Wall Street conspiracy of how the US government wants to give $700 billion and likely trillions more not to stimulate the economy but to purely to inflate the salaries of rich CEOs who are friends of the Bush administration and both Obama and McCain support it (but not Ron Paul). Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the required 'confirmation' within the wikipedia logs and article history themselves, as documented here http://antisocialmedia.net/?p=130 - that source is obviously biased, but the substantial proof of the main thrust of The Register's allegations seem to be embedded within wikipedia already. It is unfortunate that in this case decisions resulted in Wikipedia 'becoming the story' rather than enabling it to be documented with NPOV - but the full naked-short/overstock/Weiss/wikipedia story is one that really SHOULD be fully covered here - treating wikipedia's part in the story dispassionately as though it were some third-party media. Short version: It's absurd, when the actual proof is right here in the logs, to pretend that it's not well-sourced.Jaymax (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I can speak on some authority when I say that these sources are not up to WP:BLP standards. The alleged Wikipedia activity should be left out of the article. Wikipedia's logs and history are the raw material for original research, and this potentially-damaging claim has not been confirmed by reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just removed an edit inserted by an anonymous editor relating to the Register article.[2] The content removed varied from information in the single source and thus does not meet the standards of our biography of living persons policy. I believe that this information needs to appear in more than one reliable source; it is extraordinary information and thus needs to be referenced extraordinarily well. Risker (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Forbes

is Weiss still employed by forbes? He hasn't published anything there in six months. [3] --Duk 04:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if this is employment per se.--Stetsonharry (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

More info

A thread on Wikipedia Review has just pointed out these articles about Weiss in reliable sources, but which aren't mentioned in this article, even in passing: [4] [5] [6]. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Two seem like minor "pissing match" stuff. The third might be important if it was instrumental in the lawsuit. Kind of old, too. Is that a representative sampling of what is in the Times?--Stetsonharry (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Those could support statements like this:

• "He also has been critical of the treatment of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz,[18] opposed astroturfing,[19] argued against Wal-Mart's new venture in India,[20], criticized Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne and his campaign against naked short selling, and criticized the ethics of Mark Cuban's Sharesleuth, Cuban’s Web publication that investigates companies’ business practices [7]."

• "Weiss debated Mark R. Mitchell, an editor for Columbia Journalism Review’s blog, CJR Daily's financial column, The Audit over a story about Warren Buffet published in the Wall Street Journal.[8]"

• "While at Business Week, Weiss and the magazine were sued by Julian H. Robertson Jr. for libel over an article authored by Weiss in 1996 titled, "Fall of the Wizard of Wall Street." The case was settled out of court.[9] [10]"

That should cover what those three sources say. Cla68 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot would depend on the overall coverage. I looked at the Times website and there were other items, a first amendment dustup from one of his books, as well as reviews that we are not picking up. Not sure about adding blog controversies and a withdrawn lawsuit from ten years ago. Also I read the second item and I think this was after Weiss left Business Week.--Stetsonharry (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to remove that from the second one. I think the most significant of the three is the libel lawsuit, because that is mentioned in more than one article in reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know about the Cuban/blog thing. It seems like something WP:BLP might keep out. But, there is other coverage of it. I dug up one print story some time ago.

We have to wonder whether criticizing a businessman is WEIGHTy just because the businessman criticizes the critic back. Maybe, but it's not obvious to me. Cool Hand Luke 03:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Cuban ended up mentioning the incident as it related to Wikipedia in his blog. But, if not mentioned in passing, then it probably isn't notable enough to be in the article. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering the same (as Cool Hand Luke). The lawsuit bothered me because it was old (11 yrs.) and withdrawn, though I see Cla's point on the two sources. --Stetsonharry (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over this article based on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland, so any change to the protection will be dependent on support from or appeal to the Committee. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, I sprotected outside of the juridstiction of ArbCom - as I recall during the case. The juridstiction seems to relate to the consequences of edit/pov warring rather than stopping some classes of editors using the talkpages. As such, I am unsprotecting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the matter needs rather more discussion before the decision to unprotect is taken. I'm willing to protect on my own account if you no longer are, pendindg discussion. ++Lar: t/c 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

LHvU; I posted the above comment under the advice of an arbitrator. See the AN thread for more. Regards,  Skomorokh  02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, what exactly are you guys talking about? The article hasn't been protected since my protection expired on October 20, 2008. I don't see any reason to have the talk page protected when the article has been freely editable, without issue, for close to a year. Brandon (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the comments above seem to imply a misunderstanding about the remedies proposed in the Mantanmoreland case. None of them required or implied an order to protect the article or the talk page. Only the talk pages of four related articles remained semiprotected, the article semiprotections having long ago expired or been lifted manually. --TS 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the protection completely, debating this is rather silly. Brandon (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard

Lawsuit involved Weiss. FYI. Ikip 18:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Once the AfD closes, whether kept or deleted, I think we should discuss adding a few sentences to this, and the other, related articles, about the story. Cla68 (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I read your comments on Wikipedia Review. Shouldn't you be disclosing here, as required by the article probation, that you are involved in the off-wiki battle between Overstock.com and Weiss? The article probation was politely pointed out to me very recently. COI disclosure is mandatory.

I disclose as follows: I have in the past been a short-seller of Overstock.com. However, I have no current position in the stock, and have had no position in the stock for two years. I am a member of message boards and occasionally post on the Weiss-Overstock conflict. I am not acquainted with Mr. Weiss personally, but admire his journalism. --AmishPete (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If the lawsuit had resulted in a trial or a well-publicized apology or a monetary settlement, it would be a notable event in the life of Gary Weiss. Since it did not (and since the only argument for the notability of the underlying case is the fact that it almost, but didn't, consider a notable legal technical issue that has nothing to do with Weiss), it has no business being mentioned in this article. THF (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. While we probably don't need this level of discussion, some discussion seems appropriate, and the article should be referenced from the See Also section. The article as it stands now lacks balance, it's almost a hagiography. ++Lar: t/c 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's something to be said that isn't synthesis, I wouldn't object. I also wouldn't object to something like "While Weiss was at Business Week, he and the magazine were sued for a billion dollars by Julian Robertson, the subject of one of Weiss's articles. The case settled out of court with no money changing hands," though I fail to see what that really adds to the article, and I wouldn't object to a See also. But it's UNDUE to include allegations of a lawsuit that didn't result in any damages or in apologies that weren't covered by the press. The Truell article makes it clear that Business Week viewed the result as a nuisance settlement that didn't implicate the quality of their journalism, and doesn't even mention Weiss. Was there some other source you wished to cite that I'm not aware of?

I've toned down some WP:PUFF in the article, such as removing a self-serving press release. If you think there are RS on Weiss being omitted that would balance the article further, I have no objection to including them. But it's a stretch to include the Robertson allegations as somehow damning of Weiss. Journalists get sued all the time, especially by the wealthy--it's a way that some members of the rich try to intimidate against negative press coverage. THF (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You were right in your first post. This lawsuit is "peripheral to Robertson," as you said in removing a reference to the suit from "Julian Robertson," and it is even more peripheral here. The only reason we're even having this discussion is that an editor who doesn't like Weiss, and who has made accusations about him in the media, is on a campaign to create articles about him and to add links about those articles everywhere in Wikipedia. That's what this is all about. This whole affair is a complete embarassment to Wikipedia. --AmishPete (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on content not contributors. The answer on content is no. The article is barely more than a stub, and seems to be shrinking. A reference to the suit or a link to the lawsuit article would be excessive emphasis of a minor settled lawsuit that truly is meaningless. WP:UNDUE requires that articles treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The notability of the event was established by the AfD. The lawsuit was covered in at least 10 independent sources, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the New York Daily News, as well as a publishing industry trade publication. So, THF's suggestion about adding two sentences or so, but no more, is appropriate. I'll suggest a two or three sentence addition shortly, which could also be used for the Julian Robertson article. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is UNDUE, and was the last time it was the last time you brought it up as well. It is not an issue of notability or sourcing. The language you propose below would be one paragraph added to a three-paragraph section. Stetsonharry (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested addition about Robertson lawsuit

I'm going to make a similar proposal on the talk page for Julian Robertson. I suggest the following be added to this article in the "Magazine articles" section:

“ While at BusinessWeek, Weiss authored a cover story carried in the April 1, 1996 edition of the magazine, titled "Fall of the Wizard," that was critical of Julian Robertson's performance and behavior as manager of hedge fund Tiger Management. In response, Robertson sued Weiss and BusinessWeek for $1 billion for defamation. The suit was settled with no money changing hands. ”

(References)

After the merge discussion is completed, a "further details" template can be added with a link to either the lawsuit article or to Tiger Management. Actually, a link could be placed now since the the link would redirect if the merge takes place. Cla68 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand you're enthusiastic about this, but devoting one-quarter of the "magazine" section to the Robertson lawsuit is pretty darn ludicrous. Stetsonharry (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

are there other notable articles the subject has written? It would seem that one that involved an actually filed lawsuit (rather than the usual legal threats to the publisher who ignores them), would be a good candidate for inclusion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we're going to increase the size of the "magazine" section quite this substantially to add controversial derogatory information, we're going to need a clear consensus and also agreement on what to add. The haste and enthusiasm here really troubles me. Stetsonharry (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding three sentences to an article of this length on a topic that has already been established as notable enough to merit its own article does not violate undue. Do you have any problems with the content of the three sentences? Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The lawsuit article is being considered for merger to Tiger Management, and there it belongs. In fact, the point of the merger would be to add what's important to Tiger Management, and this lawsuit is not important. Yes, three sentences omprising a paragraph, 25% of the "magazine career" section, that is correct. I see that you recognized this raised an undue weight issue during one of the several times you've raised this issue in the past[11]. Since the final status of the lawsuit article itself is up in the air, this discussion is premature, as is the one in Julian Robertson, where I you want to add a longer paragraph to a shorter section. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess comparing three sentences to the rest of its section versus the article as a whole makes it appear like more of an undue issue, but I've never seen that done before until now. Anyway, the status of the Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. article is under discussion, but not the notability of the topic. Now, do you have any concerns about the wording of the three suggested sentences? If not, we'll leave this discussion open for other editor input over the next day or so. Cla68 (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's correct, it is undue when compared to the remainder of the discussion of Weiss' Business Week career, and I assume that must have been the basis of your acknowledging there would be an undue issue a few years ago. It's superfluous to discuss the content of a paragraph that undermines the neutrality of an article, as well as premature. I think you may be misconstruing the merger discussion. What's being discussed there is precisely how to place what's important in the Tiger Management article. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Stetsonharry. This is way too much about an old case that chiefly just demonstrates the ease with which lawsuits are brought in the US. How about putting this material in the article on tort reform instead? --Christofurio (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stetson asked me pff-line to take a look at this. A cover story in business week about this particular person, especially when even an inconclusive lawsuit followed, would seem to be worth a paragraph. The proposed addition does not seem disproportionate. I don;t think it violates NPOV with respect to any side of the issue. I don't think it violates BLP with respect to any person involved: the reports on it are from unquestionably RSs.. FWIW, I neither know nor care about the merits of the case or the personalities involved. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Then in that case there should be paragraphs on all of Weiss' cover stories in Business Week to put this one in proper perspective, which would make that a long section. Then I imagine one would want to add whatever covers he did for Portfolio. Right now there are only three mentioned and this Robertson one would be four. That is why it seems disproportionate at the current length of the article. --AmishPete (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Just adding a note to point out that another editor has supported mentioning the lawsuit in this article, but prefers that it simply be listed as a "See also" link. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be me. Just dropped by to say that if you can't reach consensus to include details about the case, it seems the best workaround would be to include it in the see also section. Then you don' have to worry about undue weight, while still linking to the article of which Gary is the main subject. I did this but Stetsonharry kindly reverted it. For what it's worth, it seems to make much more sense to include brief details of the case in this article, as opposed to Robertson's. This is further discussed in the page Cla68 linked to, btw.—DMCer™ 01:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)