Talk:Arnnon Geshuri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Hi. Following the precedent set by the Matt Halprin and Kat Walsh pages, I've redirected this page title to Wikimedia Foundation.

This article was in bad shape, in my opinion. It didn't read like a biography (a typical intro would be more like "Example (born date) is an American businessman..."), it primarily cited a Wikimedia blog post and a Tesla press release for most of its information, and the rest of the article and its citations focused on a prior bad act, bringing in BLP1E concerns. I don't think we would typically consider a vice president of human resources to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.

There might be a better target for this page title other than Wikimedia Foundation, but as a standalone biography, I think the content is too weak to stand on its own. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, there are lots of RS articles concerning this Subject + there has not been enough time for the BLP to develop. Lets wait for a consensus before redirecting. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nocturnalnow. Which articles are you referring to? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too disagree. The article was just 14 hours old, when you unilaterally redirected it. --Túrelio (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MZMcBride: (edit conflict) This article was developing and Cullen328 already has a draft in userspace. Subject meets GNG. Revert yourself. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Chris Troutman. If you're referring to User:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri, it's very specifically not a userspace draft of an article. If that page were intended to be a biography of Mr. Geshuri, it would be a hatchet job and would be completely inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. That page is an essay that provides critical commentary on a recent decision of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.
Regarding the notability of this article, as John Vandenberg notes at User talk:Cullen328/Arnnon Geshuri#No poaching or no recruiting?, the hiring scandal and surrounding litigation deserve coverage on Wikipedia. I agree. But I'm doubtful that this particular individual has enough standalone notability for a dedicated biographical entry. The current set of citations is insufficient and lacking. A Tesla press release and a announcement post on the Wikimedia blog? Come on. There are at least other sources that could be used such as this 2002 piece, but investing time and energy into scraping together enough information to prop up this biography of a living person seems like a waste. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have boldly added {{under construction}} which may help to avoid confusion as this article develops. If references are insufficient, then the normal deletion procedure should be followed. Thanks -- (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Túrelio: Err, aren't most article redirections done unilaterally? I don't usually receive help from others when creating new redirects or converting existing articles into redirects. BRD applies here. I even preemptively started a discussion here, explaining my edit. If you have time, could you please respond to the substance? Do you feel this subject is sufficiently notable for a standalone biography? If so, why? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was more of a gut feeling that Geshuri might be relevant enough. As being active mainly on Commons and :de, I'm not familiar with the notability criteria for :en. --Túrelio (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Túrelio: The most relevant guidelines are at WP:Notability (people). This biography is thin, but the norm is to give a few days leeway if people are working on the article unless the material is defamatory or may be seen as distressing, such as for crime victims. As Geshuri is a public figure, and the material included in the article is not contentious, it is reasonable to let interested editors develop the article for a a few days and then raise a deletion request if the sources are still too weak. Unfortunately I do not have access to LexisNexis right now, it would be useful if someone could check it out for newsprint sources that might not be so easy to find using Google. -- (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @MZMcBride, a heads-up to the article creator would have been nice! I started the article because it seems like he's notable independently of the Wikimedia Foundation (although obviously that's how he came to my attention). A redirect to the WMF article definitely isn't appropriate, as that's not his main affiliation - perhaps AfD would be a better place to take this if there are concerns over notability. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Mike Peel. Sorry about that. I guess I figured that you were keeping an eye on this article and its talk page. I prefer talk page discussions over processes like AFD when possible. I'll wait and see how this article develops.
The article is already better today than it was yesterday, but I still have a gut feeling that this guy isn't notable. When I searched Wikipedia itself for any mentions of Arnnon Geshuri, he had none anywhere. No mentions in the Google Inc. article, no mentions in the Tesla Motors article, nowhere in any Wikipedia article had anyone even mentioned him, much less linked to him or suggested that we needed an article about him. This is sort of expected, I think; vice presidents of human resources aren't typically notable enough to warrant mentions or separate articles. Creating an article on such an individual is unusual for a general-purpose encyclopedia like Wikipedia, which is why I'm still pretty hesitant about the lasting notability here, outside of Mr. Geshuri's involvement in the "no poach" scandal and subsequent litigation.
I wonder whether redirecting this page title to an article about the "no poach" scandal would be appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @MZMcBride, as you prefer talk page discussions, you can see there is no consensus here for redirect to anywhere. With respect, have you read the BLP lately? The antitrust matter has now shrunk into a being a small part of the article. I absolutely think AfD is necessary in order to get the community view as to notability; i.e. if you still want to push your gut feeling that he is not notable. It would be a real disservice to this Subject to limit him to the confines of the scandal. Its kind of annoying to see your determination in this matter (to those of us working on it). Its weird to me that since you had the good Porterville Recorder source that you did not do some editing yourself, why not? Please lend a hand with editing if you still see room for improvement, there are lots of RS articles about Arnnon's work at Tesla and if he is not mentioned in Tesla Motors, he should be. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Nocturnalnow. I did some editing myself. You just happened to disagree with those edits. As I said above, I'm of the view that investing time and energy into scraping together enough information to prop up this biography of a living person seems like a waste. Others obviously feel differently. The biography is substantially better now than it was, but that still doesn't mean that we should have a biography here. A lot of people confuse the ability to write a biography with whether Wikipedia should have a biography. There are many executives at many companies who have enough press mentions to be able to form "biographies" here, but that doesn't mean that they're notable or should have biographies. I'll be interested to see whether any articles outside of Wikimedia Foundation end up mentioning this subject. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I guess you mean the redirect edit?:) He should show up in the Tesla article, for sure. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He is now in the Tesla article. That was a good point and thought you had, MZMcBride. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possibly useful sources[edit]


I've switched from {{Infobox person/Wikidata}} to {{Infobox person}} for two reasons - because one of the details being passed through is unsourced, and because it allows us more flexibility in how we present information. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Nikkimaria: the Wikidata version of the template should actually be more flexible than the standard template. It's easy to override details that display but aren't wanted in the article, or if you want to format them in a different way, simply by giving the corresponding parameter a value - local values override the Wikidata-derived values. However, I won't switch it back again in this article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tried that, and ended up changing/cancelling literally every provided parameter ;) - not much point keeping it under those circumstances. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I'd appreciate a bit more feedback than that if possible, please, to make progress with the template - but perhaps it would be better at Template talk:Infobox person rather than here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As applied to this article: the unaltered Wikidata template currently gives an image and three text parameters - birth place (unsourced), alma mater (confusing as presented because of the comma in "University of California, Irvine" combined with the comma separating values), and employer (which I think is more clearly and concisely presented as edited). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of link to Meta-Wiki community vote re: WMF appointment[edit]

I see that User:Jonathunder has removed the link I added only minutes earlier regarding the community vote on Mr. Geshuri's appointment to the Wikimedia Foundation board, currently going on at Meta-Wiki site. Reason given: "too much Meta." Let's discuss the removal. I don't believe it improves the article; quite the opposite, in my view. Jusdafax 21:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I'm critical of Geshure and the board's decision to appoint him, IMO the link to the meta discussion has no place in the biographical article, as this is a Wikim/pedia-internal affair. We have this link already in User:Cullen328/Arnnon_Geshuri. --Túrelio (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I supported the petition on Meta—second only to the proposer, in fact. However, I strongly oppose putting that kind of internal process in article space. They are very different realms. Jonathunder (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely off-topic for an encyclopaedic article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least until some media attention has been brought to the petition. (tJosve05a (c) 09:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rather than off topic, you just need some good secondary sources before this would be relevant to a BLP. That's a question of whether this ever becomes a matter of interest to the press. If you are not already familiar with it, it's worth absorbing the definitions at WP:PSTS. -- (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify: when I said "off-topic" I was referring to the link to the meta page, not the general issue. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think some related description would be added, "His role in the case has alarmed many Wikipedia editors to the point that two former Wikimedia Foundation board members, both of whom served as chairs, have joined community outcry opposing Geshuri's appointment." with the source, . For the outcry, the link to meta would be possible. --Cheol (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An independent source is fine but a link to Meta is self-referential. Jonathunder (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Independent sources regarding Geshuri and the Wikimedia Foundation, in support of the deleted link[edit]

Text describing these notable facts should be added to the article, and the link that was deleted replaced as a link of interest. It may be worth noting that as of this posting, the community consensus is running 10-1 against Geshuri, an extremely high percentage for a Wikipedia-en vote. Jusdafax 03:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding the poll, i think that is not a representative vote. The WP post could be used, a note about a part of the community protesting his appointment. prokaryotes (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whatever comes of the discussion with meta sources, this event garnered enough media coverage to at least warrant a mention. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yes, the source says he worked at Tesla. Yes, the source contains that comment. But let's not imply that Geshuri is the reason that 25% of the employees are women (unless we have a reliable source that states that that is the case).

And yes, of course the ratio is higher than that of many Silicon Valley tech companies. But it is unfair to compare something like Tesla to a company that develops software... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copypasted from User talk:Prokaryotes: (original location)

Hi Prokaryotes! Nice name! I have deleted the text added in this edit. Please read WP:SYNTH. Thanks in advance, The Quixotic Potato (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Quixotic Potato, did you read the source? "About 25% of Tesla employees are women, a higher ratio than that of many Silicon Valley tech companies." prokaryotes (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did read the source, that is why I reverted your edit. You are not allowed to use sources in that way, it is original research. WP:SYNTH is policy. See also Talk:Arnnon_Geshuri#WP:SYNTH. Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment He is head of human resources at Tesla since 2009, ofc he is responsible for the ratio, no synthesis here. No idea what you mean with is unfair to compare something like Tesla to a company that develops software. prokaryotes (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prokaryotes: You wrote: "ofc he is responsible for the ratio". Do you have a reliable source to back that claim up? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Stop pinging me 2) The L.A. Times source you removed. prokaryotes (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Why? 2) Did you read the L.A. Times source? Can you please quote the sentence where it says that Geshuri is responsible for the ratio? The source does not say that he is responsible for the ratio, you drew that conclusion based on incomplete information. That is called Original Research and it is not allowed. Theoretically it is possible that the company used to be 100% female and that Geshuri fired most of them and replaced them with males. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We quote the L.A. Times, quote is above. It doesn't say anything about Geshuri, other than the L.A. article is about Geshuri. The article is from 2012, he begun working there at 2009. prokaryotes (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have not quoted the sentence where it says that Geshuri is responsible for the ratio like I asked you to. Are you unable to find such a sentence in the L.A. Times source? It is theoretically possible that the percentage of female employees in 2009 was also 25%. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You claim there is a SYNTH violation. However, SYN is applied when you combine sources and then make a conclusion which is not supported by the sources. Now, we have here an edit which is based on 1 source, and which straight quotes the source. You can however argue that it is not relevant, (my argument in this regard, it is because the gender employee ratio is relevant since Geshuri is responsible for hiring) But this is certainly not a SYN issue. prokaryotes (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not see the synthesis you're claiming is there. I see a simple quote. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please read WP:SYNTH. Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no different parts combined in the edit, its a quote. And there is no conclusion made, the only conclusion made here is by your own interpretation .... prokaryotes (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You combined the information that he works in HR in that company and that there are 25% female employees in that company and you drew the conclusion that therefore he must´ve been the cause of that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see where Prokaryotes drew the conclusion you say they did. Can you support this claim? SageRad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not only is it synthesis, it's cum hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Please add the article on that that logical fallacy to your reading list. Jonathunder (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And WP:CIR. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its a quote guys, you can not make a synthesis based on a quote. prokaryotes (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet you can make a hash out of nearly anything. Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. I don't think MastCell is going to help you. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sighs like these seem rude. I don't think Prokaryotes did SYNTH here. Please explain your objection in greater detail, quoting content that you think is SYNTH verbatim, and showing diffs. As of now, i don't see the SYNTH and i think this is contentious without much content here. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Notice for other editors, in this edit [1] The Quixotic Potato claims that i combine stuff and make synthesis conclusions, compare this to the actual article edit (a simple quote). The Quixotic Potato i ask you to stop posting on my talk page, and to stop stalking unrelated comments made elsewhere. prokaryotes (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I am thinking about checking a lot of your edits, because you probably made a mess. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are just announcing above that you plan to probably engage in hounding, you know that? That's against good practice and against policy. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Prokaryotes, i see the absurdity of this accusation against you and i think it's wrong. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prokaryotes: The problem with including that quote in this article is that the source doesn't say that this is directly due to Geshuri's work, it makes a general statement about the organisation. It could be due to someone else's efforts at the organisation - we don't know either way given the phrasing in the LA Times article. That's the synthesis point that Quixotic is making. So while it would probably be fine to be included in the Tesla article as a statement about the organisation, it doesn't really belong in this biographical article unless it can be directly attributed to Geshuri's work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, but we also do not make the claim that it is due to Geshuri's work. It's a general fact on gender employment at his company, and was added because he is related to hiring people at that company, and we mentioned other hiring info about Tesa. We do not claim he is responsible for the ratio. Anyway i have no strong opinion about the inclusion.prokaryotes (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The inclusion in this biography implies that it is due to Geshuri's work, though - hence why it's more appropriate for the article about the organisation rather than this biography, unless the link between the quote and Geshuri can be demonstrated. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether it impllies that is an editorial call. It's not a given. That's a call about content that takes an editorial reckoning. At least you have explained why you think this would be a problem in the article, unlike others above who just come along and say "you're doing SYNTH!" without much basis. Thank you for that. We could discuss whether the quote's presence implies it's Geshuri's work. SageRad (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the headline of the cited January 2012 article in the Los Angeles Times, to me it seems clear that the article is primarily about Tesla expanding its manufacturing efforts and being on a hiring spree. It is not primarily about Geshuri – he is portrayed as the "point man" for Tesla's hiring effort, but the article is about what the company is doing, not about him. It says that "About 25% of Tesla employees are women, a higher ratio than that of many Silicon Valley tech companies", but it doesn't say why that is the case, and it doesn't explicitly connect that statement to Geshuri (or to the rest of the article, for that matter). It doesn't say whether that percentage is rising or falling or staying the same, or whether Geshuri has anything to do with that percentage, and Geshuri is not quoted as saying anything about the relationship between Tesla and its employment of women. Since the statement appears in close proximity to a discussion about how Tesla is especially emphasizing the hiring of veterans, my personal impression is that the reason the statement is in the article is to make it clear that Tesla is hiring women as well as men, not just hiring mostly men like what readers might otherwise assume for a high-tech company (although that is my own personal inference, not something stated in the article). Thinking about it, I think the statement probably does not belong in the article about Geshuri. It would belong in an article about Tesla, but there is no clear connection between that statement and Geshuri. And since Geshuri had only been employed at Tesla for slightly over two years at that point (November 2009 to January 2012), it seems likely that Geshuri was not entirely responsible for the percentage of women employed at the company at that point in time. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^Your logic is sound, but I disagree that the L.A. Times article by Hull was primarily about Tesla. It was equally about Geshuri's involvement. As I say below, it does seem that Hull is suggesting the 25% number relates to the recent hiring actions, with no further evidence about any trends in recent hiring of females by Geshuri. For that reason I do not see a problem with removing it and putting it in the Tesla article. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Quixotic Potato requested my input here and here about Prokaryotes' edit. It is neither WP:SYN nor WP:OR. Prokaryotes quoted directly from the same reporter Dana Hull that was in the previous sentence (published in a different paper) in two major U.S. newspapers. The reporter does seem to be hinting that the ratio of women is connected with Geshuri's hiring actions, but does not say it outright. Prokaryotes' edit does nothing more than directly quote what is in the RS that is about Geshuri's hiring actions. That is neither WP:SYN nor WP:OR. If you have better secondary sources, then let us seem them. If you want to challenge this RS and logic of the reporter as unreliable, that would might be more successful. But challenging Prokaryotes' edit as WP:SYN and WP:OR is frivolous and without merit--the quotes come form the same article. Please stop with the ad hominem attacks of WP:CIR on this competent editor. Would you feel better if Prokaryotes or I accused you of WP:CIR for raising this frivolous complaint? We do not because we believe in treating other editors with respect and would like the same of you. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I have ever requested your input... The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's probably correct that including the statement is not directly a WP:SYNTHESIS problem (although WP:SYNTHESIS does mention the selective use of sourced statements to imply things that aren't explicitly stated). Perhaps there is the possibility the statement is WP:UNDUE for inclusion here, since the cited source does not establish a very clear connection between Geshuri and the statement. However, I think that in all likelihood Geshuri did express Tesla's interest in hiring women when talking to the reporter (and in fact he probably fed that information to the reporter, and the reporter just didn't think it was necessary to mention that in the article). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can guess at what he fed a reporter (something beginning with "B") but that's neither here nor there. Does the source say directly that Tesla hires more women because of Geshuri? If so, sure, use that source. If not, don't synthesize causation when what you have is a correlation. Jonathunder (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source simply doesn't support the claim that Geshuri is responsible for the number of women who work for Tesla. It doesn't really matter what label you put on it (SYNTH, OR, V, whatever). We stick to what the sources say, and that is all. Now the actual statement most recently in the article, "In a 2012 article in the Los Angeles Times about Geshuri and Tesla's hiring efforts, the reporter also commented that "About 25% of Tesla employees are women, a higher ratio than that of many Silicon Valley tech companies", all I have to say is that we're not stupid. It's obvious to anyone the point of that sentence is to connect Geshuri to the number of women who work for Tesla. Either Geshuri is being held responsible for that number and we should delete the sentence for verifiability concerns, or the quote is completely irrelevant to Geshuri and we should delete it for that reason instead. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wife's name in infobox?[edit]

Hi all! Why is his wife's name mentioned in the infobox? I believe an infobox should contain a summary of the key facts about a subject. I think this kinda stuff belongs in the Personal life section, not the infobox.

I also noticed that the source does not say that his wife's name is "Rebecca Geshuri" (as far as I know). It just says her name is Rebecca. We can't automatically assume she has changed her last name, right? I mean, when my parents got married my mother did not change her name.

To be clear, I am not claiming her name isn't "Rebecca Geshuri", I am certain it is, it's just that this source does not support the claim.

The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@James Allison: What do you think? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made this edit, feel free to revert if you disagree. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 11:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's fairly standard for biographical articles to include spouses and relations in infoboxes where they are known, so I think it was OK being included in the infobox. I won't revert your edit here, though. You have a good point about her surname - that needs referencing. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's this? Search the document for "Geshuri": She is listed as "Rebecca Geshuri" in the organization's board of directors list, executive committee list, and in two places in the list of volunteers, and in the donor list as part of "Rebecca & Arnnon Geshuri". Incidentally, it also appears that he is also known as "Arnie", as he is listed that way on pages 7 and 9 of this (although more formally as part of "Rebecca & Arnnon Geshuri" on page 20). He is also identified as "Arnie" here. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Currently the article contains the following: "Geshuri has said he is proud to have been raised in a small town". This is interesting to me, because I was taught that you should only be proud of things you've achieved, and that being proud of things you have no control over (like the color of your skin, or your sexual preferences) makes no sense.

The full sentence is:

Geshuri has said he is proud to have been raised in a small town, and that during high school he had already planned to work for a large company, saying he was "interested in how people work and how big corporations work", so he "wanted to work in a big corporation and understand human behavior in the corporate setting".<ref name="Porterville" />

The reference is:

<ref name="Porterville">{{cite newspaper |first=Anita |last=Stackhouse-Hite |newspaper=Porterville Recorder |url= |title=Perspective: Small town, big dreams for Arnnon Geshuri |date=July 1, 2002}}</ref>

The article contains the following:

  • Geshuri loves Porterville and revels in having been raised in a small town
  • The philosophical Geshuri said he saw being raised in a small town as advantageous.
  • I'm proud of where I'm from.

I don't think the source supports the claim. Please do not reinsert this claim unless you have a reliable source that states that Geshuri said exactly that. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If he says he's "proud of where I'm from" and that he "loves Porterville and revels in having been raised in a small town", that looks more than sufficient to me to support saying he's proud of having been raised in a small town – it's mere paraphrasing. Even if you don't think that wording is the best, deleting it completely seems inappropriate. I also notice that your edit removed much more than that, without explaining why. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Merriam-Webster (paraphrase: to say (something that someone else has said or written) using different words). In this case you are not saying the same thing with different words, you are saying something different with different words... Deleting false unsourced claims from BLPs is not just allowed, it is encouraged. And the article wasn't just saying that he is proud to have been raised in a small town, the article stated that he said that he is, and he didn't. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"False" seems like a bit of a stretch; I'm happy to work with you to find a phrasing that will satisfy your concerns. Please see my next edit. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I know I am a nitpicker. Face-smile.svg The Quixotic Potato (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]