|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States|
In this edit, Thetruthexplainer (talk · contribs) names an article in the Washington Times as the source for the statements that he adds. However, I have searched several newspaper databases indexing the Times and I am unable to find such an article. As such, I have removed the statements for now. Thetruthexplainer, can you give the title of the article? That would be the best way for others to verify that the statements are properly sourced. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
issues of knighthood
quote: "In July, 2005, in a ceremony before 50,000 people at Olympic Stadium in Moscow, Mr. Wead became the first American to be knighted by Russian aristocracy since the fall of communism. He was bestowed the honor because of his philanthropic work."
--sounds nice. except 1.)there's no source quoted 2.) russian aristocracy has been non-existant/irrelevant since the revolution of 1917 3.) there is - on top of that - no such thing as knighthood in the russian cultural sphere (a "russian knight"? -come on). very skeptical about this one.. furthermore: the entry sounds like hagiography; badly sourced and schmaltzy, lots of redundant info. (nevrdull)--188.8.131.52 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I've removed this section. Whether Doug Wead requested its removal or not is a moot point. As a controversial matter and uncited it was in violation of Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people. It did have one cite, but I was unable to get it to work, and it was unclear just how much of the section it backed up anyway. It shouldn't be restored to the article without good solid cites. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In the last edit I corrected language that was not NPOV. Please help me make this article NPOV, if you see more language that is non-NPOV please correct it. Mainly the text related to the "Secret Tapes".
- I have removed a couple of things in this paragraph because they are attributed to 'some', which isn't good enough. Everything in the article and these talk pages should comply with WP:BLP. If it's a controversial claim it must be backed up with a good reputable cite. And, to be balanced, any counter claims should be equally well cited. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I followed a few of the links to citations and found several that were irrelevant, didn't support the thing for which they were cited, or - in one case - was nothing more than a page of search results. I took them all out. In the course of the exercise I noticed that many of the assertions here are supported by nothing more than links to the biography on Wead's own website, which seems iffy for at least some claims (e.g., how many books Wead has sold). I also took out that thing on Russian knighthood, having in a brief round of Google searching been unable to find anything to support it. As another editor observed further up the page, the assertion just seems a little odd, and barring any source at all, I think it's better not included.
I just noticed the edits renaming the "Contested information" section as "GW Bush Taping controversy" and moving that section up a ways; anticipating discussion on that point, I think those edits were appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As an Agent of Doug Wead I have been asked to remove that section altogether. As many people contest the truthfulness of the news articles presented in this section I would present the information is poorly cited and controversial and should be removed because it is regarding a living person.
At this moment I am moving them downward until we can reach some form of compromise. At the very least any section indirectly quoting the tapes should be left off. Unless you can actually cite the transcripts of the tapes, and those transcripts can not be interpreted in many ways, and this is very clear this is not correct content for wikipedia. No assertion of what was contained in the tapes is appropriate for wikipedia's NPOV.
- Whether Doug Wead likes or doesn't like the entry, whether he wants it removed or is content to let it remain, are both entirely beside the point if the paragraph is well sourced, accurate, and written from a neutral point of view. Please go have a look at WP:Living.
- The paragraph (the version reflected here) is specifically and thoroughly sourced to the New York Times, MSNBC and CNN. Indeed the articles extensively quote Mr. Wead himself. As written the paragraph plainly satisfies the requirements of WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable and WP:NPOV and should remain. If you have information from reliable sources that contradicts these reports, then it should be integrated into the article -- the solution is not simply to remove the material altogether.
- In addition, I think the paragraph belongs back up toward the top of the article, because -- whether Mr. Wead is happy about it or not -- a good measure of his notability stems from that episode. Let's see what others think.
- Lastly, I agree that discussion about marijuana use is best left out if for no other reason than such material has little or nothing to do with Mr. Wead, and for that reason is just so much clutter.
- Truly lastly - is User:Nonpr3 the same person as User:Aarondm, or do we have two Aarons working at the same firm? If one and the same, best to pick one login name and use it exclusively. JohnInDC (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You have three Aarons working for this company actually. Two in the same office.
I certainly do not think his position in history is defined by one episode that was used by his critics against him. Would you also place the Monica episode on the top of Bill Clintons article? Your argument for its placement it not logical. You need to remember he is a living breathing person with a professional career that is far from ended. His books are in the homes of millions of people aroudn the world. One media episode did not make him famous.. his fame made the media episode. Just as Bill Clinton is not famous because of an episode his critics used against him. In fact the critics were able to pursue things that would harm him because he is famous.
I would also state that other people are not treated this way on wikipedia. A couple of news stories do not amount to history.
- I didn't say his position in history was defined by that one episode. I said, "a good measure of his notability stems from that episode". Certainly it is the case for me; when I saw the reference my thought was, "ah, so that's the name of the guy who taped GW Bush!" As for me personally - that episode was the only thing I'd ever heretofore heard of Mr. Wead. That is of course a form of forbidden WP:Original Research, and perhaps I'm not as well read or informed as I imagine myself to be. I know I could easily be wrong - hence my suggestion that we wait to see what others think.
- I would add that, as Mr. Wead's agent, you need to edit very carefully lest your edits be perceived as non-neutral. Testy responses to well-intentioned commentary by disinterested editors, for example, are not well-advised. If you haven't already, please review the policies and guidelines set forth at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. JohnInDC (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Here by the way is a link to the portion of Wikipedia:COI bearing on reliably sourced material that may be critical of the subject of an article: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests. It appears to cover the "tapes" material pretty plainly. JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It should also be noted
People who know Doug's name are his critics, his readers, presidents, and people who are involved in Quixtar... Those people far outnumber those who read an article or two that was published years ago.
I apologize if my answer was "testy". But because you stated you are unfamiliar with Doug Wead accept for one reason
"when I saw the reference my thought was, "ah, so that's the name of the guy who taped GW Bush!" As for me personally - that episode was the only thing I'd ever heretofore heard of Mr. Wead."
it was very clear that you are not an expert on why he is noteworthy and should be included in this website. It is true I am an agent of Doug Wead, and that makes it harder for my posts to have a NPOV. That is also why I try very hard to present a NPOV, because i know my posts can more easily be taken as non-neutral. It is part of my job to protect the legacy of Doug Wead. He has been featured on so many television shows, and been on the top of enough best seller lists, been influential in Amway enough, and is a personal friend of one of the most powerful families in history (Bush family) he would earn a place in wikipedia without any media coverage of his tapes. Thus it is hard for me to see how A minor event that was used by his the presidents critics to attack him should be seen as some of the most important information about him. I hope you can understand.
- I'm not an expert on Doug Wead, no. I'm not really an expert on Wikipedia either but I am sufficiently well versed in it to know that when an otherwise notable person is involved in a well-publicized controversy (particularly a non-scandalous one such as this), then the controversy should be part of the article about them. There really is no getting around that.
- Indeed I think one of the essential strengths of Wikipedia is that personal expertise does not, finally, count for much. It may help an editor to craft an article, or to add nuance where nuance is hard to come by -- but no matter what the subject, no matter what the field, if the expert can't substantiate their edits with reliable sourcing then their edits can't stay. Conversely you may be an expert in Doug Wead and know far more about him, his accomplishments and contributions than I ever will -- but still you have the major media reporting of that taping episode. It is history. You are probably right that Doug Wead would earn a place in Wikipedia even without the tapes fuss. But the taping incident is out there, it was reported, and omitting it simply because Mr. Wead (or you, in the service of protecting his legacy) wishes it so would be contrary to the essence of the encyclopedia. As to where it fits -- well, as I said, that incident is all I know about him. If I were drafting the article I'd have led with it. You know much more but have a direct interest in tamping down the discussion as far as it will go. I am ignorant and you are interested. I'd say neither one of us really is in a position to make that assessment. JohnInDC (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentle suggestions from Mary Achor
Since someone has now inserted my name in this entry I would like to weigh in and offer my two cents worth. Surely, the stringent rules that govern Wikipedia allow for proper grammar and sentence structure. I have not wanted to interfere so I have not made corrections to the article itself but I respectively suggest that someone who is approved by Wikipedia jump in and do this. I would be glad to do it myself if one of you would allow me to and so authorize.
For example, the tense is changed from section to section and sometimes paragraph to paragraph. There is an improper use of commas. And then there are structural problems which I list below.
First, you have Doug Wead’s role in developing the doctrine of “Compassionate Conservatism” in two places. The Time magazine reference should be brought up to the top and included in the same paragraph with the other references.
Second, there is an unnecessary use of the world “also.” These statements and paragraphs should stand on their own and not have this word continually used.
Third, you state in the first paragraphs that he has authored 30 books and then later say, “Wead claims to have written more than 27 books.” Choose one or the other.
Fourth, that sentence “Wead claims to have written more than 27 books,” is not a very dignified entry for an encyclopedia and sounds more like a journalist trying to cover for an inadequately researched story. If the author of this entry thinks the information is false he should remove it. If he thinks it is significant, he should leave it in. But he should not attribute it to Mr. Wead unless Wead is actually corresponding with Wikipedia and making that claim to them personally. (By the way, I did a random check of books on Amazon and found more than 32 books available that he had written. So one could say “more than 27 books” or “more than 30” and either one would be correct. It should just be consistent.)
As to balance in the reporting of the taping controversy, I agree that it should be included as part of the story but it should be written factually, without an apparent agenda. I suggest that you include the line, “Mr. Wead first began tape recording interviews with George W. Bush in 1988, with Mr. Bush’s permission.” This can be referenced, and helps put the controversial tape recording into perspective.
Finally, the citation needed for Mr. Wead’s work relating to Kazakhstan is http://www.mercycorps.org/files/file1138137554.pdf . So someone should add that. I don’t know how. BTW, I was an employee at Mercy Corps and remember well his significant donation and energies which launched the program. But this sentence, as written, does not really make sense. It now reads... “In 1991, Wead contributed to a Mercy Corps economic recovery program in the newly formed Republic of Kazakhstan.” This is hardly significant. Would Wikipedia make such an entry for every contributor? It would be more accurate to re-write this sentence to read.... “In 1991, Mr. Wead provided initial funding to help launch a Mercy Corps economic recovery program in the newly formed Republic of Kazakhstan.” http://www.mercycorps.org/files/file1138137554.pdf.
And finally, I would agree that the reference to Russian knighthood be dropped but I like the fact that you have added mention of his speaking to large audiences since this is surely how he is best known to most people.
So this is not meant as a criticism of the site or to any particular author as much as it is meant to help strengthen this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryjaz (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- You should feel free to make any changes required by the dictates of good grammar and sound composition, or which can be supported by reliably sourced facts. You don't need anyone's authorization.
- The qualification re Wead's authorship ("claims") was written that way because the only citation proffered was to the autobiography on dougwead.com. (It was sloppiness that left it as plain assertion in other places.) If that Amazon link is to more than 30 books (and more than 7 million sold), then conform the text and add the link! Likewise if you have reliable authority to support Bush's authorization of the taping, add it and edit the text to match. Since you appear to have a professional relationship with him, just take care to keep your edits neutral. Have at it! JohnInDC (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Mary adds her two cents.
Well, okay. But this will be a trade off. I will clean it up but I don’t know how to do some of the technical stuff. For example, if I move something with a link to another place? What happens to the link? Is it automatically re-numbered? If not, someone will have to come in behind me and clean it up and make those changes. And I can find the references you have missing but I don’t know where to put them or how to create them as a link. So I will just put the url in parenthesis and hope that someone in charge of this will correct it. Please don't get upset with me if I make a mistake; I will try to do my very best, and will be more than willing to be guided in the technical stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryjaz (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. It has valuable technical information buried in it. Also as you are editing, make liberal use of the 'preview' button, which will show you whether you're on the right track or not. You might also play around a bit in the Sandbox, found here - you can muck about to your heart's content there with pretty much a guarantee that no one will complain about it! JohnInDC (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
first edit. Yikes.
Well, I put the first edit in. Yikes. No wonder mistakes show up. It's really hard, isn't it? I have a couple of footnotes that I don't know how to put in (I will "muck" around in the citation section, as you suggest.) But I wonder why The 1980's, 1992, 2008 show up as links. Is that important? Also, Deborah Norville is a broken link. I didn't do anything to those, as I figured you must have reason for having them in there.
http://www.mercycorps.org/files/file1138137554.pdf Here is the citation for the Khazastan thing (or however it's spelled!) I couldn't get it to attach, except at the bottom. Would you please help with it? Thanks so very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merryjaz (talk • contribs) 02:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not very good at this either but at least I turned it into a footnote. JohnInDC (talk) 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I am feeling pretty proud of myself but would like to have a wiki supervisor review this page and see if I have completed it. If so, I can move on to another entry. I found a source for the last unsourced item, and removed another one that did not have a source but seemed irrelevant. This should complete this page.
I corrected the statement that Mr. Wead is in Amway. He is now in Xango. I made reference to his past affiliation with Amway so it will not make all of those people mad.
I also took out the harsh sentence in the taping controversy that said" The tapes' release also provoked negative reaction from some commentators, such as Bill Press, who called Wead "scum", and Bill O'Reilly, who called Wead "the lowest form of debris in the country". I am open to any thoughts but this is my reasoning: 1.) The words are too crude and unsophisticated for an encyclopedia entry. There are plenty of negative things in there that make the point. 2.)If we are going to have Bill Press and others quoted saying negative things, why should we omit Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Lady Bird Johnson, Gerald Ford, both the Bushes, and many more prominent than Mr. Press from saying positive things? It would get too cluttered having a quotes war, let's stick to the facts. 3.) I did a quick search on the Bill O'Reilly qoute and saw that he was charged with sexual harassment, by an employee. When he denied it she announced she had tape recorded their conversations. A lawsuit was settled out of court. Now do we want to include that? Of course not. But otherwise it does not explain why O'Reilly was so angry at Wead taping Bush and why he would use such colorful language. So I pulled that one sentence but left in all the other negative comments that were recently added. This paragragh now reflects these three points.
Overall, this site is now far better written and has better grammar than 90% of the wiki sites and is completely sourced and has plenty of negative and positive to please anyone. I think it should be wikified. If so it would be my first. Let's hear from a super! (Oh, but I still don't understand pictures.)
- I just restored that sentence - these are relevant comments by notable people. If there are relevant positive comments as well, those should also be added, since it would improve the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
According to the WIkipedia article:
- Doug Wead secretly tape-recorded conversations with George W. Bush back in 1998 and released some of them to the media recently, starting with "The New York Times." He subsequently apologized to the president and turned over the tapes to the White House. George Bush: Man of Integrity, which includes accounts of all family members, was published in 1988, written primarily from these taped conversations.
Now, the visible bit of text at  says the tapes are from 1998 (access to the whole text of the article, however, requires a membership), a claim which is echoed in the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article also claims that the book, George Bush: Man of Integrity, was based on those tapes, while going on to clain that said book was published in 1988. This publication date has been confirmed. However, the claim made in the Wikipedia article that the tapes were the basis for the book has not been confirmed, as the visible bit of text at  does not include this claim, and, again, access to the whole text of the article requires a membership. Clearly, the tapes cannot have been made in 1998 and also have served as the basis for a book written ten years earlier. Can someone get to the bottom of this? Lexicon (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status of videos
The section on his public speaking is sourced to a bunch of YouTube clips, over half of which are from Doug Wead's own channel. Beyond being yet more WP:PRIMARY crapola to have to sift through to establish WP:DUE weight, there's a more pressing problem. There is no indication that Wead actually has the rights to be redistributing these grainy copy-of-a-copy clips from ABC News, Fox News, MSNBC, etc.. The rest of the videos are from Sandy Frazier's channel. Frazier is Wead's publicist, and although the clips might be better quality, this still reeks of WP:ELNEVER copyright violations. These clips utterly fail to establish due weight, and are highly promotional, so even if the copyvio issues can be resolved, I don't feel like the article is improved by including them. I am removing the entire section. Any attempt to restore them should be discussed, and needs to deal with the copyvio issues first. Grayfell (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)