Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC

There is no consensus in the RfC. If the issues are unresolved, I recommend opening a new RfC with a clearly defined question for editors to discuss. As Doncram wrote below:

This RFC opened by Orthodox2014 calls for wider community involvement, but is not set up to facilitate community input on distinct points, as others say. It's too much. Could Orthodox2014's suggestions for text changes be discussed one by one in new discussion sections? Perhaps a different editor or Orthodox2014 could extract a bite-size issue or chunk of text to be discussed in separate sections?

This has been done at #About "Early life and education" section.

Cunard (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I have made some additional edits to address citations in the "Early Life" and "Early Business Career" sections and tighten up those two sections. I've also addressed the editorial comment of the use of the word "notable" as being peacock phraseology and restructured that by removing the entire sentence.

The addition of a section called "Public Perception" is unwarranted when it includes no content related to his public perception. It includes essentially two quotes that reflect on his own perspective on why he's been so successful (leading fund in the hedge fund category multiple times). I have kept that quote since I suppose it adds some color and moved it to where it the more appropriate location, in the "Investor Activism" section.

I do not agree with the wholesale removal of dozens of references, all of which were formatted and included in precise compliance with source citation guidelines.

I wholly disagree that this mammoth, multi-hundred million dollar moves in five prominent publicly-traded equities is not germane to this biography when multiple major media outlets have reported them as being attributable to analysis he authored or offered personally.

Finally, I am discouraged that your edits to this page over the past year have routinely been destructive, including inaccuracies and removal of some of its most notable content and footnotes. I also have never seen much of an interest in your working with me on collaborative resolutions to whatever your concerns are, so I am referring this to RFC along with a description of my concerns, especially including the wholesale removal of his investment analysis' impact on equities, which has been broadly covered in major television and print media and is core to his notability. Should you wish to work with me on that, of course, I'm happy to withdraw it. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands is objective, thorough but not excessively so, and properly referenced all in accordance with the site's guidelines. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest you desist from reverting all the recent clean-up wholesale. Not only did you add back all of the citation overkill (which has no place in any article on Wikipedia), you also conveniently remoevd several clean-up templates without addressing their concerns. Sionk (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You should not be suggesting that while doing exactly that yourself. There were no clean-up templates on the page and thus none were removed. There was no "clean up" of the page that's been removed (only vast removal of referenced encyclopedic content) and the reference listing is done in complete adherence to reference guidelines, including formatted bundling in the few cases where more than three references are included (which is precisely what the guidelines states). I have listed it for comment and am restoring it. Please do not revert it until we get feedback on RFC or SmallJim and/or you agree to work with me in addressing what I believe to be your misguided edits and content removal (but I'm willing to discuss that). Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly unwilling to discuss it, because after quite a long discussion above you have decided that only you are correct, and you have restored the original article. That isn't the way Wikipedia works. If you think some parts of the article don't address an issue correctly, then raise these for discussion. It seems your sole intention is to create, and defend, a bloated promotional article about this investor. Sionk (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a bit more relevant discussion today between Orthodox2014 and me on his talk page, here.  —SMALLJIM  21:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. I'm not even sure that you've been clear on what the "it" is. I have not restored the original article. It includes multiple, rather extensive additions, references, deletions, and clean up to the Early Life and Education, Early Career and Religious Leadership and Philantrhopy sections. In reverting the new article, all you have done is illogically remove these improvements to the article and also (in removing the bulk of the Investment Management section) a centerpiece of the biography, which is the significant impact his investing research has had on publicly-traded equities, which has been widely covered in major national media. The removal of that information is nothing more than destructive editing. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is something that could be discussed productively, if you feel the Investment Management section is under-weighted. Tackling one section at a time is far more do-able that edit-warring over the entire article. Sionk (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

−

• (edit conflict) That version is far, far too messy to be an improvement. Far too many very flimsy sources. As just one example among many, this source is not a valid justification for name-dropping USA Today for the WWE bit, which is for some reason repeated again in the following section. The wording is significantly less neutral as well, with many subjective opinions being presented as facts or near-facts. What is a "cultural leader"? What's an "investment activist"? Changes must be made in an incremental fashion so they can be assessed by the community, that's how this works. If you want to actually file an RFC you should do it properly, but it seems like a waste of time if its presented as a veiled ultimatum, which is what the edit warring seems to imply. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: To answer your questions to the best of my ability:

1.) The Street is one of the nation's largest financial media outlets, founded in 1996, staff written by financial journalists and used as a credible reference on what appears to be hundreds of biographical entries on Wikipedia. For example, it is used as a reliable reference on Government intervention during the subprime mortgage crisis, Education Management Corporation, Bill Richardson, Seth Tobias and literally hundreds of other pages. It is anything but a "flimsy source." It actually is a hugely reliable one used routinely on this site.

2.) An investment activist is well described on the investment activist page. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article summarizes it well: "An activist shareholder is one using an equity stake in a corporation to put public pressure on its management."

3.) A cultural leader and cultural leadership more generally is well described in this British Council article: [1]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted to reformat this talk page for readability per WP:TPG, as having a duplicate section with an identical subject title is a recipe for confusion. I don't believe any content was removed. If this doesn't work for anybody, feel free to revert, of course. Grayfell (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the diff, for reference. Grayfell (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That actually is a really good suggestion because the fact that I've made substantive, constructive edits and am not reverting to an "old version" of the article seems misunderstood. Perhaps no one has taken the time to see these constructive changes that I've made and that they are reverting. In evaluating them section by section, we can see if you and others do or do not agree they are reasonable, constructive edits. I think you will see that they are. Also, to your point about references, in reverting the article, many, many big mainstream media references were illogically removed (USA Today, etc.). I also don't think anyone has really taken the time to see how destructive, diminishing, and largely illogical it is to remove those.

I also will, as I update these sections, provide a description here as to why these revisions are useful, constructive and consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Hopefully all will agree that they are. But if they don't, we can tackle those on a case by case basis. That probably will make this less burdensome, especially on those who don't have the time to microanalyze the entire article and its references and format at once. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment This RFC opened by Orthodox2014 calls for wider community involvement, but is not set up to facilitate community input on distinct points, as others say. It's too much. Could Orthodox2014's suggestions for text changes be discussed one by one in new discussion sections? Perhaps a different editor or Orthodox2014 could extract a bite-size issue or chunk of text to be discussed in separate sections? (Oh, maybe that is done by separate "About Early life and education section" below?)

• On "Other Sources" sections: To Orthodox2014, about your additions of "Other sources" lists of additional references, those lists are far from normal and detract from the encyclopedic quality of the article, and are really not allowed. Citations are only needed where they are needed to support a specific point, and one or two supporting the point are enough. It is fine to record them in this Talk page, however, as another editor has already done, to ensure that future editors know about these resources. I hope you can concede on this point, which has nothing to do with actual content of the article AFAIK. --doncram 23:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC) (Note: Orthodox2014 invited me here, by note to my talk page, apparently as I participated in AFD on Lemelson Capital Management, where i voted keep).

Response: Yes, I agree that reviewing and being appropriate with the references is important and it's certainly reasonable to review what we are and are not including. Unfortunately, in reverting my last edit, we've removed valued, mainstream media references. It might be a good starting point to move [to this talk page] all of the references that were removed to this talk page and incorporate them appropriately as we work on this. Does that make sense? Here is the link to the version that is inclusive of all of the references: [2]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's particularly helpful. If there is a specific point that needs support, include the source, otherwise, leave it out. There are far too many redundant, questionable, and tangential sources in that version, and they will all need to be reassessed on a case-by-case basis anyway. Adding many unnecessary sources decreases the reader's (and editor's) ability to find and verify information, and creates a distorted impression of the coverage's significance. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I just edited Orthodox's last statement to clarify what I think they meant (avoiding suggestion that they all should be put back into article). Only 1 or 2 sources will be used to support any assertion in the article. But putting groups of (possibly redundant) references on Talk page, just to record them permanently, has to be okay.

So I further added to the Other Sources section above some more from that all-inclusive / most expanded version of article (but did not get all). To be useful as reference in further discussion, those clumps of references need to be identified as supporting what topic (e.g. what Lemelson said about WWE), and perhaps clumps need to include also the sources that were used directly (i.e. that were just preceding an "Other sources" list). Please feel free to expand and identify these clumps better and to add more clumps, to serve specific discussions on one topic at a time in discussion sections below. --doncram 01:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I got that part. It looks to me that many of these sources are debatable as reliable sources, (Valuewalk, Seeking Alpha, Hedgeco.net, etc.) and most of them are easily found by a Google search anyway, so I don't see why we're concerned with preserving them on the talk page. Nobody is currently contesting the GNG of the article, and if that happens, then we need to figure out a better way of incorporating these minor sources than just a list on a talk-page, right? I want to make sure we're not restoring the precedent of citation overkill that other editors had to work hard to remove. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Improving readability etc

Edits made on this version are explained below:

• Tightened up and simplified lede with "activist" because there are multiple references to "activist" but couldn't find any for "social commentator"
• Added "Early Career" / "Religious Leadership" to section heads to improve readability
• Added sentence on positions on christian persecution and Christian philosophy of investment
• Tightened up section on legal award with figure used in source (i.e. 1.2 million)
• Added positions on fiscal policy and removal of church official / improved citation to FINRA filing

aim of edits to improve readability and accuracy according to references

we should be good to discuss Cypresscross (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

These seem like they'd be good improvements. Politico16 (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Sock puppet

Thanks. Probably will break down changes to one edit at a time so they are easier to track. The goal is to improve the accuracy and readability of the article. Further discussion welcome Cypresscross (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I will take a closer look when I have some time and let you know my thoughts. Politico16 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC) Sock puppet

The WSJ text was removed from "Hedge Fund Manager" section because it was refuted / didn't follow BLP guidelines. Also, since there was no other mention of specific stock investments, it also did not make any sense. It may have a place on the Lemelson Capital page. Further discussion welcome Cypresscross (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Being refuted isn't sufficient. What BLP guidelines does it violate? Grayfell (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to run afoul of 'challenged or likely challenged', as well as 'contentious material' and 'avoid victimization' part of BLP's. The text wasn't totally clear. I was thinking about adding this back into the article in some way when you made the change and was just considering how to improve the readability since there is no mention of specific stocks in that section. I appreciate the other clean-up work you did on some of my edits. Cypresscross (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Challenged" implies that sources do not support the statement. The paragraph attributes the claims to the WSJ, are you saying that the WSJ doesn't say these things? How is this victimization? Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Both the letter and the spirit of the BLP guidelines seem to indicate that this material should be removed. If the subject vehemently denies the content of the article why include it? WP standards may have to eventually address the emergence of apparently fake and distorted news. There is an article by Ray Dalio specifically about Copeland (the author of the WSJ article) producing fake and distorted news. Although Copeland also apparently wrote fake and/or distorted things about Dalio, those things, understandably, do not appear on his WP page. The main stream media referred to Copeland's article as an "attack piece", which the BLP guidelines it seems would have editors avoid. Clearly Copeland in this case also had a significant bias/agenda to produce an image of the subject in an unfavorable and inaccurate light Cypresscross (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Delio is not neutral, he's not an expert on journalism, nowhere does that article mention Lemelson, and Delio's opinion of Copeland or the WSJ is pure distraction. The "mainstream media" did not refer to it as "an attack piece" in that source, Delio did in an op-ed! The subject of the unflattering source didn't like it, which is totally unremarkable. In both cases, the WSJ stands by their reporting, so is the WSJ fake news? C'mon now. If you don't think the WSJ is a reliable source for this, take it to WP:RSN, but don't expect to get very far. Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or self-promotion, and removing a reliably sourced criticism just because the subject doesn't like it would be an offensive abuse of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The text also lacks context with no other mention of stocks on the page – diminishes readability. Need to add discussion of involvement with stocks or move to Lemelson Capital page where there is already a context. Cypresscross (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that this diminishes readability. Even if so, that would be a thin excuse to remove the content entirely. His statements of having the divine gift of precognizance belongs here more than it belongs at his company's article. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This entry then needs some context about stocks or to be moved to the Lemelson Capital page where the context already exists. The comments, without a context diminish the readability of the page. Cypresscross (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Also there are no references for the terms "social commentator" and "former businessman", which even if accurate still need references. "Activist" was added to the lede because that term is found and used in multiple references. Cypresscross (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's stick with one issue per talk section, for now. What context do you mean? Don't worry for now about sources, give me a rough example on this talk page of the kind of context you're talking about. I don't see any readability issues with this, and the term 'readability' is too vague to work with. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of references about moving shares prices, with that information, the quote would have a clear context. Since that detail already exists on the Lemelson capital page, that section would make more sense there. Cypresscross (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The section head on philanthropy makes sense because of the foundation. Also, the quote is cited. Cypresscross (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That ignores my question. Give me an actual example of what "context" you are talking about. As for the puffery, that reason is utterly insufficient. This isn't the place to promote Lemelson, and that's all that accomplishes. He has said many, many things. Why is this quote significant, and why does it justify reducing readability by adding PR-style bloat to the section header? Additional, as already explained, section headers use sentence case, not title case, per MOS:HEADINGS. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The quote is taken from the same source that you took a quote from above. Why is one acceptable and not the other? I am going to under that change, because the addition adds to the article. I also have left a comment for you on your talk page. Cypresscross (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Sooner or later, editing warring ends badly. The quote is puffery which provide no meaningful information about Lemelson's activities or position. That he is a priest who advocates giving to the poor is neither surprising, nor informative, but it is vaguely flattering. That he dressed the statement up in pretentious language proves nothing, either. What does this quote actually tell the reader that wasn't already painfully obvious? Nothing. That's why it's puffery. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

So there are two quotes from the same person in the same article, but one you judge as "puffery" because it is as you say "vaguely flattering", but the other you argued had to be included because it was "unflattering". that doesn't make any sense. The goal here is not to include something because it is either "flattering" or "unflattering", but rather because it is notable and encyclopedic and reflects something of the subject. The quote that I added discusses philanthropy in the language of finance, which is notable of the subject and speaks to a specific and seemingly uncommon view of philanthropy. Cypresscross (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If we take 'flattering' and 'unflattering' out of the equation, than you still haven't answered my objection. You say it's notable and encyclopedic, but I do not agree. I see it as routine PR-speak. At best it's kind of a... cute way to say something, but what is he actually saying? Is it an uncommon view? How so? Claiming that he has a divine gift for finance is surprising and informative. Saying that he sees giving to the poor as very important is utterly expected and banal. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that WSJ would have quoted something that was routine "PR-speak" to use your words? I think the description is unique and indicative of a particular viewpoint and certainly notable and encyclopedic (WSJ must have thought so too) - the quote isn't just saying that giving to the poor is important, it is saying that it should be seen through the lens of the language of finance, as "capital allocation". Cypresscross (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ quoted Lemelson saying something that is, being generous, vaguely pithy. That's about all that can be said about the WSJ, here. "...it is saying that it should be seen through the lens of the language of finance..." This is WP:OR. If the source actually said that, the article could say that. It doesn't. It just quotes Lemelson using finance-speak to say that giving to the poor is good. This is pretty obvious when laid out in simple language, and anything that reiterates obvious info should do so for a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You are rewording the quote to change the meaning by "simplifying" it, but its not a simple quote. The meaning of any quote can be changed by simplifying it. Further, the quote says that philanthropy is the "supreme" capital allocation decision, that is, above all others (that giving to the poor is the most important thing you can do with capital). That is by no means a generic or commonly held viewpoint. It looks like we have a disagreement and an impasse Cypresscross (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's not a simple quote, than it should be paraphrased to more clearly explain what it means. By itself it's either too vague, or too cryptic, to be meaningful. Since no consensus has been reached, I am reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• I added a subsection on "Claims of foresight" (here) after reading and considering Grayfell comments above that "Claiming that he has a divine gift for finance is surprising and informative" (although the quote doesn't say for "finance"). After considering the comment I now agree and think that since the quote is in there it is more readable and structured with the sub heading given the weight of the quote that Grayfell points out. Although because it makes no specific mention of being related to finance I wonder if this quote and section should be independent of the "hedge fund" section? Also I added the word "profile" as a more accurate description of the WSJ piece and the short documentary is a documentary (documentaries can certainly be short) - although "short film" might also work to describe it - I will try reworking.Cypresscross (talk) 11:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• Also I agree with lede description of "social commentator" and "former businessman" as accurate, but can not find any references to support these terms. A common word I keep finding in the references is "activist" which should probably be added to the lede. Any help in locating sources on these terms is much appreciated. Cypresscross (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying "profile" is more accurate doesn't make it more accurate. It's a slightly pretentious way to make "article" sound more impressive, but imparts no additional information. Many, many news outlets supplement their articles with video content now, but padding this out to be described as a documentary is a distraction. The video clip has nothing at all to do with the point being made, so it again seems like promotional filler.

Do not add the word activist. It does have its place, but, as has been discussed at length here before, it's overly broad and prone to misuse as a WP:PEACOCK. It's flattering without saying anything. Yes, some sources call him that. Being verifiable is not, by itself, sufficient for inclusion. Grayfell (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any further feedback on "claims of foresight" as a subsection per discussion above?

The WSJ piece is a profile, that's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. There is no pretense to the word nor does it make it any more "impressive". The video content is not supplementary material its a short film/documentary that WSJ produced on the subject, undoubtedly with significant resources. The WSJ documentary video may be the single most notable coverage of the subject - and I agree with you, the subject section being worked on is probably not the right place to include it - but it should get discussed somewhere in the article (in fact WSJ released the documentary independently of the article and under a different title) see here

I agree the word "Activist" could be prone to misuse but in the investing world it is not a "puff" or "peacock" word, it just describes a certain type of investor which is why the term is so often used in media references about the subject (what other category of investors would the subject fall into?)

Can you help provide any sources for "social commentator" or "former businessman" - if there are no sources that can be found the "source needed" tag should be added, or perhaps the words should be removed (even if they are accurate descriptions).Cypresscross (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ's video portal isn't independent of the WSJ. They did not 'release' this anywhere other than WSJ. Coverage of Lemelson, such as this video, could be used for content about Lemelson, but commentary about the video would need WP:SECONDARY sources. The amount of resources the WSJ uses to make their own products is totally irrelevant to this article.

This Wikipedia article is as much a 'profile' as the WSJ one, but we don't use that word without a very good reason. It's implying something without imparting any substantial information.

"Activist" is a peacock word which also happens to have a legitimate meaning in certain contexts. If he were strictly a finance guy, I would accept the term as being useful, as long it it were handled carefully. Since 1. he's also known for religious activity, and 2. this article has a long, painful history of promotional content being crammed into it, I think the term should be avoided. At a minimum, it should be very carefully explained before being included in the lede. Ambiguity must be avoided, here.

Social commentator and former businessman are both concise summaries of sources already found. That these sources do not necessarily use this exact phrase is a distraction. If we both agree that they are accurate, and sources support these labels, what's the problem? Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any further feedback on "claims of foresight" as a subsection per discussion above?

What's the "good reason" we don't want to use the more accurate term "profile"?

Maybe you can make a suggestion (that avoids "ambiguity") or propose text on how to clarify the subjects work in investing, which belongs to a specific category that reliable secondary sources have frequently cited as "activism" and more specifically referred to the subject repeatedly as an "activist".

Even "concise summaries" should have reliable secondary sources, what do you mean by using words for which no source can be found is "a distraction"? The fact we both happen to agree on their accuracy doesn't negate the need for sourcing. Sources may well be out there, but need to be found, a "citation needed" tag added, or possibly the text removed. Cypresscross (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read that the first time.

I just explained the reason. I do not accept that 'profile' is more accurate than 'article'. It is, however, more pretentious. Repeating your opinion that it's "more accurate" doesn't make it more accurate. In this context it's a journalism buzzword, and it provides no relevant information for the section it's used to support. Whether it's an article or a 'profile' has no impact on Lemelson's supernatural abilities, so it's much better to use simpler language.

My "suggestion" is to leave out the term completely, which I've already said multiple times on this talk page. If you insist on including it, you can propose a way to do that on this talk page. It would have to explain or indicate what 'activist' means in investing circles to avoid (inadvertent) peacockery.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. We already have sources. That's my point. We do not need sources to use these exact phrases in order to use them ourselves in this article. As an encyclopedia, articles summarize published content. These phrases in the lede are summaries of sourced content in the body of the article. If you do not agree with that, you will have to more clearly explain why. They are neutral and accurate according to sources. There is no sourcing issue here that I can see. Grayfell (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Policy positions

I've re-worked the entry on policy positions to shorten and make text more encyclopedic, and after looking at the other references, agree with the risk of citation over-kill pointed out by Grayfell edit here. It might make sense to have a new sub-section on political or policy positions. I invite any suggestions on further improvement Cypresscross (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

No, it would absolutely not make sense to have a new subsection. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting Lemmelson's ideas, which has already been pointed out to you many times. The Federal Reserve is not linked to foreign trade policy merely because you slapped them together in a single sentence supported by an obscure source. Do not edit this article if you cannot maintain a neutral point of view. Grayfell (talk) 21:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The the edit(s) were made from a strictly NPOV. The section on the federal reserve was combined with the foreign policy edit in order to tighten the text - the source was certainly not obscure. The text can easily be separated / parsed out. Cypresscross (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Section title "Hedge fund manager & legal issues"

This section is about his activities as hedge fund manager, whatever that may be, including legal or whatever else. Pushing a narrative of a hedge fund manager with legal issues in the section title is lamentably biased and violates WP:BLP.

• The same section also contains positive things such as he was ranked in the top-three hedge funds. Do we rather call the section "Hedge fund manager & honors"? Why are we choosing "legal issues" and not "honors"? They are all related to his being a hedge fund manager, it goes without saying.
• The title doesn't even make sense. It says this section concerns his activities as a hedge fund manager, and his legal issues. Why are these topics grouped together in the same section? Unless..
• ..the title is pushing the narrative that he is a hedge fund manager with legal issues. This is POV, biased and violates WP:BLP.

Reverting and ignoring an extended discussion isn't how Wikipedia works. -- GreenC 00:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, GreenC. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit / Revert War by SMALLJIM

Looking back at the history of this page, it's remarkable how much control SMALLJIM, single-handedly has asserted over the page (including removing enormous amounts of what appears to be well-referenced edits). Though there is an open Rfc, he ignores it. Though there is an open discussion on the talk page, he ignores that too. In fact, he deletes the discussion on the talk page, apparently in an effort to hide it? He also deletes the warnings on his talk page, apparently to hide those too. Though all the edits conformed both to the spirit and the letter of WP guidelines, SMALLJIM falsely believes it is an "us and them" scenario, with anyone who agrees with him being one of "us" and if someone interferes with his control of a page, they are "one of them," that is demonstrated in his comment "willing to abide by 'our' rules" as if the rules were somehow his, and WP his personal site. First SMALLJIM asked GreenC for guidance, then he claims to speak for GreenC, though GreenC has yet to respond. This is deeply troubling conduct for a WP editor. SMALLJIM appears to have some sort of emotional or personal connection to the subject, which is at best bias and at worst, obsessive and needs to back away from attempting to exert control over the page so that other editors can participate. I'm going to wait for other editors to respond to the Rfc, then revert the edits which should never have been undone, I'm also going to study the page history carefully to see what other viable, well-referenced edits SMALLJIM might have removed, and ensure that everything that complies with WP guidlines is added back.199.188.176.137 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen, by this edit, SMALLJIM, clearly has some sort of agenda with the page and the subject. His edits appear to be driven by retalitory feelings rather than WP guidelines especially when he feels any editor interferes with his absolute control over the page. This seems like convincing evidence that there is some relationship between SMALLJIM and the subject. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have added the warning for disruptive editing back to SMALLJIM talk page here.199.188.176.137 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have also added a warning for a violation of the 3rr rule on SMALLJIM talk page here199.188.176.137 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

DUCK

WP:DUCK applies. See here for example (and most of the rest of both of this page's archives: 1, 2).

199.188.176.137 is, like the predecessor editors, clearly not here to improve Wikipedia, but to improve Lemelson's prestige. Typical COI stuff. I agree with GreenC's comments above - we've both experienced the severe and persistent COI editing accompanied by determined arguing in this and related articles before, and I don't propose that we allow another bout of time-wasting for such an obvious DUCK case. I've reverted the IP's edits again and issued a final warning for disruptive editing. As noted above, IP is welcome to request changes on this page. A person who's here in good faith would understand the need for this and be willing to abide by our rules.  —SMALLJIM  19:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is apparent 199.188.176.137 and the previous editor are very likely the same. The personality shines through, there is a distinct and memorable style of interaction, and who else would be so persistent over years white washing this article or using it as a platform to fight battles with the press and authorities. -- GreenC 20:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, thanks for corroborating.  —SMALLJIM  20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC That's interesting, I've never heard of a "white washing" which is contributive. Wouldn't "white washing" have to involve removing (properly cited) material as you and SMALLJIM have done? So if an edit is part of the narrative that involves your personal feelings and ideas it's a good edit, but if it runs counter to your personal feeling and ideas, or possibly connection to the subject, no matter how authoritative the source, and WP guidlines be damned, it's a "white washing"? Fascinating. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade

Let's call a spade a spade. Rather than using oblique and obfuscating language, Let's just "tell it like it is". SMALLJIM and GreenC are citing policies, like WP:DUCK, not to protect the integrity of the page, but to protect their edits from review. Also, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, both editors are experienced editors who have consistently violated fundamental policies and rebuffed appropriate overtures.199.188.176.137 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about unexplained reverts of substantial, well-referenced edits

The deletions were correct, and the proposer has been blocked. See WP:DENY and WP:COI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rfc about unexplained reverts of substantial, well-referenced edits: Should well-referenced, thoughtful NPOV edits, with substantial citations be removed repeatedly by an unusually interested editor, in this case SMALLJIM? Here are the repeated, unexplained reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emmanuel_Lemelson&diff=978051356&oldid=978051058199.188.176.137 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC) The editor in question, SMALLJIM is also repeatedly deleting discussion on the talk page related to the edits, making it impossible to resolve this matter through communication.199.188.176.137 (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Comment The IP 199.188.176.137 is the same person previously blocked for COI and sock puppetry, based on DUCK behavior patterns (Update: now blocked 3 months COI). Lemelson is currently being sued by the SEC for stock manipulation. Lemelson's defense appears to be that he was framed by people out to get him for reasons other than stock manipulation (his religion or something). The evidence for this is "barely" there (according to a judge) who requested an investigation into the claims - this is the sort of minutia court proceedings often take, but to be clear: no court has ruled there was bias in the case. It is Lemelson's claim based on weak evidence (according to the judge). As such I don't believe it merits inclusion in Wikipedia until there is a ruling on it, because the addition here feels like an attempt to amplify Lemelson's claims on the Internet during an ongoing investigation. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this has yet to be established as of lasting importance. -- GreenC 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Comment This is an Rfc for other editors (since you are partly the cause of the Rfc), not for you to regurgitate your personal feelings and beliefs. You couldn't really respond to the comments above (particularly the ones that demonstrate the falsity of your comments), so now you have dreamt up a pretty interesting narrative about the subject, unfortunately, none of it is supported by the references or the edits made today. Is making stuff up part of how WP works? Your saying that what appears to be the single biggest (non-biased) piece of reporting on the case, including the only court ruling from a judge, all reported verbatim, is not WP:NOTNEWS? Your saying that precise quotes from Barron's (a front-page feature no less) - one of the most important financial news media outlets in the world "feels like an attempt to amplify Lemelson's claims on the Internet"? And what claims are those exactly, can you point to any RS to support these spacious claims? Are you somehow suggesting that Barron's works for the subject? Are you suggesting that unsubstantiated allegations from the plaintiff bear more weight than the judges ruling? Are you claiming reporting by the defendant in the Bloomberg case (which you added back, replacing the NPOV reporting of NYP) is unbiased? The ONLY NPOV is from the judge and third-party Barron's who accurately reported it, all of which you and SMALLJIM have recklessly removed, apparently for personal reasons. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Comment Given the style and pattern of communication as well as the repeated open collaboration (not to mentioned what appears to be shared personal feelings about the subject) Green C appears to have some sort of pre-existing relationship with SMALLJIM either online, offline, or both. Clearly this conduct is counter to the spirit and purpose of WP. Neither has been able to mount a single legitimate reason for the wholesale removal of GF, properly sourced edits, other than their personal (and shared) feeling and ideas. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC) Request closure. An uninvolved editor could consider closing this RfC. It was opened in bad faith and the filer has been blocked for undisclosed COI and disruptive editing. See User talk:199.188.176.137.  —SMALLJIM  09:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Selective enforcement

Removed this source for now:

Alpert, Bill. "Hedge Fund Alleges SEC Bias in Short-Selling Case". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2020-09-12.

At this point there is some evidence but no ruling, it is still being investigated. It may or may not have any bearing on the case. This is the sort of thing lawyers use but it's not the sort of thing for a Wikipedia article at this point WP:NOTNEWS. -- GreenC 13:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, but there is actually a ruling cited in the article. In fact, it is the only article in the whole section to cite an actual court ruling from a judge.199.188.176.137 (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It says “[T]he court finds that the defendant here has asserted enough facts, even if just barely so, to warrant discovery on his claim of selective enforcement and bias.” This only means they are investigating the ("barely" made) claims of bias. It doesn't mean there is bias. You have distorted this into a multi-paragraph defense of Lemelson that reads like he is innocent and the victim of a conspiracy. At best this discovery might merit a single sentence in the previous paragraph to the effect "The SEC is investigating Lemelson's claim of bias in the case". This is Wikipedia, not a forum to make a case. Also the DealMaker source is unreliable and sensationalist. -- GreenC 13:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The article in Barron's says much more than just that and specifically cites to the Judges ruling with exact language. The addition made is largely an exact quote from the article. Nowhere in the article does it say the SEC or anyone else is "investigating" these claims. What the judge ruled, is that there was evidence of selective enforcement and bias. The edit made does not say "there is bias" it only adds what was reported in Barron's, which is probably one of the most important and reliable financial news outlets available. There is no "defense" as you say, and nothing was added that discussed "innocence" or the "victim of a conspiracy." There is no "distortion" in the edits, they are largely quoting right from Barron's, which is quoting directly from the Judge's ruling - that is as neutral and well-referenced as you can get.199.188.176.137 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Also you say in your comment above that "it reads like he is innocent" - are you writing from any other perspective? In the US legal system, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The judge's clear ruling on the evidence of the SEC case is notable and should carry more weight than the allegations themselves. Allegations are only that, allegations. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

"everyone is innocent until proven guilty" .. Wikipedia is not a court room, this section now reads like a defense of Lemelson amplifying the things that make him look like a victim, it is no longer NPOV. The essence of it is this: In his ruling, Judge Cabell found that Lemelson had asserted enough facts “to warrant discovery on his claim of selective enforcement and bias”. Note it says "claim" ie. this is Lemelson's claim, not Cabells ruling. It also says "warrant discovery" ie. further investigation, it is not established there was bias, it remains Lemelson's claim. You have made this into an extended multi-paragraph defense of Lemelson including the addition of a sensationalist unreliable source DealMaker. -- GreenC 14:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV failed when you stated "as if he is innocent" (that's when YOU turned it into a courtroom) - no point in trying to turn it around. There was no POV expressed, 90% of the edits were direct quotes right out of Barron's - so really what you are saying is that you are refuting the reliability of Barron's as a source. Again the edit correctly cited a highly reliable source (Barron's) verbatim (with just a few words in between to join quotes), which again cited, verbatim, the judges ruling. Perhaps you don't like what the reporting says, but that doesn't make it unreliable. Barron's is a reliable third-party source with an NPOV and accurate reporting, and in fact, given the length of this feature is by far the most extensive and reliable reporting on the matter that can be found. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages and anyway you are misrepresenting what I said spinning and twisting it around. The POV is in the WP:WEIGHT of coverage and selection of quotes. -- GreenC 15:07, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

IF NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages, why did you say I was "amplifying the things that make him look like a victim, it is no longer NPOV" when I didn't change a single word of the Barron's reporting and you claimed my comments (on the talk page) in response to your POV comment about "innocent" were no longer NPOV? Now when you apply the same standard to yourself, you say: "NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages" - you must realize that is a contradiction. You began this thread with a false comment, namely, that there was "no ruling" - that is incorrect, there was a ruling. You then went on to suggest that my exact quote of the Barron's article somehow "distorted this into a multi-paragraph defense of Lemelson that reads like he is innocent and the victim of a conspiracy" - even though the edit did nothing of the sort and said none of that. How can an exact quote be a distortion unless you are really intending to claim a neutral reliable third-party source (in this case Barron's) is distorting? If that's your claim, what sources are reliable?

The Barron's article is very long - I invite your edits and improvements on what was added today, particularly if you think there is some other part of the article that is worth including. As far as I can tell Barron's is the most exhaustive, reliable, and neutral source available on the subject.199.188.176.137 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This all looks depressingly familiar. See above and the two archives. IP – WP:DUCK applies. I have undone your edits. Please refrain from editing the article directly. You may request changes be made on this page, using Template:Request edit.  —SMALLJIM  15:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The wholesale revision of well-referenced edits is not appropriate. There is an active discussion on the talk page that is ongoing, please add your comments for discussion here before undoing edits. Don't simply make destructive edits - it adds nothing to WP. 199.188.176.137 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

SMALLJIM revert wars are harmful - high-frequency reversion, such as those you are doing, make the page history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. You have provided no explanation for your destructive edits, and have not made any positive contribution. Based on a cursory review, you seem to be projecting some sort of ownership over the page, which is a problem.199.188.176.137 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

By all means continue discussion on this page. When consensus is reached, any appropriate changes can be made to the article.  —SMALLJIM  16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

GreenC (hi!): you've spent more time considering this latest outburst of editing than me. Do you think any of the changes made warrant inclusion?  —SMALLJIM  16:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

As you probably know, reverting can be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above.

Here are some Good reasons to revert: 1) The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see an edit that you're sure was intended by its author to damage Wikipedia, and it does, there is no need for further consideration. Just revert it. In the case of a good-faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits. 2) Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert. If that editor (or anyone else) re-reverts, you will know it is more than that, and you should be more conservative in deciding whether to revert it again. 3) Another kind of acceptable reversion is an incidental one. A Wikipedia editor is not expected to investigate the history of an article to find out if an edit being considered is a reversion of some prior edit.  —The edits made today don't fall into any of those categories. 

Here are some bad reasons to revert: 1) Reversion is not a tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson. 2) Do not revert an edit as a means of showing your disapproval of the edit summary. 3) Do not revert an edit because you need more time to determine whether you agree with the edit.

I'm going to undo your inappropriate reverts. You may join the discussion on this page before making any further destructive edits to the page.199.188.176.137 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

SMALLJIM First, without cause, you demean the accurate, well-thought-out and well-sourced edits by unfairly referring to them, for whatever reason, as an "outburst". Second, you seem to indicate you have little knowledge of what the edits were about, given you are looking to another editor to decide on the value of the edits for you, affirming your complete lack of a legitimate reason for removing them in the first place (Did you even read or review the sources?). Lastly, rather than respond to the neutral communication above regarding revert wars, you chose instead to repeatedly delete the talk page discussion. Stop projecting ownership over the page (by trying to intimidate other editors) so other editors can participate. There is an open Rfc below as you can see.199.188.176.137 (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Update

Update - The Barron's source this section is about ("Hedge Fund Alleges SEC Bias in Short-Selling Case"), and added to Wikipedia by COI editor User:199.188.176.137, is based on confidential information that was illegally leaked by Lemelson to a reporter at Barron's. As a result of the discovered leak, Lemelson was sanctioned and fined by the SEC.[3] (<-- behind a paywall, an excerpt) .. even if we were to agree to include the Barron's article it is now based on illegally leaked information by Lemelson himself, making source reliability nil. It's unclear if any of the drama deserves inclusion, or if this is an elaborate ruse/troll to get Lemelson's claims of bias into the article one way or another. My leaning is to not include any of it until more information is officially known. -- GreenC 14:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Good find. An eye needs to be kept on all the Lemelson-related articles because I'm sure he'll be back again with the whitewash bucket. Cypresscross, the other obvious DUCK, is still out there somewhere. You wonder if this current 'drama' should be included – no, not in my opinion. In fact, reading this article again, there still seems to be a quite a bit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOMUCH that should be trimmed to make it a more balanced biography rather than what he/his followers want it to be. —SMALLJIM  10:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for SMALLJIM

There is currently a discussion involving SMALLJIM at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.199.188.176.137 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

For information: The IP that filed the report was blocked for undisclosed COI and disruptive editing.  —SMALLJIM  10:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lemelson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)