Talk:Jordan Palmer (social activist)

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


i cannot get the last letter in his name to be a capital. Help. I am not sure what mistake I have made.


This page continues to be altered and slandered which could result in liability. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Although unfavorable to Jordan Palmer, the material seems to be well sourced and meet Wikepedia guidelines. The sources include government web sites, independent third-party web sites, and primary data. WikiExpert1977 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)WikiExpert1977
The BBB is NOT a government website, it is a national franchise. You are engaging in slander and the article is being restored to its previous state. 01:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, blogs are personal opinions, NOT media websites. Sounds like you have a personal problem with this person, and Wikipedia is not the outlet for it. Thanks. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Blogs are personal opinion... are you kidding? While blogs may contain personal opinion, they also can be the presenter of news and evidence. I have no problem with any citation to a blog that has physical evidence, such as a letter where Jordan Palmer signs his name with a title designated for attorneys or a letter from Palmer's attorney that is threatening to sue over criticism of how he runs KEF. And again, it seems you had no problem with citations to blogs when they made supported your POV. WikiExpert1977 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)WikiExpert1977
I think the BBB is an excellent verifiable source for a statement that the company owned by Palmer has an F rating from the Better Business Bureau. Kentucky1333, you might want to look up the definition of slander. I think you are using the wrong term of art. I am guessing you mean libel, which, unlike slander, which refers to spoken words, applies to printed words.
Also, Kentucky1333, why do you criticize the use of blogs when you used one to source Mr. Palmer being affiliated with Kentucky Equal Rights?
I am not sure about personal opinions on blogs as sources for allegations about a person. Still working on that. Jjjjess (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess
The only problem I wish to address Jordan— errrr,...[redacted -BLP] .. To that end, I will do my best to provide relevant sources and obey the rules of Wikipedia. WikiExpert1977 (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)WikiExpert1977

[Comment redacted - BLP] TallWildKat (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)TallWildKat

Fischer incident[edit]

I have removed the content about the Fischer incident due to no reliable sources. The only source I could find was the one previously used ([1]). While it claims to be an article from what I would consider a reliable source (The Kentucky Post), the link is actually to another website that is re-publishing the news story. However, since I do not believe that this website ( is a reliable source, I do not think it can be used. If anyone can produce the article from a reliable source, or get another reliable source to support the content, then the requirement of reliable sources has been satisfied. -shirulashem(talk) 19:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance and Importance[edit]

Since Mr. Palmer created this Wiki page to promote himself and his Kentucky Equality Federation, which he claims to be a tax deductible charitable organization (, any well document claims of past fraud or mismanagement are very relevant. Wikipedia is full of well document claims of fraudulent activity by living people.

I say repost the temporarily removed evidence and let Mr. Palmer produce his evidence to the contrary. The article does not need to make conclusions, let the reader decide. As long as the sources meet Wikipedia guidelines, what can be more fair than that?

WikiExpert1977 (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC) WikiExpert1977

If I am the one you are referring to I am not Jordan Palmer thank you, my real name is Paul Owens. I am pleased to see real sources being cited here. I think the entire article should be deleted as none of it appears to meet Wiki standards for inclusion. Clearly you have personal issues with this public figure which you should contact him personally about. Also, per IRS regulations a tax-deductible organization must receive $5,000.00 in donations prior to filing for 501(c)(3) status. That I know for sure from my day job. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just curious, Kentucky13333, what caused you to suddenly think this article that you have been contributing to since 2006 is now not worthy of wiki standards? Is it because "real sources" are being cited about this "public figure?" I am confused. Thank you for the information about IRS regs. What is its relevance to Palmer's claim that his organization has qualified for 501c3 status? Thank you.WikiExpert1977 (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)WikiExpert1977

According to Wikipedia, "the BBB is a government agency consisting of several private business franchises." But even more relevant for this discussion, "News media frequently turn to the CBBB and local BBBs as expert sources of news about scams and consumer issues." I think citing to it more than exceeds Wikipedia standards for secondary sources. WikiExpert1977 (talk) 07:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)WikiExpert1977

Continued Vendetta[edit]

You stated "people creating Wikipedia pages for themselves so they can make claims that they were successful in business in effort to further future attempts to commit fraud," this clearly states YOU have a personal vendetta about this person and cannot edit objectively about him.

Also, in your latest edit, you cited a report from, another blog created by users. According to their terms and conditions [2]: "You are responsible for ensuring that any material you provide to the Website or post on a bulletin board or forum or elsewhere, including but not limited to text, photographs and sound, does not violate the copyright, trademark, trade secret or any other personal or proprietary rights of any third party or is posted with the permission of the owner(s) of such rights." So this is yet another blog, which you no doubt created. Wikipedia is not a forum to wage personal wars. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are referring to in your claim of continued vendetta, but I have not vendetta and I do not think attacking anyone's motives are appropriate. Let's just deal with facts and reliable sources. I think it would be fair to remove the Portfolio reference as it authorship may be by a third parte and not Conde Naste. Revision coming. Also, Kentucky1333, please only change parts you find are not in compliance with Wikipedia policies, not entire sections.

Jjjjess (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Kentucky Secretary of State[edit]

A business in bad standing simply means they did not update their yearly officer information, this does not mean the business cannot get in good standing be filing the forms per the Kentucky Sec. of State's Office Website. Again, Wikipedia is not a forum to wage personal wars. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong again. Either way, it is definitely relevant to show claims of the business success are suspect. How about this, try to find any evidence that Hotel Ivy or Merus Hotel Corporation were successful or even existed? Post that as your rebuttal instead of trying to censor claims that are well sourced. Jjjjess (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Furthermore, the SOS records show that the business is not successful as it is in "Bad" standing and "Inactive" status since 2006... a far cry from Palmer's claim of success in 2008. Your edits should have your IP addressed. Anyone who reads this discussion will see my changes are in good faith. Jjjjess (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Hotel Ivy[edit]

A Hotel or Motel Ivy existed in Georgetown, Walton, and Florence, KY.

Proof: [3] Proof: [4] Proof: [5]

Thank you. I have better things to do on a Friday night that fight with you Jjjjess. You are on a vendetta and should address your problems directly with the person instead of using Wikipedia if you are a big enough person to do so. You are destroying Wikipedia. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are smart enough to come up with better proof of ownership than old web pages with phone numbers that are now bad or not answered by Hotel Ivy. The domain listed on the ads, is not even used for a hotel. You can do better. If you are going to remove references based on Hotel Ivy being in existence and successful in 2008, please post real sources. If business was really successful less than 12 months ago, you should have no problem finding a source, otherwise, it looks like you are censoring well sourced material. Go enjoy your Friday night and feel free to remove my entries when you find proof that Palmer's claims were true in 2008.

Jjjjess (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Further Evidence of Palmer's Spurious 2008 Claims[edit]

Despite Palmer stating that he was CEO of "several successful American companies" including Merus Holdings Corporation in 2008, the KY Secretary of State's records who that the KY SOS proactively dissolved the corporation in 2007. Palmer's other company, Records Removal Service has an F rating with the Better Business Bureau. The head of non-profit corporation's (which sometimes claim to be able to receive tax deductible donations, despite not being listed on the IRS's web site as a tax-deductible entity) and quasi-public figure are subject to fair criticism on Wikipedia when properly sourced. Jjjjess (talk) 05:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Here is the link to the KY SOS recrods —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjjjess (talkcontribs) 05:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that portfolio and zoominfo aren't reliable sources. Synthesizing criticism from records and profiles is original research, and as this is a BLP it should go out of the article promptly. Do you have an actual reliable news source that reports questionable business practices by Palmer?—SpaceFlight89 05:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking at further, I agreed that it might not be the best source and I removed it from my edits. The content is taken directly from an archived version of a web site of an organization for which Palmer served as a board of director. Please tell me how that could that not be reliable? A statement made by an organization is a statement by the officers, especially when it about the officer. I do not believe I wrote that his "business practices were questionable," if I made that conclusion, I am fine with removing it. I think the F rating from the Better Business Bureau would make that point without stating any opinion. I think it would be fair just to state the facts that he made claims in 2008 that he was the CEO of successful companies (including Merus Holding Corporation), which was dissolved by the KY SOS more than a year prior to his claim. I am fine with letting a reader draw their own conclusions from the well documented sources. I do not mean to violate NPOV. I look forward to your response. Jjjjess (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Sorry for the typos in the paragraph above, I am not such a good typist at 12:40 AM. Jjjjess (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Here the headline was ==Questionable Business Ethics And Claims==. You changed it to "Claims of business success" in the later revisions but you still are making the same claims regarding business ethics indirectly by presenting data from various sources and "letting a reader draw their own conclusions"—the conclusions would ofcourse be negative towards Palmer. This claim is poorly sourced (archive of primary source is used) + No reliable sources have critisized Palmer for his business practices:gathering data from various sources and adding it with the intention to critisize would be synthesis. —SpaceFlight89 06:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Jjjjess (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC) I see what you are saying. I think my edits met NPOV, but I can do even better. I will use only primary sources. I will post revisions soon. Can you show me any Wikipedia statement against using archived material? For instance, what is wrong with citing an archive of Palmer's defunct business's web site as a reference What could be better primary data than that? Or archived data from of organizations for which he was a board member? Thank you. Jjjjess (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

What is basically wrong with the edits is that you are trying to create criticism regarding his ethics and practices when no reliable sources have criticized him for that. Intentionally going through some defunct websites and online profiles, accumulating data and drawing some conclusion from it (or even letting the reader draw conclusion from it) is original research, as I said out above. Have any reliable sources ever questioned Palmer about his statements in 2008? I can't find one. —SpaceFlight89 11:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. I appreciate that. I will work find sources of criticism for his undocumented claims of success. Let's agree to leave that portion alone for now. In the meantime, work with me on the reporting of facts, do you see any problem with listing that he is the incorporator of a business (citing KY SOS) and that the business has warned consumers that it is a "risky" business and given it an F rating (citing BBB records)?

Jjjjess (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess

Let me help you Jjjess. The answer to SpaceFlight's question about real criticism of Palmer's this should be a resounding YES. And I am not just talking about the dozens of people who have written complaints about being ripped off by him on RipOffReport or the BBB. I am talking about the Kentucky Attorney General's Division of Consumer Protection. See KY Franklin Circuit Court Misc Cause #14 Filed 2/5/2009 where the KY AG states in the findings section that Palmer violated KY law by engaging in "unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce..." I think that is a reliable source. See document at I think it is time to unlock this article and let Jjjjes make another attempt at updating in accordance with NPOV. The subject matter is deserving of coverage. TallWildKat (talk) 08:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)TallWildKat

Thank you TallWildKat. That nails it. I had no idea that the AG was on to him. I will definitely incorporate that reference in my next edit. It should definitely also be on the Kentucky Equality Federation page too.Jjjjess (talk) 02:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Jjjjess


This page has been protected due to multi-party edit warring. Please use this time to work together to hash out the content that's in dispute. Once consensus has been reached alert me or any admin (or file a unprotect request at WP:RFP). Nja247 08:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing Discussions ...[edit]

 Note: All, as Nja247 noted above, the page had to be protected because of edit warring. Here are my suggestions to try to reach consensus if you want to make an edit while it's protected (which, of course, you're free to ignore):

  • If you really think the edit will not be controversial, feel free to ask any administrator to make the edit for you.
  • If there's likely to be a dispute, start a new section on this talk page by copying and pasting the following:
== Proposed edit: few word description ==
*'''Proposal:''' describe exactly what you want to change ~~~~
*'''Discussion:''' wait for others to comment on your proposal here
  • After you start the discussion, wait for other editors to contribute. If you aren't getting any comments after a few days, you might want to put a request for comment tag by copying and pasting the following right below your proposal's section heading (don't forget the ~~~~ at the end!): {{rfctag|bio}}~~~~
  • All discussion participants, please be sure to follow talk page guidelines while participating in the discussion so that other editors can follow along. -shirulashem(talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For those who don't find it obvious at first glance, Jjjjess (talk · contribs) and WikiExpert1977 (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to be the same person. I hope that helps... -- Luk talk 07:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Luk, for looking into this. I suspect TallWildKat is also the same person, as all three seem to have the habit of writing their username after four tilde signature like "~~~~ <username>" [6] [7]SpaceFlight89 07:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
In light of this I've unprotected the page, as the disruptive socks have been blocked. Nja247 11:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You mean it was that easy? Thanks, now I can do back to editing other articles instead of fighting with this person. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Some people don't realize that once they break a fundamental rule like sockpuppets during a content dispute, they blow their whole case. -shirulashem(talk) 16:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kentucky Attorney General[edit]

The Kentucky Attorney General isn't 'on' to anyone. I am growing increasing tired of this and your attempt to use Wikipedia to bring a public figure down. Also, are you talking about the same Attorney General who said he is "one tough mother b?___ at the Fancy Farm gathering?" Yes, very professional of him huh? The read the AG Summary and there is nothing there. Be advised that IP address can be traced if you slander or place liable information in Wikipedia or any place else on the internet. Rather than continue to allow you to try to tarnish this public figure I am going to take the liberty of trying to find an email address for him so he is aware of what is talking place here and take whatever action he deems appropriate.

Also I did some research of my own and found this for you: 1. Records Removal Services My 2nd chance 2. Expungement Internet Company - Records Removal Service(s) 3. Internet Company - Records Removal Service(s) 4. Records Removal Services Texas Expungement

These are wonderful reviews SAME PERSON (see below) yet you neglect to mention them. This is why Wikipedia does not use blogs and user reviews in articles.

Every company from the BBB, General Electric, General Motors, Toyota, etc. has criticism (my personal favorite is Rent-A-Center) and bad reports on them, so what. Wikipedia is not a forum for grudges. You are likely former client(s) who hate gay people, or worse still, gay yourself and on a personal vendetta, in all the time I have edited Wikipedia, I have never seem someone on a witch hunt like you are. --Kentucky1333 (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Same Person[edit]

I knew Jjjjess and WikiExpert1977 had to be the same person on a smear campaign! THANK YOU for verifying this. This further proves my comments above. So basically on all the writing above this person has been talking to themselves? --Kentucky1333 (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)