Jump to content

Talk:Ronn Torossian/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

Suggested sources

From correspondence with Mr. Torossian.

User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edits

  • More recently, 5W has worked for blue-chip brands such as Barnes & Noble, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Evian, and Microsoft. It also promotes Hint water, Cold-Eeze and Gray Line New York sightseeing… (This suggestion, from Mr. Torossian, followed my observation that the client list in the article seemed somewhat outdated.) User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Business Insider"More recently, 5W has worked for blue-chip brands such as Barnes & Noble, Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, Evian, and Microsoft. It also promotes Hint water, Cold-Eeze and Gray Line New York sightseeing, plus off-beat products such as LifeStyles condoms,"
  • Part of a NYTimes Real Estate Story
  • Bloomberg News talks about clients such as McDonalds, "Ronn Torossian, CEO of 5W Public Relations LLC in New York, which has done work for Coca-Cola Co. (KO) and McDonald’s Corp. (MCD), said Goldman Sachs should move quickly to reclaim its reputation."

I am suggesting these links as valid references to show the diverse clientele of the firm. Why Boris Tadic and AACL rate as encyclopedic, whereas others are not is confusing to me. There are literally hundreds of clients, if not thousands over the years, that represent just about everything one can imagine. The ones mentioned here were small parts of the practice. I believe more balance can be seen here if editors showed the true diversity and growth over Torossian's career.

Additionally, is there a reason that Huffington Post doesn't get mentioned with an adjective such as liberal, while Frontpage Magazine is billed as Conservative? I am not challenging the categorization, just the possibly (AGF) selective use of it.

I appreciate the interest. Thank you Juda S. Engelmayer (talk)

And the winner - Ronn Torossian

In the epic battle between Ronn Torossian in his many IP guises, and an innocent but dedicated team of experienced Wikipedia editors, the winner is clear: Ronn Torossian. What we have here is a completely sanitized and, in its own sly way, highly complimentary article about one of the most controversial advertising people in the business.

All references to the more sordid episodes in Ronn's checkered career have been excised: his lawsuit against his former HR director Melissa Weiss, in the course of which he shot off a number of unprintable emails (documented here and here; his personal involvement in the Agriprocessors sockpuppet scandal (documented here and elsewhere), his investigation by the FBI for possible illegal activities involving Rabbi Yoshiya Pinto (documented here).

Moreover, the section "Activities and commentary by the press" mixes criticisms with praise in a way that completely obfuscates the markedly negative opinions held by many commentators of Torossian's modus operandi. The only explicitly negative quote is from Jeffrey Goldberg; others have been delicately removed from context so that it is unclear whether they are pro or con. And some of the most angry have been ignored: for example, this quote from Advertising Age:

"... he embodies the public's worst ideas about what a PR person is: loud, brash, more flash than substance, dirty, manipulative, amoral, and, in the end, not particularly bright."

All these things, incidentally, were in the article at one time or another, but all got removed eventually, largely because of the aggressive tactics of a series of sockpuppets showing a clear personal interest in the article. I am wondering if the time has not come to attempt a more objective representation of Ronn Torossian. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Nah. Being investigated ain't something that stays in a BLP if one does not get convicted.
I think we are once again in danger of allowing dislike for the IP-hopper's other activities to cloud our judgement on how to handle this particular article in which the IP-hopper takes a particular interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Rav Papa your "need to let off steam" should result in some time away from here. That "investigation" you claim you are well aware that his accuser has been arrested as well as indicted. You are mad and lonely don't take our your frustration on a BLP on Wikipedia. 68.173.14.196 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know you are right. I guess I just felt the need to let off some steam. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the Ad Age quote comes from Gawker's Hamilton Nolan, who's the nation's foremost chronicler of Ronn's adventures in PR. That said, I think the quote is usable in the article, as long as we use Ad Age as source, so we're bit relying on a primary source, and serves as a nice counterbalance to the platitudes that are in this article. Mosmof (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"The nation"? Which nation? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
'Merica. I'm sure other countries have their own Ronn Watchers. Mosmof (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I would disagree, to me this is repeating gossip that could lead to feedback loops when Wikipedia articles are quoted as a source that supports the original edit. This quote is clearly an opinion and considering the success of the person, which has been noted, is not pertinent nor useful to an unbiased article. And shouldn’t we be wary of sources that use weasel words? --Ckarsiyaka (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight to comments about personality

Just under half this article is the opinion (good/bad/indifferent) of various sources about Torossian's personality/personal style. This is clearly a breach of WP:UNDUE. It is also unencyclopedic. Our readers would expect a biography to major on what a person has done to make them notable, with perhaps some interesting (and of course well sourced) comments about their personality in an appropriate place.

I'd like to gather consensus on what the most appropriate quotes to include should [or should not] be. We need to bear in mind our obligation to WP:BALANCE.

Open to suggestions. --Dweller (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Current word count for the section is 333. I think the section should be reduced by half. One way to approach it is to remove some of the older material. Some of this stuff dates back to 2004. Eliminating everything dated prior to 2007 leaves us with these:
  • Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg called him "the most disreputable flack in New York", particularly criticizing his representation of what Goldberg called the "lunatic fringe" of Israeli politics. (2008)
  • The New York Times said he has a reputation as "an aggressive publicist prone to sending off vitriolic e-mails." (2011)
  • Gawker’s Hamilton Nolan wrote that the site covered Torossian and the firm even though they were “far from the biggest players in the PR industry”, because “[Torossian] embodies the public’s worst ideas about what a PR person is: loud, brash, more flash than substance, dirty, manipulative, amoral, and, in the end, not particularly bright.” (2008)
  • In 2009, The Jerusalem Post wrote a profile of Torossian which described his career as a "meteoric rise in the business world today". (2009)
Three of these are kinda negative, so we could balance that out with one of the older assessments. How about:
  • Calling him "The Bad Boy of Buzz", BusinessWeek wrote that "even in an industry fueled by hype, Torossian stands out," and that "few seem better equipped to navigate a celebrity-obsessed culture." (2007)
Word count for these 5 pieces is 160 words. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem we are facing is that the factual grounding for all these negative opinions is unsuitable for inclusion in a biography of a living person according to Wikipedia guidelines, because these facts almost universally involve investigations or lawsuits that remain for the time being unresolved. So we are left with an article citing a lot of negative opinions - which reflect the prevailing view of people in the PR industry - without the factual context to support these opinions.
If we were free to include in the article examples of Torossian's modus operandi - some of which he has used effectively against the Wikipedia itself - the article would appear more based and founded. As it is, we are left only with the option of citing documented opinions, and hoping that readers will follow the links in the references to the facts.
For this reason, I don't think the section on opinions is undue, or needs balancing.
Again I must qualify this opinion with a statement that I am not objective, as the Torossian sock puppet has been very nasty to me, and at one time even threatened me with a lawsuit for mentioning the size of his nose. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding naïve, could we add more words into the other sections so that the "personality" section isn't as high a portion of the article as it is currently? That said, I'm not sure that a laundry list of what a whole bunch of people who have gone on the record about Torossian (both positive and negative) is really the sort of content people would be looking for when they come to the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
Your second sentence is spot-on. Would you therefore support reducing the commentary? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Any solution with reduces the proportion of "what various people and groups think of Torossian" relative to the rest of the article would have my support. Whether that's by increasing the proportion of other comment or cutting the existing content I'm completely agnostic on. Just wanted to put it out there that removal is not the only option =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC).
I'd argue that his personality is the one thing that's notable about Torossian. There's an inherent problem with covering a public relations professional. Nobody wants to talk about how the sausage is made, and the parties involved want people to think the sausage simply grew out of the ground. The job of a PR professional to push a client's interest and make it seem as though the coverage developed organically, so you rarely see anyone go on the record about what exactly the PR guy has done.
What you have a self-promoting PR professional who manufactures coverage, so you get the semblance of significant coverage, except it's mostly plaudits, and people reacting to the self-promoting style. If you remove or reduce the personality section, then you're really not left with much besides background biographical stuff. His professional achievements are pretty much tied to 5W Public Relations, so you might as well merge the two articles at that point. Mosmof (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Quotes from sources that are clearly an opinion without much to substantiate them should not be included in an encyclopedic biography. The quote from GAWKER stating he is not very bright is an opinion and one that’s hard to accept considering the success of RT and his PR firm. The GAWKER quote should be removed if the editors are serious about presenting an unbiased biography of RT. Nolan states in that article that the two men have no love for each other, can you really say an internet word war is worthy to be included in a bio on someone? --Ckarsiyaka (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
So I guess this is the current tactic for 5WPR meatpuppets. Before, the constant refrain was the Jeffrey Goldberg was "just a blogger" so we should ignore the opinion of one of the more respected journalists on matters relating to Israeli politics. Now their focus is on Gawker, to the point of capitalizing the name because, well, if they shout it enough, we might forget that Hamilton Nolan wrote for PR Week, and if anyone's opinion is to be valued, it's his. And the "internet word war" seems like a gross mischaracterization of what the mutual professional dislike that Nolan describes in the cited piece (never mind that the quote comes from an Adweek article, not Gawker itself).
What User:Ckarsiyaka wants us to do is remove the opinion of someone who's covered the subject extensively because of this one user's opinion that it's "hard" (for someone who works for/is Ronn) "to accept considering the success of RT and his PR firm". Mosmof (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I was invited to come to this page to offer another editor's opinion on the matters at hand. I have read over the article and the discussions that have been taking place here on the talk page. I am really leaning to concur with the poster Lankiveil.

"At the risk of sounding naïve, could we add more words into the other sections so that the "personality" section isn't as high a portion of the article as it is currently"

I think this quoted statement from above makes a great deal of sense. Creating a balance between the presence of the personality section, with some added words to other parts of the article could achieve a more balanced and neutral article overall.

Discussions with Ronn Torossian

Somebody claiming to be Ronn Torossian on Wikipedia-en help IRC requested changes to part of this article. He claimed that sections of the article are 'slanderous'. I find myself unable to summarize his grievances since they were difficult to pin-down, however after some questioning he clarified that he felt that certain critical statements were given undue weight in the article. I recommended that he ought to publish a rebuttal of any factual errors on his own web-page. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the lapse of time in any of this? Surely there are details that have happened in this life since the issues in question. Some here just want to show the "conflict" side of this guy, and cringe at the thought of anything new that might not be as controversial being written. I would suggest taking all of the editors who have been working on this and asking them to withhold and assign this article to a wholly different group who do not have history or know of this person. You can be certain to see a very different representation. Maybe then the discussion can be had. Thank you.Ranonling (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I have advised the person claiming to be Mr Torossian that the best way to 'correct' inaccurate statements in Wikipedia is to publish a rebuttal of any factual errors on his own site. This text can be incorporated into the article as an official response to statements that he believes are defamatory. The correct thing to do is to inform editors of a rebuttal via this talk-page.
I would urge Mr. Torossian to be wary of the 'Barbara Streisand Effect' - that is to say an effect to suppress information on the internet (even information he believes is defamatory) usually results in wider exposure of this information. Lobbying, direct or indirect editing of the page may be interpreted as a bad-faith act by some editors and will create considerable 'noise'. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Company coverage removed

I have removed the 5WPR section. That section's content was largely irrelevant to Torossian himself, who was mentioned by the sources only in passing. For example, there's no indication that Torossian himself was involved in the Agriprocessors issue beyond improving his company's processes after the fact to avoid repetition. I'm aware that content was moved here as part of the "merger" of the 5W Public Relations article, but "merging" isn't just "copying everything, relevant or not". While I was at it I also removed a claim of prominence not supported by the given source. Huon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a silver Stevie for the individual and a gold Stevie for the firm amply supports characterization as prominent. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the merger, it seemed to be an arbitrary decision to me, but if you remove coverage here you need to reinstate the article for the firm. User:Fred Bauder Talk 07:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I, too, have misgivings about some of Huon's edits. While I tend to agree with Huon that the information on 5WPR was not particularly notable, there was an AFD on 5WPR some time back, and the decision was keep, with a recommendation to consider merger with this article - which is what we have done. Incidentally, Fred, a Stevie award is not a sign of notability - American Business Awards is a for-profit organization that charges high application fees and grants hundreds, if not more than a thousand, awards each year. In some (if not all) categories, mere application (and payment of the fee) guarantees an award. The same is true of the "review" of Torossian's book by the Shanghai Daily. The Shanghai Daily runs a weekly list of "Top ten business books" each week - in other words, 520 a year. The blurb is not a review but is copied from the book's dust cover. The citation was previously in the article, and deleted as meaningless puffery.
But, back to the subject at hand. While I agree with Huon that the section on 5WPR was not notable, there was, nonetheless, an AFD which decided to keep. By deleting the material, we have essentially deleted the 5WPR article. So I would support restoring it, perhaps, though, without the infobox.
I also question the removal of the characterizations of "Arutz Sheva" and "FrontPage Magazine". Both of these are fringe publications with very small distribution and characteristically radical views. Writing for these publications is not notable in itself, but only because of the extremist views that they espouse. If we remove the characterizations, we should remove the references altogether. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Later: My mistake - the weekly column in Shanghai Daily is only the top 5, not the top 10 - which means it mentions only 260 books a year, not 520. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


Regarding the book, I'd have preferred a more thorough review, but while, say, Business Insider mentions it, they provide even less details. The Shanghai Daily certainly is a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, a better one than the OpenISBN Project. If you think it's important that this is a weekly column, I have no objections to mentioning that.
Regarding the magazine characterizations, we link to our articles on all those publications, and if writing for some of them were notable for the extremist views they espouse, we should find a third-party source that says so. Highlighting those publications we consider extremist in the absence of a third-party source that characterizes Torossian's writing in these terms is a WP:SYN violation; see also WP:LABEL. If there are no objections I'll remove all his "writing" efforts that have not attracted third-party coverage (which is all of them except the book, for all I can tell).
Regarding the 5WPR content, the way I read the old deletion discussions, nobody suggested merging the company article here, but rather merging this article into the 5WPR one, which was deemed the one with the less ambiguous claim to notability. Consensus on that issue might have changed in the seven years since the AfD, but even that would not be a valid reason to burden this article with stuff we all agree is irrelevant here. If there's something in the 5WPR content you consider relevant to the Torossian article, please be specific; otherwise there's no reason to discuss that content here. I have no opinion on (including no objections to) restoring the 5WPR article.
Finally, regarding "prominence", that's puffery. If there is third-party coverage for the Stevie awards, add that and call him "award-winning" or something more specific along those lines; we shouldn't use a primary source to support a promotional statement that isn't even in the source. Huon (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree fully with FRED, "if you remove coverage here you need to reinstate the article for the firm." It has been decided to remove information about the firm because it was not acceptable to include it in a personal biography. But there is valid reason to reinstate the article about 5WPR. Certainly it warrants having its own article. --Ckarsiyaka (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Huon: I'm not sure I understand your comment about the book. Are you suggesting that we need a third-party source to confirm that he published a book? Frankly, I don't think we need any source for that statement - there is a book, and you can buy it on Amazon, or at Barnes and Noble, or just about anywhere else. The addition of the Shanghai Daily reference seems not to be about the existence of the book, but its quality - that it was "one of the top US business books of June 12, 2012". While that is a mighty slim recommendation in my view (the best book for one day of the year), it is still, IMHO, too much: I frankly do not consider an English-language Chinese newspaper to be a reliable source on the quality of American business books, especially when this is not a review, but simply a listing. So I think it should go.

As for your view that the 5WPR stuff is not relevant to Torossian, I guess you have a point. Perhaps a reasonable course would be to restore the "Career" section as it was in this version. There it relates specifically to Torossian, and there is no mention of Agriprocessors.

Finally, as for your suggestion that we should have merged Torossian into 5WPR, and not the other way: the participants in that discussion (above) were unanimous in the view that, of the two subjects, Torossian was the more notable (and that 5WPR was of dubious notability at best). But, admittedly, there were only four of us in that discussion. Perhaps I acted precipitously. Should we hold an RFC on the question? --Ravpapa (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

While the mere fact that Torossian wrote a book could be supported by a primary source, we need third-party sources to assess the book's impact and significance (which is precisely what I aimed for), maybe even to say something about Torossian's writing style (though I haven't yet seen reliable sources that discuss the book in enough detail). If the book had no third-party coverage at all, the question would be: Is it significant enough to be mentioned at all? Regarding the Shanghai Daily, it calls that column a "Book review". If you want to dispute that, I'd say WP:RSN is the appropriate place.
Regarding the career section, I'm rather doubtful about some of the sources in your preferred version. If all a source says is, “These outrageous allegations are totally false,” scoffed Ronn Torossian, a spokesman for Elie, that's hardly significant coverage. If we want to add something on his clients, the Businessweek article seems a sufficient source.
Finally, regarding the merger, I was referring to this old deletion discussion, where three editors opined that 5WPR should be the target. As I said, I don't have much an opinion on the 5WPR article's fate so long as its content does not end up in places where we all seem to agree it doesn't belong. Huon (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
We don't all agree; if the articles are merged the content from both belongs in the merged article; you removed relevant material. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Fred. 5WPR's clients are Torossian's clients. Look at the long list of press releases issued by 5WPR, provided to us by Torossian himself. Every one of them says "Contact Ronn Torossian, 5WPR" or something similar. Never some other 5WPR flack, but always the man himself.
I also think the deletion of Torossian's opinions was unwise. See the discussion by Dweller above, complaining that too much of the article is about what other people say about Torossian, and not enough about what he says. Especially since he has become much more active in making political commentary in the last year, his opinions are certainly germaine to the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Then find a reliable source that says 5WPR's clients are Torossian's clients. An independent source, that is, not Torossian himself. If you can provide such a source, we should add that content to the "career" section. The Business Insider article calls all of the clients Fred Bauder added to the article 5WPR's, not Torossian's. What it does say about Torossian (and what we should mention) is that he represented celebrities in the early 2000s. Regarding Torossian's opinions, we would need third-party sources to summarize those. If his political commentary is a significant aspect of his biography, such sources will exist. Huon (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Huon: I make it a policy of my own never to argue about matters of policy, but in this case I am making an exception. Your understanding of policy in these matters is flawed. We do not need a third-party summary of Torossian's opinions from a reliable source. Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion specifies explicitly that a signed opinion piece in a notable publication is a reliable source for that person's opinion. An article about Torossian himself that lists clients of Torossian's PR firm is a reliable source that those clients are Torossian's. If the article were about 5WPR, and mentioned Torossian in passing, I would agree with you, but if the article is about Torossian, then those clients certainly deserve mention in this article.

As for including these things in the career section: Torossian's career is the creation and growth of 5WPR. It is therefore eminently relevant to the article on Torossian, and, if there is sufficient material about 5WPR, it merits a separate section, and not inclusion in the section on career. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Further my post here, see DGG's opinion below. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
My position regarding policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." (Emphasis in the original.) See also WP:WELLKNOWN: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." For all I can tell no reliable third-party source has discussed Torossian's writing of commentary for HuffPo or FrontPage. And if I understand your comment below correctly, you seem to think we should engage in more synthesis to associate Torossian with the Agriprocessors scandal which no reliable source connects to him (except regarding the cleanup afterwards). I just had a discussion with Torossian via IRC, and he does have a point that parts of the article read more like a hit piece than encyclopedic coverage. Huon (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Huon, the policy you cite, as it clearly states, applies to "allegations or incidents". What we are discussing here is not an allegation nor an incident, but an opinion. And, as the policy I cited above explicitly states, a signed opinion piece in a notable publication is a reliable source for the author's opinion - no secondary or tertiary source is necessary to establish that what the author wrote is indeed what the author thinks. Moreover, when a notable person like Torossian publishes his opinions - in fact, writes regular opinion columns - in notable publications, those opinions are highly germane to the article and should be included.
Regarding the list of 5WPR clients, most of the sources cited refer to those clients as Torossian's, either explicitly or implicitly. Consider, for example, this article: "He may be particularly busy this month with his client Lil' Kim, the rapper who" and so on. Or this: " Torossian’s clients include both the Christian Coalition of America and Bad Boy Worldwide Entertainment Group," etc. Third party sources consistently refer to clients of 5WPR as Torossian's clients; to contend that these clients are not relevant to the article on Torossian is simply wrong. The client list should be restored.
Regarding Agriprocessors, you do not understand my comment below correctly. I agree with you that we cannot include the Agriprocessors scandal in the article on Torossian. You are quite right about this, and if I led you to believe that I felt differently, I apologize.
Regarding Torossian's contention that the article reads like a hit piece: I understand his concern. He certainly doesn't want to conflate his activity as a political columnist with his business, as there are surely potential clients who will not cherish working with someone of his particular views. But what can you do, when Torossian himself is pursuing this dual career path? --Ravpapa (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I find it fishy that the subject of this article has made direct contact with at least two of the editors active on this page. While there is no code of ethics governing the behavior of editors in this situation, I think the proper thing to do is to tell the person firmly but politely that his input is not welcome. This is especially true in this case, since this article has been the subject of repeated attempts of subversion by the banned user User:Babasalichai, who may or may not have a relationship with Torossian himself. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Certain kinds of feedback from subjects are welcome: For example, if Torossian feels that there are factually incorrect statements on this page, the quickest remedy would be for him to publish his own rebuttal with sources on his own web-site. A neutral editor could incorporate comments into the article where relevant. Unfortunately Mr. Torossian prefers to continuously lobby editors, and I fear that this will draw far more attention to the issue. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/5408/publicist-scores-with-rappers-right-wing-politici/#ixzz30XHzddDA

Reestablishing the 5W Public Relations Article

Closing per a WP:ANRFC request.
There is a clear consensus that 5W Public Relations shouldn't be re-established as an article, and content from that page's history should be selectively merged into this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:56, 12 June 2014 (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.

This article was merged after being established since 2006 and being passed through a few deletion debates. When it was merged a week or so ago, it was done with just a few editors discussing it without a more Wikipedia style consensus, and the user who merged it suggested, as seen above, that "admittedly, there were only four of us in that discussion. Perhaps I acted precipitously.". Since the merger, all info on the company itself has been removed, rendering the merge possibly wrong, and maybe making a case for re-establishment. All I am asking is for that RFC conversation. (Posted unsigned by User:Southjimkelly)

Further SouthJimKelly's request above, commenters can see the original article here, and can read the deletion discussion (there was only one) here. The closing admin wrote in conclusion, "The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Whether or not the article should be merged with Ronn Torossian is a matter of editorial consensus." --Ravpapa (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Merge but add material on 5WPR: As I commented in the discussion above, prior to making this merge, I believe, together with other editors who have been active at this page, that 5WPR is not notable in itself, while Ronn Torossian, for better or worse, is notable. After cutting through the hype (which constitutes about 90 percent of the original article on 5WPR), what is left is two things: that the company was involved in a sordid campaign of defaming critics of one of its clients (Agriprocessors), and that it is largely a reflection of its founder, Ronn Torossian. Since the company is not notable in itself, it made sense to merge it with this article.
However, in the course of editing the merged article, almost all the information on 5WPR got deleted by editor Huon, on the grounds that it was not relevant to Ronn Torossian. I disagree with that approach. 5WPR is Ronn Torossian; its clients are his clients; its scandals, even if he was not personally involved in them, reflect on him. Therefore, information on 5WPR's client base and activities are indeed relevant to Ronn Torossian, and should remain in the article.
Editors who would like to see the merged material on 5WPR before it was removed from this article can read it here. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I would return almost all of it to this article , except the list of clients in the first paragraph. It's sometimes hard to separate the notability of a company from the notability of the principal, especially for a professional service like pR, where the company's importance can --and in this case apparently does--depend on the professional skills & reputation of a single principal. In such cases, there are two choice: 2 separate articles, being careful to avoid duplication--using just a link, or a single article for both, in which case information on both is relevant and must be included. It's hard sometimes to decide which to use as the heading for the article--in this case, I think the importance of the principal is by far the more significant, especially as a good many of the sources pertain especially to him (but there's no strong objections to doing it he other way). Whichever way it is done the provisions of WP:BLP apply equally. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

'Restore the content here - 5WPR is mostly notable because the principal gets media attention, but the content is still relevant to this article and it should remain here. Jojalozzo 03:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree strongly with DGG. Nevertheless, just by the way, I regard the following sentence within the article "Torossian lives in New York City, where he owns a house at Lincoln Square he bought for $8.2 million" to be shorten into "Torossian lives in New York City". The location and price of the house is in my view unnecessary.--Fox1942 (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2014 (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.

Stevie Awards

Several editors - mostly anonymous - have added to this article Ronn Torossian's impressive collection of Stevie awards. Well, the article about the Stevie awards is currently up for deletion. Editors who want to participate in the discussion should go here. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Revisions

I have given this article a thorough rewrite, based on the comments from the RFC and the discussion above on undue weight on personality. Specifically:

  • I restored the section on 5WPR, per the conclusion of the RFC.
  • I rewrote the section on "Activities and Commentary". I added to the section content on Torossian's views as a political commentator, and organized the reactions - pro, con, and neutral - so they made some sense. I think this rewritten section reduces the undue weight on opinions about Torossian, as noted by User:Dweller, User:Diannaa, and User:Lankiveil.
  • I added a quote from Torossian's book, and added it to the "Career" section. This meant that all of Torossian's writings (or whoever is writing in his name) were covered in the article, so I deleted the section on "Writings".

The resulting article actually makes Torossian look a lot better than I would like, but we Wikipedians often have to sublimate our sense of truth and justice in the face of policy. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ravpapa: Your political bias is quite apparent. Why is "right-wing" mentioned repeatedly every few lines?

And seperate, which "positive" reactions were present? Must have missed those.

And why would an obscure Israel blog be mentioned repeatedly yet you scrubbed Wired Magazine or Entertainment Tonite. As you wrote it is a biased violation of BLP. Consider a career in PR with your " we Wikipedians often have to sublimate our sense of truth and justice in the face of policy."

This article a violation of BLP as you have it.

Milseyes (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Milseyes: welcome to Wikipedia, as long as you last. I have reverted your edits. Here are my comments on your criticisms of the new version:

  • Right wing: Perhaps we are not reading the same article. You say right-wing is mentioned repeatedly every few lines. I find it only once in the entire article. But I am perfectly amenable to using another term. Might you suggest one that adequately describes Torossian's views?
Later: my error. It appears twice. I have removed it from the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You find no positive reactions in the article. Do you not find the quotes from Jameel Spencer, the Jerusalem Post, the Forward quote about getting results, to be flattering enough?
  • I did not delete any reference to Wired Magazine or Entertainment Tonite because there were no references to them in the article before my edit. Perhaps you can add them. Do so quickly, before you are banned. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have not edited this page in a long time and maintain my commitment to avoid it in order to avoid the allegations of COI brought by some editors here. Yet, as so few people seem to look at this with proper objectivity, I need to point out a few things. There are many PR companies of far more prominence than 5W, like, Edelman (firm), which has had its share of major controversy, such as the Wal-Mart AstroTurfing issue, yet it was one line under "notable work' rather than consistent talks of "controversy' and scandal. That issue received more top level media and critiques, but it seems that 5W's past issues are the biggest news in PR according to some editors here. Then there is this last editor who clearly states in his comments above, "the resulting article actually makes Torossian look a lot better than I would like", that he has a predisposition. That said, why wouldn't his edits fall under COI or bias just as anything I might do would certainly be considered by that user and some others here.
Edits to Torossian's page should be made by true non interested parties looking for honest equity and wiki-like parity, not by those who have some kind of agenda one way or another.
Torossian's opinions on Israel are more right of center, so it should be said once - not reinforced each time a new reference is found. Also, I know it's been beaten down before, but how long will that Gawker writer's 2006 comments be the most valid and notable statements covering this individual, or given weight over the myriad of more recent notable comments made by others who might be more quotable than a gossip page writer?
It seems that anytime someone posts something more to the positive side of Torossian, the cadre of wiki editors who seem to have an interest in maintaining the article with a "darker" image of the man and the firm gather and undue those, only to keep their POV as the only wikipedia view allowed.
I urge someone who has not touched this page before to look, compare to others in the field, recognize the time frames of some of the controversies, and see where the firm and person is years later, and keep the piece fresh and accurate to the times. After all, Wikipedia was intended as a living encyclopedia, not an older version of a print Britannica that misses more recent occurrences.

Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Juda: I would share your concern if I thought it was supported by the content of the article. However, I find nothing in the article about the scandals in which Torossian or 5WPR have been involved. There is, for example, no mention of the Agriprocessors affair; there is no mention of the controversial emails allegedly sent by Torossian to his former employee; there is no hint of the sockpuppetry campaign against Wikipedia, which continues to this very moment.
Truth be told, I am not a little surprised that Torossian or his minions are not satisfied with the fact that the article reflects controversy over his character and his tactics. He makes no secret - in fact, thrives on the fact - that he aggressively pursues added value for his clients (and, on the way, for himself). He makes no secret of his views, which, I think, are fairly represented in the quotes I have chosen from commentaries he has published. If you feel there are quotes which better reflect his views, you are welcome to suggest them here on this talk page - an act which could not be construed as conflict of interest.
And, regardless of any personal opinions I may hold about Torossian, I think the commentators quoted in the article are right about one thing, at least: That Torossian is quite possibly a harbinger of a new ethos in our culture - an ethos dictated by a technology of instant information, of fierce competition for on-line attention, an ethos where the bombastic, the strident, and, yes, the vulgar are the winners. That is, perhaps, the main message of the article as it is written. I would imagine that that is something that Torossian would take pride in, and even promote. He is welcome even to use my words as I have written them here in his next bio - everything said here is free. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ravpapa, I think the current version of the article is a significant improvement on the version I read a month ago. Good work wading into this difficult topic. --11:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this over the next few days. --Dweller (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(Mis)use of primary sources

Significant parts of the article, including everything about Torossian's writings, are based exclusively on primary sources. This includes the last paragraph of the lead, the last paragraph of the "Career" section and the beginning of the "Commentary and reception" section, which also violates WP:OR and various other policies. If no reliable third-party sources cover Torossian's work as a writer and commentator, we should not cover it in this much detail, if at all. I'm particularly concerned about the lead, which devotes more space to his writings than to everything else combined; that's a WP:NPOV violation. If no third-party sources for that content can be found, I'll drastically shorten it in a couple of days. Huon (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Huon, we have had this discussion before. A published commentary carrying a person's byline is considered a reliable source for that person's opinion. Please read Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. No third party source is required to establish that what the person wrote is in fact that person's opinion. If you think otherwise, please take this to the reliable sources notice board before you go making unnecessary and incorrect edits. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Basing about a third of the content and half the lead on primary sources seems a violation of WP:UNDUE to me. His work as a writer and political commentator is not what Torossian is known for, and we should not allow his self-representation to determine the content of the article over what third-party sources report. In short, who but Torossian cares? See WP:SELFPUB, which is rather critical of the use of the subject's own writings. I'd say we're violating the "not unduly self-serving" and "not based primarily on such sources" cacveats. Huon (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The commentary quoted in the article is not self-published, but rather published in notable publications. That in itself should make it notable. You ask, "who cares?" Well, at least Jeffrey Goldberg cares, as his response is quoted in the very next paragraph. There are also responses to Torossian's political views - pro and con - in the Forward article, in the Jerusalem Post profile, and elsewhere - responses that were removed precisely because I and other editors felt that there was too much written about comments on Torossian, and not enough on what he does and says. It is precisely the content that other editors requested be added that you are now suggesting be removed. Your estimate that a third of the content of the article is about his writing is a bit off the wall, to say the least. There are a total of two sentences quoting his political opinions.
In any case, there was an RFC and a discussion about this on this talk page, and there was a consensus reached that this material is germane. Therefore, if you want to delete it, please obtain consensus of other editors on this talk page first. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A consensus was reached to have major amounts of the article's content based on primary sources? I don't see it, link please? Also, I hope we agree that unsourced claims should be removed. "Devoted supporters", "avid supporter of Israel's right wing"? Says who? Not the given sources. Huon (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The consensus was to restore the material that was deleted by you. The sources for that material have not changed since then. "Devoted supporters" is, I think, an accurate way of describing people who call Torossian "one of my most trusted business counsels" and compare him to basketball superstars. "Avid supporter of Israel's right wing" is, I think, a somewhat milder way of saying a supporter of "Israel's lunatic fringe". I don't think you need a source for words that paraphrase direct quotes that appear in the article.
I really fail to understand the almost visceral distaste you seem to display for the well-sourced, organized content of this article. But if you really think that it is improper to rely on direct quotes from a published source who is the subject of an article, I suggest you take it up at the RS noticeboard. Or, as I say, get some change of the consensus that has developed on this talk page. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The RfC dealt with 5WPR content, not with Torossian's own writings. The latter content is not well-sourced. You seem to imply the source for the claim that "As a political commentator, Torossian is an avid supporter of Israel's right wing" is Jeffrey Goldberg, the source for the "lunatic fringe" quote? Where exactly does Goldberg discuss Torossian's work as a commentator? He doesn't, he exclusively focuses on the clients Torossian represents. So at the very best we're performing a synthesis of published sources, or we ourselves interpret primary sources to reach that conclusion. That's original research and is not acceptable. It gets even worse: "Regarding Israel's policy of settling Jews in territory occupied from Arabs in 1967 - a policy described by the US State Department as a "barrier to peace" - he wrote [...]" that's almost the textbook example of WP:SYN, unless you can provide a reliable source that explicitly discusses Torossian's writings in relation to the US State Department's stance. Can you? Huon (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

This conversation is getting us nowhere. You obviously have a completely different idea of how to write a wikipedia article than myself. Let's hear from some other editors before you start in on your extensive edits. Dweller, Diannaa, User: Lankiveil, Mosmof, would you care to comment? --Ravpapa (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Moving this forward

I've been involved as a mediator in a number of editing disputes on Wikipedia. The key has always been to make changes with consensus bit by bit, rather than wholesale. I'm going to kick this off here, but not as a mediator, but just a participant, starting with "early life", then moving through the rest of the article, finishing with the lead, which, per WP:LEAD, should summarise the article. --Dweller (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

sounds like a sound approach. I like your first edit. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Early life section

I think some of the POV issues may start here. We get four lines of text about his early life, three of which are about Israel/Zionism/being "right wing". Do we know anything else reasonably useful about his early life (the next section opens with him aged 24)? Bearing in mind this chap is famous for PR not politics, it's hard to justify the current balance of this paragraph. It'd be like the early life of a famous tennis player being four lines, three of which are about his interest in archaeology or underground railway systems of the world. Yes, it's worth mentioning, if properly sourced, no it shouldn't dominate in the way it does. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point. On the other hand, most of the sources, and not only the critical ones, discuss his early political views and their later relation to his business. The NYT profile mentions his representation of the Likud party prominently on the first page, and has more discussion of his politics further on (his mother's activism in pro-Israeli politics, his involvement in right-wing demonstrations in high school and college); the BusinessWeek profile prominently mentions his support for Christian right-wing groups; not to mention the Atlantic piece by Jeffrey Goldberg, the Forward profile, and Hamilton Nolan's criticisms, all of which feature his political views as a central part of his profile.
Adding more material to this section would, perhaps, dilute some of the emphasis on his political activities. But, reading over what the sources say about his youth, the only thing they seem to talk about is his politics. I seem to recall reading somewhere that he played basketball in high school, but I can't find it now.
Perhaps the sockpuppet can point us to some sources that talk about aspects of his youth other than his political involvement? --Ravpapa (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to take advice and comments from any goodwill editor, but sockpuppetry is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia. On the other hand, anyone reading this who has a personal or professional connection to Mr Torossian, including Mr Torossian himself and his opponents or rivals can declare that they have a WP:COI and contribute here and are warmly welcomed to do so. Alternatively, I am happy to be contacted by email if, for example, you don't wish to reveal your IP address. Anyone can do this by clicking the link on my userpage. --Dweller (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Later: I found ronntorossianfoundation.com (not a proper url, because the page provides no identity info). It seems a bit self-serving. Do you think we can use it? I can't find this stuff anywhere else. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC: mention of commentary in lead

Should

  • A) mention of Torossian's written political commentary be included in the lead,
  • B) mention of his spoken political commentary be included in the lead or
  • C) mention of both his written and spoken political commentary be included in the lead?

Jojalozzo 00:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Survey

(Clarifying questions only, please.)

B - I am aware of no sources that discuss Torossian's written commentary but his spoken commentary is prominent in most articles about him. Jojalozzo 00:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Point of Information - Going to The New York Observer, Torossian comments on topics of PR, New York, Walmart, etc. More than one topic... As another POI, I am a staff member of 5WPR Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(No need to reprise the discussion above, but for new issues and concerns, please use this section to keep the survey section succinct and uncluttered.)

I've gone ahead and removed Torossian's political commentary from the lead, for which there was near-unanimous consent above. I've also removed the "known for his strong support of Israel's right-wing political factions" part, which was both unsourced and, IMO, factually incorrect. He's known for being a PR person, not for his political views, which, excepting a single opinion piece in the Atlantic Monthly, mostly have been ignored by third-party sources. I'd say we should also remove the last paragraph of the "career" section and the first paragraph of the "Commentary" section, neither of which cite reliable third-party sources and both of which unduly emphasize comparatively irrelevant aspects of Torossian's biography.
I also have to note that there were quite a few tiny barbs in the article. The "Occupied West Bank", mentioned twice? Who calls it that? Certainly not Torossian, our "source" for those parts, and even Goldberg, certainly not a friend of Torossian, just calls it the West Bank. And how is it relevant to Torossian that Girls Gone Wild went bankrupt? Huon (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
On second thought I removed the first paragraph of the "Commentary" section, the part dealing with Torossian's commentary, myself. It was a blatant WP:UNDUE violation. In the absence of third-party coverage, why quote at length his opinion on Obama or Israel and not LeBron James or the NBA or vacation in Cannes? Neither is appropriate. Huon (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2014 (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.

List of 5WPR clients

For the sake of balance, this list needs to be based on what clients of the company are mentioned in reliable source articles about the company, not a list of clients picked by Wikipedia editors cited to particular examples of that representation. Doing so opens the section to giving a slanted view of the work that the company has done, and does not represent the reality of clients that have been notably represented by the agency. I have, for now, commented out the entire list, and will readd clients based on which ones are mentioned in discussions of the company. Reventtalk 03:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is now cited to three articles, from Business Week, Business Daily, and PR Week, and includes only the clients that are explicitly mentioned as clients in those articles who have Wikipedia articles (and I attempted to include them all). This is opposed to the previous version, which had 12 different citations to articles that were mostly press releases or stories about various clients themselves, or about PR efforts that Torossian was involved with. Given that there are now 18 bluelinked clients listed, all of whom were selected by the writers of RS coverage of the company itself, please don't readd more based solely on the fact that you can 'prove' that they were a client. Doing so opens the content of the list to selection bias. Reventtalk 05:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, and thank you for sorting this out. Good job. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record

I feel that Huon's and Judae's contentions that Torossian's political views and political activities are a minor and undiscussed part of his biography require a more substantial rebuttal. Here is a review of the main sources of this article:

  • The Forward profile: About half of the profile deals with his political views, including the headline ("Publicist Scores With Rappers, Right-wing Politicians"). A typical quote: "The political figures he works with tend to stand to the far right of the political spectrum — expressing sentiments consistent with Torossian’s own days as a rough-necked agitator in Israel, when he was escorting bulldozers into East Jerusalem to help force out Palestinian residents... 'You were one of those crazy militant guys, weren’t you?' Jameel Spencer, P. Diddy’s business partner and confidant, once asked him. Torossian just smirked at the fond memories."
  • Jerusalem Post profile: about a half to two thirds of the profile focuses on Torossian's political views. The profile opens with the story of his political activism in Jerusalem, when he moved into a Jewish-owned building in the middle of Arab East Jerusalem. "[He] was on the cover of every daily paper in Israel, two days after moving here in 1997".
  • Business Insider profile devotes four paragraphs to Torossian's political views, emphasizing his support of the Likud party and the Christian Right.
  • The New York Times profile devotes four paragraphs to Torossian's political views, starting with his mother's support for Israel and Torossian's early involvement in political demonstrations, and continuing with an anecdote about his encouraging a political client to visit the Occupied West Bank city of Hebron.
  • The Jeffrey Goldberg commentary.

Finally, there is Torossian's own political commentaries, published weekly in a notable publication (FrontPageMag), which Huon has disallowed because the columns have not been specifically discussed in third-party sources - a claim which certainly raised my eyebrows, considering the extensive amount of discussion of those views in the profiles cited above.

As I have said before, the claim by Huon that Torossian's political views are not discussed by third party sources is completely false. I have pointed this out on numerous occasions to Huon, who has nonetheless insisted on aggressively removing almost all references to Torossian's politics from the article. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronn_Torossian/Archive_3&oldid=1090398593"