Talk:Tom Steyer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Investor in numerous coal projects

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/05/us/politics/prominent-environmentalist-helped-fund-coal-projects.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As%2C%5B%22RI%3A9%22%2C%22RI%3A15%22%5D&_r=0 69.245.235.174 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The timing and his involvement in Farallon and their investments in coal projects must definitely go in the entry. To leave it out would violate WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. A fact is notable when it is cited by multiple WP:RSs, and the story has indeed been reported by multiple WP:RSs, such as the Washington Post and Reuters. This was well-known months before the NYT story, because his enemies kept bringing it up, and the Australian environmentalists knew about it. There are no WP:BLP problems, because it's thoroughly documented by many WP:RSs, and Steyer's people admit much of it, and didn't deny any of it when the NYT contacted them. --Nbauman (talk) 08:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Interfaith marriage of his parents and his own marriage

Steyer is from an interfaith background; he is in an interfaith marriage; and he is a supporter of the United Religions Initiative, an organization that promotes interfaith understanding. it is clearly relevant the religion of his parents. Why such a hurry to reverse a sourced edit?Patapsco913 (talk)

Did you read the personal life section? I put a source there. I can add additional sources that show he donates to the organization as well. And why just keep reversing. I posted on the talk page? I thought that that was the proper and polite procedure; rather than reverse good fatith edits within 3 minutes of being posted.Patapsco913 (talk)

(edit conflict)The sources only say what religions his parents are. We can't make the connection that his parents religions is the reason he supports that. We would need a reliable source that makes the connection. It is bold revert discuss. You were bold and added it, I reverted and then we discuss, not revert it back in and then discuss it. GB fan 01:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

well you just reverted three minutes after I posted a good faith addition and did not also discuss on the talk page. Anyhow, it is a biography. The fact that his parents are in an interfaith relationship is relevant since it could affect his upbringing. Let the readers decide for themselves. We mention ethnicity of parents in biographies then why not religion? Heck, using that standard, parent's names, children, wives, nothing would be relevant.Patapsco913 (talk)

His parents having an interfaith might have effected his upbringing, but that means it might not have effected his upbringing. The fact that it happened doesn't mean anything other than it was an interfaith marriage. Upi are trying to lead people down the path that this is what caused his political stance. GB fan 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what "Upi" means? Anyhow, I am not trying to lead anyone down any paths. These are just facts: his father is a lawyer and Jewish; his mother is a teacher and Christian. Under your logic, we should not say what his parents do for a living; or even their names; or if he had brothers and sisters. Why would what his parents do for a living be relevant and their religion not?Patapsco913 (talk)

That is not my logic, I have never even mentioned anything about names or any of the other things you mention. Do not put words in my mouth. How about trying to ask someone else for their opinion, since we can't seem to agree. WP:3O is an option. GB fan 22:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw this listed at 3O, but am not giving an "official" Third Opinion and have left it listed there in case some one else cares to do so (provided that they do not consider this to have caused the Third Opinion Paradox to have occurred). I'm just here as another garden-variety editor, not as a Third Opinion Wikipedian. (Why not a 3O? GB fan and I have been around too many of the same places and 3O requires neutrality. I don't recall GB and I having any interaction that might bias my opinion, but just to be on the safe side, I'm making this a regular-editor edit, not a 3O opinion.) Unless there is something in the article which fairly clearly invites a reader to make or imply a connection between Steyer's interfaith upbringing and his politics, proclivities, or memberships, I fail to see the harm in reporting that upbringing in the article. The fact that there is some real world interest group which might wish to make or promote that connection is irrelevant. Astrologists wish to imply a nonsensical connection between the positions of Mercury and Neptune, but that is not a reason to mention those planets in the in the Solar System article. Moreover, mentioning an individual's interfaith parents in a biographical article is not at all unusual, especially when the interfaith split involves disparate cultures: see Ben Stiller as an example. I see no reason to omit them. However, I do not believe that the two cited obituaries are adequate sources to report their religions. First, there's noting in those obituaries which identifies them as the parents of this particular Tom Steyer. While I have little doubt that they're them, Wikipedia's reliable sourcing requirements allows for no synthesis or speculation. An adequate source for this must both make clear reference to this particular Tom Steyer and to his parent's or parents' religions; sources cannot be stitched together for that purpose. Second, the obituary of the mother does not say that she was Christian or Episcopalian, but only that a memorial service — not a funeral, which is a significant difference (though even that would not be enough) — is being held in a particular church without identifying that church's affiliations. While I do not believe his parent's religions, if they are indeed disparate, are inappropriate for the article, they must be properly sourced and the current sources are not adequate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This whole article brings out my deletionist tendencies. I've never heard of anything in this article -- not the man, or his companies. But that's just me. Then I see that his net worth is north of $1 billion, and I figure that that alone qualifies the man for an article on this site. Regarding the issue at hand -- I will agree with TransporterMan. The sentence I saw is as follows: His father was Jewish and his mother Episcopalian. It seems that that is as relevant as anything else, as long as it is well-sourced, and presented factually. (I had a very hard time tracking down the specific policy that TransporterMan was referencing. WP:SOURCES points one toward WP:RELY from which we go to WP:BLPSOURCES which points back to WP:SOURCES. If the specific policy is to be found, please let me know. Also, keep in mind that policy simply reflects consensus -- most policies are somewhat flexible.) I will disagree with TransporterMan that the obit is insufficiently connected to this Tom Steyer; it seems to me that the connection can be reasonably made. However, I agree with TransporterMan in that the mention that a funeral or memorial will be held at an Episcopal church is not enough to establish someone's religion. Many churches will perform funerals for just about anyone whose relatives request it, whether or not the deceased was a member or attendee. On the subject of edit warring and BRD: Patapsco913 said, "well you just reverted three minutes after I posted a good faith addition and did not also discuss on the talk page." That is correct, and in that case, GB fan followed procedure. Reverting an edit because one believes it ought not to be included is proper. If information is deleted, adding the information back to the article should only be done after discussion on the talk page -- and it is the responsibility of the party who wishes to see the information re-added to start that discussion. GB fan did provide an explanation in the edit summary -- if you disagree, you should have come to the talk page first rather than adding it back. That's called edit warring. 3RR is a bright line, 1RR is a better rule of thumb. GB fan was also incorrect in re-reverting; that was also edit-warring. However, quitting before things got silly and bringing the issue to 3O was a very good move. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow . . . stunning. Your "deletionist tendencies" are brought out by your "never having heard of anything in this article" except his financial worth. Are there new notability guidelines that reference what one editor has heard about or financial worth of subjects? The subject of this article has received abundant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources (including this and this, for a couple not cited in the article). Last time I checked (though it has been a while), those were the key criteria. ^Bongo_matic 09:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Your sarcastic attacks and lack of reading comprehension notwithstanding, yes, being a billionaire pretty much guarantees that you're qualified for a Wikipedia article. The lead of the article says that he's founded some companies and institutions. Guess how many companies I've founded? (It is, in fact, a nonzero number.) The big difference is that Tom Steyer, like most billionaires, has enough capital to throw around that when they start something, it's big and receives independent news coverage; hence, most billionaires wind up becoming inherently notable based mostly on the fact that they're billionaires. So basically, he's a rich man with political and social views that he puts his money behind. I'm a poor man with political views that I put my money behind. The amount of money does in fact make him notable, because people stand up and notice when big bucks go flying. It's just the way the world works. Jsharpminor (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that a third opinion is a great place to air bitterness about one's own lack of notability. Steyer's notability stems not from the political views that he's put money and efforts behind (though he may meet the notability requirements on those bases alone), but on the fact that the company he founded directly led to significant coverage of him independent of his politics—a fact demonstrated by the two articles I cited above (as well as by a number of the citations in the article). Being a billionaire doesn't lead to "inherent" notability unless there is a new guideline. For billionaires, it is still about coverage. There are doubtless many non-notable billionaires who have amassed great fortunes in investing who have attracted little or no attention from the press. The fact that the billionaires that you have heard of have received coverage is an example of availability bias. I reviewed the guidelines for providing a third opinion and oddly, there is no suggestion that third opinions make reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines—but that's probably because it was assumed by the authors (and most readers). ^Bongo_matic 02:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? You've blindly fixated on some notion that you think I want to delete this article, which I don't. Please either post things on-topic or quit posting. Would you care to make an intelligent comment regarding including his parents' religion? Jsharpminor (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Tom Steyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100716171656/http://www.hf.com:80/team/Team.aspx?membercode=tSteyer to http://www.hf.com/team/Team.aspx?membercode=tSteyer
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140223013012/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQfKHf4dMeyXBE7Q7BXtSaUst0fQD9HCRI7G1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hQfKHf4dMeyXBE7Q7BXtSaUst0fQD9HCRI7G1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101119031616/http://www.onecalif.com:80/biotsteyer.aspx to http://www.onecalif.com/biotsteyer.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100807004730/http://www.camajorityreport.com:80/index.php?aid=4443&func=display&module=articles&ptid=9 to http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.php?aid=4443&func=display&module=articles&ptid=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Page Restructure

Hi GreenChairBMX, I incorporated some of the edits you made within my changes. We should discuss issues here on the talk page rather than just reverting a major edit. A lot of content added previously was repetitive, and contained info not directly related to the subject which could be placed within other existing articles. See WP:ROC. Some content added was given undue weight WP:UNDUE, making article overly long and negatively impacting readability. Being that this is the only page you’ve edited, it may make sense to look at other pages to determine how much info to include. If there is specific information you feel should be included, it should be added within guidelines for structuring an article. Quorum816 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. We should probably be applying that standard of talk first before a massive removal. From the standpoint of the content being unrelated, it is all about his life and career and the changes he has implemented. In addition I don't think its really that long of an article so as to impact readership negatively. As far as repetition of content, I can review any and pull it, but that's not the same as a blanket removal. If that would work could you give me a little time to review it? GreenChairBMX (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

You introduced a large amount of content on the page and restructured it without having a conversation on Talk. A major set of edits like this should be subject to a consensus. Some of your edits have been incorporated within my changes. There were more issues with your edits outside of being repetitive, they violated multiple Wikipedia guidelines. There were errors within the reference section. Entire paragraphs and sections of info related to Farallon belong on that page, not here. There were sections/multiple paragraphs dedicated to topics that were not widely covered (WP:UNDUE). We can’t add a new subheader for every piece of info mentioned - this page is meant to be an encyclopedic overview of a subject that is frequently covered in the news, not all events are suitable for inclusion (WP:NOTNEWS). There is a history and precedent of contributions to the page over time that was ignored by your unilateral and wide-ranging edits. An overhaul of the page, which you introduced, should not have occurred without talking to other editors of the page. I would ask that you stop reverting these changes so we can better work from the structure of the page that has existed for years. We can improve this page by discussing future changes on the Talk Page, simply reverting all edits made to the page is not helping it. Quorum816 (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I did work with an administrator on this content. It is notable, reliably sourced content. Its one thing to say I should go through and trim some of it. Its another to complete blank the entire page. Now I can work to compromise with you on pulling any repetitions or non-notable sentences, but that will require some patience. I must contend that the vast majority of content used is notable and worthy of inclusion in the article. GreenChairBMX (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear that you worked with an admin. An admin had to remove the large amount of copyrighted information you previously added to this page. There is now a large amount of paraphrased content that does not help the page (WP:NOTNEWS), as well as info given undue weight (WP:UNDUE). Again, some of your additions are incorporated within the changes. If you need time to develop your edit, I suggest working on it in your Sandbox before adding to the page. Quorum816 (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And again, your edits are a sweeping removal of sourced and notable content. And you won't even meet my compromise at all. I am trying to extend an olive branch to trim unnecessary items from the page without your major overhaul, but you are not accepting it. Please meet me halfway here. GreenChairBMX (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

It doesn’t appear that you worked with an admin. Some of your edits have been incorporated within the changes I’ve made, but the majority of the drastic edits you made do not help the page. This is a figure that is frequently discussed in the news, so only notable, widely covered content should be included so as not to make the page a catch-all of insignificant news (WP:NOTNEWS). The page you’re reverting to has info that is poorly structured and repetitive. It has large sections strictly about Farallon, some of it promotional (WP:PROMOTION), that belong on the Farallon page that already exists. There are unnecessary sub headers giving undue weight to single lines of content that isn’t notable/is just speculation in some cases. There are large sections for topics covered by a single source (WP:UNDUE). There are errors in the reference section. Again, if you need time to work on the edit, please use the Sandbox to work on it rather than just leaving a draft on the page. Quorum816 (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know what else to say. I have offered several times to meet you half way, because undoubtedly your 30K bit removal of content removes far more than a couple of questioned areas. Also, your move to report me to administrators seems underhanded when you are guilty of the same thing. Why don't you try removing small snippets instead of half the page? GreenChairBMX (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Steyer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.camajorityreport.com:80/index.php?aid=4443&func=display&module=articles&ptid=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for discussion

GreenChairBMX and Quorum816, I see you've been going back and forth on this page. Because of the large-scale nature of the edits being made, I'm having a difficult time keeping up with what changes are being made. I recommend that both of you cease large edits, and instead pick a handful of your top priority issues and discuss them here before making any edits so that we can build a consensus and avoid any edit-warring. Much appreciated.Safehaven86 (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Safehaven86, that sounds like a plan. I started making edits to this page awhile back because I noticed several issues with it. To summarize, it was poorly organized, there were source errors in the coding, a lot of info was repetitive, much of the language was not NPOV, there are entire paragraphs and headers covering topics that were not mentioned in the sources listed as citations, material was given undue weight. Rather than editing the entire page at once I’ve recently been tackling it section by section. GreenChairBMX seems to have an issue with removal of the controversy section. Here is my reasoning for removal:

- TS is a living person WP:BLP, so extra caution should be given when adding any content.

- Rather than include an entire controversy section, it seemed more appropriate to instead work the info within other relevant subsections WP:NOCRIT

- Legal Problems at Farallon: This info is not actually in the source that GreenChairBMX lists. I had difficulty finding sources that fit this. It was not widely covered and would belong on Farallon’s page, if anywhere.

- Unfarallon: Much of the info within the criticism section was not relevant to TS, but instead pertained more to Farallon, which has a page of it’s own. I did; however, keep a more related sentence about UnFarrallon, but corrected grammar/sentence structure issues and changed the wording to reflect NPOV. In my most recent edit, this was found under Career.

- The Oregon Scandal is given undue weight WP:UNDUE. I could not find any other source that reported on this, aside from a release from the energy foundation that discredits Free Beacon’s claims. I don’t believe this should be included as it was an older event that never amounted to more news and seems only to have been covered by one source.

- Section on hypocrisy was cut down to a sentence that maintains NPOV. My previous edit moved it into the environmental section.

Additional edits to the political activity section were to correct similar issues and create a better structure; however, this can be addressed separately. Quorum816 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I can agree to that. And to be clear, its not about the controversies section. It was the mass removals of sourced, notable content that occurred all over the page without any discussion. Those were just the most recent sections. GreenChairBMX (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so we can settle on that edit. Removal of the controversy section and dispersing some notable info throughout the page into categories where it’s appropriate. Just to note, these edits may appear to be blanket removals, but in actuality are mainly condensing of info to decrease repetition, removing of unnecessary headers, and cutting down on content given undue weight. A lot of the info has not been removed entirely, but better arranged to improve the article. Quorum816 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Safehaven86 and GreenChairBMX, I'm confused. Removal of the controversy section and dispersing notable info throughout is exactly what was discussed and agreed to here. Quorum816 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi GreenChairBMX, could you please explain why you reverted those edits again? You’re saying that the changes were not discussed on the Talk page, but they are the exact changes you agreed to right here. I'm trying to discuss as Safehaven86 requested, but you're just reverting without reason. Quorum816 (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ah!!! I see the issue: I was mentioning that I "can agree to that" at Safehaven. Ha, sorry about that. GreenChairBMX (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

GreenChairBMX you agreed to Safehaven86's request but you're not actually discussing. You continually ignore all of my attempts to discuss, but then immediately revert as soon as I make an edit. My reasoning for removal/dispersing of the controversy section can be found above. Please use the talk page for discussion and stop reverting without reason. Your edits are disruptive and are not benefiting the page. Quorum816 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't stoop to that level of speech. Disagreeing is one thing, but let's please remain more civil. I could argue the same - that your edits are disruptive to the page and not improvements. You also agreed to Safehaven's request but kept attempting the same edit. And also, that claim is simply not true; I have been discussing. And I've asked that you avoid the same edit again and again that more than one editor has disagreed with. GreenChairBMX (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

GreenChairBMX, simply saying you disagree with my edit is not a discussion and not a good enough reason to revert it. I only reverted again when you seemingly agreed to the change, and did not respond to two Talk posts to confirm/discuss the edit. I have not made the same edit repeatedly, but rather have compromised and incorporated any new edits into the page. The content you are continually re-adding includes broken source links, and the content cannot be found within the sources you’re including as citations. The content does not follow NPOV. These are just a few reasons why this is not benefiting the page. The rest can be found above in response to Safehaven86's request. There has not been a single editor that has disagreed with my edits so I'm not sure why you're saying this. The page history demonstrates that you are the only one that disagrees. Quorum816 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey GreenChairBMX, reverted again due to no response here. Per Safehaven86's request, please discuss reasoning here before reverting. Thank you. Quorum816 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I am unsure of what incident you are specifically referring to, but I have been responding. And you keep making the same edit over and over without trying any new compromise or anything. This is getting tedious. GreenChairBMX (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this is tedious, so please discuss your reasoning rather than reverting because you disagree. Simply saying that you disagree is not a reason to keep your edits over another user's. Again, the content you are adding contains broken links, and the information you're adding cannot be found within the articles you are using as citations. It also goes against WP:BLP, among other issues. I have tagged you on this talk page continually as Safehaven86 requested, and received no response until I reverted the edits again. I have made compromises, the content you added was not removed completely, but rather re-added throughout the page to reflect NPOV and WP:BLP. I am reposting my reasoning for the edit (already added above). I won't revert again at this time, but ask that you please discuss. Thank you.

Reasoning for edit (copied from my previous post above): To summarize, it was poorly organized, there were source errors in the coding, a lot of info was repetitive, much of the language was not NPOV, there are entire paragraphs and headers covering topics that were not mentioned in the sources listed as citations, material was given undue weight. Rather than editing the entire page at once I’ve recently been tackling it section by section. GreenChairBMX began reverting when I removed the controversy section and dispersed info throughout the page. Here is my reasoning for doing so:

- TS is a living person WP:BLP, so extra caution should be given when adding any content.

- Rather than include an entire controversy section, it seems more appropriate to instead work the info within other relevant subsections WP:NOCRIT

- Legal Problems at Farallon: This info is not actually in the source that GreenChairBMX lists. I had difficulty finding sources that fit this. It was not widely covered and would belong on Farallon’s page, if anywhere.

- Unfarallon: Much of the info within the criticism section was not relevant to TS, but instead pertained more to Farallon, which has a page of it’s own. I would; however, keep a more related sentence about UnFarrallon, but correct grammar/sentence structure issues and change the wording to reflect NPOV. My edit would add this under Career.

- The Oregon Scandal is given undue weight WP:UNDUE. I could not find any other source that reported on this, aside from a release from the energy foundation that discredits Free Beacon’s claims. I don’t believe this should be included as it was an older event that never amounted to more news and seems only to have been covered by one source.

- Section on hypocrisy was cut down to a sentence that maintains NPOV. My edit would move it into the environmental section. Quorum816 (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored a version of this page from June 2016, after I did extensive copyediting on the page. The version I restored isn't much different from what the page had become, save for the fact that I eliminated the "Gentrification" section. That section seemed WP:UNDUE, had WP:COATRACK issues, and it was poorly sourced (someone's WordPress blog is not WP:RS). GreenChair, I'm concerned that you appear to be a WP:SPA who only seems interested in adding negative information to this WP:BLP. Please see WP:CRITS, Quorum is right that controversy should be integrated throughout a page and not all placed into its own section. I would suggest that both of you step away from this page and let it cool off--the page could benefit from input from other editors. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that I added much of the content to the page and that this dispute was not solely about criticisms. And I know as of now that it does not appear so, but I assure you, I plan on being a much more broadly involved editor in the community - this is just the first page I have been involved in. If it helps, perhaps I could put forth a compromise that trims down some of the content and guarantees neutrality. What are your thoughts? This is a token of good faith so that we can drop the disagreement. One issue I have with your proposal above is that it does not seem right to add the controversies into other sections on the page. Doesn't that then violate the Wikipedia policy for Coatracking? Isn't it just simpler to keep it in a distinct section so that readers know that it is criticism? GreenChairBMX (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that other users need to jump in on this page, there are issues with it beyond that of the controversy section. This was just the latest that I tried to address. To your point GreenChairBMX, Coatracking is an essay, not a Wiki guideline. Additionally, this essay actually argues against inclusion of a controversy section, not for it. With inclusion of a controversy section (and inclusion of other unnecessary sections that currently exist on the page), the article focuses too heavily on irrelevant, improperly sourced and biased material instead of providing a general overview of the subject WP:BLP. Dispersal of the info throughout the page using NPOV would better describe the subject and keep the focus where it should be. I'm not going to touch this page as of now as Safehaven86 (talk) requested, but want to reiterate that the current version contains errors and violations. Quorum816 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you be willing to take a look at what I have in mind? GreenChairBMX (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

GreenChairBMX, yes, the initial purpose of this Talk page discussion was to come to a consensus before making additional disruptive edits. Keep in mind that you have been asked to step away from this page. As Safehaven86 suggested at the start, please discuss changes here rather than making edits. Quorum816 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, why do you have to take that tone? I am extending an olive branch and you chose to assume bad faith. I was willing and still am to work with you. GreenChairBMX (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed edit

How about this? I only added the extra "="s so that it would be under this section. It trims it down, removes POV, and cuts out undue weight. Whoever does edits should note that in the Trump Impeachment paragraph that the phrase California Governor has the first word misspelled.

Controversies

Farallon

In the 1990s, Farallon was the target of legal action from the Justice Department for allegedly using government resources to influence post-Soviet economic policies in Russia that would have benefitted Farallon.

In 2004, Steyer was criticized by UnFarallon, a group of student activists, having discovered that much of Yale and Stanford's endowment was in Steyer's fund. The protest was against Steyer's supposed investing in companies with anti-labor and anti-environmental policies.

In addition, UnFarallon was concerned about Farallon's ownership of a company that planned to sell water from a Colorado aquifer, potentially destroying the local ecosystem. Ballot initiatives intended to aid the effort were defeated, after which Farallon sold the ranch to the Nature Conservancy.

Farallon was noted for having invested in coal projects. In addition, it was learned that even after their divestment, Farallon-funded coal projects in places outside North America, like Indonesia and China, would continue.

Clean Energy Development Center

In February 2015, the Free Beacon reported that top Steyer advisers aided an environmental group, largely financed by Steyer, that is at the center of a scandal. The group, the Clean Energy Development Center, was alleged to have made undisclosed payments to Governor John Kitzhaber’s fiancée, Cylvia Hayes. Steyer had donated millions to help pay a salary to Hayes.

Charges of hypocrisy

Steyer has been widely criticized for a supposed hypocrisy, with critics claiming his environmental policy is meant for financial gain and that his life style does not align with his public policies. Steyer insisted that he was acting differently by providing funding transparently.

References

GreenChairBMX , thank you for sharing your proposed edit for this page. I have reviewed and still find several issues related to NPOV, undue weight, notability and relevancy, most of which have been noted in previous discussions. The edit you proposed does not appear to be different from what currently exists on the page. I still hold that more drastic changes are needed. Explanation is below:

- In the first sentence of the “Farallon” sub-section: “In the 1990s, Farallon was the target of legal action from the Justice Department for allegedly using government resources to influence post-Soviet economic policies in Russia that would have benefitted Farallon." There is no mention of this information within the New Yorker article cited as the source. That sentence should be deleted from the proposed edit altogether as there is no reliable source for that information cited here, and the info does not pertain directly to Steyer.

- Altogether, information pertaining to Farallon is given undue weight WP:UNDUE and does not warrant it’s own sub-heading as much of the information in the proposed edit does not related to Steyer directly. I propose that the information relevant to Steyer contained in this section be incorporated into the Career section. Here is the proposed Career Section edit:

"In January 1986, Steyer founded Farallon Capital, an investment firm headquartered in San Francisco, California. Steyer made his fortune running Farallon, which was managing $20 billion dollars by the time he left the company. Steyer was known for taking high risks on distressed assets within volatile markets. In October 2012, Steyer stepped down from his position at Farallon in order to focus on advocating for alternative energy. Steyer decided to dispose of his carbon-polluting investments in 2012, although critics say he did not dispose of them fast enough. Prior to Steyer leaving Farallon, a student activist group called UnFarallon criticized the company for investments in companies with anti-environmental policies. After leaving Farallon, Steyer hosted a two-day think-tank titled the 'Big Think Climate Meeting' to discuss how to address climate change."

References

This suggested edit incorporates the information that is relevant to Steyer and does not include information only pertinent to Farallon. The language also reflects the information outlined in the cited sources while maintaining NPOV.

- The Clean Energy Development Center is given Undue Weight with this proposed edit WP:UNDUE. This information should not be included as it was only covered by one source at one time and was later disputed by the Clean Energy Development Center. There does not appear to be multiple reliable, neutral sources of information for this section, therefore it is does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines WP:NOTES.

- The “Charges of hypocrisy” is also given undue weight WP: UNDUE. There is only one article cited here, so this does not constitute a trend of being “widely criticized” as stated in the proposed edit. I have edited this information to reflect NPOV and have incorporated it into the “Career” section.

- With these proposed edits, the “Controversies” heading should be deleted and the relevant information should be incorporated elsewhere within the entry as proposed. These edits more closely follow Wikipedia’s guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons, maintain NPOV and also ensure the information meets Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability. Quorum816 (talk) 12:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Much of this content is completely unacceptable under WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:WEASEL, and WP:RS. As I explain below, attack op-eds, blog posts from unreliable sources such as the Washington Free Beacon, PJ Media, Powerline Blog, etc. do not furnish a sufficient basis to include text. Period. Neutrality^talk 14:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sourcing, weasel wording, and BLP

I have not read through the entirety of the lengthy discussion above, but I have recently removed a morass of content that is a categorical violation of policies on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Words to watch.

Example statements that I've cut:

• "Steyer has been accused of reaping benefits from the anti-oil policies of the Obama administration." - cited to the Washington Free Beacon and a local newspaper op-ed. Neither are reliable sources for this BLP-implicating claim, and "has been accused" is a weasel phrase. (I.e., it totally fails to address "by whom")
• A long paragraph about UnFarallon that doesn't address Steyer at all and is cited to the Washington Free Beacon - not a reliable source, and also strays very far off the topic, which is Steyer. Gives undue weight to a student protest.
• Content cited to op-ed piece in "Powerline Blog" - not a reliable source, undue weight
• "When challenged in a January 2015 interview on his hypocrisy about money in politics, Steyer insisted" - completely POV and BLP-violating to flatly state, in Wikipedia's own voice, that a living individual is a "hypocrite."

I've removed all this content per WP:BLP, which instructs:

"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Please do not restore any of this content without obtaining consensus here, per WP:BLP, which instructs:

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first."

--Neutrality^talk 14:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Neutrality. I agree with your edits. I became fatigued with this page after unsuccessfully trying to referee a long edit war between two other editors. Your edits are a definite improvement. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

In the "2017 Trump impeachment campaign" section, change "a campaign for either Califronia Governor or" to "a campaign for either California Governor or" [California misspelled]. Katt Wilm (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Beacon -Heritage Radical Right trashing Steyer, digging up convoluted facts to dishonor Steyer in the same vein Tobacco industries faught their criminal acts

Most annoying to see the likes of Koch Brother brainwashed minions of Heritage Foundation-Beacon attempting to spread falsehoods, twisted truths to dishonor Steyer. Had I not read Dark Money last year, I could not have comprehended the magnitude of evil Trump-like money-grabbers out to tarnish the healthy, honest, altruistic efforts of Steyer.

I actually accidentally fell into this post after accidentally receiving Jeff Denham District 10 California Repub’s mail solicitation gearing up for 2018 election. His mailer and website doesn’t mention he’s a Repub but a few seconds search revealed is status and his heinous 98% voting record inline with batshit crazy, greedy Trump, McConnel, Ryan. Then I tried finding out who’s the Dem running against so I can donate time and money, then googled Dem party to join, help get rid of Red House. Somewhere in that googling Dteyer’s name surfaced about helping. Not ever having heard of Steyer til moments ago, I Googled him to Wiki next- Love Wiki. And I find he’s a gray guy with boatloads of money and is trying to do more for the planet and strangers than our usual run-of-the-mill billionaires. Very sad to see Dark Money (beacon-Heritage brainwashed stoolies) trashing Steyer on Wiki. Hey, I’m a nobody , not influential past CA NV RN, mostly just skiing, sailing, tennis and keeping Mom out of a nursing home with zero political affiliations. Corneliamarasusie (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Yikes, didn’t edit before posting. Apologies. *great guy, not gray, and more Corneliamarasusie (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Keystone Pipeline

The section on the Keystone Pipeline contains these ambiguous sentences: In 2012, Steyer hosted a fundraiser at his home for President Obama. At a private meeting, Steyer, along with fifteen other top donors, reportedly pressed the President regarding the Keystone pipeline. Obama was said to be supportive of Steyer's views but reluctant to put his full weight behind any initiatives without better proof. From this sentence, I have no way of knowing if Steyer supported or opposed the pipeline. I added a clarifying clause for now, but more work is needed to clear up any ambiguity, here and elsewhere. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018

Change the footnote 6 from https://www.mensjournal.com/featurestom-steyer-an-inconvenient-billionaire-20140218 to https://www.mensjournal.com/features/tom-steyer-an-inconvenient-billionaire-20140218 Julialaurenaa (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This article needs to include new information from the November 14, 2018 issue of Vogue magazine

"But as this story went to press, Steyer called with some difficult news. He and Kat had decided that after 32 years of marriage, they were going to try living apart." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59Menlo (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Russian connections

What about any connections to russia as mentioned in this article? - www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/02/delingpole-tom-steyer-is-in-so-deep-with-the-russians-they-should-call-him-impaled-by-vlad/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.84.132 (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart isn't a reliable source. It trades almost solely in fake news. 72.181.99.6 (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Tom Steyer 2020 presidential campaign

Unless his campaign article gets considerably more built out, there's no reason for it to be stand-alone. pbp 15:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The stand-alone article can easily be restored if and when the campaign draws more substantial coverage. --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, it should. SecretName101 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Ottoshade (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you guys as well. PoliticalBoi (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. SCC California (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia should not decide and define what substantial is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.85.168 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Consensus to make this merge pbp 14:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2019

Suggest adding new references to the existing content in section titled "Career" at the point marked *: Steyer decided to dispose of his carbon-polluting investments in 2012, although critics say he did not dispose of them quickly enough* and noted that the lifespan of the facilities he funded would extend through 2030.

References 1: "The Top 15 Stocks Farallon Capital Management Is Buying," Seeking Alpha, May 18 2011, https://seekingalpha.com/article/270579-the-top-15-stocks-farallon-capital-management-is-buying 2: "Farallon Capital," Hedge Fund Wisdom, May 2012, 60, http://www.hedgefundwisdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Free_Q1_2012_issue.pdf 3: "Mark C. Wehrly, Farallon Capital Management, 2012, form 13-F, quarter 1 ( filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2012), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/909661/000142210712000059/0001422107-12-000059.txt Jffairman (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — IVORK _Talk 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

"PHILANTHROPIST"? Really?

Is that an objective website or a far-left page trying to hype left-wing causes? This term is clearly not objective and neutral. Why dont you call an anti-abortion fighter "philanthropist" or a christian conservative? They have a better heart than most people on the left who tend to like killing unborn babies and who often hate their own national identity.

62.226.87.20 (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

A Philanthropist is "a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." That is a description of Tom Steyer, as well as many other people. You ask why Wikipedia doesn't call "a christian conservative" [sic] a philanthropist. As a matter of fact, we do. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How does Tom Steyer pronounce his own name?

How does Tom Steyer pronounce his own name? When I try to look it up on the internet, I find two pronunciations. It would be nice to have the correct one noted here, or even have a button to press to hear him say his own name. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:28D6:DF96:A9C5:DB6C (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

On the off chance you're still wondering, here's a YouTube video of a campaign ad where he says "I'm Tom Steyer and I approve this message" at the end. He pronounces the first syllable "sty," not "stay." And before anyone wipes this per WP:FORUM, is it possible to use this video as a source for a pronunciation key? The correct pronunciation of his name isn't intuitive; a lot of people pronounce it "stayer," which, as it happens, is wrong. I know it's a WP:PRIMARY concern but it can't be easy finding a secondary source for how an article subject prefers people pronounce their name. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:7CB9:BDAB:30E9:A90E (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on February 22, 2020

The most recent edit, by User:Arglebargle79, should be entirely undone. The sourcing isn't great per WP:PRIMARY and the text doesn't include vital information about the margin of error. (Hint: since Steyer's lead is within the margin of error, the poll didn't exactly "show...Steyer leading.") For that matter, snotty nonsense like Arglebargle79's second sentence is entirely inappropriate and possibly a WP:BLP issue. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done I agree. Arglebargle79, why are you posting questionable content about the results of a caucus that haven't happened yet (save the early caucus meetings)? And what is that "apex" comment about? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

please go to "view history" and go back to my previous edit. Apparently the truth was upsetting to someone and the answer, which I explained in some detail, was removed. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Campaign workers organized

Source. I heard it from a friend that they organized, and it's true. It feels WP:UNDUE to add it now though since the section about his campaign is so small. Thoughts, anyone? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 02:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He has now dropped out

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/29/801952931/tom-steyer-to-drop-out-of-2020-presidential-race — Preceding unsigned comment added by DAL59 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)