Talk:John Fund

message: After user Ricky81682 has reformatted the article to use <ref>s (thanks, Ricky81682!) I took another look at http://www.caslon.com.au/ghostingnote.htm and realised that its sole mention of John Fund is in a quote. So I found the source of that quote (an (IMO) excellent NYT Books essay by Joe Queenan) and replaced the ref to Caslon's essay with a ref to the Queenan essay.
I've also changed the link to http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman to the new style. However, I couldn't see how to cite http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020221nypd072.jpg, which is an image of the NYPD "Domestic Incident Report" involving Fund, so I just deleted it. Anyone who knows how to cite it is welcome to put it back.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we do mention it. We use the verb "collaborated" instead of "ghostwrote" because that's what our sources say; see WP:RS (and WP:BLP). I've just now added more details of the book. Cheers, CWC 19:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghostwriting 

message: In a civil case, people claim all kinds of things, and it is up to the courts to determine the facts.  Unless there is a judgment, I do not think cases should be included in articles.  Otherwise, we are just repeating allegations from a source of unknown reliability.
Also, the article could be improved by adding information about the subject's political beliefs and alliances.  --74.15.53.108 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Suit - Relevance 

message: I agree with WWB's conclusion above: we cannot mention that incident without violating at least one Wikipedia policy, so it is best to omit it. (Of course, if for some bizarre reason someone writes a WP:RS about it, things would change.)
User  just added this to the article:
:From 2001 to 2006, Fund engaged in a well-publicized dispute with his former girlfriend Morgan [redacted], who accused Fund of beating her. He posted his version of the dispute at www.johnfund.com.
I've removed it. It seems like a good attempt at honest coverage, but
*"engaged in" should be something like "was caught up in", and
*it is effectively sourced to http://www.johnfund.com, a primary source, and
*as I said, I agree with WWB.
What do other contributors think? CWC 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User  posted a thoughtful response here in July 2018. I've taken the liberty of moving it to a new section at the end of this page in the hope of boosting its visibility. Please respond there. CWC 00:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: September 2009

message: I see he's a columnist for WSJ, and has written one (published) book, ghost written another. The article states so few accomplishments. Is this person non-notable? Can we get some more accomplishments added here? VictorC (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Notable? Notability? 

message: I've moved the following here for discussion:
:In 2010, Rep. Barney Frank issued a press release in which he referred to Fund as a "congenital and habitual liar". The press release was issued in response to Fund's claim that Frank sponsored "universal voting rights" legislation
This sort of thing is not allowed in a WP:BLP without good sourcing. Can anyone find a "Reliable Source" for this? Also, remember WP:UNDUE: any coverage of the Frank-Fund kerfuffle will need to be concise.
For an overview of the dispute, see American Daughter 5-Jan-2010, WND 18-Jan-2010, and TPM 5-Feb-2010. Unfortunately, AFAICT none of these are acceptable sources. Sigh. CWC 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of acceptable sources suggests that it's not notable: politicians being unhappy about being criticized is a dog-bites-man story.  If the issue belongs anywhere, it's on Barney Frank. THF (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of acceptable sources suggests that it's not notable. Exactly. Wikipedia's rules provide a surprisingly good filter for this kind of thing. Cheers, CWC 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barney Frank 

message: Mr Fund's bio at the WSJ website now uses the past tense and shows nothing published since June 2011. I've updated the first para of the article accordingly, but kept things vague. We need a good source documenting Mr Fund's apparent change of employment. Anyone got one? CWC 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer at WSJ? 

message: I've updated the article to fix broken links, outdated information, etc. I've also removed some unsourced claims. The article now has no direct links to opinionjournal.com. It still links to one Internet Archive snapshot from opinionjournal.com (the first EL, a list of Fund's articles as of Jan 2010), largely because AFAICT there is no way to find Fund's articles on the wsj.com.Background: Until News Corp bought the WSJ, the opinion page was largely separate from the rest of the WSJ, going so far as to run a separate website, opinionjournal.com. When News Corp moved to reduce the barrier between the opinion and news staff, opinionjournal.com was changed to redirect every URL to http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html. Unfortunately, while opinionjournal.com had nice author bios, list of articles, etc, wsj.com is a pain to search and much of the metadata seems to be missing. Bah.
The article still says nothing about Mr Fund's departure from the WSJ, because I still have not seen any acceptable sources about it. In fact, there is a marked shortage of good sources for Mr Fund's recent career: NRO has no bio page for him, and his bio at TAS just specifies his role there. (Note that Mr Fund has good reason to be careful about his web presence, as can be seen from most of the previous discussions on this page.) So once again I ask: does anyone have any good sources for Mr Fund's recent career?
(FWIW, Mr Fund's last WSJ "On The Trail" column was dated June 16, 2011, and his first item at NRO was dated September 20, 2011. He first wrote for TAS in 2004.)
Cheers -- CWC 16:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2013 

message: Considering the publicity it garnered, and the talk about it on this page, it should be noted that the woman who accused Fund of abuse retracted her accusations in 2002. Her statement has been posted online for years. Nicmart (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse accusation retracted 

message: Created some material at this article and moved some to Hans von Spakovsky article. Activist (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{copied}} 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Fund. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926214357/http://spectator.org/people/john-h-fund/all to http://spectator.org/people/john-h-fund/all
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070814100125/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/youngleaders/ylc_email_02-06-08.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/youngleaders/ylc_email_02-06-08.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As a drive-by reader and commenter here, I want to note that this page seems to be an "airbrushed" bio of a public figure who was prominently in the news at a certain point in the early 2000s, on the basis of accusations against him by a previous girlfriend. Now all mention of this has been removed, and the accusations of POV "bias" on this page in those mentioning it seem to be pretty nitpicky. The comment(s) from ChrisChittleborough seems to exemplify that, beginning "I met Mr. Fund today and he showed this page to me, taking issue with this section."  
This bio now reads as a bare-bones press release, with no meaningful information about John Fund. 
I am not able to take the time (which I don't have) to add back anything about the public controversy, or Fund's beliefs at any age, especially as I labor under the suspicion, perhaps unjustified, that the page will be policed for "infractions." 
But I second the motion to remove the bio if for nothing else than not conforming to anything I would like to see in an encyclopedia article that would not be written by the person himself (again, see the comment from ChrisChittleborough. I have no idea how to institute such a motion. 
I hope someone cares enough to either give this bio some substance or nomimate it for removal. thanks!
Actio (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment moved from September 2009 section above to increase its visibility, by CWC 00:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2018