Talk:Roger Chapin

message: According to a recent NYTimes editorial (http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/exploiting-the-troops-part-2/), many of Roger Chapin's "charities" for veterans appear to be dishonest and corrupt scams.  This article appears to be blatant pro-Chapin POV.  Anyone know more about this and able to rewrite it? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scam?? 

message: ... or for an editor more experienced with and better versed in policy/style, Roger Chapin in his time at Middlebury was apparently quoted in an old article in Time Magazine (came up in a google search); anyways, just thought it might fit in when there's enough context for this kind of trivia. 
Also, I hereby commit myself to fixing this article, ADHD/OCD be damned! Wikimancer (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For future reference...  

message: An anon has been reverting the article to a version that removes proper citations and removes sourced criticisms.  I've restored the prior version.  I've also started a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Roger Chapin article.
Problems with the anon's version: POV pushing, removed sourced criticisms, uses cut-and-paste content from external sources with no clarification of copyright.  The anon also blanked this talk page, attempting to conceal the criticisms in the two talk subjects above this one - which I've also restored. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed content that was copied word-for-word from Chapin's bio info from the HHV, as it was a direct copy there are potential copyright issues in that insertion.  I agree that additional biography info would be beneficial; however, the added content is (a) a potential copyright issue, and (b) laced with peacock terms and fails NPOV. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article changes 

message: Over the past few days,  has been rewriting the criticism section with unsourced statements.  Do WP:RS exist for the changes being made?  I've searched, and can't find them.  At first, the user was removing sourced criticism in favor of his rebuttals against those criticisms .  The most recent edits left the criticisms intact while restoring the rebuttals - however, the rebuttals remain unsourced .
The rebuttals mention prominent persons, and provide links to establish the notability of the persons named (linking to other unrelated works by those persons, or corporate biographies of those persons) - but those links do not provide verification of the claimed statements by those persons.  I also can't find any references anywhere to the claimed studies containing those statements.  As a result, I've removed the rebuttals until a verifiable third party reliable source can be provided for the claimed statements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism rewrite 

message: Substituted at 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This redirects here, but may have independent notability due to the controversies surrounding it: , , ,  (those from 2012),  this from 2008, and  this from 2010. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Help Hospitalized Veterans]]