Talk:Bennett S. LeBow

message: The arbitration request concerning this article is unlikely to advance. I am happy to offer you guys some assistance to better craft the article into an accurate reflection of the LeBow.
#Negative information is acceptable in the article if it is properly sourced. Be especially aware of WP:BLP.
#You might find that creating a separate section for criticisms is useful.
#All material needs to be properly sourced and cited. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT.
#No one person owns the article. If there is a clash of opinions then your first move is to seek input from the community. Arbitration is a last ditch effort.
#Do not edit war. See WP:3RR. Bring all discussion here, to the article talk page.
#Contact me if you need assistance. I am usually around.
Thanks for your help and efforts! JodyB talk 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration is not likely at this point 

message: Careful editing is sometimes difficult. We have avoided an edit war here, have cleared out a sock drawer and now removed page protection from the article. There is no present restriction and we are back to creating an accurate and concise article. At present, about 1/2 of the page consists in criticisms of the subject. These are well sourced. However, editors should be aware of a portion of the Neutral point of view policy typically called Undue weight. This requires us to balance we sourced articles and not to give undue prominence to negatives or alternative, minority ideas. 
I think it would be wise to reduce the weight of criticism in the article and perhaps bring the most significant to the top and exclude the other. I am going to reformat the page for you to help you see what I mean. As always, I am available for your assistance. JodyB talk 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring balance to the article 

message: Just an interesting observation regarding the name "Vector Group". In medicine, a vector is a disease-carrying agent. The Vector Group deals mostly in tobacco-related products. Is this mere coincidence or an example of Mr.LeBow's sense of humor?WQUlrich (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarcasm? 

message: The criticism section greatly outweighed the rest of the article and is not appropriate here. The depth of the research into the smallest criticisms shows how obsessed this editor is with the subject. Biographical articles on Wikipedia DO NOT list every small criticism that people have been accused of. Please re-work the criticism section so it fits in better with this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.8.223 (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The first 2 and 1/2 paragraphs require proper citation. There is an enormous amount of information prior to the first cite that needs to be properly cited. If this is not done, I will have to remove it in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia.
129.174.252.250 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited material at beginning of article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bennett S. LeBow. 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/20111020024653/http://drexel.edu/alumni/docs/mag_fall_2004.pdf to http://www.drexel.edu/alumni/docs/mag_fall_2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bennett S. LeBow. 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/20070322163525/http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelink/story.asp?ID=279&vol=5&num=9 to http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelink/story.asp?ID=279&vol=5&num=9
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) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What does the timeline of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election have to do with anything in this article? —72.47.66.196 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance issue 

message: Recent changes by "california4x4" to this article are clearly inappropriate. "too wordy" is not a justification for removing most of the article content. Reversion to its original form is clearly warranted in this case. Algyx0262 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reversion to its original form is not clearly warranted. The entire article needs to be re-written. Feel free to edit and make more concise. Your bias is obvious and blatant. California4x4 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes to the article are clearly against wikipedia rules which do not allow for the complete elimination of pages of well sourced facts in this manner. Your bias is obvious and blatant. This page is the result of many people making contributions to it over a long period of time. Please do not revert it again. Algyx0262 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent changes by california4x4 

message: The recent changes made on March 16 2024 are well cited facts that are relevant to the biography of Mr Lebow
and there is no reason for their deletion. Please do not remove them. Algyx0262 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes on March 16 2024 

message: Lebow is suggesting legal action. I say it is hardly worth keeping the Rabinovich material at this point since this is only one relatively minor portion of a fairly detailed biography. It is just not worth it. Algyx0262 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's reliably sourced. And, no, it doesn't need to be segmented into a "controversies" section. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent revision by wracking 

message: In discussions at User talk:Jlebow112, that user raised concerns about the reliability of some of the sources in the article. To that end, looking through the sources, one assertion is backed up solely by the New York Post:
:As of 2014, Bennett LeBow is married to Jacqueline Finkelstein-LeBow, the principal of real estate investment firm JSF Capital.
Does anybody have another source to support the marriage? Otherwise, based on WP:NYPOST and the community's consensus that the Post is not reliable, we'd need to delete that sentence. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting it might be the best course of action right now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's sourced to NYT not New York Post...Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: As of 2021, Bennett LeBow was subsequently married to Jacqueline Finkelstein-LeBow of JSF Capital.
# Remove the as-of-date clause entirely; it's reasonable to assume that they are still married in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
# Remove repeat of last name as a style consideration. Could use "He", but it feels cleaner to have a name.
# Since we do not have reliable sources for a marriage date, just state that it happened next in the timeline.
# Use maiden name instead of married name, to parallel first wife.
As I said, this is the cleanest way I can think of to avoid implying an end date of the marriage, and it's consistent with what's done in other BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Hopefully that will satisfy all parties. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better source needed for second marriage 

message: I think you found the best solution to this. In trying to think how other articles handle this, we don't usually note that an individual was married as of the last date we have a source mentioning their spouse. We usually state they are married. Accordingly, I've made the following bold edit:
:As of 2021, Bennett LeBow was subsequently married to Jacqueline Finkelstein-LeBow of JSF Capital.
# Remove the as-of-date clause entirely; it's reasonable to assume that they are still married in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
# Remove repeat of last name as a style consideration. Could use "He", but it feels cleaner to have a name.
# Since we do not have reliable sources for a marriage date, just state that it happened next in the timeline.
# Use maiden name instead of married name, to parallel first wife.
As I said, this is the cleanest way I can think of to avoid implying an end date of the marriage, and it's consistent with what's done in other BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Hopefully that will satisfy all parties. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we need the "As of" clause at all?