Talk:Emmanuel Lemelson/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cleanup needed

Since this person isn't so famous that his entire life is encyclopedic, this needs to be trimmed down to the encyclopedic aspects of his notable careers and a mention of his non-notable careers.

The author or another editor needs to go through this and compare it against WP:Manual of style. The most glaring thing is the use of his name: Please use just his last name except in the first sentence and possibly a brief mention of his religious name in the relevant section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to his title and first name in all locations except the introduction. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin help requested - check deleted versions

Please check through previous versions of

• Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views),
• User:JAYRAJ123/Emmanuel Lemelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and
• Wikipedia:Emmanuel Lemelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

for any legitimately un-deletable pages whose content may be useful to merge into this article? Many of these pages were deleted for reasons that are ineligible for un-deletion (copyvio, blocked/banned user, etc.).

Also, compare the current version and the 1st relevant edit of User:Orthodox2014/sandbox against the deleted version(s), as un-deletion and a history-merge may be required for attribution reasons. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, so:

1. User:Orthodox2014/sandbox only contains revisions by Orthodox2014, thus there is no loss of attribution despite the fact he copypasted the content into a new mainspace article; that is commonly done in new creations that have a lot of draft revisions to avoid unecessarily clogging up history
2. There is nothing in Wikipedia:Emmanuel Lemelson's history except a move log.
3. User:JAYRAJ123/Emmanuel Lemelson contains deleted revisions that are not restorable due to CSD criteria G5.
4. There are a couple of significant deleted revisions under Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson around Setp./Oct. 2013; it was deleted as PROD and thus they are not problematic. There are previous revisions that are not restorable due to CSD criteria G5.

I have histmerged the relevant revisions and left Emmanuel Gregory Lemelson as a redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Too many references

The references need to be consolidated. If a reliable, independent source that is easy to verify (i.e. one that is online and not paywalled) can be used to support two different statements, then keep it and remove any redundant sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed the unnecessary citation clutter from the lede paragraph (the information is already cited in the body of the article) but the author replaced them all in full! I'm not sure when this becomes disruptive editing, but the long list of citations (several of which don't verify the claims) is unnecessary, of course. The author seems to be a single purpose account and intent on promoting Lemelson and his business. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the lead in particular is cluttered. Per WP:WHYCITE:

Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead.

Most of the cites in the lead are also used elsewhere, and the few that aren't should be moved or perhaps deleted, if redundant to other sourcing. @Orthodox2014: I would appreciate your view on this topic. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I intend to get through all the references in the coming days, especially for formatting, and will be sure to remove any that appear redundant or unneeded. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicated content

Since nearly all the content of the "Investor activism" section duplicated content that's in Lemelson Capital Management, and since it more correctly belongs in that other article, I've removed all the detail, leaving a summary and a {{main}} link.  —SMALLJIM  00:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The investment activism components are personally notable because the analysis of each stock was authored by Lemelson personally according to the references listed here. No evidence of any other individuals involved according to those sources. I've also moved that section further down the page. Also added a reference to "Early Business Career" that belongs but was not included in that section. I've also included in "Investor Activism" The Wall Street Journal reference you listed to the section related to the quotes on investor activism in the Wall Street Journal profile. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all non-reliable sourcing and associated content from this article

I propose the following:

1. Any reference to a source that does not have a WP article to be subject to immediate removal, without recourse unless a talk page discussion here decides otherwise.
2. Any content in this article that is not supported by a source with a WP article, or that has otherwise been agreed on this talk page, to be deleted.
3. No primary sources to this entity or any related entity shall be considered reliable with respect to this article.
4. All of the foregoing applies to direct sourcing--random web sources or press releases that claim that reliable sources have said such and such are worthless--if we are not getting it directly, then it is worthless. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably a very extreme rule of thumb. There's no rule against primary sources being used selectively and minimally. But your approach will help reduce the citation overkill. Citation overkill makes it difficult to see the true picture (maybe this is deliberate by the author or maybe simply a misunderstanding of inline citations). It looks like there's several editors helping to examine the sources and improve the article, so no doubt any disagreements can be ironed out here on the Talk page. Sionk (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY allows for primary sources. -- GreenC 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a primary source is perfectly valid for non-controversial statements; there's no reason (for instance) not to accept Lemelson's word at face value for whom he married, his hometown or where he went to school. The one I just removed is an invalid use of a primary source, by way of contrast.
But otherwise? The barrage of citations is ridiculous. A half-dozen citations for a single sentence might be called for in cases of "Many commentators state that Soandso III was the worst ruler in the history of the Kingdom of Warwik." For buttressing the assertion that the Amvona Fund has had an annual gain of 85%, or that the fund was named by Barron's as one of the top performers in the world? Hardly. (Honestly, wouldn't a single link to the relevant Barron's article suffice?) Ravenswing 00:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I recommend deferring making a new "local policy" for this article until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lemelson Capital Management is closed, as its closure will likely affect this article. In the meantime, give Orthodox2014 first crack at cleaning things up per his commitment to do so at 23:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC) in the thread above this one. Once his work is done or once it's clear he's done all he plans on doing, the rest of us can do any remaining cleanup work. Since Orthodox2014 is likely the only editor who will be significantly affected by this proposed policy, if he shows through his actions that he won't make edits that will make a locally-strict policy desirable, then we can let this proposal just die a quiet death. On the other hand, if in a few weeks it's obvious that we need a strong "local policy," then a formal WP:Request for comments may be in order. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I did review the references for this article, removing ones that were redundant and consolidating the rest for formatting. Orthodox2014 (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The afd was closed as no consensus on July 27 2014. , and therefore remains.

Unfortunately some of the cleanup involved adding very extensive information here that duplicates the material there. The individual investment decisions of the company belong with the company (unless the two articles should be merged). I have removed it. Doing this is outrageously promotional, and trying to keep it in is likely to result in a new afd for both article.

As for article-specific sourcing policy, I don't think we usually do that. Standard WP policy is that primary sources are usable for some limited purposes, including the basic facts of a personal life, unless challenged or questionable. They are of course also usable for quotations from the person, if there is reason to include the quotations. Some of the ones here are quite excessive. We generally have no difficulty in using existing policy for removing improperly sourced material. I will take a look at both articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have two responses and questions to your edits:

1.) If you are going to tag the article, you should explain here specifically what language or parts of it warrant that tag. I see nothing that does.

2.) Lemelson's notability seems to me to rest on several pillars, but one of the biggest is the profound impact his activist investing has had on a handful of equities. He is, for instance, pretty much singularly credited with the massive correction in WWE. That information is thus biographical and central to this article. It should be restored, I think.

Look forward to your response and thoughts. Orthodox2014 (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus version

@DGG: I agree with you and all the other impartial editors who have expressed opinions about this article: due to the efforts of Orthodox2014, it had become too detailed and self-congratulatory, it suffered from severe citation overkill, and it duplicated content that belongs in Lemelson Capital Management. Your pruning-back of 8 July neatly implemented the consensus opinion. Unfortunately since then Orthodox2014 once again added back the excess content (against the consensus) and has continued to add promotional material. In view of this, I've reverted to the version before his major edit of 27 October (which, incidentally, had a very misleading edit summary) and I've added a fledgling Criticism section to add a little balance.  —SMALLJIM  14:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your latest series of edits are concerning, unwarranted, abrupt and appear agenda-driven. I will be reverting them. Nothing in the article is "self congratulatory." It is a factual, well referenced (by no means excessively so) article on this man's career. A number of points regarding your faulty edits:

1.) Among your revisions was a restoration of a general infobox, which is not appropriate when the more directly relevant Christian leader box is more applicable. As part of this faulty change you made, you reverted to information in the box (number of children, for instance) that I had updated based on my research and careful reading of news coverage of him. You took no time to research or verify these before recklessly reverting to an outdated infobox.

2.) You also recklessly removed reference-supported (Washington Post, Boston Herald, Wall Street Journal) content on his work within the Greek Orthodox Church, including participation in an important delegation that met with the Pope, commentary on theology-related issues (such as the Fox News interview you also removed) and biographical mentions of his higher profile investment activism and commentary (covered in USA Today, Wall Street Journal, etc. as being highly influential).

3.) You reinserted "reference needed" in the "Early Life" section, which if you had taken the time to review you'd have found I was able to dig up and include (which your wholesale reversion removed).

4.) You removed well-referenced and highly biographically notable content related to his most prominent investor activism work, which has been covered by major media (USA Today, New York Post, etc.) and his fund's top-ranked performance (cited in Barron's, etc.) that lie at the heart of his notability as an investment manager.

5.) The article was very objectively written--until you offered your own point of view in the "Criticism" section you added, in which you state (without supporting reference) that The Wall Street Journal profile on Lemelson "was critical of Lemelson." Who (aside from you) says it was critical? In fact, it seems a quite laudatory profile, even if it did apparently include errors that were subsequently addressed publicly.

I have felt your edits on this page from the beginning have been agenda-driven, designed to minimize the notable accomplishments and developments in this man's life, and often (as was the case here again) to do so abruptly and with reckless disregard for facts that I painstakingly and properly updated.

I sense that you have an agenda with the article, and I'd appreciate if you would raise your concerns on the talk page as opposed to recklessly inserting dated and inaccurate information and removing notable, referenced content. Please don't do that again without talk page discussion. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Orthodox2014: Did you read my comment above? What you call my "latest series of edits" was just a revert to DGG's 8 July version (representing consensus, as explained) and the addition of a new section concerning a relevant matter that you had omitted to mention. I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia at present, so I'm sorry if the July version doesn't include the latest relevant history or the latest research – you could have accepted the consensus and updated that version. I note that several times now you have replaced an article with your preferred version, totally ignoring the consensus opinion of the other editors who have shown an interest in the topic: you've been advised more than once against doing this! Remember that others are entitled to extensively edit your work, especially if they can show that their edits are more in compliance with our policies and guidelines than yours.
The only one of your points that needs a separate response is no 5. – if you disagreed with my use of the phrase "critical of", you could have replaced it with another phrase, but you chose to remove the "Criticism" section entirely. Anyway I maintain that "critical of" is appropriate – why else was it necessary to attempt to rebut the WSJ article so fully and accuse its author of making an ad hominem attack in a "litany of insinuation and innuendo"?[40] You go on to suggest that I have an agenda with this article, but just ask yourself who is the one whose only edits to Wikipedia have centred around this person.
So... Can I suggest that you undo your last edit and then edit the article moderately to bring it up to date? Or if you choose to reply here instead, I suggest that you ought to deal with the important points of consensus, citation overkill, relevance and what Wikipedia is not, instead of trying to demean other editors. If you don't respond in a few days I'll assume that you agree with my arguments and I'll reinstate the consensus version and find the time to update it. In the meantime I've added back the Criticism section so that this relevant information is available to readers: my remark above about editing it refers.  —SMALLJIM  11:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I read your comments in detail. Your reference to a "consensus version" was really just you and one other editor and that version was half a year ago. Most of my edits were modest additions from media coverage since then. Nothing in my approach to you should be deemed as "demeaning," as you suggest, and please don't view my disagreement with you personally. But it is true that your reverting of the page was abrupt and without consideration of the modifications made since then (and you sort of acknowledge as much in stating that you don't have much time to deal with it right now). As part of your abrupt changes, you restored content that is documentably inaccurate that I had corrected based on media I read. You also deleted new notable sentence additions I added, again fully referenced, without consideration of those.

You mention that the only point I raised that was valid was my fifth point, but let me revisit each of those points with you now:

1.) You removed the appropriate infobox with a general, less appropriate infobox template. In so doing, you also added information that is documentably inaccurate that I had corrected. You acknowledge that, I hope?

2.) You abruptly removed content including additions related to his participation in a Papal delegation and major news coverage related to that. You acknowledge that, I hope?

3.) You reinserted "reference needed" to a sentence for which I painstakingly researched, found and included a supporting media reference. You acknowledge that, I hope?

4.) You removed notable investor activism since the July 8 version that was supported with major media references. You acknowledge that, I hope?

5.) You seem to concede my point here, but writing that The Wall Street Journal profile on the subject was "critical" and thus warrants an entire section of "Criticism" can be held out as an undeniable violation of WP:NPOV. You allege what you added is "critical" but no related coverage of the profile uses that adjective. I certainly don't read it that way. And the quotes from the profile you cite as critical aren't at all critical, though I notice their accuracy was challenged. If they are of biographical note at all (and I don't believe they are), they belong in the "Investor Activism" section. Since you seem to acknowledge this point and it's indisputably accurate, I am going to revert the section you added and would welcome discussion on whether any of that paragraph's additions are new, biographically notable and warrant inclusion.

You additionally raise concerns about WP:CITEKILL, but the article rigidly adheres to this guideline. Nowhere is there more than three citations cited (which is listed as the limit) and where additional ones are included, they have been added (as the guidelines states they should be) in bundled format.

I believe the article to be an extremely good one, fully referenced and not in the least partial. I am, of course, happy to work with you in addressing any concerns you may have when you have the time to articulate those here more specifically. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Orthodox2014, if you revert the criticism section again I will begin an RfC, place my !vote and lets others do the same for the next 4 weeks and let the chips fall where they do. These long posts never get anywhere and achieve little except to wear people down. Suggest if you think the WSJ could be incorporated into the article, go ahead and do so in a way you can live with. -- GreenC 22:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Well, he did remove the section again, replacing it with a highly watered-down sentence tucked away. Since we have a (small) consensus that the section should be in, and his arguments to the contrary are not convincing to me, I've added it back (slightly reworded). I've also removed the excess detail about the trades made by his hedge fund again. They are correctly dealt with in Lemelson Capital Management and there's no reason to duplicate them here, despite his attempt to persuade us that they should be included because the analyses are Lemelson's own. Do you agree? If you want to start an RfC you can count on my support, but even if we take no further action yet, we need to watch this because it's unlikely that he will allow anything but his preferred version to stand.  —SMALLJIM  00:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Groups of sources including "Other sources" references

The article uses a technique of 'super references' where a single reference has multiple refs within it. This is not a good idea for a number of reasons, the refs should each have their own cite template in a separate ref. However looking at these super refs they are not required for verification purposes since it duplicates other refs - it amounts of reference stuffing, an over-use of refs. They are still useful for notability purposes so I will move them here to the talk page. -- GreenC 18:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Diffs and "Other Sources" provided by Green Cardamom, below, were further edited by me. These may be further edited to identify specific topics covered and to add more from Orthodox2014's most expanded version of article. --doncram 00:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Other sources 1, from end of Early business career section: Diff:

References

• Other sources 2, from Religious leadership and philanthropy section, at Lemelson's views on Orthodox and Catholic relations; Diff: </nowiki>

References

• Other sources 3, from Commentary and Social Activism section, following "Lemelson's investment activism and commentary have influenced the stock prices of several equities, including Geospace Technologies, Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Ligand Pharmaceuticals, World Wrestling Entertainment and others." Diff:

References

• Other sources 4, from/about Investment management and activism: The Amvona Fund Diff:

References

• Sources and Other sources on Lemelson calling for replacement of WWE management or WWE sale:

"Simultaneously, Lemelson called for the replacement of WWE's executive management team or a sale of the company." This followed what Lemelson Capital Management said was "a period of ongoing losses, execution failures and material misstatements." Several hours after Lemelson's announcement, former Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti announced that his law firm was beginning an investigation into whether WWE had violated state or federal securities law.

References

• Other sources 5, from/about Diff:

References

• Other sources 6, from/about Diff:

References

About "Early career" section

I removed some redundant content and references in this section and cleaned up the associated reference formatting. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal life section

I've edited this section to undo the change that Orthodox2014 made in this edit in October November that L has 4 children, adding the Wall Street Journal video apparently to verify it. As far as I can tell that video says nothing of his family at all: the only fact in this section that the video does verify is that L lives in Massachusetts. So I've removed it as unnecessary and asked for sources for the other statements there.  —SMALLJIM  16:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In Lemelson's interview here he says he has a brother, Jason. Should we include that in this section? Probably not. There's also some evidence that Rokelle is his sister – her Twitter account says she is, and there's a ref in her article that doesn't verify it now; I can't find any other sources. I also read somewhere that his grandfather was the brother of Jerome H. Lemelson, but I've lost that source for now (I don't think it was reliable anyway).  —SMALLJIM  17:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

About Biographical header section

The current header really doesn't summarize his notability well and needs work. I've incorporated some of SmallJim's edits and moved the Lemelson Capital Management work to the bottom of the header so it follows the structure of the article more generally. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A few points based on your sandbox draft as it is at present.

• Most importantly. Now that several editors are working on major changes to the article, it's best that we don't try to finalize the lead section until the rest is settled, because the lead should be a summary. We can't summarize until we know what the content will be! So please don't try to replace the existing lead with your version; its content is something that needs discussing later. Having said that, however...
• He's only a cultural leader if a reliable source has said he is. Is there one?
• What's wrong with describing him as a "former businessman", isn't that accurate?
• It looks as if you're planning to reinstate the exact sentence that I removed that listed where his religious views etc have been cited. Please don't do that - it's edit warring.
   —SMALLJIM  17:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see you have replaced it anyway. I'm starting a new section at the bottom of the page to ask you some questions about your edits. I'll add the two questions above.  —SMALLJIM  17:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response:

Just seeing this. Thanks for reviewing and will certainly answer your questions here. My thoughts on the ones you raise above:

1.) I agree the lede may be dynamic and may change, but they're changes to a version that you changed without any discussion here. The lede that was updated addresses his core notability and includes content (former "businessman," for instance) that are not (to my reading) germane to that notability. It's really a more up to date reflection of the article's current content.

2.) What description better than "cultural leader" describes his element of leadership in your view, given that this leadership seems to transcend multiple disciplines, including theology, finance, social justice, economic/fiscal reform, right to life issues, etc.?

3.) "Former businessman" refers to what? His early private sector career in photography seems worthy of inclusion only as early biography material, not as any sense of current/present tense notability that warrants inclusion in the header/lede.

4.) Further to point three above, while his role as a former businessman (if that title even really applies) is not central to a summary of him, his theological views (cited in some of the world's largest media outlets) clearly is. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I changed the lead just before this RFC discussion got going – you should really have left it alone, in my view.

2. He really only can be described as a cultural leader if a reliable source has said he is. Otherwise it's unduly promotional. Is there such a source?

3. Just because it was a few years ago doesn't diminish the importance of his business. More people will be aware of his cheap photo accessories business than his hedge fund or religious activities.

There are some more questions below for you to look at, please. And please could you make use of the "Show preview" button, next to the "Save page" button, to avoid clogging up the edit history with drafts!  —SMALLJIM  18:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: I guess this really gets to the heart of where you and I completely disagree. You focus on biographical components that I'd consider not so terribly significant (early photo business, what he did in sixth grade, etc.) that are barely covered anywhere as far I can see and then see no significance of what is the core of his biographical notability: His religious/cultural leadership and commentary and investor activism impact, which has been covered by the world's largest media outlets. I mean, is Fox News and The Wall Street Journal quoting and citing this man's work because he ran a photo business or sold candy in sixth grade, or because he's a fairly dynamic cultural leader in the multiple disciplines of finance, theology, social/economic reform, etc.? In fact, if you reread what you just wrote in point three above, I can't believe you even believe that. But that is what you're doing with this biography: pulling out its most notable components and references and adding the most trivial and insignificant ones. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not you and me, it's you and everyone else who has shown an interest in your edits. Experienced editors have contributed to lots of articles on all sorts of topics, and they get a feeling for what an article should look like. I believe I suggested in one of our first conversations that it would be of benefit to you to edit some articles on other topics. You haven't done so: all 2000-odd of your edits have been related in some way to Emmanuel Lemelson. That's not a good sign – if you're going to carry on editing Wikipedia, please go and get some wider experience. Then you might understand why his first business venture is valuable encyclopedic information, and why we don't need to include every detail of his recent endeavours.  —SMALLJIM  20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yea, you're wrong about that. It's not your role to determine the relative notability of his career segments. The media coverage of this man's career is about his theological and finance leadership, not his photo business two decades ago. If any "experienced" editor wants to tell me I have that wrong, I'd like to evaluate the argument. But it's not. Also, you and I have had this discussion about my edits. If you don't think new editors should be permitted to work on a singular topic, go propose a change to the policies. But that's not what they say. I'd rather focus on a topic of interest than a bunch of things that are not of interest. And hopefully I will discover another topic after this one. I joined a few edit groups, in fact. 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

So you're claiming that info about his first business venture isn't valuable, and that we should include great detail about his recent endeavours, just because there's a lot of recent media coverage? That probably shows your lack of knowledge of the wider encyclopedia: try reading some of our featured articles for example! You're right on one point, though: it's not my role alone to determine what the article should contain. Nor is it yours. We both know it's the community's, based on the common-sense principles that lie behind Wikipedia's tried and tested policies and guidelines. Now which editor has been reverted the most by others with explanations given that their edits don't conform to those principles? I keep plugging away at this 'cos I can't understand how you can remain so convinced that everyone but you is wrong: I don't think you can realistically hide behind the "new editor" shield any longer. Is there anything that would convince you that your editing isn't within acceptable parameters?  —SMALLJIM  22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Public perception

Here are my concerns about this section: First, it has nothing to do with his public perception. It is comprised of two quotes from him, which, while they may warrant inclusion, are no more worthy of inclusion than the quotes regarding the development of his theological views, which were removed. In my last revision, I took a compromise approach of including the first quote (the "gift from God" one) in the "Investment management and activism" section. There is nothing that warrants a separate section for these two quotes and, in fact, detaching these quotes from the more relevant section is disjointed. So I'd propose taking that first quote and inserting it in the "Investment management and activism" section as I did in this version: [41]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah the "compromise" version completely eliminated all the context, criticism and controversy about the incident so it wasn't a compromise. Normally Wikipedia favors the perspective (POV) of what other people say or believe (secondary sources), not what the person says or believes about themselves (primary sources). The WSJ article was not flattering of Lemelson and Lemelson's reaction to it is an insight into his character - all significant in a biography article laden with WP:PUFF. The section is not limited to only that incident, but anything dealing with public perception, positive or negative. However if you want to move that whole paragraph as-is to the "Commentary and activism" section that would be OK. -- GreenC 05:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: If you read this Wikipedia policy [42], sections are to be avoided. Further, nothing in the section currently speaks to criticism or public perception. The quotes from the article itself seem of minimal biographical notability, but I think including one or maybe more in the investment management section may make sense. I am going to remove the section for now since it definitely doesn't warrant a stand alone section (and even violates the previously referenced policy). Some quotes in the article, though, should be evaluated for inclusion in the appropriate section. I will leave that alone until we have some consensus here as to whether they do or don't. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

First off that's an essay (one user's opinion), it's not a guideline much less a policy - essay's don't have consensus. And the section is not a "criticism" section so that essay isn't even relevant - the essay says to keep section titles open to both positive and negative content which is exactly what this section title does. I have no problem if you want to move the section content into a different section of the article, or rename the section, but there is no reason to delete the content. -- GreenC 18:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: In my since removed edit, I did exactly as you suggest above, including a quote from the secondary source (the WSJ article) and not including the primary source and incorporating that in the content, not as a stand-alone section. The primary source was added by Smalljim, who also created the stand-alone section. I'm not sure I really see anything worthy of inclusion in that section. But if the second source quote is to remain, it should be moved to the investment section, the primary removed and the stand-alone section removed. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, I moved it to the commentary section. There's nothing wrong with the sources or text of the paragraph on primary grounds. As noted above, your version eliminated all the context, criticism and controversy about the incident, and replaced it with an unexplained quote from Lemelson. -- GreenC 18:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

GreenC, I think your removal of this section is a reasonable compromise. I did look, as I said I would, for some independent positive commentary to provide balance to the section, but I couldn't find anything that would help. In fact there appears to be very little online about Lemelson that does more than simply report on individual actions of his, or that doesn't include considerable input from him. Now that I've seen the whole WSJ article, I reckon that it can safely be used as an independent reliable source for the points in it that L didn't repudiate.  —SMALLJIM  00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: GreenC: The context was originally included in the "Investment management and activism" section, which Smalljim removed, not me. I had The Wall Street Journal quote regarding the impact of his investment research on stocks included in this section, referencing and based on coverage of this investor activism in USA Today (several articles), Barron's, New York Post, The Street, etc. See the version here at 28 December 2015 at 20:40, which included this section (which is the context for the quote): [43]. On 30 December 2015 at 0:00, Smalljim removed this entire section (again without any talk page discussion, as usual) with this edit: [44], leaving the quote out of context and the entire biography without its most encyclopedically important (or at least second most important, after "Religious leadership and philanthropy" section. The context of that quote, as you correctly say and which was included until Smalljim's 30 December 2015 edit, is important not just as context to the quote but (even more importantly) to the biography generally. His investor activism and its significant impact have been ongoing topics in major media and are core to his biography, and the "Investment management and activism" section should be and needs to be reinstated. In fact, The Wall Street Journal profile was written predominantly on the impact of his investor activism, but we currently includes (after Smalljim's edit) zero on this impact. As such, yes, the quote looks out of context. What stocks is he actually "crashing?" I also don't see any need to maintain the quotes from his press release, which add no encyclopedic value, especially when another editor (Smalljim) is removing significant, substantive secondary quotes that get to the subject's nationally-covered views on his topics of expertise. Orthodox2014 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

About "Early life and education" section

Split out from RFC. This is narrower discussion focused on just one section of the article

As promised above, in restoring my updated version of this section, I want to explain here why the additions and revisions are useful and consistent with guidelines:

1.) I have reformatted the Master Investor reference used for his education. This is a mere formatting revision that reflects the fact that this reference does not appear earlier in the article. 2.) I have corrected the quote from the MetroWest reference. It did not say that he had a "desire" to be a priest. It said he felt a "calling from God" to be a priest. 3.) I have added a brief, insightful quote and reference I found that quotes him as saying, at the young age of 18, he had a vision of a reconciliation between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. This is useful as it relates to his later theological work described in articles about his participation in the Orthodox delegation with the Pope designed to accomplish exactly that.

Those are the only three (fairly minor but useful) revisions that I've made to this section, which I have restored. I'd welcome any comment in support or against these three changes. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to tackle this piecemeal.

2. I added the info from MetroWest when I discovered that your previous quote wasn't in any of the cited refs. I summarised the quote because I felt that a direct quote from him was unnecessary here, and the gist was the same. But I don't particularly object to this change, though the source does say "roughly 18", and I think "L. has said ..." reads better than "L said ...".
2a. However I do object to the re-addition, which you haven't mentioned, of two other references (Lantern and Amvona), that I removed because they are neither relevant or necessary.

3. The addition regarding his early vision of the churches reuniting would have been useful if he had told a reliable source about it at the time. But as it is, it appears to be a self-serving exceptional claim. We know that Lemelson is a prolific self-promoter and there's a lot of this sort of stuff in the article. We should not include it. I'd be interested to hear the views of other editors on this point – am I being over-cautious?  —SMALLJIM  21:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you are being over-cautious. The Lantern and Amvona links are poor refs. Amvona is already linked in the EL section, and that's plenty. The Lantern one is nothing at all. Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Response:

• No problem on tackling this piecemeal. That does make a lot more sense and hopefully makes it more manageable for everyone.
• Point 2: In the sentence with the quote from MetroWest, Grayfell has removed the word "overwhelming," saying in his edit note that this word does not appear in the quote [45]. Here is the precise quote: "At a young age, roughly 18, I felt an overwhelming call to serve God as a priest after an encounter with teacher/hero Rev. Fr. Robert Spitzer." I have bolded the word overwhelming, which does appear in the quote, and this is a good example of the sort of reckless, incorrect revisions that I want to fix as we move through this. Grayfell: I'm not trying to be combative, but will you please acknowledge that I had this quote exactly correct as it appears?
• Point 2a: I agree that those two references are not appropriate to that sentence and quote.
• Point 3: I'm not sure I understand your point. The reference used was an article by the Catholic News Service, which the article on this encyclopedia states is a nearly century-old, Washington, D.C.-based news organization and one of the largest and longest standing media outlets covering religion. CNS is cited as a reference on some of this encyclopedia's most notable pages as an objective, acceptable reference, including pages on Vatican City, Holy See–Iran relations, List of saints canonized by Pope Francis, Edwin Frederick O'Brien, and well done biographical and encyclopedic pages (literally hundreds of them on here). So I'm unclear what you mean when you write that it "would have been useful if he had told a reliable source about it at the time." Can you acknowledge that CNS is not, as you write, an unreliable source? Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Asking question again: Can we agree (see my point 3 and unanswered question above from five days ago) that CNS is a reliable reference? Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't claim that CNS was not reliable, I said that if L had told a reliable source about his reuniting vision at the time (i.e. when he was 18), we'd have been on a much stronger footing to include it as being a guiding principle in his religious work. Telling a reliable source about it twenty-odd years later isn't quite the same thing. Grayfell has dealt with the same point below. I'm off to bed now - can't you leave work earlier, or whatever, so we can have more time together? ;-))  —SMALLJIM  01:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The quote about having "fostered a vision" is not clearly attributed to Lemelson in the article. Lacking quotation marks, it should be seen as a summary of his statements. Taken in the larger context of a meeting between the Pope and the Patriarch, I don't find it insightful. It's too vague, for one. "Foster" is wide open to interpretation, and Lemelson's own words imply that in a way, he stopped fostering it for a while, or it wouldn't need to be "reignited". It's about his perspective on the meeting, and doesn't seem informative about him as a person. That's just my interpretation, but this is why restraint is called for in drawing quotes from interviews, (or near-quotes, in this case) because they are open to many interpretations.

The article did say he felt a calling from God, but again, that's not a direct quote from Lemelson, and that's not neutral wording, so I have tried to rephrase it to a more encyclopedic tone. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Response:

The quote in this article reads: "Father Lemelson, who holds a bachelor's degree in theology and religious studies from the Jesuit-run Seattle University and master's of divinity from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, told Catholic News Service that, as a young man, he fostered a vision that Catholics and Orthodox Christians would soon be reunited." An improvement to the wording of this part of the article would be to attribute the quote directly to Catholic News Service, so that it reads: Catholic News Service reported that Lemelson told them that "as a young man, he fostered a vision that Catholics and Orthodox Christians would soon be reunited." So I agree that this is strengthened by placing it in quotations, attributable to this media outlet. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're not trying to be combative, you shouldn't be calling other editors reckless for making a single minor error. Bolding my name makes it seem like you're yelling. You must know that I am actively involved in this talk-page discussion, so you don't need to shout to get my attention.

I apologize for the mistake about "overwhelming". In my defense, this is exactly why a massive number of overlapping sources should be avoided, as keeping track of them gets very confusing. Regardless, I stand by content changes of the edit, because it wasn't a neutral way to phrase the point. I don't think the word "overwhelming" is informative. I strongly feel that using a quote should be avoided when something can be easily rephrased in more neutral language. Using quotes is a way to subtly shift this into a platform for Lemelson to talk about himself, which is expressly not what Wikipedia is for.

The other quote is him talking about his early vision many years after the fact. If he had told the Catholic News Service about it when he was young (when?) then it would indicate that this was part of a long-term issue for him. As it is, it's a passing comment about a specific event which doesn't clearly establish this vision as being of greater significance. Like everyone, he has had many ideas and visions in his life, and not all of them, even one's he's commented about, belong here. This has nothing to do with the reliability of the Catholic News Service, but rather that the his vision went unreported at the time. Grayfell (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Response First, sorry about the bold. Certainly not yelling at you, but didn't want you want to miss the question tucked in with my other points. As to the brief "overwhelming" quote (available here: [46], the quote as it existed was accurate (as I think you've conceded). The use of it is important because, in one brief, well-referenced sentence, it accomplishes two things: 1.) It points out that his decision to enter the priesthood had a very definitive start, coming as it reportedly did as a teenager after his encounter with that Catholic priest and was an "overwhelming" calling, not a casual decision; and 2.) Given that his current theological work is focused largely on reconciling differences between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (which is how I read the media related to his delegation visit with the Pope and his commentary in major media), it's biographical that his inspiration to become an Orthodox priest was inspired by a Catholic priest, not anyone in the church with which he's currently affiliated. This quote, which pre-dates his Papal visit by about five months from my reading, points to the fact that his current work has been essentially a lifelong goal pre-dating his reported engagement with the Vatican, not a routine functional role in his position of religious leadership. So it briefly speaks to the inspiration for his current theological work, which would otherwise be absent in the biography. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ever heard of original research? The only verified fact here is that Lemelson told some news sources a few years ago that he got the calling when was about 18. Of course he dressed it up: it makes good copy. He'd been even more effusive in his 2013 interview with the California Business Journal!  —SMALLJIM  18:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There is zero "original research." The question is whether a one-sentence quote from him reported by the Catholic News Service related to what inspired him to pursue both his current profession and hold his current views on church reconciliation is or is not biographical. That's the only question. There is no other--and there certainly is no original research associated with including a public figure's documented commentary on the inspiration for them to do what they're doing. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you wrote above was packed with OR: "which is how I read the media related to...", "this quote ... points to the fact that...", "so it briefly speaks to...". I think that the short sentence we have in the article is quite sufficient to show where his calling originated, and we have a reference that provides more info for those who want it. In fact it might be better to replace the MetroWest ref with the CBJ one, as it contains more detail and can probably be used to replace some other refs elsewhere too. (Incidentally it also illustrates a strange habit that L has of avoiding use of the personal pronoun). I note, moreover, that in neither source does L mention anything about Spitzer's religion, (in one he says he's a "teacher/hero", in the other "a spiritual and intellectual giant – a Priest unlike any other") or indeed his own religion (if any) at that time, so your assumption of the importance of the difference is also not verified.  —SMALLJIM  19:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: Once again, Smalljim, you are wrong. The opening paragraph of the No original research policy clearly reads: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." Do you know this and feel it's your entitlement to misrepresent the policy, or are you again citing policies and references for your own purposes that you've not even bothered to read? Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course I know that, that's why I didn't remove what you wrote. It was intended to be slightly humorous – sorry if you didn't get it. The point was that you seemed to be following your own belief about what the references mean, rather than limiting yourself to what they actually say. Anyway, I trust you're happy with my rewrite of the sentence in question.  —SMALLJIM  00:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell that it's not worth mentioning that, many years later, Lemelson mentioned having once had such a vision. If he had been quoted at the young age about that, or if he had written and published about that at the young age, then it could/would be relevant in establishing that the meeting with the pope was providing some closure, was a long-wished for thing, whatever. As the facts are, working the assertion into the Early Life and Education section, for express purpose of making the later pope thing resonate (pretty much what Orthodox2014 stated as purpose), is perhaps part of good story-writing, like in a novel or in an expressly favorable biography. But using the assertion is unfair/incorrect for an encyclopedia article.

(Going off-topic: Is there a name for that specific kind of literary device? I believe it is commonly used in story-telling, as in how a preacher might tell a story, where the ending turns out to conveniently fulfill the precise vision that was set up earlier. "I dreamed X, then later X happened" is the recipe? I recall a church's national magazine reporting of a near-retirement missionary who came back to Texas and dreamed of an oil strike on a property they owned, where the oil strike would raise exactly some sum of money. That sum of money turned out to be the exact sum needed to build the retirement home. Then the oil strike happened, and the home was built, and it was all very satisfying, story-wise, and the missionary joked that they should have dreamed for a bigger sum of money. Such a story is great for an inspirational piece in a church newsletter/magazine or in a sermon, but the dream is not verifiable and is too convenient and is not acceptable for an encyclopedia article. (So when I think about it, i conclude: no way in heck should that assertion be used.) :) --doncram 02:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh dang it... I'm sure there is a name for that... It's kinda like foreshadowing, and kinda like Chekhov's gun, but there's something even more specific... Maybe I'll remember in the middle of the night. Grayfell (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: You might take a look at the response I just posted above to Grayfell, which addresses some of these issues. But I think the case for its inclusion is that he offered commentary predating his work on reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, which shows that this work is not just some routine functional responsibility but was documentably a vision that predates his engagement with the Vatican on this church reconciliation work. His commentary that this reconciliation work (broadly covered in major media outlets, including Fox News, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, etc.) speaks to this not being just some routine part of his current religious leadership position, but was a documentably long-held vision and goal. This speaks to his motivation, which (given the high profile nature of the work and commentary) is biographical, especially when we can accomplish it with a well-documented one-sentence quote. As it relates to the timing of the quote (which is reflective), it seems reasonable to take the man at his word, especially when we are using it as a specific quote--i.e., this is what motivated him to hold the views that he does and to do what he's doing. Orthodox2014 (talk)

We've all gotten a little sloppy with the WP:TPG, editing comments after people have responded, off-topic stuff, etc., but inserting a response in the middle of someone else's comments makes the conversation too hard to follow because it removes the signature. I'm moving your response to a more linear place.

As for what you are saying, Lemelson says a lot of things in both major and minor works, that's at least a part of why he's notable, but adding these quotes because they support a point about having long-term vision is ultimately arbitrary. It's not about trusting his word, it's about relevance. The burden is on you, here, is to establish that his youthful vision was biographically important to his early life -not just work he has done as an adult. If this comment were in the paragraph about the Pope and the Patriarch, I'm still not sure it would be a good fit, but at least it would be properly contextualized. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it does more properly belong there. I will move it. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that was a good move. I've reformatted the paragraph so it flows more smoothly and more accurately represents the sources.  —SMALLJIM  14:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Grayfell, regarding the "encounter" with Spitzer, what do you think about changing the reference in that section to the one I mentioned above earlier today (2013 interview in the California Business Journal, at archive.org)? It's a much longer interview and seems to be a more accurate transcript of what L actually said (as far as one can tell). It also gives more precise details, e.g. he says the meeting with Spitzer was when he was 17. It includes details that would be useful for the "Early business career" section too.  —SMALLJIM  23:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC) Since there's such a plethora of sources it's reasonable for us to take a view on which ones are the most reliable, and use those in preference to the others, I think.  —SMALLJIM 

Yeah, makes sense. This isn't intended to be a criticism of Lemelson, but that interview makes me a bit wary. Interviews are poor for establishing due weight, and that one is about as soft-ball as they come. Keeping that in mind, like you said, there's some good stuff there which clarifies a few details. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I definitely agree regarding weight, but I feel that it's an authentic primary source that we can make use of. The same goes for the Amvona Fund 2012 Annual Report that I used to verify his candy-selling business in the article - there's some other good stuff in there too. All being well I'll make the changes tomorrow unless you want to pre-empt. I'm off to bed for a (relatively) early night :)  —SMALLJIM  00:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Further to this I've found a third interview (here) in which he says something else again (see his reply to the first question). Since the encounter was clearly significant for him, and therefore important to the understanding of his character, I think it's reasonable to cite all three interviews. Two of them at least are (going to be) used elsewhere too, so I think this is OK, even though we do seem to have a lot of primary source material. That raises the concerns re primary sources set out in WP:PRIMARY, but I don't think we're overloaded yet. Comments welcome, of course.  —SMALLJIM  16:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Lemelson Capital Management section

I'm sorry to add yet another chunk to the saga (is anyone else still following all this?!) but this much-reduced section is at the centre of Orthodox2014's complaints about the current version of this article. Over at Talk:Lemelson Capital Management#JOBS equals advertising I've set out reasons for being cautious about relying on the media coverage of Lemelson's hedge fund. Those concerns have application here too, and suggest that we should revise the wording and review the references used.  —SMALLJIM  16:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Following. I have not drilled down that far into the sources to comment but will if needed another opinion. I have access to many commercial databases should an offline article be needed. -- GreenC 19:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Do these databases cover older print sources? I suspect that there must be sources from the late 1990s/early 2000s that cover the Amvona photo accessory business, which I think was quite a popular concern in the US at the time and should have generated some interest from specialist magazines. Some independent content about this aspect would be a useful addition to the article. —SMALLJIM  21:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: Ping! in case you missed this. Is this the sort of thing you might be able to help with, or do you need exact details of articles?  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: discussion on this section seems to be continuing in "Investment management and activism" below.  —SMALLJIM  17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Investment management and activism

Prior to its removal, this section included what I would view as content right at the core of this subject's notability as an activist investor. From my readings of the references (USA Today (multiple articles), New York Post (multiple articles), Barron's, Fox Business News, The Street, etc.), the subject's impact in this field has been hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of dollars of impact in the market valuations of the publicly-traded companies in which he's been involved, which was captured in this section before its removal. I see every good reason to restore that and will do so unless there are any specific, compelling reasons not to. As examples of pages that include comparable work, take a look at these BLPs:

Bill Ackman: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Career" section.

Michael Burry: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Investment career" section.

Carl Icahn: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Business acquisition and investment timeline" section.

David Einhorn: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Notable marketplays" section.

Daniel Loeb: All of his activist investing efforts and references included in his "Notable marketplays" section.

Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not really Lemelson himself it is his fund. He is the fund manager so there is overlap, but since we have an article about the company it doesn't make sense to include everything about the company in Lemelson's personal biography, just as his full biographical details are not in the company article. Rather we summarize the most important points and link to the appropriate main article for more detail. Please note there is no consensus to restore. -- GreenC 17:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: I read all these references before using them and they are all clear that the investment activist steps (at least for those six particular stocks) were him personally. Have you had a chance to read these references? See, for instance:

• "Kulicke & Soffa shares surge after investor urges buyback." "Investor," not firm: [47].
• "Kulicke & Soffa heeds activist's call, launches buyback." "Activist," meaning the person, not the firm: [48].
• "Money manager betting against biotech firm Ligand Pharmaceuticals." "Money manager" (the person, Lemelson): [49].
• "Hedge Fund guru Emmanuel Lemelson just revealed how he's trading Apple" ("guru," meaning the person): [50].
• "Lemelson takes down World Wrestling Entertainment and Brings it Back Up." From article: "Believe it or not, that is exactly what Reverend Emmanuel Lemelson of Lemelson Capital Management has accomplished in the shares of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.": [51]. And many others for those six specific stocks.

For the six stocks I referenced, I had references clearly establishing that the the major stock fluctuations were a part of his activism individually. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

He was working in the capacity as head of the fund at the time. It's also not uncommon for the press to focus on an individual within an organization in particular when the organization is his namesake. -- GreenC 02:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox2014, no-one else who has commented here has ever agreed with you on this point. Please stop raising it and accept the consensus. If you look at my sandbox draft, you'll see that I've suggested a revised version for the section (under a heading of "Hedge fund manager") in which I've concentrated more on his input rather than on the detailed performance of the fund that's currently in the equivalent "Lemelson Capital Management" section of the article. You can look on this as a compromise: further details are in Lemelson Capital Management, as linked, and I note that you have also added detailed information to WWE, Skechers and Lumber Liquidators – all also linked, or would be – (and to Kulicke & Soffa Industries, which article has since been deleted) so overall L's investment activism is very well covered. It's time to move on.  —SMALLJIM  17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the title of this section, I really think people need to stop using the term 'investment activist', which sounds very much like a PUFF phrase to me. Only Seeking Alpha uses anything like that language, while the mainstream news sources never do. Describing things objectively using normal language will help sort out the 'spin' from the facts. Sionk (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it does seem to be a real term per activist investor. It's an investor who takes a large stake in a public company then uses that position to force action within the company such as change of management. WWE and Kulicke & Soffa Industries were both activist positions there is no doubt. But other of his trades are not clearly activist so it's not modus operandi - simply moving stock prices by releasing a thesis is not activist investor. He likes to think of himself as an activist, per his press release, and a couple reliable sources confirm he made a couple activist positions so it's supportable, but in a few cases. -- GreenC 04:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions for Orthodox2014

Since Orthodox2014 was the original author of this article and there are a number of outstanding queries, I thought it would be a good idea to collect them together here.

@Orthodox2014: could you answer the following enquiries please?

• From where did you get the information that Lemelson has four children? My note under the "Personal life" section above refers.
• From where did you get the information about his schools and his parents' names? These details aren't in the cited ref and I can't find them online anywhere.
• I keep coming across http://www.amvona.com/featured/economic-analysis/itemlist/user/44-fr-emmanuel-lemelson which is presently used to verify three statements (it's reference no. 20 as I write this 24 after your edit to the lead), but the page is just a contents page providing short summaries to articles on the Amvona site. I can't see that this verifies any of the statements it's supposed to. I've checked the Wayback Machine back to before your first version of the article (when you cited the page 5 times), but it's always been just a contents page. Can you explain, or provide better refs?

And two about your edit to the lead a few minutes ago:

• He's only a cultural leader if a reliable source has said he is. Is there such a source?
• What's wrong with describing him as a "former businessman", isn't that accurate?

 —SMALLJIM  17:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response:

1.) The four children is mentioned right in the middle of The Wall Street Journal profile: "Mr. Lemelson, who is married with four children..." Am I misreading that?

2.) You've removed a lot of references, but I see no current reference for the parents and would propose removing it unless there is one. I believe it came from one of his primary biographies but I can't find it now. I'd recommend removing it. It's not terribly encyclopedic anyway. The schools are in the Master Investor source and I believe a few other sources.

3.) I think the best primary biography (or at least the best one I could find) is on The Lantern Foundation site: [52].

4.) and 5.) I answered these where you posted them above. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to know how Orthodox2014 knows these personal details. It's my understanding that Wikipedia generally discourages people from writing articles about themselves, or people they have a close connection with. It creates a conflict of interest, where the needs of the person come first and Wikipedia comes second. Wikipedia becomes a social media marketing channel rather than an encyclopedia. Thus it's important that anyone who has a COI say so otherwise eventually editors figure it out and it can be embarrassing for that individual since these talk pages remain part of the permanent record searchable on Google. However if they are honest about it, there is no problem, the community is happy to work with them under the guidelines set forth at WP:COI. -- GreenC 18:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: I actually don't have any personal details and have tried (apparently excessively so) to make sure my stuff has been properly referenced. A lot of those references have been removed. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

In reply to your responses to my five questions:

1. The reference you added for four children on 13 November (not in October, sorry) was to the WSJ video: http://www.wsj.com/video/the-priest-who-moonlights-as-a-hedge-fund-manager/F47F7EBE-9D59-4BB4-948F-5AD41EA1B5F2.html. I assume you're referring now to Copeland's WSJ article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/hedge-fund-priest-thou-shalt-make-money-1445918531?mod=mktw that L complained about. Shame you got it wrong: I haven't read all that article, it's paywalled here. Can anyone send me a copy?

2. I looked at archived versions of the references that you included in your first version of the article, but haven't found the parent or school details. Since the Master Investor article is from June 2015 and is much vaguer than our article, it's more likely they took the detail from us – you certainly couldn't have got it from there back in April 2014.

3. OK, that may be a useful biography, but does it verify the statements? I still don't understand, though, why you've used an index page as a source for multiple statements – what went wrong?

4. Please provide a reliable source for him being called a "cultural leader", else it'll have to go.

5. I'll reply above (in "About Biographical header section").

All in all, despite your claims of careful research, the evidence does raise concerns about the accuracy of your referencing.  —SMALLJIM  20:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Response:

The video and the article are on the same page, but the four children is referenced in the article. That's where I got it. I'm totally confused how you are creating an entire section to this page and titling it "Criticism" ::::with quotes from an article you now admit you haven't even read. How's that possible? You've been pretty clear you don't like my edits. I don't really like yours. You've been routinely wrong. I don't think anything I've ::::added has been inaccurate or unreferenced. I'd suggest we move along section by section and hope we can develop a good page together. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I carefully avoided giving any impression in what I wrote that I had seen the entire article by Copeland (and I removed the phrase "was critical of Lemelson" following your comments). If you'd like to email me the text, we might find that it includes something else worth mentioning.  —SMALLJIM  20:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any response to the other points?  —SMALLJIM  20:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

How do you feel you "carefully avoided giving any impression" that you had seen the entire article? You made no mention of that in your edit note or on this page, and you boldly started an entire section on it, labeling the section "Criticism" when it didn't even include anything critical. Also, how do you quote an article that you say you could not access? Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't suppose anything I can say will stop you complaining about what you consider to be an error I've made. But don't expect me to continue responding about it and don't let it stop you working towards a consensus version of the article. With regard to accurate referencing I'm reminded of the parable of the Mote and the Beam – see the several problems I've tried to resolve in this section alone! Anyway, for completeness I'll explain: instead of trying to infer what was in the WSJ article from L's responses to it, I only quoted two items included in Copeland's summary, and cited that. I also cited the Neos Kosmos article, which provided some more context. Considering L's vehement response to the article, it was obvious that it "was critical of" him, but I later removed that phrase after reflection and your comments (see "Consensus version" above). Having now read the whole thing, I think L's description of it as a "thinly-veiled ad hominem attack" is not too wide of the mark, but the fact that the publisher has said it stands by the article is important. You're being disingenuous in claiming that it isn't critical. Now that I can fully confirm the WSJ article's content, I don't see any real need to retain the backup references to Copeland's summary and Neos Kosmos. I'm sure you won't object if I remove them, so I'll do that.  —SMALLJIM  12:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So back to the questions at issue in this section: No. 1 is dealt with. Nos. 2 and 3: I'm not going to harp on about your repeated citations of sources that have never, as far as can be determined, verified the claims in the article, but it would help your credibility if you could explain why that happened. For 2. I've already replaced his claimed parent's names with something that's verified by the WSJ article; I'll edit the details of the schools he attended when someone (me I suppose...) can determine what can accurately be said about them (if anything – as I said above, the MasterInvestor piece reads more like the details it provides were taken from here). Without reliable sources, the details that you added to Geschwister-Scholl-Schule (Tübingen) and Mercer Island High School will need to be removed as well. For 3. I'm going to have to go through the article and check if the statements cited to that faulty reference can be verified elsewhere (or you could do that?). No 4: we still need a verifiable source for him being called a cultural leader. No 5: re "former businessman". I wonder if "former" is accurate: does running a hedge fund mean that he still is a businessman?  —SMALLJIM  16:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Orthodox2014: I'm pinging you because you may have missed this. Do you yet have replies to the two enquiries that are still outstanding here, and to the two in the 'About "Religious leadership and philanthropy"' section above? Regarding 2 and 3 in this section, although I'm not going to keep complaining about it, I'm still wondering if you can explain what went wrong with the referencing. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  23:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to get any help with this, so I'll deal with it myself. For the record, the problems identified here indicate that your recent claims that "I don't think anything I've added has been inaccurate or unreferenced" (above, 9 Jan) and that your version of the article was "accurate in all respects (no one has ever challenged the accuracy of anything)" cannot be supported.  —SMALLJIM  12:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

About "Religious leadership and philanthropy"

@Smalljim: The sentence and quote regarding the reconciliation of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, which you've removed, are really quite central to this religious leadership and his biography generally. On a comparable basis, for instance, the fact that he sold candy in sixth grade, which you've added (without any discussion here), is considerably less biographically significant (even though I think your addition of the sixth grade thing is a nice add). The sentence and quote you've removed, I believe strongly, should be reinstated. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Orthodox2014: Just seen the above, sorry – getting hard to keep track of everything here, isn't it! I assume you mean this edit. That quote is just one more religious-based thing he has been reported as saying – it would only be "central" if many independent sources had picked up on it and discussed it in relation to him. Before considering embellishing the article like this, it's more important that we get the facts about him correct, hence the following:

1. Can you explain the process by which L acquired the name "Emmanuel"? This archived reference in Greek is the only one I'm aware of that provides any detail of his ordination, and as far as I can tell (with help from Google Translate), it doesn't say anything about him being granted that name at the ceremony: he's just called "Emmanuel":

Το Σάββατο 23 και την Κυριακή 24 Ιουλίου ο Σεβ. Μητροπολίτης Προύσης, κατόπιν σχετικού αιτήματος του Θεοφιλεστάτου Επισκόπου Φιλομηλίου, κ. Ηλία, προέβη στη χειροτονία σε διάκονο και πρεσβύτερο, αντιστοίχως, του κ. Εμμανουήλ Lemelson, αποφοίτου της Θεολογικής Σχολής του Τιμίου Σταυρού Βοστώνης.

At least the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America Yearbooks (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/yearbook here) confirm he's maintained his position at Holy Trinity in South Boston: I'll add that as a source in due course. In the meantime, 2. Is there a source for the date of the assignation to the Switzerland post? It's not covered in the cited refs.  —SMALLJIM  00:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: The name Emmanuel was contained in one of the references you removed, Daily Reckoning. The same article also says he was ordained on July 24, 2011 and assigned as the presiding priest at the church of the Epiphany in Lugano, Switzerland, which probably should be added. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see that I ever removed any references from that sentence. Please advise when I did that.  —SMALLJIM  01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think I've found it now. I assume you mean it was in this edit where I removed it as one of eight of your "Other sources" from a different section of the article, so I feel somewhat justified in not immediately spotting it! The reference wasn't linked to the online article either, but I've found it now (it's at dailyreckoning.com which is on the Spam blacklist, so I can't include a link either: the path is /how-a-priest-could-wrestle-profits-from-the-wwe/).

However that source doesn't answer either of the questions posed by the unreferenced statements in the article:
1. What's the process by which he acquired the name "Emmanuel" – I would have expected that to have been in the Greek source which deals with such (presumably) religious matters; something like 'on his ordination he was granted the name Emmanuel' would have been good. A passing reference by a small-cap trading specialist isn't a good source: he may well have taken it from the Wikipedia article, after all you added the "granted" statement in your first version of the article in April 2014 which pre-dates the source you're trying to rely on. See, without a reliable source how do we know that he hadn't already changed his name by deed poll (or whatever the equivalent is in the US) because it sounds better for a religious man? (Before you jump on that, I'm not suggesting that he did, just that we don't know how he acquired the name). You added the text, so you either had a source in April 2014, or you just assumed it. Please do a bit of research and find out for us.
2. The unreferenced part is the date in the article: June 2013. Exactly the same applies – you must have got it from somewhere.
I've no real objection to leaving these statements in for now – they're not really important issues, are they? – but if we do keep them we'll need to adjust the referencing to avoid giving the impression that they are verified by citations when they aren't.  —SMALLJIM  12:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've amended the article based on the above.  —SMALLJIM  13:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Significant concerns about Smalljim's edits

1.) By way of background, I have spent over 18 months researching this subject and compiling and reading carefully over a hundred reliable secondary references for it (essentially anything and everything I could find in the public domain). The article and references of this article's most recent good version, which included the input of other editors, an incorporation of some of Smalljim's edits and which had been reviewed by other editors and remained in tact for roughly a year and a half is available here: [53]. This version, which Smalljim keeps wrongly describing as my "version," was well written, well referenced and in strict compliance with WP:BLP. In fact, even now there really is no ongoing dispute that anything in this version was inaccurate or inconsistent with any policy or guidelines. That's not to say that perhaps there are not areas for potential improvement of it (which I support and have encouraged and solicited on this talk page), but its wholesale removal by Smalljim was entirely unwarranted and has instead left an article he has singularly developed that is filled with nearly libelous errors and misstatements (see points that follow).

2.) Smalljim has stated several times on this page that no one agrees with points I have made on this talk page, in which I have challenged Smalljim's wholesale removal of notable content and his addition of documentably inaccurate information. In fact, there really is no significant editor input on the page right now aside from my own efforts to ensure its accuracy and Smalljim's efforts to remove content, defend (or not comment on) the insertion of inaccurate content and diminish the subject generally. Additionally, legitimate questions I've raised about Smalljim's edits on this page have gone rountinely unanswered or been unresponsive to the underlying concerns in my questions to him. Unfortunately, he's largely gone unchallenged in this behavior, and one of the reasons is that he's repeatedly made false allegations against me, including abruptly opening an entire baseless COI complaint, which was rejected by the community. Despite this, no one removed the COI tag on this talk page, which almost certainly has prejudiced new editors that Smalljim has involved to support his damaging, inaccurate, diminutive edits to the page. Additionally, despite the fact that the page had been reviewed and slightly modified by myself and other editors, including compromising on and including Smalljim's less contentious edits over the last 18 months, Smalljim continues to wrongly state that there was no consensus for the version previously linked in point one above, or that's it's somehow my version (it's one support but project no ownership over).

3.) Smalljim has repeatedly (on this and other talk pages) demonstrated his hardened biases against the subject and his personal motivations to diminish the notable biographical components of the subject, which he's done in this current version that includes multiple violations of WP:BLP. These biases are evident, for example, in comments he's published on this and and other talk pages, including:

a.) On December 30, 2015, Smalljim writes that the subject "isn't as divine or important" as depicted. In the version that he's replaced with his own, there never no adjectives describing the subject in this or any other way.

b.) On January 6, 2016, Smalljim referred to the subject as a "prolific self-promoter." I'm not even sure what that means and see no evidence of it. It's another hugely biased judgment, unless Smalljim knows him personally. And even if he does, the subject's firm seems to function like most companies and financial firms do, periodically announcing major developments.

c.) On January 14, 2016, Smalljim writes, in response to the previous version's inclusion of a Fox Business News video reference, that I "want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice." Seriously, this is the depth of bias we're dealing with here.

4.) In the wholesale replacement of the previously well-researched article, developed over almost two years with input from other editors who had edited it, Smalljim recreated abruptly in no more than a few hours an error-ridden one he developed on his own and which repeatedly violates WP:BLP, WP:Verifiability, and other policies in many ways. Just a few examples:

a.) In the lede sentence, Smalljim describes the subject as a "businessman" and "social commentator," neither of which are supported by any source at all anywhere. This was pointed out to him in talk discussion here. But even after acknowledging that a source was needed for a vocational description, Smalljim just plowed ahead and inserted the inaccurate, unreferenced vocational descriptions anyway. He also has reworded section headers to reflect these verifiably inaccurate labels (again disregarding concerns raised on this page and disregarding also his own proclamation that every vocational label required reliable secondary sources).

b.) Smalljim has taken the liberty of inventing yet another fictional description of the subject, writing that: "His investment research and analysis has been published in national media." Again, this is totally untrue and unreferenced but it is conveniently used to support his other inaccurate statement that the subject in involved in "advertising." While it is not uncommon for mutual and hedge funds to advertise, in my 18 months of research on this subject I was unable to locate even one such advertisement. Smalljim is likely also aware of this, but (consistent with his biases and agenda to diminish the subject), he's presenting legitimate major national media coverage of the subject as paid media advertising, which it clearly isn't (Fox Business News interviews, USA Today articles multiple times, The Wall Street Journal documentary and article, New York Post multiple articles, The Street article, etc.). The vast coverage of the subject and his activist investment efforts by major media outlets (literally dozens of such articles), of course, is objective media, not paid advertising.

c.) Smalljim (either because he does not have even a rudimentary understanding of the alternative investment industry or because of his strong biases against the subject referenced above, or both) has added a severely inaccurate and deceptive paragraph that misdefines and misapplies a complex U.S. regulatory policy (JOBS Act) that defines disclosure rules guiding whether and in what ways a hedge fund can disclose its performance results (defined as the quantifiable rate of return of the respective hedge fund). It has zero applicability to the subject's media coverage that's referenced.

d.) In the live version that Smalljim authored and uploaded, he uses multiple inaccurate and/or POV terms, including representing "net returns" as "total returns" (huge difference) and using the hugely POV adjective "small" in describing the hedge fund managed by the subject.

5.) In reviewing the comments about Smalljim throughout his edit history, it's clear this is not the first, second or third time he has incited conflict with other editors and violated Wikipedia policies for administrators and users generally. The repeated complaints and concerns about his combative, often inaccurate editing style really require the attention of those managing and monitoring administrators.

6.) I am going to revert the unilateral changes that he has just made, which are a wholesale transfer of his sandbox version. In the last few days, I also have actively sought out input from other editors to the page, including from those in work groups who likely have greater knowledge about the subject's professions. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks I need to respond to any of these claims/allegations, I'll be happy to do so. But I'd like to just clear up one simple misunderstanding at point 4b. I merely replaced "has been cited regularly in <list of 5 media outlets>" with the phrase "has been published in national media", and then copied-&-pasted the whole original sentence into the "Hedge fund manager" section, with a perfectly understandable edit summary of "trim details, moved to appropriate section. The lead is a summary." Oh, and point 6: it was not a wholesale transfer of my sandbox version, it was a carefully considered series of changes based on the discussions on this page, as explained in the edit summaries, in two existing sections of this page, and in the new Updates subsection above.

Look, I understand that you're angry, Orthodox2014, and I suppose that excuses making errors like these, but you're just wasting everyone's time by writing them out without properly checking. I'm going to undo your revert once because you haven't engaged in any reasoned discussion about the changes I made. Please think carefully before reverting again.  —SMALLJIM  20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 4.d, the Wall Street Journal defined small hedge funds as having less than 5 billion in assets.[54] Given this one has 20 million, and the WSJ uses the term "small" to define this class, "small" is a neutral and accurate descriptor where the fund stands in the context of the industry. -- GreenC 22:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: Can you find any biography of any hedge fund manager on Wikipedia that describes the size of their fund using adjectives from sources not directly related to the subject in the body of the text? If "small" was used in the WSJ or other reference on the subject, that would seem reasonable to include. But you're extrapolating unrelated sources and, if not directly used in reference to this fund, that's POV. Also, there are something over a dozen serious questions that I've raised on this talk page that remain unanswered while your efforts are placed on what appears to be excluding my input to be helpful in just getting this right. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Within the hedge fund industry this is a small fund, saying so is not POV anymore than calling a Mini a small car. The WSJ journal supports use of this terminology and size category for hedge funds. -- GreenC 02:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox2014, you recently re-added the term "cultural leader" into the first sentence of the article, and in the "About Biographical header section" of this page you've used the same argument you're using here in favour of including that term. You're using the same argument for a completely unreferenced claim that makes him sound important, and against the term "small hedge fund" that in your view belittles him in some way (but which is clearly appropriate, as GreenC points out). The same applies to the descriptive term "businessman". I don't know exactly what it is that's motivating your COI (and as long as it's not payment, it doesn't really matter), but your arguments are specious and the fact that no-one is agreeing with you should have driven the point home by now that you need to stop.  —SMALLJIM  17:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't help adding that I've just discovered that Lemelson himself referred to his fund as small: "...given the fund's continued small size..." in its 2014 Annual Report (pdf file, p.22). With a footnote indicating that he sees that as an advantage.  —SMALLJIM  13:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Smalljim edits and approach remarkably similar to those of Qworty

Non-productive personal attacks, not about this article, editor has been banned

Smalljim has stated repeatedly and openly his feelings towards the subject. Here are just a few examples from various pages (there are others): a.) On December 30, 2015, Smalljim writes that the subject "isn't as divine or important" as I have depicted him. I've never used any adjectives in describing the subject. b.) On January 6, 2016, Smalljim referred to the subject as a "prolific self-promoter." I'm not even sure what that means and see no evidence of it. It's another hugely biased judgment, unless Smalljim knows him personally. And even if he does, the subject seems to function like most companies and firms do, periodically announcing major developments relevant to its constituencies. c.) On January 14, 2016, Smalljim writes, in response to me including a Fox Business News video reference, that I "want to force people to gaze into Lemelson's hypnotic eyes and be swayed by his soothing voice." d.) On January 23, 2016, Smalljim writes: "I'm going to return to the normal practice of making changes with edit summary explanations rather than raising them here first. Happy to discuss anything, of course, but I suspect that these two articles will soon sink back into relative obscurity." Of course, he isn't happy to discuss anything and has forged ahead with his own erroneous version of the article. And he states that his objective is to move the two articles "into relative obscurity," a clearly stated editorial objective inconsistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. These comments make it obvious that Smalljim does not have a neutral point of view when it comes to the subject and his actions and the recent dynamics and fallout on these talk and related pages are remarkably similar to those of User:Qworty, who also gained much support for his destructive editing to biographies. Essentially Smalljim is taking out notable and major achievements well documented in major secondary sources and replacing them with inaccurate words and information that cannot be found in any sources. In just one major example, he removes the work of the man in moving share prices in publicly-traded companies by hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars of market value (which had been extraordinarily well documented by reliable major media secondary sources), with a one line entry wrongly stating the man he had "advertised" the fund using the JOBS act (nowhere in the source he uses does it reference the subject "advertising" and in fact his early reference for this claim stated the opposite, that the subject sought to close his fund to new investors – in direct contradiction to Smalljim’s edit). The original reference that was removed is here: [55]. I’ve included several paragraphs below from the article about the Qworty example, but one especially jumps out is this one: "In the aftermath of the Filipacchi episode, Qworty did not lack for defenders. Qworty, like many other Wikipedia editors, took seriously his responsibility to root out what he considered self promotion, *unjustifiable praise or outright puffery. Just the facts, ma’am! He described himself, on his own Wikipedia user page, as particularly focused on identifying and fixing “articles with potential conflicts of *interest.”... Something about the subject's religion, finances or other endeavors or connections seems to rankle Smalljim, or perhaps he knows the subject personally. Either way, it is irrefutable that he lacks (based on his own open comments) a NPOV and that he has stated clearly he wishes to make punitive edits. The key thing is, it’s all been seen before on WP (undoubtedly Qworty is just one example). It seems if you pick the right allegations, a small number of editors will come to your defense, even if your edits are patently false and destructive and not supported by the sources. The key thing is that Smalljim has repeatedly claimed "consensus" using essentially agreement of primarily just one other editor (GreenCardamom), who has made no substantive contributions to the page and seems to be completely unfamiliar with the content of the sources. He does, however, show strong agreement with SmallJim’s contention that, as the primary author of the page, I somehow have a COI, a claim Qworty often used as well to deflect attention away from his destructive edits and gather support against an editor that insisted on accurate and factual information supported by references. If you look at the commentary of those who have weighed in on this talk page and elsewhere, they have taken the easy "gang" mentality of attacking me, the primary author of the page, as somehow having a COI, rather than addressing the very legitimate concerns I've raised on the talk pages and elsewhere (this reaction was sparked by Smalljim adding a COI tag to the talk page and listing my user account). That is because it is easy to make quick accusations, but hard and time-consuming to read through hundreds of sources and get involved with the content. Of course, this is exactly the invitation that I haven made to each editor who has come along (though none have taken up the offer). None have been able to respond thus far to the valid points raised regarding Smalljim's destructive edits. Smalljim is essentially the only editor on the page now. He claims "consensus" for his edits using the support essentially of just one other editor (GreenCardamom), who makes allegations against me like Smalljim, but can’t address the legitimate concerns raised and does essentially no work on the page himself. Other editors who have weighed in also have not engaged the concerns or the content of the page, again lodging only personal attacks on me and leaving Smalljim emboldened to continue to distort and manipulate the page in inaccurate ways. I am going to start a new Sandbox version. In the past, I have included many of Smalljim's edits (even though he has excluded all of mine). I am going to edit this sandbox version with clear edit notes for other editors to follow. I will continue to invite other editors to the sandbox version to review the work and examine the supporting references for the content. By doing this, I hope to get more editors involved who are not related to Smalljim and have not worked in tandem with him before in the past (as appears to be the case in the present situation). You can read the full article on Qworty’s manipulation and destructive, angry edits here: [56]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC) You had better not start a new sandbox version and dump it wholesale onto this article. That makes it impossible for anyone to meaningfully discuss any changes or issues. far from being a "gang attack" on your edits, we are simply trying to apply Wikipedia policy, which looks to make a balanced, neutral point of view appraisal of a subject, without excessive promotion, one-sidedness, excess use of minor sources, excessive use of inline citations etc. You can surely only see the previous discussions as an 'attack on you' if you are Emmanuel Lemelson. Discussions have been about which sources are appropriate, what claims they make or facts they verify. I don't know what the solution is. I for one haven't got the same patience as Smalljim to engage you over a long period discussing the minutiae of one American investor. But I dislike promotion and ownership of articles so maybe I should take a keener interest. Why you have such a single-minded interest in Emmanuel Lemelson I really don't understand. You really need to go away and edit other areas of Wikipedia, for the sake of everyone's sanity. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC) I'm collapsing this. This long-winded character attack is a violation of WP:NPA, and Orthodox2014 has been banned, so I see no value in continuing. Honestly, WP:REVDEL seems like a good choice, too, but if anyone wants to continue this, just remove the collapse instead of editing around it. Grayfell (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A sandbox version

I'm finding it difficult to update this article piecemeal due to the many changes that I think it needs. Therefore I've started a revised version in a sandbox. I plan to use this to guide the changes to the live article, but if it receives favourable comment, I'd be happy to replace the current version with it if there's consensus to do so. So please, whoever is still here, let me know what you think of it. I've tried to make a more balanced version that includes the important aspects of Lemelson's life. There are some hidden comments explaining particular points.  —SMALLJIM  12:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: We just got done discussing your and other editor's concerns that this is not the way to update or improve this article and that the way to do it is section by section with edit discussions on the talk page. Additionally, I think it's important that you review the definition of "balance" as it relates to this site's definition. You seem to suggest that anything that reflects on the subject's industry notability or accomplishments needs to be removed and offset with an addition that reflects poorly on him. Of course, that's not the policy as written in WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. And then following this policy that you've adopted, you seem to be struggling in an effort to find content critical of him, resulting in your removing content core to the subject's biography and adding extraneous, largely unnotable minutia that is not core.

Finally, you keep coming back to a definition of the subject's vocation as a "businessperson," which really is not the sort of specificity used to describe someone in fund management or investment activism. For instance, review these pages of activist investors engaged in work comparable to this subject:

Michael Burry

Andrew Left

The profession is "hedge fund manager" and/or "activist investor," not "businessperson."

Also, several times now, you've written that the fund and/or Lemelson have "advertised," but I'm not seeing any advertisements. Like most companies and financial institutions, it appears they've issued press releases from time to time on significant developments, which is commonplace in industry. Do you have links to these advertisements? That word "advertising" doesn't seem to apply here, unless I'm missing something. When a media outlet covers a subject or company, for instance, that's not what anyone would define as "advertising."

I also have raised more detailed concerns about the ongoing POV and violations of the BLP in your edits on the Lemelson Capital Management talk page here: [57].

Given the fact that we clearly are not seeing eye to eye on your additions, removals and edits, I'd ask that you maintain the commitment we all made to make article changes incrementally (section by section) after we've discussed them on the talk page. As one example, if you feel that he is more properly described in the introduction as a "businessperson" as opposed to an "activist investor," raise that issue above in the "Biographical header" section here: [58]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else?  —SMALLJIM  16:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked it over. The section titles have changed for the better (more neutral and simple) - most of the same material is there. Some has been been deleted. It would probably help to clarify what material was deleted, somehow, with a brief rationale. There is no doubt he is a "hedge fund manager". About 'activist investor', is the what he is commonly called in reliable sources? -- GreenC 17:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I embedded several html comments about the most significant changes, both explanatory and notes to myself; I hope they will be useful. They're visible on the edit page (a text search for <!-- will find them). It's awkward, I know, but I use the syntax highlighter gadget that colour-codes wikitext markup making stuff like this easier to spot. This isn't a finished piece of work, by the way (as you'll see from the html comments). I've labelled Lemelson as a hedge fund manager both in the lead and in the section title, so I don't know what Ortho is going on about there.  —SMALLJIM  19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: The discussion about any revisions properly belongs on this talk page, not on your personal sandbox page. Please address any specific changes here, as we all agreed. To your other point, the professions of "hedge fund manager" (the investment of other people's money) and "activist investor" (using share ownership to drive management and other changes in a company) are two different functions. He does both and both should be included. Hedge fund manager is notable because of the industry-leading performance of the fund. The activist investor role because of the impact his activism has had on share prices. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Orthodox2014 - Activist investor is a real thing. Do we have sources to support that terminology enough times to warrant inclusion in the lead section? Not just one or two, but he is well known as an activist investor. The concern is, Lemelson may wish to be known as one but the world doesn't really label him as such. -- GreenC 02:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: Yes, he's routinely referenced in media as an activist investor and much of this work has been at the core of national media coverage of him, so that description absolutely should be in the lede. Lots of examples. See, for instance:

1.) "Geospace +4.2% after activist discloses stake": [59].

2.) "Kulicke & Soffa Industries: Large Cash Pile and Activist Involvement": [60].

3.) "adopted an activist position": [61].

And others.

I have no idea whether he does or doesn't want to be referred to in that way, but it is a proper description central to his professional notability. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

He apparently labels himself an activist per this Press Release. Looking over Kulicke & Soffa Industries and WWE he clearly took an activist position in these two, supported by the Master Investor article. Any other activist activity? Not just moving share prices by presenting a thesis and making a trade, but active intervention. -- GreenC 03:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Sandboxes can cause confusion, but using copy/paste and 'show changes' to look at the diffs, I don't see a single change I wouldn't support (other than the temporary or tentative stuff, obviously). That version is an overall improvement. I don't think old-friends.co is usable, and I would rather leave it tagged than use that as a source. Infobox-person makes sense. A priest is certainly a Christian leader, but there's obviously a lot more going on here, and a more generic infobox would be easier to work with once it's set up. The Christian leader template defaults to Bishop, which suggests that it's a bit too focused for this article. Placing the term "activist investor" in the lead is a non-neutral way to describe a minor aspect of his notability as currently described by sources and the article. Press releases are functionally a form of advertisement, which has nothing to do with how common they are, and "from time to time" is an understatement. Grayfell (talk) 23:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: "Activist investor" is a genre of investing and a phrase used widely to describe precisely what this man does. It's not a minor part of his notability. It's arguably his greatest area of notability and widely covered in national media. See, for instance, any of the references on WWE, Geospace, Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Kulicke & Soffa, etc.

He's routinely described this way in references we're citing (see my response above with specific links) and the phrase itself is appropriately and widely used on Wikipedia to describe (in intros) those engaged in this profession. See, for example:

Bill Ackman

Chris Hohn

Carl Icahn

J Robert Verdun

And many others. Orthodox2014 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. I hadn't thought of copy-paste and show changes, it's a great idea as long as the save button isn't accidentally clicked :) I find User:Cacycle/wikEdDiff useful for complex diffs too, once you get your head around the way it works.

Yes, the ref for Mercer Island High was scraping the barrel - it's all I could find (well there is one other similar website). It's one of those minor details that even if he'd said it himself in an interview we'd accept it, but it just seems to have come out of nowhere. I'm still hoping that Ortho can retrieve where he got it from. I'll have a further look at {{Infobox person}}: it was used in the article until Ortho changed it in November. Adding "activist investor" sounds OK, or what about calling him an "activist hedge fund manager"? – I think all his shareholder activities have been under the hedge fund umbrella.  —SMALLJIM  00:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The copy-paste thing is definitely a kludge. I'll have to take a look at wikEdDiff, that looks pretty cool.

The term activist has some baggage and seems potentially loaded, even if it's accurate. Personally, I would prefer leaving it out unless, per Green Cardamom above, independent sources which use that term in a neutral context are abundant.

Additionally, there are a lot of vaguely defined concepts and buzzwords which don't really have much to do with the term as it's being used, but could very easily be confused with "activist investor". That's especially true when applied to a religious figure since concern over social issues would be an obvious assumption. I think using that term without a bit more context would cause more confusion than is acceptable. If there's consensus that the term is clear enough, then I'm okay with being wrong about that. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: The context for its use is fully established, but was taken out with the misguided removal of the "Investment management and activism" section. It included dozens of major media references to this activism as cited in Fox Business News, USA Today, New York Post, The Street, etc. This is the absurdity of this entire ongoing conversation. One of you removes the context then another says it's lacking context. See the "Investment management and activism" section here: [62]. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's also possible to display a diff between any two edits, though you have to adjust the revision IDs manually. For instance https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=700123242&oldid=700165923 is the diff between the latest versions of this article and the one in my sandbox as of now, though obviously it won't update once anyone edits either page.

Broadening the discussion from "activist..." a little, are we OK then with something like "Emmanuel Lemelson (born June 29, 1976 as Gregory Manoli Lemelson) is an American businessman, Greek Orthodox priest, social commentator and hedge fund manager." as the first sentence of the lead? We can expand on his investment style in the relevant section, if appropriate.  —SMALLJIM  11:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: In the discussion above in the "Biographical header" section [63] on the use of "cultural leader" in his introductory description, you write: "He's only a cultural leader if a reliable source has said he is. Is there such a source?" Well, he's only a "businessman" and "social commentator" if a reliable source has said he is. Is there such a source?

I've studied this subject for about 18 months and read over a hundred secondary sources about him and have never seen the phrases "businessman" or "social commentator" used to describe him. Orthodox2014 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a fine unambiguous lead description. Other terms like activist investor can be disambiguated in the body of the text as needed. As an aside, activist investor is a neutralized term for the pejorative "corporate raider" (not that I'm advocating corporate raider). It's all a matter of perspective, who uses the term an in what context is relevant. -- GreenC 17:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: It may be worth noting that, in The Wall Street Journal documentary about the subject [64], he offers these three descriptions of his vocation:

• "My heart's desire was to respond to God's calling to serve as a priest. It's something that's in you, and something that you're meant to do, something your called to do."
• "The beauty of the service is overwhelming, and to be with the faithful, that's my very being. Before I was ordained, I had been writing essays and critical papers on both legal analysis and security analysis...."
• "In a former life I was an entrepreneur...."

It may be appropriate to describe him as a "former entrepreneur," but that no more belongs in the lede than "former theological student," which he also was simultaneously, according to the references.

An accurate and appropriate lede would be:

"Emmanuel Lemelson (born June 29, 1976 as Gregory M. Lemelson) is a Greek Orthodox priest and social and investment activist who has gained notability for advocating a philosophy of investment based on Christian ethics." Orthodox2014 (talk)

Orthodox2014, your multiple Responses this evening are starting to look rather pointy. You are not collaborating, accepting any sort of compromise or showing any willingness to abide by consensus. It seems that you won't voluntarily accept anything but a return to your preferred version of the article, but you do need to compromise over that – whereabouts would that compromise lie? Does what I posted earlier today in the section below get anywhere near what you're prepared to accept?  —SMALLJIM  23:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Updates

In view of the generally favourable opinions expressed here, I've made several updates to the article today. I've not paid too much attention to Orthodox2014's views because, although he is insistent, they are clearly very much minority views. I did reconsider the content of the "Hedge fund manager" section in view of his comments, though – it should certainly be about the person not the company; but since everyone else agrees that the majority of the detail belongs in the companion article Lemelson Capital Management, I haven't added very much. I also relegated some of the detail about the WSJ Copeland article to a footnote to reduce its prominence.

I hope this serves to push the discussion along a bit. The next concern, for me at least, is the two long quotes from Lemelson (in the "Greek Orthodox priest" and "Social commentator" sections). Are they warranted?  —SMALLJIM  14:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Long quotes

To answer my own question, the first quote (taken from a WSJ video) is evidently intended to explain his ethical Christian investment philosophy, but it just seems (to me) to be using the parable of the talents as justification for making money. After a couple of transcription errors are corrected, it sounds as if it goes on to indicate that having made that money, one should consider oneself a steward of it, rather than an owner, but it doesn't say so clearly, and it doesn't go on to explain what that means. So since we're not allowed to interpret primary sources, I think it should be removed in favour of a clearer exposition of his investment philosophy, if a reliable third party has considered it important enough to write about.

The second quote is just an opinion expanding on a widely-circulated Oxfam report. It's not our place to publicise the subject's opinions unless they have been widely commented on and say something particularly significant or unexpected about the subject, so I don't think it should be retained either. Rational discussion is welcomed!  —SMALLJIM  15:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments I've removed both quotes. I'll add something about his Christian investment philosophy if I find anything about it, as set out above.

Since no impartial editors have objected to the recent changes made to the article, I'm going to return to the normal practice of making changes with edit summary explanations rather than raising them here first. Happy to discuss anything, of course, but I suspect that these two articles will soon sink back into relative obscurity.  —SMALLJIM  13:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)