Talk:John Fund

Civil suit

From the NY Daily News [1] (and elsewhere):

"The Wall Street Journal battened down yesterday as an awkward civil case began in Manhattan Supreme Court centered on its OpinionJournal.com columnist John Fund.

Fund, a former WSJ editorial writer who also appears as a conservative commentator on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, is accused of battering an ex-girlfriend.

The bizarre story started in 1999, when Fund became involved with [redacted], now 38, the daughter of another former fling.

The woman's name is "Morgan", and she is clearly identified on the tape by John Fund as "Morgan" 8 seconds into the publicly released recording right after the beep "[Beep] and Morgan, the one thing I can't understand is...". Why redact what is public? 129.255.1.225 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As the romance soured, she made accusations of physical and emotional abuse. She has also blamed him for a traumatic abortion.

In turn, Fund accused her of stealing checks and making credit-card purchases in his name totaling $38,000. He also filed a counterclaim accusing her of :witness-tampering, including contacting his employer.

Fund told me: "This is a tragic story of a woman who has admitted under oath to having borderline personality disorder and to having made up the accusations against me."

[redacted] is seeking $515,000 in damages. In a colorful flourish, she also wants her "labor costs" of cleaning his apartment of "larvae … in the defendant's freezer" and "mouse droppings on the floor and substantial filth and grime," a charge pals of Fund find absurd.

Fund was arrested and jailed in 2002 based on [redacted] assault complaint, although criminal charges were later dismissed."

Not sure how much of it belongs in the article, but it should be briefly mentioned.

Here is some more from the Sacramento Bee [2]:

"When Morgan [redacted] was a little girl in Sacramento, her mother had a boyfriend named John Fund, who was active in the local Libertarian Party. Years later, [redacted] visited Fund, by then an editorialist for the Wall Street Journal, in New York, and Fund initiated an intimate relationship with her that apparently turned into an ugly mess over time. You know the old adage, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? This Web site [www.ruthlesspeople.com] is [redacted] revenge, with scurrilous content that paints Fund as a rapscallion and a rogue to boot: a flyer and cast list for “Psycho Ex-Boyfriend: the Movie”; allegations that Fund was a girlfriend-beater; transcripts of e-mails between Fund and another woman, stupidly sent from [redacted] PC; and more. Although there’s a certain amount of schadenfreude to be had from reading about the mating habits of randy conservatives, you may prefer a cold shower afterward."

It seems there was a website created by this women about John Fund -- it was at ruthlesspeople.com, but now only available in archive.org -- as stated above in the Bee story, the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is the best description:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030403222754/http://www.ruthlesspeople.com/

--Ben Houston 02:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See http://www.johnfund.com, which John Fund created at the time of the court case. (Unfortunately, the links at that page are now broken.) Some people who dislike Fund for idealogical reasons seized the opportunity to vilify him, but there was very little coverage that meets our Wikipedia:Reliable Sources standard. See also WP:BLP. Perhaps the best citable document is http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman, in which Eric Alterman (of all people!) writes

I did not find [redacted] story compelling when I first read the reports. Now, given her signed or sworn statements, I find it even less so [...].

Long story short: she was mentally ill, by her own admission. Repeating her false accusations in Wikipedia will be actively harmful to her, especially if she has recovered her sanity.

So anything we put in the article will need to artfully omit lots of details.

Best wishes, CWC(talk) 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris, the primary source I cited, NY Daily News, is respectable and so is Eric Alterman in the Nation. I am not sure what details you want to "artfully" omit. Wikipedia won't be letting the cat out of the bag on any issue here -- it is in the newspapers and on the blogs already. I'll try my hand at writing something that accurately and NPOV reflects the situation soon. Best. --Ben Houston 15:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ben. Someone else got in before you, and now I've edited it again. Here's an alternate version of the relevant paragraph, with possible additional text shown in bold:

Fund himself was the subject of media stories in 2002-2003, after a former girlfriend accused him of physical abuse (among other things), leading to his arrest. [3] She later withdrew the allegations, acknowledging that she suffered from borderline personality disorder and had "trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy". [4] [5]

Should we put that text in? I left it out mainly to avoid giving the incident "WP:NPOV#Undue_weight". What do other people think? I'm sure my text has plenty of room for improvement.

BTW, the links at http://www.johnfund.com now work. Also, that NY Daily News link is to a gossip column.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 18:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Caution needed

This section contains a comment I wrote in August 2006 plus several paragraphs added by JayGell (talk · contribs) in December 2006, as further edited by Jayegell (talk · contribs) in January 2007. Unfortunately, those edits left little distinction between my comments and the later additions. I have now put the added text in this color and provided both my original version of one paragraph and the version as edited by Jayegell. CWC 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Searching the web for information about the court case shows that someone claiming to be the mother of the woman who sued Fund is energetically putting articles attacking him on every website she can get to. And, of course, she can get to this one, where an AOL-based anon has been adding an anti-Fund POV to this article. Coincidence?

The court case was settled in July, when she dropped her suit and Fund dropped his countersuit. Fund's attacker claims to have severely damaged Fund's career with her allegations, which even Eric Alterman dismisses. I have not found any Reliable Source who gives any credence to her claims; we do have Reliable Sources who agree that she (1) has a serious mental illness and (2) is an admitted perjurer.

Preceding paragraph as edited by user Jayegell in January 2007:
The court case was settled in July, when she refused to drop her suit, Fund previously dropped his countersuit. Fund's victim claims not to have severely damaged Fund's career with her truthful allegations, which Funds cohorts even Eric Alterman dismisses. I have not found any Reliable Source who gives any credence to her claims; we do have Reliable Sources who agree that she (1) has no mental illness and (2) has denied being an admitted perjurer.

The following text in this color were added by JayGell in December 2006:

Response to above paragraph: 1.) Morgan did NOT "drop" the case or claims. the case is properly listed as "settled" in NY the unified Courts web site.

1a.) However Fund has breached the "Settlement Agreement" by:

i.) Not returning all of the plaintiffs belongings;

ii.) Taking down his johnfund.com website;

iii.) Reposting all of slanderous material and associated links on this website (which the original "John Fund" has been email to [Morgan]'s counsel) and others;

iv.) Continuing to threaten, harass, malign, and defame Morgan [redacted] and her new family, Jay Gell & Sons by providing funding and false information to Gell’s family to negatively affect that relationship.

As to the second part of "reliable sources" mentioned above. personal friends of John Fund regardless of which otherwise credible publication they may work for or have interest in are NOT credible when the proffer as "evidence" of "(1) has a serious mental illness and (2) is an admitted perjurer." As to #1: 1. Alterman refusing to even examine [Morgan]’s contradictory evidence, 2. The FACT that [Morgan's] “sworn” statement was made under direct threat of physical harm and she was escorted by Fund with force and against her free will to the notary to sign the “evidence”, and; 3. The assault on [Morgan] occurred AFTER such document was signed in reference to the first beating and assault charges in New Jersey. 4. Fund thinks the document gave him a get out of jail free card for the second beating in New York, and any future character beatings like Fund is engaged in at present. 5. Additionally [Morgan] has Definitive Clinical Proof and Confirmation she has never had any, or suffered from “Borderline Personality Disorder” which was originally pulled form her own uneducated self diagnosis of some depression and spoken in general terms and not medical terms was taken out of context as if she had in fact been diagnosed by a professional but rather superimposed upon her by Funds force of threat and violence in an effort to conceal his own narcissistic problems.

As to #2;

1. The claim is the “admission” was made in a sworn deposition in a court record is false and easily verifiable by checking with the clerk of court in Santa Barbra or the case filings online. 2. Again as Fund has a flair for taking statements out of context this was in an unsigned deposition during [Morgan]’s mothers ([redacted]) divorce. And when examining the audio tape version of the transcripts it is very clear the statement about “lie all the time” was made with the utmost sarcasm and no where in such unofficial deposition does [Morgan] admit to ever committing “perjury”. 3. Additionally, and finally the suspect deposition was provided to Fund by the opposing party to the deposition, Craig Franklin who was paying the child support for Fund’s child, Justin. Any and all disputes should be directed to Jay Gell jayegell_01@yahoo.com / 704-865-2352 and supporting evidence can be found at www.coops-roost.com

I've edited the article to fix the stuff about this poor woman. I made several other changes such as adding ISBNs, including a quote about the U.S. electoral system and changing the paragraph boundaries.

BTW, if the ex-girlfriend reads this: take your meds. Just do it. You have an illness that cannot be cured, only treated. (So do I.) You need those meds. (And you can tell who your genuine friends are: they're the ones who try to get you to keep taking those meds.) BTW! my wife has no metal illnes and you are asking for a slander suit, Jay Gell. retract it now!

CWC(talk) 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edited, along with rest of page, to remove surnames and mother's name. CWC 17:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ghostwriting

After user Ricky81682 has reformatted the article to use <ref>s (thanks, Ricky81682!) I took another look at http://www.caslon.com.au/ghostingnote.htm and realised that its sole mention of John Fund is in a quote. So I found the source of that quote (an (IMO) excellent NYT Books essay by Joe Queenan) and replaced the ref to Caslon's essay with a ref to the Queenan essay.

I've also changed the link to http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman to the new style. However, I couldn't see how to cite http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020221nypd072.jpg, which is an image of the NYPD "Domestic Incident Report" involving Fund, so I just deleted it. Anyone who knows how to cite it is welcome to put it back.

Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

John Fund ghostwrote "The Way Things Ought to Be." It ought to be honestly and frankly mentioned.Atthom (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we do mention it. We use the verb "collaborated" instead of "ghostwrote" because that's what our sources say; see WP:RS (and WP:BLP). I've just now added more details of the book. Cheers, CWC 19:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Civil Suit - Relevance

In a civil case, people claim all kinds of things, and it is up to the courts to determine the facts. Unless there is a judgment, I do not think cases should be included in articles. Otherwise, we are just repeating allegations from a source of unknown reliability.

Also, the article could be improved by adding information about the subject's political beliefs and alliances. --74.15.53.108 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life

I met Mr. Fund today and he showed this page to me, taking issue with this section. I noticed that in addition to being unencyclopedic in its paucity, typical to many unrated bio articles (especially of journalists), it contained a sentence arguably violating WP:NPOV in its description of a civil case reported in the news in 2002, and that one cited source about the incident inarguably fails WP:RS. This source is American Politics Journal, which seems to be a blog (or more specifically, an old Compuserve list that has evolved into a blog) with no track record for fact-checking. I have removed it and per WP:BLP have rephrased the sentence to leave out specifics not resolved in the source material. The case has been settled, but I have not yet found a reliable source to make that statement definitively. As there was little follow-on coverage, I'll go ahead and make that claim, but I have also flagged my own sentence as needing verification. Likewise, I have removed the statement about him being in the Libertarian Party when younger; there are no BLP issues here, but its source is the same American Politics Journal. Meanwhile, I believe a reliable citation for the outcome of the case can be found, so I will keep looking, and please add it if you find it. WWB (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I found it, and as it seems both claims were dismissed, have toned down the wording even more. However, I wonder if BLP issues remain on account of the source being a gossip column in the Daily News; I'll put the question to the relevant WikiProject and see what they have to say. WWB (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've done some research and I am satisfied that it should be removed. The facts are public record and available on Fund's website,[6] but the only non-blog sources I've found (as others before me on this page) are a gossip column in the New York Daily News and a reported Nation column by Eric Alterman concluding Fund was "probably the victim of a deeply disturbed person."[7]

So now I think this should be removed per WP:BLP. The section is of little informational value, and its worth for inclusion is discouraged by the provision presumption in favor of privacy. Others on this page have raised similar WP:BLP questions in the past, and I think they were right. As I haven't heard any complaints about my edits to the article so far, I will remove it now. WWB (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2009

I agree with WWB's conclusion above: we cannot mention that incident without violating at least one Wikipedia policy, so it is best to omit it. (Of course, if for some bizarre reason someone writes a WP:RS about it, things would change.)

User 72.66.48.205 (talk · contribs) just added this to the article:

From 2001 to 2006, Fund engaged in a well-publicized dispute with his former girlfriend Morgan [redacted], who accused Fund of beating her. He posted his version of the dispute at www.johnfund.com.

I've removed it. It seems like a good attempt at honest coverage, but

• "engaged in" should be something like "was caught up in", and
• it is effectively sourced to http://www.johnfund.com, a primary source, and
• as I said, I agree with WWB.

What do other contributors think? CWC 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User Actio (talk · contribs) posted a thoughtful response here in July 2018. I've taken the liberty of moving it to a new section at the end of this page in the hope of boosting its visibility. Please respond there. CWC 00:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-Notable? Notability?

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

Barney Frank

I've moved the following here for discussion:

In 2010, Rep. Barney Frank issued a press release in which he referred to Fund as a "congenital and habitual liar". The press release was issued in response to Fund's claim that Frank sponsored "universal voting rights" legislation

This sort of thing is not allowed in a WP:BLP without good sourcing. Can anyone find a "Reliable Source" for this? Also, remember WP:UNDUE: any coverage of the Frank-Fund kerfuffle will need to be concise.

For an overview of the dispute, see American Daughter 5-Jan-2010, [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122353 WND 18-Jan-2010], and TPM 5-Feb-2010. Unfortunately, AFAICT none of these are acceptable sources. Sigh. CWC 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The lack of acceptable sources suggests that it's not notable: politicians being unhappy about being criticized is a dog-bites-man story. If the issue belongs anywhere, it's on Barney Frank. THF (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The lack of acceptable sources suggests that it's not notable. Exactly. Wikipedia's rules provide a surprisingly good filter for this kind of thing. Cheers, CWC 11:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No longer at WSJ?

Mr Fund's bio at the WSJ website now uses the past tense and shows nothing published since June 2011. I've updated the first para of the article accordingly, but kept things vague. We need a good source documenting Mr Fund's apparent change of employment. Anyone got one? CWC 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

May 2013

I've updated the article to fix broken links, outdated information, etc. I've also removed some unsourced claims. The article now has no direct links to opinionjournal.com. It still links to one Internet Archive snapshot from opinionjournal.com (the first EL, a list of Fund's articles as of Jan 2010), largely because AFAICT there is no way to find Fund's articles on the wsj.com.
Background: Until News Corp bought the WSJ, the opinion page was largely separate from the rest of the WSJ, going so far as to run a separate website, opinionjournal.com. When News Corp moved to reduce the barrier between the opinion and news staff, opinionjournal.com was changed to redirect every URL to http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html. Unfortunately, while opinionjournal.com had nice author bios, list of articles, etc, wsj.com is a pain to search and much of the metadata seems to be missing. Bah.

The article still says nothing about Mr Fund's departure from the WSJ, because I still have not seen any acceptable sources about it. In fact, there is a marked shortage of good sources for Mr Fund's recent career: NRO has no bio page for him, and his bio at TAS just specifies his role there. (Note that Mr Fund has good reason to be careful about his web presence, as can be seen from most of the previous discussions on this page.) So once again I ask: does anyone have any good sources for Mr Fund's recent career?

(FWIW, Mr Fund's last WSJ "On The Trail" column was dated June 16, 2011, and his first item at NRO was dated September 20, 2011. He first wrote for TAS in 2004.)

Cheers -- CWC 16:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Abuse accusation retracted

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110926214357/http://spectator.org/people/john-h-fund/all to http://spectator.org/people/john-h-fund/all
• Added archive https://archive.is/20070814100125/http://www.manhattan-institute.org/youngleaders/ylc_email_02-06-08.htm to http://www.manhattan-institute.org/youngleaders/ylc_email_02-06-08.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

July 2018

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

Comment moved from September 2009 section above to increase its visibility, by CWC 00:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC)