Talk:Steven Rattner/Archives/2012

Removal of pension fund scandal material

Alexfro essentially sanitized the article using material from the offical Steven Rattner website. Some of the maaterial removed was:

On April 15, 2010, Quadrangle stated, "We wholly disavow the conduct engaged in by Steve Rattner, who hired the New York State Comptroller’s political consultant, Hank Morris, to arrange an investment from the New York State Common Retirement Fund. That conduct was inappropriate, wrong, and unethical." as it agreed to a $7 million fine.

"On January 14, 2005, the Good Times CEO sent an email to Rattner reporting that Good Times was moving forward with the Chooch distribution deal and “wanted to bring it to [his] attention as a potential relationship issue.” Rattner forwarded the email to Morris, telling him, “This is Steve Loglisci’s project. Wanted you to be aware.”" Morris told Rattner to contribute to Hevesi indirectly. "Thereafter, Rattner asked a Democratic donor he knew to contribute to Hevesi. That person and his wife each subsequently gave approximately $25,000 to Hevesi for New York. Shortly thereafter, the CRF increased its investment in QCPII from $100 million to $150 million."

and added material such as:

After leaving the government, Ratter wrote his New York Times best selling account of the successful rescue of the auto companies. Slate described his book as "unquestionably the best book so far about the Obama presidency."<ref>[

Can Alexfro explain if they are a neutral editor, or are they affliated with Steven Rattner or his book publisher in any way? {{subst:UnsignedIP|1=71.200.18.45|2=13:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)}}

Wife

Added references and wiki link to wife. Bearian 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Past personal info absolutely does not belong here

I don't see how who Rattner dated "briefly" has any bearing at all on this article, nor does who introduced him and his wife. Adding that info implies that there is some sort of connection to the reporting or the scandal, and that is somewhere between WP:SYNTHESIS and POV pushing. We don't mention people's dating history, except for celebrities for whom their dating history is an important part of what makes them notable. I strongly recommend this information be pulled, but don't wish to edit war, so I'd like to see what other editors have to say here. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you point me to the policy saying editors should not include information on the dating history of important public officials, especially when it is a matter of public record? His ties to the Times certainly make him notable, and they are always reported in articles on Rattner. The social dimensions of those ties are not as widely discussed, but they are also extremely important when considering his career, and a matter of public record. I'm not sure why this information has raised your hackles. Why should celebrities be subjected to paparazzi-like scrutiny of their personal lives, but not public officials? The personal relationships of public officials are far more consequential for the rest of us. I'm not saying that all personal info on public officials is fair game, just that you haven't begun to make a convincing argument that folks like Rattner should be treated differently from other celebrities. Joysent (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP. You imply in your statement that you are not including the information merely as biographical fact, but because as a public official his relationships are "consequential". Furthermore, when taken in the context of the rest of the article, there is no doubt that this information is being included to imply some impropriety on either his part, the part of the Times, the part of his ex-, or the part of the person who introduced them. This is explicitly forbidden by WP:SYNTHESIS. Furthermore, you are not including the information in a neutral way, violating WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:BLP requires that all information in biographies of living people be held to a higher standard even then our normally requirements on sourcing (WP:V and WP:RS), because of the potential harm to living people and the project. You seem to be operating under the notion that just because something is sourced and "true", that it should automatically be in the article. This is a common misunderstanding of WP:V, which simply states that you may only put in verified information, not that you must put in any information that is verified. Note that even for celebrities, we don't include a full "dating history" just because we can--we do it only when there is a good reason, and usually limit ourselves only to current relationships or exceptionally long-term or "permanent" (marriage-like) relationships.

But, I could certainly be wrong here. So, I'm going to raise this question at WP:BLPN, which is the noticeboard used to get outside input on biographies of living people. I'll see what they have to say. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Joysent, please note that at this point, 3 different people think the information does not belong. Please come back and discuss here before re-inserting. When doing so, please note the policies I listed above that are the reason why I (and I assume others) are expressing concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)