Jump to content

Talk:Brad Jacobs (businessman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This is a cut-and-paste move of Bradley S Jacobs; perhaps someone feels like deleting it and moving the article here properly? Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable paragraphs in United Rentals section

[edit]

I'm cutting my teeth on Wikipedia edits and came across this article. In the United Rentals section, there are two paragraphs that don't even mention the subject: 4 and 7. I'm not sure why they're even here, since they don't mention Jacobs at all, though they pertain to a company he was CEO of at the time. I checked the page for the company it's about (United Rentals) and the information here is even more thorough than what's over there. Should we move it over there and delete it here? (Just the paragraphs that don't mention Jacobs, I mean.)

Your feedback and expertise is welcome! Thanks!

Aussietommartin (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the XPO section, and it's even worse. I don't know if I should outright delete so much without getting more consensus from other editors, but the last eight paragraphs don't mention Jacobs at all. Do all these details about XPO really belong here? Shouldn't they be in the XPO Logistics article? Aussietommartin (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I went ahead and did some heavy cleanup and reorganization of the XPO Logistics section, along with a bit of research to clarify some of the details, and I think it's helped a lot. It's also given me some thoughts on how I could clean up the XPO Logistics article, which is in dire need of some TLC! Aussietommartin (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and deleted those two paragraphs in the United Rentals section, and moved appropriate data over to the United Rentals page. Be bold, indeed! Aussietommartin (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Acquisitions section

[edit]

Hey folks. Just got off work and getting the chance to respond to the notifications I got about the IP address's changes made on Monday. Two thoughts:

1) I'm a little worried about going off the beaten path with XPO Logistics content on a Bradley Jacobs article, and so am a bit unsure about the whole "XPO is no longer acquiring things" line, but I'll do some digging tonight (for real! tonight!) and try to figure out how much of it was really Jacobs and how much was just XPO. If it really was Jacobs, then there should definitely be discussion of it! If not, we might need to relegate it to the XPO article.

2) I appreciate the updated figures on the $ amount that Jacobs has raised, but that chain of citations is just painful. If those are citations for individual dollar values, and they add up to this new $20B amount... is there a way to condense so many separate citations? Especially since they all seem to be coming from either SEC filings or XPO news?

Feedback is most welcome, if anyone is watching this Talk page!

Aussietommartin (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooookay. I always feel really nervous when I write fresh content for Wikipedia, because I feel like I'm back in college writing papers, especially with all the citation stuff. At any rate, to follow up on my note earlier this evening:
  • From what I could find, especially that keynote speech delivered by Jacobs at some JOC event, this whole consolidation thing really did seem to be his idea, which meant it makes sense to talk about here -- so, bravo, IP address! Since we have a whole subsection devoted to acquisitions, it made sense to me to put together a subsection about those acquisitions stopping, especially since that last one, the Con-way one, really didn't go well at first. Stock dropping 33%? That's an INSANE plunge, and something worth pointing out, as was the rebound in the year following.
  • I can't figure a way to make that citation chain (about the $20 billion being raised by Jacobs) any shorter. They're all distinct articles, and while there are guidelines on Wikipedia for sourcing from different pages of the same article, there's no easy way to consolidate multiple articles from the same publication. We could just delete some, but then the numbers won't add up to $20 billion. (They do, by the way. I did the freaking calculations. Sigh.) Do we just do that anyway? In this case, do aesthetics trump sourcing? I swear, I'd really dig feedback from someone on this.
I'm kinda done researching and writing for the night, so I'm calling it. If my prose is too college-y, someone fix it, would you? And if anyone has any ideas about that citation chain, I'm all ears!
Aussietommartin (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tags

[edit]

Hello, I see Nouill has recently tagged this article with multiple tags for NPOV and COI. However, there is no discussion here of the issue, and so I am beginning one here. Regarding COI, I hope Nouill can explain the COI they observe and provide diffs per WP:AOBF's "avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs".

As for the the advert tags, I don't see the evidence of promotion directly. For the entire article, the subject is clearly notable and the article well cited, and don't see how it is promotional. For the sub-section I don't see the the facts of awards being promotional, though I prefer a prose summary of the awards rather than lists. But that is style, not substance. (pinging Aussietommartin as they appear to be active on this article.) Dbsseven (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how it is promotional ? The "Awards and recognition" section is promotional. The introduction is also promotional.
The article is created by Rmchater. A Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. This page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rmchater is a little clear about the problem. We can read for exemple "As an aside, I was informed that XPO Logistics and Bradley S Jacobs are/were both clients of QVerity (Romary is a partner in the firm). I have no way to substantiate these claims, but if this is true, Rmchater appears to be a connected editor (with a COI)."
Moreover Aussietommartin who is also a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and he put promotional content on this article and the company article, for me it's also a connected editor with the subject. --Nouill (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nouill: however the article began, the subject is notable. Isn't bringing COI based on an article creator who hasn't edited the article in 5 years (and WP in general in 4 years) a bit silly?! And a single-purpose account miss the is not automatically a COI under WP:SPA. Do you have diffs to support a COI? Dbsseven (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The silly thing is you don't accept that "Awards and recognition" section is purely promotional content.
I don't said that SPA is automatically a COI, but a SPA who edit the company article and also the CEO article, and put on both article promotional content is certainly a COI. --Nouill (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, an account that "edit (sic) the company article and also the CEO article" simply meets the definition of a SPA. COI is separate and would require a conclusion on the relationship of the editor and the article subject. (WP:COI) Presuming a COI also does not assume good faith. "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith... repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack" from WP:AOBF. This is not the first time you have accused this editor of a COI, please take it to an appropriate forum or drop it. COI should be addressed elsewhere, not here. Dbsseven (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you read that I have a obligation to have a bigger conclusionn that I already said, on the relationship of the editor and the article subject, before I can put a COI tag ?
I think the page discussion of a article is pretty pertinent place for speak about the connection between the editors and the subject of the article.
And on the introduction of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, I can read "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." : So IF YOU CAN STOP SAID THAT A DON'T ASSUME GOOD FAITH IT WILL BE GREAT ! It isn't the first time I ask you that... --Nouill (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't demonstrated any relationship/connection between an editor and the subject. In fact that editor has previously stated they do not have a COI. The only evidence available that the editor prefers to edit these articles. A (disputed) assertion of bias in the content is not evidence of a relationship. The content has nothing to do with COI. Dbsseven (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You don't answer me. --Nouill (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey you two! I just posted a response to this general topic over on the XPO article, but wanted to point to it from here, too, since this is functionally the same discussion. Aussietommartin (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the tags

[edit]

Okay! As with the changes made to the XPO Logistics page (and with a similar mindset outlined during the lengthy discussion on its talk page), I've gone through and tried to really clean up this article, with an eye toward simplicity, brevity, and raw facts that speak to the subject's direct actions and/or accomplishments. The result hopefully meets with everybody's approval.

As similarly discussed on the XPO page, I'm going to go ahead and remove the ad tags, but not the COI tag. I don't feel I have the right to remove a tag that is accusing me of a conflict of interest, even though it's untrue. As I've said elsewhere, I want my actions to speak for themselves, and hope that everyone else (Nouill, Dbsseven, or anyone else who's interested) agrees.

As for the ad tags, the changes I've made should take care of any concerns people have with the majority of the page. The lone outlier in this matter is the Awards and recognition section, which Nouill specifically called out with its own tag. However, as evidenced by the above discussion, it appears Nouill feels that the very existence of the section is itself the affront. Given that the majority of interested parties (myself and Dbsseven) feel that is not the case, and that Nouill has provided no alternative options (nor did he even open up a discussion when he initially set the tag as he should have -- Dbsseven had to do so), I feel like removing the tag from this section is appropriate. As always, if anyone else has a different opinion, let's talk about it!

Pinging Diannaa, an administrator who helped out a while back and who may be able to provide some resolution here.

That's all from me! Have a good night, everybody! Aussietommartin (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the additions to and subtractions from this article and also a related article on XPO Logistics and I cannot find any evidence that Aussietommartin is related to or has a close connection with the company or the CEO. It would be beyond strange, and stretch credulity to imagine that someone who is closely linked to the company would come on the talk pages (not just once, but several times, and not just ask, but plead with others to help tidy up an article and to ask questions about what is and is not appropriate to post. It makes perfect sense that, over time, technical jargon would be something an editor would become more and more familiar with; conversely someone who has a close relationship or who was employed would surely have had that "inside knowledge" from the very beginning of their editing. The fact that corrections on tech jargon developed over time showed a learning curve from reading around the topic. Some people come to articles and they become a labor of love for them - I also would go back to a central tenet of Wikipedia "Assume Good Faith" - nothing here suggests otherwise. With the size of the company and the probable net worth of someone who runs the company, I would "assume" that if they wanted they could have set an expert out to begin with and not use someone who has learned about the industry.

Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, I will be removing the tags here and on the CEO's page at NOON today US EST -- anyone who then takes issue could refer to arbitration. But the evidence shown to date comes nowhere close to showing a link between an author who has pleaded for others to join in and a huge company ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removed per earlier notification and no evidence of any link between editors and company except conjecture. Please do not replace tag, rather refer to arbitration if you have evidence of COI or link. ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations section

[edit]

Hey all. Over on the XPO Logistics page, we're having a bit of a spat over whether this section is appropriate. It was written over there, then copied over here (with one modification -- the last paragraph over there is the first one of the section over here). It mostly deals with XPO, and I have real contextual concerns about that first paragraph.

I've been accused of being a PR shill; please go over to the Talk:XPO Logistics page to read a (maybe too) detailed discussion of why I believe this section does not belong. I feel justified in again attempting to remove it because this page is a biography of a living person, and so must abide by the WP:BLP guidelines.

If anyone (particularly the IP address that first inserted it) believes that it must be included, please call in an administrator for arbitration. I don't think it would be very productive to constantly do back-and-forth reversions, and having a arbiter would make this process a hell of a lot simpler.

Thanks!

Aussietommartin (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Socking at this article

[edit]

I've semi-protected the article due to significant sock activity. Note that Qwasdeal, Qwsarona, 100to, 147podauhda and Qwerfdsazxcvfrtg222a were all  Technically indistinguishable and blocked accordingly.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure

[edit]

Hello,

Please see my 'user page.' I would like to disclose my COI with XPO before making any edits. After reading through the comments and Wikipedia's guidelines, I plan to remove promotional content and hopefully help clean up the article in a way that is acceptable to the Wikipedia community, with the goal of getting it published. Feedback is appreciated. Looking forward to working with you. Thank you. Xpo1975 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
A heads up to all that my username has been changed from Xpo1975 to Freightguy1975 to better align with Wikipedia's guidelines. Please see my user page for my declared COI (third-party rep receiving compensation). Thank you! Freightguy1975 (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please also clarify whether other colleagues are also being paid to edit this series of articles? Thanks! Star Mississippi 17:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only account requesting edits on behalf of XPO at this time. I do know that there were other editors in the past they used, but those should all be dormant. Since you are looking at the draft, are you able to review it? Thank you! Freightguy1975 (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Gannymetis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was editing the drafts very recently including this one, and there has been significant sockpuppetry as referenced above.
I do not think Mr. Jacobs is notable independently of the companies, so I will not be reviewing this. But I'm not declining it so that someone else may assess it. Star Mississippi 17:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle Do you want to declare any conflict of interest with this page or XPO? I know that we all want this to be as accurate as possible, and knowing how people are coming and returning to the page would be helpful as Star Mississippi has pointed out. You seem to have a higher level of interest about these pages. Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help

[edit]

Hello,

Please see my 'user page.' I would like to disclose my COI with XPO before making any edits.

@MrsSnoozyTurtle The career aspect is the most notable portion of this page. I am confused about why you sought to remove certain sections from the lead paragraph yet left others. You removed the "GXO non-executive chair" information yet left the "RXO non-executive chair" information with no justification behind these edits. See below:

Freightguy1975 (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Freightguy. Thank you for listing these sources, I have added them to the article. The content about his LLC doesn't seem especially significant, so I have added it to the body rather than the lead section. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle Thank you for adding the content to the article. I wanted to provide third party sourcing for the additional information you removed on 4/4/23 and ask that the information be added back to the page.
  •  Done
  •  Done
  •  Done but with revised wording for accuracy.
  • The reference doesn't mention September 1997.
  •  Done, with revised wording for accuracy.
  • Wording is too far removed from the source, I think.
  • "In 2011, Jacobs invested approximately $150 million in Express-1 Expedited Solutions, a third-party provider of transportation and logistics services that traded at the time on the American Stock Exchange as XPO.[failed verification] "
    • https://www.reuters.com/article/us-express1/jacobs-puts-150-million-into-express-1-aims-big-idUSTRE75D6N720110614 ****
  • Company description is different to the source.
  • "71 percent" isn't mentioned in the sources. There might also be other issues, I haven't checked every aspect of the claims.
  • Article doesn't say that it was listed by Jacobs
  • Article doesn't say when he took up this position at GXO
  •  Done Apologies that I missed this, it was due to the missing hyphen
  •  Done The Time article doesn't support the August date, but the WSJ article does
Below are sources and feedback to current page tags and sourcing to support the information.
  • In 1979,[citation needed] Jacobs co-founded Amerex Oil Associates Inc., an oil brokerage firm.[9]
  •  Done
  • In 2010, he established Jacobs Private Equity LLC, to invest in a single company.[13][importance?]
  • I disagree that creating a private LLC in order to purchase shares is notable
  •  Done

Freightguy1975, you are most welcome. My comments are written in green above. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

April 11 2023

[edit]
Thank you @MrsSnoozyTurtle for being so thorough and adding the information to the page. I have a few more points and sources for the remaining notes you added. See below:
  •  Done
  • "Jacobs grew United Rentals through a strategy of consolidating equipment rental dealers in North America."
    • The wording is a concise summary of the events stated in the article In-text attribution, quotation marks, most of the text adequately paraphrased, and inline citation. Wikipedia:Plagiarism Wikipedia:OWNWORDS Wikipedia:Use our own words
    • Here is another source from 1998 that discusses how the companies were acquired.
    • https://www.forbes.com/global/1998/0601/0105060a.html?sh=798639806fef
      • "He's always looking to acquire companies that rent out industrial and construction machinery -- from chain saws and air compressors to bulldozers and cranes. And there are few better leads than your everyday Yellow Pages. "If ten pages are missing under 'equipment rentals,' you know we've been there," says Jacobs, chief executive of Greenwich, Connecticut-based United Rentals, Inc." & "Last September Jacobs and his management team from United Waste pooled $46.5 million and began talking to underwriters. Two public offerings raised $200 million. Jacobs, who retained 40% of the company, had already started making acquisitions. They were tough to find, because there's little public record of family-owned rental companies. So Jacobs read five years' worth of trade magazines, downloaded the Web sites of hundreds of rental stores and hired a private investigating firm with dozens of databases to identify potential targets. The best source turned out to be the rental store owners themselves. "The real way we did due diligence was good old-fashioned meeting people over cups of coffee," says Jacobs. Many of them agreed to sell their businesses to United Rentals. It turned out they knew their competitors' business almost as well as their own and often provided leads for new deals."
    • Or if you see fit it could be reworded to: "Jacobs grew United Rental through hundreds of acquisitions and became the world's largest equipment renter in the world." https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2018/04/10/xpo-logistics-bradley-jacobs-billionaire/?sh=52116fe5ca6c
  •  Done
  • "In 2011, Jacobs invested approximately $150 million in Express-1 Expedited Solutions, a third-party provider of transportation and logistics services that traded at the time on the American Stock Exchange as XPO.[failed verification]"
  •  Done with re-wording to match the sources
  • I think these tags were previously resolved?
  •  Done although my preferred wording is slightly different. Happy to discuss if you like.
  •  Done
  •  Done thank you for the explanation.
  • I also noticed you recently added “, an oil trader originally from France” to the Personal life section. Can I ask why this information was added?
  • His partner also being a businessperson seems relevant, especially since Mr Jacobs also previously worked in oil trading. Of course, if this information is incorrect, I am happy to amend it.
Thank you for your help in adding this content to the page. Freightguy1975 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Freightguy, glad to hear that it's appreciated.
Rest assured, I haven't overlooked your request. It will take some time to go through it all, but I should be able to do it within a few days. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle Thank you for taking the time to go through it thoroughly. Freightguy1975 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Hi @MrsSnoozyTurtle and @Gannymetis please discuss on the talk page before making any future edits to the page before turning this unnecessarily into a contentious issue as there are obviously very different opinions. @Gannymetis nor @MrsSnoozyTurtle represents Brad Jacobs or XPO but I do not know if there are other COIs that either have. Thank you. Freightguy1975 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am a former employee of XPO, but have no connection with them or Brad anymore which I already have stated. I think that MST's behavior on this page needs to be discussed and that they need to declare COI because her behavior on this page strongly indicates an unusual interest in the subject of this article:
1) First, MST attempted to delete the page on a bogus claim (lack of notoriety) that was immediately disproven ( https://time.com/6237005/xpo-brad-jacobs-interview/, https://www.wsj.com/articles/bradley-jacobs-has-acquired-more-than-500-companies-heres-what-he-has-learned-11572228061, https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2018/04/10/xpo-logistics-bradley-jacobs-billionaire/?sh=5df8cac6ca6c )
2) Then MST has been absurdly controlling about every detail of the page—not sharing the sandbox.
3) Now she’s adding fluff to the page that’s not at all related to why the subject is notable.
As far as the latest edits she has made, as I put in my summary, she's stuffing the article with superfluous information about Brad Jacobs's non-public-figure spouse, which is ridiculous and unnecessary information. Gannymetis (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are IPs involved without any discussion and who have never edited anything. Seems fishy to me. Gannymetis (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Freightguy1975 for starting this discussion. I hope that we can politely work through any content issues without any further accusations of COI or sockpuppetry. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrsSnoozyTurtle, please respond to the following points:
1) In December 2022, you deleted this page because you said the subject lacked notoriety. In doing so, you ignored very recent media profiles of the subject in TIME magazine, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes—and those are only the recent examples. Additionally, the subject has been the CEO of multiple Fortune 200 companies and is currently chairman of three Fortune 200 companies. The question of his notoriety is a no-brainer. Why did you delete this page?
2) Immediately after deleting this page, you either massively revised or outright deleted the pages of the three large, publicly-traded companies of which the subject is chairman. Many of your edits were overturned. I have explained my interest in this page by declaring a COI. What is the explanation for your sustained interest in this subject and his business activities?
3) When your deletion of this page was rightly overturned, you pivoted to micromanaging every detail of the page. Why? You delete lots of pages, but it's rare that you stick around and stay involved to this extent. Again, what is the explanation for your sustained interest in this subject?
4) Re: the subject's wife, your activity here is very contradictory. After deleting the page because TIME magazine, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes aren't notable enough for you, you're reaching to obscure sites like "ny.eater.com" and "dnainfo.com" to add unnecessary information about the subject's wife, who is not a public figure and not the subject of this article. Why do you believe dnainfo.com is sufficiently notable and that TIME, WSJ and Forbes are not?
5) Also re: the subject's wife, you wrote that she's been involved with "several" food and beverage businesses, but then you list no fewer than five references, all of which mention only one food and beverage business. "Several" is simply false and five references where one would suffice is superfluous. Please explain your reasoning.
These factors strongly indicate an undisclosed conflict of interest on your part. That a random IP address chimed in to support your arguments hints at the possibility of sock puppetry. I find it interesting that you did not respond the substance of my previous statement and instead changed the subject to tone. I believe you should not make direct edits to this page. Instead, you should make edit requests on the talk page and allow a less biased editor——or an editor whose conflict of interest has been openly declared——to review your suggestions and make the edits, if appropriate. Gannymetis (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is by no means proof of my COI, and many of those characterisations are false or misleading. Regarding the sockpuppetry WP:ASPERSIONS that you are casting, could you please "put up or shut up" (i.e. file a sockpuppet report if you are concerned)? MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle You have again failed to substantively respond, and you broke your own politeness rule in telling me to “shut up”. It seems I’ve struck a nerve. Here are my questions again, for your convenience, with new items listed first:
1) NEW: You said, “That is by no means proof of [your] COI”, which raises more questions than it answers. Do you categorically deny that you have a COI regarding this article? Do you categorically deny that you accept undisclosed payment for certain edits?
2) NEW: Re: the subject’s wife, you wrote that she’s “a businessperson whose [sic] has previously been involved in the family investment company”. Glaring grammar error aside, this statement is 100% false and not at all supported by the Forbes article you included as a reference. Here’s the only mention of the subject’s wife in the Forbes article: “Eventually Jacobs moved to London (where he met his oil-trader wife)”. There is simply no support for the statement you wrote in the article. Why did you misrepresent the facts?
3) UNANSWERED: Why did you delete this article in 2022 on the basis that the subject lacks notability despite recent media profiles in iconic media outlets such as TIME, WSJ and Forbes?
4) UNANSWERED: Re: the three companies of which Jacobs is chairman, why did you delete the RXO article, deface the XPO article and attempt to delete the GXO article?
5) UNANSWERED: Why do you check this page every day to micromanage every edit made by any editor?
6) UNANSWERED: Why did you falsely claim that the subject’s wife is involved in “several” food and beverage businesses when the references you included all only mention one food and beverage business?
7) UNANSWERED: Why did you list five references to support the existence of one food and beverage business? Why did you falsely state that each reference supports a different claim?
8) UNANSWERED: Why are you using low-caliber references like ny.eater.com and dnainfo.com to support your edits when recent profiles of the subject in TIME, WSJ and Forbes weren’t enough to stop you from attempting to delete this page?
REQUESTED EDITS: @MrsSnoozyTurtle’s edits to the ‘Personal life’ section of this article should be reverted. The subject’s wife has not “been involved in the family investment company”. The subject’s wife has not owned “several food and beverage businesses”. Mrs. Turtle’s edits are not supported by the references she listed. Gannymetis (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that another random IP address chimed in today, building on @MrsSnoozyTurtle's edits to speak negatively about the subject's wife. Many thanks to Mvqr for the quick intervention. Gannymetis (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gannymetis, could you please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS? I don't have a COI here and am not using sockpuppets, of course. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, a lot of activity and information over the weekend. Thank you both for responding here. What are the next steps to resolve this? Freightguy1975 (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the information I removed meets Wikipedia:REFBOMB and do not believe the information is notable based on the sourcing provided. I agree with 6) - 8), as the sources do not support notability of the text and have unnecessary weight, however, I do not get involved with COI allegations. I am posting here due to recent vandalism and am removing information under the personal life section that is insignificant. Zero334 (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Zero334 for taking the time to review and deal with the vandalism. Freightguy1975 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Thank you Zero334 and also the mystery IP account who requested page protection. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Zero334 (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help

[edit]

Hello,

Please see my 'user page.' I would like to disclose my COI with XPO before making any edits.

Regarding the recent page name change from Brad Jacobs (businessperson) to Brad Jacobs (businessman) Wikipedia:Gender states to avoid using the gendered version. If I understand the rules correctly, Brad Jacobs (businessperson) should be the correct version. Also, this change has caused broken links that appear on the XPO page. The redirects appear to be set up incorrectly.

@Miracle Pen, @MrsSnoozyTurtle, @Zero334, I request that we come to a consensus on the name. I have pinged you as you are the most prolific on the page recently or you made the change. If you think the current version is to remain, I request that the redirects and links be updated. Thank you in advance for making the page accurate.

Freightguy1975 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Freightguy1975. If you navigate to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brad_Jacobs_(businessperson)&redirect=no, it will show that it is correctly redirected and nothing broken. Perhaps do you know exactly which redirect is broken? — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GENDER says no such thing (why would you use a non-specific term if the person's sex is known?). Not surprisingly, it states Where the gender is known, gender-specific items are also appropriate ("Bill Gates is a businessman" or "Nancy Pelosi is a congresswoman"). Miracle Pen (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. I am happy with either wording. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrsSnoozyTurtle & @DaxServer Thank you for the clarification and for resolving the issue. Freightguy1975 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DaxServer since the title has changed, I request that the language in the opening paragraph be changed for consistency.
- "businessperson" to "businessman"
- "chairperson" to "chairman"
Thank you in advance for making the page accurate. Freightguy1975 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested help

[edit]

Hello again, I'd like to propose an edit to include the recent announcement of QXO, Inc. Brad’s latest venture. This addition will help ensure the article reflects up-to-date information. I kindly request your cooperation in discussing this edit. I aim to maintain accuracy and neutrality in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Your feedback and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. I will add more sourcing here as they come in. Thank you in advance Freightguy1975 (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freightguy1975 agreed on adding this addition. Using an Investing.com piece, will add more as available. Palmbeachrunner (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Jacobs_(businessman)&oldid=1227650993"