Talk:Gerald Guterman

BLP issue?

An IP editor has just made two changes to the article, [1]. The editor, 74.225.164.70 (talk · contribs), has claimed claimed that they were justified under WP:BLP.

I'm not clear on why these edits have much to do with BLP, but the changes don't seem all that serious. (No important criticism and no references were removed). I don't see any reason to undo the changes. Does anyone else have an opinion? EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Now we have a new, large change by 98.72.145.13 (talk · contribs) which adds over 4,000 bytes to the article. I hope this is legit, and I hope one of the regular editors will have time to go through and check it out. If the change is controversial, we might split it up into sections and try to get opinions on whether each section is still neutral and appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, still learning how to do this... Please let me know if i screwed up and if for some reason my edits were unjustified. I'm more than happy to follow guidelines and I think that you'll see that my edits reflect a fair and balanced manner. Best Regards! NetHistoryBuff5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I received the note from EdJohnston to discuss my edits. I think the largest changes I made to the article simply had to do with formatting and structure. I used Donald Trump's page as a guide, assuming that it was a similar bio and probably edited daily or a least frequently enough that it would be a good enough guide to go off of. I think your biggest concern here is that there is no white washing of relevant information. One of my most important points was the citing of the subject as a felon. This is a VERY serious and potentially libelous issue. The previous editor put it in a context amidst other allegations that (while sited as being false) may have misled a reader.

I believe that in an effort to shy from potentially libelous material, such facts need to be better stated. In this case, what was the subject convicted of? A selective service violation at 20 years old as a protest to the Vietnam War and NEVER under any circumstances, convicted of any other criminal or misdemeanor act especially with regards to his business dealings.

Further, the sale of the Guterman Collection, though cited by the New York Times as being a result of his financial struggles, is misleading in that a FORCED sale would have had to come by bankruptcy. Actually, the sale of his collection was FORCED upon him by a divorce decree and the evidence of this can be found in the divorce filings of his second marriage.

I believe that I was able to put these main points, as well as others, into the proper structure without "whitewashing" significant or in some cases even insignificant points.

As a matter of fact, I gave a whole heading to the false allegations as well as public criticism with regards to his campaign contributions.

Guterman's financial troubles were also kept in the article under the tax law reversal heading. The Tax Law change was the seminal event that created his misfortunes during that time period.

Further, I put back the section regarding the QE2 bar mitzvah as this was probably the most frequently published event in the Guterman bio, both in the New York Times, Post, and papers across the country as well as in the best selling book "Den Of Thieves"...

Additionally, I set headers for other relevant info including his art collection, considered one of the most valuable and important collections of Old Master paintings ever assembled. I also moved the info regarding the sale of the collection to the proper place. If one were building a timeline of events, information regarding the sale of the collection would appear after the events of his his financial struggles.

I also set up a section for Guterman's extensive charitable participation as founder of numerous hospitals, institutions, etc.

Please let me know if this helped. Best, NetHistoryBuff5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WBLP: HARM

Actually, now that I've read further the section on Harm including:

Public and nonpublic information

"In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; an inclusion test can be applied in these instances."

I find that the inclusion of the subjects "felony" is completely irrelevant and potentially harmful. The subjects career is of importance in the bio and NOT a felony charged received as a 20 year old for selective service violation. This was not widely publicized, never actually, but mentioned only as a side note in a report.

Further, the inclusions of the false allegations as briefly noted in one sentence of an article and that were acknowledged to be false in that same sentence, hardly constitutes being included in the article as the "potential harm to the subject" should be taken into account.

I AM REMOVING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION BASED ON THE ABOVE WBLP: HARM:

In 1990, a Federal tax-fraud indictment was filed in the Eastern District of New York against Mr. Guterman which included accusations that illegal cash payments were made to organized-crime figures on Mr. Guterman's behalf in exchange for labor peace on several of his job sites in New York. Guterman was vindicated when the false charges were later dropped and dismissed by the Eastern District Court, early in 1991.[16]

The report also made note of a felony conviction that Guterman had received as a 20 year old for violating "selective service" in protest of the Vietnam War.

Best Regards, NetHistoryBuff5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where we stand.

The current piece includes all additions by all editors. I.e. it includes very favorable thoughts about the art collection, as well as those critical of it. It includes the QE2 bar mitzvah, and so forth. Everything is on board. I removed the felony remark, even though Guterman WAS convicted of a felony, according to the NYTIMeS. Thus, everyone's work is present. At this point we can now edit for clarity and according to WP:BLP. I don't see how the piece slanders Guterman. Using NYTimes and noted economist Bruno Frey hardly damages the reputation of GUterman. He was, at least in the 1980s, a very controversial real estate figure in NY and he fell on hard times. To say so is not slanderous.

We also have the issue of WP:COI, which remains unresolved. Smilo Don (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking again for the LONG article to appear and be edited

I feel like the questions and comments to NHB5 are just ignored. Please use this Talk page, and your own user page. The version I have created, with a great deal of work is the LONG version. It includes the work of ALL editors. I don't think its fair or appropriate for one editor, a newbie with likely COI, to simply revert to the version s/he prefers. The LONG version includes everyone's work, with complete citations in the NYTimes, by Bruno Frey, and so forth. Once we have the LONG version going we can work as a team to make it better. If there are specific issues that come up, such as things that are harmful, or what have you, then they can be edited and discussed. Isn't that how WP is supposed to work? I'm asking neutral editors to help here. Smilo Don (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking again that we DO NOT work backward from potentially libelous, and malicious wholesale edits, but forward from the current article

The objections here are pretty straight forward. Smilo's contributions have been nothing more than malicious, and reckless. The intent of Smilo's edits are obviously malicious and go against Wiki guidlines on many fronts. Wikipedia is (in my opinion) VERY clear about the care with which one should take when making edits to BLP. While virtually all edits from Smilo have been taken into account in this version, any additional edits should be discussed first, and one at a time. Due to "False Light" concerns, potentially libelous material, and the fact that Wiki makes it clear that BLP edits should be handled with the utmost care, I find it prudent to start from THIS version (which by the way includes, 90% of Smilo's edits in reasonable form) and work our way to a piece that we both agree on, INSTEAD of working from Smilo's smear campaign BACKWARDS...

I will take this opportunity to point out a particular edit in the hopes that we can move forward from this point and work together as a "team": The change from the header "Over View" to "In The 80's" doesnt make sense. That particular section is not about just "the 1980s". It is an over view of Guterman's career, where he began in the late 60's etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So I changed the 1980s bit. An excellent suggestion. Now, what is libelous? The critiques of the art sale? Does that harm Guterman? His bankruptcy? That's just an unfortunate fact. Can't see how that hurts Mr. Guterman. I'm sincerely confused. Which NYTimes article harms Guterman? Did he sue for libel and win? Has a court of law shown anything in this article to be false? Would you like to add other citations that shed more light? Please work cooperatively to get this article in better shape. (But not by throwing out everything that makes you personally upset. And why so angry? Is Guterman your uncle? YOur boss? Your friend?) Smilo Don (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again

Smilo, your persistent and malicious intent to paint the subject in a negative light makes me curious as to YOUR OWN RELATIONSHIP to the subject. In my experience, it's usually the dirtiest fingers that are pointed first. You're asking why I'm so angry (when I'm not) but perhaps you should be asking yourself the same question. Perhaps you were harmed by the success of others? Maybe you are being paid to post negative and malicious material? There's nothing here that makes me "personally upset". I do find it interesting that you have taken such an interest in this particular subject and believe that it's more than legitimate to question YOUR OWN personal bias and intent here. If you are looking to contribute to this community, dont be "THAT GUY" who makes all edits with a chip on his shoulder and a false sense that he's doing something righteous for his cause.

You stated that your changes reflect that of multiple users, though out of all the users that have ever contributed to this article, only 2 users have ever posted negative material here and you are one of them. So lets not use the term "EVERYONE" to help make your case.

Further, CRITIQUE of the art sale is included in the current article (along with the comments of the actual auctioneer) as well as critique of the subjects campaign contributions (new york times) as well as his bankruptcy (new york times). Almost all of your consistently negative postings to this article have been taken into account here, regardless of whether they were actually relevant to this subjects biography or not. If you actually read the article BEFORE you reverted it, you would see that these issues have been discussed. Virtually everything is in here with the exception of "false light" context that you seem hell-bent on producing.

I think I have made a fairly good case here while keeping within the WBLP Guidlines and while taking into account the items expressed in your personal vendetta. If you would like to move forward as a "team" I'd ask that we begin from the article in its current form and deal with each issue and edit one at a time, simply taking into account that this is a living person and therefor the article needs to be given extra care as CLEARLY stated in the WBLP guidelines.

I'm willing to work with you here if you are willing to follow policy and and work with me.

Best Regards,

NetHistoryBuff5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no relationship to Mr. Guterman whatsoever. I see the bankruptcy as relevant to Mr. Guterman. Just as one needs to discuss bankruptcy with regard to Donald Trump. It's not slander to point out someone's rise and fall. Nor is it slanderous to point out that the art sale had its critics. These are quality facts (well-cited to boot) for a Wikipedia biography. Cheers, Smilo Don (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no objection to those particular points being included in the article. As a matter of FACT, they are included in the current article in the appropriate form and timeline. There is objection to the context in which they are cited in YOUR version. If you would be willing to work on 1 edit at a time, I am sure that a reasonable, well written piece could be achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NetHistoryBuff5 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Protected; moving forward to fix problems

In the history of this article, I see edit warring. I have therefore protected the article for a week. This protection, need I remind anyone, is not an endorsement of the current version. Given the above comments by NetHistoryBuff5, it appears that there may be problems relating to the BLP policy on this article. This is nonetheless not an excuse to remove factual statements which are referenced to reliable sources if they are relevant and not simply being given undue weight. True facts are by definition not libellous, and as long as the article maintains a neutral point of view criticism cannot harm the subject further than the original criticism which has reliable sources.

To move forward I ask you each, please explain what you think needs to be done with the article. NetHistoryBuff5, what in particular do you think is harmful to Mr. Guterman? Smilo Don, what criticism is it that is relevant to a biography of Mr. Guterman? I'm sure that there's a reasonable solution, and either way it can be achieved more efficiently if there is no edit warring. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 15:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What Third Opinion was needed?

I see there's a dispute, I see the page is protected, but I do not see a clear "executive summary" of the issues. If a 3O is still needed, that would be helpful. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Two requests for arbitration have been made on this issue by User:Smilo Don against User:NetHistoryBuff5, both were rejected as premature with the advice of WP:DR:

• 7 July case
• 16 July case

Besides topics on this talk page, it has also been taken to User_talk:NetHistoryBuff5 and User_talk:Smilo Don and edit warring can be found at the article history.

That for some basics on the issue. I may look into this further and see if I can provide a third opinion later. It would help a lot if both parties (User:Smilo Don and User:NetHistoryBuff5) could make a clear statement of their position - and how they think the issue can be resolved. =Species8473= ^(talk) 12:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Felony conviction

This might be a minor part of the current dispute, but I have a pet peeve about editors trying to expunge felony convictions (ever since somebody argued for several weeks that Martha Stewart's conviction wasn't relevant to her article). In general felony convictions are life-changing events and should be included (assuming there was actual time served).

Since the source seems to be the NY Times, I'd say include it. The youthful aspect (before career started?) might argue against inclusion, but the article has his career starting at age 18 and the conviction wasn't until age 20.

Smallbones (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerald Guterman. 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/20080713133814/http://www.gutermanpartners.com/default.asp?pg=press.asp&mi=mainbg to http://gutermanpartners.com/default.asp?pg=press.asp&mi=mainbg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090126084533/http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/archives/ceeman98/0254.html to http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/archives/ceeman98/0254.html

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) 22:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)