Talk:Jehiel R. Elyachar

Please don't edit war

I recommend a discussion of the perceived neutrality of certain sections of this article be discussed here, rather than edit warring to remove them. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(Modified from what I posted at WP:ANI): Blanking is not the best option, but it does seem like our article speaks of things in Wikipedia's voice, as fact, when it's fairly clear from reading the Times article that the paragraph is based on, that it's really just what one of Milstein's sons said. Has anyone looked at the book mentioned in the Times article used to source this paragraph to see what this "different version" of the story is? I think the paragraph should probably stay, but trimmed and rewritten more neutrally. I've posted a proposed compromise to reflect what I think is a more balanced way of presenting the information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your change is a good one. Also see my comment, below - I think JimmyDNYC's recent edit is a good one, too. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict):Although I do wish the editor had discussed the change here, even after the fact (or at least provided an edit summary), I think this change, to remove the text "After the war, he insisted that others continue to call him "Colonel", even his children.<ref name=NYT2010/>" is fundamentally OK. The removed sentance, although (apparently) well sourced, seems to be a bit of trivia given undue weight. Comments, anyone? JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly either way; it strikes me as an interesting quirk rather than an insult to the man, but I can see how it might be considered undue weight, and I don't think it harms the article to remove it. If it comes out we need to remember to tweak the last sentence of the middle real estate paragraph. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss it wherever you want me to. As you said, I am new and don't really know who to talk to or how to do that. I don't know who is doing this editing since the site just has users doing it. I opened this account to correct false data. If you want to block my account or block the page, there is nothing I can do. I'm happy to have a civil discussion but it has been pretty difficult so far. The article has been out for 2 years - we wrote a letter to the editor to the NY Times but did not hear back as I'm sure they get a ton of those daily. I don't think his Wikipedia page has been online for 2 years. I will try getting in touch with the author of that article again. It is not right for something to be published that is not only untrue but slanderous and this site piggybacking on that one article. I would really appreciate your open-mindedness in looking at the whole picture and not just an article you found online. I can get plenty of people to refute that article who knew him much longer than those quoted in that piece if that is what you need. Please let me know how I should proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyDNYC (talk • contribs) 20:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi JimmyDNYC, you can look at the history tab of an article to see who is editing it, how long it's existed, etc. In this case, the history shows that it was created by User:Alansohn in 2010. We're all noms de plume here; there's no way, for example, for us to know whether you're his grandson or not (although I certainly have no reason to doubt you). Partially because we're all nomes de plume, we can't just take people's word on things, and instead need to cite things in reliable sources, and we make editorial decisions based on consensus (although we define it in a slightly unique way: WP:Consensus). Does my proposed compromise wording of the real estate section address your concerns, or do you still disagree with it? I agree that the NYTimes article in question seems to rely heavily on quotes from people who might be considered unfriendly to Mr. Elyachar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think the colonel bit is an interesting little detail and is sourced to a NYT article. But if everyone else feels it should be removed, please feel free, I wont object. I noticed the ANI thread, decided to pop over and skim the article and and then checked the histoy noticing that JimmyDNYC had once again removed sourced info without so much as an edit summary. Heiro 01:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment! As I noted previously, I think removing it is reasonable. However, I'm going to let things stay as they are for a bit, pending others' comments. Thanks again, JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the sentence in question. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd vote to put all of the details back into the article, "Colonel" anecdote and details of the Lincoln Plaza non-sale included. Over the past few days this article has been eviscerated without any valid justification. The article was written based on multiple reliable and verifiable sources, was carefully researched, and was written neutrally and in balanced fashion by someone with no connection to the subject, no axe to grind and no turd to polish. An individual who I will accept is his grandchild now wants to whitewash his background, so we have gutted some of the more interesting aspects of the individual. Wikipedia editors and readers all lose when we allow a blatantly biased editor with a reputation he hopes to burnish to have veto power over an article. Alansohn (talk) 01:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)