Talk:Lukas Walton

Edit War?

Seems a harsh thing to say. In any case, this fellow has been rated in the lowest 20% of charitable giving by Forbes. Further, he is the highest-ranking person without a photo in the annual review. We ought to at least agree these things are true. After that, we may discuss if these facts are trivial. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, so here is an explanation of Forbes' ranking of philanthropic giving. Link to Forbes Please advise me if are in agreement that what I wrote was true. Then we can move onto if it was noteworthy. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Here's a link by the Arkansas Times documenting his charitable giving. Also, the picture issue is a non-notable fact. nepaxt 04:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The article from the Arkansas paper details political donations by the Walton's foundation. There is no indication Lukas Walton gave any of his money. Further, the donations mentioned seem to political, not charitable in nature. Forbes is a reputable source. We accept it as reputable when it tells us this fellow is well-off. We ought to accept it as reputable when it tells us he has made few if any charitable donations. Please let me know what you think. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

(collapse) I put the issue for further review on on BLP Noticeboard. nepaxt 01:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment copied from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lukas_Walton to continue the discussion here:

Thank you for telling me to stop talking to you. I am not synthesizing anything. The Forbes page on Mr. Walton rates him a "1." nepaxt asked what that rating means. I provided a cite to another page at Forbes. It seems if I provide one cite that is insufficient. If I provide two that violates WP:SYNTH. This strikes me as strange.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello @PaulinSaudi: I did not tell you to stop talking to me, I asked for you to move the discussion to this space, as the noticeboard is not the right place for content discussions. After citing the relevant policy three times I think it will be better to continue here. Also, other editors involved with the article may want to contribute to reach a consensus. I will try to solve your doubts.

To answer your question, as editors of Wikipedia our role is not to add information that is not explicitly stated by a reliable source. Since we are building an encyclopedia we should only include the most relevant information in a neutral and balanced way. If you analyse just one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by that source, you are violating WP:OR and if you use 2 to do the same then you violate WP:SYNTH. If no sources make an express reference to a fact we usually don't consider it notable. I hope this helps to clarify the issue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please watch a page you contributed to...

Could you please watch Lukas Walton for an IP. That person may be a newbie or a POV-pusher. I do not know. But, the person puts fake documents in the web page. We may need to lock it for editing, since there have been problems with IPs editing the page with wrong information. nepaxt 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Nepaxt, if I start a page, it stays on my watchlist. Presumably it is the PDF that you believe to be fake. Why do you think that is the case? Looking at the homepage of 990 Finder, it is part of Candid, which is a well-established US nonprofit "information service specializing in reporting on U.S. nonprofit companies". However, such primary source documents raise concerns as set out in WP:BLPPRIMARY. As that policy states, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

I cannot access the susbscription-only Crain's (chicagobusiness.com) articles directly, but by typing "samantha lukas walton builders initiative" into a search engine (Google), one can see extracts "She's listed as an equal to Walton in Builders Initiative filings." and "and now heading his own foundation called the Builders Initiative". And with "samantha lukas walton", we get "It is said that Walton met his wife, Samantha, on the Blue Line to O'Hare International Airport". It is clear from articles in a reliable source that Lukas Walton is married to Samantha, and that they co-head Builders Initiative, a foundation.

Can we include "Baiz" (presumably her maiden name)? The only vaguely suitable source I can find is Candid Candace, "Additional notable guests included Amy and Andy Bluhm, Penny Pritzker and Bryan Traubert, Maria Pinto, Lukas Walton and Samantha Baiz Walton..." As the URL states, it is her personal blog, and the Chicago Tribune staff page, for whom she writes a weekly column, confirms this. WP:SPS sets out how self-published material can only be used in limited circumstances, and this does not appear to meet that standard.

Therefore with exception of "Baiz", I think we can reinstate the IP editor's additions, including the primary source, as it could be seen to "augment the secondary source". Are you okay with this reinstatement and my copying all this to Talk:Lukas Walton, as that is the better location for any future discussion of such matters? Edwardx (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)