Jump to content

Talk:Michael Kempner

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

Press release

[edit]

These seem to be solely press releases rather than actual content which is admissable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.193.183.234 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Previous comments appear to be solely PR puff articles and shouldnt be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.193.183.234 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facts about Kempner and Light Bulbs

[edit]

Jimjilin, stop reverted edits. You have attempted to put in the same POV pushing article a number of times and a number of different editors have deleted that contribution. Get consensus or request for comment, but stop engaging in a edit war. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xcuref1endx, you are right a number of different editors have deleted my well-sourced addition. That number is one.Jimjilin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you wrote: The first sentence is a copvio, copied directly from the source, and the second sentence is not supported by the citations provided.

I added: Kempner bundled for Obama’s re-election campaign, raising $3 million. He’s been accused of profiting from Obama administration policy.[1][2]

The first sentence is not a copvio! It was not just copied from the article.

The articles say: (Kempner was] also a top investor in high-tech light bulbs, which few people would buy if not for Obama-backed light bulb regulations.

Obama bundler Michael Kempner profits from the light bulb regulations and individual mandate Obama supports.

So my statement is supported by the citations provided.Jimjilin (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any other objections?Jimjilin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is copied directly from the source article, in violation of copyright law. The source doesn't say he's been accused of anything. That is your own interpretation. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about, Diannaa? lol

My addition: Kempner bundled for Obama’s re-election campaign, raising $3 million.

Quote from article: Investor Michael Kempner bundled $3 million for Obama’s re-election.

Not an exact quotation!

I paraphrased the article, which is acceptable and done throughout Wikipedia.Jimjilin (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Michael Kempner bundled $3 million for President Obama and has profited from the Obama administration's light bulb regulations.[3][4][5]Jimjilin (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the quotation. It's got exactly the same words, but in a different order. It would be better to come up with a totally unique way to say the same thing, but sometimes that's just not possible. Regarding the second sentence, Mr Kempner is not mentioned in the NY Times article, so that's out as a source. The second Washington Examiner article says he "profits from the light bulb regulations " while the first one says "He’s also a top investor in high-tech light bulbs". It doesn't say he's profited, just that he owns shares, but it doesn't say what company. I did find this undated press release (probably from 2010) which shows he was named to the board of directors of Lighting Science Group Corporation, a producer of high-tech light bulbs. Perhaps we could say that instead. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the part about his bundling to avoid using the The Washington Examiner which is an openly partisan source (specially the op-ed pages). Even if you look past the bias (or feel the Times is equally slanted), it gets a basic fact wrong. What the columnist calls Obama's lightbulb regulations is Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - the year on the bill might give you a hint, but it was passed over a year before Obama took office. The Examiner might work as a source for verifying some facts, but for more serious claims like the one that was made here, it fails as a WP:RS. Mosmof (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check this out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-touts-new-light-bulb-standards/Jimjilin (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)So the article doesn't get a basic fact wrong.Jimjilin (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the context - check the date on the CBS article - January 29, 2009. I know the article doesn't make it clear, but Obama is just talking about the standards that had already been passed into law in 2007. He's supporting them, but they are not his regulations. And in the future, please don't blind revert other people's edits just because you think you find a source that you think supports your POV. Please establish consensus first, then make the edit.
As far as I can see, the Examiner op-ed is the only source making the connection between Obama's support of 2007 lightbulb standards and Kempner's role with a lightbulb manufacturer. While it may seem like a simple statement of fact to you, if you're relying on a single opinionated source to make a point, chances are, that point does not come from a neutral point of view. Either that, or you're engaging in WP:SYNTH by making a point that's not made by a more neutral source. Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mosmof wrote: "but Obama is just talking about the standards that had already been passed into law in 2007." The article said: President Obama on Monday announced new federal efforts to promote energy efficiency in the United States, through stricter standards on fluorescent and incandescent light and other measures. So I think you are mistaken. You seem to feel the article is wrong and these particular regulations had already been passed into law. Why?Jimjilin (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the quirk of federalism and the three branches of the government. While the standards were passed in 2007, but the 2009 speech was about the implementation of the law. A good explanation here:
But despite the outcry, the new standards were not Obama's fault -- or even his idea. Yes, he voted for them as part of the broad reform bill in 2007. Yes, his administration is implementing consumer efficiency standards already written into law. And yes, he has actively promoted lightbulb restrictions. "I know light bulbs might not seem sexy," Obama said at a 2009 press conference with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, "but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses."
And take a look again at how he's connected to LSG. He's an executive with Pegasus Capital, a private equity investment firm. Like many PE investment firms, Pegasus installed its people in LSG. Sure, he no doubt benefits from Obama's support of President Bush's lightbulb regulations, but that's no different from anyone investing in construction equipment following the passage of ARRA. Plus, Kempner was named to the board in 2010. Obama's speech came in 2009 - the dates are backwards if this were somehow tied to his fundraising. Without further information, the connection is iffy. One could reasonably argue that the Examiner columnist is making a not-subtle suggestion that there was "pay to play" and exploiting the public's ignorance of which regulations belong to which president. Again, I encourage you to find a non-opinion piece that suggests Kempner's stake in LSG is tied to his fundraising and Obama's support of energy efficient lightbulbs (which predates Kempber's involvement with LSG). Otherwise, this appears to be WP:OR. Mosmof (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the article you linked to: "Yes, he [Obama] voted for them as part of the broad reform bill in 2007. Yes, his administration is implementing consumer efficiency standards already written into law. And yes, he has actively promoted lightbulb restrictions. "I know light bulbs might not seem sexy," Obama said at a 2009 press conference with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, "but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and our businesses." So some Republicans agree with Obama. I'm not sure why you feel this is relevant. The facts about LSG and 2010 are mentioned in the article I linked to. Kempner's MWW had been the lobbyist for Lighting Sciences Group. Could LSG be rewarding Kempner for services rendered? Do you really think millionaires donate money to politicians without expecting some kind of favor?! Washington Examiner is a significant conservative newspaper just as the NYT is an important liberal newspaper. No reason to privilege one over the other.Jimjilin (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that NYT is not, as some people claim, a liberal paper. Its liberal op-ed writers outnumber conservative op-ed writers (but not by much) and the editorials tend to be left of center, but it is not a "significant liberal newspaper", certainly not in the way that the Examiner (owned by Phil Anschutz, who also finances the Weekly Standard) is - the Examiner is a paper created specifically to be a partisan voice in (what is perceived to be) a liberal marketplace.
But that's neither here nor there. The issue is using a kind of vaguely written op-ed piece as a source to make the connection. And calling the regulations "Obama's" is problematic the same way it would be problematic to refer to the Iraq invasion as "Hillary Clinton's war" - just because she supports a particular policy, doesn't mean it belongs to her. The lightbulb standards were signed into law by President Bush and Obama is merely carrying it over the finish line. 14:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
According to your own source: Obama "has actively promoted lightbulb restrictions".Jimjilin (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about: Conservatives have accused Kempner of profiting from light bulb restrictions promoted by the Obama administration.[6][7]Jimjilin (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150209006239/en/Lighting-Science-Group-Corporation-Fastenal-Enter-Strategic#.VXz2d03D_IU

quote: LSG is called "a leading global manufacturer of premier, innovative LED lighting products"

Do you agree that Kempner profited from light bulb restrictions promoted by the Obama administration?Jimjilin (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is irrelevant here, and if you want to talk about the conservative commentary, then you'd need a third party source for the opinions pushed by Examiner (or another commentator). Look, I have a feeling we won't agree on this - do you want to discuss this on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? Mosmof (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the subject: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70621.htmlJimjilin (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimjilin, it doesn't help when you do a hit-and-run - post a link without any commentary or explanation, and revert without waiting for a discussion. I don't understand the point you're making with the Politico article (which doesn't mention Obama or Kempner). I've started a discussion here. Please feel free to weigh in. Mosmof (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First columns are never rs for facts. Second, the writing style of the edit leaves much to be desired. "Kempner is a top investor in a company that benefits from the Obama administration's light bulb regulations." What is that supposed to mean? Everyone in the U.S. benefits and/or loses from policies of all administrations. It's just innuendo, unless the passage draws some connection and comments on propriety. TFD (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908
  4. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924
  5. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/13/us/politics/obamas-top-fund-raisers.html?_r=0
  6. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908
  7. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924

Michael Edit Request

[edit]

Hello, I am an employee of MikeWorldWide and I have acknowledged my WP:COI for this article on my talk page. I would like to request assistance in updating this page with more recent information to improve its accuracy. Thank you in advance for your help!


Infobox:

  • Replace the older image "File:Michael Kempner.jpg" with the newer "File:Michael Kempner Headshot 2019.jpg"
  • Replace the "Known For" text "Founder, President, and CEO of MWWPR" with "Founder & CEO of MikeWorldWide"
  • In the same section, add "Former" to the beginning of the phrase "Deputy Finance Chair of the Democratic National Committee"

Career section:

Political activity section:

Best, Donahueegrace (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are essentially maintenance and non-controversial.JSFarman (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by another user.Melodies1917 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: removed a duplicate tag to close the request per Melodies1917. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Kempner&oldid=1206434096"