Jump to content

Talk:Richard Fuisz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Richard Carl Fuisz)



Sources

[edit]

Select content refernces: others available from GOOGLE.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22richard+fuisz% 22%22fuisz+chair%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


http://nymag.com/nymetro/nightlife/barsclubs/features/3047/index1.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0CE7DF103EF932A25755C0A967958260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FB%2FBlacklisting

http://www.thomsonpeterson.com/pschools/code/IDD.asp?orderLineNum=788339-1&reprjid=11&inunId=1560&typeVC=InstVC&sponsor=1

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE4DD1130F93AA2575AC0A9629C8B63


http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0794/9407045.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.247.100 (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Keep- plenty of notable stuff198.133.139.5 18:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Removed no sources tag-lots of sources at the bottom!198.133.139.5 12:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC) removed controversial material(Fuiszt (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Apologies if adding to wrong place ... in researching 'Susan Lindauer' - the New York Times Sunday Magazine (Aug 29 2004) -- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/magazine/susan-lindauer-s-mission-to-baghdad.html -- references Fuisz many times, including:

"Citing unnamed sources, The Sunday Herald, a Scottish newspaper, reported in 2000 that Fuisz had been the C.I.A.'s most important agent in Damascus during the 80's. This is not an issue I can confirm or deny, Fuisz told The Herald. I am not allowed to speak about these issues. In fact, I can't even explain why I can't speak about these issues. Fuisz confirmed that he saw Lindauer about once a week on avearage between 1994 and 2001 and that she would drop by to talk to him about her personal life as well as about her contacts with the Libyans and the Iraqis. He agreed to talk to me about Lindauer after requesting that his son, Joe, a lawyer, be present for our conversation."

This appears to be (a copy of) the Sunday Herald article referenced: http://911review.org/Lindauer/LindauerPanAm103-SundayHerald.txt

MichaelStraus (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)MichaelStrausMichaelStraus (talk)[reply]

Contraversey section

[edit]

I have removed this:

Fuisz has been perceived as a maverick in his willingness to go against the establishment. He was credited by the Wall Street Journal for obtaining and providing to the US Commerce Department the documentary evidence leading to Baxter International's no contest plea to illegally complying with the Arab Boycott of Israel (Economic and political boycotts of Israel)(Fuisz is a Roman Catholic).

Can this be sourced and made sure it is accurate before readding? Thanks, --Tom 15:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE1DE173FF935A15750C0A965958260&fta=y and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE4DD1E3BF931A35756C0A966958260 I think so. Why remove when you left it before with your last edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitownhustler (talk • contribs)

I have left the NY times article, but this needs work. We sure don't need the maverick business in the article based on the citation or his religion. He was fired in 1985 and then produced some memos that purported to show something that the company did wrong but the comapny says the memos are not real?? Anyways, this "material", "subject", "contravesy" has got to be written more clearly. I guess since I am the one removing it, I will have to do it? Great, --Tom 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree it could be written more clearly- the two NYT articles-one addresses the memos the other the result of the case- I think capture the idea. Changes to make it less "mavericky" and clarified the NYT story refs.Chitownhustler (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to rewrite this, give me a day or two, thanks, Tom 05:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

These are just a bunch of links without any context, if you want to readd them add them as sources for information in the biography. We don't need an index of where his name appears online, Google already does that for us:

Richard Norton

[edit]

Appears to be a relative of Susan Lindauer- not sure its OK for him to re-create the Richard Fuisz page without making this relationship clear. I think his edits should be removedChitownhustler (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Done after Richard Norton nonsense response to question of his relationship- copied from Richard Norton's talk page[reply] 

Are you related to Susan Lindauer?

I'm not sure its ethical to be making edits re: her without making that clear to the communityChitownhustler (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am related to you too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lindauer's cousin Richard Norton should not be editing this section.Chitownhustler (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Richard Norton keeps putting delta force stories on this page which are sourced only to Susan Lindauer. Ms. Lindauer has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial for her alleged role as an agent for the Iraqi government. Mr. Norton's use of her as a source is irresponsible. I see above a reference, which I cannot verify, that Mr. Norton is related to Ms. Lindauer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.247.100 (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Richard Norton, do you think that part you picked out of the recently out of the referenced article needs to state that its a quote from Susan Lindauer?- a person not able to stand trial because of competency issues? I would think it wouldn't pass the living people biography standard as you added it without some mention beyond the reference of the source. If you can find an official CIA admission of Fuisz's role in what Susan asserts by all means add itChitownhustler (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alanjohn you cannot add source material about "CIA raids" on the basis of a woman who has been determined to be incompetent by a federal court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.247.100 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She was declared incompetent to stand trial in 2006. That doesn't mean that she was incompetent to interview someone prior to that time. For instance, my great grandfather was declared dead in 1905 by a physician, but that doesn't mean he was dead when he married my great grandmother prior to 1905. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty clear in the living biography section that sources need to be considered carefully. The cited article was not a work of investigation, it was just a transcript of a discussion with a person who makes a number of claims which have not been and cannot be proven by any source I can find, by a person found to be incompetent in a court of law. Could she have had a moment of clarity during the interview? Maybe, but the story told is very much the same one told elsewhere. Why mess up all your careful work on this article by adding that?Chitownhustler (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Collins is not a legit source -- he is citing his claims based on court declared incompetent and known fantasist Susan Lindaeur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.128.214 (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Times retraction

[edit]

I'm not sure how we can add the retraction of an article by the times when its not mentioned in the body of the wiki article. Both could be added back, but I'm not sure whether that adds anything. The UN documents listing Terex as a supplier of rocket equipment after the war (and after the investigation/retractions etc.) says it all.Chitownhustler (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

[edit]

Richard C. Fuisz MCLEAN, VA US

  • 1. 20090014491 Packet structure, such as for a film strip 01-15-2009
  • 2. 20080292683 Film shreds and delivery system incorporating same 11-27-2008
  • 3. 20080276005 Method and apparatus for translating web addresses and using numerically entered web addresses 11-06-2008
  • 4. 20080268027 THIN FILM WITH NON-SELF-AGGREGATING UNIFORM HETEROGENEITY AND DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS MADE THEREFROM 10-30-2008
  • 5. 20080260809 POLYETHYLENE OXIDE-BASED FILMS AND DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS MADE THEREFROM 10-23-2008
  • 6. 20080260805 THIN FILM WITH NON-SELF-AGGREGATING UNIFORM HETEROGENEITY AND DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS MADE THEREFROM 10-23-2008
  • 7. 20080242736 Packaged film dosage unit containing a complexate 10-02-2008
  • 8. 20080226695 THIN FILM WITH NON-SELF-AGGREGATING UNIFORM HETEROGENEITY AND DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS MADE THEREFROM 09-18-2008

Terex

[edit]

A lengthy discussion of the company belongs in the company article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Google Book and New Archive searches do show the name as proposed to be significantly more common.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carl Fuisz → Richard Fuisz – Far more COMMONNAME, used in the vast majority of sources and the name that this article was originally at before a user known for disruptive page moves changed it. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Long List of Patents

[edit]

I have removed a long list of patents on this page several times. There seems to be no justification for having this list. No other pages have a similar list, and it seem just like some kind of self-promotion. If you feel the list should be there, please provide justification Oberono (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed." --NeilN talk to me 18:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Ron Howard the director has a list of movies. Why shouldn't an inventor have a list of patents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.118.37 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because patents are not interesting. It's a pointless duplication of data that seems only intended to make the subject look authoritative. Steve Jobs holds many patents, but nobody wants to see them all listed on his Wikipedia page. It's also rather suspicious that a single-edit user was created just to put the patents back. Oberono (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep re-reading your sentence: "patents are not interesting." Patents are not interesting to people who are not interested in patents. Movies are not interesting to people who are not interested in movies. An author listing her books (of which there are many on wiki) is not interesting to those who are not interested in novels. The threshold standard of your personal interests is not a standard for editing at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.2.110 (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the notability of such a list is debatable, the way it was added was complete word salad. At the very least format it into a comprehensible list that a reader can understand. — Reatlas (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not readable because Oberono's edits destroyed the formatting! But thank you for your post and I will attempt to re-insert with good formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.2.110 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I would strongly advise that you first reinsert the content here on the talk page and make sure there is consensus on its usefulness before adding it to the page, per WP:BRD. Otherwise it will probably get removed again. — Reatlas (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it -- I'll do that as you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.118.2.110 (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the narrative description?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.253 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the only qualifier -- I think these edits are entirely factual and I don't understand the objection?

I still think a seemingly indiscriminate list of patents serves little purpose. By all means describe things he has developed, but this is just a list. Regards. Jamesx12345 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, are you an inventor? Do you otherwise have any interest in patents? I am guessing you do not, and so you find it uninteresting. Those patents represent a select group of a larger body of work. Would you like me to write a paragaph on each of those patents? Why are you editing the page if you are not interested in inventors? You could go edit film makers who present entire filmographies -- many of which may be films that are not of general interest to the general public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.253 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are a formality to protect an invention, whereas a film is a finished product. That is why I suggest adding information about products. Many thanks. Jamesx12345 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an RFC on this on a community page (WP:VPR?) as a list of patents could be added to many articles. I can see where the IP is coming from but movies are generally covered by a multitude of sources. Patents, not so much. --NeilN talk to me 20:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James -- I appreciate your observation but I think you misunderstand the nature of a patent. To be "patentable" a patent must teach novel subject matter over the existing art. Thus, at least some information contained in a patent is deemed novel/new. There are many instances where the product itself does not readily demonstrate the novelty that may be claimed in the patent. For example, I might patent a new production method for widget that might be hard to discern when looking at (or describing) the widget itself. So, while the addition of a discussion of products that are connected to these patents would be interesting, it is incorrect to suggest that the patents themselves do not constitute a body of work. On the contrary -- the issuance of a patent is prima facie evidence of novelty and invention.

Nieln -- have a look at footnote 14 in the existing article --- from that footnote you can access any of the patents discussed form an authoritative source, i.e. the United States Patent & Trademark website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.253 (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The modified list (which I just removed) is WP:OR. This is quite obviously blatant self-promotion. Oberono (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a discussion - that's a listing from a primary source. Much like a list of rulings made by a judge in a court database. --NeilN talk to me 04:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Fuisz. 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:

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) 09:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this article is a mess

[edit]

I found this during theranos wiki rabbit hole. It seems to be written by either the subject or someone paid to promote the man. editorializing, clearly biased details, and I would be happy to devote more time to fixing this "vanity article" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooexist (talk • contribs) 08:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Fuisz&oldid=1207322699"