Talk:Terren Peizer/Archive 1

Reliable Sources

Most of the writings presented in this article, which at first appeared to be more like an advertisement than a real article, were not properly sourced and were therefore removed. If anyone is going to add anything back, it must contain a proper citation and reliable link to what is considered to be a valid source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inshiningarmor (talk • contribs) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the prose needs work. However, the referencing is quite good. There is no requirement that citations be accessable online - in fact, actual printed sources are usually more reliable. It does make fact checking more challenging when you can't just click the link, but that doesn't make the sources invalid. I spot checked a few of the facts against what is available online, and it looks pretty accurate.--Kubigula (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-started, even though in my opinion it is irrelevant and should be deleted. Much of what was written prior was not sourced properly and careful editing should be made when re-adding any material. (Refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources) Inshiningarmor (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added some. 66.108.145.222 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Junk Article on Junk Bond Salesman

Ok, so the important facts presented by ALL parties editing this (frivolous) article were merged together. Just so you know, it's not fair or proper to remove any valid information added because it really is relevant.

I also focused less on the REAL famous person here (such as convicted felon Michael Milken) and stuck to the (not famous) person in the article.

Keep in mind that most of the links need to be cleaned up and so many sources need to be backed up with citations. Feel free to add/edit them, but I am going to place a "citation needed" for most of them.

Personally, I think this subject is completely unimportant and the article is filled with "junk", as it should be deleted entirely, but I worked with it anyway. Inshiningarmor (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summaries and the explanation above are not accurate, which is why I reverted to an earlier version, which appears to have no technical referencing problems. There was nothing apparently wrong with the article's pre-existing links. There is no requirement at all that wikipedia footnotes be to online sources, as others have informed you earlier. There is the same amount on Milken in both versions, what was removed was other stuff on Drexel, Burnham Lambert. Your edits removed obviously relevant, and cited, text on Peizer like the old estimate of his net worth, and much worse, many citations, which supported some of the remaining text of the article. Then you placed citation needed tags on things which had previously been cited, like "From 1999 through 2003 he was a director, and from 1999 through 2000 he was chairman of the board of supercomputer designer and builder Cray, Inc., a Nasdaq Global Market company, and remains its largest beneficial stockholder.[citation needed]". This had earlier been accurately cited to the Forbes profile, which was linked to online here.

This is quite unacceptable; some might use stronger language.

Your new material is welcome, if neutrally phrased and properly sourced, as is the more usual chronological structure and the more succinct lead. New statements like "Peizer was better known as a former junk bond salesman who worked for convicted criminal Michael Milken" have a derogatory air to them and are unacceptable in light of BLP, unless solidly sourced, which it does not appear to be. I recommend familiarizing with basic wikipedia content, sourcing and WP:BLP rules before more major work. If you want this article deleted, the only remaining road is to nominate it at AfD. My personal belief is that the probability it would be deleted is zero. The tone was somewhat too positive, and the structure messy, but that does not make it a "junk" article.John Z (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged "Sources" Cannot Be Found

Most of the "sources" mentioned in this article are not found or traced on the internet and are therefore questionable. 71.167.248.41 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That something is "not found or traced on the internet" makes it "questionable" is not in any way, shape or form a wikipedia policy, guideline or practice. Please stop removing citations, as was just done after my last edit, and restore the ones which have been removed. Please make an effort to understand wikipedia policy and practice, and not invent ad hoc rules. Such removals are pointless as there is zero chance that such edits will gain consensus and remain in the article. As a BLP, this is an article that will be carefully monitored if attention is drawn to inappropriate edits. Why not just add additional material, not remove valid cited material or the citations that back up obviously relevant material, like the LA Times ref for his net worth? I would have been happy to integrate valid new material had I the time and energy.John Z (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, this is not your article and you are not the only one editing it. The prehistoric, alleged article on his net worth cannot be found or proven to be reported/proclaimed by a third party (not just Peizer boasting and/or lying) and regardless, the article found that reveals how much money his company has lost is recent and valid enough to overshadow prior nonsense. 69.203.13.241 (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Forbes Source Actually A Press Release Submitted By Peizer's Hythiam

The only source used repeatedly is actually a press release submitted to Forbes.com by Hythiam and is therefore considered to be an improper source, coming from Peizer's company, not a third party. Read it (http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=900245) and see for yourself. In it, it specifically states that "Terren S. Peizer is our founder and has served as our chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors since our inception in February, 2003." etc. etc. boasting mostly jibberish and alleged facts from a very subjective point of view: his employees.

That "source" should be removed along with the other imformation added because of it.

This article originally sounded like it was an advertisement or resume singing this fairly unknown person's praises. I also believe most of this article should be stripped and started from scratch, from a more objective and factual approach. 71.167.248.41 (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned Up Article

This article was filled with information primarily provided by Peizer's press releases from Hythiam. According to Wikipedia's Reliable Sources (WP:RS) [1]:

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for queries about the reliability of particular sources."

Also:

Reliability in specific contexts Biographies of living persons Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space.

In addition, according to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) [2], articles should be proven factual and not contain too much "sensationalism".

Moreso:

"Reliable sources (WP:SOURCES)

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link."

And according to Wikipedia's Verifiability (WP:V) [3] Page:

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

AND

"Questionable sources Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking."

THESE SOURCES NEED TO BE LINKED TO RESOURCES THAT CAN BE EASILY ACCESSIBLE, NOT SOURCES CLAIMED OFFLINE THAT CANNOT BE VALIDATED.

Therefore, ALL information must be reliably sourced and proven factual before adding. It should also be relevant to the topic and not contain too much jibberish or self-proclaimed boasting.

Inshiningarmor (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

However one considers it e.g. as an SPS (it is then Peizer talking about himself), there is nothing wrong with basing uncontentious claims on the Forbes profile; it was after all vetted by Forbes, and there are no extraordinary claims, and the article is not built around it. Again, removing cited material, and worse, leaving it in while removing the cites (which was repeated after my above caution not to do so an LA Times article ref I just linked, among others, was removed ) and adding "citation needed" tags to previously cited material is unacceptable.

The part in bold under "Questionable sources" is pure invention, the rest of the policies quoted are irrelevant to these edits. There is no requirement to provide online links. The article was messy and could have used some cutting and neutralization, but the recent mass deletions and unacceptable edits are not an improvement, although they come with new text and sources. I've started giving online links for various sources. Not all sources are available online. If anyone doubts something, the proper course is to go to a library.John Z (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I work in a library, and I'm here to tell you that most of them were false, either not existing or not containing this person's name in the articles at all. I re-added 2 of your 3 online sources, but one of them did not mention Peizer's name in it at all, making it irrelevant. 71.167.248.41 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources are "mine". I came to this article to review the prod and deprodded after seeing it had been inappropriately prodded twice. (Before it had been nominated simultaneously for two AfD's) Some of the links I just provided were only to previews of articles behind paywalls. So his name not being mentioned means nothing. There may be some puffery in the article, and some of the refs may be only tangentially relevant to him and the article and should be removed, but if this is done while removing other obviously relevant refs, and vandalizing the article by removing good citations to text remaining in it, it will be reverted. The proper procedure is to tag sources you can't find or think are questionable, not to mix possibly good material in with massive deletions and disruption. I had no trouble checking the existence or availability online of the sources I had gone through. If you want to keep the added material, ADD it, while not removing anything. Don't simultaneously vandalize the article by removing refs to the WSJ or the Washington Post or similar unimpeachable sources. I am about to report this to BLP/N in any case.John Z (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop trying to cover up the truth about Hythiam. It's a scam.

Hythiam is a shady, sheisty, possible scam and has been reported as such by various sources. The 60 minutes interview alone is one of the best sources about this person who created this organization, and in the interview, the reporter clearly shows that he thinks Peizer is just as much a con artist as he was when he was working for the biggest con artist - and convicted con - on Wall Street. The apple does not fall far from the tree, so this joker is no exception. Perhaps Hythiam is using a few pawns to try and cover their tracks on Wikipedia, but if you "google" this matter, it is evident that the recent sources people keep trying to delete here are more reliable than anything else provided previously. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to remove anything from the article, except the recent anons and SPA's. If the new material were merely added while not simultaneously removing cited material and citations to text in the article, thus vandalizing the article, it would not be reverted and would be there now, perhaps after some neutralization. Your post above has serious BLP problems.John Z (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasons Why This Article Should Remain As Last Edited

The clean-up by the other person was valid, due to the fact that most of the mentionings on the page could not be sourced. If mentionings of "The Washington Post" and other alleged sources could not be found, then regardless of the claims, they could not be backed up, therefore making them unreliable sources.

Wikipedia clearly states that if sources are questiond by more than one person and are not reliably sourced, they must be removed everytime they are wrongfully re-added. And the sources recently added which contains valuable updates about this person's company totally outweigh old ones that cannot even be found on the internet.

I searched for them myself and even paid to go through those publication's archives. However, none of the previously claimed articles could be found, other than the two that were re-added to go along with the newly CBS News (60 Minutes) and MSNBC ones. The bottom line? If it's false and/or questionable, it's not valid.

The old links can only be added again if someone can actually prove them to be valid. So far at least two people found them to be false.

Overall, so much was added to beef up this article prior to my intervention, yet the glorified boasting was both irrelevant and poorly sourced. So many people own investments, yet they do not mention it in other Wikipedia articles, even if they are billionaires. And where he grew up and how sentimental he was about the names of his alleged businesses is not as important as the recent facts presented by CBS News (60 Minutes) and MSNBC.

According to these reliable sources, Peizer and Hythiam are now being "highly questioned" regarding the validity of the company's drug treatment program, and being that people can read about this from various sources on the internet, even though two sources are quite sufficient, that means that it is pertinent informaton that would do this article no justice unless it is added to Wikipedia as well.

At first I thought this article was a complete waste of time, but now I see that the facts are trying to be covered, rather than objectively remaining. This article must remain objective, which means it should not allow for the previous "sensationalism", but instead stick to the facts, especially the current ones re-added (once again).

72.225.227.83 (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The other guy wrongfully accused of vandalism did an excellent job - along with a few others - sticking to the facts and now that the article fully has reliable sources in it, an expert has been called to come in and review the page as it is. Removing verified online links previously added is both rude and unethical. These links are more valid than the prior unlinked ones claimed to be true, but were apparently false. 69.203.13.241 (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your statements (in light of the proven socking, in all likelihood there is only one guy) are of course false, and the policy arguments nonsense. Took just a minute to dig up an online version of the Washington Post cite in the article[4] which was claimed to not exist (It shows Peizer in a somewhat positive light btw - a reason for removal?) All you have to do to get the new material in the article is to not simultaneously vandalize it (while making easily checked to be false claims.)John Z (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

John Z, Stop Removing Validly Sourced Links & Start Re-Adding Additional Ones You Find To Be Valid

Most of the old, "peacock" jibberish was not properly sourced online. If it was relevant to the article, there would still be articles mentioning it on the internet. If you feel those prior mentionings are valid, then RE-ADD them, rather than removing/vandalizing ones that have already been proven to be valid. So far, what has been cleaned up is sound and reasonable. Your rants and tirades on users, calling their sound edits "stupidity" is a direct personal attack and is showing your more personal interest in this article, rather than your objectivity. Refer to WP:APT as well as WP:RS and stop ruining a perfectly cleaned up, well-edited article. I am going to report this article to the administrators so they can review it and act accordingly. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Rather than adding to the bulk, it is best to start from scratch. If John Z keeps vandalizing the perfectly good edits, I will either request for the page to be started from scratch or place a template on the page to have it cleaned up by the administrators. Either way, I will include the valid links recently added anyway regarding the downfall and questionability of of the company's drug treatments. Why is someone trying to hide the facts? Could "John Z" be "Peizer" himself trying to hide info about his company? Too late fellow, because it was already documented by the media. Usually when one accuses someone of being more than one person, it's because you are. Regardless, stop glorifying in questionable falsities, stay objective, and stick to the facts. 69.86.244.16 (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is Being Targeted by People with an Axe to Grind

It's glaringly obvious from the attempted edits and the talk discussion. There are strict guidelines against libel and derogatory comments when it comes to biographies of living persons, especially those who are arguably not even public figures. The fact that some people even appear to care this much about shoehorning in negative information is a dead giveaway. Stop vandalizing the page with these incendiary grenades.75.82.59.206 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop Removing Objective Neutral Edits

The user above this section did not even sign his last comment, and did not even take a look to realize that the recent edits were 1.) neutral, 2.) objective, 3.) properly sourced and 4.) valuable to the topic of the article. This is not a place to rant about being unfair when in fact the recent edits were completely factual. Like most biographies, articles will have both positive and negative information in them. Either way, you cannot hide the truth. Also, all information has to be proven and properly sourced or it must be removed immediately. Again, the recent edits were proven and properly sourced. The clean up was not vindictive, but instead necessary. This is not a place to advertise your boss or submit your resume. Stick to the facts and stop causing unnecessary problems. An expert will be editing the page soon anyway, so stop removing the tag and allow them to do their job. 72.225.227.83 (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If It's Being Edited Soon by an Expert

Then stop pushing your negative tone and slant and libelous comments. Stop deleting objective information. You obviously have an agenda, and that agenda is not compatible with Wikipedia's efforts toward neutrality and strict guidelines against biographies of living persons. You've been told by multiple people, and yet you persist.75.82.59.206 (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Page semi-protected

I have reverted to the previous version and semi-protected for 48 hours. I've been looking into this situation for about 30 minutes and have read both versions of the article, and what I've seen is 72.225.227.83 (talk) and 69.86.244.16 (talk) removing large amounts of content and replacing the lead with a detailed description of Peizer's company, which is not the subject of this article and reads as a blatant advertisement. I've also seen 72.225.227.83 break the three revert rule and give warnings of vandalism to 75.82.59.206 (talk) when no vandalism exists. A report on this user to WP:AIV was also made and subsequently denied, which leads me to believe that harassment is occurring. I have opted not to give blocks to the users that currently appear to be acting in bad faith, but this will not be the case if the reverts start again in 48 hours. I have, however, blocked one IP for breaking the three revert rule. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now fully protected the page for 48 hours as it is apparent that the edit warring is not limited to IPs. If good faith discussions resume below, I will let the full protection expire in 48 hours and seek to deal with edit warring on an individual basis. However, the previous version, which blatantly advertises Peixer's company, should not be reinstated when the protection expires. I advise involved editors to join the discussion below and seek a compromise. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Objective Opinion

Regardless of the bickering, I can honestly say that the information provided most recently seems to be proven as fact. The older edits had references that were not found on the internet like the other ones. I also agree that the old version was a bit puffed up and should remain objective, not like a resume or advertisement. Maybe we can start with the recent facts and add from there? Just a thought. TimeForYourRealityCheck (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

References that were not found on the internet are quite fine, despite what is being said by some person/people on this talk page. A lot of things happened in the world without being published on the Internet. If you question the accuracy of information that is sourced to an article you can't find online, a fair few Wikipedia users have access to e.g. press databases that might be able to help; asking around for such help might be useful. So long as information on the article is not libellous, it's fine to wait for a few days while such things can be sorted out Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromokla, can you add the links recently added and merge them with the current info? Also, can you remove the vanity sentences and additional nonsense that seem to project the article like it was described (like a resume or advertisement)? Surely your changes will be neutral to all and not in favor of just one. 69.86.244.16 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm glad the article on Hythiam was deleted. It seemed too unimportant for a Wikipedia article. Regarding this article, there is a lot of unimportant info here as well. Let's start with the investments, deals and other questionable falsities. According to the recently added New York Times article (that was wrongfully deleted), Peizer's 30 companies are all small. However this reverted article promotes tham all as big. Compare the recent facts with the vanity-filled older ones and you will find the truth somewhere in what was written recently and re-add it in the proper context of what's already there (but really shouldn't be). 69.86.244.16 (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To which links are you referring? I suggest you discuss what specific changes you would like with other editors here, rather than ask me to make them. In 48 hours, you will be able to edit the article freely, as long as there is no more edit warring. If someone reverts your changes, do not immediately revert back. Instead, address them calmly on this talk page making sure to not accuse them of pushing a point of view or vandalizing the article. Assume good faith and explain why your changes should be made, but also keep an open mind and make an effort to understand their opinion on the matter. The most important thing to remember is that Wikipedia has no deadline and it's ok to let something stand for a while even if you believe is wrong. There are some strong opinions among editors here, and it's ok to take the time to sort through them all. If certain editors do not respond to rational discussion, there are always ways to deal with that (See WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Dispute resolution.) Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, my prior objections have always been based on the wholesale deletions and obviously slanted and negative commentary being pushed by two users who apparently have an axe to grind. ("Junk bonds," "break" in quotes, a number of other pieces of unsourced information, a bad tone that does not fit with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and potentially runs afoul of libel laws.) In all honestly, I'm not sure the subject of this article should even have a Wikipedia entry. It may not reach the notability threshold, and it seems like this is more of a private person than a public person. Just some thoughts. Thanks for looking into this.75.82.59.206 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)