Talk:Thomas Kaplan

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Flamingoflorida (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Copyright violation

I restored to prior version due to verbatim copyright violation by Plot Spoiler of Forbes article ( http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0807/6604064a.html )Patapsco913 (talk)

Added back information

I went through the article sans the career part (which needs a lot of work since many of the links are broken or the citation does not support the text). I added back the info in the Early Life and Education section which is all properly sourced. Kaplan is a billionaire. Kaplan is Jewish. Kaplan is married to the daughter of Leon Recanati (not sure why the wikilink was removed). Kaplan donated to Eternal Jewish Family (the article says he gave $8M along with his nephew). He funded the Lillian Jean Kaplan Foundation ($36MM). His nephew is Guma Aguiar (which has plenty of coverage in the news and one could say that the deterioration of their relationship should be in the biography). Why not discuss things on the talk page rather than just keep removing properly sourced information?Patapsco913 (talk)

Ok, good stuff. Will do. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan long

Kaplan, with a long position in gold, keeps talking gold up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.239.144 (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a bunch of that talk from our article. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spinning off The Leiden Collection

The Leiden Collection is a significant collection of artworks. There have been several exhibition catalogs and articles about the collection and therefore believe it fits the notability requirements for a new article. I would be happy to begin doing the work of creating the article but would like some input from a more experienced editor. Hafabe (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of activity from paid editors and blocked accounts

If you look through the edit history you will see that this article is primarily the product of numerous blocked editors who are clearly engaged in paid advocacy. Plot Spoiler, Crazy Pug, Hunkybob, flamingoflorida, Zingvin, Delotrooladoo, and Jobas are all blocked accounts that have been heavily active here. They seem connected by their choice of articles and writing style. Susb1983, Patissirieclaude, Am0413, Hscmidth06, Artymuse, and Locksmythe are all unblocked but seem to be connected in a similar way. Note that Hscmhidt06 created the article. 87.120.253.81 (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an appropriate tag until this is resolved. 87.120.253.81 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to this page and noticed my edits were removed. The reversions was justified by saying that I was using unreliable sources and editorializing. First I understand that the sources on Adelson and not talking about Kaplan's involvements in UANI should of been removed b/c they are not relevant to the article. As well Lobelog is not a website I have heard of and if there is evidence that it is unreliable for this article I'd love to see it. I got those three from the UANI page to just say he was important to the organization, and I understand my mistake using those. However my the two main sources I directly cited were The Intercept and National Geographic, which are both very reliable sources and the latter is listed on Wikipedia's source page as an example of a reliable source. In regards to editorializing I was only putting down the opinions and views of Kaplan as seen by others, and while opinions are not facts it is a fact that they hold those opinions. For example it was a fact that Kaplan's 2017 speech at UANI was seen as threatening and prejudicial. Kaplan's activism against the Iranian government is very relevant to the article, as well as the arrest of the activists. Eons of Mollusk (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After I typed this I noticed you put it back up thanks @87.120.253.81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eons of Mollusk (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits also have serous problems but they do not rise to the level of attacking the article with one sockpuppet after another for years. 87.120.253.81 (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working to improve your edits. 87.120.253.81 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eons of Mollusk, thank you for your revisions and I would do more to participate and collaborate with you but I can't really do anything while this IP is making spurious personal attacks and disruptively reverting anything I do. Loksmythe (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]