Talk:Tony Aquila

The section of controversies

This section of article are lies and contains personal attack to Mr. Aquila and need to be removed. Before change back, pleaese discuss here to see if it is appropriate to defame a CEO and pulic figure like this without clear evidences. 142.126.184.225 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, "leadership failures, Aquila’s brash, vulgar, and belittling comments to colleagues",these are all not find in the court conclusion, and are personal attacks, thus should be removed. Dongwenliang (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing used for this section as of this edit [1] is utterly unacceptable, making the content a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've extended confirmed the article for a week to force discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I want to stress that the quotes I am citing in the Controversies section are from a legal court document filed in the civil action C.A. No. 2019-0702-SG, making them factual and not personal attacks. Thus, they should be retained for the sake of transparency.

Credibility of Court Documents

The court documents I am referencing are among the most reliable and credible sources of information. Being official records, they undergo meticulous examination during legal proceedings, making them valid representations of events. As such, they carry significant weight in providing accurate details about Tony Aquila's controversies.

Objective Representation

By quoting directly from a legal court document, I ensure objectivity and minimize bias that could arise from secondary or less authoritative sources. The language and content of these documents are carefully scrutinized, making them ideal sources for a Wikipedia biography.

Transparency and Verifiability

I have provided links to the court document from a reputable news outlet [2], which hosted the transcript, allowing full transparency and easy verification for any editor who wishes to confirm the accuracy of the quotes. The fact that the document is accessible from a credible and reputable website specializing in news relevant to the automotive repair industry provides additional validation.

Relevance of Controversies

Controversies surrounding public figures like Tony Aquila are essential for readers to understand the person's public perception and the impact of their actions. Omitting such critical information would create an incomplete and potentially misleading biography.

Wikipedia's Commitment to Comprehensive Information

Wikipedia aims to be a comprehensive and reliable source of information. By including significant controversies backed by valid court documents, we ensure that readers have access to a well-rounded and thorough account of Mr. Aquila's career.

Addressing any concerns about the source hosting the PDF file, it is vital to acknowledge that it comes from a reputable news outlet known for providing relevant information on the automotive repair industry. Additionally, the official court records [3] confirm the case numbers, persons involved, and dates of the civil action, further establishing the authenticity of the court document. Court documents are widely recognized as credible and objective sources, making them ideal references for biographical information. By retaining these quotes, we uphold the principles of transparency and accuracy, thereby enriching the article's content for Wikipedia's readers. ImperialIdea (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Per long established Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy - one of the primary policies of Wikipedia - we do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. This is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize that the Controversies section provides valuable insights into Tony Aquila's professional history and public perception. Having read the policies, I agree that we must exercise caution in using primary sources and avoid making direct assertions solely based on trial transcripts. However, it doesn't mean we cannot utilize information from court records as evidence to support these claims in a responsible manner.

To comply with Wikipedia's policies, I propose the following modifications to the Controversies section:

Controversies

Solera Global Holding Corp.

Following the take-private transaction of Solera, reputable secondary sources [reference]. Aquila's leadership failures and misplaced spending priorities, which resulted in Solera missing its plan objectives. Reports suggest that Aquila's interactions with colleagues led to significant personnel turnover, including in the executive ranks. A 2018 investigation initiated after a complaint from one of Aquila's subordinates uncovered allegations of aggressive and abusive behavior by Aquila in violation of Solera's code of conduct, as stated in court records [reference]. These incidents allegedly had an adverse impact on Solera's ability to retain employees.

Canoo Inc.

On March 29, 2021, Canoo, an electric vehicle company, announced changes to its business model. During a conference call discussing its financial results, the company's CEO, Tony Aquila, announced the replacement of the CFO, as reported in reputable media outlets. Subsequently, a lawsuit was filed alleging that the company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose the changes to its business model [reference].

In the modified controversies section, reputable secondary sources are utilized as references to support the assertions made, avoiding direct reliance on trial transcripts or court records. This approach aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the usage of primary sources for living persons.

By incorporating information from reliable secondary sources and appropriately attributing relevant court records, we maintain transparency and adhere to Wikipedia's policies. These changes ensure that readers have access to well-rounded and verifiable information without violating Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies of living persons. ImperialIdea (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

As I have already stated, we are not going to cite court records. This is not open to negotiation. And nor are we going to cite a press release from Bernstein Liebhard, since it is a primary source from a law firm involved in a dispute. Which leaves the only other source you cite - an article from the Dallas Morning News (archived link [4]) which states that a lawsuit concerning Aquila was dismissed. The Dallas Morning News article in no shape or form even remotely supports your proposed text, which is self-evidently partisan, and clearly intended to cast Aquila in a bad light while failing to justify doing so through appropriate sources. You would probably be well advised at this point to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and take your beef with Aquila elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns and feedback on the controversies section. My intention is not to engage in tendentious editing or portray Tony Aquila in a negative light. Instead, I aim to present a balanced and verifiable account of notable controversies surrounding him, using reputable secondary sources.

While I understand the caution regarding primary sources, I believe that the section can still contribute to the article by incorporating the reputable secondary sources mentioned earlier. It is essential to consider that the controversies section provides valuable insights into Tony Aquila's professional history and public perception.

Rather than solely focusing on my edits, I kindly request that we also address the edits made by others who are entirely striking out the controversies section. I believe that this section should remain in the article as it portrays a more accurate representation of Tony Aquila's career and controversies.

Let's collaborate to ensure that the section meets Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons, providing valuable insights for readers while respecting Wikipedia's policies on primary sources. By working together, we can strive to present a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of Tony Aquila's career and controversies, benefitting Wikipedia's readership as a reliable source of information. ImperialIdea (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:CSECTION. And note that I am under no obligation to 'collaborate' with a contributor who is self-evidently editing in a partisan manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Allegations and Disputes Related to Tony Aquila

I've recently made edits to the article about Tony Aquila to include information related to allegations and disputes, sourced from a reputable news outlet, The Dallas Morning News. My intention is to ensure the article is comprehensive and accurate, providing readers with a full picture of Tony Aquila's professional history.

Reliable Source: The information comes from a reputable secondary source, which is in alignment with Wikipedia's content guidelines. Using secondary sources helps maintain the neutrality and verifiability of the content.

Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The edits were crafted to maintain a neutral tone, simply stating the allegations and related events without making definitive claims about their truth. The intention is not to tarnish the subject's reputation, but to ensure that significant and publicly reported aspects of his career are covered.

Undue Weight: While the importance of maintaining a balanced article is understood, it's also crucial to recognize that omissions of significant events (especially when sourced from reputable outlets) can inadvertently create bias by painting an incomplete picture. This particular event had a substantial impact on Tony Aquila's career, as evidenced by the cited source.

Consensus & Collaborative Editing: Wikipedia thrives on collaboration and consensus. It's understood that individual interpretations of Wikipedia's guidelines can vary, but it's essential that we collaborate to reach a version of the article that reflects all significant events in Tony Aquila's career. I am open to suggestions and further edits to ensure the content aligns with Wikipedia's standards.

In light of the above points, I kindly request a reevaluation of the decision to remove the edits. Let's engage in a productive discussion to determine the best way to include this information while adhering to Wikipedia's core principles.

Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperialIdea22:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

As I remarked in the section immediately above this one, you need to start be reading WP:CSECTION. Wikipedia now strongly discourages the creation of separate 'controversies' sections in biographies, and instead recommends incorporating any appropriate content into its broader context within an individual's career etc.

Regarding sourcing, yes, the Dallas Morning News would generally be regarded as reliable for appropriate biographical content, I don't think that has been disputed. As for neutrality and weight however, I would have to suggest that the source in question neither properly reflects your proposed content, nor supports your claim that the events described had 'a substantial impact' on Aquila's career. Such 'substantial impact' would have to be demonstrated through multiple such sources. Sources that actually stated that his career had been impacted. Instead, we have a single article noting allegations and counter-allegations regarding a lawsuit that was ultimately dismissed. An article that states that instead the dispute was to be settled by arbitration. Where are the sources on the result of such arbitration? Admittedly I haven't done an exhaustive search, but I can't find any further coverage of the 'feud', which rather suggests that it has been seen to be of less significance than you are suggesting.

Ultimately, what we seem to have is a single article documenting an acrimonious corporate 'breakup', with nothing much of substance to show for it beyond unproven allegations and no doubt a few happy lawyers counting their fees. Sadly, not that unusual in the corporate world, and probably not that surprising when $100 million or so in stock options are at stake. At most, given the lack of substantive further coverage, I can't see anything beyond maybe a single sentence in the relevant part of the 'Business career' section being merited: one that notes that he left Solara in disputed circumstances, and that after a failed lawsuit, the matter went to arbitration. Even that though is rather unsatisfactory, given that it would leave the reader wondering how the arbitration was concluded. Weight, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is determined by significant ongoing coverage, and we simply don't seem to have it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)