Talk:Western & Southern Financial Group

Edit war concerning Anna Louise Inn

One new user, MichelleYD, seems to be re-editing this page and others with a pro-Western-and-Southern bias. The Anna Louise Inn controversy should be documented here. It should be acknowledged here that Anna Louise provided a valuable service to the dozens of women who work there. Although Western and Southern and the non-profit running the Anna Louise characterized the sale of the property and eviction of its residents as a "win-win", the residents of Anna Louise and others in the community don't see it that way. Acknowledging that turning this women's shelter into a boutique hotel would result in economic development is fine, but both sides should be represented. We should try to keep NPOV.

Full disclosure: I'm a new user and definitely side with Anna Louise. I understand that that Western and Southern wants to protect its image. But I won't let this article or the John F. Barrett article become a PR piece for W&S no matter how long this edit war goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XtoTheFifthPower (talk • contribs) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not to change the subject, but I'm thinking that the Anna Louise Inn, as a historic building with plenty of recent news coverage, might ought to have an article of its own. I think a centralized location for information about the history of the building along with the current issue would be a good thing.

Back on topic, I'm not happy with the removal of cited content without any explanation -- Foetusized (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was the original contributor of the controversies section and, yes, I do resent MicheleYD constantly removing relevant, factual information in favor of pro-W&S spin. And, yes, thanks to free and open information, I can and will keep this edit war up indefinitely, if necessary. W&S's money and attorney budget makes no difference here. I agree with the above commentor that Anna Louise should also get their own article. For the record, I'm very much pro-Anna Louise and anti-W&S. What they did was horrible and abhorrent. However, I've attempted to present the cited facts as they relate to the controversy - nothing more. Dkaplan73 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I agree completely with a separate article for Anna Louise inn. No matter your position on the Inn, to have a Western Southern page with more content devoted to the Inn than the company seems very weird. I definitely have a pro Western Southern bias because I know the charitable work the company has done firsthand. MicheleYD (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to separte the Anna Louise Inn article and provide both perspectives (CityBeat, ALI and Enquirer, which all have differing viewpoints on the benefits of the agreement). I'll let it lie for the time being, but all please chime in. MicheleYD (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have created a new Anna Louise Inn article that retains the original content of User:Dkaplan73. Please review and see if it meets the intended purpose. MicheleYD (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I restored the controversy facts... again. MicheleYD, the fact that there is more content devoted to the Inn controversy doesn't negate the fact that it's appropriate. "Weird" is a subjective term and your reasoning is specious, at best. If you find the fact that the controversy items overwhelm (imo, appropriately so) other facts, then feel free to add more positive facts to W&S's article. DO NOT delete factual items just because they are "weird". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkaplan73 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dkaplan73 has removed the links to the Anna Louise Inn page and persists in vandalizing the corporate page with his politicized views of a controversial topic. I did what multiple parties agreed to and created a separate ALI page for a balanced presentation of the facts. Instead of linking to that page, that user is destroying the content. This is vandalism, in my view. MicheleYD (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the original controversy edit - again. As a point of fact, I also linked to the Anna Louise Inn article. MicheleYD, the only person destroying or vandalizing pages is you. You've already demonstrated your disregard for facts and it's quite obvious you'd rather sweep said facts under a cyber rug. No one "agreed" to anything. Suggestions were made - nothing more. Moreover, there is no reason the facts - ALL the facts - can't reside on both pages. Since both W&S and ALI were both equal parties in the litigation and final settlement - both parties (and their respective articles) deserve to have the controversy mentioned in full. That all said, I promised I would keep up the good fight and I have no intention of backing down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkaplan73 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

And once again undoing vandalism by User:Dkaplan73 who seems to believe that Western & Southern page is the Anna Louise inn page so he can deface it by posting a one-sided diatribe. Sorry, that's not the way Wikipedia works. MicheleYD (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

MicheleYD has consistently vandalized the page by removing facts that are consistent with the mission of Wikipedia while accusing others of vandalizing. Here's a link to what constitutes vandalizing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_vandalism . Everything is cited and appropriate to the article. Can we please lock this article with the controversies section fully intact? Dkaplan73 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I will advise you that you will need to follow protocol and go through the process. First step is to request a third opinion, if that doesn't settle your dispute, may be file a request for a more in depth investigation with the dispute resolution noticeboard. As far as page protection goes, you may be able to convince an admin to protect the page, but any request to do so would need to be made as a request for page protection. Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do escalate this. User Dkaplan73 continues to spam Anna Louise Inn article content, of one-side of the issue, on multiple pages (Western & Southern and John Barrett). That is why multiple parties agreed to create a separate anna louise inn page and refer to both sides of the issue. This user believes these pages he is spamming are about the Anna Louse Inn and his agenda.

Requested third opinion for both Barrett and Western Southern pages, which user Dkaplan73 believes are there to house one side (his side only) of the Anna Louise controversy.MicheleYD (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I see that many of you are new users and may not be very familiar with how Wikipedia works. Admins are not here to solve content disputes and this is a content dispute. The edit warring must stop. Then hash it out amongst yourselves or follow Technical 13's advice. Relevant guidelines and policies that everyone involved in this should review: undue weight, conflicts of interest, words to watch, criticism and neutral point of view (NPOV). If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Danger ^{High voltage!} 01:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. First off, welcome to both of you as I see you are quite new! Dealing with conflict is a skill that all editors will need to develop, but not one that is necessarily intuitive. I notice that the term "vandal" has been thrown around, but I do not see any edits in the history that meet the definition of vandalism. I see you have both been notified about edit warring on your talk pages, so you know about the three revert rule and this it is a hard limit, not an entitlement. My impression is that the sale of a historic inn/women's shelter, however contentious, is not going to be a major factor in understanding a Fortune 500, $52 billion company. Anything beyond a sentence on the subject would be an example of undue coverage of the topic. The version in the article now seems both neutral and reasonable, though it needs to be cited to two or three sources that discuss the sale. Does anyone take any issue with its neutrality? In May of 2013, Western & Southern signed a controversial agreement with Cincinnati Union Bethel to purchase the historic Anna Louise Inn in downtown Cincinnati. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to expose or set right a "great wrong." Please also take great care to adhere to our policy on coverage of living persons, which applies to statements about living people in non-biographical articles too. VQuakr (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)