Talk:Barney Glaser

I have added material re: Dr. Glaser's creation and management of Cascade Acceptance Corporation, now in bankruptcy. The material I added is available from the California Bankruptcy Courts. It is important that Wikipedia site visitors who are searching for information about Dr. Glaser know at least part of the story of his post-academic activities. Ricste (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested
I've requested semi-protection on the page to stop the IP's persistent reverts w/o discussion. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have used the traceroute tool to pinpoint the IP to the locale where the subject lives. That doesn't mean that this IP is Dr. Glaser himself, but it's hard to believe that anyone else in that location would have such an interest in purging this page of all non-academic content. I went through a lot of back and forth discussions with one of the Wikipedia editors (MaterialScientist) to develop an objective, non-libelous posting of information pertaining to a very important court case involving Dr. Glaser and a company he founded and presided over (Cascade). I felt that it was important, given the way he ran this company, that Wikipedia readers should be able to at least see a small summary of what the California Bankruptcy court concluded. This is the additional material I would like to add (between the ++ signs): ++ The bankruptcy court determined that Cascade had been insolvent for "a considerable period of time," at least two years prior to July, 2010. Almost none of Cascade's assets were performing (i.e., paying interest). Cascade continued to post interest on quarterly statements issued to investors long after it was known inside the corporation that most Cascade assets were not paying any interest. The above-cited court document concludes that Cascade, while insolvent, led investors to believe that there was a "profitability that does not and did not exist." The same document concludes, "... these interest accruals [as communicated to investors] are likely a form of fraudulent conveyance." ++

Adding that material, all based on the reference available from the Court (I also have a copy), will allow Wikipedia readers to get a summary of how Dr. Glaser managed this company. Although I do not state this, or recommend it be included, Dr. Glaser's actions destroyed much of the life savings of about 100 investors who trusted him. Blocking the IP will, hopefully, prevent Dr. Glaser himself, or a close supporter, from purging/censoring this important material. [Of course, it's probably a dynamic IP, so perhaps Wikipedia has ways of preventing anonymous users from editing]. I am available to discuss this issue further online (here), by phone, or by email. Thank you. Ricste (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we CANNOT use the court record as the source of information (WP:BLPPRIMARY). We have to use secondary sources for the information.  I haven't found anything that goes beyond the rewrite that I did.  That's also a hint about the notability of this.  I'm guessing you are, or strongly connected to, one of the investors.  Believe me, I know how much that sucks.  However, unless there are good, reliable secondary sources, we can't the details you want.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 03:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy about court records is not based on any legal theory of justice. By the logic of this policy, records from the Nuremberg Trials could not be used to describe the crimes of Nazis until some reporter wrote about them. Records from the Watergate trials of the convicted Nixon era criminals could not be used until some newspaper published them. What Wikipedia has done is make sure that no court records may be referenced in Wikipedia articles, no matter what they say, until some newspaper or magazine or web article publishes them. So unless someone is famous - like a Bernie Madoff - and has their trial covered in the media, Wikipedia refuses to allow even summaries of public court records. This is very, very messed up. Facts are out there, publicly known, from an open court trial in the state of California. They very much relate to a person in Wikipedia. And yet Wikipedia refuses to allow the court record to even be summarized. This isn't a traffic ticket that Dr. Glaser received. This is the lives of 100 people that he largely destroyed through the theft of $100 million. And yet Wikipedia refuses to allow even a brief summary of what the court found. What a travesty, and a policy that Wikipedia imposes without any legal basis. Ricste (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Primary sources, including court records, are used at Wikipedia, but they must be used with great caution, and a lot of it depends on the kind of record and what it says. The danger in using court records is the interpretation of the editor. Lawyers and judges often disagree on the interpretation of court records, so it might not be surprising that editors could disagree as well. That's why using secondary sources works better because that source is the interpreter rather than us. Here, I haven't seen the records so I can't comment on the specifics.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Finally, I think you get it. Find a secondary source that goes beyond what I've been able to find and we can look at expanding the information.  This isn't a court of law.  This isn't Nuremburg.  You've been pointed to the policies, now you need to work within them.  The only travesty here is your refusal to accept that you can't get your way, that you need to work within the policies of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs.  That's what a blog is for.  If you find a secondary source, I'll be around to help out.  Until then.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It sure looks like Wikipedia is here to censor all controversial information concerning any living person that hasn't been published in a newspaper or book. How do you know some reporter did not misinterpret public data or court records, like the one you actually referenced? If you've ever dealt with the press, you'd know that this happens all the time. That's why primary records, including court documents, are so important. And did you not understand the difference between Chapter 11 and Chapter 7, both of which are forms of bankruptcy? Apparently even brief quotations from an examiner's public report to a California Bankruptcy Court are simply too dangerous for Wikipedia if they reflect badly on the subject.... Well, at least I owe you some thanks. I now understand much better how the censorship engines at Wikipedia actually work. I will never trust Wikipedia articles about living people again. You've shown me that political censorship doesn't only exist in repressive regimes - it lives and breathes right here, every day. Ricste (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you feel better. Now you can move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes once PP expires
An IP noted on my talk page that the Cascade Acceptance company was founded in 1968, no 1999 as the article currently states. From a search on California's Business Entity search page, the company was founded in 1968. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)