Talk:Bill Lichtenstein

Updated resources
This article has been here awhile, and despite the occasional editor that seems to come by at random and update it very precisely (see history) the sources have apparently never been checked or updated. There are a few missing web articles, one of which has an archive that I've corrected. Others are entirely false in that they do no mention the subject of the article. This is troubling since the article seems to be a perfectly reasonable thing to have in the encyclopedia, yet its content and sources make it look suspicious and even moreso if the edit histories of editors to this article are investigated. Anyway, it's been a challenging with massive confusion as to what to do with this, but I'm going to update a link to one thing that was archived (regarding a Guggenheim Fellowship) and delete the intra-wiki resource. A few other citations given do not mention this person in any way whatsoever. Whatever doesn't fit after this I'll leave a tag on for citation needed but I will not be changing any actual text of the article.

Anyone who can find proper resources to fill in those missing citations is certainly encouraged to fix them. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: A lot of matters with this page and related have been resolved. The username of an editor here happens to have the same user name as the company this person created. That user has created and edited other articles of subjects related within the same company, and some articles have been deleted. The user was also blocked for at least some time (though I cannot know the precise reason). However, in the case of this article, it appears that bias or attempts at self-promotion are minimal here compared to other articles... my suggestion is that pleeeeease would no one further tag this article for deletion without investigation. I'm 100% convinced The subject is notable considering rewards received (verified). Anyone who'd like to submit for a COI/neutrality discussion is welcome to, but those particular portions of the article I'd have to stand up for. In the interm, I'm leaving general neutrality and BLP cleanup tags on. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 00:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Verivertias (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Veriveritas

HI DAS126: I haven't heard back from my previous note. So given that the page stood for three years after it was heavily fact checked in 2009, and given my going through it again and that there have been no other changes, I am proposing the remove the banner. Let me know. If I don't hear back in the next day or two, I will remove it. OK? Thanks! VV (I am posting on your page as well. Thanks.)

Cite check
DAS126: Note:

Hi Das126: I am a professional fact checker. Out of interest, I spent a few hours going through the BLichtenstein story. I have confirmed everything and provided links for most. I also researched the recent issue with the article and edited that. At this point, I would be comfortable losing the that you put up. Is that OK? Thanks. Verivertias (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Veriveritas

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verivertias (talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh for Pete's sake, have you no idea how ridiculous you seem? You're a professional fact checker, huh? And you left in statements like //"The Danger Within," a report on the dangers of Urea-Formaldehyde home insulation that resulted in a Congressional ban of the product.// (really -- this report, alone, "resulted in a Cogressional ban" -- really? REALLY?) and //The national broadcast was widely hailed for its coverage of the mental health impact of the 9/11 attacks, and for providing needed resources to public radio listeners// (cited to the show's own website! -- yeah, that shows it was widely hailed, for sure). This article is so lamely promotional, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. EEng (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In light of this article's substantial (excessive?) length and the fact that an op-ed he wrote in the New York Times was found by Times editors to have numerous, substantial factual errors, I added a cite check marker to the article. Das126 (talk) 04:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the NY Times did not identify any factual errors in the story. The NY Times did not correct the story, nor did it issue a correction. The New York Times allowed the editor to post facts that were in dispute. Mr. Lichtenstein and the NY Times stands by the story.

What facts are there here that are in dispute? This has been combed over for years. I will take that one just out of interest. And yes, it likely should be edited down. But make sure you have your facts straight as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.220.3 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

-

So when an editor of the New York Times disputes the facts with the subject of the story, why is all of this removed from the text of the living biography of the person? Verivertias apparently felt comfortable removing not only the section about the NY Times disputed story, but also an unrelated portion relating to this person's involvement with a significant controversy on the radio show he produced?

76.119.132.59 (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Verivertias and Verivertiastemp and 108.7.220.3 appear to be the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.235.54.49 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Verivertias = Verivertiastemp = veryverytas = 108.7.220.3 = 204.9.220.42 = Bill Lichtenstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.235.54.49 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the photo of the "basement stairwell" that is supposed to show the "basement mop closet" cited in the disputed New York Times op-ed. Yet the photo shows a sun-filled window at the landing of the stairs. How can that therefore be a basement mop closet? If this is not in error, further explanation is clearly required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.178.163 (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Here is your further explanation: we are looking at a sun-filled basement landing. However the door to the left leads to a small concrete closet with gym mats on the walls. Or it did -- the particular building is now an administrative building and the closet again a mop/supply closet. There are more photos of the room available on http://terrifyingdiscipline.weebly.com/ Pulchraindomitus (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

--Wikiwikiwiki2014-- Can we lose the "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text" banner; the article has been worked on extensively over the past year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiwiki2014 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It's still valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.161.84.25 (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

--Wikiwikiwiki2014-- Hi 113.161.84.25. March 2014[edit]  Can you please explain what the issues are with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Lichtenstein ("This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. (October 2012)) Your note above indicates you think there are still issues but it's been edited and seems OK.  WWW2014

Single purpose accounts
Over the years, this article has seen numerous single purpose accounts come and go, all seeming to work against the same on-going theme here: citations that do not support the text. Going back, some of the more obvious ones: There are plenty more and a host of IPs. If any of the current editors would like to openly state that they have previously edited this article under another name, that would be a good start before I take this any further. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Medianation (19 November 2009 - 23 November 2009)
 * Verivertias (23 September 2012 - 24 September 2012)
 * Veriveritastemp (30 September 2012)
 * Veryverytas (7 October - 15 October 2012)

Question of Encyclopedic Value
This article seems like a self promotion- Does EVERYONE deserve a Wiki bio page? Who originated the page, was it Bill Lichtenstein? I vote to have this page removed as non encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.142.185 (talk • contribs) 23:01, July 19, 2014‎

I find this article does not meet the criteria for notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_guidelines I suggest a consensus is formed and this article is removed. This looks like self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.142.185 (talk • contribs) 06:25, July 20, 2014‎


 * The procedure to nominate the article for deletion can be found at WP:AFD. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Question of Encyclopedic Value & Notability
This article seems like a self promotion as earlier and often stated.

I find this article does not meet the criteria for notability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_notability_guidelines I suggest a consensus is formed and this article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.142.185 (talk • contribs) 06:12, July 21, 2014‎
 * Again, please see WP:AFD. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

IP with an axe to grind
I've just rolled back seven edits to the article that appear to be motivated by a desire to introduce negative material. I am not sure about the sourcing and since the last edit was bot-tagged, which drew my attention, this seemed like an easy call. Feel free to discuss here, and I include the IP editor. Jus da  fax   06:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You've just removed hours of work on this- just because you don't agree does not give you license to remove facts. The controversy is well documented, the NYT and Bos Globe articles, the mental health issue is central to the bio.  Please stop your vandalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.142.185 (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Please use edit summaries describing what you are changing and why.
 * If you are reverted (as you have been, more than once), please discus the issues on the article's talk page. This is the Bold - revert - discuss model. Prior to this, your only discussion was two comments that you felt the article should be deleted. You seem to have either not read my responses or did not understand them. If you have problems with any of our procedures, policies, etc., please ask for help on article talk pages, your talk page, other editors' talk pages or by adding   to your talk page(this will bring an administrator to your talk page for assistance).
 * In any case, having failed to have the article deleted, you seem to have moved from deleting the article to making numerous edits changing the POV in the article.
 * Wikipedia strives to present a neutral point of view. If your edits are strongly weighted to one side -- even if you are correcting bias in an article -- it would be a good idea to slow down and partialize, lest you be perceived as biased: address one issue at a time. If you are reverted, discuss that one issue and work toward a consensus. If you are not reverted, move on to another piece of the article. Thanks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bill Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100301115925/http://www.lcmedia.com:80/awards.htm to http://www.lcmedia.com/awards.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lcmedia.com/mindprgm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bill Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.familyaware.org/aboutus/board.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 one external links on Bill Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gf.org/05fellow.html
 * Added tag to http://www.journalismcenter.org/award/1999-casey-medals-meritorious-journalism
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703033726/http://128.59.96.28/alumni_friends/connect/enews/2006-06.html to http://128.59.96.28/alumni_friends/connect/enews/2006-06.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090923193514/http://www.stigmaconference.nih.gov/bios/Lichtenstein.htm to http://www.stigmaconference.nih.gov/bios/Lichtenstein.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1984/1984-story9.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lcmedia.com/dailynews2005.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718152453/http://www.narsad.org/?q=node/11240/press-release-details/722 to http://www.narsad.org/?q=node/11240/press-release-details/722
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161010031318/http://www.terrifyingdiscipline.com/ to http://www.terrifyingdiscipline.com%20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bill Lichtenstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://articles.cnn.com/1998-06-10/health/9806_10_mental.illness.stigma_1_mental-illness-mental-health-manic-depressive?_s=PM:HEALTH
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217034601/http://www.newyorkfestivals.com:80/main.php?p=3,1&compcode=RP to http://www.newyorkfestivals.com/main.php?p=3,1&compcode=RP
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729165105/http://lcmedia.com:80/getout.htm to http://lcmedia.com/getout.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Privacy
DELETED REFERENCE TO HIS DAUGHTER AS WP:COI (the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.)WP:AVOIDVICTIM (When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.) 118.111.53.123 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:COI
Both are problems in the page. WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:COI I would like the whole nyt op ed taken down but then his "awards" for riding the trauma of his family member to fame and his heroic noteworthiness would be removed. So admin will have to decide. I am protecting my neice's privacy. I am her aunt and I love her. She has worked very hard to overcome the trauma. It does not belong in a Wikipedia page. She is a young, courageous woman. The inclusion of daughter private details to traumatic incident in the OpEd was a huge mistake, to begin with. This Wikipedia page simply perpetuates Bill Lichtenstein's poor judgement once again. Once again, an external source must be called upon to rein him in. 118.111.53.123 (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC) 118.111.53.123 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

NYT OpEd section of this page
Reported to NYT. They are reviewing. You might consider taking that section down or doing some self-revisions. 118.111.53.123 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)