Talk:Dan Pulcrano

Is this an NPOV and BOPV violation?"
I'm going to undo metronews's retraction of a recent edit. The submitter gave a reasonable citation for their statement. It's only libelous if metronews can prove it to be a completely false statement. While technically what Pulcrano is doing isn't in the realm of criminal (DMCA safe harbor), quite a few local child welfare advocates and a local district attorney (Chuck Gillingham) are making the claim. It's not directed at Metronews, but at Pulcrano himself. It's been published at various sources.


 * Change.org petition http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-providing-the-means-to-sell-girls-and-boys-for-sex
 * http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/05/22/san-jose-weekly-paper-pressured-to-remove-escort-service-ads
 * http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Weekly-Paper-Under-Fire-Over-Adult-Ads.html
 * http://meyerweed.blogspot.com/2013/08/san-jose-inside-vs-integrity.html
 * http://www.protectsanjose.com/content/sjpoa-presdient-unland-responds-metro-editor

There's many more, I just don't have the time and energy to search/list them all.

Toqer (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's factually incorrect as Dan Pulcrano is, by your own sources, the CEO and Executive Editor for the Metro newspaper. The Metro newspaper is not Backpage. Sounds like you have a vested interest in this. Q  T C 23:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The sources that the OP provided actually accuse METRO specifically of selling ad space to prostitution services. Since Pulcrano is the CEO and Executive Director of Metro, the accusations that have been made publicly severaln times are both accurate and pertinent. Also, your eagerness to assume bad faith on the part of the OP is telling.

172.56.6.207 (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * T I guess you're right to a degree, Pulcrano doesn't own backpage.com. I didn't write the original edit, just undid it. I'm new at this. It's still in the realm of OK to include controversy on a BLP though right?  I read Deepak_Chopra BLP earlier (using this an an analogy for controversy on BLP's), as long as the edit stays factual it should be OK right?

Toqer (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I cleaned it up ALOT and made it a bit more factual/neutral. Hope you pass the edits  Q

Toqer (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, there are a few problems here.
 * 1) Change.org petitions, blogs, and advocacy sites are not reliable sources.
 * 2) Pulcrano owns and edits Metro, and Metro has a business relationship with Backpage, which has alleged ties to prostitution. That's a tenuous series of links; Pulcrano has no direct relationship to Backpage, and he certainly has no connection to prostitution.  It is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies to insinuate otherwise, and further attempts to link Pulcrano to prostitution and human trafficking could result in administrative action, such as being blocked from editing.  If you have an issue with Pulcrano, Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances.  We can get sued for defamation.
 * 3) I integrated the controversy section into the main article, where it was given due weight.

Beyond that, the article also needs a lot more sources. Most of it is unreferenced and seems to come from promotional material. I removed a lot of promotional language, but I was unable to find independent secondary sources to validate much of it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Change.org petitions and advocacy sites weren't the only sources referenced. NBC bay area and a few other reputable news outlets were referenced as well.

Toqer (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. However, change.org and advocacy sites may not be used as references.  The reliable sources, such as NBC News, can be used, and I integrated them into the article.  Insinuating that Pulcrano has any relationship to Backpage is not allowed, as it is completely false and a violation of WP:BLP, one of the most important policies on Wikipedia.  Stating that Pulcrano has been criticized for his business relationship to Backpage is fine, and I have noted this controversy in the relevant section, where Metro is discussed in the article.  Trying to highlight it in a controversy section is undue coverage.  If the BLP violations continue to be reinstated, I will raise the issue in the appropriate noticeboard and seek to have the article locked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability
IPs have repeatedly attempted to PROD this article, tag it with Notability or as a self-sourced BLP. I'm not seeing it, and there has been no response to repeated requests to discuss this or take the article to AFD (other than a single "he's not notable" comment on my talk page). The IPs are similarly attacking the related The Morgan Hill Times. Meters (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And now the article has been tagged as having a COI issue. Really? Which major editor editor supposedly has the COI? I see no obvious COI issue. user:Metronews seems a bit suspicious, but that editor only made a few edits eight or more years ago, and several of those edits were immediately undone. Meters (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)