Talk:Greg Lindberg

Assumption of guilt in lead paragraph?
"It was found that Lindberg moved $2 billion from his insurance company into other private ventures." in the lead paragraph makes it sound like the Federal investigation found that, when the article cited only alleges it. Because of BLP:CRIME I propose moving this to the Career section with the rest of the Wall Street journal info. Suggested: "Lindberg was the subject of an investigative report by the Wall Street Journal that cited several instances of self dealing by Eli Global companies, including purchase of a mansion and Gulfstream jets, and reported that Lindberg moved $2 billion from his insurance company into other private ventures." Loeklimbo (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * moved and consolidated under Career as noted. Loeklimbo (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

NC GOP scandal
Coverage warranted, numerous articles Wikipietime (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

WSJ
https://www.wsj.com/articles/active-interest-insurance-tycoon-spied-on-women-who-caught-his-eye-11570117310?mod=lead_feature_below_a_pos1 --Mainly 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Greg young.jpg

Paid editor on this page
User:Mikec85 has declared that he is a paid editor on his talk page. Most of the edits I just made are explained on that page. I don't think that Mikec85, was intentionally violating Wikipedia's rules. Likely, he simply did not know about them. Still, the result was that Greg Lindberg was controlling the writing and editing of Wikipedia's article on Greg Lindberg. This is not a situation that can continue. If Mikec85/Lindberg continue to edit, he/they should be banned or blocked. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that the press releases have been reinserted and everything was pretty much put back the way it was before I politely informed how paid editors need to a properly behave.  I also understand the trial is starting.  If there is another paid edit on the article page, I'll ask  to block Mikec85, at least until the trial is over. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There has also been repeated whitewashing by user:Jumpingjacks67 . Gerntrash (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was also suspicious of their activities. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The party is now over. Please don't post on the article page again. You know that's strongly advised against, and you have been abusing the minor exemption to the general rule.  You can continue to post on this page.  Lindberg has been convicted, your gig is up. If you do continue to edit for Lindberg - make sure to get paid in advance. Yeah, there may be an appeal. If it is published in a reliable source you can put it on this talk page. I think you've done enough to be permanently blocked already, but that's up to the admins.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones, is there a way I can forward you a document from our legal team addressing numerous false statements without proper citations and sources? I'd like to be able to discuss several issues that continue to stand regarding Mr. Lindberg. There are numerous falsehoods published as fact about Lindberg's business practices, despite media sources stating the opposite. I can send you a word.doc that you can feel free to address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikec85 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, why will you not include the Charitable Donations made by Mr. Lindberg? He has donated 1 million to NC HBCUs, and has donated to the Oklahoma Food Bank and NC Special Olympics. I posted these and they were promptly removed, even though I had the citations to back them up. This appears to be very slanted against Mr. Lindberg and it is apparent there is an agenda here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikec85 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sure has some things to say on their own, but I'll take a moment here to explain some things. Firstly, a private document from composed by a legal team would not have bearing on any Wikipedia article, for two main reasons. Wikipedia has a policy governing reliable sources, which can be read here. This requires firstly that source is published, or made available or somehow accessible to the public. We cannot use sources that could not reasonably obtained by someone else (for example, an old out-of-print book, while not available online, could be found through through a library). Secondly, even if this document was made publicly available, it would not be an independent source and would be a primary source. Guidelines stress the importance of being very careful when using these sources and only if it is necessary. But overall, they are not preferred, and when independent secondary sources are available we defer to them, especially for controversial information. For example, I cited Lindberg's website for his date of birth, education, and the beginnings of his company. This was because this is uncontroversial information and all news sources that mentioned it said that they had gotten that info from his website. So, in conclusion, we are not going to use the legal document to change material on this page, or any of the press releases issued by Lindberg or his corporate affiliates. It might help you to read this essay summarizing Wikipedia's policy on using good sources to verify claims, Verifiability, not truth. It may seem paradoxical at first (we've all felt that way at some point), but it gets at the heart of the issue that even if something which you personally feel or "know" is true it doesn't really matter if reliable sources say the opposite. If you have an issue with the accuracy of reporting of the WSJ or other papers, take it up with them, not us. If they see merits to your argument, I'm sure they'll publish them. At any rate, it is stated in the article that Lindberg disputes some things - like his claim that the women he had your firm track had consented to the surveillance, or that he claims that Causey entrapped him. This information could be included because it was covered by news sources.


 * As for the donations to charitable/non-political causes, they were all relatively minor affairs. The HBCU one is the biggest and has the most merit for inclusion, but your characterization of it isn't entirely accurate. According to WRAL-TV, "Lindberg will give $200,000 a year for five years to the scholarship effort, according to Larry Hall, who chairs the Legislative Black Caucus Foundation...The money will cover five scholarships of $10,000 a year for business students at historically black colleges and universities in the state. The plan is to have it up and running next year, Hall said." So it wasn't an immediate gift of one million dollars, it was a pledge to give 1 million over the course of five years. The plan was to launch it in 2019, when Lindberg became embattled in legal troubles. There's no confirmation from news sources that the scholarship was actually started and, seeing as Lindberg began selling off a lot of his expensive assets after the indictment, I wouldn't be surprised if this never gets off the ground. Doubt it will if he goes to jail. And, just my personal analyses, but in retrospect it seems like the donation plan was more of an attempt to buy favor from black Democrats in the General Assembly than anything else. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say that everybody should read WP:PAYTALK and perhaps WP:BOGOF as well. I've got no reason to communicate with. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@Smallbones it is my duty to inform you that I have named you in our arbitration case nowiki>You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikec85 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging . -Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Helpful note; the case was rejected as premature. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Page indefinitely Extended Confirmed Protected -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The media blitz continues
In addition to the press releases, there is now a YouTube channel dedicated to trying to help Lindberg. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Website vs reality
From website; “ In 2019 … … we faced many adversities. We were forced to fight unjust charges against our founder from a politically-motivated insurance regulator, as well as defamatory media reports, and rapid and unforeseen changes in insurance regulation. Some of Global Growth’s insurance companies were forced into rehabilitation.”

The article needs tweaking to reflect defensive posture. Wikipietime (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to what you're suggesting. If you're saying we should adopt the tone of Lindberg's press releases I would be strongly opposed. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)