Talk:Roger Chapin

{{WPUSA|class=sart||

Scam??
According to a recent NYTimes editorial (http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/exploiting-the-troops-part-2/), many of Roger Chapin's "charities" for veterans appear to be dishonest and corrupt scams. This article appears to be blatant pro-Chapin POV. Anyone know more about this and able to rewrite it? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib ) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For future reference...
... or for an editor more experienced with and better versed in policy/style, Roger Chapin in his time at Middlebury was apparently quoted in an | old article in Time Magazine (came up in a google search); anyways, just thought it might fit in when there's enough context for this kind of trivia.

Also, I hereby commit myself to fixing this article, ADHD/OCD be damned! Wikimancer (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Article changes
An anon has been reverting the article to a version that removes proper citations and removes sourced criticisms. I've restored the prior version. I've also started a discussion on the issue at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.

Problems with the anon's version: POV pushing, removed sourced criticisms, uses cut-and-paste content from external sources with no clarification of copyright. The anon also blanked this talk page, attempting to conceal the criticisms in the two talk subjects above this one - which I've also restored. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed content that was copied word-for-word from Chapin's bio info from the HHV, as it was a direct copy there are potential copyright issues in that insertion. I agree that additional biography info would be beneficial; however, the added content is (a) a potential copyright issue, and (b) laced with peacock terms and fails NPOV. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism rewrite
Over the past few days, has been rewriting the criticism section with unsourced statements. Do WP:RS exist for the changes being made? I've searched, and can't find them. At first, the user was removing sourced criticism in favor of his rebuttals against those criticisms. The most recent edits left the criticisms intact while restoring the rebuttals - however, the rebuttals remain unsourced.

The rebuttals mention prominent persons, and provide links to establish the notability of the persons named (linking to other unrelated works by those persons, or corporate biographies of those persons) - but those links do not provide verification of the claimed statements by those persons. I also can't find any references anywhere to the claimed studies containing those statements. As a result, I've removed the rebuttals until a verifiable third party reliable source can be provided for the claimed statements. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Help Hospitalized Veterans
This redirects here, but may have independent notability due to the controversies surrounding it:, , , (those from 2012),  this from 2008, and  this from 2010. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)