Talk:Ted Leonsis

Untitled
Found this page only to verify the spelling of Ted's name. Page is not neutral. Very smarmy and the effusive language praising Ted's genius and business acumen should be toned down severely.

I've tried to create a more balanced portrait. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

While the page is protected, a few items to address on the Sports Team Ownership section:

"After Jagr was let go.." Jagr was traded, not let go.

"Hammer confronted Leonsis, who grabbed and threw him to the ground. Some witnesses explained the confrontation differently, offering varying accounts of the clash." This appears to be one perspective of an incident yet recognizing other may have seen it differently.

"Despite the Capitals' first round exit in the 2010 Playoffs, ticket prices were increased between 13 and 50 percent, in consecutive years. He allegedly mocked a fan who protested unfair tickets prices." Tickets for Capital Games are still in the lower half of the league. (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonbam (talk • contribs)


 * Hey, thanks for the ideas. On my userspace I created a sandbox version, User:Patrickneil/Ted Leonsis, that at least alters the ticket prices paragraph as you mentioned. Feel free to make corrections there. If there aren't complaints, I'll suggest using it when the page is unlocked.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a few other suggestions on your sandbox version to consider.(talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (ET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonbam (talk • contribs)

Added text under Sports Ownership Section: Leonsis publishes his e-mail address and responds to fans’ requests. He also walks around the Verizon Center during games and uses Facebook and Twitter to communicate his thoughts and urges players and staff to do the same. Leonsis has changed the gameday experience for the fan. People wear the same color and perform chants, which cultivates a sense of belonging. Lonbam (talk)15:03, 3 June 2011 (EST)

You've actually added text rather than deleting other's contributions, I didn't know you had that ability. Congratulations. You might want to add a reference and think about how the last sentence could be better worded. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I already included a reference, for this, but I made a change to this sentence to make sound more neutral and better worded: Washington Capital fans often wear the same color and perform chants at hockey games to cheer on the team. Lonbam (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (EST)

Material moved from article with discussion
Theodore "Ted" J. Leonsis is known as one of the country’s premiere businessmen having held numerous leadership positions at AOL.


 * The phrase "one of the country’s premiere businessmen" fails to adhere to NPOV and "numerous leadership positions" would be better served by listing pertinent positions. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He is also a professional sports team owner, a film producer, a private-angel investor, an active Board member and a committed philanthropist.


 * Limited relevance. Leonsis is not well known for any of the things listed other than being a sports team owner. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

''Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1957 to Greek immigrant parents, their goal was for their only son to become educated and go to a good college. .''


 * Not really relevant to article; not NPOV. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

During his 14-year career with AOL, the company enjoyed its greatest periods of growth and financial success. Ted now serves as Vice Chairman Emeritus, having stepped down from day-to-day management at AOL on December 31, 2006. He has served as AOL Vice Chairman as well as President of several business units including the AOL Services Company; AOL Studios; AOL Web Services; AOL Core Service and the AOL Audience Business.''


 * Unsourced; not NPOV. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

''Ted is now the Chairman of Revolution Money, an innovative new Web 2.0 payment platform and credit-card service created to transform the financial services industry by drastically altering the economics through Internet-based technology. This new payment platform also generates significant merchant and consumer benefits. Revolution Money, formerly GratisCard Inc., is a subsidiary of Revolution LLC, the investment company created by Steve Case.''

''Ted also has investments in a large group of web-related companies including: Algentis LLC; Beacon Capital Strategies LLC; Clearspring Technologies; Geneva Acquisition Corp.; Mahalo; Mobile Posse; Object Video and Qloud. Ted serves on the board of several of these companies as well as PodShow.'' ''Early in his career, Ted was the founder of several new media companies including Redgate Communications Corporation, a pioneering new media company which, in 1993, was the first company acquired by AOL. He was also the founder of six personal computer magazines, authored four books and worked on the introduction of the IBM PC and the Apple Macintosh. He co-invented a very successful board game called "Only in New York," and served as a marketing executive with Harris Corp and Wang Laboratories'' ''During Ted’s tenure as majority owner of the Capitals, the team has won two division titles and recorded the second-most points in franchise history. Under his leadership, several Washington Capitals business units have been recognized nationally, including game presentation by IDEA, media relations by the Professional Hockey Writers Association and the website by Sports Business Journal and Forbes magazine.''


 * Unsourced; of marginal relevance; not NPOV. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since that time, the film has been screened at film festivals around the globe including the Hong Kong Film Festival, where it won the Humanitarian Award, and is already the best-selling documentary in China’s history. ''For Nanking, with which Ted made his production debut, he assembled a highly acclaimed filmmaking team including the Academy Award-winning writer/director team of Bill Guttentag and Dan Sturman, as well as a strong Hollywood cast including Woody Harrelson, Jurgen Prochnow, Mariel Hemingway and others to narrate the film. Nanking is a documentary film that serves as a powerful, emotional and relevant reminder of the heartbreaking toll war takes on the innocent as it tells the story of the Japanese invasion of Nanking, China, in the early days of World War II. The film is set for theatrical release on December 12, 2007 by THINK Films, and will air on HBO after its public run.'' ''While at the Sundance Film Festival, Ted coined the phrase “Filmanthropy” to describe a new category of filmmaking that activates discussion as well as new volunteers and new funds that benefit a social cause. Ted is currently in production of “Kickin’ It,” a feature documentary about the power of sports as an agent for change, personal redemption and to help people find a better life. The film presents a natural extension of Filmanthropy.''


 * Unsourced; of marginal relevance; not NPOV. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

''Ted is a major philanthropist and is very involved with numerous charities, including Best Buddies, Hoop Dreams, See Forever Foundation, Youth Aids and others through the work of the Leonsis Foundation. He has been named one of the 20 most powerful people in sports by the Sporting News, Washington's Business man of the Year by Washington Business Journal, a Washingtonian of the Year by Washingtonian Magazine, ADL's man of the year and Time Warner's Community Action Man of the Year in 2005.''


 * Unsourced; not NPOV. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

''Leonsis once served as mayor of Orchid, Florida. Originally from Brooklyn, NY, and later, Lowell, MA, he lives in McLean, Virginia and Vero Beach, Florida with his wife and two children.''


 * Unsourced; could find no valid sources for any information other than Orchid, FL mayorship. 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ted runs his own blog at Ted's Take.


 * Already in external links 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1957 births; People from Brooklyn; People from McLean, Virginia


 * Unable to find proper sources 71.62.104.63 (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Blatant copyright infringement rectified
Thanks to an IP tagging the article, I saw that a different IP had replaced the entire sourced article with a direct copy of a different webpage. We have to be more vigilant. Every edit, especially IP edits, must be checked thoroughly.  Enigma  message 04:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section edit warring
Can someone please explain what's going on with the 2004 Hammer incident? Users Bangabandhu and Lonbam, among others, have been battling over this for months now, and I think it needs to stop. Can we come to the talk page, and resolve just how much needs to be stated about this issue, and other items in the "Controversies" section? I think the edit warring is obviously unproductive, and when most of a page's edits are reverts focused on very specific sentences, it drives other editors from possibly working more to improve the quality of the page. I really hope that sports team loyalties are not driving any of these edits.

My own concern with the section is that its trivial. Wikipedia has a systemic bias toward overemphasizing controversy and criticism of article's subjects, which is particularly touchy on biographies of living persons. Further, sections with titles like "Controversies" are counterproductive, and simply encourage a growing collection trivial information that becomes increasingly disproportionate to the article as a whole. If we decide that these events are notable to Leonsis' personal history, they should be integrated into a fuller Biography section.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 03:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I welcome this effort and agree that the frequent revisions needs to stop. But it is not accurate to call the Hammer incident trivial and it deserves inclusion, as does the "controversies" section as a whole. Note earlier comments in the discussion section about the article as one-sided and smarmy. These critiques are justified given the current state of the page. A balanced article would discuss instances in which Leonsis was disciplined with the same attention gives to his philanthropic activities. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear you want to resolve this. I agree that the article is lousy, and needs some serious improvements. Like I said above, think that the focus on controversies drives other editors away. Part of my hope for compromise is that we shouldn't be trying to counter an overly positive section with an overly negative section. That's not actually how neutrality works. I think, for example, the quotes from Kelley and The Washington Times, are probably too negative, and might be a place you could compromise on. Using a Facebook post and an article that doesn't mention Leonsis to source "he allegedly mocked a fan" is also very questionable.
 * Beyond the specifics, I do have a problem with attributing controversies related to a sports team to that team's majority owner. Issues like the price of game tickets, or even the name of the basketball team are not really pertinent to this biography. That information might have a place on the articles related to those teams instead. I would suggest moving the bit about Hammer and about salary cap fine up to the "Sports team ownership" section, which could be filled out more using information from the multitude of articles that were published during the transfer of the Wizards franchise last year. Would that work?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 17:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that you are a much more experienced Wikipedia editor and I admit that I don't know the best way to organize this article. Yet I think events mentioned in the controversies section do not belong under "sports team ownership." It seems that information about his management of his teams, such as his trade of Jagr, the strategy of building up the Capitals, his focus on winning the Stanley Cup, and his plans for the Wizards, among other points, belong under that heading. I am not wedded to calling the section "controversies" but I think that content does merit several paragraphs at a minimum. I see all of events you highlight as directly attributable to Leonsis and appropriate for his page. These are not events outside his control but of his own doing.

As for the specific incidents, they events are all widely reported and regularly mentioned in articles about Leonsis to this day. About referencing the Facebook page, please note the other citation, which is from the CityPaper, a secondary source that does not caveat the incident with "allegedly." I don't know the Wikipedia policy on primary sources, but you can delete the reference if it is not appropriate. Regarding the overly negative coverage of Hammer affair, perhaps it would make sense to expand the section to include commentators that believe the fine and league's treatment was lenient. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Patrick, thanks for highlighting this. My view is that primary sourced information, that is fact, should be included. Either in sports ownership or controversies. Wikipedia is not a place for rival sports fans to take out grudges. The lengthy narrative and color that some editors continue to add are not A) properly sources B) exactly relevant. Happy to keep the discussion going to reach an conclusion. Lonbam (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems we agree that the controversies section can remain. Can you point out what you think are not properly sources and what material you think is not relevant? With the exception of the Facebook link, which I do not object to removing, the citations refer to reputable publications which are sourced in other Wikipedia articles without objection. As for the relevance, everything added to the page, as well as the articles themselves, are about Ted Leonsis. The one exception might be the Post article on ticket prices, which does not mention him by name. If you want to remove that reference the text should remain unchanged, because the CityPaper article makes exactly the same point without the level of detail about the ticket prices. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts passage by passage:

The Hammer piece is longer than any other section of the entry, containing multiple opinion from multiple sources. What about a more direct passage like: In 2004, Leonsis was involved in an altercation with a 20-year old fan, Jason Hammer, who was jeering him for trading Jaromir Jagr. Following the incident, Leonsis was fined $100,000 and suspended for a week, during which he was prohibited from having any contact with the team, including attending any games or other team functions. This one can remain as is: Leonsis has taken under consideration changing the name of the Washington basketball franchise to the Bullets.[35] Critics said that this would "send the wrong message" about gun violence in Washington.[36]

The citation for the second half of the penguins tickets section does not link anywhere, it should be struck. The new paragraph would reach: In 2001, Leonsis claimed to have written a computer program that prevented Pittsburgh Penguins fans (the Capitals first-round opponent) from purchasing tickets online. I would move the section about the name change down into this paragraph (or move this up): Months after purchasing the Wizards, Leonsis criticized the NBA's salary cap at a luncheon with business leaders. He was fined $100,000 by the league, for "unauthorized public comments regarding the league's collective bargaining negotiations." [39]

You need to strike the section “allegedly mocked” because it is exactly that, alleged. No proof. How about: Despite the Capital's first round exit in the 2010 Playoffs, Leonsis has been criticized for raising ticket prices, ticket prices were increased between 13 and 50 percent.

Thoughts? Lonbam (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the coverage of the Hammer incident is longer than other sections. The way to remedy this is to lengthen the discussion of other aspects of his biography. I've started by updating and expanding information about his new home. You can be constructive by lengthening other sections, too.

I fixed the broken link, so that isn't an issue any more.

The point about his email to a fan is alleged, but there's ample evidence that it occurred. The email has been copied and is available online. This episode has been reported elsewhere. It is restating what has been published without any dispute.

If you want to arrange the section differently, I suggest organizing the events chronologically

Bangabandhu (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that work on the "Personal" section! Since this info probably can just go into the "Biography" section, I've reorganized the article some, combining "Personal" and "AOL and other businesses" into the biography, and the relevant pieces of controversy into "Sports team ownership". The two items currently left in controversies section are about ticket prices, and I feel should be removed. Leonsis isn't personally responsible for the price of tickets at games, which have to take into consideration the leagues policies, and the other tenants of the arena. If Leonsis was fined or reprimanded for selling first to hometown fans, that would be notable, but again, that's something that might better go on the article about the specific team, rather than the biography. Right now, it just reads as a bitter swipe at the articles subject.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would delete text while we were still building a consensus about what belongs in the article. The removed references aside, I think the reorganization improves the article. The information about the house may be earlier in the biography than one might expect, but I am unfamiliar with the template and concerned more with content than organization. As for the text you deleted, I can see no justification for its removal. These are well-respected publications that are commenting on the subject of the article. They have no bitterness toward Leonsis, only criticism of his actions. If you think this disrupts the flow of the article, I suggest that we create a new heading for the incident. As for the hike in ticket prices, it is entirely relevant. Again, the articles mention him by name. They do not say "Capitals leadership" or "team management" they attribute the decision to Leonsis. I suggest you focus on text that is genuinely of questionable relevance, such as the unnecessarily detailed text on his films which he produced. Is there any evidence that he was involved in hiring Colin Farrell to narrate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangabandhu (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Bangabandhu (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Not everything that mentions an individual belongs on their Wikipedia biography, and that's an idea that I worry these sections have got away from. If you included everything that was attributed to Barack Obama on his page, it would be immense, and I don't think that's expected or suggested. The Hammer incident is the longest single paragraph on this page, with two sentences about an ESPN blogger's opinion. I am asking you to compromise on this, which is why I commented the sentences out.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 05:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that not everything belongs on Wikipedia, but the link instructs editors to exclude routine events. The Hammer incident is noteworthy and anything but quotidian. The comparison you make with Obama is interesting, but I draw a much different conclusion. You're right that media perspectives are excluded from his main page, but that because they have been broken down by different topics and receive their own, dedicated page. Check out the wikipedia page on the Reverend Wright issue, Obama's Health Care initiative, even the Cash for Clunkers program have their own pages. On these entries, media commentary have their own section and these views are regularly included without any discussion. There may not be enough on the Hammer incident to merit its own page, but I have not read through all the different sources. We may want to break it up to have a heading with a subheading for the incident, the fallout, and media perspectives. This will probably require more research to populate. Does that work? Bangabandhu (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I made edits on the page to again reduce the language on the page. Look forward to discussing this with you further.Lonbam (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Lonbam (talk) 8:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You offer no justification for your change, other than saying that you are removing "superlative" content. What does that even mean? Bangabandhu (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I do think Lonbam is on the right track. Bangabandhu, I disagree that these events are notable enough to justify the current content dedicated to them. With the Hammer incident, the NHL fine is notable, but that's about it. Part of working on Wikipedia is compromising with users on these issues, like the notability of news, that you might disagree on. Insisting on adding to the negative commentary on a biography of a living person however seems question your neutrality in the matter. I think "offering varying accounts of the severity of the clash" is a good way for Wikipedia to describe the event, and I hope we can settle this here.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 03:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you offer some explanation for why you think his edits are "on the right track" when he offers no coherent justification? His record of contributions to Wikipedia seems to consist of uploading unlicensed pictures and deleting content. I am restoring the edits that were not discussed. I will soon address the Hammer issue and revisions. This is not the last word. I fear that the underlying rationale for your changes is that the references I have added - all of which come from perfectly legitimate sources - do not fit with your impression of Leonsis. It is unfortunate that you would let that interfere with the pursuit of a comprehensive, well-informed entry Bangabandhu (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I can. I think the user meant "superfluous", but trying to create a more neutral, balanced discussion is the right idea, and "reducing" the language is a good start. Just because you don't like the user's justification, doesn't mean there is none, and I don't think the user's editing history negates their right to an opinion. I'll lay out the explanation that I've repeatedly brought up in this discussion:
 * Incidents are of limited notability, and the focus given to controversial incidents unbalances the page.
 * On a biography of a living person, editors are instructed to remove poorly sourced contentious material.
 * The sourcing is questionable. It's ESPN and the Washington Times, but both are editorials, not articles describing the incident. These authors are giving an opinion, which again, is to be avoided.
 * Elsewhere, the primary source use of Facebook post is unacceptable.
 * The presentation of minor controversies encourages other users to add additional trivial content to the article, whether it reflects positively or negatively on the subject.
 * I have no issue with the edits about the house, and do apologize for not being more careful in avoiding changing that with my own edits. There is no "last word" on Wikipedia, and no final revision, but I would like to cease the back and forth reverting on these topics.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to stir this up again, but I read through your items and saw that many of them have not been addressed, I am going to make the changes RE: the Facebook sourcing and some other additions. I hope this is acceptable. Lonbam (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Lonbam (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the back and forth removal and restoration has continued with anonymous IP address, and I hope that's not an attempt to avoid detection. Per Jimbo and WP:Criticism, I've tried to integrate the "controversies" section as best I can into the rest of the article, but I feel pretty strongly that the issue of hockey ticket prices doesn't really belong on this biography. The fact that prices rise over time, and that teams seek to lock out their rivals is nothing new, nor unique to the Capitals, which is how it was presented in the section. Again, per Jimbo, having a section like this is just a magnet for trolls and trivial information.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that the history of Capital ticket prices is not relevant, but that is not what the section was about. It focused specifically about action Leonsis has taken on tickets, raising prices and directing them to choice buyers. The history of Washington team's colors also would not be relevant to the article, but Leonsis' intiatives are, and your are right to make that addtion. That section was well-sourced and relevant. If you want to take it out of the controversies header I do not object, but the content is more relevant than many other parts of this article and critical to overall balance. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree with User:Bangabandhu comments and I believe the reversal of Patrickneil's edits violates what we have been trying to do here. I am not attempting to create an editing war. But I do believe there are additional edits that should be made. I will wait for the editors to resolve this most recent situation before proceeding. Lonbam (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Lonbam (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think for me, the difference between noting Leonsis effort to revive past logos and colors, and his approval of increased ticket prices, is the one-off nature of the tickets, verses a concerted, multi-year effort on the jerseys that's received a healthy amount of press coverage, while with the ticket prices, you're still using a Facebook post as a reference. I don't see the topic as relevant or critical, and as I've said before, think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS as routine sports reporting. But maybe we can have a "Ticket prices" section at 2010–11 Washington Capitals season.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that there is a meaningful distinction between his choice of team colors and his ticket prices. The ticket prices were increased in consecutive years and were not "one-off" initiative. There was abundant media coverage of the price hike and Leonsis' involvement. I've added more references. I'll remove the Facebook link. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your edits at all. why are you writing about details that have nothing to do with an objective biography about a person. there is no need to highlight somebody threatened with kidnapping their children. these pointless personal details have no place in a section about sports team ownership. I really don't understand your attempts to vandalize this page. You replaced Facebook sourcing with something marginally better (or worse). Lonbam (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Lonbam (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I made edits and additions to the ownership section. Happy to discuss these with this group. (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if Leonsis is somehow singularly responsible for raising ticket prices, its just not notable. Prices rise. Every team has increased prices on a regular basis, yet this is the only article of the 94 in Category:National Hockey League owners that mentions ticket prices. I've also added a sentence to 2010–11 Washington Capitals season about ticket prices, as I'd suggested. Bangabandhu, if you're adamant about including the team's effort to keep Penguins fans from buying up playoff tickets in 2001 and 2009, I won't stop you, but again, I think that might make more sense on pages about the Caps seasons or about the given year's playoffs.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 19:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that prices rise. Just as team jerseys change. The Caps' prices have been exceptional, which has been noted in the media. I have not read the other articles, but I would suggest that other owners are not as hands on as Leonsis. I did not create the text on blocking Penguins fans, I suggest you take it up with the editor that did. It is noteworthy and merits inclusion. How many NHL owners can write computer programs? Bangabandhu (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments and edits seem very personal like you have a problem with Leonsis himself. I will admit I'm a Caps fan and like the guy. But you keep putting in stuff about him and his children that really don't seem relative to a entry on an individual. I would be open to some of your edits maintained "a neutral, unbiased point of view", but that does not seem to be your goal. Lonbam (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Lonbam (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My concern has always been to end the back and forth editing. I do have an opinion on the text, and realize that I can be blamed for this latest round, but find it unacceptable that users can't at least be patient enough to keep it on the talk page. What's really disturbing is that the latest reversions have been taken by IP addresses. I certainly don't want any users to be logging out in order to avoid breaking WP:3RR, which both of you were about to. I've asked for semi-protection on WP:AN to cool off the back and forth.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note Article full-protected for one week. Please take this time to reach a consensus here, and then make the agreed changes. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  16:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. It seems as though the page has been locked with the most negative, nonneutral content. I feel as though more nonneutral is now in the piece. The citations are very poor and highlight single acts that don't really fit into the narrative. I'm happy to offer my thoughts on what a new layout of text could look like. Lonbam (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The current version is a product of significant compromise. The Facebook reference has been removed. The controversies section has been deleted. Commentary on the Hammer incident has been streamlined. What more is needed?

What I find especially frustrating about his process is that I have received the same warnings as another editor who only deletes and adds no text or references. In contrast, my edits contributed meaningful, well-sourced content. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Bangabandhu, you have received warnings not based on content, but actions. Edit warring is not acceptable, regardless of your feelings on the text you're adding. Please, don't treat Wikipedia like a game you can "win" by having your issues included on the current version. We can't call this a compromise when there is an on-going edit war locking the page. While I do feel it was important not to have a "Controversy" section heading, I also realize we've done little but add to the larger problem of readability by trying to integrate this random criticism of the subject. The content you added May 6, about the Ovechkin biographer, also isn't helping the situation. Sourcing is irrelevant if the material just doesn't belong. I don't understand why you would add content like that now, and feel it undermines the effort I've started to reach a consensus on the existing criticism. On my userspace I created a sandbox version you both can edit, User:Patrickneil/Ted Leonsis, and made a serious effort to include the controversy items, but with the balance required by WP:BLP.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds is the Cox material questionable? It is presented in a balanced, factual manner and the material is relevant. The same is true for the ticket pricing issue.

It seems that you want to turn this article into a paean. To do that, you state that anything which is not wholly positive "doesn't belong", is "random", or inconsistent with the "narrative." You need to choose a different basis for determining what is appropriate content than whether or not it conforms with your opinion of the subject.

How can we seek some outside counsel that does not share your bias?

Bangabandhu (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Lonbam, but the basis for my suggestions on content are the notability guidelines at WP:NOTNEWS, the neutrality guidelines at WP:DUE, and the suggestions at Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia does have a page for requesting an outside opinion at Third opinion. You can also ask whether an event is notable over at Notability/Noticeboard, or more specifically, at the biographies notice board. I had hoped we could resolve this amongst the editors here, but feel free to use these resources!-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 18:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Page unlocked
The article is now unlocked after a week. Hopefully this will calm things down. Bangabandhu, I'd hoped to have your voice added to the sandbox version I linked above, but would you be opposed to using those changes in the article?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 01:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer the version that is currently active. The Sandbox version has alot of text about the Caps' performance. It is not clear how that squares with your earlier comments about focusing on material that is directly related to the subject. Nor is there any balance in that discussion. The Caps' playoff experience in the last two seasons, as well as his support for Boudreau despite widespread criticism, deserve mention. But more to the point, his hiking ticket prices is his doing; while he may be responsible for key trades the overall team performance is much further outside his control.

That said, if you include the reference to the City Paper article on ticket prices and his treatment of fans and the Damien Cox paragraph, I'll accept this in the interest of an article that doesn't change daily. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've tried to do just that.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ted Leonsis. 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/20070311161520/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a4504d41787dd9225b465503aa98249 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i4a4504d41787dd9225b465503aa98249

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 08:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ted Leonsis. 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/20090215001846/http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com:80/washington/stories/2001/12/31/story1.html to http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2001/12/31/story1.html

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 10:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ted Leonsis. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815170933/http://ted.aol.com:80/index.php?id=179 to http://ted.aol.com/index.php?ID=179

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) 22:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)