Talk:Thomas Kohnstamm

Untitled
the person made it to bbc world news, relevant enough not to delete him immediately. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7346101.stm 139.174.165.206 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably he should be included as part of Lonely Planets own wikipage rather than his own.--Koncorde (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem is, then someone will say "this is about LP and not Kohnstamm so we only need a tiny bit about him, so lets leave out..........". Not really a good idea. Considering the international media attention he got in the past cpouple of days, he merits his own article, expanded for sure. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you'd put it in a section dedicated to "criticism" of Lonely Planet. As an individual he's notorious rather than famous, and then only in relation to who he wrote for rather than any of his own achievements.--Koncorde (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't think so. His name became known worldwide for dodgy newsgathering. Him, personally. Then Lonely Planet was brought into the controversy. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you must know something I don't. My only experience of him in any professional vein is for his travel guides, and subsequent 'revelation' book and I can't find any news related references outside of that (well, didn't go beyond page 5 of google anyway).--Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't suggest he became known for dodgy work "pre" this controversy. It started with him and LP subsequently came into it. The subject is this writer, not LP. If he hadn't written something, the controversy wouldn't exist, which is why I said earlier that he merits his own article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Lonely Planet reference
Not sure why this was deleted. Seemd to be a balnaced opinion and one that came from the source quoted. The "traded drugs" line comes from the CCN article which I added the reference for.

Disputed Section
Kohnstamm has refuted the claim that he admitted to plagiarism in the interview with world hum. The repeated insistance that he admitted to plagarism may be libelous.Jj022804 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But is it libelous to state that something was (potentially) libelous was stated elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.163.253 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This not about Hum only. There are other sources, including this which states "He admitted using tourism brochures, the internet and local contacts as an alternative means of research and then putting it all together "as best you can from there"." I am removing the disputed tag, because the paragraphs which it indicates are disputed are adequately sourced/referenced. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is about the News Ltd. article that all other "admissions" of plagiarism have been sourced from as far as I can tell. My dispute is with the accuracy of that article's statement and I think it is disingenuous to remove the Disputed Tag when Kohnstamm himself disputes the plagiarism claim in an equally sourced and referenced article. Jj022804 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not about News Ltd. It is about worldwide publicity. For instance, the Guardian in the UK quoted a report from a Fairfax newspaper (News Ltd opposition). It said "He admitted using tourism brochures, the internet and local contacts as an alternative means of research and then putting it all together "as best you can from there"."


 * The article accurately says news outlets reported that Kohnstamm admitted plagiarising and making up huge slabs of his guidebooks. A source/reference is given.


 * The article accurately says Kohnstamm was the subject of worldwide publicity, but he disputed the reports, saying they were taken out of context. A source/reference is given.


 * The article accurately reports that, on its website, Lonely Planet said it was reviewing all of his previous contributions because his admissions in his book of plagiarism (etc), is "completely contrary to what Lonely Planet is all about." A source/reference is given. And it has nothing to do with News Ltd.
 * We have accurately reported the reports, and the article includes the fact that Kohnstamm disputes them. So this section is accurate and balanced. Seems to me you are not so much disputing the content of this section as disputing the fact that it appears in the article. So the tag is unjustified, and I am again removing it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

More inaccuracies removed
I have removed the recent additions by Jj022804 because:


 * (1) He added "The AP and other reliable news sources soon clarified that these issues were taken out of context". They did no such thing, and the source given does not support that claim. However we have accurately reported that Kohnstamm claims he was taken out of context.


 * (2) He added "After on-the-ground review, Lonely Planet did not find any inaccuracies in Kohnstamm's work". This is a smokescreen, as the thrust of the article is about his book. Check this. This all started from this man's words in his own book. It is a smokescreen to try to say that A isn't true because he didn't do B. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaiwhakahaere - I did not write what you are quoting above and supposedly removing for inaccuracy. This can all be clearly seen in the history of this article. I am confused by this and your suggestion of my attempt to smokescreen.Jj022804 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the following changes:


 * Removed "allegedly" - I have seen no suggestion that Kohnstamm was not a contributing author to the Brazil 6th edition.


 * Replaced "He was criticized for never having never visited" with "It was reported that he never visited" as 'criticized' is more presepective than fact.


 * Removed "while two other authors visited the country for "destination content"." because it was incorrectly referenced - world hum


 * Replaced "his admissions in his book of plagiarism" to "the reports of plagiarism" - Kohnstamm refutes the claim of plagiarism  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj022804 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Jj022804 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And another
I have removed the most recent addition, because the source does not support it. It was "According to a later article in the Washington Post, it became more clear that while Kohnstamm cut corners (a common industry practice according to research done by the Post), he never plagiarised." However, the Washington Post does NOT even mention the word "plagiarism", let alone the words "denied", "denial" or "deny". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick amendments
Sorry if I made changes people didn't like. Hopefully people will feel I have stripped this back now to basically what needs to be known without besmirching any particular party. The edits by 71.231.140.142 introduced a lot of new information, unfortunately I felt it bordered on promotion of the material and read more like a review, and the acts of an apologist or fan. I have tried to include both the initial claims, the counter claims, and the resolution showing that beyond a "furore" the status quo has hardly been ruffled.--Koncorde (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Further, the IP address is registered to Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. JUMPSTART-5 (NET-71-224-0-0-1) 71.224.0.0 - 71.239.255.255 and in particular WASHINGTON-17 (NET-71-231-0-0-1) 71.231.0.0 - 71.231.255.255. I don't want to jump to conclusions, but that's a valid IP for someone in Seattle (Renton to be exact is the location of the exchange).--Koncorde (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Came back after stumbling on something this morning. Added in a few more worthwhile parts.--Koncorde (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * our anonymous IP above edited the talk page (probably accidentally) to resemble the main article (including broken cites). Reverted.  Further added a few details that he had raised during his edits as they had been verifiable and valid.  Some changes attempted again to throw the argument away from what could be cited, to what can be interpreted which it should not be in the business of doing.  Other changes tried to turn it into a book review.--Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the error on the talk page. I am new to editing and it was an accident. As for the Kohnstamm article: he is an author not just a controversy. His book is a pretty major publication and deserves it own sub-section. It need not be a book review, but warrants more coverage than being just a footnote on the controversy (I would also argue that you've added more info about Lonely Planet than Kohnstamm in the controversy section -- why not create a specific page for the controversy and run with it?). James71.231.140.142 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Koncorde: I am not going to change this now as I think you will change it back, but consider the following: in every interview Kohnstamm argued that he never "admitted to plagiarism or fabrication." Why would any writer in the world do that? That is like a politician volunteering the information that they lie or cheat on their wives. That was half of a sentence taken out of his book -- out of context and used by a journalist to make an article more sensational. I've read the book. Have you? It was a random comment towards the end of the book and obvious satire to anyone who read it. That only took on an appearance of truth through repetition in the media and blogosphere. We should not perpetuate that rumor. If we are to pursue the objective truth here, we should be fair to the guy and distinguish between what he said about the Colombia guidebook and the deeper charges of plagiarism and fabrication. Please make the appropriate changes or don't delete my changes if I make them. James71.231.140.142 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Though his book isn't particularly major in the scheme of things, only the furore surrounding it actually makes him of any note.  Anyway; the controversy was tied to LP, so it's pretty much impossible to seperate the two.  LP's quotes are used to strengthen Kohnstamms claims (i.e. by showing both were aware that he was not paid to go to Colommbia, because he was never going to Colombia) and highlight/show that (whatever may have been taken out of context) he never actually damaged or hampered the actual books output or quality which is quicker, and less contentious than quoting Kohnstamm trying to defend himself, or relying on the press (each in turn quoting each other) to report accurately.  The claims/counter claims between Kohnstamm and the press skew the article in one direction or the other and either turn it into a highly charged critique based on comments out of context, or an apologists review of the whole event.
 * What we can say is that he did say those words, out of context or not. What the result was based on that, and both his response and Lonely Planets response.--Koncorde (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is unfair to say that only the furore surrounding the book makes him of any note. Perhaps that is true in your mind (looking back through this page, you've taken an unusually keen interest in the controversy and Lonely Planet's role in it -- do you work for Lonely Planet or are you affiliated with them in any way?). However,it must be agreed, there are many hundreds of authors and journalists who have pages on Wikipedia who only claim smaller works than Kohnstamm's book. I note that you wrote "My only experience of him in any professional vein is for his travel guides, and subsequent 'revelation' book' and I can't find any news related references outside of that (well, didn't go beyond page 5 of google anyway)." I have read the book, which is not a 'revelation book' and is a memoir about life, career and various other things -- not a simple tell all. Again, have you read it? It would be VERY imbalanced of you to be passing these judgments based on simple Google searches. I first heard about the book through a book review in the Seattle Times and had not heard about the earlier controversy. I read the book when I was in Thailand. A copy was given to me by an Australian traveler (who said he had seen Kohnstamm talk about the book at the Sydney Writers Festival and on Australian television). Kohnstamm is one of the biggest and most interesting young travel writers in America - controversy or not. I am going to add more about the book. Please do not remove it. You should read this book before you continue to comment on it. If you are not thorough enough to do that, you should at least look at some of the reviews on Amazon to see reader opinions on the book. James 71.231.140.142 (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, fair or not it is true as per wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Having a book in publication doesn't necessarily make Kohnstamm a viable entry for an encyclopedia see WP:BK or WP:CREATIVE for more information.  His sole notability is his notoriety through the press.
 * No, I don't work for Lonely Planet - but the fallout, however you might cast it, was in their direction and their response is intrinsically tied in with him.
 * My opinion of Kohnstamm since April 20th when I made those original comments has not changed, but obviously the google search results have. Now Amazon and several other reviews come up - but it still does not give him notability any more than if I google my own name it comes up (including several reviews of my own work).  However it can (and often does) reveal additional links, citations and bits of information about people which can be used to justify their existence as a wikipedia article.  A book doesn't immediately warrant author notability (nor would an author who is notable for everything but his books make his books notable), and the only reason he hasn't been bundled in with LP in a "controversy" section is because someone opposed that move initially, which is fine.  I am an inclusionist, so I attempt to work with what exists to make it right and encyclopedic (or at least accurate) which is why I haven't tagged his book entry yet (I have no doubt it will).  The use of the words 'revelation book' are from a newspaper article stating his book was full of revelations.
 * I'm afraid if you add more about the book, it will be removed as irrelevant - not necessarily by me, but by anybody who edits wikipedia. Particular what you have been including in terms of a synopsis is basically pointless.  Me having read it or not is also meaningless appealing to superior knowledge as per WP:NOR.  If he is truly one of the biggest (fat? tall?), bestest and shiniest new stars in American literature circles then please find the articles to cite that.  Amazon reviews are not verifiable, nor again are they relevant.  The book may be very good, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic.
 * The fact you have, as yet, only edited one article and attempted to include him under notable Travel literature is beginning to look like a WP:SPA--Koncorde (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

funny. biggest as in biggest selling. will site that later - gotta get back to work. apparently unlike you I have a job to do (still not convinced that you don't work for/with Lonely Planet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.140.142 (talk) 02:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL cheers, the point on "biggest" is that it isn't empirical without actual figures. So yes, please do cite it because it's relevant.  After a quick look I can find approximately 0 figures on book sales, his publicist refuses to release them other than to say it has been reprinted.  And no, I don't work for LP - as my editing history should reveal, unless you want to suggest I work for West Ham Utd or James D. Watson also.  I'm also UK based, so work different hours to you.  Cheers anyway for attempting to cast aspersions on my motivations for wanting wikipedia to be accurate, relevant, and not full of WP:CRUFT.--Koncorde (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Was not trying to be uncivil, only confused about your motivation and focus on the narrow line that you are taking on a wider subject. My motivation is not as a fan, but as someone who has read the book and followed the stories about the controversy and realized that there is a significant disconnect. I too am looking for accuracy and relevance. I have made a few minor changes as I have seen that Kohnstamm is still working as a travel writer for some major publications and have added some clarification in the controversy section. My clarifications are backed by every interview that Kohnstamm gave in which we can read the transcript (unlike the notorious initial interview where such words were attributed to him with no actual detail). The controversy section still allows much more detail for Lonely Planet's take on the situation. I hope that you will find it just.James71.231.140.142 (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, fixed a small thing with a space between cites but otherwise I have no issue with any changes made. I still recommend though that you sign up and create an actual wiki account, just because it's easier to keep track of continued contributions - plus your edits wont be treated with such suspicion particularly when focused on one subject.--Koncorde (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thank you. I learned a lot from you about Wikipedia and look forward to being more involved in editing. James71.231.140.142 (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, if you have any issues you'll find most people on Wikipedia are just fine. Just beware the cabals ;)  Hit me up with a message when you get registered and/or if you should have an issue and hopefully I'll be able to point you at what you're looking for (wikipedia isn't the easiest to navigate for rules/regulations/guidance sometimes).--Koncorde (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Thomas Kohnstamm. I just edited out the slander about "slipping errors past editors" regarding Hawaii in N America vs Oceania. That was a decision made by my editor at Forbes Traveler. They asked me to include Hawaiian beaches. If you have a problem with Hawaii being categorized as part of N America then please contact Forbes and voice your complaint (I don't fully disagree with you). Your personal attack regarding this categorization is both unwarranted and hyperbolic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.26.162 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) This is Thomas again. Also, I wrote the Food & Drink, Environment, Introduction, History and Culture sections of the Colombia book. All you have to do is open to the author page of the LP Colombia to see that as FACT. Saying that it was just the history section is an attempt to downplay my actual involvement with the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.26.162 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your input Thomas, but could you provide a cite that is what you were actually employed to do as the articles claim, with reference to the below claims from The Times and Lonely Planet:
 * Lonely Planet, which sells six million guidebooks a year, hit back today, saying that Kohnstamm only “wrote about the country’s history” and was not commissioned to review accomodation or restaurants.


 * A spokeswoman from Lonely Planet in the UK said today: "Kohnstamm was commissioned to write the introduction to the Columbia book - not to review it.


 * "When he was commissioned it was understood that he wouldn't be going to the destination. He claimed he wasn't paid enough to travel, but he was only employed as an office based researcher. He was never expected to go out there."


 * The company said that he did contribute restaurant reviews for other books - including guides to Chile & The Easter Islands and the Caribbean Islands, and one called South America on Shoestring, and that these titles were currently being "fact-checked".--Koncorde (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)