Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:06, 23 January 2010

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Multiple NPOV issues, many inaccuracies, WP:CoatRack issues. Added templates due to issues. Ward20 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss in detail whatever issues you have and preferably obtain views from others before adding tags? Thank you. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I followed this out of interest from the WPI page. I thought that Misplaced Pages was intended to be an encyclopaedia not a substitute for the National Inquirer. This isn't a Bio that remotely conforms to WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BIO and WP:BOLP. Can you explicitly detail the Notability criteria which justifies this arcticle's creation, and therefore why I shouldn't just put a WP:PROD flag on this? -- TerryE (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV flag. If you would like to include controversy, lock it in its own section. The reference to sketchy dealings every other sentence is a classic NPOV flag-raiser. I'd say a rewrite is in due.--SpencerM 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfrin (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, as per the NPOV flag, it is to not be removed until the Discussion page has decided otherwise. Removing the tag does not mix well with your claims that this is a Neutral article. T

As I work through the material and wording changes to more accurately reflect the sources, I am more convinced the article is distinctly twisted to promote a POV to attack and discredit the subjects. I am finding secondary sources however that IMO establishes notability. Ward20 (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The notability of the subject is indisputable. Nearly 400 news stories from reliable sources cover him. Others cover his company and his non-profit venture. Of the articles mentioning the subject, more than one third address aspects of his Coyote Springs company. These reliable sources convey several important points for those who consider inclusion of details about Whittemore's most notable accomplishment, Coyote Springs, to be coatracking: W. conceived of Coyote Springs and at least initially financed it; W. has been involved in every step of the regulatory and legislative approval processes; W. has made statements responding to lawsuits and has asked for dismissal; W. is a hands-on manager who is well-known for appearing personally and arguing his case at hearings. There is no possible way to write a biography of Harvey Whittemore without going into detail about Coyote Springs, nor to ignore major aspects of the controversy. At the most, one could make the case for transfer of some of the information to Coyote Springs, Nevada. Removing to the talk page as a BLP violation is inappropriate. Of the remaining news sources on the subject, many cover his regulatory approval efforts for other business ventures and his lobbying for the casino industry. Certainly, more could be written about these aspects of the subject's life. The current relative absence of this information doesn't justify wholesale deletion of existing portions of the biography, however.

NPOV tags are to be placed in conjunction with substantive discussion on the talk page. Personal attacks are not substantive discussion. Which statements, specifically, are unsourced, exaggerated or unrepresentative? Which prominent sources have I left out? Let's try to maintain a collaborative atmosphere.

Deletion of any and all information considered by individual editors to be somehow negative is inconsistent with WP:BLP. Biographies should present balanced information on various aspects of their subjects' lives and in proportion with coverage in reliable sources. I have tried to write with NPOV in mind. I can't well control what the Nevada papers or the LA Times report on the subject. In future, please take time to read sources before wholesale deletion of what's derived from them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack

Removed problematic WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack material to talk. Please discuss how this material doesn't violate WP:BLP and WP:Coatrack before re-adding.

Lead

Whittemore's close relationship with Senator Harry Reid came under scrutiny because of perceived legislative and political pressure favours allowing Coyote Springs to overcome regulatory problems.

Regulatory impediments

Whittemore obtained land in the Coyote Springs Valley from a private owner but was unable to acquire all of the land or build on what he owned because of regulatory obstacles. The desert land included a sanctuary for the desert tortoise, an endangered species, and some of the adjacent land was designated a wilderness study area. A federal easement for utilities was also present, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would not allow building due to the presence of stream beds in the area. Water rights agreements were also needed to procure large amounts of water.

Controversy

Whittemore and his company have successfully overcome most of the obstacles to development of Coyote Springs. A commentator at the Las Vegas Review-Journal called Whittemore's triumphs a "marvel" but also put them down to what he called Whittemore's "distasteful" application of "political juice". Politicians at the state and national levels have introduced legislation to benefit the project by removing some of the regulatory problems; in other cases, politicians have reportedly exerted pressure on regulatory agencies to agree Whittemore's projects. Journalists and advocacy groups have questioned whether Whittemore's personal and financial relationships with political figures, particularly Senate majority leader Harry Reid, have affected these developments.

Whittemore and Senator Harry Reid

Whittemore is reportedly one the closest friends of Senator Harry Reid, who became Senate majority leader after the fall 2008 elections, and both men have characterised their relationship as close and decades long. Whittemore, his wife and company have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Reid's election campaigns and to Reid's leadership fund, which has been used to aid Reid's allies and is said to have helped Reid attain his leadership position. Whittemore has also funded political campaigns of two of Reid's sons. All four Reid sons have at one time been employed by Whittemore's law firm. According to the Los Angeles Times, Whittemore helped advance the careers of two sons, including Leif Reid, Whittemore's personal attorney. Responding to allegations of favouritism, Reid's office stated that the Senator's behaviour had been "legal, proper and appropriate".

Legislation

In 1998, Harry Reid and John Ensign, Nevada's Republican Senator, co-sponsored legislation removing restrictions to the sale of federal wilderness lands in Nevada. Environmental groups, who initially supported the bill because of accompanying protection of mountainous areas, now say they regret their actions. In 2002, Reid introduced "The Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002", reclassifying land on or abutting Coyote Springs, moving a federal easement off Coyote Springs land and allowing Whittemore to make a land swap at no cost. Whittemore was eventually obliged to pay for the land after watchdog groups objected to the transfer provision. Reid achieved additional adjustments to the land's status in 2004 legislation. Reid has blocked funding to study the impact of underground water pumping on neighbouring Utah.

Land swap objections

In 2006, two public lands issue groups sued the federal government over what they charged was an illegal land swap between the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (an agency in the Department of the Interior) and Whittemore's Coyote Springs. The Western Lands Project and the Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association stated that the government had unlawfully exchanged almost 10,000 acres of protected desert tortoise sanctuary for property owned by Whittemore himself. The Los Angeles Times reported that the swap consolidated and added to the value of Whittemore's holdings. The advocacy groups questioned the role of Whittemore's political allies in this decision and sought a restraining order. Whittemore responded to the filing by stating that neither Senator Reid nor his son Leif had affected the decision, and, along with the BLM, requested dismissal of the suit. District Judge Brian Sandoval declined to do so in 2007.

Alleged political pressure on the EPA

The US Environmental Protection Agency initially refused to grant permits based on the projected environmental impact of destroying stream beds in the Coyote Springs Valley. In what EPA officials called an "unusual" move, Senator Harry Reid contacted the EPA administrator after a process including a phone call from his son Leif, Whittemore's personal attorney. Soon thereafter, the EPA came to an agreement with Whittemore and also awarded Whittemore's company an environmental sensitivity award. The prize was accepted by Leif Reid. Senator Reid's office denied any wrongdoing but emphasised that Leif Reid should not have called his father on behalf of his employer.

Water rights issues

Environmentalists, residents of Utah and California and local ranchers fear negative consequences of Coyote Springs water usage, summarised by Las Vegas investigative reporter George Knapp as "pumping water in the teeth of a drought for golf courses". Water rights issues initially interfered with Coyote Springs progress, but agreements were reached. In coverage by Bloomberg, water rights attorney Greg James stated, “You need a large amount of money and some very powerful people to make water projects happen". Bloomberg notes that Harry Reid's son Rory is an employee of Whittemore's law firm and was the vice-chairman of the Southern Nevada Water Authority from 2003 to 2008. However, an opinion piece in the Las Vegas Review-Journal states that Rory Reid, who is also the Clark County Commission chairman, "bows out of all discussions and actions" related to Coyote Springs.

Other lawsuits

The Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental advocacy group, announced plans in 2009 to sue the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Center expressed concern about the environmental impact of agreements of the agencies and Whittemore's company, contending that the Coyote Springs development and loss of water resources and habitat would harm the desert tortoise and potentially hasten the extinction of the Moapa dace, both endangered species. The Fish and Wildlife Service and Nevada's water authority responded that they, too, are interested in protecting the Moapa dace, a small fish living in the Muddy River north of Las Vegas.

In 2007, Judicial Watch, a politically conservative watchdog group, sued the BLM for documents related to Coyote Springs. Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore.

Ward20 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the reference to HW's brother? Surely this is WP:Coatrack material? His brother might be convicted of a rather unsavoury crime, but what it that to do with HW, other than reading it leaves a sour taste in the mouth? -- TerryE (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As unsavoury as the child exploitation case may be, it is covered in reliable sources specifically stating that David Whittemore is the brother and business partner of the subject and a former employee of his law firm, where, incidentally, some of the pornography was downloaded and stored. Although aware of the issue for several years, the firm did not let the individual go until sometime around or following the trial. W. wrote a letter of support for his brother for the trial. David states that he will work again on his brother's Coyote Springs development after release from prison. I am unaware of biography provisions prohibiting the inclusion of verifiable information about a subject's family, particularly where relations with the subject are discussed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Complaint to Administrators by Keepcalmandcarryon re comments by TerryE

This is just a note to other editors active on this page that Keepcalmandcarryon has initiated a complaint (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Perceived legal threat) against me regarding my comments to him on his talk page. I don't want to comment further on the complaint itself, as I leave the other editors to form their own opinions. My purpose of this note is to make them aware of this action, as I will have to be cautious in my approach to further posting on this article. -- TerryE (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is HW sufficiently notable?

In my first comment on this page I asked the Q of Keepcalmandcarryon, "Can you explicitly detail the Notability which justifies this article's creation, and therefore why I shouldn't just put a WP:PROD flag on this?". His response was that "The notability of the subject is indisputable. Nearly 400 news stories from reliable sources cover him. ..."

However the Notability Basic criteria makes it quite clear that creation on notability depends on HW "being the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." The fact that you say he is mentioned in "400 news stories" is not by itself meeting these criteria as we would have to remove primary sources, duplicates, trivial references ... Your point about "writing a biography of HW" is interesting because that is what you seem to be doing here. If you want to write HW's biography then fine, but don't do this in Misplaced Pages. We should be bringing together substantive secondary source material.

So I come back to my original Q. Which of the (22 current) references are a "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (that is HW is the subject and not his relatives, associates or companies that he is involved with) under the Misplaced Pages definition of second source material? I don't think that its unreasonable to ask for an answer.

I would be interest in the other editors views before progressing this further. -- TerryE (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to propose this article (or any other) for deletion. Should that fail, you can open a deletion discussion. If you have any questions about the process, please let me know.

For now, here are several views from other editors:

The notability tag was removed by Jehochman, who has more edits than the lot of us put together, commenting "seems to be clearly notable".

Just after I finished writing the article, IBen wrote, "Looks good!"

Ward20 wrote that the secondary sources establish notability. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that a senior editor has come down on the side of notability, I accept that my Q has been answered. -- TerryE (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Another WS:BLP WS:NPOV issue -- Lobbyist/Attorney

I wasn't really going to get involved with article but I do feel that some editors need to make a sensible balance to some of the more biased material to restore a more WP:NPOV stance. The main author, KCOC, has located a set of WP:RS which paint a particular picture, but unfortunately I don't have the time, funds and other resources to access the hardcopy references that are cited. Reading the ones that are accessible online what I do feel is that as a general pattern even whilst the individual RS presents a mix of critical and positive comment, KCOC seems to have an uncanny habit of picking only the critical extracts for inclusion in this article. I suspect that this pattern will continue for the hardcopy ones, so if anyone who does have such access and can provide me with copies (contact me by email in the first instance) I will extend my checks to these.

In the meantime I can only start at the top with the sources that I can check. So to the Lobbyist/Attorney section as an example:

• Article: State Senator William Hernstadt attributes Whittemore's success to his ability to twist arms figuratively "to the point of breaking", remarking, "when Harvey Whittemore speaks, the Nevada Senate listens".

• Actual reference quote: Whittemore also seems to have had little realization of how brutal many lawmakers found his lobbying. In that 1983 speech, Hernstadt described it: “Many of us have received substantial contributions from one industry. Some people twenty thousand, some people fifty thousand, some a hundred thousand, some 150 thousand. And, as they say in the TV ads, when E.F. Hutton speaks, the public listens. Well, when Harvey Whittemore speaks, the Senate listens. I don’t mean there is any impropriety. What I mean is that, how do you say no to somebody that has put that much pressure on you? One of my colleagues here has had his arm twisted to the point of breaking.”

Note the omission of "I don’t mean there is any impropriety" and the reframing of the "One ... twisted to ..".

• Article: Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas
• Actual reference: This was entitled "Casino Seeks Tax Break for Art's Sake" and its main subject was Steven Wynn. The relevant reference to HW was Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts, said Mr. Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of paying taxes on the Bellagio collection. The collection, which includes works owned personally by Mr. Wynn (which he leases to the hotel) and others owned by his corporation, is classified as inventory because the works in it are for sale. As such, Mr. Whittemore said, it would already be exempt from sales tax. The interest in passing the law is altruism, Mr. Whittemore said, so that those who buy art will want to show it for the property tax breaks they will get. "You're trying to encourage the public display of art."

Nowhere in this quote does it state that HW obtained these tax breaks.

• Article: He has secured tax cuts for the gambling industry, represented casinos against workers' rights groups and introduced liability protection for casinos. Critics charge that the latter has put families of victims of sex crimes perpetrated in casinos in "a terrible legal position".
• Actual reference: That he is a Democrat seems to mean little in lobbying terms. When he crafted and lobbied a liability shield for casinos, it put victims of lax casino security--such as the family of the child molested and murdered in a casino bathroom or the rape victim in a casino parking garage--in a terrible legal position. His success at holding down casino taxes put terrific pressure on lawmakers to raise taxes elsewhere, such as a sales-tax increase that especially burdens workers.

Yes, my quoted 80-word paragraph was perhaps the most critical in the referenced 3,500-word article which discussed HW's lobbying activities. In general it paints the picture of a strong and successful lobbyist who can sensitive to the reactions of others. Yes is often critical, but why is this only (spiced up) quote and where is the balance in the Misplaced Pages version?

Again the wording has been massaged: he did not introduce a liability shield, the phrase was crafted and lobbied. Likewise there is no "Critics charge" as both are the unreferenced opinion of the article's author (Evelyn Nieves, a reporter on the NYT). The current wording on liability shield could also be read by the causal reader to imply that HW is supporting sex crimes. Also note that a later reference to his brother for conviction of a sex crime. Two references in a Bio article where there is absolutely no such controversy associated with the subject of the article himself. When do we cross the line into character assassination?

• Article: Whittemore has also lobbied for his own ventures, both business and non-profit.
• Actual reference: I can't find one. The reference on the previous sentence includes: Most of Whittemore’s advocacy has been on behalf of others, but increasingly as he builds golf courses, casinos and housing developments (some of them in Clark County), he is lobbying for himself, and not necessarily at the Legislature. which could be summarised as "Whittemore has also lobbied for his own ventures", but I guess the non-profit refers to helping establish WPI.

-- TerryE (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I was brooding about this overnight trying to figure if this section was too strong. I don't thing it is. Yes material must come from WP:RS, but this is a necessary condition rather then a sufficient one. It seems to me that neutrality and an encyclopaedic stance are perhaps more important. If you pick a critical source then you should try to balance this overall perspective with positive source as well. When you pick points from the sources, you should again try to retain the overall balance. What I have tried to show in this example is that in authoring this section only negatively critical sources have been selected; the most critical sentences have been selected from these, and then the wording has been subtly reworked to spice them up further: POV -- TerryE (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

TerryE, I'm gratified by your interest in my writing and appreciate the time you've devoted to your analysis. I disagree with your conclusions, however, and submit that rather than "spicing up" the sources, I have exercised editorial neutrality.

The casinos section is an example of my attempts to enforce neutrality. The source implies that some consider W's actions somehow repugnant or a betrayal of his political ideology. I removed these overtones. As now written, we are informed that W. had a job, did it well and successfully, and received some criticism. No commentary, no implications.

If W did not secure the tax cuts for Wynn, we should certainly state as much. My impression was that he had, but I could be wrong. Let's look into this further.

That W. "crafted and lobbied" a measure that was adopted implies a deeper level of commitment than my perhaps overly simplistic "introduced". We could certainly quote the article directly on this point.

State Senator Hernstadt states that W. twisted a lawmaker's arm to the point of breaking. I added "figuratively" because I assumed this was not physical. On further reflection, that's not clear. Whatever was meant, the Hernstadt quote is important as it speaks to lawmakers' impressions of W's lobbying style. Would you prefer the "brutal" portion? And as for impropriety, neither this article nor the source implies impropriety.

There is no insinuation in this article or in any source I have read that HW has been involved in or has encouraged sex crimes, and I'm quite frankly confused by your suggestion. In fact, there is no implication that W has been involved in any illegal activity at all. I would encourage you to assume good faith of other editors, read the sources and avoid accusations such as this. For me, that W has supported his brother through his trial is an indication of his commitment to family; the episode is included because of its notability and the close relations of the two.

Finally, if I have missed important sources, sources giving a different perspective on any of these issues, I have done so inadvertently or because of my limited time resources. We should certainly represent any such references. I have attempted to craft a balanced biography from prominent, easily accessed sources like the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Nevada papers, but I don't pretend that my writing or my research is perfect. Please, help me perfect the article rather than accusing me of character assassination. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: after the NPOV tag was replaced, I asked for assessment of the article at the NPOV noticeboard. The board is back-logged, and a response might take some time, but I'm hoping for an impartial review of the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my point that there is no evidence that W secured the tax cuts for Wynn in the quoted source. Your impression is irrelevant; it's the RSs that count.

The fact is that I could take the same set of RSs and come up with a completely different and far rosier picture by picking a different set of quote fragments. Yet, I would be very hard pressed to paint a worse one without resorting to further fabrication. That's my point: it's not a Q of RS by and large, but one of neutrality. If I actually did that what would be your defence for removing my content and restoring your summary? -- TerryE (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Added RS establishing passage of tax cut bill. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You've added an extra RS which I assume justifies your statement "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas" citing additionally "Tax break bill for art collectors heads to governor" from the LVJR dated 27th May 1999. Well I decided to validate this and duly paid LVJR $2.95 for an electronic copy of this article. It does include the wording "The vote to accept an Assembly amendment ... occurred after a 30-minute debate on Senate Bill 521." But guess what: it doesn't even mention Harvey Whittlemore!!! not one in its 444 word length. So there is still no evidence to support your claim that HW obtained tax cuts. However, I do think that this crosses a line and shows some deliberate deception on the part of Keepcalmandcarryon. I will delete this wording as it lacks any credible WP:RS for the alleged claim. -- TerryE (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times writes that Harvey Whittemore lobbied for the bill. The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that the bill passed. I summarise that as successful lobbying on the part of Harvey Whittemore. In what way is this summary deceptive? An encyclopaedia is a synthesis of information drawn from many sources. The synthesis of Misplaced Pages policy is drawing conclusions that are not consistent with sources. The sentence in question is consistent with the sources and has no POV connotations I can detect. If you like, please propose alternative language. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above the NYT text on HW actually said Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts, said Mr. Wynn was not trying to wriggle out of paying taxes on the Bellagio collection. The collection, which includes works owned personally by Mr. Wynn (which he leases to the hotel) and others owned by his corporation, is classified as inventory because the works in it are for sale. As such, Mr. Whittemore said, it would already be exempt from sales tax. The interest in passing the law is altruism, Mr. Whittemore said, so that those who buy art will want to show it for the property tax breaks they will get. "You're trying to encourage the public display of art." It doesn't even say that HW was lobbying on his behalf. The LVRJ material is copyright but makes no mention of HW but does discuss the vote on the legislation. How on earth do combine these to claim that HW obtained tax cuts? Maybe I am just thick, but could you just formally map out this transformation for me? -- TerryE (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It would help to understand exactly what you're disputing. Which of the following do you feel are not supported by the sources:

• Harvey Whittemore lobbied for art-related tax cuts for Mirage Resorts
• Mirage Resorts is owned by Steven Wynn
• The legislation for which Whittemore lobbied was passed by the Nevada State legislature

What alternative wording would you suggest to summarise the sources? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) First an apology -- I must be getting senile: you are right it does say "Harvey Whittemore, a lobbyist for Mirage Resorts", sorry. Secondly thank-you, as this is what I needed to move this discussion forward. So to my response: this combo still doesn't support your argument. We know

• HW was a lobbiest for MR
• HW made a statement on SW's behalf relating to legislation TB
• SW owns MR
• TB was passed by Nevada State.

Now these articles don't say that HW was the lead lobbiest, nor does it say that any lobbyist was instrumental in getting this law passed. This is implicit synthesis on your part and without RS for these, your statement "Whittemore's lobbying accomplishments include obtaining tax breaks for Steven Wynn, owner of the Bellagio in Las Vegas" is two inferences too far. I can give you an analogy with the same logic flaw, if you like. -- TerryE (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, what alternative wording do you suggest? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the source I read several weeks ago and should have used from the beginning, which states that Whittemore "persuaded the Senate to vote 14-7 for a bill that gives Mirage Resorts Chairman Steve Wynn tax breaks on his $300 million art collection". Is this satisfactory? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; yes perhaps you should, and we wouldn't have had the argument on the synthesis of this point :-) but I still have problems with the rest of this section as discussed above. However the wider discussion on the board suggests some useful case-law that we should follow. I will try to propose some alternative / additional wording based on this source which would be a more balanced report based on these sources. I guess that I'll have to cough up another $2.95. -- TerryE (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Comment requested on the following: Is this biography NPOV? Does it misrepresent sources? Does the weight placed on the subject's Coyote Springs venture accurately reflect the weight granted by reliable sources? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N

I was a little unfamiliar with the various Wiki dispute procedures, since in the past I have always attempted to resolve issues through editor-to-editor discussion on the relevant talk page. However in this having read the docs on rfc bio this in normally intended to solicit comments on specific points within the article. However, the nature of this dispute is somewhat more fundamental in that a couple of editors are concerned about the overall conformance of this article to Misplaced Pages policies and some posting practices. It is therefore more appropriate to raise an incident on the WP:BLP/N which I will do at this section: Harvey Whittemore. -- TerryE (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a question there, although if you have additional questions, I would encourage you to raise them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal

Two tags remain on the article: NPOV and BLP. The BLP dispute has been resolved, and I will remove the tag unless additional, specific complaints are raised. On NPOV, what issues remain to be discussed? Please indicate specific sections or sources and propose alternative language where appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with your statement "The BLP dispute has been resolved". In my last post on this review on 18 Jan, I stated that the bulk of these issues where still unresolved. The section has not been tagged {{Resolved}} by one of the BPLN reviewers and indeed yesterday JN466 stated that in his opinion this specific quote was an inappropriate summary of the sources. So do not remove the tag.

As I mention in my last post to you, which I recall you describing as a rant :-), this whole wider debate was stressing me somewhat and aggravating my CFS symptoms, so I wanted to take a break on this. I will reply to your Qs next week. -- TerryE (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ "Harry's deal". The Pittsburgh Tribune. 25 September 2007. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. ^ Waldman, Peter (February 2008). "When Harry Met Vegas". Portfolio. Condé Nast Digital/Bizjournals. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. ^ Neubauer, Chuck (20 August 2006). "Desert Connections". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Cite error: The named reference RJ03092006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. ^ Neubauer, Chuck (25 June 2004). "Senator's Bill Would Help Friend's Development Plan; Harry Reid of Nevada seeks to lift an easement. Two sons work at the landowner's law firm". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
6. ^ Neubauer, Chuck (29 August 2006). "Advocates Sue Over Nevada Land Exchange; Groups charge in federal court that the Bureau of Land Management violated the law in its swap with Coyote Springs developer Harvey Whittemore". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
7. Neubauer, Chuck (23 June 2003). "In Nevada, the Name to Know is Reid; Members of one lawmaker's family represent nearly every major industry in their home state. And their clients rely on his goodwill. Series: Second of two parts". The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, California. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
8. Rogers, Keith (29 August 2006). "Two conservation groups sue BLM. They say changing boundaries of public land violated law". Las Vegas Review-Journal. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
9. Tetrault, Steve (27 September 2007). "Judge lets lawsuit against Coyote Springs proceed. Groups challenge 6,881-acre land exchange". Las Vegas Review-Journal. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bloomberg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. Cite error: The named reference RJNeff was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. Cite error: The named reference RJ11022009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Unassessed biography articles
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment