[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Michael Kempner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mosmof (talk | contribs) at 16:13, 26 May 2015 (→‎Edit Warring: Examiner is not WP:RS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

These seem to be solely press releases rather than actual content which is admissable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.193.183.234 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Previous comments appear to be solely PR puff articles and shouldnt be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.193.183.234 (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Jimjilin, stop reverted edits. You have attempted to put in the same POV pushing article a number of times and a number of different editors have deleted that contribution. Get consensus or request for comment, but stop engaging in a edit war. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xcuref1endx, you are right a number of different editors have deleted my well-sourced addition. That number is one.Jimjilin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you wrote: The first sentence is a copvio, copied directly from the source, and the second sentence is not supported by the citations provided.

I added: Kempner bundled for Obama’s re-election campaign, raising $3 million. He’s been accused of profiting from Obama administration policy.[1][2]

The first sentence is not a copvio! It was not just copied from the article.

The articles say: (Kempner was] also a top investor in high-tech light bulbs, which few people would buy if not for Obama-backed light bulb regulations.

Obama bundler Michael Kempner profits from the light bulb regulations and individual mandate Obama supports.

So my statement is supported by the citations provided.Jimjilin (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any other objections?Jimjilin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is copied directly from the source article, in violation of copyright law. The source doesn't say he's been accused of anything. That is your own interpretation. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about, Diannaa? lol

My addition: Kempner bundled for Obama’s re-election campaign, raising $3 million.

Quote from article: Investor Michael Kempner bundled $3 million for Obama’s re-election.

Not an exact quotation!

I paraphrased the article, which is acceptable and done throughout Wikipedia.Jimjilin (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about: Michael Kempner bundled $3 million for President Obama and has profited from the Obama administration's light bulb regulations.[3][4][5]Jimjilin (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the quotation. It's got exactly the same words, but in a different order. It would be better to come up with a totally unique way to say the same thing, but sometimes that's just not possible. Regarding the second sentence, Mr Kempner is not mentioned in the NY Times article, so that's out as a source. The second Washington Examiner article says he "profits from the light bulb regulations " while the first one says "He’s also a top investor in high-tech light bulbs". It doesn't say he's profited, just that he owns shares, but it doesn't say what company. I did find this undated press release (probably from 2010) which shows he was named to the board of directors of Lighting Science Group Corporation, a producer of high-tech light bulbs. Perhaps we could say that instead. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the part about his bundling to avoid using the The Washington Examiner which is an openly partisan source (specially the op-ed pages). Even if you look past the bias (or feel the Times is equally slanted), it gets a basic fact wrong. What the columnist calls Obama's lightbulb regulations is Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - the year on the bill might give you a hint, but it was passed over a year before Obama took office. The Examiner might work as a source for verifying some facts, but for more serious claims like the one that was made here, it fails as a WP:RS. Mosmof (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908
  2. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924
  3. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908
  4. ^ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924
  5. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/13/us/politics/obamas-top-fund-raisers.html?_r=0
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Kempner&oldid=664137214"