Talk:Ronn Torossian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Copyright permissions

I have full permisison from 5W to use the text. I can also modify it somewhat, if that is what is needed. Juda S. Engelmayer 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just sent the email with permission


wikifying

I've added some more information, wikified this, and categorized this; hopefully it reads a little less like a press release now. Article still needs to be fleshed out though. --DDG 20:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


New York Post Story

Torossian was written up in the New York Post for hijacking the domain sites of many PR firms in New York. [1] But he forgot to protect his own name. This news item has been whitewashed and deleted from his article. We are requesting Wiki adms to keep an eye on Torossian authoring and editing his own page. Thanks. Zonenet 18:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This item may well be inappropriate for a wikipedia article. But I won't go into that, because I don't have the energy to argue about it. The main point is that together with that piece of "information", Zonenet had inserted defamatory claims about Torossian, which I won't reproduce.
I should add that according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, under "Dealing with edits by the subject of the article", Torossian has every right to edit his own article in order to remove such defamatory information.
--Atavi 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Page 6 stories are tabloid pieces and not appropriate for the tone of an encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

BusinessWeek Story

It should be noted that the author of the BusinessWeek story added a comment to her article after in reply where she clarified her intent of the piece, which was not to malign or criticize, but to give note to this guy for his goods and bads.

"Nickname: Diane
Review - Just a response to "Ronn" (who likely isn't the profile subject of this piece, as he didn't think I had an axe to grind). It was Ronn's success that prompted me to take a look at him and his firm. After talking to him about how he could balance having Pat Robertson's Regent University and Girls Gone Wild as clients (in my dealings, he personally speaks for both), I suggested doing a profile. He's certainly a provocative and colorful character but he's also had some real coups in getting publicity for his clients. Date reviewed: Nov 13, 2007 5:25 PM" [2]RubenKlor 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rabbi impersonation controversy

There have been multiple unexplained deletion by IP accounts regarding 5W's astroturfing scheme. If the reliability of sources is an issue, here are a few links you can use instead of deleting the content completely:

All of these are entries by an anti-religious biased source, himself. Charges ? Lawsuits ? arrests ? Anything here accurate at all ? Whatsoever ? And 9 lines to it for a CEO who made a comment on it ? HUH ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This clear on-line bias is nothing more than failed messiah with nothing more than biased rants, self-righteous indignation, and one-sided research from routinely anonymous followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emetman (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The content about the fake Web entries is perfectly suited for a page about Mr. Torossian as it was his firm, his client and his comments in the media. The 6-7 lines on the matter were written in journalistic style and were appropriately cited with legitimiate sources. Yet, the content continues to be deleted???? Probably by the same person/people who wrote the article to begin with -- either Mr. Torossian himself or his staffers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.150.82 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is overwhelming reason to believe that both 207.237.137.37 and Emetman are sockpuppets of Ronn Torossian himself, and that he has been the person repeatedly removing legitimate but critical content from this page and the page regarding his firm, 5W Public Relations. The evidence includes the contribution pages for both 207.237.137.37 and Emetman, where almost all of the edits are on these two pages, the pages of 5W clients such as Joe Francis, and List of Stuyvesant High School people, Stuyvesant High School being Torossian's alma mater. There is also the fact that DNSstuff identifies the IP address 207.237.137.37 as being in New York, New York, Torossian's and 5W's home city. The above two comments by 207.237.137.37 and Emetman sound suspiciously like Torossian's comments to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, where he justifies 5W's sockpuppeting/astroturfing in the Jewish blogosphere by claiming the rabbi impersonation scheme is not about blogging, rather, all means are justified to protect kashrut. Given this repeated history of sockpuppeting, vandalism, conflict of interest, and corporate self-promotion, all in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy, there is ample reason to block both users and to watch out for future sockpuppets of Mr. Torossian and 5W trying to misuse Wikipedia as a PR tool. --76.230.156.206 (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Mosmof, surely in your battle for ethics and honesty you are willing to identify yourself? Would anyone doubt you are in fact Rosenberg of Failedmessiah ? Your absurd claims of federal laws and lawsuits are in fact ample cause for question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you got the idea that this was about "ethics and honesty". This is a simple content dispute with WP:COI mixed in. So a lot of things to parse here:
  1. I've actually removed mention of the rabbi impersonation from here and moved it to the 5W page, since none of the media reports connect Ronn with the incident directly - as far as reliable sources can tell, it was an indiscretion by the firm, not Ronn. So we can move the discussion to the talk page there: Talk:5W Public Relations.
  2. No, I'm not willing to identify myself, and attempting to out me is against Wiki policy (well, except when there's clear evidence of COI, of course). All I can say is that I have an extensive edit history where Agriprocessor- or Torossian-related topics constitute a tiny, tiny percentage. So it's highly unlikely that I am Rosenberg, unless of course, Mr. Rosenberg sneaked onto my computer during a get-together at my apartment.
  3. You've mentioned this "federal laws" and "lawsuits" before, and I'm not sure where you're getting it. It may have been in the older edits you kept deleting, but in the rewrite that I did, I don't mention any legal action, pending, threatened, or otherwise.
  4. Anyway, the information in the rewrite comes entirely from independent, non-primary sources. So unless you're willing to question the credibility of JTA or the Forward or PR Week, I'm not sure how much you can question the content. You're more than free to do so at Talk:5W Public Relations, obviously. --Mosmof (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


category

he is the leader of a (far right) jewish organization and is quoted to call himself to be a "jewish bad boy" (http://www.forward.com/articles/publicist-scores-with-rappers-right-wing-politici/). so, how can he be an armenian (-american)? --Severino (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Client listing

Fail to understand how Christian right is relevant but corporate isnt ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes...good point, but just a listing of companies doesn't help differentiate subject from his company. I think the sources are there, but which clients can be traced directly to their relationship with Torossian? Flowanda | Talk 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then explain why Christian right clients are relevant ? If you remove the corporate clients again, I plan to report you and ban accordingly from maligning this persons page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Christian Right clients are relevant, because of his involvement with Zionist causes, juxtapositions and all. But note that we're talking about the "Early life" section here. I'll just take out the references to 5W clients completely, and leave a link to the 5W article. --Mosmof (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The intro boldly describes him as a publicity guru and scrappy NY publicist, then the rest of the article backs into the reasons why all for a number of internal reasons -- COI edits, reactions to COI edits, deletion review edits, reaction to deletion edits, etc. etc. But whatever, we're left with an article full of random facts with no real connection to each other or the intro, and in this case, no real clear definition between the person and the company he heads.
I'm not going to mess with the fact that there are two articles, but I do think there needs to be distinct differences in the content here as opposed to whatever companies he heads. To me, this article could include the current intro and concise section/s that show/s how his early life shaped his career and how he used those clients/publicity to form a new company...and how he (as opposed to his company) is directly related to clients/developments/strategies/issues/controversies/etc. Flowanda | Talk 16:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem, I think, is that there actually is relatively little of substance about him out there that wouldn't be more relevant in the 5WPR article. Though I do think we can flesh out the article using sources we already have - the bit from the NY Times article re: "a self-promoting publicist", and the Forward article goes into detail about his activism and transition to PR. --Mosmof (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So, maybe the sentence could be something like... "After forming 5W in 2003, Torossian continued to represent clients from the Christian right, but also began picking up corporate clients and celebrities." ...and just leave it at that? The internal links to the company then should be enough. Note: I wrote the sentence to suggest structure only, so the example may not be accurate. Flowanda | Talk 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Client list should be as up to date as possible. (12.103.203.218 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)).

Categorically false. There is nothing at all wrong with indicating whom Torossian has represented in the past. If you want to add new ones -- with proper/working references -- fine. But it is not the function of Wikipedia to portray something only as it is in the present. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

COI Tag

There is little point leaving the COI tag on right now. The article is simple and says basics. As long as people stop writing and fighting over this, that tag is no longer needed. Let's just watch and see if people can stay away. 38.119.107.107 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

BusinessWeek profile

Looks like this BusinessWeek article got lost in the clean-up of the article, but it's probably worth going back to so we can flesh out the article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_46/b4058064.htm --Mosmof (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

I place the dispute tag on the article. It seems that the common editing practice here is to place merely every negative comment that is made on this site. Sure Jeffrey Goldberg may say that Torossian said what he did, but Torossian disputes it. The interview that Goldberg quotes happened several years ago and he never wrote it before. Second, if you go to Youtube and listen to democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, he says plainly that he respects Torossian and the work of his firm. That is fair game for mention just as well. Moshe Gaon, and Israeli billionaire, says the same here, yet what we see here are articles that only talk bad. I think that a Wiki site ought to be fair or at least write why it cannot be rather than merely place everyone's negative comments within the piece.

Ronn Torossian has undoubtedly attracted some detractors for the way he built his firm, but he built it with clients who pay him and trust him to do the work. Evidently, there are people who enjoy his work and methods or there will be little to nothing to generate the bad publicity.

Balance please. TLVEWR (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Even if Goldberg's account of Torossian's statements may be in dispute, him calling Torossian "the most disreputable flack in New York" is not, and as a notable journalist, his opinion is relevant. And I'm not sure why you have a problem with balance - there's plenty of positives about Torossian. Mosmof (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Mosmof (on this point, anyway): I don't see how that final paragraph contains anything that is unsourced or poorly sourced (which is what that template claims). My only concern would be that it's not clear to me how Goldberg's critique of Torrosian's views on the Arab-Israeli conflict is relevant to a section on Torrosian's PR career. Since Torrosian is not (to my knowledge) a notable person with respect to that conflict, I'm not sure we need Goldman's critique of his views on it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And I agree with Nomoskedasticity. This guy is a blogger first of all, and second, why is it in there at all? The fact that whenever some editor writes in a new negative comment, the cadre of editors to RT's wiki article sing the same tune - it belongs. There is no objective thought in that. Considering that Lloyd Grove's comment was deleted - although it was in the same Times article, is bizarre. Let's just stop this nonsense to these articles already. The same group of pros and cons always. TLVEWR (talk)
Fair enough - that criticism is out of place in the PR section. I'll edit it out if no one else has. --Mosmof (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
TLVEWR - the Lloyd Grove comment was not deleted. It was placed after the other praise, as it didn't make sense to have it right after the sentence about him losing an account. Please pay closer attention before reverting an edit, and remember to assume good faith. Instead of questioning another editor's intentions, explain why an edit fails one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Mosmof (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

--: If Jeff Goldberg's attribution to Ronn Torossian is in dispute - which it is, and his subsequent comment about being "the most disreputable..." was clearly garnered from that, how is it relevant merely because Jeff said it? on Wikipedia's own guideline pages for responsible editing of living people, it requires a bit more care. It is easy to throw gratuitous comments from O'Dwyers, Benny Elon, Roger Stone, Ehud Olmert, Yoel Hasson, Hank Sheninkopf, and dozens of others who have said positive things about the style and methods here, but it is not the place for those - as it is not the place for every journalists opinion; particularly when that opinion is rendered from comments that may not have been said - or said not quite as the writer relayed them. I am trying to stay off the editing pages for this, but would it be fair to ask for fairness? Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As I read the article, the "disreputable" comment was independent of RT's views on Israel - Goldberg offered it as background to the comments. As for balance, I've fleshed out the PR career section with both positives and negatives, and Goldberg is not just a blogger or "every journalist" - he's written for the New Yorker and Atlantic, and certainly notable enough to have his own Wiki article. I appreciate your weighing in here, but no matter what I do, by providing both sides of the debate, I can't seem to win with you. Mosmof (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also - the Businessweek comment "Another rival points out that trash-talking the competition can build buzz but eventually could backfire. "These tactics are great for your first $5 million," says this person. "It starts to hurt you during the second $5 million."" is unattributed. Why is this in here?

It is not about winning or losing - it is about fairness. I work here, I see the press and read; but what is the constant editing to put these articles in a skewed light? It is like there are people out there who seem to have an opinion and feel the need to continuously voice it through editing here. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor point, but I think you misunderstood me re: "winning". I'm not trying to "win" an argument or force a certain edit into the article. I just meant that no matter what I do, you or someone else from your company complains about balance. As for the unattributed quote, it's unattributed because it was unattributed in the cited source. I see your point, and you're welcome to take it out. --Mosmof (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - as far as being welcome to take it out - I am not so sure that all agree that I am welcome to do anything to these articles...  :( Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

How can 40 under 40 be used as a negative ? Have never heard of such a thing ? And Goldberg no matter how major he may be wrote this on a blog. cannot be used as a reference. Was a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned below, there's no "Though shalt not cite a blog" commandment in Wikipedia - one should simply avoid self-published sources. Goldberg expressed the opinion on a medium provided by the Atlantic Monthly. As for your first point, I have no idea who gave you the idea that only positive quotes can be culled from positive articles. Please cite relevant guideline. And his desire for self-promotion is one of the major reasons for his fame, and therefore his notability. We would be remiss not to mention it in the intro. And it's not entirely a negative - it's in overall positive context, and Torossian himself doesn't deny the self-promoter label, and he obviously works hard at it. --Mosmof (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
On the use of Goldberg for "disreputable flack": if this reference were being used to support "Torossian is the most disreputable flack in NYC..." then we'd have a problem. But as a reference for "Goldberg called him 'the most disreputable flack in NYC'", the reference is merely establishing that Goldberg holds this opinion. So what is at stake here is not whether the source is adequate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thesource is adequate, but it would be better to use it for something more useful than nonspecifc negative comments. DGG (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Basic human dignity

Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

AND

Criticism and praise

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

This article should be kept to standards. With respect to commentators here, Jeffrey Goldberg used to write for New Yorker, now he writes a BLOG. A blog is a non reliable source and must not be used as a reference. The reference here is also used to merely lopside this article with attacks or "factual" bad things about Torrosian. This is not what Wiki is for, but what the commujity seems to believe it is about. Wiki is not intended to beat people you do not like or people whose ideas or ideals are disagreed with. I am going to challenge this on Wiki's administrative pages. Handle in the Wind (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goldberg

This man writes a blog now. He can be seen as an expert in Israel; Why is his OPINION on PR professionals relevant to a wikipedia article? They should not be. TLVEWR (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that there's no hard and fast rule against citing bloggers or using blogs to cite an author's opinion. It's part of a more general guideline against using self-published sources, which most blogs are, but Goldberg's site isn't - it's published by the Atlantic Monthly. And it's not like a person loses his notability or authority when he starts a blog - is Paul Krugman's opinion less valid when expressed on his NY Times blog rather than his biweekly op-ed column? As for Goldberg's opinion on PR, I think we can agree that Torossian is not a typical PR - he's very much visible in the public sphere. --Mosmof (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof if you use Page 6 as a source here, please state publicly you will accept other Page 6 on Torossian. If Goldberg blog is acceptable, why wasnt Perez Hilton and E Entertainment for 5W Public Relations Sundance ? [[User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First, please don't conflate referencing a gossip column with citing it. Second, Goldberg is writing under Atlantic Monthly's editorial control, and citing his blog (which, again, is not a self-published source) is perfectly acceptable as a source for Goldberg's own opinion, as opposed to statements of fact.
Anyway, I wish you'd stop bringing up "OMG, he's a blogger!!!" like it makes a difference. There's no hard and fast rule on using blogs as source. It's just a publishing platform. However, blogs do present a problem as WP:RS when (a) the author has no other claim to notability, and (b) the blog is self-published and is under no editorial oversight. Most bloggers fail these two tests, Goldberg does not. Mosmof (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So lets talk specifics, why did you personally remove E Entertainment from 5W page as a blog and Rinat Akhmetov's page as well and link to 5W ? You cited both as blogs and not wiki standards. Why ? [[User: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you bring it up in Talk: 5W Public Relations? I don't remember the exact edits or the reasoning for the edits. Specific diffs would help. Mosmof (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even though Goldberg has a journalistic background, the material mosmof is trying to incorporate onto this page originated from a blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobby (talk • contribs) 02:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why it matters that his opinion was published in a blog format. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ronn Torossian/5W Public Relations. Mosmof (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Ben Brafman edit

I propose to remove the Ben Brafman info, as clearly the relationship has changed greatly over the past 4 years, given the following Youtube tape, hosted at 5WPR office: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5KHmMNZoRM 12.103.203.218 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that's happened in the past 4 years has changed the actual fact that Brafman dropped 5W as its PR agency. --Mosmof (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Brafman clearly hasnt severed all ties as you imply. 4 years ago isnt today. Let bygones be bygones, or at least be factually accurate,. (12.103.203.218 (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)).

There's nothing to suggest that Brafman didn't sever business ties (which I think the current edit implies), but later reconciled or resumed the relationship or maintained a personal relationship. But the gist of that statement is that Ronn's notoriety did have some effect, short term or otherwise, on his business relationships. Anyway, the edit is sourced to a NY Times article (which is overall complimentary), and he's directly quoted in this PR Week piece: http://www.prweekus.com/Famous-Publicists-Self-promoting-publicists-and-clients-who-love-them/article/51839/ , so the factual accuracy is not in question, and we don't really let bygones be bygones - we have articles about things that happened 20, 50, even 200 years ago. --Mosmof (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

so keep it then... but it must be factually accurate. He speaks highly of Torossian, which directly contradicts your statement.(12.103.203.218 (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)).

April 2010 Edits

Its absurd as of 4/2010 to talk about something which occured in July 2008 on his personal page for a former employee and discuss lawsuits and charges. Nothing has happened since then. Will it now occur ? Leave well enough alone. His firm also was just named one of the largest in the US yet that isnt indicated. Not timely nor relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In section below regarding "Rabbi", Mosmof himself states: "I've actually removed mention of the rabbi impersonation from here and moved it to the 5W page, since none of the media reports connect Ronn with the incident directly - as far as reliable sources can tell, it was an indiscretion by the firm, not Ronn." Therefore, what justification may he have for now saying it belongs here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Uh, you realize this is Wikipedia, not Wikinews? That said, yeah, I agree with myself, I was right and I'm wrong. But if we can't discuss stuff that happened in 2008 or earlier, then we should probably start an AFD for Byzantine Empire, huh? --Mosmof (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A negative mention in 2005 is relevant but positive in 2009 isnt ? Inaccurate ? Also, Joe Francis is more important than Coca-Cola or Mcdonalds ? (Biz Week is the source) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof fails to identify why it shouldnt be relevant that the firm was named one of largest in US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I explained it already. It's because the article is about Ronn Torossian and there's a convenient link for people who want to learn about the awesomeness that is 5W PR? --Mosmof (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Then explain why Girls Gone Wild would be there ? Thats Torossian or 5W ? He's relevant because of his company ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mosmof claims that the guys' company was named 1 of largest in US is less relevant than an attorney firing the firm. Wouldnt be 1 of the largest PR agencies in US be more important than a lawyer firing the company ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked Mosmof repeatedly to not re-introduce fights which have been had ad naseum and he continually ignores agreements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And I ask that you stop mischaracterizing my edits and interactions with you. I have engaged you in discussion plenty of times and even attempted to compromise with you here. Yet you continue to not assume good faith and forum shop and canvass for editors to help push your POV. It's pretty tiresome.
Anyway, back to the edit. Look, I was happy to use a more general language to describe Ronn T's clientele, but you freaked out over it, so it stayed. Here's the thing - the primary reason for his notoriety and notability isn't so much where his firm ranks in the industry, but his style and diversity of client base. Considering that, where an industry sheet ranked 5W is of less note to an outsider than the individual clients he has had on roster. --Mosmof (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when is the fact that his company is 1 of 15 largest in US more relevant than the clients he represents ? Why would that be the case ? You continue to push your editorial agenda. No freaking out simply you seem to be a bully online. The forum shop and canvass asked for you to stay away from this page but you didnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, you don't even read the link you posted, did you? I'm pretty sure I wasn't told to stay away. Anyway, I don't think "relevant" is the right word, but rather "notable" (at least as defined by Wikipedia). Most people could give a flying funk about the size of a dude's company. But if the dude's company does something that sets itself apart from other companies in the category (i.e., "He promotes Fortune 500 companies AND celebrities AND politicians!), then it's something impartial people would care about, and thus notable. Mosmof (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The size and growth of the company is surely important or he wouldnt be relevant. And what Fortune 500 companies have you named ? I am not the one who has continually made mistakes here, you have ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

February 2011 Edits

Editor attempt to make changes after all the discussions arent reasonable. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

What was wrong with it? It seemed to clean up the lead significantly. Dayewalker (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The lead was absurd. Way too much going on there and all of it was unnecessary. It wasn't a neutral account. According to Wiki, "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article." There was no neutrality there, so it should be removed. --Shotgunsonthewhip (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been debated ad naseum by multiple users you can review for many years. Was moved from lead and sourced to actual article. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup done and moved from the lead. New user shotgunsonthewhip review here 1st. Babasalichai (talk) 11:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's weird in the article since it's not really neutral, but as long as it's out of the lead right now -- that's fine :) --Shotgunsonthewhip (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Edits

In fact the entire paragraph doesnt make sense and after rereading earlier commentary regarding Goldberg it seems that earlier all debates agreed it didnt fit as Torossian isnt relevant for Israel politics and its not representative of his PR career. Jonathanglick13 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All of these changes are from sourced media. Goldberg commentary on Israel has no relevance to his Israel career (as agreed above but seemingly never changed). Babasalichai (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Edits

For some reason a user Gawker is used as a solid source.

The changes: Torossian began his PR career as an aggressive practitioner and built his company on that “brash style” [1]. He was called by the New York Times "brash and aggressively outspoken... the consummate scrappy publicist"[1]. His aggressive style has helped garner clients, but also would pit him against fellow public relations firm executives and owners. "[w]ith Torossian threatening to go to "war" over his complaint that Rubenstein is trying to recruit from his employees. Rubenstein responds by threatening to sue, adding, "I hope you have a qualified attorney and it will be expensive."," as Sheldon Rampton, a columnist in for the Center for Media and Democracy, a watchdog group that reports on marketing and PR activities.[2]

works better and is more balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail7 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to protect this page?

They just keep coming and coming. There seems to be no end to this. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh. I just filed a report at WP:RFPP before seeing your post. Yes, I believe it's time. These SPAs are disruptive enough that we're not able to actually take a look at what really does need improving in the article, for having to ward off them adding 3K of promotional material. A nice round of protection would force the discussion back here to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think protecting the page is sound; but why lock it out using the revision stating that a writer for a gossip blog questions the subject's intelligence?

If you were trying to be honest and fair, you might revert this page back to the way it was prior to the editing attacks in February and leave the rest to debate? Nothing new has been added, and the information is all two years or more old. I am sure there are recent issues that can speak for this subject and not more of the same old that survived critique years ago. Thank you Abigail7 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dayewalker, are you also dealing with Abigail's 3RR violation? Or should we consider it moot once the page is protected? --Ravpapa (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to be around this afternoon, but she should be warned against 3RR. She's edit warred her way into getting her preferred version. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
User warned: [3] The Interior (Talk) 19:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Ravpapa, negative remarks in BLPs should have impeccable sources, and not be sourced to blogs or gossip rags. Could you please consider removing the material sourced to the Gawker? Thanks. --Diannaa (Talk) 21:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The Nolan piece reads as an editorial opinion, and makes broad characterizations. It doesn't feel like an objective appraisal to me, and Gawker's reputation as a "tabloid" (be it a tabloid particularly well-informed about the P.R. industry) makes it very problematic. A quick search on the reliable sources noticeboard shows there is little community support for it as a RS. The quote, especially the " not particularly bright" bit, really sticks out as undue negative weight. The Interior (Talk) 21:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Also agree. Demiurge's edit solves the problem for the time being, but I will find another quote from a more reputable source later today. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree as well.. The entire reference to Gawker is contentious and being a BLP, the entire reference should be removed with out discussion. TheNYCdan (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Ravpapa is non objective and fancies himself an expert at inserting bias and has succeeded. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Ravpapa/Tilt

Sockpuppet, if true, does not allow a BLP to be biased in this extreme. Torossian is known for winning awards from Ernst & Young and Inc Magazine and owns 1 of the largest PR agencies in the US for which the NY Times, Business Week and others profiled him. His page went through many edits for many years and had multiple discussions. This user has now completely biased the page.

Years ago he was a spokesperson for Israel government and perhaps thats worthy of 1 line mention (Likud spokesperson) In addition, review the post: His claim: "which urged Arabs to move out of Jerusalem[2]." Isnt supported by the source if anyone bothers to review ?

Source is a blog and nowhere does it say he is a spokesperson: "He is spokesman for the Hebron Fund, a US foundation that supports Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron[7]. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Would also ask any users to please review the previous version and the actual sources Ravpapa uses. Rabbi Avi Weiss positive comments included but negatives included. There isnt 1 positive article for someone who runs 1 of the largest PR agencies in the US. Why is that. Even if socpuppetry was committed does that mean users can run rampant ? and user: Ravpapa already admitted he went overboard and has a left wing bias. This man owns a company not a politician.--Greenbay1313 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Clients

Why is Torossian's work for Israel clients more relevant than his 100 employee firm work for mcdonalds or coca-cola. Seems undue balance given previous page. SHould we discuss how many burgers mcdonalds sells. Lets not hide behind supposed sockpuppet issues to allow negative unsourced content.--greenbay1313 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am concerned this may fall short of neutrality guidelines on Wikipedia:

"Torossian is known for his aggressive, results focused orientation, and has close working relationships with members of the media, influencers, decision makers, politicians and celebrities.

--Edcolins 16:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Peacockery comes to mind, more than lack of neutrality. I deleted it, it was difficult to understand. KP Botany 05:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Rather accurate characterization, however. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The article has been mainly written by Judae1, who is an employee of Torossian's firm. It should be cleared of material, which is there to "advertise" Torossian, and should include material from and like this businessweek article to balance it. But, in my opinion, the NY Post article, discussed below, is inappropriate.--Atavi 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This article appears to be very straight forward and inline with external newssources and free of blog articles with a clear bias to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.137.37 (talk • contribs) 21:02, July 14, 2008

Edits

This is an earlier version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronn_Torossian&oldid=415676758 Included quotes from Rabbi Avi Weiss and noted that Torossian has worked with Likud and the Israeli government. Cites with background the many awards he has won for growing company all are relevant - INC magazine and others as well as 40 under 40 lists. The article as it stands now is negative with years old material. --Greenbay1313 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of primarily negative quotes to define Torossian is unjust and probably not truly in the Wikipedia idea. The edits here resemble a planned attack - use a quote from the New York Times - certainly a reliable source, that defines him as scrappy, which can be conceived as not so bad, but perhaps also as not so good either. Merriam Webster defines is as, 1) quarrelsome and 2)having an aggressive and determined spirit : feisty. Then the article's editor digs to find not one, but two rabbis who have something to say about the man that is not so nice. If you argue that the Times needs balance, one quote would do; if you're making a point, then two or more are needed to drive that spike in. So now I offer another rabbi's view, and I can assume that Avi Weiss is at least as notable and important to Jewish life as any of the other two cited, if not more. “He is probably the greatest young Jewish political activist I have encountered in the last many years,” Weiss said. Why is that not as important?
The point here is that there is not need for this article to simply define Torossian with a spin; it should just be an article on what makes him who he is. That is, the good, the bad and the facts - none of which should overemphasize any others. To simply leave the faux pas in a career spanning two decades without also speaking equally of the facts that his style and methods have also been received well enough by different people than he may have offended, is disingenuous to say the least.
Torossian pissed off the rabbis mentioned, but he counseled an Israeli Prime minister, has served many Israeli Parliament members, and represented the Israeli foreign ministry, ministry of tourism and a host of others. To say that the two Jews mentioned define him is just inaccurate and frankly - weighted.
I urge administrators and impartial editors here to look - don't gloss over Torossian's dark clouds, but don't make them the only ones in the sky.

--TLVEWR (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Whereas Torossian began his career with Israel advocacy, he has since done a lot more. He is on the record commenting on the antics of Lindsey Lohan and Tiger Woods, and even Charlie Sheen. While he was once almost solely about Israel policy, he is now about public relations and commenting on how public figures can do it the right way or wrong way. Shouldn't his Wikipedia presence, as it is a living and evolving encyclopedia, evolve with every year he adds more notable commentary to the pool the editors seem to be choosing from?

--BetHillel (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You've misunderstood something. Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a "presence" for Mr Torossian.
By the way, is this your first Wikipedia account? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
No it is not my first. I have one that is six years old with tens of thousands of edits and new pages. I chose not to use it here because looking that this page, it seems contentious and frankly, I know enough to not trust the some of the Wikipedia editors. I know that Wiki's purpose is not to provide a presence for anyone, but it is its job to provide a proper presence once a page is created and deemed acceptable. Take a look at this page objectively and see if you truly believe that the issues that propelled Torossian into the news many years ago are the only ones that speak for him now. I did a search and he has not made any statements on Israel's settlements in years, nor has he rallied with right wing Jews recently to support or not support an agenda. That is material that he began with. As he grew this company of his, and as he apparently grew older as well, a cooler head seems to have prevailed. Gone from sites like Gawker and other place are the near daily attacks on Torossian's methods that ran in 2006 or so.
I will not edit the page right now, but I might begin to soon. I am hoping that some semblance of rational edits can pave the page organically. Why some people feel that the controversy is the only news and the older the better too, is of concern to me. In the era of Fox News and CNN and left and right wars, Wikipedia ought to be neutral and objective and not a place for one's bias against policy or for it to hang heavily over a living personality's Wiki page. Thank you

--BetHillel (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Hebron reference 12 is a blog. Binyamin Elon is not referenced on his site (and can the site be used as a reference). Those who wish to use Israel why have only negative sources been used and not sources which say he was a government spokesperson or praise of Rabbis ?

In terms of opinions others are included how about these ? 2011 - NY Times - For Grey Line - 1 of largest transportation companies in world - Is this not bigger than Israel 13 years ago views ? http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/tour-bus-post-to-sked-for-7am/ Publicly traded Soupman company ? http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/soup-kitchen-creditors-file-to-force-bankruptcy-update2-.html Musician Lil Kim: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/bar-worker-arrested-for-murder-at-lil-kim-party/83480/ Spokesperson for Israeli gov't: http://www.newprophecy.net/madonnawatch2.htm Restaurant chain Phillipe Chow: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/confidential/sienna-gisele-caught-on-camera/story-e6frf96x-1111115728651 All of these: http://www.holmesreport.com/agencyreport-info/1930/5W-Public-Relations.aspx

Balance is required. --greenbay1313 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you would like more of his recent work featured in the article. We can only include information that is notable. So if you have a reliable source that discusses his recent work, please provide. The links you have given us mention him only in passing. Not much to work from there. (the Holmes report would make a good source for the firm's article though.)The Interior (Talk) 21:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
And the features on him are excellent sources about his work but seem to be used solely for Israel views. He's not prominent for Israel work. Even 40 under 40 and Ernst and Young receive less attention than Israel views (which are also passing mentions). --199.19.186.9 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

He is not prominent for Israel work he is prominent for PR work so why is the article so much about Israel ? and if its about Israel shouldnt there be balance like positive Rabbi quotes and that he was a spokesperson for Israel government ? When you say mention him in passing do the quotes in The Jewish Week regarding Netanyahu in 1999 mention him more, so than the NY Times does in 2011. I am sure you'd agree NY Times in 2011 regarding Gray Line is more prominent for a NY PR guy than a 1999 quote on Israel politics. Recent media would include: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/nyregion/thecity/20feat.html. Retrieved 2008-09-05. http://www.prweekus.com/40-under-40/article/99468/ http://www.prweekus.com/Ten-Rising-StarsRonn-Torossian/article/50331/ http://www.eturbonews.com/15795/5w-public-relations-ceo-selected-semi-finalist-ernst-and-young-e http://adage.com/article?article_id=110905 5wpr.net. http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=150936 http://adage.com/article?article_id=110905 Inc. 5000 Fastest Growing Companies in America profile of 5W, ranked No. 153 in 2007 survey; accessed November 25. 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/20/nyregion/thecity/20feat.html http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2010/august/207530.html http://adage.com/article?article_id=110905 http://adage.com/archive-date?date=2006-08-07. 199.19.186.9 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the article as it stands

With all these editors picking over the article now, I feel it's getting a bit crowded. So I have stepped back from editing it for the past few days. I do, however, have some comments about it, primarily about the Activities and Opinions section:

  • It is true that Torossian is involved in Jewish and Israeli right-wing affairs, but that aspect of his biography looks now like it is getting a bit too much emphasis. He does a lot of speaking and writing about the PR industry, much of which is not controversial at all. I think that we should include some of that.
Definitely, his opinion is frequently sought. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The sentence about Taglit-Israel is not accurate. The criticism of Torossian did not extend to Taglit Israel. No one suggested that Taglit is immoral or outrageous because it hired Torossian. It should be removed.

It seems to me the source does criticize Taglit Israel for hiring 5WPR. Perhaps I'm not reading it right. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Likewise, the explanations about the Agriprocessors affair are out of place. The paragraph as it is currently written is very hard to understand without prior knowledge. And, anyway, the Agriprocessors scandal rightly belongs to 5WPR, not to Torossian personally. The criticism that Torossian is "immoral" (a criticism that has since been removed) is, on the other hand, directed to Torossian personally, and should be restored.

Yes, the firm is responsible, but a bare allegation that he is "immoral" is unacceptable without some factual basis. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I think a press release published on the Hebron Fund website identifying Torossian as its spokesman should certainly be considered a reliable source for that information. At 5WPR, we told GreenbayNYCAbigail (whoever it was at the time) that such sources would be acceptable for rebuilding the client list, and that is what was done. So I think it should be acceptable here. (A personal email from Torossian to an editor is quite a different matter.) I think this is a really pertinent piece of information - the Hebron settlers are the craziest of the Israeli fringe, and to be their spokesman is a definite statement.

There is a distinction to be drawn between doing PR work for someone and being their spokesman. He may be, but there should be a source, not just a conclusion drawn by a Wikipedia editor viewing a press release. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I await your opinions before proceeding. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Torossian has been corresponding with me and with User:Dweller, another editor with oversight rights. I think he would agree with some of your suggestions. Please weigh in. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
In view of the dispute over sovereignty of East Jerusalem it think it is better to refer to Arabs rather than Palestinians or Israeli Arabs, as only 5% are Israeli citizens. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldnt Mr. Torossians numerous expert quotes be cited in his section ? Is Israel more important than Tiger Woods ? http://www.aolnews.com/2009/12/07/opinion-how-tiger-should-have-handled-his-scandal/ or Goldman Sachs: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-07/rajaratnam-trial-may-tarnish-goldman-mckinsey-spark-suits.html The quote about Israel and settlements wasnt when he was employed by them so if we are admitting expert opinion we should admit all or none. greenbay1313 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC) http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2007/company-profile.html?id=200701530

The problem with the first one is it appears to be just an opinion article written by Torossian. While it may be a third party source and I don't know how often Torossian's opinions appear in in such sources we generally minimise their use since plenty of people say plenty of things, it's difficult and often ill-advised for us to decide which of these things are notable. When these opinions are later picked up and discussed in other sources that usually suggests they're notable and may be worthy of inclusion. From a quick glance, all of the Israel stuff (except for one apparently just to source a factual claim) are when other sources have picked up what he has said (whether said in opinion columns or elsewhere) Nil Einne (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Celebrity

Is Sean Combs & Torossian noteable ? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/diddy/featured/3 rapper Lil' Kim http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03EFDC1331F93BA3575BC0A96E9C8B63 Ice Cube & Snoop Dogg: http://www.prohiphop.com/2006/09/5w_pr_signs_sno.html http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2520975 or are we going to argue an obscure Reform Rabbis opinion is more important than working with the most important entertainers in the world? greenbay1313 (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Posted a suggested new page here at suggestion of users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox greenbay1313 (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A related thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Community ban proposal for Babasalichai --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

This talk page makes me crazy with its length; I've turned on auto-archiving (anything over to 91 days is moved to an archive page--not lost, just moved) so that we can focus on only current discussions. Anyone, of course, can turn it off/ask it to be turned off, but it's pretty standard for a page of this length. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Allen

Sigh...I said I was going to stay away from this after being forum-shopped by greenbay1313...but one (and only one,) of the points he raised on my talk page does seem to be a little concerning from a BLP perspective. In the Activities and opinions section, in the first paragraph, we have the sentence, "Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9]" This quotation, along with the sentence after, seem to be about 5WPR, not Torossian. Nothing in either of the references implies that Torossian was responsible for the actions, that he authorized them, or that he approves of them. It seems like including this here (rather than in the 5WPR article, where the issue is adequately covered) seems to imply that Torossian is somehow responsible or related to this. Now, for all I know, Torossian is in fact the senior executive who was (self-)disiplined; but, then again, for all I know, Torossian had absolutely no knowledge of the wrongdoing until it was uncovered. Unless we have sources that clearly assert that Torossian was directly involved, it seems to me that those two sentences should be removed from this article. And greenbay1313, I strongly recommend you don't comment on this--it will only make people less likely to listen. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people who have edited the article, have sometimes acted on their disgust. Yeah, remove it unless we have top-notch sources to support it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Can I also ask that you review The Jewish Week story where Torossian comments on Netanyahu - he didnt criticize him for restarting peace talks he criticized for giving back West Bank and said at end he would vote for him. Keep in context and the facts are misleading. read the story. greenbay1313 (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Complete inability to follow kind recommendations, and an absolute insistence that every time you get one slightly favorable comment that you immediately raise another...that behavior is nearly identical to Babasalichai's....Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppets haunt my dreams now. Pls assist? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
So now that you agree that these 2 sentences dont belong can you remove them ? "Rabbi Morris Allen, who heads an organization that exposed fraud in one of 5WPR's clients, called the firm's tactics in defending the client "outrageous, to say the least."[9]" This quotation, along with the sentence after, seem to be about 5WPR, not Torossian. Sockpuppets dont mean that its ok to use wrong language. greenbay1313 (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Given that there have been no objections, I'm going to remove the sentences because they simply don't seem to be about Torossian. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about this article

Hi all.

I have some strong concerns about this article.

Here's my prime concern: this article is about someone who is notable for his work in the field of PR. Take that away, and the article would fail AfD. The weight given in the article to his actual work versus issues relating to Israel seems a breach of WP:UNDUE, which we do need to be careful with, especially in BLPs.

The article is also somewhat imbalanced, it seems to me, with a heavy (although lessening, of late) emphasis on critical, including some criticism badly sourced or not sourced at all - a massive problem for BLPs

Working through these issues is going to be tricky, especially as it seems there are a quite a few editors active here. Can I request a show of hands of editors who are happy to work collegiately, if robustly, to try to ensure our coverage is NPOV, properly-sourced, balanced and not undue? --Dweller (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To echo the above, there are a number of current major BLP issues which should be fixed above. The statement regarding pushing Arabs out of Jerusalem cannot be accurate if he worked for Olmert, Netanyahu and works with current Mayor of Jerusalem. 1 statement regarding blue chip clients seems irrelevant if reading the other media as well as his website. Things are sensitive regarding living individuals as we all know folks. Can someone assist in fixing these immediately ? greenbay1313 (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. Dweller (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  2. Greenbay1313
  3. Ravpapa. I would add this: I was working on a response to Fred's response to my comments above (which agree with Dweller's concerns to some extent). I was having a lot of trouble myself in rephrasing the paragraphs in question. So instead of writing directly to the talk page, I started developing in my sandbox. I see that Fred has picked up some of the stuff I was working on there, which I think is good (naturally), but it still needs work.
Rav Papa on that sandbox page when you spoke about a big nose and personal insults who were you referring to ? You apologized for similar behavior on Saturday. Perhaps you should leave this page alone a few days ? Your edits have shown repeatedly to be inaccurate and politically biased. Do you agree Torossian is noteable for PR ? So why all the focus on Israel ?
I have another concern: According to the edit summaries, Fred has made changes to the article based on private correspondence between him and Torossian. Specifically, he has written that he removed Bachman's quote about Torossian being unethical based on an email in which Torossian claimed that Bachman had retracted this statement in a personal conversation. I think it is inappropriate to remove sourced material based on such private correspondence. If there is a published retraction, that is a reason to remove the quote; certainly not a private email of highly questionable veracity. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I cited my source, however my email to Bachman asking for confirmation has not been answered. Actually what Torossian said was that Bachman had apologized, not that he had retracted; lots of possibilities there. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason Bachman opinion would even be relevant ? A Rabbi commenting in 1 source about a living person ? Its not relevant regardless and shouldnt be included. Human decency per BLP and more than 1 source per BLP. greenbay1313 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a proposed revised bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Greenbay1313/Sandbox - Welcome feedback... greenbay1313 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Happy to work through these and all issues, point by point, once we have a working group. --Dweller (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested sources

Suggested by the subject to illustrate PR work:

Also:

Thanks, Fred. They'll be very helpful in overcoming the WP:UNDUE issues. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

More:

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NYT profile was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Sheldon Rampton, "When Publicists Attack", The Center for Media and Democracy’s PR Watch , July 13, 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronn_Torossian/Archive_1&oldid=1080143257"