Talk:Bennett S. LeBow

Untitled

The "b" in "Lebow" in the entry title needs to be uppercase -- "LeBow". I fixed it in the Drexel University entry (under "Notable Alumni"), and now it no longer points here.

Lebow -> LeBow

I'm moving this article to LeBow since Drexel always spells his name that way, and it is likewise in the article. --ImmortalGoddezz 03:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Changes removed

Kansas has removed my changes to this web page repeatedly, and, in defiance of the rules mandated by Wikipedia, has not specifically stated reasons for these removals. After the last removal, I said that if it happened again, we would have to take our dispute to mediation and/or arbitration. Kansas then stated that he/she was removing my changes because they do not "flow well" with the article. I have stated that I disagree, and note that other users in this forum tacitly agree with what I have said, since they have attempted to revert to my changes, only to have them removed once again by Kansas. It is apparent to me that Kansas is simply attempting to use this encycopedic page as a means to glorify the image of Mr. Lebow by removing any negative, though factually correct (by Kansas' own admission) references to him. Unlike Kansas, I believe the information presented should represent a balanced viewpoint. I have stated that I feel that the information I have presented "flows well", and today have asked Kansas if he/she would like to have our differences mediated, and if not, then we will have to proceed to arbitration.

ALYGX (129.174.29...)

Arbitration is not likely at this point

The arbitration request concerning this article is unlikely to advance. I am happy to offer you guys some assistance to better craft the article into an accurate reflection of the LeBow.

1. Negative information is acceptable in the article if it is properly sourced. Be especially aware of WP:BLP.
2. You might find that creating a separate section for criticisms is useful.
3. All material needs to be properly sourced and cited. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ATT.
4. No one person owns the article. If there is a clash of opinions then your first move is to seek input from the community. Arbitration is a last ditch effort.
5. Do not edit war. See WP:3RR. Bring all discussion here, to the article talk page.
6. Contact me if you need assistance. I am usually around.

Thanks for your help and efforts! JodyB _talk 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Update from alygx026

Message from alygx026 Sir, Please tell me how fair this process is, when I am not allowed to present a more accurate picture of Mr. Bennett Lebow. I believe that if you read the contributions and talk pages of Simpson, Kansas, and 79.xxx..., it is extremely likely that they are all one sock puppet, who I will refer simply to as Kansas. Further, when you note the other contributions that each of these people have made, their motivation for attempting to present Mr. Lebow in the most favorable light possible is quite obvious. Other PARTISAN people have reverted to my original information at least two times. All of my information is accurately sourced by Kansas' own admission.

The purpose of this project is to present a means for people to collaboratively produce a fact neutral database of knowledge, not use it as a means for public relations puffery. I think I have been more than fair here. I have asked Kansas to provide reasons for deleting my material, and all he/she said, on one occasion, was it was read out of context and irrelevant. Even you, as a presumably neutral mediator, have to admit that it is unfair for me, after detailing many reasons to an arbitration panel to resolve this, should allow my changes to be continually deleted by Kansas7474 without any explanation why they are doing so, and ultimately frozen in his/her favor. I believe what is happening here is completely contrary to Wikipedia's goal of dispersing accurate knowledge in a neutral manner. My changes present a more honest and ultimately neutral portrayal of Mr. Lebow. What Kansas is doing is making a joke out of Wikipedia.

Please tell me if this case is being sent to arbitration, or what will happen next. Given Kansas' apparent motivation for doing this and their past actions, it is fair to say that no amount of mediation can resolve our differences, and I request that if you have the ability, that you suggest the case be sent to arbitration. As I said before, I am willing to rewrite this article into one unified whole, subject to input from Kansas, and Wikipedias final say, if necessary, but I will not do so if it only means Kansas will ruthlessly delete everything I have added, as he/she did today.

Report on suspected sockpuppetry

I believe there is extremely strong evidence that SimpsonJ3, IP address 71.190.203.37, and Kansas 7474 are all sockpuppets of each other, and I also believe that, based on the entries they are editing, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that they are somehow affiliated with the companies listed in their "contributions" section, whose image they are apparently trying to bolster. For further evidence of sockpuppetry, consider that Kansas has made changes to the "Vector Group", "New Valley", and "Lebow" pages. SimpsonJ3 has also made changes to these groups as well. These are not popular subjects, and it is unlikely anyone not acting as a sockpuppet would direct nearly all of their comments in Wikipedia to only these companies.

Report filed on suspected conflict of interest

The following report (with minor changes) has been filed regarding a suspected conflict of interest regarding users 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3.

The following users: 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3, against whom a sockpuppet report has additionally been filed, appear, based upon their postings, to be affilated with at least some of the companies: Vector, New Valley; and also Mr. Bennett Lebow, whom they have directed their remarks toward. It is my BELIEF, based upon the following evidence, that the above user(s) are, as mentioned before, affiliated with this person and these companies, and are merely using Wikipedia as the equivalent of a "public relations brochure" and means to bolster the image of at least Mr. Lebow, as is evidenced by the other investigations that have been requested.

Please note that nearly all of the remarks made by 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3 as noted in their contributions are directed to the following executive and the following affiliated companies: Mr. Lebow, New Valley, Vector, and Liggett. Given that these are not "popular" subjects, it is extremely unlikely that an editor without a conflict of interest as noted above would make these remarks.

I believe that the remarks that I have made, that have continually been deleted by all three of the above users, should be locked and made permanent, especially in view of the fact that other Wikipedians are essentially attempting to form a consensus by reverting to my edits; and also the fact that even Kansas7474 has admitted they are accurately sourced.

Additional note

Reports filed against 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3

Suspected conflict of interest and sockpuppet reports have been filed agains the above user(s). I do not see why this case cannot proceed to arbitration. I have reqested mediation, and the above user(s) have not responded, and people have been attempting to revert to my edits. Since the page is locked now, people cannot do this, which is ashame, because it is the equivalent of trying to form a consensus. In view of the behavior exhibited by the above users, I request that, until the dispute is resolved, at least my changes to the Lebow page be reverted and locked.

alygx026.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again.

1. The page is protected because you and others were edit waring and could have been blocked instead of having the age protected. The protection expires Monday.
2. Suspicious conduct on the part of other editors is not reason to edit war.
3. Because of suspicious conduct, I filed a request for a checkuser report after protecting the page. You can view that report here.
4. You may proceed to arbitration at any time. You do not need my permission. However, as I stated, I think the request is premature.
5. Once the checkuser report is back, I will take appropriate action.
6. While you may prove to be perfectly correct in your assumptions and your intents for the article you never are allowed to edit war. I very strongly suggest you visit this page and read it very carefully.
7. Patience is golden.
8. Sign your posts with ~~~~

JodyB _talk 21:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bring balance to the article

Careful editing is sometimes difficult. We have avoided an edit war here, have cleared out a sock drawer and now removed page protection from the article. There is no present restriction and we are back to creating an accurate and concise article. At present, about 1/2 of the page consists in criticisms of the subject. These are well sourced. However, editors should be aware of a portion of the Neutral point of view policy typically called Undue weight. This requires us to balance we sourced articles and not to give undue prominence to negatives or alternative, minority ideas.

I think it would be wise to reduce the weight of criticism in the article and perhaps bring the most significant to the top and exclude the other. I am going to reformat the page for you to help you see what I mean. As always, I am available for your assistance. JodyB _talk 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm?

Just an interesting observation regarding the name "Vector Group". In medicine, a vector is a disease-carrying agent. The Vector Group deals mostly in tobacco-related products. Is this mere coincidence or an example of Mr.LeBow's sense of humor?WQUlrich (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section greatly outweighed the rest of the article and is not appropriate here. The depth of the research into the smallest criticisms shows how obsessed this editor is with the subject. Biographical articles on Wikipedia DO NOT list every small criticism that people have been accused of. Please re-work the criticism section so it fits in better with this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.8.223 (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

On first glance, it does seem a bit excessive but, when the question of balance is raised, one must ask if there really is anything to put on the positive side of the scales...other than fluff. 170.71.252.34 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My sources are accurately cited. People are continually adding information about many of Mr. Lebow's philanthropic efforts, such as his contributions to educational institutions, and I hope that this will continue. However, in the interests of balanced journalism, I believe that it is only appropriate that a full, fair, and complete picture of Mr. Lebow be presented, and I have attempted to do so not by criticizing him, but by presenting accurately cited, factual details concerning his business dealings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Algyx0262 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uncited material at beginning of article

The first 2 and 1/2 paragraphs require proper citation. There is an enormous amount of information prior to the first cite that needs to be properly cited. If this is not done, I will have to remove it in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia.

129.174.252.250 (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bennett S. LeBow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020024653/http://drexel.edu/alumni/docs/mag_fall_2004.pdf to http://www.drexel.edu/alumni/docs/mag_fall_2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bennett S. LeBow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322163525/http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelink/story.asp?ID=279&vol=5&num=9 to http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/drexelink/story.asp?ID=279&vol=5&num=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Relevance issue

What does the timeline of Russia's involvement in the 2016 election have to do with anything in this article? —72.47.66.196 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

recent changes by california4x4

Recent changes by "california4x4" to this article are clearly inappropriate. "too wordy" is not a justification for removing most of the article content. Reversion to its original form is clearly warranted in this case. Algyx0262 (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Reversion to its original form is not clearly warranted. The entire article needs to be re-written. Feel free to edit and make more concise. Your bias is obvious and blatant. California4x4 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Your changes to the article are clearly against wikipedia rules which do not allow for the complete elimination of pages of well sourced facts in this manner. Your bias is obvious and blatant. This page is the result of many people making contributions to it over a long period of time. Please do not revert it again. Algyx0262 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent changes on March 16 2024

The recent changes made on March 16 2024 are well cited facts that are relevant to the biography of Mr Lebow and there is no reason for their deletion. Please do not remove them. Algyx0262 (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

recent revision by wracking

Lebow is suggesting legal action. I say it is hardly worth keeping the Rabinovich material at this point since this is only one relatively minor portion of a fairly detailed biography. It is just not worth it. Algyx0262 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No. It's reliably sourced. And, no, it doesn't need to be segmented into a "controversies" section. Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Better source needed for second marriage

In discussions at User talk:Jlebow112, that user raised concerns about the reliability of some of the sources in the article. To that end, looking through the sources, one assertion is backed up solely by the New York Post:

As of 2014, Bennett LeBow is married to Jacqueline Finkelstein-LeBow, the principal of real estate investment firm JSF Capital.

Does anybody have another source to support the marriage? Otherwise, based on WP:NYPOST and the community's consensus that the Post is not reliable, we'd need to delete that sentence. —C.Fred (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Deleting it might be the best course of action right now. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Except it's sourced to NYT not New York Post...Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Additional corroborating data for a 2014 (or late 2013?) marriage: Compare the results at https://bfa.com/photos/search?people=jacqueline-finkelstein and https://bfa.com/photos/search?people=jacqueline-finkelstein-lebow. The former has results through 2013; the latter has results starting in 2014. I don't think a commercial photography site, in and of itself, is a reliable source, but it would corroborate any other sources we find that are reliable and don't run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Do we need the "As of" clause at all?

@Simonm223: I think you found the best solution to this. In trying to think how other articles handle this, we don't usually note that an individual was married as of the last date we have a source mentioning their spouse. We usually state they are married. Accordingly, I've made the following bold edit:

As of 2021, Bennett LeBow was subsequently married to Jacqueline Finkelstein-LeBow of JSF Capital.

1. Remove the as-of-date clause entirely; it's reasonable to assume that they are still married in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
2. Remove repeat of last name as a style consideration. Could use "He", but it feels cleaner to have a name.
3. Since we do not have reliable sources for a marriage date, just state that it happened next in the timeline.
4. Use maiden name instead of married name, to parallel first wife.

As I said, this is the cleanest way I can think of to avoid implying an end date of the marriage, and it's consistent with what's done in other BLPs. —C.Fred (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hopefully that will satisfy all parties. Simonm223 (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)