Talk:Harvey Whittemore

Multiple issues

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 Wikipedia 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)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I don't think that we've discussed or resolved Ward20's original point. There is a significant of material here about Coyote Springs (49% by wordcount when I last looked). Whilst is correctly sourced, the main association with HW is that he is the chairman of the development company carrying out this development. None of this material is covered in the Coyote Springs article which about a quarter of the size of this Coyote Springs section (again by word count). Would it not make a lot more sense to move content which relates to the Coyote Springs development to the Coyote Springs where at least those editors interested in Coyote Springs itself can give their views on balance and completeness? -- TerryE (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

References

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 (Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: POV³ -- 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 Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia 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)

I left comments at BLPN Harvey Whittemore as to where I believe the article stands. Ward20 (talk) 11:29, 29 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)

The offending quote, which as you agreed above was after all not synthesis but taken directly from a source, has in any case been removed. Hence, resolved. Tags are a means to an end: the improvement of an article through specific suggestions and edits. They are not meant to be permanent placeholders for the nebulous objections of editors who can't decide if they do or do not wish to remain active on Wikipedia. In any case, no one, neither here nor at BLP/N, has explained why any of this constitutes a potential BLP violation. It's clear that at least one editor disputes NPOV. It was never clear that anything in this article was unsourced or poorly sourced and in potential violation of BLP. The BLP tag is and was inappropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be very appreciative if you actually read what I write. You say words to the effect that "the offending quote is resolved". I reply that the issue is wider (as per my original post on BPLN) and the dispute is still open so don't remove the tag. You reply "the offending quote is resolved" and remove the tag. I will repeat: the BLP tag was not limited to a single quote as I made clear in my response and in the BLPN text. The dispute has not been resolved and not tagged as such. Please do not act unilaterally in deciding when a dispute is ended. If you remove this tag, I will undo this. As I said, I will reply to your points later this week. -- TerryE (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I have updated WP:BLPN#Harvey Whittlemore with a key timeline and my view on this. Please comment if you feel that this is inaccurate. Thank-you. -- TerryE (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC) (fixed typo) TerryE (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOVD is quite clear:

"Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."

For TerryE, discussion of specific issues appears instead to be the last resort, to be pursued only "later this week" after tagging, re-tagging, complaints to probably inappropriate noticeboards, intimations that the article's subject might sue me, lengthy notices about retiring from Wikipedia, and complaints of Wikipedia-exacerbated health problems. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I can read WP:NPOVD, but the tag that you unilaterally removed against my specific request was the {{Blpdispute}} tag. Given the length of discussion we've have here I feel that any accusations of Drive-by tagging are inappropriate. And yes, my health problems are quite real: for 18 months I had difficulty getting out of bed, though for the last 8 months or so I have been improving. I had to give up my career because of these health problems specifically CFS. Wikipedia doesn't exacerbate my symptoms, though stress does. I don't think that its an unreasonable request to ask for a few days to prepare my response. As you've reminded me in the past: please don't get personal; stick to subject in hand which in this case is HW. -- TerryE (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Weight apportioning

TerryE has stated at BLP/N that the Coyote Springs section of the article is too large. I would suggest that we allow the weight of reliable sources to guide us in apportioning the article, whilst remembering that, when balance is needed, constructive additions are preferable to the removal of well-sourced information.

There are over 300 news sources I have found that report on the subject. Here's a breakdown of several, often overlapping, categories:

• 230 on Whittemore in the context of lobbying
• 150 on Whittemore and casinos (his own, including Coyote Springs, his lobbying for others, etc.)
• 130 on Whittemore and Coyote Springs
• ~30 on the so-called "pier-gate" involving Whittemore, Ruvo and James; I note that we haven't yet mentioned this
• ~30 on the art tax breaks Whittemore lobbied for casinos/Steve Wynn; the only sentence dedicated to this episode has been removed from the article
• 20-30 cover the Whittemore Peterson Institute
• 30 on Whittemore's Lazy 8 casino; we haven't mentioned it
• ~30 cover Whittemore's political contributions (not mentioned)
• at least 30 on Whittemore and Peppermill and Nevada Casinos, Inc. (not mentioned)
• ~15 on Whittemore's Red Hawk Land Company (not mentioned)
• ~50 include Whittemore and Harry Reid

I invite TerryE to research some of these (or other) currently unaddressed aspects of the subject's life and to add what he finds to the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Having just said "don't get personal" above, I hope that you don't mind me repeating a complement that I gave earlier: you seem to have a genuine gift for researching and locating RS relating to a given subject. I will have to take your analysis on trust as I don't have the $100s it takes pay for copies of RS as you seem to; so thank-you for this. What your analysis seems to imply is that an appropriate balance might be more emphasis on his lobbying activities, though it would be nice is you could find some more basic RS Bio information. You also seem to have picked up a few extra points that might be worth mentioning. What this also underlines though is my point that the current ~70% of content covering Coyote Springs is excessive and much of this material would be better suited to the Coyote Springs article itself.

I didn't have a problem in principle with your including the sentence relating to casinos/Steve Wynn once you provided an RS which supported your content verifiably and without additional synthesis on your part. However given our past discussions, what I do want to do is to review your references to ensure that content that you add is verifiable and also where I feel that the balance isn't quite right to include extra appropriate content. Most of these are only available in the UK on payment, so I will need to locate and buy copies of these documents. As I said this will take some few days. Not all of us have the energy that you seem to have :-) -- TerryE (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise but my WP time got somewhat diverted by your recent COI debate. Unfortunately I have also committed to the OOo user forums to do a software upgrade, (I am the lead administrator there), so I probably won't get around to doing this until later in the week. -- TerryE (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologise. When you have the time and inclination to discuss specific issues and provide specific solutions, we can consider the need for a tag. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the default state here is not "tag removed" but leave the tags alone. You aren't following your own rules. As I said, I have other obligations that I can't get out of. "Later in the week" is a reasonable request, I feel. -- TerryE (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOVD, the default state is to place tags only as a last resort and only as a temporary measure, to be accompanied by specific proposals and actions to change the perceived problems. As for the BLP tag, it is clearly inappropriate, as the only issue you seem to have with this article is one of weight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The actual quote is "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." [my italics] The context of "temporary" is not defined and there is absolutely no implication that a week is a reasonable trigger for the tag being unilaterally removed. The actual stop condition seems to be "people agree that it is neutral" which we clearly haven't reached. I find it somewhat ironic that you supply another example from Wikipedia which demonstrates my issue with many of your contributions. I don't think we should do this with the biography of a living person. -- TerryE (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Has any progress been made on specific fixes for the perceived problems? Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. I believe there is still a lot of excess negative material and too much weight about Coyote Springs in the article. The political slant on the many sources is hard to analyze to get a balanced article. I looked for a politics WP group to post to to get more editors interested here but didn't find a suitable group. Do you have suggestions to get more interested editors working on the article? Ward20 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I rarely edit on current politics (except the politics of medicine perhaps). Eubulides (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How to handle the Coyote Springs overlap

Keepcalmandcarryon, whilst we seem to be stalled on the general BPLN dispute, can I at least offer a subject for discussion in the hope that we can reach some consensus on how to proceed on this at least and that is some 70% of the HW article is on controversies relating to the Coyote Springs development, yet at the same time there is another article specifically covering this development which addresses none of these issues. What I am seeking is some form of consensus on what should go where w.r.t. these two articles.

What wasn't clear to me on first reading this article and on the reading of the freely accessible RS that you provided is the exact nature of the relationship between CS, CS Land, Wingfield Nevada Group and Harvey Whittemore himself.

• The Nevada State Business Entity Search has a cluster of twelve "Coyote Springs" companies. The principle seems to be Coyote Springs LLC which is a subsidiary of Wingfield Nevada Group Management Company, LLC. HW seems to be president or a senior office of the rest.
• The same business search lists 4 WNGM companies including Wingfield Nevada Group Management Company, LLC

Now these companies are nearly all domestic LLCs registered at 6600 N Wingfield Parkway with HW as the President or senior officer, though his CFO, Bradley J Mamer, keeps cropping up. (This might be classed as OR so I am not sure how we could reflect any of this in the article content.)

At the moment the relationship between HW, WNGM and CSL is implicit rather than explicit. However if we could agree some RS which lays out this relationship then there would be a valid basis of keep some or all of this content in the article. Incidentally, You currently cited the "Desert Connections" article but if you read it carefully it implies but does not state this relationship, so the statement "Whittemore's land-development ventures include ... Coyote Springs" is actually synthesis. I am not disagreeing with this conclusion BTW, just observing that the cited RS doesn't support the current précis. However, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that you or I can find a suitable reference which supports this claim.

The Q still arises:

where do we put this content: in this article or in the CS one?

I have my one proposal but before going further, I would appreciate your views on this.

Asides FYI: Carli West seems to the be exclusive registering agent for HWs related interested (see [1] including Redlabs USA Inc). Also [2] might be a useful reference for the CS environmental issues.

-- TerryE (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something about reading language such as:

• "Coyote Springs developer Harvey Whittemore",
• "master-planned community by developer Harvey Whittemore",
• "Harvey Whittemore, President of Coyote Springs Investments",
• "Whittemore's Coyote Springs",
• "project headed by Reno attorney and developer Harvey Whittemore",
• "Harvey Whittemore wants to build",
• "his Coyote Springs property",
• "the price Whittemore paid when he bought the land"

in source after source after reliable source that clears the mind of any notion that Coyote Springs is not synonymous with Harvey Whittemore. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia technical term for your statement "in source after source after reliable source that clears the mind of any notion that Coyote Springs is not synonymous with Harvey Whittemore" is WP:SYNTH. I feel that you missed my point: I agree with you, but the article would read better if we actually used RS to map this out explicitly without paraphrasing or synthesis.

More to the point, you haven't answered my question, and I would appreciate your views:

where do we put this content: in this article or in the CS one?

-- TerryE (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing synthesis in the general sense, which is needed for any coherent, source-based writing, with synthesis in the Wikipedia sense. If we have two sources, the first stating "Person owns Business A" and the second stating "Person owns Business B", we can combine these two bits of information as "Person owns A and B". In the same vein, when more than 100 sources refer to Whittemore as the owner, developer, driving force behind (etc.) Coyote Springs, it would be rather misleading to write as if Coyote Springs were some detached entity with little connection to him.

That Coyote Springs is currently an underdeveloped article does not mandate an evisceration of this article, in my opinion. Recently, I did some work on the article Simian immunodeficiency virus, which is in rather poor condition. I propose that the reaction to such an article should be not to demand removal of information from related and better-developed articles, (Human immunodeficiency virus for SIV, or this article for Coyote Springs), but to add information to the deficient article. I would encourage you to try adding some research to this article or to Coyote Springs. That said, I've stated previously that I'm open to discussion of how to distribute the content between HW and CS. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hummmm, I am slightly confused because in my version of English "map this out explicitly" usually implies the exact the opposite to "some detached entity with little connection to him". SIV also falls under WP:MED rather than WP:BLP so I am not sure how your analogy applies. Nonetheless from your comments, I take it that you would oppose any movement of content from the HW to the CS article. I need to think about this one. -- TerryE (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, on rereading this I realise that my "I take it that you would oppose any movement ... " is perhaps inconsistent with your "I'm open to discussion..." statement; it just that I was focusing on your previous views which I read as you being strongly opposed in practice. My preference would be:

• Where it is clear from the article that this is primarily CSL issue then the material belongs in the CS article.
• Where it is clear from the article HW is the main subject then 'this' article is an appropriate home.
• The hierarchy of the article structure should be honoured. So why is the section on "Whittemore and Senator Harry Reid" part of the CS section ?
• Where past controversies are being described using historic RSs, then we should set any such wording in current context. For example there is an agreed settlement on many of the environmental issues in the reference that I previously mentioned.

One last comment of course "Person owns A"[1] + "Person owns B" [2], can be combined into "Person owns A and B" [1][2], but my problem is when one adds a third "Person owns C"[3] and combine these to form "Person owns the alphabet" [1][2][3], which I have found in some past contributions. -- TerryE (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute name

The wording about the name change appears to be inaccurate. The home page states Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. The first reference in the section states the proper name is Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. The article wording, "Initially the "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue" is sourced from a June 7, 2007 news article about Washoe projects receive funding (pg 4) where the lone statement about WPI is, "The Whittemore-Peterson Institute for chronic fatigue at UNR received $3 million." However, looking at a March 5, 2007 statement from The University of Nevada School of Medicine that will share a research facility with the WPI, the name is Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. It appears the wording "Initially the "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue" is from a source that is wrong. I will edit the material accordingly. Ward20 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The simplest explanation is not that the source is wrong, but that the current name is "Neuro-Immune Disease", whilst other names were used in the past. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

either way it is out of date and if there is a conflict with a more recent RS then the later should take precedent. I've got lots of RS which call the US president George Bush, but that doesn't mean we should use the name Bush to refer to the current president. If we want to go into the history of the naming then that doesn't belong here. -- TerryE (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Harry's deal". The Pittsburgh Tribune (Editorial Opinion) 25 September 2007 [3].

This source is an unsigned editorial opinion piece and should not be used as a reference for contentious material in a BLP. Ward20 (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it an editorial opinion piece by The Pittsburgh Tribune, it's about Judicial Watch suing "the Bureau of Land Management for documents related to the 43,000-acre Coyote Springs housing and recreational development northeast of Las Vegas...". Judicial watch is a conservative group "criticized as a vehicle of billionaire newspaper publisher Richard Mellon Scaife"[4] who owns The Pittsburgh Tribune.[5] Wheels upon wheels upon wheels. Ward20 (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing contentious about it, unless you have evidence from reliable sources that Judicial Watch in fact did not sue the BLM in this matter. I made quite clear in my edit summary my personal distaste for Judicial Watch, but my opinion of the organisation, of Scaife, or of the editorial leanings of Pittsburgh's second-largest newspaper has no bearing on the verifiability of this information. Also, please don't change the name of the newspaper to the Tribune-Opinion; the editorial nature of this piece is already apparent in the URL. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Sending many patients to doctors for tests and drugs

A recent edit, which was reverted and then reinstalled, made the following change:

"A study conducted by the WPI reported in October 2009 that the Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus was found in most CFS patients they tested, sending many patients to doctors for tests and drugs, but an independent attempt to replicate this result reported failure in January 2010."

with the edit summary "deleting "sending ... drugs" as OR -- it's not mentioned in cited RS". This edit summary is incorrect, as the cited source, Boseley 2010, says that the study in question "sent many patients hurrying to doctors for tests and antiretroviral drugs". This directly supports the text in question, which I've reinstalled. I suggest discussing the matter here if there's any further question about this. Eubulides (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies Eubulides. My eyes must be failing. I thought that I searched for the phrase. I wouldn't have done the second revert if K had pointed out that my original delete comment was wrong. I was repeating an unrealised mistake, but that's my problem not hers.

I am interested in your comments on my second point on your talk page, which is that this article is about HW. This section is about HW's involvement with WPI. There is a separate article about WPI which specifically covers the WPI issues. Is this one level of indirection too far for this section? Though given this double mistake on my part, I will of course accept your determination on this clause whether on not you choose to respond on this. Sorry again. -- TerryE (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's normal in an article to discuss a person's activities in philanthropy and suchlike, even if the person is primarily famous for other things. For example Bill Gates has a section on philanthropy, consisting of a couple of paragraphs, with a hatnote to Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Whittemore of course is not in Gates's league, but the same idea would seem to apply here. I know little about Whittemore's overall reputation (I have looked only at the medical stuff), so I don't know how large the WPI figures in the overall picture of Whittemore's activities, but having a paragraph or two by itself does not seem unreasonable. You are right, though, that any such material should focus on material that's directly relevant to Whittemore. In this particular case, since the WPI is publishing controversial research on a disease that Whittemore's daughter has, and the WPI was founded to address that disease, there does seem to be some relevance. Eubulides (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it sounds like our views are pretty much aligned: his decision to act as benefactor setting up WPI merits a section on WPI in his own article. It makes sense to include an overview with a link to the main article, plus of course any issues relating directly to HW, whether positive and negative, e.g. any accolades and recognition for this benefaction, any press criticism of his use of his old lobbying contacts, though some will see this as negative and some to his credit. -- TerryE (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Judicial Watch

The wording, "Judicial Watch alleged that Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians may have applied pressure improperly on behalf of Whittemore and Reid's son." was instated with this edit.

The Judicial Watch source states, "At the heart of Judicial Watch’s investigation is whether or not Senator Reid improperly used his influence on Capitol Hill to pave the way for the development project in exchange for campaign contributions and other favors from lobbyist and long-time friend, Harvey Whittemore."

The Pittsburgh Tribune source states, "Judicial Watch wants to know if the Nevada Democrat and other state politicians exerted undue pressure on the federal government on behalf of his friend."

Alleged is used in the article in the sense to accuse "that he may have...", but sources say Judicial Watch "wants to know..." and "whether or not"... The article wording seems to imply a POV the sources don't imply.

There is no link for ref^[23], and I can't locate it so I am requesting more information on how to find it.

I don't see in the sources where they state "Reid's son" specifically concerning this matter. Please supply the passage from the source that supports this wording.

In view of the sourced material I suggest:

In 2007, Judicial Watch, a politically conservative watchdog group, sued the BLM for documents related to Coyote Springs to determine if Reid and other Nevada politicians improperly pressured the federal government on Whittemore's behalf. Reid's office stated that there was no misconduct.[refs]

Ward20 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording you're proposing is equivalent to what's already here. If I sue the government for records to find out if they've been tapping my phone, I suspect they may be tapping my phone. One doesn't sue unless one suspects something. This isn't controversial; at the same time, since it's pretty much equivalent, I wouldn't oppose the change. As for Reid's son, you and I both have the sources, I presume. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's also get consensus on "Reid's son". There is not enough information in the citation ref^[23] for me to locate it. Specifically, what is the source material for the wording about "Reid's son"? (I assume it's Leif Reid ). I can only find that Leif Reid was Whittemore’s personal lawyer, and Leif Reid reportedly called his father’s office.[6] But that is all well covered in the Harvey Whittemore#Alleged political pressure on the EPA section. Ward20 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added identifiers to the Market Wire source. I'm not sure how to template this source properly, as Market Wire is a wire, not a newspaper. The story is based on a JW press release. The quote from JW's Thomas Fitton is, "If Senator Reid sold his public office to advance a development project that would financially benefit his friend and a member of his own family, he should be held accountable to the full extent of the law." It's clear from the article that "his friend" is Harvey Whittemore and that "a member of his own family" is Leif Reid, Whittemore's employee. If you're convinced that "his friend" and "a member of his own family" are in fact individuals not named in the article, we could simply use the Fitton quote. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's cited at all, it should be cited as a press release, since that's all it is. However, press releases are notoriously unreliable sources. I don't see why this source is needed, since we already have more-reliable sources on the same topic, so I removed it. Eubulides (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, thank you. I just found further information. Sometime before 06/27/2008, the BLM documents were produced.[7]. The court stated:

"Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking to compel defendant Bureau of Land Management to release certain requested documents. After both parties filed pleadings, defendant released to plaintiff the relevant documents, and the parties settled all claims without court intervention."

The Las Vegas Review-Journal article[8] (ref^[22] ) wrote about the political bickering between Reid and Judicial Watch concerning this issue. The lawsuit is settled, most significantly Judicial Watch apparently hasn't acted on any of the BLM information[9] and Whittemore seems to be a minor figure in stale politics between Judicial Watch and Harry Reid, so realistically, does this belong in the bio of HW? Ward20 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it deserves brief mention as it is covered in multiple reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we seem to be at an impasse, I intend to add in the new information for context and continue to look for neutral venues to post for comment to attract more editors. Ward20 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Other lawsuits

The Center for Biological Diversity threatened to file an environmental protection lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management in April 2009. There is no indication they filed it.[10] I can understand this material being included in the Coyote Springs article, but not in the HW bio. Ward20 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not in both? The reliable sources discuss Whittemore's role, and HW responded to the lawsuits. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Same as I replied above. I intend to add in new information for context and continue to look for neutral venues to attract more editors. Ward20 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I have already added and intend to add more info to the Coyote Springs article as we progress. Ward20 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

sending many patients to doctors for tests and drugs

It is sourced, but the problem I have is the wording in the source is vague and sensationalist. Who is this attributed to, the UK researchers, the reporter, others? Does this apply only to the UK, or in other parts of the world? I believe better wording could be sourced from the independant article.[11]

The US study had some dramatic results that implied people with the illness could be treated with antiretrovirals. Our recommendation to people with chronic fatigue syndrome would be not to change their treatment regime, because our results suggest that antiretroviral would not be an effective treatment for the condition," Professor McClure said.

This wording in this source is better attributed and much more to the point. Ward20 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "sending many patients to doctors for tests and drugs" is well-sourced and relevant and no reliable source disputes it. The phrase is not particularly vague nor does it overly sensationalize matters. The XMRV test is promoted and licensed by the WPI; I don't see why the details about exactly where it's sold need to be summarized here. The WPI's claims of a mechanism of and treatment for CFS have been widely covered by the press and are closely associated with Whittemore's quest to find a CFS cure for his daughter. McClure is not associated with the WPI and I don't see why quoting from McClure would help here. Eubulides (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Home construction and lawsuits

Home construction will start in 2012 not 2010 and all the lawsuits have been taking caring of and all that should be remove because it no longer true and don't appreciate you guys putting all this non sense on my page. thank you WhittemoreHarvey (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This comment comes from a sockpuppet of User:Youtubek, so it can be ignored. Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtubek/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtubek

Thanks for keeping an eye on this very persistent puppeteer. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotected

This article has been semiprotected one month per a report of violation of our WP:Biographies of living persons policy at WP:RFPP. Accounts that appear to have been created only to add negative information to this article risk being blocked without further discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harvey Whittemore. 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/20101202045453/http://wpinstitute.org/news/docs/RGJ-daughters_illness.pdf to http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/RGJ-daughters_illness.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.westlx.org/assets/CoyoteProceeds.pdf

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) 01:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)