Jump to content

Talk:Ronn Torossian/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Planning the next version

I think the article is getting better. I think the "Activities and Opinions" section needs to cover three things:

  • His approach to PR and his achievements in the field. I think the first paragraph covers this now, though I think the emphasis on Israeli clients is excessive. I think we should cut the number of examples of Israeli clients to two, and add some examples of the others. Something like:

His style has won him a diverse portfolio, including celebrities and rappers (Li'l Kim, Pamela Anderson), corporate clients (he has done work for McDonalds and Microsoft MSN), and government clients.[1] He and his firm have specialized in Israeli clients, including Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Benjamin Netanyahu.[2]


  • Criticisms. The criticisms are the result of a number of things he has done: The Agriprocessors scandal, his representation of questionable clients (soft-porn Girls Gone Wild, which was also involved in a scandal), his suit against his former director of personnel, the raid by the Department of Labor on his company, and more. I think we should avoid going into details about these things, as, individually, they are not particularly notable; and especially we should avoid details of the Agriprocessors story, which rightly belongs to 5WPR and not to Torossian personally. However, taken together, they have been seen by critics as forming a pattern of unethical behavior. I think we should quote Bachman, and perhaps Jeffrey Goldberg or Morris Allen ("Outrageous to say the least"). These are well-sourced, and are clearly understandable without adding a lot of background information.


  • His connection to the Israeli right wing. I think we should move the sentence about Yerushalayim Shelanu from the Biography section to here, and definitely restore the description of what it does. Its objective of expelling Arabs and replacing them with Jews in Jerusalem is well documented (see my post here). Also, Greenbay's protestations notwithstanding, there are plenty of reliable sources linking him to Binyamin Elon and the Moledet party (here, here - an article by Torossian himself, here). I also think that the press release bearing his name as spokesman of the Hebron Fund on the Hebron Fund website should be considered reliable, but I won't go to court over it (WP:NLT).


Comments from serious editors are welcome. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: so far I haven't seen any reliable source that links him to the Agriprocessor scandal. It is wrong to taint him with actions taken by what may have been the actions of individuals at the company. That's why I removed the two sentences about that scandal from the page. I haven't reviewed the rest of this yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
A prerequisite, in my view, is that editors, and admins in particular, ensure compliance with all, not some, of the policies of the project, which includes the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree about Agriprocessor. It should not be mentioned in this article. The criticisms I suggest including are directed specifically at Torossian, are based on a pattern of behavior, and do not mention specifically the Agriprocessors affair. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I was hasty in my reading of what you wrote. I see that you already said that. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenbay's comments

(Dearest Greenbay: I have moved all your inline comments to a separate section. Having you blathering in the middle of this thread makes intelligent conversation among responsible editors more difficult. So please, if you have anything more to add, add it here. I assure you we will all give it the attention it is due. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC) )

Rankings

Number 5 Listing User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Stance

Torossian representing Shimon Peres a left winger should be added and remove right wing quotes: http://67.199.80.177/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ronn_torossian_globes_israel.pdf greenbay1313 (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, whether there any actual sources for his support of West Bank settlement. If he supported the settlers' movement I expect he would loudly proclaim it. Settlement in East Jerusalem is a different matter as the Israeli government has told their people it is part of Israel. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to research this, but I would argue that what the "Israeli government tells their people" does not negate what the sources and Internationally recognized borders state. Dave Dial (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Torossian "embrace" or "work with" his clients? A public relations professional may have views markedly different from those of his clients. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure there came a time where Torossian realized he was better off working with clients of different political ideologies than his own, but there is also no doubt that his views have been public and in the news for almost 15 years(1,2,3,4). Dave Dial (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
And, in his own words: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/1469, http://www.cephasministry.com/israel_august.2005.html (Press release about Benny Elon by Torossian, written long after Elon left Tourism ministry).
Fred, you should not be too influenced by private correspondence with Torossian. He has an obvious interest in downplaying mention of his support for Israeli right-wing causes, just as he seeks to hide criticisms of behavior as unethical or outrageous. Big corporate clients don't like to do business with people like that. But his eagerness to hide these aspects of his activities in this biography does not change the facts, as they appear in reliable sources. Let him show you a reliable source that says his politics have changed, or that his PR style has become mellowed in the last few years, and we can include it. I doubt that he will provide such a source. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I personally think that the problem with this article has not been that we say he has supported right wing politics in Israel, more that we've said almost nothing else. We should retain reliably sourced material about these links, properly worded of course, but reflect that he's a notable PR man, not a notable politician. We're heading the right way I think and I'd like to thank all parties for some good collaborative working. --Dweller (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Subsections review

One way we can start to sort out the mess is to unpick what's his personal life and what's business.

To that end, I propose a structure as follows:

  • Early life
  • PR career
  • Personal life and interests

It goes without saying that the second of these should be far and away the largest.

We may also need separate sections for "Achievements" and "Controversies", but that'll shake out as we go.

Thoughts? --Dweller (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I prefer "Activities". "Personal life and interests" sounds like we will be talking about how he likes making paper airplanes. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This might be a personal thing, but to me "activities" includes business, so is rather confusing. Let's take the optimum as our model - how do FA quality biographies of business people handle this type of section? --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to reflect this discussion in the new structure. Is anyone signiificantly unhappy with it? --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the article looks better now. My only question is the translation of "Yerushalayim Shelanu" to "Our Jerusalem". There are not many references to the group, but the ones that I have seen in reliable sources state that it translates to "Jerusalem Is Ours". Dave Dial (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What's going on now?

I know we're supposed to assume good faith on the part of editors, but this article has in itself seen too much slanted editing, both aggrandising with "Conflict of Interest" and libelous. So, here it is. User:Dweller usually edits articles on British sports (particularly Norwich FC and cricket), sometimes British music. Also the odd page of this and that, but nothing long or persistent in time. Yes, I actually went through several pages of User:Dweller's contributions since 2006! I also went to his edit count page and saw these most edited pages ( 416 - Norwich_City_F.C., 350 - Donald_Bradman, 244 - History_of_Norwich_City_F.C., 217 - Bryan_Gunn, 197 - Norwich_City_F.C._Player_of_the_Year, 177 - John_Wark, 168 - Keith_Miller, 168 - Carrow_Road, 167 - Ipswich_Town_F.C., 157 - West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1988) All this is very well and this is a completely legitimate editor. But the fact that the editor is so obviously legitimate, makes "this" even more suspect. An editor with an interest in British sports, all of a sudden is busy in real life, but makes roughly 20 edits in this article about an American PR enterpreneur, adding an incredibly significant amount of content, citing references such as Bloomberg. And the content is rather flattering as well. Right about in the middle User:Judae1 (an associate of Torossian) makes an edit with a correction (no, Dweller is not infallible on matters regarding this article). Let's not forget that we're talking about PR people, who also have attempted and tried several times to "photoshop" the article. Finding a legitimate account and then have this account make these edit is not beyond them.

Please note, that the first time I was involved in the article I removed negative content (actually most of it was frightening slander). I have no war to wage against Torossian. --Atavi (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So what are you saying? Our merry copyright-infringing edit-warring long-term sockpuppeting COI editor got community banned and he thinks "right, that's it, no way I'll be able to sockpuppet now!" so he picks a random established editor from England, sends him $100 and asks him to "improve" the article a particular way?
No, that's downright silly. If you look a bit deeper at User:Dweller's contributions, you'll see he regularly posts at the BLP noticeboard and about BLP policy in general, occasionally at AfDs, and also commented neutrally at the SPI for Babalisachai. Since our COI editor (whoever it is) has been making a lot of noise all over such places, it's entirely understandable that User:Dweller would have seen some of it and decided to put a little time into improving the article. There are ongoing concerns that the bad behaviour of the various socks has caused the pendulum of balance to swing too far the other way, and that's something we don't want on a BLP.
I have no concerns about Dweller's motives at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Except for the "bribe" (this has happened before elsewhere in WP, right?), another possibility I was also thinking is account hijacking.
I actually noticed edits to BLP discussions, etc, but I only found very recent ones (I didn't go through the pages one by one).
Yes, the article has swung too far on the negative side several times, but if there was indeed any of the problems I was thinking of, I don't think we could disregard it, just in order to make the article have balance.
Adjusting BLP articles is very easy to do, all you need is a team of uninvolved editors (as you say User:Dweller might be one of them)
--Atavi (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This is not the Twilight Zone. Account hijacking? You're suggesting that someone-with-a-COI has access to Dweller's account and is making COI edits from it without Dweller knowing about it, while Dweller goes on editing material about football, all unawares? Huh? I am saying Dweller might be one of whom? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to go on arguing about increasingly absurd scenarios, but it is not inconceivable that the hijacker can continue the editing habits of the actual user. Anyway, if you are ruling out the possibility of foul play, I'm not going to say there is.---Atavi (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Erm, at what stage were you going to bother to ask me what's going on? --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure you would be watching the talk page of the article you had been editing. I actually should have left a message on your talk page as well anyway.
--Atavi (talk)21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is the silliest thing since yesterday when a checkuser had to checkuser themselves. I'm sure if the sockfarmer had access to an administrator and bureaucrat account, he wouldn't be having all these problems with getting blocked :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well then, I didn't visit the link you provide, but it sounds like a process must be broken for a user to be able to "checkuser" themselves.
And wasn't Essjay a beaureaucrat, since you bring that up? Mind you, I'm not saying that Dweller actually did something wrong, but that "silly" and "wild imagination" unfortunately has been proven to not apply in even wilder cases.
--Atavi (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Atavi, relax. Dweller is doing a fine job. Though I would like to see Rabbi Bachman's "unethical" quote restored. But that's another matter, for a separate thread on this talk page. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, one or the other specific sentence are not at issue here. --Atavi (talk)21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This is seriously the funniest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The imagination involved here is incredible and I'd recommend pursuing a career in fictional writing. For what it's worth, I can assure you that Dweller's account has not been hijacked and, yes, sometimes real life means he is busy. And if I'm wrong, I'll fork out the $$$$ myself. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You see, I only mentioned "hijacking" as another possibility, when "bribing" was explicitly was brought up; one of the reasons I did this was to not be outright uncivil towards Dweller, who myself saw to be have been a serious minded editor. I actually thought then that the latter (bribing) was more probable and unfortunately nothing anyone has written so far seems to address in any serious tone this possibility. It has either been joked about or entirely ignored.
I'm sure you're having a great time with this funny story, but is any of you actually considering giving any thought towards this?
Dweller, yourself you wondered why I didn't ask you, but you haven't answered either.
I'm not saying you are doing anything wrong, only that none of you is earnestly addressing what could be a potentially serious issue, just the way I put it forth in the first place: An editor, who did not appear until recently to be interested in biographies of PR businesspeople or PR as a subject, heavily editing such an article and (although I have not read every single word of these edits) it seems that they are in fact quite favorable towards to subject of the article. Once again, I remind to you all, that this article has been multiple times the target of people either seeking to tarnish Torossian or aggrandising him (and that's been the consensus of every single relevant discussion, not my vivid imagination. Editors writing libels have been banned; on the other hand, on the side of COI, User:Judae1 has been cautioned (way back, he hasn't done anything wrong in a long time).
That's about it....
--Atavi (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, Dweller is a 'crat and an admin, myself also, and we know each (to an extent) off-wiki. Subsequent to the "concerns" raised here (which, frankly, border on hysteria) I "spoke" to my learned colleague who confirmed that he was prepared to send me either an ear or the tip of his nose to prove his natural existence. I asked for a finger, apparently that's old school. Atavi, your concerns have been noted, but hopefully you get the fact that Dweller is editing in good faith (after many 10s of thousands of edits, as an editor, admin and 'crat), your diligence in potentially unearthing a major account hijack, "paid-to-edit" conspiracy etc is admirable, but in this case, misplaced. And actually, for what it's worth, you never asked Dweller directly anything, so to become indignant that he never responded is a little unfair. If you'd like to pursue this further, feel free to contact me directly, or on-wiki, whichever direction gives you more confidence that we're not conspiring against you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Again, you chose the path of ridicule. I am sure that none of you is conspiring not against me, nor towards world domination.
I asked only for serious consideration instead of cracking jokes, not for a criminal trial; not even for any of the investigation routes in wikipedia procedure (regarding the Dweller; I did ask for admin "intervention" on the article...).
I did not ask Dweller anything specifically, but Dweller decided to comment on the fact that I did not ask him.
He did not choose to comment on the point at hand, which had little to do with me personally.
What you care to characterize hysteria seems to be "misplaced", but there's little I can do to change your mind...
I don't wish to pursue this in any direction and since this discussion is already steered miles away from its intended purpose, this will be the last post I place here.
Our personal discussion pages will have to do if need be, but I don't feel inclined to discover the need, if you'll pardon the pun.
--Atavi (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick example from history. In the classical era of Athenian democracy, many public officials were selected by lot (randomly) from the general populace and served for very short terms, and the law courts (which formed a key part of the political process) often used juries (also selected by lot) containing several hundred members or even more.
Why was this done, when the huge juries were vastly costly, and the randomly selected public officials were likely to be considerably more incompetent than elected or appointed ones?
Mainly because bribery is almost totally impractical once the number of people that need to be bribed is beyond a reasonable number.
Let's say someone gets bribed to re-write the article in a manner unduly favourable to Torossian. Remember that someone is one out of several thousand active Wikipedia editors. All it would take would be for two people (say, me and Ravpapa) to decide the re-write is non-neutral, and then that bribery has become pointless. So the briber would need to approach and bribe two more people. And then maybe three more in addition to the two more, if subsequently some more non-bribed editors decide they don't like the re-write either.
And all the while, the person doing the bribing has to make absolutely sure that not even a single one of the people he approaches, tells anyone about it. Now, if offering $100 to a random editor, that's maybe a 50/50 bet. If it's an established editor with a vested interest in Wikipedia, the odds aren't so good. So you need more money per editor. $1000 each? $5000 each? And even at those higher rates, approaching half a dozen editors still gives you a fair chance that one of them will give you away, even if you're offering enough cash to make that chance 10% per editor. (Some people simply can't be bought.)
So some guy involved with a PR firm, could, theoretically, pay $30,000 to a bunch of otherwise diligent Wikipedia volunteers, and all he or she achieves by this is making the article about the PR firm boss not mention some things that, as far as we know, the boss himself actually quite happily says in public. And six months down the line, some pesky editor could change the whole thing back, and then the bribed editors are going to want another $30,000 (between them) to go through the whole thing again. Do you see how pointless this would be? Do you see why I'm really not very worried about the possibility?
It's like the moronic company that was offering $500 (or something like that) to any Wikipedia admin that would delete an article. Sure, you can certainly buy a deletion for that, but you're not going to get a refund when the article gets restored a few hours or days later :)
Sorry to have responded to your original comments with some level of derision, but I really struggled to know how else to address them, without the sort of TL;DR that I just have. In addition, I was struggling to understand what exactly you were suggesting, so I had to put forward some scenarios just to follow it. At the end of the day, if there is no scenario that is plausible, then it does not need worrying about. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm an oversighter. When I declined a request for Oversight at this article, I decided to address some of the many problems I did see in the article. Hopefully, it's better for my input. Now, I'll happily head back to football and cricket. --Dweller (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Where the action is much more interesting. Hope you are an Indian fan. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"D"

Ronn D? Has anyone seen a reliable source stating what the D stands for? --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

D = David
--Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
As this is presumably totally uncontentious, I would say we can include it without needing to demand an independent WP:RS for it? What do people think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
[Sourced] Dru of Id (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Book

Torossian has a book being released which should be added to his page. Frank Luntz, Keith Ablow and Roger Stone are noteable book interviews and case studies are noteable. Consent to add to page ? http://search.barnesandnoble.com/For-Immediate-Release/Ronn-Torossian/e/9781936661169?r=1&cm_mmc=Google%20Product%20Search-_-Q000000630-_-Its%20All%20Personal-_-9781936661169 Williamchoi (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that since Torossian is notable, and Torossian is having a book published, then a sentence on the book in this article would be entirely reasonable and appropriate. Although, what you've linked to is a bookseller; so we'll need to dig out a proper source, like a book review.
Also I've opened a sockpuppet investigation request into User:Williamchoi. The person who ran the Babasalichai account and its many sockpuppets is permanently banned from Wikipedia by community concensus, so should not be editing article talk pages or any other pages. Whether Williamchoi is that person, we will find out in due course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The book is being released in October. When it is released, someone might review it, and then we can add it to the article. For the time being, this book exists only in theory. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I've also struck the above comment which turned out to be a sockpuppet of banned user User:Babasalichai --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
The book was published and covered in a review which is the source. 68.173.123.172 (talk) 00:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
That isn't the sort of review we're looking for. The Interior (Talk) 01:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Ronn or friend or whoever you are, please wait until the book is actually published (October), then discuss it here. There are good arguments that the book should be included in October. There are no good arguments right now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I realize that my edit has been reverted a couple of times, but, (a) we should avoid using an Amazon product page as a source, and (b) both Gawker and the Atlantic Monthly are perfectly fine sources for what we're trying to verify. Plus, Gawker is probably the only third party source actually talking about the book. All other links I've found are press releases published by 5W/Torossian.--Mosmof (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard says that the Gawker should not be used as a source for BLPs. I have substituted a more neutral citation. --Dianna (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Rabbi Pinto extortion case

I'm really not comfortable with including the Rabbi Pinto extortion case here. Right now, all the reporting is based on a single NY Times article, and the FBI hasn't commented on it on the record. All the on-record allegations have come from the rabbi's supporters, not neutral third parties. Given the seriousness of the accusations, I don't think this meets WP:BLP. Can we at least wait until the Feds charge Torossian with something, or even just acknowledge that he's a suspect? Mosmof (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with waiting for charges/statement from FBI. I notice that the Times article also misquotes User:Dweller. (final paragraph) The Interior (Talk) 20:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
May someone point me to the specifics of the misquotes ? The entire article seemed factually inaccurate and odd.68.174.122.159 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Article: "“Even if they’re not all the same person,” a Wikipedia editor known as Dweller wrote on April 5, 2011, “they are all employees of Torossian.” Actual: "it's possible that even if they're not all the same person they are all employees of Torossian" Omitting "it's possible" really changes the meaning. No idea about the rest. The Interior (Talk) 02:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the NYT's fairly blatant misquoting, I think it's worth noting that both Torossian and the other guy were given a chance to respond in the NYT article, and did so. Briefly or otherwise. I'm happy to delay mention in this article until there's a few more sources, but I see no reason to delay it indefinitely.
I should mention that my involvement in dealing with the User:Babasalichai sockpuppetry case that was mentioned in the NYT article, and some reading around the subject, have left me in no doubt as to who "Babasalichai" was, so I am not entirely neutral here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Times has a solid policy on confidential sources, so I don't doubt the veracity of the article. My issue though, is that the article doesn't explicitly say what Torossian is investigated for - all the details come from Pinto's supporters. So we're left with the impression that Torossian and the other guy will potentially be charged with all the crimes mentioned even though the article doesn't actually say so. Anyway, I'm okay if we eventually end up adding information from the Times article, but thank you for considering my reservations. --Mosmof (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Another NY Times article cited that RT is being investigated by the FBI. How is this not being included in this whitewashed article? Beobjectiveplease (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Beobjectiveplease. Could you please provide us with a link to the new story in the Times? I am not seeing it when I check Google news. Thanks. --Ninja Dianna (Talk) 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with waiting on the extortion stuff until something a bit more solid rises out of the slime. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, just wanted to point to the following articles which highlight Torossian's investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/nyregion/rabbis-followers-say-money-given-to-grimms-house-race-broke-the-law.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/nyregion/rabbi-pintos-followers-blame-aides-for-missing-millions.html?pagewanted=all http://www.rollcall.com/news/anthony_weiner_says_he_contacted_fbi_about_michael_grimm-212833-1.html

This article is heavily sanitized. I would think that this material should be woven in. Beobjectiveplease (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until the police or FBI make a public statement or bring charges. Otherwise, if the whole thing blows over in a few months, we'll look pretty silly. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Thank you for the help diannnaa. Am done editing for now. Hope everything is done accurately.67.243.55.103 (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I will check everything over and add the citation templates and clean up the prose later today. -- Dianna (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, all the clean-up and citation work is done. That's one fine looking little article. -- Dianna (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a question received on my talk page:

Wanted to also ask about - Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg called him "the most disreputable flack in New York", particularly criticizing his representation of what Goldberg called the "lunatic fringe" of Israeli politics.[20] -- This appears to be one source on a blog and not sure is representative of the spirit of Wiki. Seems particularily mean spirited with one source and clearly an opinion (above in Torossian bio states that he represented 2 prior Israel Prime Ministers ?) 67.243.55.103 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the Reliable Sources noticeboard discussion here, blogs of writers for reputable magazines are considered a reliable source for the opinions of those writers. We are stating that this is Goldberg's opinion. I am posting the question here in hopes of generating some discussion as to whether the content should stay in or be removed. Thanks -- Dianna (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I am going to remove it. It's just one man's opinion, sourced to his blog. It's not like a reputable newspaper is stating this is a widely-held opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding sooner. We should definitely not remove it. It is not one man's opinion. Torossian has been repeatedly accused of unscrupulous and unethical behavior. He was under investigation, according to the New York Times, for defrauding an Orthodox rabbi (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/nyregion/rabbi-pintos-followers-blame-aides-for-missing-millions.html?pagewanted=all). His firm was accused of a fraudulent attempt to besmirch the names of critics of one of his clients (http://www.jta.org/news/article/2008/07/10/109423/engelmayer5wpr). He has been criticized in Haaretz and the Jewish Forward (http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/when-pro-israel-means-comparing-israel-to-the-nazis-1.419769), and in the PR trade magazine Gawker (http://gawker.com/365723/the-story-of-ronn-torossian, http://gawker.com/5869697/bad-flack-ronn-%5Bsic%5D-torossian-under-federal-investigation-for-allegedly-extorting-famous-rabbi and others). All these citations were removed from the article, because we (the editors working on the article) felt that most of these criticisms were summarized best and most reliably by the Goldberg article.
I should also note that the statement that Torossian is an expert in "crisis management" is unsupported. The only person who has ever described him as an expert in crisis management is himself.
I am, therefore, restoring the quote. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Torossian as crisis managament expert - http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/12/22/kris-humphries-booed-mercilessly-in-2011-nba-debut-will-be-able-to-take-heat/

Crisis management expert and author of the PR bestseller “For Immediate Release,” Ronn Torossian goes so far as to say Humphries' brief marriage to a Kardashian was a good thing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-nba-labour-idUSTRE7606M220110701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.55.103 (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

wont challenge other issue if ravpapa is passionate about it. Added sources for crisis management also minor cleanup.67.243.55.103 (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
What we need to do is write something more comprehensive, showing that the opinion is widely held, using a variety of sources. I will work on it after work. -- Dianna (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey! The NY Times article is the one that talks about Wiki administrators blocking negative material being posted about Rabbi Pinto. My 15 minutes of fame! :) I am adding a quote from that article. The Haaretz source is another blog, and the Gawker does not look like a very reliable source to me. -- Dianna (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
so what does goldberg quote have to do with off-topic NYT Quote on emails ? What is connection and why are both there. The man has had many profile stories and media and 99% of it is positive?67.243.55.103 (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Will it help to gather many more sources that show praise for the man when he is on tv and quoted daily?Pinto article is full of innuendo and that reference out of context. Either than or goldberg shld go. 67.243.55.103 (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
There are many many positive stories

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=10&dd=26&nav_id=37589 Feature story on Serbian President & Albanian League hiring - says Torossian led the campaign and says it was very successful http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/tour-bus-post-to-sked-for-7am/ Spokesman for Grey Line - largest NY Transporation company 

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pharma-billionaire-stewart-rahr-graces-cover-of-hampton-sheet-62191927.html

Provided reporters with sneak peek at billionaires home... http://articles.nydailynews.com/2004-08-10/gossip/18269176_1_miss-campbell-margaret-cho-bad-girl Spokesperson for Lil Kim' http://www.monstersandcritics.com/people/news/article_1281428.php/Naomi_Campbell_s_scrubbing_deal Britains' Daily Star: Torossian is a PR guru... http://www.urblife.com/the-edge/in-my-business-ronn-torossian/ 67.243.55.103 (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WinterConcert/story?id=2608450&page=2 As a celebrity expert

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-21/soup-kitchen-creditors-file-to-force-bankruptcy-update2-.html Spokesman for Soupman (from Seinfeld)_

http://webfarm.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-09/nfl-offers-all-expenses-trip-to-any-super-bowl-to-400-fans-who-lost-seats.html Bloomberg: Torossian is a crisis- management specialist who has represented celebrities including Snoop Dogg and Pamela Anderson


http://www.ameinu.net/news/newsarticles.php?newsid=96 As a Likud consultant

Jewish/Israel in lead

"He is an active supporter of Jewish and Israeli causes." The article sourced doesnt say he is a supporter it says they are clients of his company and he references Bad Boy repeatedly. Seems he is noteable for owning a company. Why Jewish in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.55.103 (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oldest and largest Zionist Organization of America gave Torossian young leadership award. Worthy of inclusion ? http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1518 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.55.103 (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Havent made any radical changes although it may look like a lot of content. Happy to discuss anything anyone is upset about but added many sources so cant be challenged and largely simply tweaked some content. Nothing major @all. 67.243.55.103 (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding lots of sources is not a good thing. One or two solid sources for each fact is adequate and preferable. I have restored the negative content that you cut out and removed some of the additional stuff you added. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to showcase you or your business; it is an online encyclopedia; please do not edit the article any more. You have a conflict of interest. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
How is Goldberg "lunatic fringe" consistent with representation of 2 Prime Ministers ? Its 1 Blogger - how is that consistent with lunatic fringe ? 67.243.55.103 (talk) 09:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This IP has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user:Babasalichai‎‎. Banned users are not allowed to edit, so all his substantial edits to this article have been removed. -- Dianna (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Goldberg

Content should be removed. A: is a blog. B: Contrasts significantly with comments above saying Torossian trains Israeli government officials and has worked for 2 prime ministers and 2 Mayors of Jerusalem. C: Is a single biased opinion of a living person. Goldberg is known for his left-wing opinions. Should be removed violates BLP.62.219.165.186 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Content further seems mean-spirited and not in line with Wiki of living persons. If this is relevant so include items of right-wing bloggers calling him genius. 62.219.165.186 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the trouble? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The IP has been community banned from editing Wikipedia, so no actions will be taken on anything he requests. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
He is editing from an unusual location, but I agree with Demiurge; it is banned user Babasalichai. -- Dianna (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment regarding the issue please as per wiki rules. Dont see anything regarding that IP on so-called community ban. Comments regarding Goldberg seem accurate and so should be removed per BLP and libel issues. 62.90.147.224 (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Every sentence you write makes it clearer, so don't bother. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Armenian surname?

His surname is Armenian. Is he a Jew of Armenian descent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learnedhelplessnessbullshit (talk • contribs) 23:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Company Legal Claims

Would not be relevant for comments on his personal page. This incident is already mentioned on Torossian company page is not about him personal. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Luxury Real Estate Purchase

A bio page on someone that does not include a $8.2 Million real estate condo purchase does not make sense at all. Its important in a bio which summarizes key points in a persons life - and even more so considering whom it was purchased from. − [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We are not a tabloid or a newspaper, and just because something is newsworthy or can be sourced does not mean that it gets included in biographies on this wiki. Several editors have reverted you, all of them knowledgeable administrators of this site, so please don't re-add the content again or you could be facing a block for edit warring. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Administrators ain't special, remember. We do also need a better source for the libel thing than NYDailyNews :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just trying to impress the guy :P. I thought the NY Daily News was an OK source? I checked it out at the RSN and found nothing untoward. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Per comments below on a living person and a tabloid source removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@User:Demiurge1000 Actually, the NYDN source is perfectly fine. It looks gossippy, but it actually quotes both the plaintiff's and the defendant's respective attorneys, so I don't think there's any doubt that there's a libel suit happenin'. Mosmof (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Think to yourself - if you were reading the biography of some business who died in the 1950s, would you be in the slightest bit interested in how much his house cost and who he bought it from? Encyclopedic content and newspaper content aren't the same thing, although they do overlap. --Dweller (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Spoken like you are a rational person. So, if we look back on the 1950's, how would the 1st paragraph which says he worked for previous Prime Ministers reconcile with this - Hence, it doesn't belong:

Atlantic Monthly writer Jeffrey Goldberg called him "the most disreputable flack in New York", particularly criticizing his representation of what Goldberg called the "lunatic fringe" of Israeli politics.[24] The New York Times said he has a reputation as "an aggressive publicist prone to sending off vitriolic e-mails."[25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.254.85.130 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Check out a featured article on an American personality from the 1950s. Does it mention such harsh critiques from reliable sources like the NYT? Why yes, it does. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Very personal and mean spirited to refer to this man's deceased mother. The only source is a gossip column. It does not "look gossipy" it is the gossip reporter at the newspaper not a news or legal reporter. Seems petty, mean spirited and not becoming of a Wikipedia page. And the source is clearly a gossip reporter. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Re-read the article. It is in a gossip column and the attempt to "flesh it out" is mean-spirited and harmful. Suggest wait until there is action in the case rather than jumping on something which may be nothing more than a 1 day gossip story. Its unnecessarily mean-spirited as well as being from a gossip outlet. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Uh, a libel suit is kind of a big deal (at least moreso than a real estate transaction). And how are we supposed to talk about the suit without mentioning the relationship between the plaintiff and the client? That seems to be a really important piece of information. And if the attorney's willing to talk about it, we can safely conclude that his client's cool with it being in the public. Mosmof (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Lawsuits are part and parcel of any business. And 4 lines is excessive overkill and surely unrequired. And rather than assuming one is "cool with it being in the public" better Wikipedia as an enclocpedia is more moderate. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


Let me be the first to comment. First, fair and open disclosure: I am not exactly a neutral editor. I have had numerous run-ins with Ron Torossian's minions, on this talk page and on my own talk page, including receiving a threat of a lawsuit for referring in a post to the size of the subject's nose.

That said, I see nothing wrong with including a reference to Torossian's new luxury real estate purchase. On the contrary, I think it adds an aspect of tawdry ostentation to the portrait.

Of course, the libel suit is relevant, well-sourced, and should also stay. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I should point out to the confusion/obfuscation by the IP editor. It's not that the Daily News is a gossip rag. It's that real estate transactions end up in papers because it's rich Manhattanite gossip, sort of like how LA papers might report on who's been spotted lunching with whom. It doesn't exactly tell us anything except that he's got money. That said, like Ravpapa, I can see how buying from James Dolan might be notable, though I have no earthly idea where to include it or in what context. Mosmof (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
If Daily News is relevant for lawsuit then its of course relevant for real estate. Will editors accept a section being created on real estate?165.254.85.130 (talk) Mosmof (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, specifically, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The difference between the two topics is that a libel suit against a publicist is something that affects his professional reputation, while buying condos is something wealthy Manhattanites do all the time. The former is more notable than the latter. And no, I don't think a real estate section would work, since we're talking about one purchase and a listing of the guy's purchases and rentals would be the very definition of indiscriminate. 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
8.2 Million dollars is not a random purchase that isn't noteable. And a lawsuit is part and parcel of business. Adding other non relevant details such as a rumored personal relationship is meant to be nothing other than personally hurtful and surely not relevant. Can we agree to add 1 line about real estate.165.254.85.130 (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"Huffington Post was removed because editor claims 'the barrier for entry is ridiculously low'. Huff Post is a major publication. Should be noteable. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a major publication with a humongous stable of writers and low barrier of entry. Mosmof (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Indeed media world has changed and Forbes now has a humongous stable of writers and low barrier of entry. The fact is Huffington Post is a major publication and one cannot argue that because they allow a large stable that they don't vet or have standards. Huff Post is surely noteable. 165.254.85.130 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What is the frigging question?? I've been randomly selected to participate in this discussion but it is about what? There should be, per RfC etiquette, a clear introductory statement on top, which would clue in the uninitiated. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you have arrived after the aftermath. This RFC was opened by an anonymous IP, who was irked by two things: first, mention of his (Torossian's, or perhaps the IP's) purchase of an 8.2-million-dollar estate had been deleted; second, mention of a libel suit against him (Torossian? the IP?) included mention of the fact that the plaintiff had been living with his (Torossian's, not the plaintiff's) mother; the IP was not particularly upset about mention of the libel suit, but wanted to keep the mother out of it. Never mind, all mention of the libel suit has been blown away by duly cautious editors, and the IP (actually a few IPs, who popped up with different addresses) has been blocked indefinitely. So the RFC has become kind of moot. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the IP user is a sockpuppet of a serial forum shopper. Mosmof (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the assistance, Ravpapa and Mosmof . -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot) My first comment is that the same as the above....."What is the specific question". It looks like the answer is "no specific question". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Hasn't this article been through the Notability debate before? there are issues of undue weight on personality, pros and cons as to the subject's likeability, and whether there are enough third party sources to make this as legitimate as any encyclopedic reference, but for all of the discussion over the years, Notability is proven time again. If for nothing else than the amount of ink his page gets. High traffic and high attention rates should answer whether or not this subject is notable. Barqnbyte (talk) April 10 2014, 7:450AM EST. — Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if user Barqnbyte is banned user Babasali or not, but I am glad he has reopened this topic, which, despite the tag that was glued at the top, has been settled. I think that Ronn Torossian's notability has been pretty much established, not because of his accomplishments, but because of his personality and aggressive way of conducting his affairs - something which has received not undue, but rather not enough, weight in this article.
On the other hand, the sister article, 5W Public Relations, certainly does not pass the notability bar. It is the 24th largest PR firm in the US. The 22nd, 21st, 20th, 19th and 18th largest firms do not have Wikipedia articles. The company has revenues of about 16 million dollars - along with about 135,000 other companies in the US of that size or larger, the vast majority of which do not have Wikipedia articles.
Really, the company's only claim to fame was its conduct of the Agriprocessors affair, where company representatives impersonated the client's critics online in order to defame them - an act that made 5WPR notorious, if not notable, within and beyond the PR community.
In the AFD discussion on 5WPR, the closing admin said that, while there was no consensus for a deletion, the editors involved should feel free to consider of a merger of 5WPR with the article on Ronn Torossian. I think the time has come to do that. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • This person has zero notability. This article and the 5W article are both weak overall, and would do with being selectively merged. I cannot fathom why this article exists separately the panda ₯’ 10:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A notorious personality such as Ronn Torossian has considerable notability; enough that it is hard to see why we are even discussing it. Viewed simply as a public relations person his client list makes him notable. A merger of person and firm might make sense, at least until the firm becomes more than an extension of him. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I think keeping this article and merging the 5W article makes sense too. Torossian has, for better or worse, become a public figure. Meanwhile, his firm is just a conduit for managing his fame, and pretty much all of the coverage about the firm (outside the Agriprocessors controversy) is vanity articles that the firm itself manufactured in mid-00s. Mosmof (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and did it. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Location

From Mr. Torossian: http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/05/17/public-relations-firm-takes-new-digs-at-minskoff-equities-1166-ave-of-the-americas/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Another link from Mr. Torossian: http://www.stevieawards.com/pubs/awards/403_2914_24303.cfm User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
"Public Relations Agency of the Year GOLD STEVIE WINNER: 5W Public Relations, New York, NY: Re-writing the Rules of PR: 5W Builds an Agency for a New Media Landscape" User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ 5W Public Relations
  2. ^ "Confident Of A Comeback" article by Stewart Ain in The Jewish Week January 13, 2006, accessed April 3, 2011
  3. ^ http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/muse-flash-kate-hudson-matt-bellamy-split-article-1.1620491#ixzz2tslAnAZu
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ronn_Torossian/Archive_2&oldid=1137163352"