Talk:Paul Erickson (activist)

Heading capitalization

Section headings use sentence case, not title case, per WP:MOS#Capital letters. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Corrected. Caroline456 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by Caroline456

Caroline456's recent edits are largely contrary to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and, in my view, lard up the article with poorly sourced or non-noteworthy positive content while removing verifiable negative content. The overall effect skews the POV of the article, which is why I'm slapping on a POV tag until the issues below are resolved. Aside from the removal of the sentence about Trump Jr. (which I see was based on my misreading of the source), I believe the way to fix these issues is a rollback of today's edits. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

DrFleischman, I responded to each point that you stated to fit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've made changes on the page and posted my comments on the talk page below. I believe it should fix the dispute issues. Caroline456 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fraud

Caroline456, please don't remove the information about the civil judgments against Erickson. It's important because these weren't run-of-the-mill judgments, these were judgments for defrauding investors. The fact that you (not I) have characterized Erickson as a "political activist" in the lead section has no bearing on this material, which would make it into any biography of Wikipedia, including those of say, athletes or entertainers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: [1]

Dr. Fleischman, I’ve learned to be careful in characterizing civil judgments – the language in court documents can be extreme and not always reflective of whatever went on the case. And non-legal reporters routinely conflate corporate officers with legal action aimed against the corporation. I’ve tried to address your concerns here while also protecting the names of the litigants. Look at my edits, please. Caroline456 (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Your changes do not address my concerns in the slightest. No one is proposing that we characterize civil judgments. We're merely summarizing the the Rapid City Journal secondary source. This is a reliable source. It would not have been published without having been fact checked. Please read our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I have not left out any of the judgement as you may see. I suggest to protect the names of the litigants by not using their names on Wikipedia. It seems that they are not looking for publicity since most of them did not respond to the interview requests by the Rapid City Journal. Again, I suggest not to use their names. The judgments are in place. Caroline456 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about the names. You removed critical details about the allegations, causing the content to read as if these were run-of-the-mill contract disputes, when in fact the plaintiffs alleged that Erickson had defrauded them. I'm not suggesting that we use the word fraud, just that we include the details of the allegations that were included in the Rapid City Journal source. Please tell me you're not stonewalling. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

What's your suggestion on the wording? I am not stonewalling you. I agree with you on the fraud part - he was not convicted to commit fraud, so such statement would be highly inaccurate. Caroline456 (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that we restore the content that you removed: In both cases, Erickson predicted investment returns of 25-100% but neither investor received any returns, and in both cases the plaintiffs alleged Erickson had reneged on his promises to refund the original investments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support restoring the material. This passage appears to have been removed:

In 2007, Erickson was sued by conservative writer L. Brent Bozell III after Bozell alleged that Erickson had persuaded him to invest $200,000 in a venture to provide comfortable homes and care to the elderly. Bozell won a judgment for $190,000 in 2008. In 2015, Erickson was sued by a real estate developer from Brookings, South Dakota after Erickson had persuaded the developer to invest $30,000 in a different venture. The plaintiff eventually won a judgment for $40,874 in 2016. In both cases, Erickson predicted investment returns of 25-100% but neither investor received any returns, and in both cases the plaintiffs alleged Erickson had reneged on his promises to refund the original investments. Erickson was also sued by Bluestem Capital Partners, a venture capital firm run by Steve T. Kirby, a Republican former lieutenant governor of South Dakota, after Bluestem had lent money to Erickson. Bluestem obtained a judgment for $115,417 in 2003.

This was cited a suitable source and the removal does not appear to be in line with Wiki's policies and guidelines. This content is certainly relevant to the subject's biography. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Public service

We should not be characterizing private law practice, lobbying, and political consulting as "public service." Public service typically means working for the government. It certainly does not include things like working as Pat Buchanan's campaign manager. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

References to his political activities seem best left in what most biographies characterize as public service – since these events don’t appear to be his primary vocation. Caroline456 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Which biographies characterize election work as public service? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the source that does it. For example: “Working with them [the College Republicans] and talking about world politics does not pay the bills” and further the source describes Erickson’s business. Therefore, his political activity should not be defined as business.

Or the article also provides the highlights of Erickson’s “political and social activism” where they include a lot of what is described by me as “Public Service”: Pat Buchanan, the Institute for Lutheran Theology and the creation of a new national Lutheran church denomination in 2001, “Sacred Assembly”.

It proves that his actions cannot be defined as “Work” or “Career” because they have been qualified as neither by the source above. Caroline456 (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This is getting a bit disruptive. You didn't answer my question, and now you're making straw man arguments. I never suggested that Erickson's political activity be characterized as business. I objected to it being called public service. It's simply not, and it's deceptive to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I based my judgement on the definition of Public Service from this source. Where "Public service activities and types of work are concerned with helping people and providing them with what they need, rather than making a profit." Since the person makes money in a business of some or even several kind, and the mentioned activity help people (we do not judge, right, whether it is good or bad for them?), it should be, probably, considered as Public Service. What's your suggestion? Caroline456 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

That we don't call it "public service," but instead call it "political work" or something similar. "Public service" means government employment in this context. That's Collins definition #2, while you're citing Collins definition #4. Moreover Collins definition #4 is generally about helping people in need, such as the poor or the elderly. To interpret it as including election campaign work is, frankly, ridiculous and would mean that anything is public service. If you run a nuclear power plant then that's public service, because people need power, right? If you're a professional athlete then that's public service because people need entertainment, right? See where I'm going with this? Listen, no offense, but you're clearly not a native English speaker. You're out of your depth here. Please let this one go. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Maria Butina

The connection with Maria Butina, including the fact that they set up a business together, needs to be included. This has been mentioned by multiple reliable sources in connection with the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. Caroline456, please do not use original research as a basis for removing this material. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]

I’ve included the newspaper reference to the business that Butina and Erickson set up, although I’m still checking on its legal form (it appears that Erickson simply helped her incorporate Bridges, LLC, and was not a part of the company). Caroline456 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. You can check on whatever you want, but the listed secondary sources are reliable and you are mischaracterizing them. They do not say that Erickson helped Butina set up the LLC. They say they co-founded it. Stick to the sources and do not engage in original research. It is against our policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Here you go. The source says that Butina is a sole organizer of the LLC and even provides a scan-copy of the actual document signed by her. Caroline456 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dakota Free Press is a self-published blog, not a reliable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

In fact, the same document is published here. You used this source earlier as reliable. I just think that we should stand for the truth. So, while it might be reasonable to appeal to the journalists' wording, but also state that Erickson and Butina are not co-owners, what is really going on. I know about the primary sources and such, but as a layer by diploma I would not sleep well knowing that legally incorrect information has been published. Caroline456 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't use that keloland.com source, and I wouldn't have, since it's not reliable. The idea that we stand for the truth is a basic misconception about Wikipedia. We don't stand for the truth, we stand for verifiabiliy. And you're making another straw man argument. No one suggested that we say that Erickson and Butina are co-owners of Bridges LLC, just that they co-founded it. The bottom line here is that you are trying to exclude something that's verified without contradiction by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. You cannot do so based on original research and unreliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what, if anything, this means: The Dakota Free Press (ref. 19) cites Butina's Facebook showing Butina with David Keene and Erickson at Moscow gun event on November 1, 2013. Caroline456 uploaded a photo of Butina taken by Caroline456 at what appears to be the same Moscow event on October 31, 2013: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MariaButina.jpg. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Space4Time3Continuum2x, would you be so kind as to comment on whether we should say Erickson "helped Butina form" Bridge LLC (current wording), whether we should say he "co-founded" it with her (previous wording)? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the NY Times, they incorporated the company together. I'm still looking for other reliable secondary sources. From the wording in the NY Times, I'd say "co-founded" is more to the point than "helped form". What is the source for "helped form"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the "helped form" language was Caroline's interpretation based on the LLC's corporate filings. (See above.) I'll help you out on your research:

• Daily Beast: Erickson formed the LLC with Butina.
• Rapid City Journal: Erickson and Butina co-founded the LLC.
• McClatchy: Butina and Erickson set up the LLC.
• Business Insider: Erickson reportedly started the LLC with Butina (citing the Daily Beast).

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

From a different McClatchy article: "Bridges LLC, a company that Erickson and Butina established in February 2016 in Erickson’s home state of South Dakota ..." We should stick to RS. I haven't come across any wording that would support Erickson "helping" Butina form the LLC. I would suggest something less business-dictionaryish than co-found, if for no other reason than to avoid more semantic quibbling, e.g., "In 2016, Erickson and Butina set up a South Dakota business named ..." or something similar. I'll take a more thorough look at the article and this Talk page this weekend; I hadn't been paying attention to this minor luminary in the Republican firmament and just briefly skimmed the contents. One impression: At times, Caroline456 writes perfect English legalese and, at other times, appears to be using non-English sentence structure. Two people editing under one username? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. My first cut of the article was based primarily on the RCJ so there may be some accidental bias toward that source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem if I can ask a native English speaker friend to edit my English? You know, it's kind of uncomrortable to use her every time for doing that. Are you going to prosecute me for that, too? As I see there are a couple of guys loving BDSM stuff, right? Hey, guys, may be you should drop a bit this great conspiracy theories. Again, I contribute as I can when I have time as you do. Let's be a bit more friendly and careful with personalities and labels on each other. This is not the place for it, I suppose. Caroline456 (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BDSM? Say what? Are you responding to my comment in the previous subsection about you not being a native English speaker? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's to the Space4Time3Continuum2x's comment, first of all. Caroline456 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok. So what's this about BDSM? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see, you really liked my language))))). Ha-ha-ha. Good for you. It meant in the context "unreasonable by actual circumstances, causing pain to an individual" (this is called a metaphor, usually, you know). Caroline456 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I see now. I can't speak for Space4Time3Continuum2x but I for one am not trying to inflict any pain. I'm just trying to improve the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That's okay. I actually like that. A bit of a kick, you know. Ha-ha-ha. Your investigations are pretty nice. Anyway, I am contributing as well. Let's keep it there, my darling). Caroline456 (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@caroline456: "unreasonable by actual circumstances, causing pain to an individual" – any of youse a lawyer? Also, have you looked up the definition of metaphor, daaaling? I, for one, had to look up the initialism BDSM (I must have been leading a very sheltered life) and – wouldn’t you know - there’s a Wikipedia article. Haha, or whatever; you’re just being friendly and careful. Like Dr. Fleischmann, I, too, am just trying to improve the article. As far as your dual personality is concerned, the "investigation" consisted of reading your edits and noticing the marked differences in fluency and style. Wikipedia editors don’t investigate, they look at reliable sources. (Both or however many of you are editing as Caroline456 may want to take a look at the relevant help pages on reliable sources and on primary and secondary sources.)

Editors also look at the images posted by other editors. You posted two images and then removed them after they were flagged by Dr. Fleischmann. Wikipedia has policies against self-promotion by the subject of an article or someone close to or employed by the subject. So, if you are neither, how did you obtain those pictures, including the meta data? Neither file appears to have been made available to the public anywhere, so it would not be unreasonable to think that you might be connected to the article’s subject somehow.

According to your media file summary, one of the photos was taken in Afghanistan and is described as "Paul Erickson greeting a tribal leader F. and his youngest son looking up at F. (Afghanistan)"; the meta data says that it was taken on August 10, 2011, 02:43, with a Canon PowerShot SD1100 IS. You also certified that it was your "own work" and that you are the copyright holder. Again according to your media file summary, you are the license holder for the second photo, taken by yourself on November 1, 2013. On that date, Erickson and David Keene of the NRA were in Moscow at the Right to Bear Arms convention hosted by Alexander Torshin and Maria Butina (no investigation involved there, either, it’s been all over the news recently). You have since nominated both images for deletion, writing that "I did not take this picture by myself, so it could have copyright issues. Please remove it." You say that you are not a native speaker of English, but it seems to me that – even without the help of your native speaker friend – your command of the English language is good enough to understand "own work" and "I, the copyright holder of this work". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Marshall Plan Charities

The current language about the Marshall Plan Charities is non-neutral. There's too much emphasis on this relatively off-topic subject and it doesn't conform with the independent sources. For instance, the cited independent source just says Erickson helped launch the group "to redevelop Afghan villages." But our language says the group is dedicated "to winning the peace in Afghanistan" and then goes on to say the group's activities allow villages to "repel Taliban elements and create the climate for an eventual withdrawal of U.S. armed forces." This is blatantly promotional language. We also shouldn't be referring to people by their first names. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: [7], [8]

I was using the most neutral language from this group’s website as possible. But I’ve cut the secondary language and switched to last names of the principals mentioned. Caroline456 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's the problem. Don't rely on the group's website. Stick to what the independent secondary sources sources say to ensure neutrality. You trimmed some content, but not enough. You also didn't address the names issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is the source that proves the purpose of the group. I also added it to the article. This source, in fact, used by you before proves Erickson's help to launch the group. Caroline456 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. We don't just copy anything we find on the Internet. We have community standards; you need to familiarize yourself with them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Everything Seth Tupper at the Rapid City Journal wrote is based entirely on Erickson's say-so and Tupper makes a point of saying so repeatedly: "Erickson’s worldliness stemmed partly from his travels. According to Erickson, he spent his summers helping freedom-fighters around the world. His adventures included traveling to Israel in 1982, where Erickson said he was leading College Republicans and College Democrats on a summer tour when he witnessed the launch of the 1982 Lebanon War, aka Operation Peace for Galilee. In 1983, Erickson said, he helped acquire and transport supplies including tents, boots, medical kits, camels and mules to insurgents fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Erickson said he has recently been active in Afghanistan with the Marshall Plan Charities, a nonprofit devoted to redeveloping Afghan villages." ... he spent his summers ... - as in student summer intern. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't necessarily make the RCJ source unreliable or require in-text attribution to Erickson. If the RCJ source said something without attribution to Erickson then I think it's safe to say they did sufficient fact-checking, e.g. by reviewing documents or confirming with other sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

With "everything" I was referring only to what Erickson told Tupper about how he spent his summer breaks while in college ("according to", "Erickson said"), i.e., there was no corroboration. I don't doubt that he looked up court and other records, newspaper reports, etc., on Erickson's later activities/life. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@caroline456: I haven’t removed the reinstated sentence – yet – even though IMO Erickson’s say-so, as reported by the Rapid City Journal (the source you didn’t use), needs corroboration. The HuffPo article doesn’t mention Erickson, so please explain how it is a source for Ericson’s involvement in any capacity. I have looked at every mention of "Marshall Plan Charities" I could find; Erickson wasn’t mentioned once, whether by Joanne Herring or by anyone else. All we have is this (Rapid City Journal): "In 1983, Erickson said, he helped acquire and transport supplies including tents, boots, medical kits, camels and mules to insurgents fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Erickson said he has recently been active in Afghanistan with the Marshall Plan Charities, a nonprofit devoted to redeveloping Afghan villages." I also haven’t found any reports on what Marshall Plan Charities has done or accomplished in all these years; a movie, even one starring Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, is not a reliable source, and neither is a society blog like this. But as long as I had to read it: What became of the plan to "… build[] a model village in Northern Afghanistan to prove that an entire village of 10,000 people can be structured for the cost of keeping one soldier in the field for a year," for example? Anyway, this article is about Erickson, so unless he’s mentioned in a source, the source is off-topic and needs to be removed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Sacred Assembly

The article currently grossly overstates Erickson's role in the "Sacred Assembly" event. All the source says is that some guy with the same name was a volunteer. We don't even know if it was this guy. The article says he helped to plan and organize the event, which isn't supported by the source, and it also says the event remains the largest religious gathering in American history, also not supported by the source (which, I might add, was published over 20 years ago). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: [9]

I replaced the source of Erickson's role in the event to the one that directly states that Erickson helped in the organization of the event. It has been earlier used on the page. Caroline456 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

http://argusleader.newspapers.com/image/243919254

I don't have access to the source. Can you please cut-paste the relevant passage here? At a minimum the "remains the largest religious gathering in American history" isn't verifiable as the source was published in 2003. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I found the source. It says he hlped to organize the event. However it doesn't say he helped to plan it, and it doesn't say the event remains the largest religious gathering in American history. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I reworded the statement describing the event to "major catalytic event for men in the 21st century". Here is the source. Deleted "to plan". Caroline456 (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a pretty hyperbolic statement by the Christian Post. I think it requires in-text attribution. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Quotes in lead section

I believe the lead section is being larded up with unduly positive quotes that don't belong. There is no independent evidence that Unruh is anything more than a Republican delegate and bit character. Stephen Moore is undoubtedly notable but the quote is totally run-of-the-mill. So someone thinks he has clever and creative ideas? So what? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Sources: [10], [11]

The quoted Unruh seems to be on a pair with the quoted Schoenbeck, South Dakota political activists that would appear to balance each other out. Moore remains a national political figure whose judgment is deserving of inclusion. Caroline456 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand our neutrality policy. The appropriate method is to decide what's most notable, based on the notability of the speakers and the noteworthiness of the comment, and then include all of those comments regardless of how they reflect on the subject. That's not what you're doing. You're explicitly trying to boost the credentials of people who've said minor positive things about Erickson (Schoenbeck a "lifelong" activist, that's blatantly promotional language) to balance out against more significant negative things. That creates a false balance. Also, the Unruh and Moore quotes are stated in the present even though they said those things 15 years ago. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You also took the Unruh quote out of context. I found the source. Unruh was talking specifically about Erickson's efforts to unseat Tom Daschle in 2003. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lutheran

The following sentence fails verification: Erickson served a term on the board of directors of the Institute for Lutheran Theology and helped with the creation of a new national Lutheran church denomination in 2001. The cited Argus Leader source says nothing about the Institute for Lutheran Theology and nothing about creating a new denomination. All it says is that he was a founder of "Word Alone," a Lutheran grassroots group. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link that lists Paul Erickson of the board of directors of the the Institute for Lutheran Theology. The "Word Alone" group that Erickson was a founder of, in fact is the developer of the new Lutheran church denomination in 2001. However, you are right. I will correct the wording on the Erickson's page to make it clear. Thanks. Caroline456 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH. We can't take two sources that say different things and put them together to say something else. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Mobutu

The following sentence is improperly sourced: Mobutu sought a visit to the United Nations to claim credit for this offer, but his visa request was ultimately denied due to his past human rights abuses. The cited Argus Leader source does not say this. It says nothing about any offers or visas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Washington Post article that says that the purpose of the Erickson's contract was obtaining a US visa. His second visa denial (1994) is here. Caroline456 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, but then the source needs to be added. And we're still missing sourcing for the "Mobutu sought a visit to the United Nations to claim credit for this offer" part. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Compass Care

The following sentence fails verification: In 1997, Erickson founded Compass Care, a senior living company based in the South Dakota dedicated to developing non-nursing home care options for seniors in the Midwest. This venture led to senior care consulting spinoffs, independent living communities and the licensing of medical technology. The cited Argus Leader source doesn't say anything about Compass Care's activities except that it was formed to develop assisted living centers. And nothing about spinoffs either. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Opinion on this Subject:

Caroline456 is part of the Wiki Project South Dakota: a semi active (im trying to revive it) wiki project. I do agree that these changes by Caroline456 should be deleted. I don’t really like to get into politics here, but i agree on the deletion of them. I will likely stay out of future debates on this unless asked to input. Seeing the lack of citiations and incorrect information provided by Caroline456, which is CONTRARY to what the WikiProject South Dakota is about, which is to IMPROVE south dakota articles, i agree on this removal. Visit my talk page if you want me to provide my input again. Thats all i have to say. XXCooksterXx (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Enter Dr. Fleischman and Caroline Dr. Fleischman: Good morning, Caroline! What seems to be the matter? Caroline: I just saw Paul outside. He seems to have gotten into a fist fight and broke his nose! Dr. Fleischman: Terrible! Terrible! Enter Paul Erickson with a bloody nose Paul Erickson: Doctor! I seem to... Dr. Fleischman: I know, I know! You broke your nose. Come, I'll fix you right up! Paul Erickson: Gee, thanks doc! I hope you do as good a job as you did on Mr. Bobbitt! Everyone laughs So, to the matter at hand: On fraud: The phrasing above should be preceded by "according to the lawsuit" or "according to the plaintiffs", unless you can quote the judgment. On public service: Both definitions are correct, but in different context. Erickson doesn't seem to be the kind of person for which the second definition applies (cf. Mother Teresa, to take an obvious example) - he's first and foremost a lawyer and a political operative; the first definition comes to mind more easily in this context, but as it doesn't apply to him it shouldn't be used to characterize him here. As an aside, the way churches of some American denominations work (eg. some evangelical megachurches whose finances resemble a corporation's rather than a church's), I wouldn't characterize their leaders as engaged in "public service" according to the second definition. On the connection with Maria Butina: Follow the RS. On the "Marshall Plan Charities": What the hell is "winning the peace"? You don't seem to have RS on this, so make the shortest possible mention with the most neutral language, and qualify anything even half promotional as "according to" (eg. "he's also involved with MPC, which according to its website is an organization concerned with..."). On the "Sacred Assembly" and "catalytic" events: First of all, this isn't English. Use English. Second, the whole sentence (starting with "hundreds of thousands of men") is irrelevant and should either be removed or placed in its own article (the same is true for details such as what Mrs. Bobbitt did, which don't belong in this article). Quotes in the first section: This isn't the lead, but rather the first section of the article, and it's proper but not in that place. "Criticisms" sections (and their like) usually go much lower in the article, certainly after the "career" sections. Lutheran/Mobutu/Compass Care: Go with the RS, and remove everything else. François Robere (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Tags

The article has a lot of tags! Would it be fine to remove the ref-improve tag? It appears that all passages are cited.

What seems to be non-neutral about the article? Is it questional sources, promotionalism, something else? --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, I'm ok with the removal of the refimprove tag, but for the POV tag, did you read the other stuff on this talk page, e.g. the long section above titled "Recent edits by Caroline456?" --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it: "failed verification"; "improperly sourced"; "failed verification", etc. Is this content still in the article? (Sorry, the edit history is rather complicated). If this content is still in the article, it should be removed, which I preemptively support :-). Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, especially with such atrocious / misrepresented sourcing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Some of it is reliably sourced material that was removed by Caroline456. Would you mind weighing in on the individual issues? We could really use your help. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Cohabitation."

This article states: "According to the United States Department of Justice, Erickson cohabitated with Russian agent Maria Butina [21]." But in reading the referenced document, it says on page 8 that Butina did cohabitate, but it called the individual "Person 1", not "Paul Erickson". The document doesn't prove Erickson and Butina were roomies. Sentence deleted from the biography pending a source. Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Erickson has been widely identified as "Person One." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.118.87 (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

According to the New York Times, Ericson had sex with Butina. I'd feel better if we had 2 or 3 more WP:RS saying so.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/us/politics/maria-butina-russia-espionage.html

Maria Butina, Suspected Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan, Prosecutors Say

By Adam Goldman and Sharon LaFraniere

New York Times

July 18, 2018

Prosecutors said a 56-year-old American romantically linked to Ms. Butina was helping her leave the country. While the authorities did not identify the man, he is believed to be Paul Erickson, a longtime conservative activist and National Rifle Association member from South Dakota. The New York Times has previously reported that he had a close relationship with Ms. Butina.

Investigators said that to Ms. Butina, their relationship was meaningless, “simply a necessary aspect of her activities,” and she complained about living with him.

--Nbauman (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want two to three more? All of the articles are referencing the same document filed by the prosecution. That's a primary document that is linked to in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.118.87 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

here are three separate articles naming Pauly as Person One:

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/18/630094267/maria-butina-was-in-contact-with-russian-intelligence-feds-say-in-new-documents

https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/new-details-in-russia-case-intensify-speculation-about-sd-s/article_1eec2f30-7403-55c4-ac29-f2cac81e076d.html

https://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/government-and-politics/4474318-alleged-russian-agent-maria-butina-had-ties-russian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.118.87 (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT are Wikipedia policies (which we must follow) that require us to support everything with "reliable sources" (plural). This entry is also a WP:BLP, which is an even stricter policy.

I note that none of those 3 separate articles specifically says that Butina had sex with Erickson, merely that she had a "relationship." They say that she offered sex to a different person, but they don't specifically say that she had sex with anyone.

(These 3 "separate" articles seem to all be basically the identical story, based on the same material, probably a news service account.) --Nbauman (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of our policies. Sourcing requirements are covered by our WP:V. The first sentence of that policy makes clear that a single reliable source is sufficient. The reference to "reliable sources" in WP:NPV is in reference to to "views" plural and should not be read to imply that each individual view requires multiple sources. Confusion about this can be resolved at WT:NPV if necessary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here's a reliable source that says prosecutors say that Erickson and Butina's relationship was sexual, and explicitly names Erickson: [12] Relevant quote: Prosecutors allege in court papers that their sexual relationship was a ruse on her part—“simply a necessary aspect of her activities”... --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Article about WP edits on Erickson and Butina articles

As an FYI, there is a discussion at Talk:Maria Butina#Claims this page is being brigaded by less than savory intentions. about an article about POV edits to the Erickson and Butina articles.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Right to Bear Arms" interlanguage link to ru:Право на оружие (движение) ?

Butina's "Right to Bear Arms" group appears to be ru:Право на оружие (движение), although движение translates to "movement" presumably "social movement" (ru:Общественное движение (социология)). The Russian article while may be RS, I have my concerns as this topic involves geopolitical foreign influence. If I don't get a response, I will add, and see what happens. X1\ (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)