Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nbauman (talk | contribs) at 06:15, 15 March 2015 (→Editorials in The Forward: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ronn Torossian article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Biography C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007 November 15. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

The contents of the 5W Public Relations page were merged into Ronn Torossian on 24 April 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Relevance of political commentary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content was removed from the lead without explanation, then restored and then removed by a third editor asking for explanation as to the content's relevance. The content summarizes the initial paragraph of the Ronn Torossian#Commentary and reception section. That indicates its relevance to me. Jojalozzo 03:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Total amount of third-party coverage of that aspect of Torossian's biography: Zero. That indicates its irrelevance to me. We are not here to give Torossian a platform to spread his views, nor are we here to criticize him ("virulent"? Seriously?). Huon (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I think opposition to mentioning political commentary in the article lead is arising from POV more than UNDUE. As I said above, there is a whole section of the article devoted to Torossian's commentary and I count about ten third party sources that support content in that section. If keeping some version of the content in that section represents consensus then mention of it in the article lead is appropriate.

The removed sentence in the article lead was "As a political commentator he is a vocal supporter of Israel's nationalist policies, and an opponent of President Obama's foreign and domestic policies." In my view this does not criticize him and there is no use of "virulent" (which I agree should be removed from the main body content). Jojalozzo 15:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please be specific. Which third-party source supports content about Torossian's work as a political commentator? Huon (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian is a pr guy. That is all. He knows media and publicity. For his opinions on national affairs or foreign to be weighted for an encyclopedic reference it has to have impact or value to the standing of those issues. Otherwise he just has opinions. I have opinions, you have opinions and everyone who edits Misplaced Pages has opinions on anything and everything; those aren't critical for a public biography if those opinions do not influence on broad scale. That's my opinion on this. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have revised the lead so that it refers to his political views in general, and not only to his written commentary. While I disagree with Huon that his political is not notable - a notable person writing commentary in notable publications is certainly notable - there is no question that his political views are highly relevant and notable. They are discussed extensively in almost every one of the profiles cited - the NYT article, the Forward profile, the Atlantic piece - and should therefore certainly be included in the lead. --Ravpapa (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth can you not bring yourself to weight the lead appropriately? Currently the body of the article contains just over a paragraph of sourced information on Torossian's political views and their reception, which is about reasonable weight according to how reliable sources cover him. It's slightly more than a quarter of the "Commentary and reception" section. Now, a guideline for a well written lead is to have approximately one sentence about each major section. So that would justify less than half a sentence about his political views, but this article's lead currently has two (and a bit) sentences about his political views. We could dispose of the first of them "Torossian is known for his strong support of Israel's right-wing political factions" without losing very much at all. The lead is also too long already; WP:LEADLENGTH suggests that for this article a two paragraph lead would be more than sufficient. Removing that first of the two political-views sentences (the one I just quoted), the Business Week quote (but keeping its citation as a reference for the preceding clause) and mention of the book (which I don't think plays a very major role in his notability?) would get the lead to a more sensible length and a more neutral tone. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add: If "a notable person writing commentary in notable publications is certainly notable", why has no one but Torossian (and us) taken note? Huon (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with a consensus to remove content related to Torossian's political opinions if there are no good sources for it. My position is that the lead should reflect the body of the article and given the existence of a significant section on his political commentary it seemed appropriate to include something about in the lead. If we consider the political commentary section to be undue, I'd recommend that content about political commentary be removed. Jojalozzo 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph in the opening sequence, "Torossian is known for his strong support of Israel's right-wing political factions... His views, and his aggressive PR tactics, have won him both opponents and supporters," is redundant to the one appearing in the "Commentary and reception" section that opens with, "As a political commentator, Torossian is an avid supporter of Israel's right wing, an advocate for the Israeli faction that supports Jewish settlement in the Occupied West Bank..."

It doesn't belong in the opener as that is not what he is known for. He doesn't have followers, neither US nor Israeli law makers seek his guidance for their policy issues, and no one on Misplaced Pages that I can see has used any of his opinions on Israel, Middle East or President Obama as references in any Misplaced Pages articles. What does that say about what he is known for? He is on shows like Entertainment Tonight and E!, Fox 5 News, CBS and the like for comments on the careers of Jay-Z, A-Rod and Justin Bieber, or brands like Campbell's Soup or Virgin Airlines, but media does not seek him for comment on foreign policy. Any honest search of media will show you that. All I ask here is to be fair and objective. He is known for PR and marketing. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jojalozzo: your comment does not address the points that I made, so can I assume that you don't object to the changes I propose?

Does anyone else object? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any secondary sources that discuss his written commentary, so I'm not sure there's a need for any mention of it in the article. The sources in the commentary section are primary sources which offer no basis at all for making statements about the impact of those written works. There are sources that mention his opinions in private conversation but I'm not aware of any secondary sources that discuss his written political statements. Ravpapa says there are such sources but I'm not seeing them. I'd appreciate hearing what those sources are and what they say about the written commentary. Jojalozzo 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

To make immediate mention of someones interest as their whole being isn't fair. Simply because someone follows along, does not make them consumed by it. There are many secondary sources that feature Torossian commenting on many topics outside of politics. There are segments on Bloomberg and CBS that the topics touch on Sports and the Media in general. Further there are larger number of sources of his written commentary on the Media and other topics as well. 'A person with his pulse to the media' seems like a more suitable lead in. Torossian is a PR executive and he does PR - I don't see where the ball should fall anywhere else. Southjimkelly (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems every single commenting editor agrees that all political messages must be removed. Should i go ahead and do so? 213.215.38.251 (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: It is true that that there are no third party sources discussing Torossian's published commentaries - political or otherwise - and therefore the arguments for removing the third paragraph of the lead which discusses those commentaries might be valid. However, as I noted above, Torossian's political views are discussed in almost all the sources, in some cases prominently. Therefore, the paragraph of the lead discussing those views should certainly remain. --Ravpapa (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Disclosures

I second NBauman's suggestion of full disclosure. Considering the history of attempts by partisans involved in this article to influence editors by contacting them directly or through Misplaced Pages channels, I think it is a good idea that all of us be upfront about any contacts we have had with the subject. I will start off.

• User:Ravpapa: I have been editing this article on and off since 2011, when it was brought to my attention because of a series of vandalous attacks on articles about two former clients of Ronn Torossian. These attacks were done by a number of sockpuppets, which resulted in a community ban of these bogus editors. During the course of this episode, I had numerous conversations with the sockpuppets on my talk page, which included, among other things, veiled threats of lawsuit by Ronn Torossian himself (though the sockpuppets never explicitly acknowledged any connection with Torossian). In addition, User:Judae1 contacted me twice privately through Misplaced Pages in-mail, once to explain his relationship to Torossian and his own view on Torossian's opinions and sensitivities, and once to comment on this version of the article, which I had written in an attempt to make order out of the numerous and conflicting edits that made up the story then. Other than that, I have had no connection, commercial or otherwise, with Torossian, and, to the best of my knowledge, have never corresponded or spoken to him directly. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• User:Diannaa: I came across this case in the summer of 2010, when a now-banned editor, User:Babasalichai, repeatedly posted at WP:EAR and other notice boards in attempt to get support for inclusion of poorly sourced negative information on Rabbi Pinto. That article and articles on other NYC rabbis and a NY businessman and his company were all under attack by banned user Babasalichai, named sock accounts, and IPs, which usually geolocate to NYC. Here is the article in the NY Times; scroll all the way to the bottom to see the Misplaced Pages connection. I still watch-list the rabbi articles and several other articles that were under attack. Though the attacks on the BLPs stopped some time ago, banned user Babasalichai still attempts to edit this article and posts on its talk page. User:Southjimkelly is very likely a sock of Babasalichai, based on tells in this edit. I am not affiliated with Torossian or the rabbis or with any of the material I edit on this wiki. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• User:Huon: I am a regular helper on #wikipedia-en-help , and that's where I encountered Ronn Torossian and this article. He (or someone claiming to be him, something I would likely be unable to tell apart from the "real" Mr. Torossian, not that the distinction would have any impact on my actions) has come to that channel several times over the past months to complain about perceived bias in this article, and while he exaggerates, he also raises valid points where the article content is not in line with the standards of BLP. Such violations should be resolved or removed. I have no connection, commercial or otherwise, to Mr. Torossian beyond our encounters in the help channel. Huon (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The book

I have removed the reference in the lead to Torossian's book. The sentence is unsupported in the body of the article, and the book does not come near to meeting any of the criteria for notability in WP:NB. It is published by a vanity press, it has not been reviewed or even mentioned in a single notable publication, and, in fact, the only reference to it is a one-line listing of the book in a list of business books published that week, appearing in a Shanghai newspaper. --Ravpapa (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd call the Shanghai Daily a notable publication. While the book doesn't belong in the lead, outright removal doesn't seem appropriate either. There's also the review you added way back when, though I'd agree that's not as good a source as the newspaper. On an entirely unrelated note, I'm happy to see that you now agree that Torossian's writings which are not the subject of third-party coverage should not be added to the lead. I'll move the book to the "career" section, which probably is the best place for it. Huon (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, BenBella Books doesn't appear to be a vanity press. Huon (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Huon, I think that, before you continue editing this article, you should write a disclosure statement in the section above. I am not suggesting any conflict of interest. However, you have admitted on this talk page to at least two conversations you held with someone alleging to be Torossian at the help desk, and your aggressive editing of this article has consistently reflected the point of view expressed by Torossian or his partisans: specifically, the exclusion of all information regarding his political activities, and inclusion of information on his book. I think the other editors of this page need a full disclosure of the conversations you have had with people representing themselves as Torossian, what was discussed in those conversations, and what, if any, conclusions were reached. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 07:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Later: I found a review of the book in a notable publication, so I guess the book really does deserve mention. I added the reference. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This does not, in my mind, mean that you needn't disclose any communications you have had with representatives of Torossian. And, where did you get the idea that I had changed my mind about including Torossian's political views and writings in the lead? I never hinted at such a thing. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I need to disclose nothing, and I resent the inquisitorial nature of these requests. If there's a problem with my edits, you should provide an explanation based on the content, not based on whom I may or may not have communicated with. According to the rules of the IRC help channel, I am prohibited from publishing logs without the consent of everybody else who participated, which I did not seek, nor do I intend to seek it in the future for the purpose of "disclosure" here. The help channel is public, and if someone were to doubt my word on what was said there, I could probably get other helpers to comment here and confirm my accounts of those conversations. The help channel does not reach any "conclusions"; my conversations with Mr. Torossian have consisted of him complaining about perceived biases and me explaining Misplaced Pages's editorial standards. If the points raised by Mr. Torossian were valid, I have edited the article in line with BLP or other relevant guidelines, which mostly consisted of the removal of unsourced or inappropriately-sourced content used to promote a view that's not expressed by any reliable independent sources.

Of all Torossian's various writings, that book is the only piece that has received third-party recognition of any kind. For example, he's mentioned as author of the PR bestseller “For Immediate Release” by Fox News. His writings on politics, Israel and vacations in France, however, all have received no third-party recognition whatsoever. I have yet to see any independent reliable source refer to Torossian as a "frequent columnist for FrontPage Magazine", for example. So, Ravpapa, since I seem to have misunderstood your stance, please clarify: In light of WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, do you think Torossian's writings which are not subject to third-party coverage should be discussed in the lead and/or the body of the article, and do you think the removal of those of his writings which do get mentioned in third-party sources is warranted? Huon (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Huon, the reason I and other editors of this page felt that you should disclose any conflicts of interests is that you have, on this talk page and in your edits of the article, have consistently ignored material in reliable sources, and have edited with a clear POV that reflects Torossian's own stated opinions about what the article should say. You have insisted that the book he wrote has been referred to in notable sources, when the only source you could find (until today) was a one-line reference in a Chinese newspaper reporting its publication. You have deleted all material on Torossian's political activities, ignoring the fact that these activities constitute nearly half of all the content of the main sources referred to in the article. You have, moreover, done this in an aggressive manner, running roughshod over arguments, posting condescending comments on the talk page, and stating categorically that you will remove material you find not to your taste, even if it is appropriately sourced and balanced.

We know that partisans of Torossian have made numerous attempts to slant this article, including sockpuppetry, threats, and attempts to suborn editors. Under the circumstances, if Torossian or someone representing himself as Torossian makes direct contact with an editor, through the help desk or any other channel, the appropriate thing to do is make the full content of that conversation public on the talk page of this article. I refer you to the posts of Salimfadhley above and in the archives, who did just that.

Your refusal to disclose the content of conversations you had with Torossian, and your umbrage at the request, only increases the suspicion some people may have regarding what was discussed and what was concluded. You write, "if someone were to doubt my word on what was said there... " But we cannot doubt your word of what was said there, because you refuse to disclose what was said. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

With regard for your specific request for an explanation, you are again ignoring all the posts made on this talk page. I repeat - for what is perhaps the fourth or fifth time - two one-line mentions of Torossian's book, one in a Chinese newspaper, and one flagrantly inaccurate reference to the book on Fox News as a best-seller, do not constitute notability by any standard in Misplaced Pages. As for your contention regarding Torossian's political views, discussion of those views constitutes about half of the cited profiles of the man. The clearest statement of those extensively covered views appear in his own published commentaries in notable journals. However, if you have decided unilaterally to ban all reference to those columns in the article, you should at least allow statements of those views that are covered by third parties. It is not a problem to find them, they appear in almost every profile cited in the article. However, you consistently delete these, with aggressive comments that you will delete them again if anyone tries to restore them.

I don't think I can state this any clearer than I have above. But, then, you have either failed or chosen not to understand this in every discussion on this talk page. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, please go ahead and propose specific changes based on reliable third-party sources. But claims of "ignoring reliable sources" could go both ways. It wasn't me who misrepresented Torossian's publisher as a vanity press, who dismissed the Shanghai Daily and Fox News as not "notable publications" or who claimed that an argument while a third person was away on the phone constituted an on-the-record interview. The fact is, the sources for the book are, while still weak, far better than the third-party coverage of all of Torossian's other writings combined, yet you'd prefer to omit what secondary sources say in favor of your own analysis of primary sources. To do so, you ignore the distinction between Torossian's own opinions and his work for his clients (claiming, for example, the New York Times coverage of the West Bank visit Torossian organized for Vallone was an indication of Torossian's political views when the NYT makes no such claim). The Jerusalem Post discusses his past views in some detail, and the activities of his two-year visit to Israel are already mentioned in the article, but of his current views, all we learn is that he says, "I am a Jew and a Zionist at my very core" - with no third-party interpretation of what that statement may mean. Similarly, this Forward article discusses (and is already cited for) his youthful activities; of his current political opinions it only says he backed Bush despite quibbles with the Republicans, quote: "I vote as a Jew, and I vote on Israel." That's again in line with the Jerusalem Times quote. Other than that, there's lots of stuff about his clients, and very little about his own views. In fact, the New York Times says in 2005 that Torossian emphasizes the non-political aspects of his work and explicitly distanced himself from his activist past, quote: "I can't be holding a protest sign up to the cameras, and at the same time stand next to Puff Daddy as his spokesman." Even the Atlantic Monthly piece, written in 2008, says the discussion with Torossian happened "several years ago", in 2004 at the latest. There is not a single one third-party comment on Torossian's post-2004 political opinions. Nowadays, reliable third-party sources don't care about his politics but about his opinion on crisis management and SEO (note that he's again introduced as author of "For Immediate Release", not as columnist for "FrontPage Magazine"). Huon (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ravpapa, my apologies, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. Please review Huon's edits to the English Misplaced Pages (and, if you like, monitor their activity on the help channel, which last time I looked involved Huon dealing with dozens of questions per week or more), and then tell us if you seriously believe there is a possibility that Huon might have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Company ranking

I've removed the claim that the company is the 24th-largest in the US by fees. The O'Dwyer list cited as a source ranks only those companies who supported "fee and employee totals with income tax and W-3 forms" - and it's pretty clear some very large firms, including for example Rubenstein Associates, simply do not do so. Thus it's not 24th-largest in the US, but 24th-largest among those US companies who supplied internal documents to O'Dwyer, which is a pretty useless criterion. Even comparing the companies in the New York Observer list to the ones in the O'Dwyer list, there are enough large companies in the former list but not the latter to mean it's not in the top 25 by fees among all US PR companies. Huon (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Editorials in The Forward

http://forward.com/articles/216599/echoes-of-mccarthyism-in-smear-campaign-against-ne
Forward Forum
Echoes of McCarthyism in Smear Campaign Against New Israel Fund Backers
Do Creators of Attack Ads Have No Sense of Decency?
By Deborah Lipstadt and David Ellenson
March 13, 2015.
... Unfortunately, McCarthy’s tactics are apparently still alive and well in the Jewish community today. Ronn Torossian and Pam Geller have attacked Karen Adler, Alisa Doctoroff, Edith Everett, and Carol Zabar — among the most prominent leaders of our community — as supporters of the BDS campaign against Israel who seek to undermine the Jewish state. Torossian did so in a New York Post opinion piece and Geller’s group has sponsored bus ads repeating the charge.
--Nbauman (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles