Talk:Craig Winn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Year of Birth? 2 Second Imploded Company? 3 self-published author and self-proclaimed 4 First Dot Bomb

[edit] Year of Birth?

Does anyone knows the person's year of birth? -Politicallyincorrectliberal 23:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Imploded Company?

The opening paragraph says he had 2 companies go bust, but only VA is named. What's the second?

Dynesty Lighting. Read again; it is named in the article. Uucp 02:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] self-published author and self-proclaimed

The use of these phrases appears POV motivated and is obviously intended to discredit his work and is not acceptable in a living Bio unless you have a legitimate source. As it stand it is just an inferences , thus OR.--CltFn 10:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of "terrorism expert..." is also OR. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a living BIO so cut out your POV motivated slant.--CltFn 19:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've already established at many other articles that it is you who quite clearly has POV motivated slant. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

well if you want to cite someone saying that he is self-published author and self-proclaimed then go ahead.--CltFn 20:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Winn's books are published by Cricketsong books, "a division of Virginia Publishers, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Winn Company, LLC." [1] That more than qualifies as "self-published." However, I found one third party that referred to Winn as a "terrorism expert," on the American Family Association's site: [2]. While the AFA obviously has a POV, I think that's sufficient to say that he's more than self-proclaimed; he at least has convinced someone that he's an expert. I suggest (and will make this edit) that the intro read, "Craig Winn is an American author who has self-published several books on terrorism and Islam." I think that's accurate, NPOV, and verifiable. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 21:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Dot Bomb

Okay, as you say "per google", here is what google had to say.

There were a total of 48 uses of the phrase "first dot bomb". That included repeat usage on the same websites.

Other than the Craig Winn on Wikipedia page (which is not a primary source), it showed up in two other places- both of them on the www.strategy-business.com website which was a book review of Kuo's book.... as I said before the only one making this reference is Kuo who is not a suitable primary source, especially as he can be seen as a person with an axe to grind and we must conform to WP:BLP. --ProtectWomen 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Uucp, Please read the references on the new edit. This is my second attempt to get you to use the talk page.

First of all, you are using edit summaries to replace communication you should be making on the talk page.

Secondly, you are displaying a profound lack of understanding of the terms "good faith" and "original research".

Good Faith is defined per Wikipedia: "To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." This has nothing to do with trying to use the opinion of a weak secondary source(David Kuo) as if his opinion was fact(ValueAmerica was not the first dot bomb). Facts can't be taken on faith. The intention of other Wikipedia users is what you take on faith.

Also Original research has been superseded by WP:A. Please read those policies.

Another key policy you are disregarding is WP:BLP. Per Wikipedia's policy on writing biographical information about a living person : "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel."

In light of this, I can keep reverting you, and you will be in danger of WP:3RR and I will not. Also, if you do not desist, I will be forced to ask for assistance in keeping you from adding this contentious information about a living person.

Sorry if this seems harsh- it is not personal. I do not know you, nor Mr. Winn, nor Mr. Kuo. This is not personal about any of you. It is about having a factual and quality online encyclopedia. I myself am new and have made quite a few mistakes. Some other users have pointed things out and I've had to read a lot of policies as I go. Anyway, it's good to just learn from those mistakes and move on. So I am about to leave you a message on your page, and then have no choice but to revert this page. Thank you. --ProtectWomen 09:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion. David Kuo wrote a well-reviewed book that called Value America the first dot bomb. We have no reason to doubt Kuo's objectivity, and no evidence that he is wrong. You delete this phrase repeatedly, using different explanations each time. You current explanation, that it may be libellous to Winn, makes little sense to me. The article does not say that Winn is a bad person, only that his company was called "the first dot bomb," which is a clear matter of fact, and footnoted. I will re-insert the fact and the footnote. Uucp 17:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, your saying that it was an early public dot com to go bust, following in the footsteps of boo.com, is misleading. Boo.com was not publicly traded. There may have been public dotcoms that went bust before Value USA, but I don't know of any. Either the reference to public status, or the reference to Boo.com needs to be changed. I will do this now. Uucp 17:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uucp, thank you, I can see more of your rationale here better than the short line given for the edit summary.

Again, a dot bomb refers to the companies who had large amounts of money put in by investors, then the company was not able to return that money to its investors (much less with interest, as an investor hopes). There were countless companies who had millions poured into their company, then had to claim bankruptcy (or were bought by someone else in the case of boo.com). Google was one of the winners of the dot-com boom, but most were not so lucky.

I haven't read the book, so I am taking it on good faith on your part that Kuo actually said it was the first dot bomb. The title of the book is "dot.bomb: My Days and Nights at an Internet Goliath". Notice that it is not "the first dot.bomb: My days and Nights at an Internet"

As a matter of fact, your second reference behind "first 'dot bomb'" does not serve as evidence to back up your claim. It says this:"Craig Winn pitched Value America as the future of retailing to the likes of Paul Allen and FedEx's Fred Smith, but the dot bomb was gone by the end of 2000."

The reference calls it "the dot bomb" which actually CONTRADICTS Kuo's claim that it is the first dot bomb. The fact that they 'do not call it the first dot bomb supports both my position, and reality as well. Value America was not the first dot-bomb. It was not even on CNET's list of Top 10 dot-com flops. But Boo.com is.

Actually, the boo.com reference isn't particularly relevant to the article- and I will remove it. The point is that boo.com flopped before valueamerica did. AND there is not one reliable source who seems to document who the first was- we can only say with 100% certainty that valueamerica was not the first and also has no purpose in this article. --ProtectWomen 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, (1) Kuo did call it the "first" dot bomb. I can find the page reference if you like. (2) The other random footnotes on that line were not inserted by me. Uucp 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will also be adding a link to Wikipedia's page on dot bomb --ProtectWomen 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)