Talk:Bruce McMahan/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Article should stay

Bruce McMahan is notable on account of wealth combined with the fact that the legal conflict between him and his daughter has made him a public figure. It's notable that his public relations firm has been repeatedly blanking the page--I even received an email from them. In consideration of that, I changed my strong wording, but the article should stay. Exeunt 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

DNA Test as primary research

Using the DNA test result as a reference for the sentence about the DNA research seems like primary research. IT would be better to reference an article that discusses the conclusion, rather tham implying that we are drawing a conclusion form a test result. --Kevin Murray 21:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Kevin.--Type Five 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Murray -- the Village Voice article does refer to the vibrator in question. I'm not opposed to quoting the V. Voice article as reference: '

Court records show, for example, that in Sargent Schutt's lawsuit against McMahan, his attorney had a "rabbit" vibrator Schutt found in Linda's luggage tested for DNA. According to the test results, skin cells from Linda and sperm cells from her father were found on the device and its black cover. Five other vibrators were also sent to labs for testing.

However, I do want to clarify that there has been no editorial interpretation from me on this matter. The PDF file of the DNA test results from Identigene states, "Based on the data from the 15 STR loci tested, the Probability of Paternity is 99.9891%." Looking over the table of the (presumably) RFLP restriction mapping, it appears to me that the genetic correlation between the "epithelial cell fraction of the rabbit sex toy" and the "sperm cell fraction of the rabbit sex toy" is incontrovertible, but I have refrained from adding my own interpretation. The information added in my edit is strictly from the lab. Actually, I did round down 99.9891% to 99.989%, which I suppose might be construed as interpretation by some.

Having said that, I'm new to Wiki's editorial process and am always open to constructive input. Goncharov 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Follow up: According to Wiki policy [[1]], the citation of primary sources is discouraged in as far as they are used to advance original theories or conclusions. It states "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." As no interpretation was made, I believe that this is a reasonable endpoint for debate on this particular issue. Goncharov 20:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what Goncharov is saying. My thoughts regarding my interpretation of Wikipedia policies were shot down (though Jimmy Wales makes some of the same points I made in his quotes on the site), so I'll just try to ask in layman's terms, what is the verifiability of the DNA data if as has been posted by one of the editors, this matter never went to court? How does the finding of a woman's skin cells on something prove that a sexual act took place between two parties? Doesn't the mere inclusion of this information imply so? Even the insertion of the word however before citing. Also, it appears that the other media outlets cited merely picked up this story from the original tabloid/alternative paper. As far as the debate regarding whether the original stub entry met the requirement for notoriety, if these two people weren't known before, they certainly will be now. Type Five 21:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Type Five -- Thanks for conveying your thoughts in language that is comprehensible to a layman like me. I'll try to address the issues you raised. You question the verifiability of the DNA test that never went to court. As I understand, matters are verified all the time scientifically without going to court. If I am correct, the mercury in my thermometer was permitted to drop overnight without a dissenting opinion from Justice Scalia. I also suspect that he did not have a hand in determining my blood type, either, although I cannot altogether exclude that possibility. (It is A, for what it's worth.) Since I have seen no evidence to challenge the third party neutrality of Identigene, the lab responsible for the report, I believe the passage should stand.

As for whether the inclusion of the DNA test in the entry implies sexual acts between père and fille McMahan, I do not believe that to be a matter for Wiki to decide. It is included as a primary source that was mentioned in the articles. Although I personally find it beyond the pale of plausibility that a daughter would somehow procure her father's semen for extortion, I believe that my own opinions should have no bearing on the writing of the entry. Again, let me stress that the DNA test is cited not to advance my own theories, but as supporting document that was cited in the articles. In fact, I am glad that you raised this issue, because there are several additional supporting documents, all mentioned in the article, that would strengthen the Wiki entry. These include: McMahan's paternity test from 1990, his sworn affidavit denying incest, an excerpt from Linda Schutt's court complaint against McMahan, and finally, video clips of her deposition, in which she describes the alleged courtship, incestuous sex, and the wedding ceremony. I will add these citations as time allows. --Goncharov 23:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Reversion --Kevin Murray 08:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a highly charged situation and there seems to be a battle between those trying to embarass the subject and those trying to whitewash.

STOP THE WAR!

Let's leave the sex aspect out of the opening paragraph and keep it in a less prominent position.

Peace & reality please.

--Kevin Murray 08:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nole7 and Goncharov are both suspected sockpuppets (opposing sides) that seem to have appeared for the single purpose of manipulating this article (and related subjects) post AfD. --Kevin Murray 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Goncharov is not a sock puppet, but I am acquainted with him from another forum. He jumped into the fray after I mentioned to him how an attorney was actively manipulating a Wikipedia article.
I happen to know for a fact that Nole7 is a sockpuppet, because Nole7 was part of the address of the attorney who emailed me.
Kevin, remember that just because someone vocally opposes some wording doesn't make it biased or inappropriate. The person behind the edits is in the employ of Mr. McMahan and is operating on the sole principle of trying to preserve his client's reputation. Compromising between my position and his unfairly biases the article in favor of Mr. McMahan.
I also disagree that the information on the legal accusations should be tucked in a less prominent place. It's intrinsically tied to what makes him notable. Just because his attorney complains and is actively and abusively manipulating Wikipedia doesn't mean you should make concessions to him. Exeunt 21:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In such a short article the nature of the allegations are inherently prominent without specifically stating it to be so in the intro. paragraph. I see a risk of two things: (1) editorializing beyond the verifiable facts, and (2) diminishing the stature of WP as a gossip sheet. I supported the inclusion of this article at the AfD, but if it becomes overly sensationalized to the detriment of WP, I'll support the next AfD. --Kevin Murray 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Exeunt, your fervor here makes me question your independence. I don't beleive that you came here with a bias, but I think you are becoming too emotionally involved. Maybe you should stand back for a breather and get perspective. I do support your abhorence of the opposing tactics, but don't be drawn down by the fray. Good luck! --Kevin Murray 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What struck me early on was the hostility and agenda of the original author. The first entry was a short sentence that merely stated the name of the subject, their job postion in a company, and a statement that this person had sex with his biological daughter. Apparently he was contacted by a legal or PR firm (not me as I was accused of bing) and then he amended it to say alleged, there was a tirade, and then an honest debate ensued, and then it got pretty ugly in terms of what Wikipedia is or is not. Is this about editorial egos or about the dignity of what this site represents worldwide? So, what might be useful is a discussion now of similar types of entries on Wikipedia and since some of the sources that are listed like Deal Breaker, etc come up as "Wall Street Tabloid" for instance, what is a reliable source? Good stuff to debate hereType Five 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Type Five, you've got a knack for making good points and sound like a reasonably objective person, but as a single-purpose editior who has not developed a user page to let us know a bit about you etc, your position here is somewhat suspect. I suggest that you hang-around for a while, make some contributions, and then get into a discussion about what WP should and shouldn't be. WP is an open "club" but respect here comes from dedication and familiarity. Good Luck! --Kevin Murray 21:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm a woman, I've been around on this earth for five decades, at least this time around, have a graduate level education, I'm not an academic, rather I've owned and/or managed a number of businesses in my life, and have a strong background in international business. Though I don't see how anyone could have a neutral perspective about the content ot the quality of the article, I have tried to make some objective points. I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, it's my right hand when I need to know something. I am also familiar with its philosophical beginnings and the fame of its founder. Thank you for your insights and advice. Type Five 14:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

For the second time user:12.22.101.162 has removed the bulk of the article and the reference material at Bruce McMahan. The article was reverted at 00:49, 9 February 2007, and the user was given a second warning --Kevin Murray 00:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The edits made are according to the listed guidelines for removal of information from biographies of living persons re: citations and verifiability. This is not vandalism, I gave my reasons for the edit in the box.Type Five 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Type Five, when you don't log in all we see at the edit summary is the IP address. Are you one in the same with user:12.22.101.162?

That is not my IP addressType Five 17:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that you are walking a fine line here between vandalism and editing when you continue to remove well documented text without achieving consensus with your fellow editors. Your motivations are also questionable since you are what is known as a "single purpose editor". As I have suggested before, a preferred method of achieving NPOV is to offer a balance. If you have verifiable information that contradicts the current version it should be included, or used as a justification for removal of the current information. Continued blanking just won't work, and only weakens your case.

I think you misidentified me here. I made two small edits which I explained on your user page in response to your message.Type Five 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely satisfied with the article since the bad news dominates. I'd prefer to see more positive information, and I have been pretty aggressive in keeping the NPOV by removing inflamatory edits from the "other side", and keeping the bad news out of the introductory paragraph.

Let's try to work together.

Sincerely,

Kevin --Kevin Murray 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

References and primary resarch

The very specific DNA discussion in tha last paragraph appeared to be primary research and I so noted last week, suggesting that the infomation be limited to conclusions reached by verifiable sources. Since then the link to the DNA document has been "broken" by the Village Voice, and a tag was placed at that address stating that the VV does not allow other webpages to link directly to their documents pages. I think that without strong evidence WP is skating on thin ice by drawing conclusions. I have rewritten the text to only include the sepcific conclusion reached by the writer of the VV article (in paraphrase). It might be even safer to use a direct quote. Regardless, the sentence now cites the VV as the source of the information in a footnote. Since the author of the sentence has not taken steps to remedy the lack of a citation and refute the assertion of primary research, I think that consensus was reached by default, and in trying to meet at a middle ground with Type Five. --Kevin Murray 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

Bruce McMahan is a private citizen. He is neither a public figure or notable. Wikipedia defines notability as being the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. This criteria is not met here. Dr. McMahan was the target of only one libelous article, which was factually incorrect and one-sided. It was written by a young, ambitious writer and published in a small Florida weekly tabloid, The Broward-Palm Beach New Times. Because of the absurdity of the article, it was picked up in other media, demonstrating these published works were not independent of each other. More importantly, the article is not verifiable. No publisher has ever verified the purported "facts" that are defamatorily stated as "true" in the article. The article is a fictional piece borne from a young journalist's relentless desire for success. The article is premised on nothing more than mere allegations that were never determined in a court of law, but rather purportedly derived from "sources" whose identities and basis for knowledge never materialized and are not stated in the article. For example, the article quotes "people close to the litigation" to substantiate its alleged facts. The article violates all journalistic integrity and tarnishes the reputation of innocent individuals, families and corporations solely in the name of profit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for reliable and verifiable information, as opposed to a resource for "infotainment." The article, if reprinted in any part on Wikipedia, is not only a surrender to tabloid journalism, but Wikipedia is permitted to be used as a weapon to attack innocent individuals in the name of purported "journalism." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nole7 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

the Union Institute, a private distance learning institute.[1]

This description of the Union Institute seems inconsistent with other WP articles. We don't generally make comments about the nature or quality of an institution at the bio page, especially when there is a direct link to the institution's WP article within the text. I'd like to discuss removing the phrase: "a private distance learning institute" --Kevin Murray 16:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverted undiscussed deletion of legal document

Exuent deleted a recently added legal document. I think that we should try to set a policy of discussing changes here to gain consensus before making changes. Of course the addition wasn't discussed either, but as the harm is not obvious let's give it the benefit of the doubt. It appears to me to be one of the five cases mentioned in the text. As the allegations are not brought by McMahan and have to do with his daughter's actions, is it pertinent to this article? --Kevin Murray 16:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


As a balance I added the following and moved all pdf files to an exhibits section

Deletion of this article

I'm willing to discuss the deletion/modification of this article. These were unproven allegations that were placed in a tabloid newspaper, which cited to unidentified sources to support its purported facts. How reliable is that? Now, setting aside the fact these allegations are defamatory and unproven, is this the type of inappropriate content we want to put on wikipedia? I do not believe I was acting unreasonably in removing the inappropriate content, and I'm more than willing to engage in a discussion about it. In fact, I earlier modified the article to saying "In 2006, Dr. McMahan was accused of having an unnatural relationship with his daughter. These allegations were never proven." This was a factual statement that referenced the inappropriate allegations. However, even this wasn't good enough for certain Wikipedia users, who deleted my aforementioned excerpt in favor of a lengthy and unnecessary description of these unproven allegations. Given the inappropriate nature of these allegations, coupled with the fact they are unproven, I don't understand why someone would be so insistent on posting such a lengthy explanation relating to such allegations. I'm insistent on the removal of this specific material, because no individual or entity should be associated with something this inappropriate that has never been proven. Nole7 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that you are in a position to insist on anything, but I'm inclined to work toward a more balanced article. Including a cleaner mention of the incedent. However the notability is substantially the result of the allegations and court actions. --Kevin Murray 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm not sure the logic of your notability argument works. People are sued over outrageous claims every day of the week. Does that make them all notable? Or has there merely been an effort to create notability in order to expand the original stub.Type Five 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Working Copy for Discussion

Here is a copy of the disputed text. Let's see if we can come to a compromise in the range of a 30% reduction for starters. Please strikeout unewanted text, and add text in bold --Kevin Murray 00:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In October 2006 a London tabloid, the Evening Standard, reported the following: "Hedge fund operator Bruce McMahan ... the man behind the billion-dollar Argent Financial Group is accused of having sex with, and then marrying, his daughter. She says they were "married" at Westminster Abbey in 2004." Linda Schutt, his biological daughter, who was raised by adoptive parents through adulthood, has claimed in a lawsuit, that she had a sexual relationship with him. Documents from this suit became the source of information for a series of articles in the Broward-Palm Beach New Times. On September 13 2006, five lawsuits pertaining to this matter were settled on undisclosed terms [3].

Many court documents have been sealed as part of the settlement of the lawsuits, and many of the allegations are therefore difficult to verify or discredit. However, based on an examination of court papers, the media has reported that DNA from both McMahan and Schutt was discovered on a sex device [4].

The main problem I have with that paragraph is that it relies on the Evening Standard's summary. It's a concise summary but a tad biased, for one thing, and it makes it sound like they broke the story. In fact their story was largely based on the B-PBNT story (with local color and emphasis). I think it's worth mentioning that there was UK interest in the story, but it shouldn't be the focus of the paragraph. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I added that quote a while back and removed WP narative, so that there could be no accusation that WP editors were overstating, interpreting etc., but I am equally unhappy with the result. --Kevin Murray 05:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, what is the source for that since it figures so prominently in the article and tabloid papers pick stuff up all the time to fill their papers.Type Five 18:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

illegal docuements being posted

A Florida Complaint was recently posted as an exhibit to this article. This document was posted in violation of a court order. It is illegal to re-post this document —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.22.101.162 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

  • This seems odd and in contradiction to the Freedom of Information Act. Considering the past actions of user:12.22.101.162 and the unsigned post, I'm inclined to want to see more information before assuming good faith --Kevin Murray 21:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


Discussion of journalistic integrity

I have been watching this "edit war" for quite some time, and I am rather puzzled that this article has not yet been deleted. The articles this biographic stub are based on are clearly libelous. As a researcher who likes to rely on Wikipedia, it troubles me that Wikipedia would let something like this stay. It troubled me enough, in fact, that I abandoned my usual "lurker" mode and have become an editor in order to get this comments to you, after having tried to contact Kevin Murray individually and gotten no response. I am a journalist and academic researcher; I have written two books on historical issues, I say this so that you can understand my perspective. What I have done is a careful analysis of the original five articles on this case. Any experienced journalist who read them would agree that the original articles do not follow even the most minimal journalistic practices, especially the original article by Kelly Kramer. All of the articles basically recycle her unsupported allegations, sometimes embroidering on them in order to appear new and original. Most of these articles are not even cited on this page; it seems very strange to me that the Village Voice is given such credence when it is owned by the same media conglomerate that owns the New Times.

  • If you want to communicate with Kevin Murray please do so at my talk page. I have received no communication from you. --Kevin Murray 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

POV essay by CabbageFairy (talk · contribs) removed as off-topic per Talk page guidelines.--Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • C-fairy, your credibility is diminshed by stating that you've tried to contact me when there is no such record at my talk page. However, I read through your discussion above. I'm convinced that tabloid journalists are inherently biased toward sensationalism, but I don't see any compelling reason to eliminate the article. Our article does not judge the veracity of the charges; it only reports the allegation and the resolution. I suggest that you work on balancing the article. Above, I proposed that we try a collaborative effort at reworking that paragraph. --Kevin Murray 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Cabbagefairy, that's interesting criticism. If it is published in a reputable journal, we could use it as a source. As it is, it doesn't belong in this Talk page. If you wish to know why the article was not deleted, please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:Bruce McMahan, which shows that a large number of editors believed it was sufficiently backed by citation to external sources to exist within the Wikipedia framework. --Dhartung | Talk 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Interestingly, the most recent (2/22) Broward article rather convincingly (IMHO) argues that Cabbage Fairy may in fact be one Alison McMahan, D. Bruce's oldest daughter. If true, her failure to disclose this conflict of interest in her posts would seem to blow her claim to a higher ground of journalistic "integrity" out of the water.Ronstock 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Court Filings

There were two court filings listed as references at the article, both have been removed as potential problems with little added value to the article. --Kevin Murray 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

McMahan article

I was browsing and noticed the mcmahan article, and the posting about his relationship with his daughter. I don't see why this information should be on a neutral online encyclopedia. Looking at the history, it seems this negative posting is being fueled by too much emotion. It started simple and kept being expanded for no reason. This portion of the article shouldn't be on wikipedia, especially since it is about a court case that has sealed documents.

Inchaway 07:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Inchaway is single purpose user. Reverted ongoing vandalism again at article. --Kevin Murray 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, with all due respect to your editor status, it is very easy to be intimidating from behind a computer screen. The original stub was obviously posted without respect to harm or to do harm. As for who is editing, who on earth would be interested in this trash except for single source editors or people who knew the parties involved. You have a great link on your user page to NPOV guidelines. I find the direction regarding media bias, sensationalism, and notability, and presumption of harm quite informative. Since I don't believe the war is going to stop here, perhaps there is another step, arbitration for instance. Type Five 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Type 5, in a way this has been through an arbitration process at articles for deletion twice. As this is a careful compromise at this point, large deletions by unrecognized single purpose editors are suspected as biased or vandalism. I would be happy to see a better article, but as long as opponents to this article delete large portions almost daily it is hard to take the position seriously. You mentioned at my talk page that the court documents should not have been removed. Someone else is claiming that at least one record is sealed and that our publishing it is in violation of a Florida court order. Although I don't see that as binding outside of Florida, I don't see the value added of either complaint if we have third party articles citing the same information. I'm trying to stay neutral here, so when the pro McM group put up the one complaint, I posted the other, so when one came down they both came down. Personally I would welcome a formal arbitration, as I have no interest pro or con, except objecting to the methods of the people trying to sensor the article. --Kevin Murray 20:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mcmahan article - inappropriate content in article should be removed

The excerpt on McMahan and his daughter shouldn't be in wikipedia. By the article's own admission, these allegations relate to an action that has court-sealed documents, so why is this up. Also, these are harsh allegations that have never been proven, and come from a tabloid newspaper. If wikipedia permitted stuff from tabloids to be posted in Wikipedia, how credible do you think Wikipedia would be? This should be removed.

Shadownorman 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One more brand new single-purpose user stating the same unsupported garbage. Content restored. --Kevin Murray 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Good news

I'm happy to see more positive information coming into the article. --Kevin Murray 22:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there has been enough support for me to tone down the paragraph about the Shutt affair. I had asked for a cooperative edit above, but since neither pro or con has participated other than blanking text, I'll go for the middle ground on my own, and based on comments above. --Kevin Murray 22:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would not contest the removal of exhibits and references from the article by an administrator or by an editor who joined WP at least 3 months prior to this article being written. As it stands I don't really care much for the article, but I am infuriated by the manipulation of our processes, and I will continue to fight daily to prevent this vandalism. --Kevin Murray 22:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I share with you the frustration that outsiders with a conflict of interest are attempting to force removal of properly cited material, no matter how embarrasing. It was in the media, it has been widely reported, and it's not going to just go away. I support the edits you have made (I thought the DNA sentence was particularly unnecessary). I had not had the time to review the sources and rework the article wording myself. I thought it was apropriate to expand his biography per WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy. --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It is good to have your help and support on this. I like the expanded bio.
I would like to see "distance learning" removed from his educational info. I've not seen that before in other articles and think it was put in out of spite. --Kevin Murray 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

McMahan Article

The language of the article is improved and less biased. I have removed the exhibits that are unrelated to the article.

Nole7 19:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nole, you have been warned not to remove information until consensus is reached. We are trying to be fair, but you are bucking the system. If you can get support I will happily remove these. --Kevin Murray 19:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, there's an entry on Wikipedia regarding the Union Institute that supports your thoughts and shows the university to be well respected in the academic world and fully accredited. Maybe a consensus could come from referring to that entry.Type Five 23:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Type Five, our blue link "refers" to that entry regardless. I don't personally find "distance learning" pejorative in itself, having taken such courses and having worked in the development of online courseware (in fact, I investigated the prior incarnation of the Institute, among others, at one time), but I don't see a strong reason for it being here. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
In that paragraph that discusses the incest allegations, I changed "other tabloid journals" to "other publications", because I felt "tabloid" was a biased and perjorative designation, and it was changing the entire tone of the paragraph. The Village Voice is a highly reputable publication with a distinguished reputation, and hardly deserves to be lumped into the same category as The National Enquirer. I feel that keeping "other publications" as the description is critical for maintaining NPOV in this paragraph. Does anyone agree with me? Ronstock 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with some of what you say, but this is compromised from a more complicated text. You might want to look a bit closer at the "new" Voice. I initially felt as you do, but a bit of research shows that (a) the Voice and the Broward Times are under common ownership and that they are both in the grayer areas of tabloid. --Kevin Murray 22:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
New Times chain of tabloids bought Village Voice, same article appeared there as a reprint not as an original work.CJ Review 22:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the edification, Kevin. Ronstock 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, I think Ronstock is correct here. The wording "tabloid publications" is intended to cast doubt on the accuracy or sobriety of the reporting. That may be valid, but it is not NPOV. --Dhartung | Talk 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel stongly about this, but it did help to achieve a balance among the parties. I originally opposed the word "tabloid" but relaxed my position. I'll go with the flow here. --Kevin Murray 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Court-Sealed and Unrelated Exhibits

In accordance with a suggestion an editor previously made, I would like to propose a minor change to the website and see if I can get majority support before any change is actually made. Preliminarily, I would like to say that I understand and appreciate the dialogue that has taken place among the editors regarding the issues relating to the McMahan article. This dialogue has moved the article towards a less biased and more neutral tone, which is appropriate. The change I would like to propose is the removal of the exhibits relating to the supposed "DNA and paternity tests." As the article now reflects, these exhibits are part of court-sealed documents relating to a series of lawsuits that have now been dismissed and resolved. The only lawsuit that was not sealed was a Connecticut lawsuit initiated by Dr. McMahan, to which these exhibits were completely unrelated. In addition to these exhibits being part of court-sealed documents, they add little value to the article and raise scientific issues that aren't appropriate for discussion among Wikipedia editors. Moreover, the current tone or posture of the article will not be altered in any way by the removal of these exhibits. Consequently, the appropriate action should be to have these exhibits removed.

Nole7 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing discussion for some time. I oppose the removal of that which has remained by the consensus of the past editors, unless several editors other than recent single purpose editors support the removal. --Kevin Murray 04:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more with Nole7's "logic". It seems like yet another change in tactics by the Pro-McMahan sock puppets. Whereas before they perpetuated the misinformation that all five court cases hand been sealed by the courts, now that the truth has been exposed that only four of the cases have been sealed, all of a sudden the argument shifts to "well, okay, only four are actually sealed, but the documents that are posted are from one of the cases that are sealed, so they should be taken down. Besides, the documents don't affect the tone of the article anyway, so there's no harm in taking them down." That last statement is almost laughable. If the two documents don't affect the tone or posture of the piece, then why the big push to have them removed? I view this as just another attempt to further whitewash and dilute an article that the Pro-McMahan camp has already succeeded in making ridiculously bland. McMahan is arguably most notable for an incest scandal that has rocked Wall Street, South Florida and points well beyond. To further diminish that notablility by removing the two documents that may go furthest towards proving the allegations against McMahan is completely inappropriate and uncalled for.Ronstock 23:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Murray, I appreciate your comment and feedback. However, I wanted to point out a bit of an inconsistency. You originally added these exhibits without first getting a consensus, but are now requiring a consensus before they are removed. Regardless, I am fine with your suggestion of getting a consensus. However, it is inappropriate and unfair to label the people who might support removal of the exhibits, and/or who previously commented that the article on Dr. McMahan was biased, as "single-purpose" users, "sock-puppets" and part of the "McMahan camp" simply because of the particular opinion they have. It would further be inappropriate to not consider every user's opinion, and instead consider just the ones that you happen to personally agree with. In fact, simply because someone has not been a frequent Wikipedia editor doesn't mean they aren't a frequent Wikipedia user or that their opinion on a particular issue is less valued. In response to Ronstock's comments, all lawsuits relating to the contested comment of this article have been sealed. The Connecticut action, which is the only one that hasn't been sealed, was a lawsuit brought by Dr. McMahan, not one in which he was being sued or that concerned the subject of the article. If the majority of editors feel the exhibits should be removed, then they should be removed. Finally, contrary to Ronstock's comment, it is a stretch of both reason and the law to say that the exhibits "prove" anything let alone the allegations made in the New Times article. The reference to the exhibits adds nothing to the article and is misleading and offensive. Nole7 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Taking pot shots at someone who is trying keep this neutral isn't supporting your case. The docs were posted in a compromise to get the info to be less prominent in the text and leave it for the readers interpretations. As to puppetry and single purpose, these are concerns by several editors and which I can't refute based on actions. That you and others popped up at WP after this all started and that this is the only article to which you contribute is pretty clear proof of single purpose usage. --Kevin Murray 23:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see Nole7 honestly answer a couple of simple questions. Nole7: 1. Are you an attorney?; 2. Are you an employee, independent contractor, associate, partner or otherwise employed by the law firm of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP?; and 3. Are you employed by, on retainer for or otherwise in any way under contract (or other agreement) to work for and/or on behalf of Bruce McMahan, any member of his family, or for any business entity in which McMahan is an owner, member, manager, shareholder, director or officer? These questions are meant to determine your level of bias or impartiality, and also your credibility.Ronstock 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These exhibits should be taken down. The people that support these exhibits remaining as part of the article have not been able to respond to the fact that the exhibits relate to an action that has been sealed by the Court. The other editors keep bringing up this Connecticut action that is unsealed, but it has been asserted that the exhibits don't relate to that action. Assuming this statement is accurate, the exhibits should be removed. Also, we've now reached a point where editors are improperly asking other editors to divulge their identity. That is absurd. I don't understand how someone could post, or support the posting of exhibits relating to an action that has been sealed by the court, and at the same time accuse other people of being biased. Inchaway 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been so asserted, but only by editors who are almost certainly compromised by a conflict of interest, and like you, are single-purpose accounts. Enforcement of Wikipedia policy should bow to verifiable facts, not potentially biased assertions. Do note: bias is not the same as prejudice. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Inchaway is a new single purpose user. Please be more creative in your illusions. --Kevin Murray 03:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, I don't understand your comment. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I was pointing to the illusion of objective concern that Inchaway is trying to create, rather uncreatively. What a crock! --Kevin Murray 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
(Inchaway), if you are referring to me, I have not posted any exhibits. I merely added a sentence which stated that the exhibits are still freely available on a particular web site, and included a link to said web site in the "external links" footnotes. Your repeated posts about taking the already-posted exhibits down are growing rather tiresome. Quite frankly, if you had a legal foot to stand on, you and the other sockpuppets would have already litigated to enjoin the Broward-Palm Beach New Times from continuing to display the disputed exhibits on their web site by now. Clearly this has not been done, so let that serve as refutation of your specious legal arguments for their removal. As such, I beseech you, on behalf of all reasonable Wikipedia readers and contributors: Please spare us all any further quasi-legal chest puffing. Wikipedia is an open-source forum for developing and sharing knowledge. It is not a forum for arguing your client's guilt or innocence in a notorious incest scandal, nor for mitigating his embarrassment for his association therewith. Lastly, as for my asking posters (Nole7) to divulge their "identity", I think that's a fair request, given their clear bias and conflict of interest. It doesn't really matter if Nole7 responds or not. I'm already confident that I have the paper trail to document who they are, and who they are working for. Take that to mean anything you like.Ronstock 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Ronstock, I would prefer that you step back from personal attacks (e.g. "tiresome") and avoid making apparent legal threats. We can certainly all observe WP:CIVIL in this discussion no matter our position. Sensitivity demands it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call my last post a "personal attack", or even an attack period. I was merely questioning and criticizing Inchaway's bullying tactics and shaky legal arguments, not the poster personally. As for me making "apparent legal threats", I'll at a loss for how you came to that conclusion. I was merely referring to a previous poster noting that "Nole7" was part of an email address from which another poster to this forum has noted receiving an email from the firm of Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif LLP regarding posts about McMahan. However, in the interest of civility, I'm not going to make any new postings to this article. Baring further developments, I don't think there's anything more for me to say. Ronstock 14:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Newest article

Dhartung and Kevin: After reading the newest article (posted by a new editor Ronstock) fom the tabloid New Times, with Wikipedia's counsel cited as the impetus for the most scathing attack on a person I have ever personally read, I am aghast. I have had my own bias as this has progressed, particulary if you look at my prior posts about what Wikipedia is and is not, guidelines for bios, etc. But a fair consensus was reached with the help of Kevin for a bio that was not typical Wiki fare, That has now defintely been blown out the window big time. There is still a pdf of the CT case in the Wiki archives and the new article mentions it in a significant way. When you open it, it is a case against the woman for extortion, computer theft, etc. If it isn't sealed as is stated in the New Times article, maybe it should be back up there. Your thoughts?? Also, maybe alternative media is a compromise between tabloid and media.Type Five 01:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, Type Five? Of the New Times article, the court filing, or the Wikipedia article, which are you saying is the "scathing attack"? How is counsel Patrick "cited as the impetus"? It seems his role was minor, as no action has been taken. I have my concerns about the length of the follow-up paragraph as well as self-reference. As for the other document, I was not to this point aware that it existed, let alone uploaded here. I'm concerned that drawing information from the court case directly would be original research. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean you're "aghast" by the fact that Wikipedia's own GC called you out as a sockpuppet and malicious editor? No surprise here. Exeunt 22:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Type Five, Nole7 and Inchaway clearly have a biased agenda, and appear to actively be working on behalf of McMahan--if not in his employ--to sanitize this article. This isn't going to end any time soon.Ronstock 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget Shadownorman and a variety of anonymous IPs. Sunrainprods is another suspicious single-purpose user who pretty much created the National Cristina Foundation by copying the charitable foundation's literature. Exeunt 02:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Do a Google search sometime on McMahan's litigation history. He has an alleged history of fighting dirty--for years at a time. We're talking about a man who is nearly a billionaire who has a very vested interest in not being publicly embarrassed. To be honest, I've been reluctant lately to post at all, out of fear of being sued. I can't say I like to admit that, but I (try to) live in reality. I'm sure his lawyers and other various sycophants will delight in hearing that.Ronstock 03:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is productive discussion. --Kevin Murray 03:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, but I also respect your opinion and right to express it. We're discussing an ongoing problem that will or may continue to be an ongoing problem (hence the "ongoing" part). An army of apparent SPUs are attempting to blunt-force-attack this article in a direction of their choosing. This very well may continue to be status quo indefinitely. I think, therefore, that it's worthy of ongoing (damn, there's that word again) discussion--even if you don't feel that the discussion is necessarily "productive." Sorry for all the "ongoings" and "discussions"....Ronstock 03:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer not speculating on Mr McMahan's past and future actions etc. However, I do think that recognizing SPU and socks is valid. I agree that this could go on, but we should keep it above the personal level. I am not particularly excited about this topic's notability credentials, but I am more concerned that there is manipulation of our processes going on. Overall I think Mr. M seems to be a decent and interesting fellow, and I'm not one to judge his conduct as right or wrong, or to speculate whether the charges are founded. But it is a controversy walking the fine line of notability. --Kevin Murray 03:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose contributors

The following contributors have single purpose histories or limited contributions outside of the article or others closely linked to this subject as of 3-8-07:

--Kevin Murray 03:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for lumping me in with Bruce McMahan's family members and attorneys on retainer. This is why I've refrained from further activity after my initial participation. Kevin Murray, despite your verbal torrent on this discussion page, I think the points you've raised are largely tangential, irrelevant, or outright wrong. Let me point out that neutrality emphatically does not mean situating yourself at the exact midpoint between two perceived extremes. As for disclosure of conflict of interest, I have none. I am just a graduate student who enjoyed Wiki but did not feel compelled to become a registered contributor until I was told of McMahan & Co.'s apparent attempt to whitewash Wiki. As for being a sockpuppet or whatever terms you deploy to describe me, if arguing for the scientific, legal, and arguably epistemological validity of McMahan and daughter's DNA test is sockpuppetry, then mea culpa, I suppose. By the way, I think the Broward-Palm Beach New Times writer had it right on how McMahan's Wiki entry should be written. For the purposes of Wiki, noting McMahan's penchant for horology is, IMO, entirely fatuous. I sincerely hope this helps. Goncharov 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but in the assessment of the situation, your participation at WP shows limited involvement outside of these issues. There is no accusation of sock puppetry or evaluation of the contribution in this list, just a notation of limited involvement. This list is purely based on statisitics of contributions, not longevity at WP, or trying to evaluate which the purpose of your comments. --Kevin Murray 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Goncharov, I don't think that Kevin Murray was accusing anyone. But if you want to be viewed as having a broader interest in the Wikipedia project and a background of edits by which we may judge you, being limited to editing this one article is going to give you a limited reputation. As for how the article "should be written", the New Times is a newspaper; we're an encyclopedia. We can't "lead" with the interesting parts just for sensationalism. The New Times writers obviously did not understand that when they made that (possibly unserious) observation. -- Dhartung | Talk 17:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean to say when KM wrote the following...
"Nole7 and Goncharov are both suspected sockpuppets (opposing sides) that seem to have appeared for the single purpose of manipulating this article (and related subjects) post AfD. --Kevin Murray 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)"
...that he wasn't accusing Goncharov of being a sockpuppet? I completely agree with Goncharov; KM's attempted moderation of this discussion, especially his elevation of himself, seems counterproductive, especially when he takes the real sockpuppets seriously. Planting oneself exactly between two extremes does not miraculously make one neutral. Exeunt 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
All I'm trying to do is keep discussion civil here, Exeunt. I don't have a side, but other people do, and I obviously don't keep perfect track of who's on what side. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets exists if anyone feels there is sufficent disruption and proof thereof. Conducting an argument on this talk page is pointless. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clear that I was referring to this quote from one of the follow-up articles:

But how hard could it be to summarize McMahan's stunning deeds in a Wikipedia entry? Here's what Tailpipe would have written: "Born in California and raised by a furniture tycoon, McMahan became a wealthy hedge-fund manager who, in 1990, discovered that besides his six other children, a woman of 20 named Linda Marie Hodge (later Linda Schutt) claimed to be his biological spawn, the result of a 1969 affair. A paternity test proved that Linda was, in fact, McMahan's daughter, and he welcomed her into the family, helped pay for her graduate studies, and then provided her with lucrative employment in his financial empire. However, in litigation spanning five U.S. states, Linda later alleged that in 1998, McMahan began a years-long sexual relationship with her, culminating in a bizarre wedding ritual the two allegedly staged at Westminster Abbey in 2004. To back up Linda's claims, attorneys introduced photographs of the Westminster Abbey event, salacious e-mails between McMahan and his daughter, and a DNA test performed on a vibrator Linda's legal husband had retrieved from her luggage, which was found to be coated with Linda's skin cells and the sperm cells of her biological father. After news of the litigation broke in New Times Broward-Palm Beach, however, McMahan paid an undisclosed amount to settle the lawsuits, and he has managed to seal four out of five of them."

Goncharov 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Goncharov, you can protest all that you want, but your record stands as a SPU. I'll call a spade a spade and if it offends you that's the way it is. This has no bearing on the content of the article, but your participation remains questionable in my mind, and thus your participation suspect. --Kevin Murray 18:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the badly needed clarification. Being reassured of your single purpose judgment of me, I can finally lapse into my single purpose slumber at night. I'll gladly appease you and the likes and refrain from further participation on this article. With a single purpose of heart, I hope this helps. Goncharov 20:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I made some changes. The lead section was unacceptable as it was by the plain guidelines set down by Wikipedia:Lead section, which states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." The rest of the article was unorganized and filled with unimportant details; does it matter that McMahan bought Admiral Nelson's watch, or was it so notable that he's the largest donor in his USC fraternity's history that the fact had to be mentioned in the lead section at the expense of everything else? Enough of the obfuscation by the sockpuppets. Exeunt 20:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Practically the entire article used to be one or two paragraphs, and it only had sections at all recently. I restored McMahan's fraternity as that is frequently found in biography articles; as for the watch and the donor bit, I thought they were interesting at a point when I was trying to add more sourced material rather than simply regurgitate/reorganize the New Times information. I assure you, if that was your point, that it was not "obfuscation" -- they were simply among the rare available public information about the man, and they established his notability outside of his notoriety, which was an issue at AFD. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Kevin and Dhartung, The current edit war and the joint efforts of a number of parties now constitute an even more blatant attempt to do damage, perhaps to up the public level of the controversy further. The article has been edited far beyone its level of importance and it is now an obsession for three of the editors. Why? Let's see this for what it really is, the agenda has been and still is to try and hang this man and his family.

Every attempt is being made to create more sensationalism, post more tabloid trash in buddy buddy posts on user and talk pages, escalate the level of notoriety, etc. Go back to my original challenge to editors, show me a similar opening stub that developed into such an article. Newest info indicates he has seven children. I shudder to think of being one of those children with this as my family online legacy for perpetuity on Wikipedia. The fact that an extortion case was filed and is part of the picture (still in the Wiki archives) was ignored and after posted was removed as irrelevant. It seems as if it is okay to attack Cabbage Fairy and her jounalistic integrity, if as accused a cursory internet search shows her to be a well-respected documentarian, academic and author, but a tabloid newspaper (which does regular hatchet jobs on people) is the source of "good in the garden of evil." The last article doesn't even have a byline and brings Wiki's legal counsel into the fray.

The original stub was posted with clear bias, now we're back to day one with the fact that the man was sued being worthy of an opening salvo in the article. Of course this is not an article that engenders neutrality, it never belonged here in the first place. And what is wrong with editors who have a different point of view or may be related to this issue? Does a person have no right to defend their public persona on Wikipedia when something so controversial is going on? I edit under another user name now just because of the legal aspects of this matter and the attention Wikipedia is garnering as a result. Like I said before, if these two people didn't have notoriety before, they certainly have a good dose of it now. Let's look for some balance here and my recent changes are a least a place to start some consensus.Type Five 15:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit attempts were immediately reverted by ExeuntType Five 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to mentiion both the charitable work and lawsuits in the lead paragraph. The lawsuits eeem irrelevant without mentioning the key focus, and without mentioning the adoptive aspect it seems too stark. Perhaps another approach is to mention lawsuits in the lead without the specifics, but move the paragraph about this issue to follow the lead. It is the source of notablility. I think we should be accurate, but what is the motivation to persecute the man? I understand the emotion from the one side, but the inclussionary side seems to have a bit of an angry agenda here. Both concern me. --Kevin Murray 18:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Type Five, you might want to avoid citing "Cabbage Fairy" as an example of "integrity" since this poster has already been identified as possibly being McMahan's own daughter.Ronstock 21:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
p.s. Type Five, would you also care to elaborate on your libelous/slanderous comment regarding an "extortion" case have been filed? Who exactly are you accusing now in writing of being an extortionist?Ronstock 05:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronstock, how about toning down your angry rhetoric and couched legal threats toward other editors? From the time you publicly posted to Wikipedia that you had given Brian Patick, Wikipedia's attorney, a personal heads up on his user page about the New Times article, you opened yourself up to a fair amount of attention regarding your actions.

There are important precedents being set here, and some consideration needs to be given to the harm that can result, no matter how much vitriole you or other editors may feel toward the subject. One of the more common ploys for damage in Wiki bios is to cite controversial and potentially damaging information in the intro. That's been an ongong dispute with this article. Wikipedia stays with a person through life unlike a newspaper article, and is prominent as a first hit on many search engines. The user and talk pages are also public information and appear on search engines as well. Because the public perception is that of an encyclopedia, it's an important consideration when editing a Wiki Bio.

As for Cabbage Fairy, I don't care who she is. Her post regarding muckraking represents the fact that there is a lot more going on here than meets the eye. As for the CT case that is now part of the New Times Coverage, it is a pdf file posted in mid-February under the Freedom of Information act by another editor and is in the Wiki archives.Type Five 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Type Five. Now you're personally attacking me by falsely accusing me of posting "angry rhetoric", "couched legal threats" and "vitriole" without providing a single example thereof, while at the same time labeling others extortionists and muck-rakers. How is this a productive discussion of the merits of the article (or even a consistent ethical/etiquette standard, for that matter)? As for me giving Brad Patrick a "heads up", I felt it was entirely appropriate, since I had posted new information in the article regarding a published account of the Wikipedia vandalism that had taken place. The published account--and my addition to the article--both specifically named Brad Patrick. Hence the heads up.Ronstock 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The notice regarding the facts of this article being in dispute has repeatedly been removed. The facts are unconditionally in dispute. This is made clear in both the New Times Article and the New York Post article cited to in the McMahan article. It is consequently vandalism to take down this notice. Further, I have changed the first paragraph to address why certain people believe McMahan is notable, but I toned down the biased reference to the allegations. As Kevin Murray earlier stated in February, "Let's leave the sex aspect out of the opening paragraph." Nole7 18:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. The SPUs are hijacking the article and dominating the discussion page by brute force. Now McMahan's daughter is described as a "purported member of his family", and we're back to calling the "New-Times" the perjorative "Tabloid". Not content with watering down and skewing the tone of the article, Nole 7 is now insisting the a "factual dispute" tag be placed permanently on the article, and is claiming that any attempt to remove it is "vandalism".Ronstock 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ronstock, as to SPU status, I'm not seeing a much broader paticipation from you, nor a long WP history prior to this issue. --Kevin Murray 03:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Disputed facts

Since Nole7 insists that the facts are disputed, I invite him to list them. And I'm interested in why he insists on calling the Broward-Palm Beach New Times a "tabloid," when a cursory look at its website indicates it's nothing of the sort. Exeunt 01:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to get into a diaglogue of details with Exeunt about the issue of facts in dispute. He knows they are disputed. As I stated previously, one need only review this discussion page, and the tabloid articles to know that the purported facts are disputed. To require more is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and not required. I reiterate, taking that flag down is vandalism. Nole7 17:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

All I've mostly seen are outright lies (e.g. the claim that it's illegal to post copies of certain court documents) and vandalism on your part (page blanking, content deletion, a systematic attempt to delete or whitewash this article, etc.). Again, what facts are disputed? That a lawsuit was filed by Linda Marie Schutt is indisputable. That she alleged that she and Bruce McMahan had a sexual relationship is indisputable. That the general counsel of Wikipedia has stated that this article has been subject to vandalism is indisputable. I can go on and on. Exeunt 20:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nole7, taking your specific changes with good faith, these are specific problems:
McMahan was the subject of a salacious article
"Salacious" violates WP:NPOV. A newspaper could say that, or we could quote a newspaper saying that, but an encyclopedia cannot say the article was salacious.
in a weekly alternative media newspaper
First, the topic of the article is what we discuss, not the article itself. Second, it appeared in several other publications. Third, as with the "distance learning institute" language removed earlier, this language appears to be included simply to characterize the source, which again violates WP:NPOV.
a woman who claimed to be his biological daughter
This summary overlooks the several years during which she was accepted as a member of the family and published sources. This seems included, again, to characterize the case, which is inappropriate per WP:LEAD. It may be appropriate for an attributed source to point out that McMahan now disputes Schutt's paternity within the article, but again, the article is not about Schutt, so this aspect seems inappropriate for the lead.
It is this article that some contend make him a "notable" person by Wikipedia standards.
First, "some contend" is weasel wording. The community has judged the article notable, and the discussion clearly brought up other points such as his status as an international financier and philanthropist, so characterizing that discussion as being based on the notoriety of the case is another violation of WP:NPOV. Second, there are no reliable sources outside of Wikipedia reporting on the article's deletion, so we have no way to attribute this point of view someone. Third, except in extraordinary circumstances, Wikipedia articles should avoid self-references. No one has found the inclusion/deletion debate about the article notable enough to write about, so it has little relevance here.
Finally, please do not engage in a revert war with other editors. If you have specific improvements you would like to propose to the article, I suggest you bring them up here first and try to gain consensus of all editors on how to tell this story appropriately. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dhartung, thanks for your thoughts and feedback. There have been multiple editors who have suggested the sexual reference be left out of the opening paragraph. To include the sexual reference in the opening paragraph is inappropriate and comes across as being biased against McMahan. Moreover, there have been numerous changes made to the article, without first getting consensus, which have been inappropriate and biased against McMahan. In making changes, I am simply reverting the vandalism of other editors. Nole7 20:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated, the guideline WP:LEAD says that an article's lead paragraph(s) should not conceal controversy. The lead paragraph should give the reader an overview of the entire contents of an article, including negative information. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading the New Times article makes it clearer that the lawsuits were really not about the sex aspect, but more about finaincial issues. The sex issue was tangential and never proved beyond allegations. It seems that McMahan has notablility beyond the scandal and I think the lead is fine without the specifics of the sex, without he other salient issues of the lawsuits. If we include the sex aspect in the lead then why not the other allegations? But if we include it all it ceases to be a summary. I thnik that the most recent lead by Nole is about as good as we can get without being either misleading in brevity or too long. --Kevin Murray 18:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, then. I have reservations, but accept this argument. (Nole7, despite your edit summary here, this is what consensus looks like.) -- Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Earlier today, I added a category for "Sex Scandal" and Kevin removed it with little explanation. I feel this was an inappropriate change, so I reverted it. We've had this discussion before. McMahan is a prominent person, but he has arguably achieved notoriety because of the sex scandal aspect of the lawsuits against himself by his daughter. Look on the Wikipedia Sex scandals page and you'll see other prominent business figures, CEOs, attorneys etc. involved in public sex scandals. Prominent person plus scandal plus sexual component equals sex scandal. Therefore the addition of the sex scandal category is justified in my opinion. I welcome further discussion, of course.Ronstock 18:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Ronstock, I would be more comfortable if you had gained a consensus before adding that tag. As we discussed above you seem to have a virtual single purpose at WP which borders on prosecuting McMahan. Either you have an axe to grind or you are taking this way too personally. --Kevin Murray 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd caution (respectfully ask, rather) you to please avoid the unneccesary personal attacks and name-calling, Kevin. "We" didn't discuss anything. Rather, you tossed an inappropriate and unjustified label (virtual SPU) at me. I've posted to many other articles on Wikipedia, so I'm clearly not an SPU or an anti-McMahan sockpuppet. The frequency of my postings to this particular article have generally been in direct response to repeated attempts by true SPUs/pro-McMahan sockpuppets--allegedly including McMahan's attorneys and relatives--to virtually hijack this article and remove all traces of anything they deem offensive or otherwise counter to their personal interests. It's a free speech and fairness issue for me, not a personal vendetta. Being passionate about something doesn't mean I have a personal axe to grind.Ronstock 19:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Caution me all you like, but your record at WP is pretty clear, and you only started editing other articles again since I made mention above. Regardless you are pretty free with the accusations at me and others. I think that the passion argument can be used by others that you have labeled SP and SPU. Living in a glasss house is not a wise decision if you want to throw stones. Personally I think you protest to much to be genuine. --Kevin Murray 20:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Kevin, you almost seem to have appointed yourself moderator of this article recently, and now you've even started reverting changes I've made on other articles (regarding the McMahan sex scandal (BTW, IMHO, allegations need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to constitute a public scandal--just ask Bill Clinton)), again without virtually any explanation or justification for your reversion. Also, exactly what "accusations" have I made about you and others (other than pointing out that there is evidence to indicate that certain SPUs are actually lawyers and relatives of McMahan's)? Please be specific. As for civility, I'm perfectly entitled to point out the need for it, as you yourself have done the following: 1. previously posted a civility caution/warning on my talk page; and 2. are now accusing me of "virtually prosecuting McMahan", and "having an axe to grind", which is a clear and inappropriate personal attack. Lastly, as for my "virtual SPU status", you seem to be bending the facts to fit your own curious definition. I've been posting on Wikipedia since July of 2006, and posted on a dozen other articles before I ever even stumbled on the McMahan article and became fascinated with the ongoing struggle among the pro-McMahan camp, those fighting to prevent a sanitized, politically-correct, PR fluff piece, and those purporting to be voices of reason and consensus. Between work and family obligations, I have limited time to devote to Wikipedia, and this article has effectively taken all of that very limited Wikipedia-editing time lately simply because of the fact that it is so active and controversial and there's so much to keep track of. Ironically, it wasn't even until after I decided to take a break from the McMahan article and resumed reading and editing other articles, that I realized you had again accused me of being a "virtual SPU". At that point, I felt compelled to confront that ridiculous and patently false label. Having said all that, I welcome further comment from others with regard to the appropriateness of my adding a "Sex scandal" category to the bottom of this article. I have made my argument as to why I feel the addition of that category is appropriate, and Kevin made no attempt to refute my argument. If he or anyone else wants to build consensus one way or another, here and now is the time and place to do this. I honestly don't believe I'm trying to create dissent or controversy here. I'm just trying to create the best, most accurate and fair article possible--as we all hopefully are.Ronstock 06:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ronstack, like I said you protest too much, and now with too many words. Go be productive. I've got no time to read through your whining. --Kevin Murray 06:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow. This is truly sad. You've reduced yourself to mispelling my name. Kev, is this how you "address" my comments, while at the same time, failing to have an actual response to any of my actual questions?)

The Disputed Facts Flag

The disputed facts flag has been repeatedly removed in an ongoing act of vandalism. The Broward-Palm Beach New Times article is the source for all subsequent media (including internet blog) coverage of the McMahan-Schutt lawsuits. The Broward-Palm Beach article is written as if all of the "daughter's" allegations are true and proven. The Broward-Palm Beach writer buries the McMahan denials in the article and fails to address McMahan's own lawsuits. To cite to this article, and the subsequent articles that are not based on any independent investigation, as the "truth" and to ignore McMahan's position is unfair to McMahan. The allegations are very harsh and can affect someone's life in a significant way. It is not Wikipedia's roll, as a reference source, to promulgate "allegations" as truth. If these articles remain cited to, in the interest of fairness and balance, the disclaimer which accurately states the facts in the articles are in dispute is appropriate. Nole7 22:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But our article does not represent the allegations as truth. Our article represents the allegations as allegations which have received media coverage. You are, in fact, saying that the facts in the sources are in dispute; you are not disputing our article. Thus, you are misusing the tag. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Per this discussion and above, I removed the NPOV tag and sex scandal category tag. Without substantial proof or more widespread notability there is no sex scandal. The NPOV tag is not relevant to a few SPU objections. Would consider replacing if long-term bona fide users complain. --Kevin Murray 21:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for stating above that you hadn't attempted to refute my argument regarding the sex scandal tag. Like I said, my time is limited, and I hadn't read all the way to the bottom of the discussion. Having said that, I find your one-sentence rebuttal to my argument somewhat lacking . One need simply only look at Wikipedia's own definition of "Sex Scandal" to see that the Schutt/McMahan allegations qualify--to echo your own words--as a "bona fide sex scandal."

A sex scandal is a scandal involving allegations or information about embarrassing sexual activities, such as adultery, being made public. Sex scandals are often associated with movie stars, politicians, or others in the public eye, and become scandals largely because of the prominence of the person involved.

Clearly the Schutt allegations, the lawsuits and the articles stemming therefrom, are scandalous and involve allegations or information about "embarrassing sexual activities" being made public. Also clear (IMHO) is that a prominent person in the public eye is the center of the scandal. Even before the Schutt incest allegations surfaced, McMahan's status as a hedge fund superstar and major philanthropist made him a prominent public figure. I would consider backing down from my position on adding a "sex scandal" category to this article if someone other than Kevin (or Nole7) complained or (and agreed with him that his repeated reversions of my additions without extend discussion and consensus are appropriate and acceptable)Ronstock 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)