Talk:Roger Chapin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Scam??

According to a recent NYTimes editorial (http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/exploiting-the-troops-part-2/), many of Roger Chapin's "charities" for veterans appear to be dishonest and corrupt scams. This article appears to be blatant pro-Chapin POV. Anyone know more about this and able to rewrite it? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 05:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For future reference...

... or for an editor more experienced with and better versed in policy/style, Roger Chapin in his time at Middlebury was apparently quoted in an old article in Time Magazine (came up in a google search); anyways, just thought it might fit in when there's enough context for this kind of trivia.

Also, I hereby commit myself to fixing this article, ADHD/OCD be damned! Wikimancer (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article changes

An anon has been reverting the article to a version that removes proper citations and removes sourced criticisms. I've restored the prior version. I've also started a discussion on the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Roger Chapin article.

Problems with the anon's version: POV pushing, removed sourced criticisms, uses cut-and-paste content from external sources with no clarification of copyright. The anon also blanked this talk page, attempting to conceal the criticisms in the two talk subjects above this one - which I've also restored. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed content that was copied word-for-word from Chapin's bio info from the HHV, as it was a direct copy there are potential copyright issues in that insertion. I agree that additional biography info would be beneficial; however, the added content is (a) a potential copyright issue, and (b) laced with peacock terms and fails NPOV. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)