Talk:Sunrise Senior Living

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV-section

I've added this tag per this Help Desk complaint. If anyone knows more details about the section or can help to clarify it or correct misleading language, please help to improve it! --ais523 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have gone further and deleted this whole section here [1], as it is likely that without references that this breaks WP:BLP. Cheers Lethaniol 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The other problems with the article that seem to exist are possible COI in the 'history' section, and the Sunrise Shareholders link at the bottom (added by the same anon who added the disputed section), as well as the complete lack of references. I'm inclined to agree with you about the section blanking, and think a reset-to-stub might be in order for the article (although I'd like to get another opinion on that first). --ais523 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All - I apologize for the history section and understand how others may view it as COI concern. I'm probably not the best person to edit it from a third party perspective - so would welcome any thoughts you have. Also, thank you for looking into all of these matters and protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. I have found a lot of very useful information on here and it is a great service. --QualityLife123 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy and Past from Help Desk

[edit] Sunrise Senior Living - "Financial Controversy" Section

March 19, 2007

Dear Wikipedia Editors:

I'd like to express a concern with you about a article addition made to the Sunrise Senior Living entry on February 7, 2007 by an unknown source. Sadly, I believe it violates the founding principles of Wikipedia and many of your rules. It offers biased, inaccurate and unattributed information. We believe this entry is part of a bag of tactics a labor union is using to misinform the public -- far from the purpose of an encyclopedia.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out issues with the posting and how it violates your rules related to attribution and unbiased sourcing. It also clearly violates your policy related to conflicts of interest related to campaigning and citing oneself.

1) Financial Controversy - I've been here four years and am not aware of any financial controversy. One union organization with minimal shares of stock in Sunrise (we have millions of shares) sent us a letter in November asking us to look into our stock option grants and insider trade practices. We are currently doing that. There is no controversy.

2)The Times and Post do cover Sunrise because we are a publicly trade company -- but I am not aware of any articles that go into the depth of information provided in the next few sections.

3) These paragraphs are not written in an unbiased way and these matters are all evolving. None of the information in this section has been verified and frankly, I'm not sure where the submitting party got the information.

4) Questionable Accounting Practices - The review is being performed by Sunrise and was initiated by us. I'll spare you the many details to this item, but the information provided by the poster is full of generalizations and misleading statements.

5) Stock Option Grants - Again, I'm not sure where they got this information from or where the poster can say "grants appear fortuitously timed." Again, this is biased information and unattributed information.

6) Related Links - www.sunriseshareholders.org. This "organization" is actually operated by the labor union that has launched a broad campaign against Sunrise and only represent the labor union. It is not some vast shareholder organization -- most of our shareholders are institutional banks, mutual funds and the founders of the company.

We ask that Wikipedia consider our information and then remove the portions of the Sunrise article posted on February 7, 2007. I have a lot of respect for the philosophy and structure of Wikipedia. It is a shame people would rather treat it as a campaign blog or salacious tabloid. An encylopedia should provide attributed and unbiased information and not be used as a weapon by groups determined to destroy a others.

I can be found as username QualityLife123 or feel free to contact me at (email removed to protect you from email-harvesting spammers). I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.

Sunrise Senior Living —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QualityLife123 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I've tagged the article {{NPOV-section}} as an immediate response; I suspect people are looking in to it now. The entire section was added by an anonymous user, Special:Contributions/68.72.114.229, which looks suspicious; the section was blanked without a reason and then restored by vandalism patrollers. One big worry here is that the article (and section) isn't sourced; if you know some sources from outside the company (if you have a link to the relevant newspaper articles, for instance), that will help to set the matter straight. As it is, the amount of unsourced information in the article is worrying, and I'm not entirely sure that the article at present contains much useful information at all; you seem to have added most of the text to a section in a way that brings up conflict of interest concerns, and the IP seems to be even more biased the other way. (In fact, I'm wondering at the moment whether the article would be more useful as a stub than it is at the moment.) Do any other Help Desk responders have an idea as to what to do about this? --ais523 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the whole Financial Controversy section as it has zero references and likely breaks WP:BLP by suggesting directors of financial malpractice. Diff = [2]. Cheers Lethaniol 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I'm not going to revert the deletion because of the lack of references and the violation of WP:BLP.
However, although I don't have time to dig into the details this morning, a quick Google search on the terms "Sunrise Assisted Living insider stock sales" suggests that there is plenty of fire behind the smoke. Someone should follow up on this and provide citations for those facts that can be backed up by reliable sources and remove anything that cannot be verified. --Richard 16:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone who knew more about the subject area would find a source for anything in the entire article, in fact. The section blanking was needed without sources, though. (This discussion should probably be on the article's talk page Talk:Sunrise Senior Living.) --ais523 16:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(editconfict)I totally agree with this - but the citations are a must otherwise WP:BLP issues are massive (and still). Please note I will cut and paste this discussion to the article's talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag for new paragraph

Hi All,

I have just added a fact tag to the newly added paragraph - [3]. Obviously the claims need references - if they are not forthcoming (or the info is blatantly not true) they this paragraph can be removed. I suggest giving a few days for the references to be delivered. Note this does not IMHO infringe on the WP:BLP that was previously talked about above - no names are mentioned.

Cheers Lethaniol 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of New Paragraph

Random user never returned to cite information, so it was removed. --QualityLife123 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)