Talk:Thomas Kohnstamm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

the person made it to bbc world news, relevant enough not to delete him immediately. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7346101.stm 139.174.165.206 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably he should be included as part of Lonely Planets own wikipage rather than his own.--Koncorde (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem is, then someone will say "this is about LP and not Kohnstamm so we only need a tiny bit about him, so lets leave out..........". Not really a good idea. Considering the international media attention he got in the past cpouple of days, he merits his own article, expanded for sure. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you'd put it in a section dedicated to "criticism" of Lonely Planet. As an individual he's notorious rather than famous, and then only in relation to who he wrote for rather than any of his own achievements.--Koncorde (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. His name became known worldwide for dodgy newsgathering. Him, personally. Then Lonely Planet was brought into the controversy. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then you must know something I don't. My only experience of him in any professional vein is for his travel guides, and subsequent 'revelation' book and I can't find any news related references outside of that (well, didn't go beyond page 5 of google anyway).--Koncorde (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest he became known for dodgy work "pre" this controversy. It started with him and LP subsequently came into it. The subject is this writer, not LP. If he hadn't written something, the controversy wouldn't exist, which is why I said earlier that he merits his own article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Deleting Lonely Planet reference 2 Disputed Section 3 More inaccuracies removed 4 And another

[edit] Deleting Lonely Planet reference

Not sure why this was deleted. Seemd to be a balnaced opinion and one that came from the source quoted. The "traded drugs" line comes from the CCN article which I added the reference for.

[edit] Disputed Section

Kohnstamm has refuted the claim that he admitted to plagiarism in the interview with world hum [1]. The repeated insistance that he admitted to plagarism may be libelous.Jj022804 (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But is it libelous to state that something was (potentially) libelous was stated elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.163.253 (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This not about Hum only. There are other sources, including this which states "He admitted using tourism brochures, the internet and local contacts as an alternative means of research and then putting it all together "as best you can from there"." I am removing the disputed tag, because the paragraphs which it indicates are disputed are adequately sourced/referenced. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this is about the News Ltd. article that all other "admissions" of plagiarism have been sourced from as far as I can tell. My dispute is with the accuracy of that article's statement and I think it is disingenuous to remove the Disputed Tag when Kohnstamm himself disputes the plagiarism claim in an equally sourced and referenced article. Jj022804 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about News Ltd. It is about worldwide publicity. For instance, the Guardian in the UK quoted a report from a Fairfax newspaper (News Ltd opposition). It said "He admitted using tourism brochures, the internet and local contacts as an alternative means of research and then putting it all together "as best you can from there"."

• The article accurately says news outlets reported that Kohnstamm admitted plagiarising and making up huge slabs of his guidebooks. A source/reference is given.

• The article accurately says Kohnstamm was the subject of worldwide publicity, but he disputed the reports, saying they were taken out of context. A source/reference is given.

• The article accurately reports that, on its website, Lonely Planet said it was reviewing all of his previous contributions because his admissions in his book of plagiarism (etc) , is "completely contrary to what Lonely Planet is all about." A source/reference is given. And it has nothing to do with News Ltd.

We have accurately reported the reports, and the article includes the fact that Kohnstamm disputes them. So this section is accurate and balanced. Seems to me you are not so much disputing the content of this section as disputing the fact that it appears in the article. So the tag is unjustified, and I am again removing it. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More inaccuracies removed

I have removed the recent additions by Jj022804 because:

• (1) He added "The AP and other reliable news sources soon clarified that these issues were taken out of context". They did no such thing, and the source given does not support that claim. However we have accurately reported that Kohnstamm claims he was taken out of context.

• (2) He added "After on-the-ground review, Lonely Planet did not find any inaccuracies in Kohnstamm's work". This is a smokescreen, as the thrust of the article is about his book. Check this. This all started from this man's words in his own book. It is a smokescreen to try to say that A isn't true because he didn't do B. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaiwhakahaere - I did not write what you are quoting above and supposedly removing for inaccuracy. This can all be clearly seen in the history of this article. I am confused by this and your suggestion of my attempt to smokescreen.Jj022804 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the following changes:

• Removed "allegedly" - I have seen no suggestion that Kohnstamm was not a contributing author to the Brazil 6th edition.[2]

• Replaced "He was criticized for never having never visited" with "It was reported that he never visited" as 'criticized' is more presepective than fact.

• Removed "while two other authors visited the country for "destination content"." because it was incorrectly referenced - world hum [3]

• Replaced "his admissions in his book of plagiarism" to "the reports of plagiarism" - Kohnstamm refutes the claim of plagiarism [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj022804 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Jj022804 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] And another

I have removed the most recent addition, because the source does not support it. It was "According to a later article in the Washington Post, it became more clear that while Kohnstamm cut corners (a common industry practice according to research done by the Post), he never plagiarised." [5] However, the Washington Post does NOT even mention the word "plagiarism", let alone the words "denied", "denial" or "deny". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)