Talk:Chuck Blazer

Update, Please

This article has been POV edited. I've reverted it to the last non POV edition, but the info is badly out of date. Blazer is no longer Chief Exec of CONCACAF. Tapered (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

What the hell happened to this article? There's no context or history here about Mr. Blazer, and what little information there is sounds like it starts and ends in the middle of a longer story. Did someone edit all of the information out of this after the big FIFA corruption indictment story broke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingusal (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Alert

Someone recently added unsourced info that Blazer is terminally ill. I removed it, and am sending the IP addres a Level 3 warning including threat of blocking. This article is now much more important than ever, and it may become a magnet for disruptive editing. Tapered (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

BuzzFeed as reliable source

GiantSnowman: You reverted my edit because "Buzzfeed is not a RS, especially for such a controversial subject". However, several recent posts in WP:RS/N, here and here, for example, suggest that Buzzfeed can be a RS for a BLP because it has recently formed an investigative reporting unit with serious reporters, and that it should now be considered case-by-case. The Buzzfeed author is ex LA Times and Wall Street Journal, see this and this, so obviously passes the test. In fact, with the exhaustive list of sources linked to from the author's page the article is surely unusually authoritative. Perhaps you could revert your reversion. BalCoder (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@BalCoder: feel free to re-add the source, however you cannot cite such a long section to just one piece and your language is non-neutral. GiantSnowman 12:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Certainly "leaving in a hurry", for eg, was flippant but it's in the source. I have changed that a little and made some other small changes. The text neutrally paraphrases serious reportage, you can't suppress it just because there is not (yet) a second source. My only POV is that the hole in this article should be filled. BalCoder (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@BalCoder: - as I've said, having a really long section with just one reference at the end it not appropriate, it needs better sourcing. Every sentence/paragraph should be individually referenced, especially for a BLP. GiantSnowman 11:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary reversion by with unwarranted warning and threat—by editor self-identifying as admin

I recently divided the opening sentence of the lead section in two. I made the second sentence into an unmistakable description of Blazer's corruption and its role in his becoming a cooperating witness in a major investigation. "...is an American former soccer administrator, who held a number of high level positions before becoming a key witness in a massive corruption scandal," became "...is an American former soccer administrator, who held a number of high level positions. In 2011 he became a cooperating witness in a major corruption investigation after he was confronted with airtight evidence of his own crimes." I thought the original version too innocuous—the second immediately confronts the reader with the fact that Blazer is a crook.

I left a brief explanation of the edit, as I do all substantive edits, but didn't explain on the Talk page—a mistake. In response GiantSnowman, who self-identifies as an Admin, reverted the edit (without explanation), and left a nice Level 2 vandalism warning on my Talk page. Perhaps this is the prerogative of Admins, but I haven't read about it. My edit was an accurate encapsulation of Blazer's interaction with FBI and IRS agents, as per reference #3—in no way vandalism. Snowman is throwing his weight around, or making an attempt. Regards Tapered (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't "self-identify" as an admin, I am an admin. Your edit violated WP:UNDUE, and your comment above that you want to "confronts the reader with the fact that Blazer is a crook" shows you are not adhering to WP:NPOV. However I accept my 'vandalism' warning was perhaps OTT, and for that I apologise. GiantSnowman 10:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE means " articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." There is no way that identifying Blazer as a crook is "minority view." It's in his infobox. Re POV: how can describing a crook as a crook be an unsubstantiated or non-conforming point of view? It's an incontrovertible fact. The initial wording describes someone who might be a Whistleblower—mine leaves no doubt of his criminality. Had I changed the wording to 'CB is a convicted swindler and former soccer official,' THAT would be somewhat POV, though hardly inacurate. At worst, "confront" is overly dramatic. The idea is to unambiguously let readers know his two primary reasons for notability: soccer administration and criminality. That's not POV. I think you're grasping at straws to rescue a hopeless situation. I appreciate your apology, and hope you won't object or revert when i restore my edit. Tapered (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including [...] prominence of placement." Calling someone a "crook" or "swindler" is not supported by reliable sources, and violates WP:BLP. GiantSnowman 11:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The lede adequately describes his life and places his criminal activity in context. We aren't here to write true-crime pulp but rather dispassionate, encyclopedic biographies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"...airtight evidence of his own crimes" is true fiction pulp? Maybe. Then again, maybe it's Level 2 Vandalism also. Tapered (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @NorthBySouthBaranof: It's (almost) official: a reliable first hand witness quotes an expert on FIFA and CONCACAF governance and finance, saying that Blazer is a "crook." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJo8aW35pTg Start @ 11:43, continue to 11:52. Tapered (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

1) that video isn't available this side of the Atlantic; 2) we will not be describing Blazer as a "crook". Again, if you do not know about BLP then you shouldn't be editing this article, or others. GiantSnowman 07:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @MarshalN20: @Only in death: I WAS mistaken to try to edit this article as I did on 24 Dec 2016. Please note: I was not trying to push a POV, nor was my prose as radically out of line as either major critic states. I discovered my mistake in the easiest, most empirical manner I can think of. I read the biographical article of another hugely obese, larger than life New York City crook--Boss Tweed. I saw immediately that emphasizing Blazer’s thievery was out of line with standard form. And Tweed’s thievery was epic compared to Chuck’s. Then I checked Hitler and Stalin’s articles—I felt like sending Blazer a handwritten apology--their savageries were chronicled well into the respective ledes. I had edited quite a few articles and biographies connected to organized crime, and people from that category have no primary profession to keep their crimes from a prominent early place in the lede section. Whatever my opinion, criminals whose primary profession isn’t crime are shown deference, and I’ll conform to the template.

I’ll edit the lede to bring into conformity with the norm.

In addition, I’ve now read “American Huckster,” by Mary Papenfuss, who broke Blazer’s story for the NY Daily News. Andrew Jennings endorsed the book, and the facts are all there. (The narrative is decidedly non-linear.) I plan to use the complete picture it presents to clean up the body of the article, which now reads like a disjointed history cobbled together over time—which it is. Its worst feature is the inclusion of details which were relevant when included several years ago, but which now distract from the central narrative.

I plan to include a short “Personal life” section including information that illuminates how Blazer could be “flipped” so quickly by US law enforcement.

There was a concensus that NY Daily News reporting is a reliable source @ #25, and I’m going to cite it for information that it was first to uncover. That's only fair.

Unbeknownst to me, Blazer described himself to his paramour as “nothing but a fat crook,” years before I included the term in this Talk section. Tapered (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Max the Macaw is given several pages in Papenfuss's book, but seems too trivial to include here, though it did affect office relations @ CONCACAF! Tapered (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone else will need to repair this disjointed article. Tapered (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Very close to disruptive editing

Just removed the infobox for inadequate documentation, and also undid the removal of my edit concerning Blazer's 'flip.' This article is well documented with no extraneous commentary. GiantSnowman has stated that the New York Daily News isn't a reliable source. I've never seen this claimed before, and there's nothing in its article to that effect. To add an unwarranted infobox, and unilaterally to declare an established media organ (with a 2007 Pulitzer) "not reliable" approaches disruptive editing.

I did not remove an infobox - I restored a maintenance tag stating this article needs more sources, which it does e.g. the 9-line 'Early life' paragraph has only one source! The NY Daily News is a tabloid paper; its article wouldn't state that it's non-RS (do you even have a clue how Wikipedia works?), it's an internal Wikipedia decision (covered by WP:RSN). Feel free to go there and see if you can get consensus that NYDN is reliable. If so you can use it as a source - but that doesn't mean you can then use the source to push your agenda. You failed at WP:NPOVN, just be wary about WP:FORUMSHOPPING. GiantSnowman 21:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Like your Vandalism warning? Tapered (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Which I said was wrong and apologised for in my very first response to you. Get over it. GiantSnowman 22:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To apologize and continue to harass me is no apology at all. If you found the the Kirsten Bauer German ref in 15 seconds, you're a speed reader, and BTW is "Entertainment" a reliable source? How do I know she said that? There's a cottage industry @ Wikipedia typing celebrities with Germanic names as German Americans (which I am), without sourcing. If a quick search turns nothing up, I revert it. Your following up that edit, constitutes stalking. Keep it up. Tapered (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There's no harassment here - that's a very serious and entirely unfounded accusation. Please retract. As for Bauer, I merely looked at your recent edits to see what else you had done around the time you had issued me with a bogus warning. WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. GiantSnowman 08:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The warning template was my stupid mistake and (I assume violation of policy), but I don't apologize to you. I don't believe your explanation of the Bauer edit, especially with the 'only 15 seconds' remark, for half a second. If I'm not supposed to template a regular, why did you do it? And why did you let yourself off the hook, calling a wholly inappropriate Vandalism template "a little over the top?" It approached bullying. Tapered (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding sources, removing citation/reliable source tag

The story of Blazer's flip as written up in the Daily News was quoted verbatim and attributed in the NYTimes article cited. So the NYTimes considers it reliable. Further a discussion @ Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard has arrived at a concensus that Daily News is a reliable source—at least for this subject/event. Nevertheless, I've listed the NYTimes article as the first ref, since it's better structured and easier to read. Changed mind: decided to leave maintainance tag. Just arranged to borrow a library version of the latest book on Blazer (one co-author helped write the Daily News article). That ought to put the ridiculous maintainace tag to its well earned sleep. Tapered (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

If the NYT covers the topic, use that as a source - no need for NYDN. Also no need for multiple sections on the talk page about the same issue... GiantSnowman 08:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Unethical business pattern

Amended the language to show that the observation was not this editor's POV, but the observation of the authors of his most recent biography. Tapered (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

You win GiantSnowman

I guess you are the big foot of soccer and have decided to limit, to the extent possible, the negative aspects of corrupt soccer officials, under the guise of "POV." I guess if a guy accepts bribes, calling them "bribes" is a POV to one who wants to whitewash soccer. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. Let the article remain the tepid, incomplete whitewash that it is now. You have not only undid an edit of mine that accurately summarized (with sources) material that made the character interesting but also sourced material on the beginning of his entry into soccer. I guess none of that passes your Inquisition-based view of the "objective." Good luck. You help make Wikipedia the insipid list of random links that too much of it is. I will not intrude on your self-designated domain again. So you can continue preventing investigative journalism in the form of books and respected magazines, etc. from disturbing your own POV. This has been a pattern of yours on this article, I see. Good luck in policing your personal fiefdom. AnthroMimus (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

See previous discussions above - there is a way of describing the negative aspects of somebody, without calling them "corrupt", commenting on their appearance etc. GiantSnowman 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)