![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedy deleted because Lee Fang is a pretty important figure in the American Political scene. There is at least one well-known article that he authored that Obama used information from to make allegations regarding the United States Chamber of Commerce. This story caught on throughout with the media and liberal politicians who used evidence from it to make it a campaign issue: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/05/121701/foreign-chamber-commerce/ Considering those facts, is there any reason to delete this page? -- AlexisDT1830 ( talk) 23:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Everyone,
I recently created this page after having read about the United States Chamber of Commerce situation that occurred last year as a result of Fang's article. What I have added so far is a bit incomplete at the moment, but I am hoping that as I have more time throughout the coming days I can flesh this out. If anyone can help out with adding to this page, it would be greatly appreciated. AlexisDT1830 ( talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no citation in the article to support the oft-added contention that the New York Times has been critical of Fang's reporting. The Times Op-Ed piece cited elsewhere in the article does not constitute or include criticism of Fang or his work by the Times; it expresses an author's personal opinion. Fang is a noteworthy observer of and reporter about the influences of private financial interests on government policy, and his biography, although too brief, should be preserved.
EFMLawSF ( talk) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) EFMLawSF ( talk) 04:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) The two seriously problematic sections are the NYT article which isn't even about Fang, and is therefore pure WP:SYNTH, and the powelineblog editorial. Powerline isn't a reliable source for anything and the opinion of some blogger isn't notable to a BLP. There are problems with the other material too, but that's more content-oriented, not necessarily BLP issues (they have problems with WP:WTA and WP:NOTNEWS for instance. Rather than revert back and forth, let's remove the seriously problematic parts for discussion and leave the others in (while discussing). Fair enough? -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Loonymonkey, I noticed that Starbucksian is temporarily blocked for edit warring over the NYT articles. WP:SYNTH doesn't appear to have been violated in this instance though. This article makes a reference to Fang's claims, and this article contains a direct link to Fang's piece. I'm concerned that reasonable dissent is being silenced to allow for non-NPOV editing. I'd be in favor of limiting edits to minor edits only unless discussed on the talk page first. That being said, I think we should remove the commentary on Rick Santorum being "anti-gay." Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue of the chamber’s funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline '“Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.” The piece detailed the chamber’s overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns."
That's Fang's article! It's discussed by Eric Lichtblau, the very same guy who wrote the initial story about Obama making those claims. As for the Fact Check claim, I quote. Emphasis added. The October 5 report is the Lee Fang one, for those at home reading.
The charge that the Chamber of Commerce might be using foreign money to help fund political ads arose in an Oct. 5 report by the left-leaning ThinkProgress, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John Podesta, former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. The allegation has been picked up by the liberal group MoveOn.org Political Action, which calls it "potentially a very serious crime." MoveOn is running a "petition drive" urging an investigation by the Justice Department.
And President Barack Obama himself has echoed the allegation. At a political rally in Maryland on Oct. 7, he said: Obama, Oct. 7: Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from.
The ThinkProgress report said that the chamber, through affiliated entities such as the U.S.-Bahrain Business Council, as well as through direct membership, takes in dues from foreign-owned, and in some cases state-owned, corporations that amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Dues are paid into the chamber’s general account, the report says, and the chamber can use them for any purpose. ThinkProgress concluded that the chamber was "likely skirting" the law.
Given that User:Loonymonkey seems to want to remove this and given that it is, as best as I can tell, the most notable instance of his work getting national attention, I think he's dead wrong. The definition of [[WP:SYNTH] does not apply here. I encourage User:Loonymonkey to build WP:consensus and not try to block other editors. I'll draft a paragraph which he can feel free to read and make sure it complies, but it absolutely should go in an article about Lee Fang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
On October 5, 2010, Fang wrote a story on ThinkProgress.Org stating that the United States Chamber of Commerce funded attack campaigns from its general fund which solicits foreign funding. The article, after consulting with unnamed legal experts, cited that the chamber is "likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections."[5] On October 7, 2010, President Obama said in a speech that "Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations... so groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.”[6]
Unline the NYT pieces, the President never makes any connection with Fang or ThinkProgress.org.
Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the bit about Obama then. I disagree about the relevancy of the NYT articles to his bio. When NPOV publications reference someone's work, particularly in a controversial situation, it seems important to note in the article. As Starbucksian and I have stated before, the NYT linked Fang's article and even discussed it directly in another piece. These are examples of legit secondary sources that should be addressed in the article. Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 05:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 05:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No need for the drama. The new edits, actually go pretty far towards addressing the WP:BLP issues. The essential point is that the Lichtblau article is not just referring to Fang's article in his conclusion, but also to the much more direct charges made by others, but that all of that resulted from Fang's article, and that ultimately he doesn't see any evidence to support it. Last night I was trying to think of a way to make that point without once again delving into WP:SYNTH or making it all about Fang. I think the new language is pretty close. There are a couple of small outstanding issues. The first is that the Center for Competitive Politics is not a WP:RS and, like all opinion sources, can't be used to state factual claims in a WP:BLP so that bit will have to go (and it's basically just saying the same thing as the Times piece anyway). Also, referring to an editorial carried by AP as "AP said..." isn't allowed (and it's not really necessary in there either. The section header is not-neutral as no reliable source has mentioned any sort of "controversy" involving Fang, so it would be editorializing to call it that ourselves. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections are generally frowned on anyway, as they often become coat racks and it is recommended that they only be used when absolutely necessary and when commonly referred to that way in reliable sources. Other than that, there's just some clean-up in the writing needed, a few redundant bits (MoveOn is mentioned twice in two different paragraphs) and a couple minor WP:WTA issues. I would say we're pretty close to consensus. And yes, the Santorum and Haller bits should go. There isn't any reason for us to repeat Fang's attack on Santorum if it isn't some larger issue cited by reliable sources. Leaving it would introduce additional BLP issues against Santorum. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, also, it looks like the references section got duplicated and destroyed (the article links are broken). We should repair that.-- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
In 2010, Fang claimed to discover a powerpoint presentation authored by different telecoms that opposed net neutrality. He used this piece of evidence to expose these companies for undermining efforts to impose neutrality. However, closer examination reveals that the presentation was designed by students for a competition. Seems important. I've included the link below. Baconian-Kevin ( talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004758-38.html
This fellow's reporting is questionable. Here is yet another piece criticizing Fang for drawing false conclusions from shaky evidence. At this point, the article needs to group these criticisms under a "Controversies" section. There are simply too many questionable articles to continue giving them their own section. Baconian-Kevin ( talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey i stumbled upon this and saw there has some debate over his style/topic of writing. I think we should add in a criticism section that elaborates on this subject. It is his career, and other controversial journalists and 'public figures' have criticism sections, such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I have attached a proposition for the initial content, i thought id post it here before adding to the article.
Critics, however, have labeled Fang a partisan “attack dog” and accused him of making errors and of engaging in personal smears. In May 2010, Fang wrote a piece on major players in the telecom industry opposing net neutrality, saying that this was revealed by a PowerPoint that they had obtained. [1] A response by CNET made note that the PowerPoint was, in fact, created by students for a project and Florida, and cost them 173.95. [2]
Fang wrote a piece criticizing organizations accepting secret donations. This piece received negative feedback because ThinkProgress, Fang’s employer at the time, also receives secret donations. [3]
Fang left CAP in 2012 to join UnitedRepublic, a new progressive advocacy outlet focused on fighting “the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.” [4]
I would appreciate some feedback on this before adding it. I also found this article with similar content, I think it could be added to the section, its from the Daily caller and could qualify as rs. thanks TallMountains ( talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And you keep citing WP:RS and saying that ‘blogs’ aren’t allowed as reliable sources on biographies, but in the page with the policieson biographies it says “Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” Based on that, you shouldn’t be claiming that ‘no blogs are allowed’ or ‘Daily Caller is not in any way a reliable source’.
I understand your concern about not having a criticism section, but there is enough info from acceptable sources and enough consensus to add some of the information into the article, as long as we do it in a neutral way as was mentioned earlier on this page. The info about the Chamber of Commerce article uses Politico as its source. That should be added back in using “Chamberof Commerce Article” as the title (which was agreed on by you and other editors on this page). I’m going to work on writing a first draft of a few more things to add. Have a good day TallMountains ( talk) 22:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
References
I looked through the edit history and found this version of the page that included the section about the Chamber of Commerce article that LoonyMonkey and TommyBoy worked on. They both discussed this and on August 23rd LoonyMonkey said that it goes “pretty far towards addressing the WP:BLP issues” and "we're pretty close to consensus." He then mentioned a few things that needed to be fixed and then fixed those things, resulting in the version of the page that I just linked. This version page with the section on the Chamber of Commerce article stayed in place until mid-January. LoonyMonkey discussed it, adjusted it, and did not remove it for that period of time, showing that he consented to its inclusion in the article.
It was removed in January by J.R. Hercules who was in no way involved in any of the talk page discussions or edit history. He did not post (or likely read) anything on the talk page. So he removed the section, which was created through consensus, and he had no consensus for the removal. When I added that section back to the article, which had consensus from LoonyMonkey and others at the time, LoonyMonkey removed it saying that there was no consensus for it. In the post right above this, LoonyMonkey said there was a version with consensus a while ago that was removed and he would "try to go through the history and figure out what the last consensus version of that section was and restore it." He must not have gotten a chance to do this so I did, and he removed it. So I am adding it back in since I have proven here that it was the 'last consensus version'. RichardMills65 ( talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Given that the article about the Chamber of Commerce seems to have been a defining episode in Fang's professional career, I think it is important to contrast Fang's opinions with what some reputable and reliable sources published in that respect.-- Ianonne89 ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
A Politico article, originally added to this article in October 2012, has been removed from the page. A user says the Politico article violates WP:BLP, and that the addition was made recently, so that's a reason to remove it now. First, the question of when an addition was made doesn't help us determine whether an addition is appropriate for inclusion--not to mention that October 2012 is not that "recently," after all. Second, how does this Politico article violate WP:BLP? That's a serious charge. Politico is a well-respected source. Could you demonstrate why you think including the Politico article violates WP:BLP? Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 00:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Politico article [1] that you removed features this information relating to Fang's Contango reporting:
"Take ThinkProgress blogger Lee Fang’s efforts to portray the political activities of the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch as motivated by a desire to boost their profits - an argument even some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature.
Nonetheless, Fang’s relentless chronicling of the Koch brothers have made him something of a star on the left and have helped make the brothers into bogeymen for Democrats decrying the influence of undisclosed big money in politics. In a January press conference call promoting a panel to be held outside a summit of big conservative donors hosted by Koch Industries, Fang explained the worldview undergirding his blog posts.
Rejecting a question from POLITICO about why CAP declined to reveal its donors while calling out the Kochs for not disclosing their donations, he said “It’s fundamentally different when you have wealthy individuals that want to donate to a worthy cause, and the Koch brothers and some of their cohorts that are funding groups that are essentially just advancing their self interests and their lobbying interests.”
Fang further charged that POLITICO doesn’t “reveal all of its advertisers and all the money it receives from corporations.” And he has kept up the attack on his Twitter feed, criticizing POLITICO for not writing that his side of political debates is morally right and suggesting that it would do so, “if Politico had socioeconomic diversity on staff.”
Back in Washington after the panel and a subsequent protest outside the resort that hosted the Koch conference, Fang attended a meeting with representatives from Common Cause, Greenpeace, Public Citizen and the Service Employees International Union at SEIU headquarters to figure out how to make the most of the sudden focus on the Kochs. Meeting participants have continued to trade research about the Kochs and strategize via a Koch-related email listserv and a rolling series of conference calls.
Shakir defended ThinkProgress’s journalistic independence and integrity, as well as Fang’s participation in the left’s discussions about targeting the Kochs."
Regarding the lede, you removed these two sources because you said they didn't support the claim that Fang is a liberal writer:
It's not pejorative to describe Fang (or anyone else) as liberal. In Fang's case, it's simply a reflection of what a variety of reliable sources have said about the topic. The discussion about Fang in Politico represents some of the most in-depth, high-level coverage Fang has received. In an article that's been nominated for deletion several times, the six paragraphs devoted to him in a Politico article certainly point to his notability, and warrant inclusion in the article. Safehaven86 ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lee Fang. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the last half of a sentence regarding Fang's reporting for which the cited source did not provide any actual basis. There was a clearly unusable synthesis that cited a source that had nothing to do with Fang. Activist ( talk) 11:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: Fang's family background and ethnic heritage. Did his ancestors come from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 18:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedy deleted because Lee Fang is a pretty important figure in the American Political scene. There is at least one well-known article that he authored that Obama used information from to make allegations regarding the United States Chamber of Commerce. This story caught on throughout with the media and liberal politicians who used evidence from it to make it a campaign issue: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/05/121701/foreign-chamber-commerce/ Considering those facts, is there any reason to delete this page? -- AlexisDT1830 ( talk) 23:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Everyone,
I recently created this page after having read about the United States Chamber of Commerce situation that occurred last year as a result of Fang's article. What I have added so far is a bit incomplete at the moment, but I am hoping that as I have more time throughout the coming days I can flesh this out. If anyone can help out with adding to this page, it would be greatly appreciated. AlexisDT1830 ( talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no citation in the article to support the oft-added contention that the New York Times has been critical of Fang's reporting. The Times Op-Ed piece cited elsewhere in the article does not constitute or include criticism of Fang or his work by the Times; it expresses an author's personal opinion. Fang is a noteworthy observer of and reporter about the influences of private financial interests on government policy, and his biography, although too brief, should be preserved.
EFMLawSF ( talk) 03:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) EFMLawSF ( talk) 04:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) The two seriously problematic sections are the NYT article which isn't even about Fang, and is therefore pure WP:SYNTH, and the powelineblog editorial. Powerline isn't a reliable source for anything and the opinion of some blogger isn't notable to a BLP. There are problems with the other material too, but that's more content-oriented, not necessarily BLP issues (they have problems with WP:WTA and WP:NOTNEWS for instance. Rather than revert back and forth, let's remove the seriously problematic parts for discussion and leave the others in (while discussing). Fair enough? -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 14:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Loonymonkey, I noticed that Starbucksian is temporarily blocked for edit warring over the NYT articles. WP:SYNTH doesn't appear to have been violated in this instance though. This article makes a reference to Fang's claims, and this article contains a direct link to Fang's piece. I'm concerned that reasonable dissent is being silenced to allow for non-NPOV editing. I'd be in favor of limiting edits to minor edits only unless discussed on the talk page first. That being said, I think we should remove the commentary on Rick Santorum being "anti-gay." Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The issue of the chamber’s funding first gained notice this week when ThinkProgress, a blog affiliated with the Center for American Progress, an influential liberal advocacy group, posted a lengthy piece with the headline '“Exclusive: Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads.” The piece detailed the chamber’s overseas memberships, but it provided no evidence that the money generated overseas had been used in United States campaigns."
That's Fang's article! It's discussed by Eric Lichtblau, the very same guy who wrote the initial story about Obama making those claims. As for the Fact Check claim, I quote. Emphasis added. The October 5 report is the Lee Fang one, for those at home reading.
The charge that the Chamber of Commerce might be using foreign money to help fund political ads arose in an Oct. 5 report by the left-leaning ThinkProgress, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, headed by John Podesta, former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton. The allegation has been picked up by the liberal group MoveOn.org Political Action, which calls it "potentially a very serious crime." MoveOn is running a "petition drive" urging an investigation by the Justice Department.
And President Barack Obama himself has echoed the allegation. At a political rally in Maryland on Oct. 7, he said: Obama, Oct. 7: Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations. So groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections, and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comes from.
The ThinkProgress report said that the chamber, through affiliated entities such as the U.S.-Bahrain Business Council, as well as through direct membership, takes in dues from foreign-owned, and in some cases state-owned, corporations that amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. Dues are paid into the chamber’s general account, the report says, and the chamber can use them for any purpose. ThinkProgress concluded that the chamber was "likely skirting" the law.
Given that User:Loonymonkey seems to want to remove this and given that it is, as best as I can tell, the most notable instance of his work getting national attention, I think he's dead wrong. The definition of [[WP:SYNTH] does not apply here. I encourage User:Loonymonkey to build WP:consensus and not try to block other editors. I'll draft a paragraph which he can feel free to read and make sure it complies, but it absolutely should go in an article about Lee Fang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
On October 5, 2010, Fang wrote a story on ThinkProgress.Org stating that the United States Chamber of Commerce funded attack campaigns from its general fund which solicits foreign funding. The article, after consulting with unnamed legal experts, cited that the chamber is "likely skirting longstanding campaign finance law that bans the involvement of foreign corporations in American elections."[5] On October 7, 2010, President Obama said in a speech that "Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groups paying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreign corporations... so groups that receive foreign money are spending huge sums to influence American elections.”[6]
Unline the NYT pieces, the President never makes any connection with Fang or ThinkProgress.org.
Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the bit about Obama then. I disagree about the relevancy of the NYT articles to his bio. When NPOV publications reference someone's work, particularly in a controversial situation, it seems important to note in the article. As Starbucksian and I have stated before, the NYT linked Fang's article and even discussed it directly in another piece. These are examples of legit secondary sources that should be addressed in the article. Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 05:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Tommyboy1215 ( talk) 05:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
No need for the drama. The new edits, actually go pretty far towards addressing the WP:BLP issues. The essential point is that the Lichtblau article is not just referring to Fang's article in his conclusion, but also to the much more direct charges made by others, but that all of that resulted from Fang's article, and that ultimately he doesn't see any evidence to support it. Last night I was trying to think of a way to make that point without once again delving into WP:SYNTH or making it all about Fang. I think the new language is pretty close. There are a couple of small outstanding issues. The first is that the Center for Competitive Politics is not a WP:RS and, like all opinion sources, can't be used to state factual claims in a WP:BLP so that bit will have to go (and it's basically just saying the same thing as the Times piece anyway). Also, referring to an editorial carried by AP as "AP said..." isn't allowed (and it's not really necessary in there either. The section header is not-neutral as no reliable source has mentioned any sort of "controversy" involving Fang, so it would be editorializing to call it that ourselves. "Controversy" or "criticism" sections are generally frowned on anyway, as they often become coat racks and it is recommended that they only be used when absolutely necessary and when commonly referred to that way in reliable sources. Other than that, there's just some clean-up in the writing needed, a few redundant bits (MoveOn is mentioned twice in two different paragraphs) and a couple minor WP:WTA issues. I would say we're pretty close to consensus. And yes, the Santorum and Haller bits should go. There isn't any reason for us to repeat Fang's attack on Santorum if it isn't some larger issue cited by reliable sources. Leaving it would introduce additional BLP issues against Santorum. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Oh, also, it looks like the references section got duplicated and destroyed (the article links are broken). We should repair that.-- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
In 2010, Fang claimed to discover a powerpoint presentation authored by different telecoms that opposed net neutrality. He used this piece of evidence to expose these companies for undermining efforts to impose neutrality. However, closer examination reveals that the presentation was designed by students for a competition. Seems important. I've included the link below. Baconian-Kevin ( talk) 16:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20004758-38.html
This fellow's reporting is questionable. Here is yet another piece criticizing Fang for drawing false conclusions from shaky evidence. At this point, the article needs to group these criticisms under a "Controversies" section. There are simply too many questionable articles to continue giving them their own section. Baconian-Kevin ( talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey i stumbled upon this and saw there has some debate over his style/topic of writing. I think we should add in a criticism section that elaborates on this subject. It is his career, and other controversial journalists and 'public figures' have criticism sections, such as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh. I have attached a proposition for the initial content, i thought id post it here before adding to the article.
Critics, however, have labeled Fang a partisan “attack dog” and accused him of making errors and of engaging in personal smears. In May 2010, Fang wrote a piece on major players in the telecom industry opposing net neutrality, saying that this was revealed by a PowerPoint that they had obtained. [1] A response by CNET made note that the PowerPoint was, in fact, created by students for a project and Florida, and cost them 173.95. [2]
Fang wrote a piece criticizing organizations accepting secret donations. This piece received negative feedback because ThinkProgress, Fang’s employer at the time, also receives secret donations. [3]
Fang left CAP in 2012 to join UnitedRepublic, a new progressive advocacy outlet focused on fighting “the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics.” [4]
I would appreciate some feedback on this before adding it. I also found this article with similar content, I think it could be added to the section, its from the Daily caller and could qualify as rs. thanks TallMountains ( talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
And you keep citing WP:RS and saying that ‘blogs’ aren’t allowed as reliable sources on biographies, but in the page with the policieson biographies it says “Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.” Based on that, you shouldn’t be claiming that ‘no blogs are allowed’ or ‘Daily Caller is not in any way a reliable source’.
I understand your concern about not having a criticism section, but there is enough info from acceptable sources and enough consensus to add some of the information into the article, as long as we do it in a neutral way as was mentioned earlier on this page. The info about the Chamber of Commerce article uses Politico as its source. That should be added back in using “Chamberof Commerce Article” as the title (which was agreed on by you and other editors on this page). I’m going to work on writing a first draft of a few more things to add. Have a good day TallMountains ( talk) 22:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
References
I looked through the edit history and found this version of the page that included the section about the Chamber of Commerce article that LoonyMonkey and TommyBoy worked on. They both discussed this and on August 23rd LoonyMonkey said that it goes “pretty far towards addressing the WP:BLP issues” and "we're pretty close to consensus." He then mentioned a few things that needed to be fixed and then fixed those things, resulting in the version of the page that I just linked. This version page with the section on the Chamber of Commerce article stayed in place until mid-January. LoonyMonkey discussed it, adjusted it, and did not remove it for that period of time, showing that he consented to its inclusion in the article.
It was removed in January by J.R. Hercules who was in no way involved in any of the talk page discussions or edit history. He did not post (or likely read) anything on the talk page. So he removed the section, which was created through consensus, and he had no consensus for the removal. When I added that section back to the article, which had consensus from LoonyMonkey and others at the time, LoonyMonkey removed it saying that there was no consensus for it. In the post right above this, LoonyMonkey said there was a version with consensus a while ago that was removed and he would "try to go through the history and figure out what the last consensus version of that section was and restore it." He must not have gotten a chance to do this so I did, and he removed it. So I am adding it back in since I have proven here that it was the 'last consensus version'. RichardMills65 ( talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Given that the article about the Chamber of Commerce seems to have been a defining episode in Fang's professional career, I think it is important to contrast Fang's opinions with what some reputable and reliable sources published in that respect.-- Ianonne89 ( talk) 22:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
A Politico article, originally added to this article in October 2012, has been removed from the page. A user says the Politico article violates WP:BLP, and that the addition was made recently, so that's a reason to remove it now. First, the question of when an addition was made doesn't help us determine whether an addition is appropriate for inclusion--not to mention that October 2012 is not that "recently," after all. Second, how does this Politico article violate WP:BLP? That's a serious charge. Politico is a well-respected source. Could you demonstrate why you think including the Politico article violates WP:BLP? Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 00:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The Politico article [1] that you removed features this information relating to Fang's Contango reporting:
"Take ThinkProgress blogger Lee Fang’s efforts to portray the political activities of the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch as motivated by a desire to boost their profits - an argument even some liberals reject as an overly simplistic caricature.
Nonetheless, Fang’s relentless chronicling of the Koch brothers have made him something of a star on the left and have helped make the brothers into bogeymen for Democrats decrying the influence of undisclosed big money in politics. In a January press conference call promoting a panel to be held outside a summit of big conservative donors hosted by Koch Industries, Fang explained the worldview undergirding his blog posts.
Rejecting a question from POLITICO about why CAP declined to reveal its donors while calling out the Kochs for not disclosing their donations, he said “It’s fundamentally different when you have wealthy individuals that want to donate to a worthy cause, and the Koch brothers and some of their cohorts that are funding groups that are essentially just advancing their self interests and their lobbying interests.”
Fang further charged that POLITICO doesn’t “reveal all of its advertisers and all the money it receives from corporations.” And he has kept up the attack on his Twitter feed, criticizing POLITICO for not writing that his side of political debates is morally right and suggesting that it would do so, “if Politico had socioeconomic diversity on staff.”
Back in Washington after the panel and a subsequent protest outside the resort that hosted the Koch conference, Fang attended a meeting with representatives from Common Cause, Greenpeace, Public Citizen and the Service Employees International Union at SEIU headquarters to figure out how to make the most of the sudden focus on the Kochs. Meeting participants have continued to trade research about the Kochs and strategize via a Koch-related email listserv and a rolling series of conference calls.
Shakir defended ThinkProgress’s journalistic independence and integrity, as well as Fang’s participation in the left’s discussions about targeting the Kochs."
Regarding the lede, you removed these two sources because you said they didn't support the claim that Fang is a liberal writer:
It's not pejorative to describe Fang (or anyone else) as liberal. In Fang's case, it's simply a reflection of what a variety of reliable sources have said about the topic. The discussion about Fang in Politico represents some of the most in-depth, high-level coverage Fang has received. In an article that's been nominated for deletion several times, the six paragraphs devoted to him in a Politico article certainly point to his notability, and warrant inclusion in the article. Safehaven86 ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Lee Fang. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the last half of a sentence regarding Fang's reporting for which the cited source did not provide any actual basis. There was a clearly unusable synthesis that cited a source that had nothing to do with Fang. Activist ( talk) 11:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Basic information to add to this article: Fang's family background and ethnic heritage. Did his ancestors come from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 18:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)