From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives ( Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Philanthropist in the first paragraph of the lead

An IP recently added "philanthropist" to the first sentence of the lead; when I removed it (as it is clearly not a major part of Adelson's notability), it was reverted back in. Per MOS:LEADBIO, the lead has to respect due weight and The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources. The noteworthy position(s) or role(s) the person held should usually be stated in the opening paragraph. However, avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various and sundry roles; instead, emphasize what made the person notable. Incidental and non-noteworthy roles (i.e. activities that are not integral to the person's notability) should usually not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. There is no reasonable way Adelson's philanthropy, which the article barely mentions and which receives scant attention in the sources, can be considered "integral to his notability" or comparable in weight to the other items in that list. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Although he was more known for his political donations, sources frequently note his philanthropic contributions as well: [1], [2], [3] [4] [5] . In fact, he donated more to charity then he did to politics: [6]. The Adelson Foundation is considered to be one of the largest Jewish charities. I think the philanthropist label should be restored and perhaps the "philanthropy" section can be improved. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 21:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply
None of those sources support the idea that it was central to his notability; in several of them it is just a footnote (eg. the Bloomberg obit mentions it only in passing halfway down the article.) The lead and structure of the article should focus on things that primarily make the subject notable; the things they're most famous for, the reasons people have heard of them. None of those sources support the idea that his donations fall under that description. Additionally, all of those sources emphasize that almost all his "philanthropic" contributions were intended “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people”; it would be misusing those sources to state only half of that (ie. to characterize them as philanthropic without further details.) You seem to have misread the sources, since you cited one as saying that his charitable donations exceeded his political ones - it does not describe the donations in question as charitable, and in fact specifically and pointedly notes that they were intended otherwise in the next paragraph. Some sources may have characterized them as "philanthropic", but that's not the same thing and does not seem to be a universal characterization. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Since this has been reverted back in again, I have raised the issue on WP:NPOVN. I will note that since I objected as soon as the IP added it, and have continued to object since then, it cannot reasonably be considered stable and the edit summary here is incorrect - longstanding stability depends on an addition being uncontroversial, ie. existing without objection; this disputed addition to the lead never obtained consensus because an objection was raised as soon as it was added, and was simply revert-warred in. -- Aquillion ( talk) 21:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
"Additionally, all of those sources emphasize that almost all his "philanthropic" contributions were intended “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people”-- um, okay? Is there something wrong with that? If he primarily made charitable donations to cancer research, would that also be misleading? Feel free to flesh out the Donations section, but his status as a "philanthropist" is not negated because he donated mostly to a single cause (which isn't true; he donated to a wide variety of other causes too). All the sources I provided showed that his philanthropy was major to his notability. But if you want more:
  • JNS: "Sheldon Adelson, the multibillionaire casino mogul, conservative donor and philanthropist, has died at the age of 87"
  • Jewish Journal: "Sheldon Adelson, frequently dubbed “the world’s richest Jew,” is about to claim the title of biggest Jewish philanthropist."
  • Business Insider: "Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul, newspaper owner, philanthropist, and Republican donor, died on January 11 at the age of 87. "
  • Times of Israel: "Las Vegas mogul and philanthropist Sheldon Adelson, known for his patronage of US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has died at the age of 87, his wife says."
  • Jewish Insider: "As many in the Israel advocacy community mourn the death this week of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, beneficiaries of his philanthropy remembered not just his generosity, but his sense of personal decency."
  • Forward: "Sheldon Adelson leaves behind a Jewish philanthropic empire...Love him or hate him, Sheldon Adelson’s impact on the Jewish nonprofit world cannot be overstated...
  • Financial Times: "Sheldon Adelson, the US casino magnate and prominent Republican donor and philanthropist, has passed away after a long illness, his wife announced on Tuesday. He was 87."
  • Entrepreneur: "Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino mogul, newspaper owner, philanthropist and Republican donor, died on January 11 at the age of 87" Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 21:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
A search for "Sheldon Adelson" on Google news search returns 206,000 hits [7], while a search for "Sheldon Adelson"+philanthropist returns only 5,340 hits. [8] So before listing the other 5.332 sources that call him a philanthropist, bear in mind that it's still less than one half of one percent of the articles about him. TFD ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
The Four Deuces, Sheldon Adelon + businessman only returns about 6500 hits: [9]. A WP:GOOGLETEST isn't a great measure. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 23:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Sheldon Adelson + American businessman has less than 4000 hits: [10]. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 23:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC) reply
On the first page of hits he is described as "Las Vegas Sands founder," "conservative donor and casino titan," "casino magnate," "casino mogul and GOP donor," "chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corp.," "billionaire casino mogul," "casino billionaire," and "billionaire chairman and chief executive of the largest casino operator in the world." All these descriptions mean that he is a businessman and none of the first page of hits describes him as a philanthropist, although his financial support of the Republican Party is frequently mentioned. So I would say that 99%+ of sources say he is a businessman. TFD ( talk) 02:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
I don't think the first 5 hits from a Google News search (which is different for everyone) should determine how we write articles. More than enough reliable sources have affirmed him as a philanthropist. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 02:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

How we describe people in the first sentence is based on weight, that is we follow how they are normally described in reliable sources. Your suggestion by the way that most articles do not describe Adelson as a businessman, mogul, tycoon, casino owner, etc. is absurd. Go through your own list of articles. Note all also that the fact that he is philanthropist is not sufficient for inclusion in the first sentence. Donald Trump is a philanthropist, amateur golfer, a teetotaler, and many other things but we don't put them all in the first sentence. We put in what reliable sources find most important, not what editors find important. TFD ( talk) 03:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Huh? Of course he's notable as a businessman--I never said he wasn't. I was just pointing out the limitations of a WP:GOOGLETEST. As mentioned numerous times, reliable sources do find his philanthropic contributions noteworthy. However, reliable sources are not limited to the first 5 or 6 results of a Google News search. I re-examined my articles. Most, if not all, describe in length his philanthropy. Proper weight has been established. This is not my opinion. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 04:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
Certainly his philanthropic giving is noteworthy and should be in the article. The issue though is whether he should be described in the first sentence as a "businessman and philanthropist." Per weight, if that is how he is regularly described in reliable sources then it should be phrased that way. On the other hand if the overwhelming majority of sources refer to him only as a businessman (which can include use of words such as tycoon or mogul), then we should only describe him as a businessman. Articles are supposed to reflect what sources say, not to influence public perception of notable people. Hence the article Rachel Maddow doesn't say she is a TV host "and Rhodes scholar with a doctoral degree whose show reached no. 1 on cable for non-sports programs." It's verifiable, it's in the article, but it lacks weight for inclusion in the first sentence. Bear in mind that articles contain a lot of information and we can't put all of it in the first sentence.
Anyway if you don't think that Goolge is a good way to determine how someone is normally described, feel free to come up with another method.
TFD ( talk) 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
If you are worried that we are giving undue weight to the philanthropy label then perhaps we could remove: ...whose donations were often intended to “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people", which was added by Aquillion. I agree that with that lengthy quote included, we would be giving too much weight to his philanthropic endeavors. However, the simple term "philanthropist" is succinct and reflects what he is frequently referred to by sources (without giving too much weight to it). Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree. We should mention whom his philanthropy benefited, but that's better done elsewhere in the article where all the nuances can be explained. TFD ( talk) 22:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Unsourced additions from someone claiming to be Adelson's son

Four times now, someone has added unsourced information claiming that Adelson had a son by a woman he had a relationship with. The person adding the information claims to be that son. [11] User:BostonCasinoKid, please do not add this material to the article. You can, if you wish, come here to the talk page and explain why you want to add this information and what kind of sources we can use to support it. -- MelanieN ( talk) 19:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Remove extra information regarding his widow since she has her own article

I think that only the information that she has an MD, her previous marriage, and her children are relevant to this article since she has her own article that contains all the other information (and that is obvious from her name in blue here as a link, which it should be regardless of if it is linked elsewhere, so that those interested in her can click from there.)

Was it the same uncle both times?

This passage: "He began his business career at the age of 12 when he borrowed $200 from his uncle (equivalent to $3,010 in 2021) and purchased a license to sell newspapers in Boston.[26] In 1948, at the age of 15, he borrowed $10,000 (equivalent to $112,784 in 2021) from his uncle to start a candy vending-machine business." Was it the same uncle both times or were two different creditor/uncles involved? Either way, it should say so, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.210.190 ( talk) 02:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sheldon_Adelson&oldid=1214464332"