Talk:Adam Neumann

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello. I am Carlos, and I would like to ask for the following changes be made to the Introduction to update the information.

• Please add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the introduction, after the word McKelvey: "and in 2019, he co-founded 166 2nd Financial Services with his wife, Rebekah Neumann, to manage their personal wealth,^[1] investing over a billion dollars in real estate^[2] and venture startups.^[3][4]"
• Please move the following sentence from the last paragraph in the Introduction and add it after the last sentence of the first paragraph: "He served as WeWork's CEO from 2010–2019.^[5]" It makes more sense chronologically and adds clarity to state at the beginning of the discussion about WeWork that he served as CEO of that company for several years.

Thanks for your help, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ptrnext (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much Ptrnext for implementing my edit request. I anticipate making further requests to improve the page in the future and would welcome your help again if you're available at that time. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello. I am requesting the following edits:

• Please move the entire second paragraph of the introduction to the fourth paragraph of the "Career" section, except for the last sentence: "Forbes estimated his net worth to be around US$1.4 billion as of June 2022," which should be added to the end of the first paragraph of the intro. Having this much detail about Neumann's resignation in the intro is UNDUE for the lead. The details are more neutrally placed with the rest of the discussion of the resignation in the body. I propose that this text be moved to the end of the paragraph beginning "On September 22, 2019, there were reports...", such that the following can add to and replace what is currently the final sentence of that paragraph:

Following mounting pressure from investors based on disclosures made in its S-1 filing, Neumann resigned as CEO of WeWork on September 24, 2019, and gave up majority voting control as of September 26, 2019^[update]. WeWork also delayed its initial public offering (IPO) until the end of 2019 amid growing investor concerns over its corporate governance, valuation, and outlook for the business. On September 30, 2019, WeWork formally withdrew its S-1 filing and postponed the IPO. ^[1] Artie Minson and Sebastian Gunningham were named as successors. ^[2]

• I also request that the sentence immediately preceding the above, in the same paragraph, namely: Neumann also repaid $5.9 million that the company had paid him in exchange for his trademark of the word "We", be changed to the following, which is a more accurate description of the event, and follows the sources more precisely:

Neumann also directed We Holdings LLC (a company managed by Neumann and McKelvey) to unwind the transaction of $5.9 million in stock that the company paid for its "We" family of trademarks.^[3][4][5]

With appreciation for all your work, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ptrnext. Thanks again for your help with my earlier edit request. I'd appreciate your help again if you have a chance to review these suggestions. Please let me know if you have any questions! Thanks, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Carlos for Neumann, I'll defer to another editor. Ptrnext (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Carlos, I'm sorry, but I would decline this edit request. The circumstances surrounding Neumann's resignation from WeWork is a significant, if not the main, reason that Neumann is notable at all; removing that from the lead would give a reader the wrong impression of why this article exists. It could probably stand to be reworded--it reads a bit too technical at the moment, I'd say--but imo, should not be removed from the lead entirely. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I would support removing the sentences WeWork also delayed its initial public offering (IPO) until the end of 2019 amid growing investor concerns over its corporate governance, valuation, and outlook for the business. On September 30, 2019, WeWork formally withdrew its S-1 filing and postponed the IPO. as overly detailed given the length of the lead. The body itself might be slightly too detailed but maybe not as I'm not seeing anything that immediately jumps out to me as appropriate for removal. I would support the change in the second bullet point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49. Thank you for implementing the first bullet point from the edit request above concerning the overly detailed IPO description in the lead. Would now be an appropriate time to revisit the second bullet point from the request which you said you supported? Thanks again for your editing help. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Barkeep49 and Writ Keeper. Thanks for considering my edit request. It seems to me the two of you do not disagree with each other, therefore, I wonder if one of you can implement Barkeep49's suggestion to remove the two sentences that are overly detailed about the IPO from the lead; and to implement the second bullet point surrounding the "We" family of trademarks. Much obliged. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I was planning on waiting to see if there was going to be any more discussion before doing that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think its important to say that he was forced/bought out after becoming a liability to the company, covering just the resignation in the lead would seem to be whitewashing. The COI editor doesn't seem interested in accuracy, just polishing their boss's tarnished image. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In the Personal life section, I just changed "two sets of twins", which is a mistake, to "one set of twins" which is correct. I also deleted three sources. This is why: The Neumanns have six children and ONE set of twins. This is supported by the new source I added, Esquire, which is from March 2022. Two of the sources I deleted, Fast Company and The Real Deal, are from 2017 and 2014, respectively, and state, correctly for those dates, that the Neumanns had five children. Neither of those sources mentions twins at all. The third source that I deleted, Harper's, correctly states that the couple has six children, but incorrectly states they have two sets of twins. Instead of those outdated and mistaken sources, I added the Esquire source, which correctly states the number of children and number of twins, and even has a correction from yesterday, July 27, at the bottom re-iterating this fact. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. [see below]

Today, the New York Times reported news of a major investment into a new brand founded by Adam Neumann. I'd like to request that the following sentence reflecting this news be added at the end of the career section:

• The New York Times reported on August 15, 2022 that the venture capital firm Andreesen Horowitz would invest approximately $350 million in Neumann’s residential real estate brand, Flow, which is set to launch in 2023.^[1]

Thank you! Carlos for Neumann (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Decline, appears promotional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• I agree that wording was more promotional than I'd have wanted. But our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, and the NYT is certainly reliable and so I did add a more neutral sentence to the career section. Beest, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. In order to improve the NPOV of this article, the phrase "which profiles American scammers" should be removed from the second sentence in the "In popular culture" section so that the sentence reads as follows: "The HBO docuseries Generation Hustle produced an episode about the Neumann's leadership at WeWork." While Vanity Fair does describe the show using the "scammer" language, Generation Hustle and HBO Max themselves later changed their self-descriptions, per Deadline, Law & Crime, and The Verge. The negative description of the docuseries in the current BLP is both unnecessary and out-of-date, and it implies that some kind of scam or crime was committed while the sources above show that Generation Hustle and HBO Max edited their descriptions specifically to avoid this false implication. Thanks so much. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, also per MOS:POPCULT, "A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." – I have removed the mention since the Vanity Fair source merely mentions the subject's appearance in Generation Hustle. I've also removed it from Rebekah Neumann's page – the documentary in any case is hardly about her. Ptrnext (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The irony is the three stories you just shared gave us substantial coverage. Now we have to have a whole section about the TV show. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Closed as moot since @Horse Eye's Back has added a section about the show in question Quetstar (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hello. I'd like to request the following addition to the end of the first paragraph in the "Investments" section.

Neumann also invested in tech-enabled mortgage service startup Valon Mortgage Technologies,^[1][2] Argentine fintech company Ualá,^[3][4] e-commerce platform Unybrands,^[5] Israeli AI-based IVF software platform AiVf,^[6] and Latin American fintech company R2.^[7]

Pinging Ptrnext again given his willingness to review and provide feedback on requests like these in the past. I appreciate your help! Carlos for Neumann (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Carlos for Neumann, considering billionaires routinely make many investments – these are non-notable companies and likely the investment amounts are not significant (or disclosed) – I don't think it belongs here. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ptrnext. Thanks for the helpful explanation. Would you consider adding the investment into the company (Ualá) which already has a Wikipedia page and thus seems to be somewhat notable? My suggestion for the new sentence to be added at the end of the first paragraph in the ‘Investments’ section is as follows, using the same sources as above.

Neumann also invested in Argentine fintech company Ualá.

Thanks so much. Carlos for Neumann (talk) Carlos for Neumann (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Carlos for Neumann, the Bloomberg News source says that the family office invested in the VC firm (17Sigma) founded by the founder of Ualá, and not Ualá itself. Ptrnext (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi again. First of all, thank you Ptrnext for looking at my request concerning the investments. I hope to revisit that issue at a later date. Right now, I have a different concern, as follows: Please remove the third paragraph in the Business career section that begins "In 2018, WeWork faced a lawsuit..." Neumann was not accused of harassment, and his tangential involvement was mentioned in only one sentence in each source. Therefore, a full paragraph about this episode is WP:UNDUE and not in line with Wikipedia's BLP guidelines. This entire paragraph is better suited for the WeWork page. Thanks again. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. I've updated both the pages accordingly. Ptrnext (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks again Ptrnext for your helpful edits. Your work in improving the neutrality of this article is greatly appreciated. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hi again Ptrnext. Can you kindly have a look at the second paragraph of the Property section? In the second sentence that begins: "Observers noted this as a potential conflict of interest…" I would like to propose adding some much-needed balance and context to this statement. As it is now written, the sentence implies that Neumann may have done something against company policy or behind the company's back. I suggest adding a (well-sourced) clarification that Neumann was totally compliant and transparent regarding these transactions. My proposed addition to the end of that sentence is as follows:

...though Neumann and the company followed the company’s related-party protocols that required these transactions be disclosed and approved by the board.^[1][2]

Thanks again for your help. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It is unnecessary to balance the Property section at this time. Quetstar (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Quetstar. Thanks for your response. Could you explain what you mean by "at this time"? I understood that balance is mandated by WP:NPOV at all times… Carlos for Neumann (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It means that the article is currently balanced, your proposed edit would unbalance the article and insert bias in favor of Neumann. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the imbalance lies in the implication that there was something wrong in Neumann's actions. According to the sources cited, observers noticed a potential conflict of interest, but also that these concerns were addressed and disclosed. If one assertion (the potential conflict) is noteworthy, surely the counter-assertion is noteworthy as well, according to Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines. I am going to give the initial request some further thought, and I hope to revisit it in the future with some alternatives. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Hello. Neumann is not an Israeli-American as is currently stated in the article's lead. I ask that this be revised for accuracy as follows: "Adam Neumann (Hebrew: אדם נוימן; born April 25, 1979) is an Israeli-American billionaire, businessman and investor." This change is congruent with the current source, and can also be verified here.

Pinging Ptrnext and Barkeep49 as they've been involved here in the past.

Thanks for your time, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Carlos for Neumann: While Forbes does mention he is not a US Citizen, several WP:RSP's (Vox, The Guardian, Haaretz, SCMP) use the "Israeli-American" term since Neumann is a US resident and leads/has led American companies. Ptrnext (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

A citizen of Israel who lives and works in America is an Israeli-American, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Declined per Ptrnext and Horse Eye's Back. Quetstar (talk) 07:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure that stating that someone is an "Israeli-American" merely implies that they are an Israeli who just "lives and works" in America. The simplest meaning of the first sentence is that Neumann has dual citizenship, which he does not, as is shown by the sources. Either way, could you please remove "American" from the "Citizenship" parameter of the Infobox, according to Wikipedia:Citizenship_and_nationality,since he is not an American citizen? Thanks for your attention to this matter. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thats fair, done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, I just saw this. I submit that someone who has been married to a native-born American citizen for at least 15 years and lives in Greenwich Village with six children and has personally lived in the U.S. for at least 21 years, is very likely no longer simply a permanent resident. (I think common sense would dictate that for the sake of his children's inheritance, he would have citizenship.) Is there a citation that says he is not a dual citizen? Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Softlavender. Thanks for all your edits which have improved the structure of Neumann's page. Concerning the dual citizenship issue- there is a source that says he is not a US citizen, but the situation is dynamic and may change. I will keep an eye out for any new sources that may shed some light on this issue, and bring them here for discussion. Thanks again, (talk) 09:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Carlos for Neumann, could you post the source that says he is not a U.S. citizen here on the talkpage? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Softlavender. Here are two sources, which I also referred to at the beginning of this section. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2017/08/23/states-with-tech-billionaires-california-washington/?sh=35b126797a5c and https://www.forbes.com/profile/adam-neumann/?sh=21c11d4b474f They both mention that he is an Israeli citizen, while the first source above explicitly states that Neumann "is not an American citizen." Please let me know if I can be of help in any other way. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  The first citation is 6 years old, and the second citation is as old as that listing (at least 7 years old; the only thing that gets updated is net worth and his age, which is automatically updated via an embedded code); it says he lives in Miami, Florida. Softlavender (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I would like to suggest the following updates to Adam Neumann's page:

1. Please create a new section after the “Popular culture” section, called, “Awards.” Please add the following awards to that section:
   • In 2015, Neumann was awarded the EY Entrepreneur of the Year.^[1]
   • In 2018, Neumann was listed as one of Time's 100 Most Influential People.^[2]
2. In the Business career section, in the sixth paragraph that begins, “On 5 March 2021,” please add the following sentence right after that sentence, since Neumann returned to the Forbes billionaires list in 2021:
   • "In 2021, Neumann returned to the Forbes billionaires list.^[3] As of April 2023, his net worth is listed at $2.2 billion."^[4]

Pinging Ptrnext for help with this request. Thank you for your help! Carlos for Neumann (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done If there are other notable awards, we could have an Awards section. For now, I've added them under Biography (I've also added a secondary sourcing for the Time 100, since Time is a primary source for this). Regarding the billionaires list, you are mixing Bloomberg's list and Forbes's list. According to the archives, Neumann returned to the Forbes's list only in 2022. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, I would like to suggest the addition of the following new section called "Philanthropy" with the following content and sources, perhaps placed after the Investment section.

In 2017, Neumann and his wife donated $1 million to the "Be the Match Registry" of the National Marrow Donor Program which helps match bone marrow donors with people in need of bone marrow and cord blood transplants.^[1]

In 2022, he gave approximately NIS 1.5 million to the Hapoel Petah Tikva F.C. Football Club and became the team’s main sponsor. Neumann had previously donated approximately NIS 1 million to Hapoel Petah Tikva. According to the team, the money will be used to fund community and youth sports initiatives. ^[2]

Pinging Ptrnext for help with this request. Thanks again for your assistance! Carlos for Neumann (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I will not be carrying out this edit request myself, I'm cross-posting this from my talk page per Carlos's request:

• The first paragraph and its sourcing looks good.
• For the first sentence of the second paragraph, you may want to use an English source such as the Times of Israel, per WP:RSUE.
• For the second sentence of the second paragraph, Neumann had previously donated approximately NIS 1 million to Hapoel Petah Tikva, I'd suggest looking for reliable sources about when Neumann first donated to the club, if possible.
• I also do not know if the following sentence should be included: According to the team, the money will be used to fund community and youth sports initiatives. This sentence seems reasonable to include, as it helps explain what the funding will be used for, but some editors might consider it undue weight and highly speculative. Epicgenius (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there coverage of the Petah Tikva deal in independent sources which calls it philanthropy? The Times of Israel article linked above calls it an investment and suggests that the most important part of the whole thing is that his sister is married to the team's CEO so we would have to include that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a good point.

Additionally, looking at the CNN source again, I see the source says that Neumann was inspired to donate to the "Be the Match Registry" because they were trying to find a bone marrow donor for an early employee. That may merit mention as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Epicgenius, Ptrnext and Horse Eye's Back I see there is some confusion about the status of Neumann's donations, so please allow me to clarify. Hapoel Petah Tikva is owned by a not-for-profit supporters' trust, which is why the Bizportal source (which is reliable and independent) uses the Hebrew word for "donate" to refer to Neumann's 1 million shekel contribution to the club in 2021. The Times of Israel article likely used the word "investment" for the 2021 donation because that money was used to fund the team's budget to help improve the team - but the two terms are not mutually exclusive here. The second donation of matching funds totaling 1.5 million shekels in 2023, however, was more clearly charitable in nature, as it was ear-marked for causes like youth programs that the football club sponsors. If this difference between the donations causes editors to prefer to leave out the 2021 funding from the Philanthropy section and just include the 2023 funding, then leave it out. Below is a new version of my original edit request, taking into consideration all the concerns expressed above:

In 2017, Neumann and his wife donated $1 million to the "Be the Match Registry" of the National Marrow Donor Program which helps match bone marrow donors with people in need of bone marrow and cord blood transplants. The Neumanns were inspired to donate since they have been looking for a bone marrow match for an early employee of WeWork.^[1]

In 2022, he gave approximately NIS 1.5 million to the Hapoel Petah Tikva F.C. and became the team’s main sponsor. According to the team, the money will be used to fund community and youth sports initiatives. The club's CEO, Avi Yehiel, is married to Neumann's sister Adi Neumann [he]. ^[2][3]

Thanks, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. Following the above discussion and feedback, I am re-submitting my edit request to add a Philanthropy section. Please note that Epicgenius has already said that "The first paragraph and its sourcing look good." I have slightly tweaked it so it is a bit more concise. The second paragraph has been completely re-written according to the suggestions made by the editors above. The two paragraphs are as follows:

In 2017, Neumann and his wife donated $1 million to the "Be the Match Registry" of the National Marrow Donor Program. The Neumanns were inspired to donate after looking for a bone marrow match for an early employee of WeWork.^[1]

In 2022, he gave approximately NIS 1.5 million to the Hapoel Petah Tikva F.C. and became the team’s main sponsor. According to the team, the money was to be used to fund community and youth sports initiatives. The club's CEO, Avi Yehiel, is married to Neumann's sister Adi Neumann [he]. ^[2][3]

Thanks, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. Please add the following to the end of the "In popular culture" section:

In 2022, Andrew Ross Sorkin won an Emmy Award for his interview with Neumann called "DealBook Summit: One-on-One With Adam Neumann." The live interview was Neumann's first since leaving WeWork two years previously, and was watched live by over one million viewers. ^[1][2]

I am also pinging Spintendo who has been helpful in the past with editing this article. Thanks so much, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 Approved. Please note that the incorrect WikiLink for the Emmy Awards was listed in your request. The correct link is Emmy Awards. Regards  Spintendo  09:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much Spintendo. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello. Please add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the introduction, as an update to keep the intro current.

Neumann launched Flow, a residential real estate startup funded by the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, in August 2022.^[1]

Once again, I am pinging Spintendo who has helped so much with editing this article. Thanks, 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Carlos for Neumann (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The intro, which summarizes the major points of the article, is not appropriate for this information. It would be better placed under the property section, perhaps as a replacement for the third paragraph, which seems to already be mentioning this topic. Regards,  Spintendo  15:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. In the first sentence in the "Generation Hustle" subsection, please remove the phrase "which profiles American scammers." As detailed in the remainder of the paragraph, this description of the HBO docuseries has been disputed and legally challenged, and HBO itself changed its own characterization of the show to avoid the implication that all the show's subjects were scammers or criminals. The sentence should be written as follows, to avoid stating the "scammers" characterization in Wikipedia's voice:

The HBO docuseries Generation Hustle produced an episode titled "Cult of WeWork" about the Neumanns leadership at WeWork.

Thank you, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Deadline Hollywood reports that the part featuring Adam was the only part where the subject matter hasn't been charged or accused of breaking an actual law or, in many cases, served time. That indicates to me that the characterization of the episode featuring Adam specifically as a scammer may be false, but that the remaining 9 parts may have reported on actual scammers. The characterization that the docu-series was about scammers also comes from a reliable source; HBO deciding what they want to call it would be immaterial to Wikipedia's voice in this instance. I feel that the prose discussing the legal challenge, and the sentence that I just quoted above, is sufficient to explain Adam's stance on the matter and that it may not apply to him. —Sirdog (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sirdog. I would agree with you if we were talking about a Wiki article on Generation Hustle. Then the issue of whether all the episodes, or just some of the episodes, deal with scammers or criminals or just businessmen with unique management styles would be relevant. In the context of the Wiki article discussing Adam Neumann, a description of the docuseries is irrelevant, contradicting the guidelines found here in WP:COAT and here in WP:OFFTOPIC. In addition, there is a strict policy concerning BLPs which are obligated to be "…written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." The phrase "which profiles American scammers" is superfluous and non-neutral when in the very next sentence it is stated that the show was characterized as to be about "scammers". Having that word "scammers" appear in both the first sentence and the second sentence tips the scale away from neutrality towards the negative perception by readers that "Neumann must be a scammer since the show is about scammers." Please remove "which profiles American scammers" as requested above. I am pinging Ptrnext, Spintendo and Barkeep49, a few other editors who have been on this page in the past to weigh in on this issue. Thanks, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Carlos, I agree that the redundancy could be cleaned up and your proposed edit would still convey that the show profiles scammers based on the following sentence. However, this would require a broader consensus since we have at least one editor objecting to its removal. Best, Ptrnext (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done: I apologize for my late reply, I had recently gone out of state for a short trip and then returned home quite sick. Carlos for Neumann, good points, especially relating to neutrality and the fact that scammer is used twice so closely together. I legitimately didn't spot that. I have moved forward with your desired edit.

As a short sidebar, Wikipedia has a distinction between guidelines and policies. WP:COAT and WP:OFFTOPIC are essays. While they are useful and can be used to elaborate on your POV, they aren't - strictly speaking - arguments backed up by community consensus. I don't say this in a demeaning way, but to hopefully give you useful information for future requested edits. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much Sirdog for taking the time and care to read my viewpoint with an open mind and making the edit. And thanks, as well for clarifying the distinction between policies, guidelines and essays. I hope you are feeling better. Stay well and all the best, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi. I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph to the end of the "Biography" section, unless you think it fits better at the end of the "Business career" section:

In May 2023, The Spectator published an article containing defamatory language about Neumann. He requested and received a retraction. In August 2023, Neumann also asked The Spectator to make a £25,000 donation to charity to match the legal fees he incurred. ^[1]

I am pinging Ptrnext who has helped on this page before. Thanks. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Partly done - Good to hear from you again, Carlos for Neumann. For reviewing editors, I am replying to this request after being asked at my talk page.

I have opted to write in the following material:

In May 2023, The Spectator published an article containing language Neumann alleged to be defamatory. He requested and received a retraction. In August 2023, Press Gazette reported to have seen legal correspondence representing Neumann requesting The Spectator donate £25,000 to the charity organization Be The Match Mexico (or another of The Spectator's choosing which the letter states is subject to Neumann's approval) to match the legal fees he states to have incurred.

I felt it necessary that the reader know that a) the language's defamatory nature was clarified by the Press Gazette to be alleged by Neumann, b) that Press Gazette is claiming to have reviewed the letter themselves, c) that the original charity Neumann wanted a donation for was Be The Match Mexico, and d) that Neumann is stating that he must approve the selection of a different charity.

Feel free to criticize and suggest corrections. —Sirdog (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sirdog. Thanks so much for implementing the edit request. I wonder if you would consider adding a bit of information about the defamation and retraction in order to clarify the details of what happened. I will mark off my suggested additions to your paragraph in green:

In May 2023, The Spectator published an article claiming Neumann "defrauded" WeWork investors and compared him to convicted charlatan Elizabeth Homes, which Neumann said was defamatory. He requested and received a retraction and a printed correction as follows: "This article has been amended to make clear that it is not suggested that Adam Neumann deliberately misled investors or broke the law in any way." In August 2023, Press Gazette reported to have seen legal correspondence representing Neumann requesting The Spectator donate £25,000 to the charity organization Be The Match Mexico (or another of The Spectator's choosing which the letter states is subject to Neumann's approval) to match the legal fees he states to have incurred.

Thanks so much for all your help. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems like too much, we can't push Neumann's POV here and you seem very interested in not making him look like a scoundrel... Maybe tone that back a bit? You're allowed to suggest edits, but WP:PROMOTION is still strictly prohibited. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye's Back. I'm surprised that you find the suggested edits promotional, since they cover a negative story in more detail, but perhaps there is something that I haven't considered. My goal was simply to add the relevant information and context for the reader so that the incident is clear. Can you think of a better way to phrase the information without sounding promotional? I'd appreciate your input. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long Carlos for Neumann, haven't had a lot of time to edit Wikipedia aside from answering editor questions on my talk page. As someone disinterested in the dispute, the following items in the suggested edit give off red flags:

• Using quotes around defrauded gives the impression that Wikipedia as an entity is suggesting, indirectly, that the claims of defrauding WeWork are baseless. Wikipedia would either state whichever position has more traction in reliable sources or - lacking that - present the positions strictly from the point of view of the relevant sources.
• convicted charlatan comes across as an attack on Elizabeth's character meant to hammer home the point that the comparison to Neumann by The Spectator was morally wrong. Elizabeth does have convictions, and they are for fraud, but we would not describe her in that way. The exact wording could vary, but I'd probably opt for "... and compared him to Elizabeth Holmes, an entrepreneur convicted of wire fraud in 2022".
• Quoting out the entire correction isn't necessary when we can paraphrase it. Quoting it out entirely, which adds a substantial amount of content, can be seen as attempting to convince the reader that the correction's characterization of Neumann is true.

Now in terms of considering the desired changes, I unfortunately cannot read the entire The Spectator article as it's paywalled, so I can't verify the information attempting to be added. I would suggest adjusting your desired edits with my above critiques in mind, then re-opening the request since Horse Eye's Back has dropped out of the discussion. Or you can simply ping me and I'll re-open the request myself. —Sirdog (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sirdog. Thanks for joining the discussion. I put quotes around “defrauded” because that is how it is written in The Press Gazette, but I am happy to remove the quotes, as well as tone-down the “charlatan” phrase and paraphrase the retraction. I did not use The Spectator as a source. All my information for this paragraph comes from The Press Gazette. Here is my updated version of the paragraph, based on your suggestions. I also re-opened the edit request:

In May 2023, The Spectator published an article claiming Neumann defrauded WeWork investors and compared him to Elizabeth Holmes, an entrepreneur convicted of wire fraud in 2022, which Neumann said was defamatory. He requested and received a retraction stating that the article was amended to clarify that Adam Neumann did not deliberately mislead investors or break any law. In August 2023, Press Gazette reported to have seen legal correspondence representing Neumann requesting The Spectator donate £25,000 to the charity organization Be The Match Mexico (or another of The Spectator's choosing which the letter states is subject to Neumann's approval) to match the legal fees he states to have incurred. ^[1]

Thanks again, Carlos for Neumann (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done @Carlos for Neumann: I made the edit but left the Spectator source there. It's paywalled but from what I can see, it's critical of him. I didn't want to do anything that might be construed as whitewashing. STEMinfo (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi STEMinfo, Thanks so much for your edit. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell. I was surprised to see that you deleted some information that was well-sourced; the mention of The Spectator donation of £25,000 and the reason for the donation to "Be the Match." Both edits were the subject of long Talk page discussions here and here, where Epicgenius said "I see the source says that Neumann was inspired to donate to the "Be the Match Registry" because they were trying to find a bone marrow donor for an early employee. That may merit mention as well." I wonder if you could reconsider your deletions in light of this. Thanks so much. Carlos for Neumann (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have reconsidered, and the answer is no. Wikipedia is absolutely not a platform for public relations. "Inspired" is loaded language, and the CNN article doesn't appear to use that term, nor would it be appropriate even if it did. I do not see any reason, based on these relatively flimsy softball sources, that these trivial details would help readers understand Adam Neumann as an encyclopedia topic. Grayfell (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Inspired" was something I wrote, not something that was in the source. A more encyclopedic term would be "decided to". That was a failing on my part, and I apologize.

As for I do not see any reason, based on these relatively flimsy softball sources, that these trivial details would help readers understand Adam Neumann as an encyclopedia topic., however, I'm going to push back slightly on that. The reader may be interested in knowing why the donation was made, though of course this detail is optional, as I had intended to state in my previous comment. I'm going to push back a little harder on the sources; CNN is WP:GREL and not in any way a softball source. Epicgenius (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The outlet being generally reliable is unrelated to the issue. CNN Business is just as capable of putting out softball pieces as any other major outlet. The specific source includes direct quotes such as "They don't have an agenda, they're just being authentically good at what they're doing." and "I'm overflowing with gratitude and love." The specific source is non-critical and takes everything the company says at face value without any indication of investigation or even impartiality. I assume it's still within CNN's ethics policies, but it ends up a lot closer to access journalism than to accountability journalism. If that's not softball, we will just have to disagree on what the term means, but I think my point remains that this source is very weak for these specific details. Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were referring to the source's reliability when you described it as a "softball source"—my bad. I don't really have a horse in this race, other than to say that I recommended that Carlos include the reason why Neumann decided to donate to the Be the Match registry.

My earlier comment was based off a cursory look at the source. If the CNN article was indeed being overly laudatory, then your removal seems fine. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)