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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the NY Daily News [1] (and elsewhere):
Not sure how much of it belongs in the article, but it should be briefly mentioned.
Here is some more from the Sacramento Bee [2]:
It seems there was a website created by this women about John Fund -- it was at ruthlesspeople.com, but now only available in archive.org -- as stated above in the Bee story, the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” is the best description:
-- Ben Houston 02:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Searching the web for information about the court case shows that someone claiming to be the mother of the woman who sued Fund is energetically putting articles attacking him on every website she can get to. And, of course, she can get to this one, where an AOL-based anon has been adding an anti-Fund POV to this article. Coincidence?
The court case was settled in July, when she dropped her suit and Fund dropped his countersuit. Fund's attacker claims to have severely damaged Fund's career with her allegations, which even Eric Alterman dismisses. I have not found any Reliable Source who gives any credence to her claims; we do have Reliable Sources who agree that she (1) has a serious mental illness and (2) is an admitted perjurer.
The following text in this color were added by JayGell in December 2006:
Response to above paragraph: 1.) Morgan did NOT "drop" the case or claims. the case is properly listed as "settled" in NY the unified Courts web site.
As to the second part of "reliable sources" mentioned above. personal friends of John Fund regardless of which otherwise credible publication they may work for or have interest in are NOT credible when the proffer as "evidence" of "(1) has a serious mental illness and (2) is an admitted perjurer." As to #1: 1. Alterman refusing to even examine [Morgan]’s contradictory evidence, 2. The FACT that [Morgan's] “sworn” statement was made under direct threat of physical harm and she was escorted by Fund with force and against her free will to the notary to sign the “evidence”, and; 3. The assault on [Morgan] occurred AFTER such document was signed in reference to the first beating and assault charges in New Jersey. 4. Fund thinks the document gave him a get out of jail free card for the second beating in New York, and any future character beatings like Fund is engaged in at present. 5. Additionally [Morgan] has Definitive Clinical Proof and Confirmation she has never had any, or suffered from “Borderline Personality Disorder” which was originally pulled form her own uneducated self diagnosis of some depression and spoken in general terms and not medical terms was taken out of context as if she had in fact been diagnosed by a professional but rather superimposed upon her by Funds force of threat and violence in an effort to conceal his own narcissistic problems.
As to #2;
1. The claim is the “admission” was made in a sworn deposition in a court record is false and easily verifiable by checking with the clerk of court in Santa Barbra or the case filings online. 2. Again as Fund has a flair for taking statements out of context this was in an unsigned deposition during [Morgan]’s mothers ([redacted]) divorce. And when examining the audio tape version of the transcripts it is very clear the statement about “lie all the time” was made with the utmost sarcasm and no where in such unofficial deposition does [Morgan] admit to ever committing “perjury”. 3. Additionally, and finally the suspect deposition was provided to Fund by the opposing party to the deposition, Craig Franklin who was paying the child support for Fund’s child, Justin. Any and all disputes should be directed to Jay Gell jayegell_01@yahoo.com / 704-865-2352 and supporting evidence can be found at www.coops-roost.com
I've edited the article to fix the stuff about this poor woman. I made several other changes such as adding ISBNs, including a quote about the U.S. electoral system and changing the paragraph boundaries.
BTW, if the ex-girlfriend reads this: take your meds. Just do it. You have an illness that cannot be cured, only treated. (So do I.) You need those meds. (And you can tell who your genuine friends are: they're the ones who try to get you to keep taking those meds.) BTW! my wife has no metal illnes and you are asking for a slander suit, Jay Gell. retract it now!
CWC (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
After user Ricky81682 has reformatted the article to use <ref>s (thanks, Ricky81682!) I took another look at http://www.caslon.com.au/ghostingnote.htm and realised that its sole mention of John Fund is in a quote. So I found the source of that quote (an (IMO) excellent NYT Books essay by Joe Queenan) and replaced the ref to Caslon's essay with a ref to the Queenan essay.
I've also changed the link to http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030602/alterman to the new style. However, I couldn't see how to cite http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020221nypd072.jpg, which is an image of the NYPD "Domestic Incident Report" involving Fund, so I just deleted it. Anyone who knows how to cite it is welcome to put it back.
Cheers, CWC (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
John Fund ghostwrote "The Way Things Ought to Be." It ought to be honestly and frankly mentioned.
Atthom (
talk)
23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
In a civil case, people claim all kinds of things, and it is up to the courts to determine the facts. Unless there is a judgment, I do not think cases should be included in articles. Otherwise, we are just repeating allegations from a source of unknown reliability.
Also, the article could be improved by adding information about the subject's political beliefs and alliances. -- 74.15.53.108 ( talk) 19:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I met Mr. Fund today and he showed this page to me, taking issue with this section. I noticed that in addition to being unencyclopedic in its paucity, typical to many unrated bio articles (especially of journalists), it contained a sentence arguably violating WP:NPOV in its description of a civil case reported in the news in 2002, and that one cited source about the incident inarguably fails WP:RS. This source is American Politics Journal, which seems to be a blog (or more specifically, an old Compuserve list that has evolved into a blog) with no track record for fact-checking. I have removed it and per WP:BLP have rephrased the sentence to leave out specifics not resolved in the source material. The case has been settled, but I have not yet found a reliable source to make that statement definitively. As there was little follow-on coverage, I'll go ahead and make that claim, but I have also flagged my own sentence as needing verification. Likewise, I have removed the statement about him being in the Libertarian Party when younger; there are no BLP issues here, but its source is the same American Politics Journal. Meanwhile, I believe a reliable citation for the outcome of the case can be found, so I will keep looking, and please add it if you find it. WWB ( talk) 04:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with WWB's conclusion above: we cannot mention that incident without violating at least one Wikipedia policy, so it is best to omit it. (Of course, if for some bizarre reason someone writes a WP:RS about it, things would change.)
User 72.66.48.205 ( talk · contribs) just added this to the article:
I've removed it. It seems like a good attempt at honest coverage, but
What do other contributors think? CWC 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I see he's a columnist for WSJ, and has written one (published) book, ghost written another. The article states so few accomplishments. Is this person non-notable? Can we get some more accomplishments added here? VictorC ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the following here for discussion:
This sort of thing is not allowed in a WP:BLP without good sourcing. Can anyone find a "Reliable Source" for this? Also, remember WP:UNDUE: any coverage of the Frank-Fund kerfuffle will need to be concise.
For an overview of the dispute, see American Daughter 5-Jan-2010, [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122353 WND 18-Jan-2010], and TPM 5-Feb-2010. Unfortunately, AFAICT none of these are acceptable sources. Sigh. CWC 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Mr Fund's bio at the WSJ website now uses the past tense and shows nothing published since June 2011. I've updated the first para of the article accordingly, but kept things vague. We need a good source documenting Mr Fund's apparent change of employment. Anyone got one? CWC 17:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've updated the article to fix broken links, outdated information, etc. I've also removed some unsourced claims. The article now has no direct links to opinionjournal.com. It still links to one Internet Archive snapshot from opinionjournal.com (the first EL, a list of Fund's articles as of Jan 2010), largely because AFAICT there is no way to find Fund's articles on the wsj.com.
Background: Until News Corp bought the WSJ, the opinion page was largely separate from the rest of the WSJ, going so far as to run a separate website, opinionjournal.com. When News Corp moved to reduce the barrier between the opinion and news staff, opinionjournal.com was changed to redirect every URL to
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html. Unfortunately, while opinionjournal.com had nice author bios, list of articles, etc, wsj.com is a pain to search and much of the metadata seems to be missing. Bah.
The article still says nothing about Mr Fund's departure from the WSJ, because I still have not seen any acceptable sources about it. In fact, there is a marked shortage of good sources for Mr Fund's recent career: NRO has no bio page for him, and his bio at TAS just specifies his role there. (Note that Mr Fund has good reason to be careful about his web presence, as can be seen from most of the previous discussions on this page.) So once again I ask: does anyone have any good sources for Mr Fund's recent career?
(FWIW, Mr Fund's last WSJ "On The Trail" column was dated June 16, 2011, and his first item at NRO was dated September 20, 2011. He first wrote for TAS in 2004.)
Cheers -- CWC 16:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Considering the publicity it garnered, and the talk about it on this page, it should be noted that the woman who accused Fund of abuse retracted her accusations in 2002. Her statement has been posted online for years. Nicmart ( talk) 14:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from [[]] was copied or moved into [[]]. The former page's [ history] now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Created some material at this article and moved some to Hans von Spakovsky article. Activist ( talk) 12:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Fund. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
As a drive-by reader and commenter here, I want to note that this page seems to be an "airbrushed" bio of a public figure who was prominently in the news at a certain point in the early 2000s, on the basis of accusations against him by a previous girlfriend. Now all mention of this has been removed, and the accusations of POV "bias" on this page in those mentioning it seem to be pretty nitpicky. The comment(s) from ChrisChittleborough seems to exemplify that, beginning "I met Mr. Fund today and he showed this page to me, taking issue with this section." This bio now reads as a bare-bones press release, with no meaningful information about John Fund. I am not able to take the time (which I don't have) to add back anything about the public controversy, or Fund's beliefs at any age, especially as I labor under the suspicion, perhaps unjustified, that the page will be policed for "infractions." But I second the motion to remove the bio if for nothing else than not conforming to anything I would like to see in an encyclopedia article that would not be written by the person himself (again, see the comment from ChrisChittleborough. I have no idea how to institute such a motion. I hope someone cares enough to either give this bio some substance or nomimate it for removal. thanks! Actio ( talk) 15:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)