Draft talk:Obie Benz

Creating editor's notes moved form draft

• Comment: Hello editors,
  I’m proposing a page for Obie Benz, who hired me. I’ve disclosed my COI on the Talk pages for Obie and myself and am summarizing the key points here:
  Key Point #1: Why does Obie pass the GNG? Here’s a peek at his media coverage:
  📰 "Debora Lynn Jones Marries Obie Benz," New York Times (1983).
  📰 "The Esquire Register: Obie Benz, Philanthropist," Esquire (1984). This series recognized “people under 40 years of age whose lives and work exemplified America’s highest qualities and values.”
  📰 "Bay Baking Heir Is Sharing His Bread," San Francisco Examiner (1973).
  📰 "Advice for Young Heirs: 'Robin Hood Was Right,'" Washington Post (1978)
  📰 "Young and Rich Americans Set Giving Pattern,” International Herald Tribune (1976).
  📰 "Dollars That Give an Impulse," Süddeutsche Zeitung (1978).
  Key Point #2: Why is Obie significant/influential? First, he started three organizations, two of which have their own Wikipedia pages: The Vanguard Public Foundation, the MUSE Foundation, and the Pacific Alliance. According to Trusts & Estates, a wealth-management journal, “Obie Benz is the spokesman for a group of wealthy young people — mostly in their 20s and early 30s — seeking to effectuate changes within society through the foundation system. Members of the group include heirs to some of the major American fortunes — Pillsbury, J. C. Penney, Levi Strauss, Sears Roebuck, Ridder Publishing, Union Carbide, and Syntex, among others.”
  Second, he’s a formative figure in the inherited-money and grant-giving movements. Any history of charitable foundations that doesn’t include Vanguard and Obie is incomplete.
  Finally, his work as a documentary film director and producer has been nominated for an Academy Award. And three of his projects — Americas in Transition, Heavy Petting, and The History of Rock ‘n’ Roll — each have their own Wikipedia pages.
  Key Point #3: I’ve tried to write from a NPOV and to use sources that are reliable, secondary, and independent.
  Key Point #4: Many of the footnotes come from media outlets whose archives are not online. So you can verify every citation, I’ve provided complete bibliographic information, including excerpting the pertinent text that supports the given claim. If any editor needs to see a copy firsthand, I can provide it.
  Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your consideration.
  Signed,
  BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

---

Resubmission

On September 6, @Timtrent rejected my AfC propossal for Obie Benz, for whom I have a COI. He pointed out three issues, which I've summarized below. (I resolved the first two and respectfully ask that what I wrote for the third be read.) Thank you for your consideration.

1. Family. You’re right: The “personal life” section focuses on Benz’s mom, dad, and grandfather, not Benz. I’ve removed this section.

2. Quotations. I’ve removed the four quotes or put them in my own words.

3. Footnotes. You’re right: The number of footnotes is “highly suggestive” of WP:BOMBARD. Let me explain why I’m not focusing on quantity at the expense of quality.

First, you’ll see not only that every single fact throughout the text is scrupulously footnoted, but also that the sources are reliable. The most-common sources are the New York Times, Esquire, the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune, and Süddeutsche Zeitung.

If you’re concerned about visual clutter, I didn’t “bundle” the footnotes because each one verifies a different part of the given sentence. But if you’d like, I can remove some of them (along with the corresponding text).

You point out that many of the footnotes are offline. Yes, I addressed this issue in my submission; here’s what I wrote. I’d welcome your feedback.

“Many of the footnotes come from media outlets whose archives are not online. So you can verify every citation, I’ve provided complete bibliographic information, including excerpting the pertinent text that supports the given claim. If any editor needs to see a copy firsthand, I can provide it.”

This action seems to align with WP:OFFLINE, which says, “Provision of full bibliographic information helps Wikipedia’s readers and editors find the source when they need it, and also increases the source’s credibility as a reliable source.”

The bottom line: I’d ask you to read the footnotes and consider them on their merits; please don’t dismiss everything out of hand because of a suspicion. Indeed, WP:CITEKILL suggests that an “experienced editor,” like yourself, do this: “Each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article.”

Thank you.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

@BlueRoses13 I declined it. rejection has a specific meaning, whcih is that has reached the end of the road. Declining it is part of the iterative review process.

Thank you for putting in the work. I see you have submitted it for further review, and that will happen in due course and be Doen by a different reviewer. Wikipedia gets the best result if the same reviewer steps aside and allows fresh eyes on the draft.

Each review looks at the whole draft, unless, of course, there is a gating factor that requires attention before a good review may be given. Reviewers typically do not look at the most recent work done. Why? Because the reader does not care about the work put in, the reader cares about the end product 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:32, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Timtrent Would you be willing to remove the paid-contributions template that you added? I've already disclosed my COI, and that flag may prejudice the next reviewer. Thank you. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

It is a pure statement of fact. I am unwilling. Paid drafts necessarily attract scrutiny. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:19, 23 September 2026 (UTC)