Talk:Bob Parsons

Radio show merge?

http://www.radiogodaddy.com/ Bob Parsons' radio show

Has an article: Life Online with Bob Parsons. Merge with this? — Omegatron 00:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a seperate article is warrented. Ardenn 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes it especially notable? His blog doesn't have its own article. — Omegatron 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

His blog doesn't need its own article. What makes the radio program notable: Alexa traffic rank of 653,579, 36,000 results for a Google test. Ardenn 04:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Alexa is not a measure of notability, and his blog beats his radio show in the Google test, which is generally considered worthless for notability measurements, too. I don't really care whether his Internet radio show has its own article, but I don't see why it's especially notable. Lots of bloggers have podcasts and Internet radio shows. — Omegatron 04:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

His radio show is on satellite radio and regular AM radio as well. I think that sets it apart. Ardenn 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a merge of his radio show into this article. It's not like a Howard Stern size show, and would fit well within the article about the man himself. Jeffrey.Rodriguez

Welcome to Wikipedia. What are your contributions with us? Ardenn 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your first and only edit? — Omegatron 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

First and only as a registered user. I've contributed to a few articles previously, long time user though :) Jeffrey.Rodriguez 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I support a merge, the talkshow isn't that notable, I've asked around campus and in my classes and I've not come across anyone who's heard of it, I live in a city with a pop of 1mil and it's a rather large campus. Everything that is said in the radio article could be said here in it's own section just as easily and people could do "one-stop-shopping" instead of having to word it just right to get to it. My two cents. →ΣcoPhreek_Δ 13:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support merger - with the radio page being a redirect rather than a delete. there is not enough of a volume of text to warrant two articles Trödel 07:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am against the merger. --The Mad Bomber (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reason? This isn't a blind vote. — Omegatron 23:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the text into this article - under Radio Show - unfortunately the redirect won't link directly to a section - but it is good enough I think. I would move the section up a bit - but not sure where (except above the guatanamo thing) since the rest are basically in chronological order. So I left it last Trödel 06:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The merge is still disputed. I still think they should be seperate articles. *goes to find a fitting tag* Ardenn 06:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with leaving them seperate if we can't reach concensus - but the metatags need to go - as they have been on there for weeks (at least since May 13th). And such tags detract from the article - and it is common policy to avoid the long term use of such tags. See icon deletion where even unobtrusive icons are being debated as not being appropriate for the article space. If you want to leave the tag, {{mergedisputed}} on the talk page that is fine with me. Trödel 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Omegatron's edits

The issue I have is:

1. You don't need to spell out what he said in his blog. It's sourced, people can read it for themselves. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

2. I don't see why both issues can't be under a general controversies section.

Ardenn 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Spelling out what he himself said in his blog to cause criticism and then what he said in his later retraction is perfectly neutral. Put it back, please.
2. Pointing out how many "controversies" he has surrounding him is soapboxical. Simply labeling the incidents for what they are is the most neutral way.
   • "The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics." Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
   • "[...] it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms." - Jimbo Wales

— Omegatron 04:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Then work it in better? I think, and several people would agree, it violates WP:NPOV not to include a balanced argument. I'm open to other options. Ardenn 04:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A balanced argument about what?? — Omegatron 05:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Both sides of Bob Parsons. To create an article just talking about the good things of Bob isn't neutral. Ardenn 05:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How is saying "he's been criticized as advocating torture" a good thing? — Omegatron 05:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. -WP:NPOV

Ardenn 05:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now describe why my version conflicts with that. — Omegatron 05:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The critisizm is factual and there's no valid reason not to include it. Ardenn 05:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand at all. What did I do that removed criticism? — Omegatron 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You didn't, its the interiptation. You want the direct quotes in it, while I feel a simple commentary is sufficient, and readers can visit the blog itself for the whole article(s). Ardenn 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why can't readers judge the quotes for themselves? — Omegatron 06:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at it again. This debate is really just over the Gitmo section, not the Super Bowl one. Let me sleep on it. Ardenn 06:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also about your use of the section heading "controversies", which I have shown you is recommended against by both a guideline and Jimbo himself. — Omegatron 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there another name we can use for it then? It just seemed unorganized without someting there. Ardenn 23:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

They're two unrelated incidents. They should just be named for what they are. "Super Bowl Commercial" and "Guantanamo Bay". For instance, see George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, etc. See any "controversy" sections? — Omegatron 00:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an awful article

I came here to see if the Bob Parsons running godaddy was the same one that started Parson's technology - and like nearly always - wikipedia had the answer; however, the state of this article is utterly deplorable. One blog comment is about half the words of the article. This is really a shame for an internet pioneer who has successfully started 2 companies, though I wish he wouldn't have sold out to Intuit - I still miss my Money Counts software as I struggle through Quicken's do it our way and we'll make budgetting as complicated as possible - but who can blame him.

Anyway I know nothing about him other than I loved the software - but I do know this article needs serious work. Trödel 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Put your money where your mouth is. If you think it needs work, do the research and add to it. Make sure it is verifiable and has cited sources. Ardenn 04:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So write more. — Omegatron 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Advert concerns

This page now has two advert flags on it. I tried to be transparent in changes. Made it clear that I was affiliated with Go Daddy and that changes made were designed to adhere to Wiki's policy on neutrality. Citations were added to make article more fact-based. If there are concerns about specific passages still not being in "neutral point of view" can we discuss specifically, rather than simply adding new flags?? Am willing to make further changes in conjunction with other users. Have also appealed for assistance to Wiki editors on this matter. ParsonsRep —Preceding comment was added at 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

went ahead and dropped anything like advertising - i think the article is fine now. ninety:one 18:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsons Technology

There's not more than skeletal information on Parsons Technology, which perhaps should be a separate article. It mentions only one product, and leaves out major ones such as their tax software. It mentions the Intuit buyout, but does not mention that Intuit spit it back out a few years later. My recollection was that Intuit killed off the tax software and Parsons Technology reemerged with its other software intact, Bob Parsons was contractually prohibited from selling tax software for a period of time (a year?) and that he tried to resurrect that business on the Web after that period expired. I have no idea what happened to the company, but I see that the Bible software is out there on QuickVerse.com with an oblique reference, which is "The Parsons Church Division." Is that affiliated with Bob Parsons, was it merely named after him, or was it a coincidental reference to those with the clerical title? Why was Parsons involved in Bible software? If religion is a big part of his life, it's relevant if it plays a significant role in his business model. Hagrinas (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some improvements

have been made. References below Trödel 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Type	Title	Link	In Article
Magazine	Worthwhile (WSJ)	GoDaddy's Remarkable Daddy	Yes
Magazine	DNJournal	Underachiever to Overlord: Go Daddy's Bob Parsons Started Slow	Yes
Newspaper	Marine Corps News	Former Marine, Go Daddy CEO Talks About His Rise	Yes
Newspaper	NY Times	Blogging While Browsing, but Not Buying	No
Newspaper	Arizona Republic	GoDaddy Goes public	No
Newspaper	Arizona Republic	Parsons divorces after 2 years	No
Newspaper	USA Today	Chest Ads built buzz, but also animosity	Yes
Newspaper	USA Today	GoDaddy.com surfs publicity wave on racy ad	No
News Television	CNN	GoDaddy traffic soars	No
Online News	World Net Daily	[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42772 GoDaddy.com chief: From Bible to breasts]	Yes
Low Circ Mag	Bible Software Review	An interview with Craig Rairdin	No
Newsletter	Legalzoom	Rags to Riches: Bob Parsons, Founder of GoDaddy.com	Yes
Blog	Red State Patriot	Creator of QuickVerse speaks about GoDaddy and Parsons	Yes
Blog	McCarthy.vg	Why I'm No Longer a GoDaddy Customer	Yes
Blog	Confusability.com	NoGoDaddy	Yes
Blog	Daily Kos	GoDaddy president retracts pro-torture blog posting	Yes
Auto-Bio	Craig Rairdin	How I Got Into this Mess	Yes
Auto-Bio	Bob Parsons	My Bio	No

comments

Good additions. Can you put the blog quotes back in, though? — Omegatron 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I am not sure what to do about the quotes - I got a copy of the articles off google cache but they are now gone - as I don't think those are necessarily the best quotes from the article to present a balanced (NPOV) view of his statements. Any suggestions? Trödel 18:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For full disclosure, ParsonsRep is affiliated with GoDaddy.com. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

ISO Dates

Just a quick comment - I don't care that much on ISO dates - I just think it is nice for international users of Wikipedia. if we link the dates (there are different ways to do it - I like ISO because it is easy to remember) then the dates will show the way the user wants. see m:Dynamic dates for info - also m:Help:Preferences#Date format. The style guide indicates its a nicety from what I can tell see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#ISO date formats and surrounding topics. Trödel 14:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ardenn, I am not sure why you keep reverting without discussion - however, it looks to me like the ISO date is supported by at elast a couple users - please help me understand why you don't want the dates to support international formats. Your first comment was that the change was useless (which I interpretted to mean that you felt it had no effect) - as explained above this change is "useless" to editors - i.e. there is no functional difference; however it has a positive effect for some users Trödel 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Bob Parsons has failed, for the following reason(s):

• The lead section should be expanded to summarise more of the article's content.
• Section headings should be capitalised according to the WP:MOS.

Worldtraveller 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Go Daddy

Full Disclosure: ParsonsRep is affiliated with GoDaddy.com. We want the notice "This article or section is written like an advertisement." removed as we re-wrote the Go Daddy section to be more Bob-centric and fact based. ParsonsRep (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please look up my IP. I'm in the Philippines---you hear that? the PHILIPPINES! If there was ever a crappy place where adverts were out of control, its here. And after looking over this article, I cannot find a single reason for the Advert lables. Nothing on here looks like an advertisement. Not a single damn thing. The only thing glaring outright is someones animosity at Bob Parsons and his accomplishments. There are few other people in a similar position as himself, however aside from that, find those few and see of their pages look like this. I have seen some but its always by people with agendas. Personally, I'm beginning to wonder at th editors in here that might have affiliations with verisign or some anti-war / anti-american movement. Look above and tell me that these freaks weren't getting all bent out of shape over the specific wording to reference the Gitmo comments so so so long ago. Is that still an issue? One person tries playing barracks lawyer to use technicalities to allow his paraphrasing to terms of a negative slant. Another, actually on the same side, becomes a pissant to quote directly, again with the point of negatively impacting the image of this living person.

People, if you dont F*ucking like the guy, fine. Get on the intertubz and tell the whole world...put please keep you crappy little shots off of wikipedia...like adding those silly advert tags. What a bunch of children. I challenge anyone here to find advertisement material or promotional wording.210.5.75.10 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No torture reference at all?

I ended up on the Bob Parsons page after seeing him on a reality show and trying to remember the specific comments he'd made regarding the US use of torture. I was disappointed to find zero mention of it on this page (and, at the moment, no mention on the Go Daddy page). It's clearly one of the 2 or 3 most common things known about Bob Parsons, and it seems incredibly relevant to anyone doing research on him. Can there be some mention, and quoting of his statements, even if under a disclaimer that they were later retracted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebug (talk • contribs) 22:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Muslim employee

I have removed this entry because there's no source, completely failing verifiability. Do not re-include this section into the article without citing published sources. Basileias (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Go Daddy Group Inc. wrongfully terminated a Muslim employee from Morocco for complaining of discrimination and must pay the man $390,000 in damages, a federal jury decided.

Your removal of the entry was unwarranted. Even a "citation needed" would not have been warranted. Wikipedia's policy clearly states that the latter is "used to identify questionable claims [emphasis mine] that lack a citation to a reliable source...." A quick Google search on the first 10 words of that statement instantly comes up with a multitude of sources from major mainstream publications. There is no controversy over whether this happened. Nobody is claiming that it didn't happen. It's a matter of public record. The available sources are not obscure nor are the claims buried in other sources. The top search results are for sources that are articles about the specific ruling, not ones that merely mention it. Hagrinas (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. First, even if there were a reliable source added to verify the claim, it would still not be suitable for this article. To be usable here, the source would have to link the subject of this article to the action, with an indication that it was a significant event for the subject of this article. See WP:BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I realize my comment is a little late to the table, but we must be especially vigilant as WP editors when dealing with a BLP. I agree with Johnuniq. If the controversy had a direct link to the controversy (e.g. he directed the termination, or he made a notable quote about the termination), then perhaps it would be better suited for his BLP WP page.Writethisway (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

I deleted the controversy section. The eco- and animal-rights-sensitive editors here need to look at things with a cool head. Dr. Parsons is just another big game hunter. There’s nothing illegal about killing an elephant in Zimbabwe, in fact he did it with the full blessing of the authorities there. The morality of doing such a thing is of course subjective. This is only big news right now because PETA somehow only found out now about Parsons being a big game hunter, and decided to throw a big snit over it. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 11:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Few people outside of Arizona ever heard of Bob Parsons before the elephant video. He appeared on multiple national news shows in regard to the incident. The claim that it is not relevant is a fringe position.Brmull (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This section is not NPOV because it gives copious space for Parsons to lay out his argument in his own words without giving equal space to critics. An attempt to flesh out the elephant controversy has been repeatedly deleted in an edit war. I'm of the opinion that leopard controversy should also be added, particularly as Mr. Parsons recently deleted it from his site and served Youtube with a takedown notice. I also strongly believe that Mr. Parsons remarks about torture of Guantanamo detainees should be included since they were widely reported.Brmull (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TheHerbal. This is a manufactured controversy and is a weight issue. Just because a couple of animal rights groups are up in arms doesn't mean it is controversal. These groups are pretty extreme on their own and get upset about pretty much everything. Arzel (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There was just a PR guy on CNBC today, a week after the story broke, saying this scandal could destroy GoDaddy. According to him it has cost them tens of thousands of customers so far. That doesn't seem like a weight issue. That seems very significant. Certainly more significant than the quote from Bob Parson's about how he's earned every penny he has. Half the CEOs in America say the same thing.Brmull (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Most people agree that a blog is considered a RS regarding the person or organization that publishes that blog. Therefore HSUS.typepad.com is considered a RS about what the Humane Society said. I'm not going to revert it but I am determined to have NPOV in this section and not just 10 lines of what Bob Parsons says.Brmull (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP's shouldn't have controversy sections. The material should be worked into the body of the article. If you need an example, see the Mel Gibson article. This material needs to be re-worked.

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

Controversy

On March 8, 2011, while vacationing in Labola, Zimbabwe, Parsons shot and killed an elephant that was scavenging through a local farmer's crops for food. After the kill villagers are shown harvesting the elephant's for its meat

In the video, Parson's states that, "Of everything that I do this is the most rewarding." Parsons stood by that sentiment, later stating:

"I kind of figured that this [backlash] might happen. So be it, I’m not ashamed of what I did. All these people that are complaining that this shouldn’t happen, that these people who are starving to death otherwise shouldn’t eat these elephants, you probably see them driving through at McDonald’s or cutting a steak. These people [Zimbabwe villagers] don’t have that option...The people there have very little, many die each year from starvation and one of the problems they have is the elephants, of which there are thousands and thousands, that trash many of their fields destroying the crops.

The tribal authorities request that I and others like me, patrol the fields before and during the harvest — we can’t cover them all, there are just a few of us — and drive the elephant from the fields. The farmers try to run the elephants away by cracking whips, beating drums and lighting fires. All of this is ignored by the elephants. When my team catch elephants in a field...we typically kill one of them and the rest leave for good. After we kill an elephant the people butcher the elephant and it feeds a number of villages. These people have literally nothing and when an elephant is killed it’s a big event for them, they are going to be able to eat some protein. This is no different than you or I eating beef...''

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Senior Vice President Dan Matthews told CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight that "we have taken our business with Go Daddy and gone elsewhere, and that's what we're encouraging other people to do." Basileias (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to rename the section "Allegations" instead of "Controversy," as in the Gibson article, I have no objection. If you want to whitewash all criticism of Parsons I object.Brmull (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Controversy sections invite people with an axe to grind about the subject. Accusing other editors of trying to keep negative information out of articles, censorship, having a hidden agenda or otherwise acting in bad faith you shouldn't do if you don't have good evidence. Basileias (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did some cleanup of some botched markup in this thread. Controversy sections are common and this individual would be a pure controversy subject, like Terry Jones if it were not for his other activities. The action with the elephant certainly is notable having received world wide coverage and perhaps should simply be listed as the Zimbabwean Incident. Also note that the butchering of the bull was accompanied by rock music, didn't see that noted and it's part of what has incensed PETA and others. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope, controversy sections are not common in BLPs. You may want to take note that the example you cited isn't a BLP. You mis-titled the 2010 Qur'an-burning controversy to "Terry Jones." That's not a BLP. Basileias (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't "mistitle" Basileias, I purposely linked to show an example of pure controversy. As for your other counterfactual statement, will let it stand, your position is fairly clear from the above and your vociferousness on this invites investigation. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. Such edits are unproductive at best and counterproductive on average. Please refrain from further editing in this manner. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

An article of "pure controversy" is definitely permissible, and that may be proper for this issue with Parsons. They generally don't go into BLP's. This incident can go into the BLP if it was reworded and shorted. I think a couple of sentences is enough. I'm paraphrasing, but something like "Bob did A, PETA protested," would be very proper. Basileias (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I suggest this as a better image, it's on top in google image search and apparently is public domain. I know the one there is the one he puts on his biz, but it's common to show celebrities at their best where possible. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about this, but don't you think living persons should be portrayed as close to their current appearance as possible?Brmull (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oliver Stone is one example of a BLP which has a "Controversy" section. A search brings up a few hundred others.Brmull (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not going to put up new edits only to have them constantly reverted by the "Bob did A, PETA protested" folks. The burden is on them to put up something and then we'll work on it. If that doesn't happen I'm inclined to flag this article for NPOV dispute.Brmull (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at that Oliver Stone article again. An issue has been raised in it because there's a controversy section. It's regarding the same issues I've been trying to communicate to some of you.

I would encourage you to take your case here. Basileias (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Submitted the following request for administrator help:

Parsons, who is CEO of GoDaddy.com, was recently in the national news for videotaping himself killing elephants and a leopard in Zimbabwe. PETA and the Humane Society called for a boycott of GoDaddy. Some editors of Parson's page have repeatedly reverted any attempt to mention this event, while refusing to offer their own compromise wording. Editor/administrator input is requested to decided whether the event should be mentioned, whether it should be part of another section or its own section, and how the wording will be determined. Thanks!

In the meantime I flagged the article for POV dispute until the issue is resolved.Brmull (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

How's this coming? The BLPN thread seems to have died down.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's been 40 hours since the last comment, I'm importing the latest version to Bob_Parsons. If there is no objection, 48 hours after that I will remove the NPOV flag and close the noticeboard thread.Brmull (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing this through. Despite the "wiki" name, it's often best to handle issues on Wikipedia slowly instead of quickly. Process is product.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

---

comment

Hi, I saw the section at the BLPN and came to have a look, I don't see much of a reason to add this here, it is more at home on the Go Daddy article as PETA withdrawing their business with Go Daddy makes in a bit noteworthy there. At the most a carefully worded sentence, such as ... and the way the article is currently it would neen its own header - I don't think it worthy of one but if need be then..Animal rights should suffice and is neutral enough description of the issue....

Animal rights

In 2011 Parsons was criticized by PETA and environmentalists after he uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog, the shooting was at the request of tribal authorities to protect their crops for harvest.[1][2]

NOTE: This discussion seems to have moved here for the time being.Brmull (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit waring

I can see the talk page is being ignored on this recent issue with the insertion of these edits.

He has recently been under media scrutiny after posting a video of himself slaughtering elephants in Zimbabwe while on vacation.

Parsons has recently been under pressure for hunting elephants in Zimbabwe. He refers to them as 'problem elephants'. PETA and other activist groups have made it a mission to boycott GoDaddy.com for his actions.

I think a moratorium on this issue is warranted because of the continual insertion of edits that clearly violate the WP:BLP.

The issue is being addressed. See Controversy section above.Brmull (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

New section: Animal rights

Instead of "criticized" I'd like to propose "denounced." I know it's late, but I think it's a lot less cliché'd if that makes sense. Today, everyone is "criticized" but denounced seems a bit more clear and to the point, at least to me. Let me know what you think. Now common Brmull, you've got to admit after hashing out a better write up this is a lot better than what was originally there. ;-) I'm sure it's not agreeable to everyone but what's there now is much, much more professional. Basileias (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your change is good. Thanks.Brmull (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nadja Rescue

A brand new account, probably opened just for this purpose, added to our proposed section. I'm not sure it really added to what it looks like we may settle on.

Additional pictures have surfaced on the internet showing Bob Parsons with slaughtered animals such as a Gnu and young Zimbabwe Elephant. The website also posted photographic evidence proving there were other ways to "protect farmers' fields" without killing severely endangered animals. - |work = Killi.net - |accessdate = 2011-04-13 - |title = Animals Bob 'Godaddy' Parson has Slaughtered - |url = http://rs79.vrx.net/works/photoessays/2011/godaddy/

I don't think this new information is well-sourced enough to include here. If it gets picked up by reliable media sources we can reconsider it.Brmull (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to let you know, I am new to making edits and was not trying to get in an edit war. I am still trying to figure out the ropes. I would like to add that there are new pictures surfacing that do need serious consideration. Parsons has been allowed to give his point of view, but evidence suggesting other circumstances is out there. Photographs don't lie. If you don't want to include the articles, that is one thing, but why not post the pictures and videos and let the public decide how to interpret them. Parsons is clearly standing over some endangered species. So post them, then you don't have to worry about people stating "opinions." It is starting to feel like Parsons is controlling and manipulating the media and using his influence to stop facts from surfacing. Please consider posting the video and pictures. Best, Nadja RescueNadja Rescue (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Nadja Rescue

Thank you for your followup. You're welcome to continue making edits through wikipedia. However let me cut and paste something in regards to this issue:

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it...

One other thing on sources, the source you supplied looks self-published. For a living person and if the material can be critical or perceived as such, it needs to be sourced from the strongest possible third party source. What I mean by third party is the writer has no vested interest in the subjects success or failure. There's also the issue of copyright. I question whether that website has sought proper copyright of the photos. I hope this helps and you not deterred from participating in wikipedia, but when it come to living people its an area that edits can be touchy and need to follow strict rules. Basileias (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Even though this thread is three years olde, may I note that rules should not override common-sense and "thinking 'outside the box', being moderately creative" which, I think, is a pillar of wisdom in Wikipedia editing, is it not? The article here looks great to me. I'll read it over, again and again, to see if I can contribute to excellence! — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC) PS: I agree with prior advice to the new WP editor.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Parsons. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140213024508/http://gawker.com:80/5870851/has-godaddys-elephant+killing-ceo-finally-gone-too-far to http://gawker.com/5870851/has-godaddys-elephant+killing-ceo-finally-gone-too-far
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140220043153/http://gawker.com/5787676/meet-godaddys-ridiculous-elephant+killing-ceo?tag=godaddy to http://gawker.com/5787676/meet-godaddys-ridiculous-elephant+killing-ceo?tag=godaddy

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

I have a conflict of interest and won't edit this article. I'd like to request that the following edit requests be reviewed and implemented if they are acceptable. Both references are the same but I don't know how to combine them.

In the Bob_Parsons#Political_activities section, please add this sentence to the top: Parsons is a registered Independent.

Please also add this sentence to the end of that same section: On April 25, 2023, Parsons told Esquire that he no longer supports former U.S. President Donald Trump, stating “I did vote for him, but I'm no longer a fan.” He explained that his opinion on Donald Trump changed with the insurrection along with reading various books on what happened during Trump’s presidency and how he ran his office. “The number one thing I care about is our country and who's going to do the best job. I'm not a Democrat, and I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Independent. I just want this country to be what it can be.” He added that in retrospect, the U.S. president that he thinks most highly of is former U.S. President Barack Obama. MusicJunkie14 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC) MusicJunkie14 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done A link to the interview in Esquire where the subject discusses his views on that subject was placed in the newly-created External links section. Regards,  Spintendo  07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• I've added an appropriate sentence to the prose and removed the external link. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Hi - thanks Wjemather for addressing my second request. I'm reposting my first request.

In the Bob_Parsons#Political_activities section, please add this sentence to the top: Parsons is a registered Independent.

Also, please add the following to the end of the political section. (I fixed a typo in the source name): He added that in retrospect, the U.S. president that he thinks most highly of is former U.S. President Barack Obama. Thank you. MusicJunkie14 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@MusicJunkie14: Implemented. STEMinfo (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)