Talk:Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

flag for neutral point of view

This article appears to be an autobiography. Article creator appears to be linked with subject, and edits from IP addresses 71.166.47.202, 72.83.128.23 and others have contributed largely to this one article; one has contributed 10 times only to Timothy Parker article, another only to this article, and to "Merv Griffin's Crosswords" to add that Timothy Parker was the puzzle producer, etc.

Wikipedia User/Editor Arcenter -- who created and has made extensive edits to only the Timothy Parker page -- appears to be Timothy Parker himself. See the URLs (www.arcenter.com) in the following newsgroup posts made by Parker, for example:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/MckVUTkPdUA

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/R7Rf1IptLNg

Further, Parker's Wikipedia photo is credited to Arcenter as "Own Work."

Is there a way to ban Arcenter/Parker from further editing his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FE4F:D200:E970:1753:2884:FA47 (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

flag for accuracy

I just undid two changes stating that Timothy Parker has two sons and that one is a semi-professional street fighter in Mexico. Ref stating that he has a son and a daughter: [1] The rest of this article should be evaluated for accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.108.100 (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on here? http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36DF:56F0:D0D3:2310:BE4A:5D76 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Parker is not the founder of the puzzle society or universal uclick. Blahblahbiddyblah (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I can't find any information about who founded the Puzzle Society, but it's definitely the case that Parker did not found Universal Uclick, which was a merger of Universal Press Syndicate (founded in 1970 by Jim Andrews and John McMeel) [2] and Uclick LLC (founded as a subdivision of Andrews McMeel) [3]. Fheaney (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Then the next sentence should be amended, too, yes? Puzmonkey (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Which part? He may very well be the "founder" of Universal Uclick's line of crossword puzzles (if he is the first to hold the position of senior editor), but it's true that there should probably be a citation for that. Fheaney (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Puzzle Society was originally launched by uclick (a division of Andrews McMeel at the time) in 2001 as "UPuzzles," which was their first subscription service. I can't find the original press release, but this article alludes to it: http://www.writenews.com/uclick-launches-customized-comics-page-service-102320023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:466:6601:8C8E:CFA4:339C:3322 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• This gives a fairly good history of uPuzzles, and it is as I remember it - http://www.marketingsherpa.com/article/case-study/results-revealed. Chriz Pizey (former uClick COO) was the person behind uPuzzles/Puzzle Society. Tim Parker was simply a content provider/creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blahblahbiddyblah (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Content Dispute

Arcenter and 71.179.21.197 - Please explain here why the content should be removed, instead of causing an edit war. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia User/Editor Arcenter -- who created and has made extensive edits to only the Timothy Parker page -- appears to be Timothy Parker himself. See the URLs (www.arcenter.com) in the following newsgroup posts made by Parker, for example:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/MckVUTkPdUA

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.puzzles.crosswords/R7Rf1IptLNg

Further, Parker's Wikipedia photo is credited to Arcenter as "Own Work."

Is there a way to ban user Arcenter/Parker from further editing his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FE4F:D200:E970:1753:2884:FA47 (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Timothy Parker

Dear Timothy Parker (aka Arcenter and 71.179.21.197, etc). Please stop editing your own autobiography.

Allow me to quote the immortal Will Shortz:

Will Shortz, the puzzle editor for The New York Times, was taken aback by Parker’s replications. “I have never heard of something like this happening before,” he told me. “This would never have come to light except in the electronic age, where you can track these things.” He added: “To me, it’s an obvious case of plagiarism. It’s unethical, and I would never publish a person who plagiarizes another person’s work.”

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/

Update: the New York Times itself has weighed in:

Will Shortz, who has been The New York Times’s crossword puzzle editor since 1993, says that crossword ideas and elements are occasionally repeated by accident. But the similarities highlighted by FiveThirtyEight made it “clear it’s plagiarism,” he said.

“When the same theme answers appear in the same order from one publication to the next, that makes you look closer. When they appear with the same clues, that looks suspicious. And when it happens repeatedly, then you know it’s plagiarism,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/business/media/questions-raised-over-crosswords-seemingly-copied-from-the-new-york-times.html

Editing

I've semi protected the page against editing to help deter the edit war. Now as far as the allegations go, we need to remember that these are just allegations at this stage. There's just enough reporting to where this would merit a brief mention in the article, but we should refrain from phrasing things in a way that make absolute judgement calls on what happened since that runs the risk of running afoul of WP:BLP. We're not the ones that make this sort of call and at most all we can say is that some claims were made, Parker refuted them.

I would also like to ask that comments on this talk page be kept civil. If there is COI editing going on then we need to deal with it calmly so that we can all say that things were handled properly from start to finish. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Arcenter (Timothy Parker) continues to edit his own article. His latest update claims the plagiarism is '12 years old', while this article references examples from 2010 and 2011: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ Econrad (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I have given him a short 24 hour block for the edit warring and for not responding to any concerns about his COI. He has to have seen my posts on his talk page, so he's aware that not being transparent is a big problem. When the block is up I hope that he will start communicating here, however I need to ask that we make sure to remain calm and edit neutrally in response to him. I'm aware of the allegations and of the concerns here on Wikipedia, however we need to make sure that he feels like he can collaborate here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• In other words, we need to make sure that it looks like we at least gave him a chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've lengthened the section and I've removed the comment about pseudonyms since it's slightly misleading. He did have crosswords with pseudonyms, but these aren't uncommon in the puzzle world. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• The sources you cite are for cryptics (British crosswords), which are a different form. I don't think that American crosswords have the same affinity for pseudonyms (although I'm not in the industry so I can't say for sure). -- Saul P., March 10 2016

• As a member of the industry I can say it is somewhat common, when an editor writes puzzles for their own venue, for that editor to decide to use a pseudonym. It *is* very unusual for an editor to take a published work by a contributor and republish that work with a pseudonym byline (as Parker did with one puzzle that I know of, by Ben Tausig), though since contributors give up all rights when selling to USA Today, it is probably legal for him to do that. I have opinions about that practice, but that would be editorializing and is thus irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. -- Francis H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fheaney (talk • contribs) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Note the newer edits by IP addresses, all share the same first 3 octets, and all have edited this article exclusively, and each series of edits removes lots of information:

• Special:Contributions/104.244.53.58
• Special:Contributions/104.244.53.60
• Special:Contributions/104.244.53.61

Plus this IP follows the same pattern:

• Special:Contributions/71.179.21.197

Econrad (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Likewise Special:Contributions/45.33.81.117 64.35.40.130 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/45.33.81.117 has already far exceeded the three-revert rule and has furthermore stated their intent to continue reverting any edits made to this article: [4]. What's the procedure to prevent this (from this or from the next IP to do the same)? Lock the article from anonymous edits? Fheaney (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Drafted by Pirates

Since the citation for the fact that he was drafted by the Pirates at the age of 16 is pretty obviously based on information Mr. Parker provided himself, can that be flagged as non-verifiable, too? I guess based on the brouhaha over the past few days, I don't quite trust his word on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinshane (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Awards and recognition

The reference for the Guinness Word Records claim appears to be Parker himself.

There is no evidence of such an award: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=Timothy+Parker

A Guinness search for "Crossword" also shows nothing relevant: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=Crossword

Also see: https://twitter.com/datageneral/status/706539304613507073

Econrad (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Guinness record appears to be confirmed, here's a screenshot of an email from Guinness: https://twitter.com/ollie/status/706598143069167621/photo/1 Econrad (talk) 21:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've re-added the Highbeam source that Arcenter removed. Highbeam is usable as a source despite it being paywalled, as long as you put down that it's paywalled. I'm also in the process of giving Arcenter a very stern warning about not responding to any of the questions or concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert needed

The edit war on this page continues, despite bans on some on the participants. In the middle of the war, the citations were lost, leading to Mike1901's sadly correct reversion due to improper citation. I say we revert the page back to EconRad's edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timothy_Parker_(puzzle_designer)&oldid=709838402, since it includes the citations and is free from the effects of the edit war.

Also, the aforementioned IP's 104.244.53.* are not only committing an edit war, but also including uncited personal information about Parker, suggesting a possible COI. In fact, due the unanimous condemnation of Parker in the crossword community, I would consider all parties who make edits to mitigate Parker's role or absolve him of guilt to be placed under suspicion of COI.

Xmaster8621 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I made one small revert but I agree that on the whole this version of the page is better the most-recent version I reverted to. I'm not sure when the paragraph about Parker's response to the article was deleted (or by whom) but I think it is fairer to Parker to include it. If you revert to this version, I suggest that the "Puzzle Career" section be moved above "Television" since Parker's TV production credit derived from his crossword career, and the crossword editing/syndication is a more significant part of his CV. Fheaney (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Plagiarism summary?

I was wondering if there's a way that we could include some of the content from this edit. The current edit has a lot of information, but it also reads a little like a news report and I'd like to include a bit of Parker's response to the allegations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why not just restore the page to that edit? It's not like that edit was discarded because of constructive editors trying to improve the article... Xmaster8621 (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I thought about doing that, but I just wanted to make sure that there was a bit of a consensus for this first given the article's edit history. I've missed out on the last few days due to school, so I didn't know if there was a consensus elsewhere that the current version was the best version. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I'll go ahead and start making some of those edits then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Add to the list of related COI accounts

• 77.234.41.151 (talk · contribs) and 77.234.41.135 (talk · contribs). I've requested administrative assistance and page protection. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Video documentary of the scandal

• Pwanson, Saul (20 May 2019). "How a File Format Led to a Crossword Scandal".

Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Request for major revisions to address neutrality and completeness issues

== Request for major revisions to Timothy Parker article == I am writing to request significant revisions to the Timothy Parker article to address serious issues of neutrality, balance, and completeness. The current article disproportionately focuses on plagiarism allegations while omitting key exonerating information and failing to adequately cover Parker's significant career achievements and ongoing work. === Issues with the current article === • • • Undue weight on plagiarism allegations: The article devotes excessive space to plagiarism allegations while downplaying Parker's significant career achievements and ongoing work. Missing critical information: Several key facts are omitted, including Parker's court case victory for defamation, his role as an editor rather than writer of many crosswords in question, and legal context about crossword themes not being protected by copyright. Incomplete career information: The article fails to mention Parker's ongoing publications, including Family Time Crosswords (running since 2003), his Bible Brilliant book series with Baker Books, and his co-authorship of "The Book of Revelation Made Clear" with Dr. Tim LaHaye. === Proposed revisions === I propose the following specific revisions to improve the article's neutrality and accuracy: ==== Plagiarism scandal section ==== Current text focuses heavily on the allegations without providing important context or Parker's perspective. I propose adding: "While some in the crossword community considered Parker's actions plagiarism, others have pointed out that crossword themes are not protected by copyright. In a March 15, 2016 Washington Post article, legal expert David Post wrote that 'a crossword's "theme" is probably one element of the puzzle-creator's work that is not protected by copyright' and that themes are 'unprotectable ideas, free for the taking.'[1] Additionally, it should be noted that Parker was primarily an editor rather than writer of many crosswords in question, and that the 91 themes found to be similar represented less than 0.6% of the 15,000 puzzles he had edited over his career.[2] Parker later won a court case for defamation when no plagiarized crossword could be produced.[3] Despite the controversy, Parker's Family Time Crosswords has been running nonstop and syndicated by Universal since 2003, demonstrating his continued standing in the industry.[4]" ==== Career achievements section ==== I propose expanding this section to include: "Parker holds the Guinness World Record as 'World's Most Syndicated Puzzle Compiler.'[5] In 1996, he created the first digital newspaper crossword, pioneering online puzzles.[6] His clients have included major brands such as Disney, Microsoft, and Warner Bros.[7] In 2006, he was personally hired by Merv Griffin to write all 225 episodes of 'Merv Griffin's Crosswords.'[8] In 2022, Parker launched the world's first AI-generated daily crossword, continuing his innovation in the field.[9] Parker has authored over 70 books,[10] including his Bible Brilliant series published by the prestigious publisher Baker Books. His titles include 'The Official Bible Brilliant Trivia Book: Questions, Puzzles, and Quizzes from Genesis to Revelation' and other Bible themed puzzle books.[11] In 2014, Parker co-authored the critically-acclaimed bestseller 'The Book of Revelation Made Clear' with Dr. Tim LaHaye, co-creator of the popular 'Left Behind' series.[12] This collaboration demonstrates Parker's significant standing in the publishing world beyond puzzle creation. Parker's Family Time Crossword, created in 2003, was the first crossword designed for both children and adults to solve together. It features clues for both adults and children (denoted with a 'K') and has been published twice weekly and syndicated by Universal continuously since its creation.[13]" === References === [1] Post, David. "Crosswords and copyright." The Washington Post, March 15, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/15/crosswords and-copyright/ [2] Based on statistical analysis of Parker's total edited puzzles (approximately 15,000) compared to the 91 themes found to be similar. [3] [Citation needed for court case - will be provided] [4] "Family Time Crossword by Timothy Parker." Andrews McMeel Syndication. http:// syndication.andrewsmcmeel.com/puzzles/family-time-crossword [5] "Timothy E. Parker – Puzzle Master." https:// timothyparkercrosswords.wordpress.com/ [6] [Citation needed for first digital newspaper crossword - will be provided] [7] "Timothy E. Parker: books, biography, latest update." Amazon.com. https:// www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0034N7BFM [8] [Citation needed for Merv Griffin's Crosswords - will be provided] [9] [Citation needed for AI-generated crossword - will be provided] [10] "Timothy E. Parker - Authors | Baker Publishing Group." https:// bakerpublishinggroup.com/authors/timothy-e-parker/2492 [11] "The Official Bible Brilliant Trivia Book: Questions, Puzzles, and Quizzes from Genesis to Revelation." Amazon.com. https://www.amazon.com/Official-Bible-Brilliant Trivia-Book/dp/0800727061 [12] "The Book of Revelation Made Clear: A Down-to-Earth Guide to Understanding the Most Mysterious Book of the Bible." Amazon.com. [URL to be provided] [13] "The Family Time Crossword Celebrates 15 Glorious Years." Issuu. https://issuu.com/ timothyeparker/docs/the_family_time_crossword_celebrate I believe these revisions would significantly improve the article's neutrality, accuracy, and completeness. I am happy to provide additional sources or information as needed. Thank you for your consideration Jameel Gleason (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Did you actually read the article you're quoting? I don't think you did, that or you're just misrepresenting it in the hope that others won't check it. Your link above doesn't work, by the way - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/15/crosswords-and-copyright/ works. It's filled with hostile quotes saying that Parker violated norms in the community and is a plagiarist. Post doesn't think Parker literally committed a crime here, no, but it's hardly an exoneration like you portray it above - "I suspect this is an example of a more general phenomenon that either illustrates (a) how norm-creation wisely supplements legal rules to enforce those interests that are important to the community, or (b) how badly copyright law tracks the things that people think are important."
• Anyway, unfortunately for Mr. Parker, the scandal is a large part of his notability. There are more than adequate sources on the topic, far more than on his mostly non-notable other work. That sucks but maybe he should have considered not being a plagiarist if he didn't want to have biographies of him prominently mention the plagiarism. SnowFire (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Neutral Review and Major Revision (April 2025)

Hello, I am a neutral third-party editor reviewing this article for neutrality and balance per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

The current version of the Timothy Parker article disproportionately emphasizes a 2016 controversy while omitting significant, well-sourced achievements. I am proposing a revision that:

- Adds independently verifiable accomplishments and citations from major publishers. - Presents the plagiarism controversy fairly, with context and citations. - Aligns with BLP policy, NPOV, and Undue Weight guidelines.

I request feedback from other neutral editors and would appreciate consensus to move forward with a properly sourced, encyclopedic revision.

If preferred, I can paste the proposed new version here or create a draft in my user sandbox for collaborative review.

Thank you for your time. — Jameel Gleason

Jameel Gleason (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Note: You don't need to add the semi-protected here, its not semi-protected. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: That being said, I'm closing the semi-protected request. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• A) You aren't a "neutral third party editor". All of your edits are to this one page. B) You can't just lie, or ask ChatGPT to make stuff up. These aren't "significant" achievements nor "well-sourced". If you were serious about this, you'd look at how Wikipedia articles are written - your version is obvious WP:PUFFERY for Parker ("the popular Left Behind series"?), i.e. playing Parker up. If you have something genuine to add, drop your source here, but it can't be a primary source like just citing the existence of a book on Amazon. Tons of people write random, forgotten books. SnowFire (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request: Clarification of 2016 Controversy for Accuracy and Neutrality

Please consider the following BLP-compliant revision to the section referencing the 2016 controversy.

• • Suggested new text:**

“In 2016, an independent analysis by FiveThirtyEight alleged that a small percentage of crossword puzzles edited by Parker shared similar themes with previously published puzzles. The total number of puzzles identified constituted approximately 0.6% of Parker’s published work at the time, and the issue was limited to thematic similarity — not duplication of actual puzzle content Jameel Gleason (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

According to FiveThirtyEight it was more than just thematic similarity:

"Since 1999, Timothy Parker, editor of one of the nation’s most widely syndicated crosswords, has edited more than 60 individual puzzles that copy elements from New York Times puzzles, often with pseudonyms for bylines, a new database has helped reveal. The puzzles in question repeated themes, answers, grids and clues from Times puzzles published years earlier. Hundreds more of the puzzles edited by Parker are nearly verbatim copies of previous puzzles that Parker also edited. Most of those have been republished under fake author names."

There are also a few issues with your statement. First is that obviously, Parker had done more than copy a theme. He copied answers, grids, and clues - and that's if we don't count the ones that he copied off of puzzles he'd edited earlier. (And of course, since he was caught copying NYT puzzles, there's also a question if the earlier puzzles were copied from elsewhere.) Plus Universal UClick (Parker's employer) confirmed that they'd confirmed some of the claims.

Now let's look at your calculation. You claim that the number of copied puzzles made up .6% of his published work at the time. The article gives a very specific set of numbers - saying that 1,537 of the 15,000 puzzles Parker had put out through USA Today and UU were found to have some level of similarity. When I calculate the percentage, this comes out to approximately 10% of his reported work. If he had published more than the 15,000 puzzles we would need proper sourcing for that to do any other sort of calculation. You can't just claim that the percentage is less than 1%, you'd need sourcing for that. Even with that, the sourcing focuses on the number of puzzles put out through this specific publisher, with the impression being that FiveThirtyEight didn't check any other types of puzzles. I must also note that if we assume the 1,537 detected by FiveThirtyEight makes up the totality of the .6%, then that would mean he had edited approximately 256,166 puzzles up to that point. That's a lot of puzzles.

However the percentage is kind of irrelevant because even if that number was accurate, the point is that he was still found to have copied from other puzzles and his former employer confirmed that the claims were at least partially correct. They just don't state which part of the claims they found to be correct or how deeply they investigated. It could be that they found less - or it could be that they found more. We'll never know because they sure as fun aren't saying and Parker wouldn't be a reliable source if he were to say it was less. We would be able to include a quote from him saying that they found less, but it wouldn't be seen as anything other than a claim given that the claims were about him.

So in other words, not done. There are reliable sources backing up the claims in the article and you've made it clear that you have a very specific goal here in mind: diminish or completely remove the plagiarism claims. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I must also ask at this point: do you have a conflict of interest with Parker? Your focus is solely on this article and you appear to have a very specific, pointed goal in mind. If you have a conflict of interest then you must disclose this. I must also caution you that if you are someone who was asked by Parker or someone affiliated with him to come and edit the article to diminish or remove the claims, then this can actually cause a backlash and make Parker look even worse than having the plagiarism claims on the article.

There has been a concentrated effort in the past to whitewash the article, so it's very important to be transparent and go about this properly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add this as far as this going beyond thematic similarities. Matt Gaffney wrote an article debunking Parker's claims that the copied elements were coincidental and by the article's end outright calls it plagiarism. To summarize, it goes into detail about what plagiarism in a crossword puzzle would look like and how bad something like copying a puzzle theme is looked upon by professional crossword creators.

This could probably be added to the article in reference to Parker's claim that the copying wasn't deliberate. I'll note that I wouldn't have found this if there wasn't an active discussion on this page trying to minimize the claims in the article. This is a good example as to why trying to minimize information like this can actually backfire because now we're finding stuff that could make Parker look even worse. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Contextual Clarification Regarding Puzzle Reuse Practices

Suggested clarification for neutrality and accuracy: Thank you for the detailed feedback and references. I’d like to respectfully propose a clarification that adds important industry context to help ensure the article reflects a balanced view. This is not intended to minimize the controversy, but rather to provide factual background relevant to how puzzle syndication and reuse typically operate in professional settings. Proposed addition: "Many of the puzzles in question were slightly modified versions of puzzles that had originally appeared under Parker’s byline or were part of his editorial portfolio. These puzzles were previously run with permission by USA Today, particularly for weekend editions, and had been acquired under standard syndicate agreements in which full rights are purchased by the editor or syndicate. Such agreements—common across the industry and including outlets like The New York Times—typically allow for unlimited reuse, modification, or re-licensing, sometimes under pseudonyms. The practice of reusing puzzle themes, structures, or components is not uncommon in the industry, and many major publications have published composite or derivative puzzles over time. While the 2016 FiveThirtyEight report raised valid concerns about similarities with previously published content, the broader legal and contractual framework under which these puzzles were created and distributed is often more nuanced than generally recognized." This addition does not dispute the findings reported in 2016, but offers context to help readers understand that: The puzzles were not necessarily unauthorized copies. Reuse rights were standard within the industry. Editors often recycle or re-license puzzles legally under full ownership. If desired, I can also provide references to standard puzzle editor agreements or commentary from other syndicates and editors to support this clarification. Jameel Gleason (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Request for Administrative Oversight – BLP Compliance and Editorial Imbalance

Requesting administrative review of potential BLP/NPOV violations and editorial gatekeeping on this biography article. See above for details.

This is a formal request for administrative or WikiProject-level oversight of the Timothy Parker article. A good faith, BLP-compliant suggestion was recently submitted to clarify puzzle reuse norms and syndication rights as context to the 2016 controversy. The proposed language does not contest the existence of reported similarities but adds necessary industry-standard background on puzzle ownership, syndication rights, and editorial norms observed across major outlets, including the New York Times. The response from certain editors has included accusations of intent to "whitewash" or "minimize" the controversy, without addressing the factual accuracy of the proposed addition or inviting balanced discussion. This gatekeeping violates the core of Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policies. Specifically: The addition offered context that puzzles in question were previously published by Parker or his syndicate, under standard licensing, and republished legally — which is a factual matter, not a defensive narrative. Industry-standard reuse practices, common in all major puzzle syndicates, were omitted entirely from the current version of the article, creating a misleading impression. Editors are dismissing attempts to improve the article’s balance by making assumptions about motive and calling for COI disclosures without cause, creating a chilling effect on factual contributions. This is a request for: Independent review by uninvolved admins or WikiProject Biography/Journalism participants. Evaluation of editorial bias that may be obstructing NPOV and BLP policy. Permission to add a well-sourced clarification reflecting standard puzzle reuse rights, syndication agreements, and the broader context. Wikipedia’s core policies require accuracy, neutrality, and fairness, especially for living individuals. Current editorial behavior risks undermining that standard. Thank you for your attention and review. Jameel Gleason (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

If you believe there are WP:BLP violations in the article, you may take it to WP:BLPN, but some of your allegations appear misguided and disruptive. Also, it sounds to me like you have a conflict of interest that you have failed to disclose.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I will also add to this - there were crossword professionals weighing in on this. So it wasn't like it was a case of only non-area savvy reporters weighing in on this. You had professionals like Matt Gaffney and Will Shortz weighing in on this. As mentioned above, Gaffney goes out of his way to explain the plagiarism claims in a way that the general public would understand. They also count the times Parker plagiarized himself, as apparently this was a case of double dipping, where Parker was publishing anonymously?

If anything, I think that the way the article is currently phrased actually kind of minimizes everything and leaves out the pretty scathing remarks from Parker's peers. Shortz and Gaffney have been open about how forbidden this is in the professional crossword community and both have been vocal that they consider his actions plagiarism. Their visibility could probably warrant a mention in the article, particularly as they explain why duplicating themes is considered to be particularly bad.

If it will help put this to rest, I'll bring it up at BLP/N myself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Done. @Jameel Gleason: please feel free to weigh in there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'll also ping @SnowFire: since they are involved. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Link to discussion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Notability concern

I just tagged the page for a notability concern. At this point, the reliable third-party sources used in this article all seem to be about a single event (the plagiarism accusations) and we do not have signs of lasting coverage (all of those sources are from 2016.) As such, this is looking like a WP:BLP1E matter. Looking at the final version from 2015, there are only two sources, and one of those is an organization he founded and thus not third party. The other reference was The History Makers, which I have not fully evaluated for reliability (but does have an interview with him, so it may make a good external link at the very least.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the other things Parker has done aren't very notable, but BLP1E is just a cause for increased scrutiny, not necessarily redirecting the article. And calling it "1 event" is a bit misleading, as the point was a pattern of behavior - the uncovering was "one event" but it wasn't someone making a bad mistake once, but rather repeated actions. Anyway, if that one aspect (the plagiarism in this case) is well-covered enough, we certainly do cover the person. Parker clears that threshold in my opinion. SnowFire (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the uncovering is really what is being covered. And the sources at this point don't indicate that the event itself is notable, that it got WP:LASTING coverage, and they don't seem to be covering the individual involved in depth or in significant ways beyond the event. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a case of Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and that the old 2006 version (made by a since-banned SPA) wasn't notable. WP's standards just objectively aren't that strict. BLP1E is meant to stop stuff like turning every random local newspaper's crime blotter into a Wikipedia article. Getting covered in The Washington Post & co. (& 538 back when it was a big deal) puts it pretty squarely over that, IMO. Obviously thresholds differ but - and I don't mean this as an invocation of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - if this article is beneath the threshold, then we have even more bio articles we should delete than I think. (And I think we should delete a lot of them!) SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps, but as WP:NOTNEWS says, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Has coverage endured? Has this incident had some ongoing general effect? If we had an article on 2016 in crossword puzzles, it would probably be worth a mention there, but I don't see it as the worthy base for an article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm mixed on the whole notability thing. Putting the plagiarism stuff aside, Parker has the following claims/accomplishments:

1. Served as a syndicated puzzle editor for Universal Press Syndicate.
2. Founder of Universal UClick
3. Published multiple books
4. Contributed to the TV shows Merv Griffin's Crosswords, The Mole, The View, Access Hollywood - others are mentioned but not put in the article.
5. Guinness record for most syndicated puzzle compiler

There are some obvious issues with these claims. One is that some of them are either unsourced (founder of UClick) or the only sourcing is through Parker (Guinness record). I suppose the Guinness record is kind of a moot point for notability since that wouldn't be enough on its own to establish notability and some have questioned if it's even able to give partial notability. The books and TV shows could give notability, however to establish notability there would need to be independent, reliable, and secondary coverage of his work with the show and of the books.

The main claim to notability here is honestly the syndication. The question here, I suppose, is whether or not just being syndicated would establish notability. I honestly don't have an answer for that within Wikipedia policy. Offhand I'm inclined to say that it should be seen as notable enough on its own for inclusion, but to argue that I'd need to be able to refer to a policy or at least find some sort of precedent. Comic strips seem to be the closest equivalent, so I searched AfD for discussions on comic strips. Most of the "keeps" I found were for deletion discussions from 2006-2010, which isn't really great since notability guidelines have changed so drastically since then that they are completely different. You had some that argued syndication was notability, but at the same time there was this 2007 AfD that didn't and in this 2020 AfD of a syndicated comic, someone outright states that publishing isn't notability. (It closed as delete.) And that's the rub of it - Parker has been involved with notable companies and productions, but there's very little coverage of him aside from the plagiarism accusations. I'll try to do a deeper dive with Newspapers.com later on today - that will likely take a while since his name will probably pop up from his crosswords instead of only articles about him.

I think this might close as a keep, but the sock/COI and edit warring history might sway people. I could see someone arguing for this to merge and redirect to Andrews_McMeel_Syndication#Puzzles_and_games, where it would basically be something like "Puzzle editors who have worked for the company have included Timothy Parker, whose contract was terminated over claims of plagiarism." Maybe a sentence more. UClick and USA Today did receive some criticism for this from I think Gaffney, who pointed out that the plagiarism had been ongoing for a while and that USA Today and Uclick needed to do something about it.

However given the situation, if the merge sounds like a good idea for anyone, then AfD would absolutely be a good idea for that because I would predict that this would most likely get challenged in the future. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I tagged it not as a definitive statement on the subject; that's not what tags are for. It's a statement on the state of the article; the material as presented may not indicate sufficient notability to meet our concerns. I in no way meant to imply that there are not sources to be found that might tip the balance (and indeed, I pointed to the History Makers link from an earlier revision, and that may indeed be such a source, particularly since it predates and is thus independent of the 2016 events.)

Being syndicated is more like having your books published (i.e., clearly not in itself sufficient for notability) than like having a show on the network prime time schedule (almost certain notability for the show.) Being syndicated doesn't even mean that anyone is necessarily carrying the material, much less that it is gaining attention.

Best of luck with the newspapers.com search; the trick is that if you include "crossword", you get flooded with puzzles; if you don't, well, neither "Timothy" nor "Parker" is a rare name, and they combine frequently to form people who are not this one.

This Google book result ultimately ends up being about the 2016 events, but does at least get into his background. Oh, hey, here is a People magazine result from 2003; the Google Books clipping is not enough to build from, but it's a nice indicator. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That's heartening. I know that there was an IP editor who came on and made some aspersions about the people who were opposing the new editor's proposals, but contrary to their assertion I don't really have any big desire to delete the page.

On that note, the (now removed) edit by that IP states that the contract was simply not renewed as opposed to terminated. Fair point. If there is an AfD and it closes as a merge, the sentence could be "Puzzle editors who have worked for the company have included Timothy Parker, who received media attention in 2016 over claims that puzzles he published through USA Today and Universal Uclick plagiarized elements of puzzles published by The New York Times and other publishers. In response to the claims USA Today announced that it would no longer publish any future puzzles by Parker. By the end of 2018 UClick opted not to renew its contract with Parker."

My concern with the AfD is that the past and current attempts to edit the page to be more in favor of Parker will likely have the result of seriously poisoning the well. It may end up that some might argue for a merge just because it would be potentially less work than having to deal with accounts occasionally popping up to minimize the plagiarism event. I can honestly say that the Streisand effect is in full play here and so far it's not really working out like the editors have planned. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)