Talk:Monty Bennett

Dallas HERO ballot initiative outcomes

I WP:BOLDly added a short sentence about Dallas HERO for a few facts that appear to be undisputed, with cites to WFAA's interview with Bennett and articles by the Dallas Morning News and Dallas Business Journal, avoiding any disputed sources. Llll5032 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what you wrote is a great example of NPOV that OP can take note of. No OR, no SYNTH, and no POV-pushing. The only "potential" issue is sourcing if the two references are using Monacelli's reporting as opposed to their own independent research. As it stands, we at least have a third source where Bennett states his support so I don't see a big issue. I will go through the sources a little bit later but again, I don't see an issue with the wording or the selfcite to support the basic statement. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a short sentence about the Dallas HERO results. It cites two RS, WFAA and The Real Deal, that highlight Bennett. WFAA includes another interview with him. More RS that highlight Bennett are available, should they be needed to confirm proportion or other policies. Llll5032 (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this addition. BD2412 T 16:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

The message I left you on your talk page was more about an invite than the addition to this page. Have not looked close enough at the sources yet but as stated on your talk, we need to be careful about COAT. This BLP in the past has been used as such as we do not want to move back in that direction.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Incoming redirect about website

@CNMall41 - re [this. A good chunk of users end up here at this article looking for information about the conservative website. WikiNav data for the DAB page at Dallas Express (disambiguation) show that of 100 incoming users to the DAB page, 77 ended up at Monty Bennett in the last month (due to the DAB page having linked directly to this article using a pipe previously. I fixed that now, since we don't like to surprise users with eastereggs to use the redirect at The Dallas Express (website) instead in line with our policies on MOS:DABREDIR.

I also modified the about hatnote at the PTOPIC article of the Dallas Express to have a direct link to this incoming redirect given the WikiNav data indicating that currently users are having to jump through the DAB page to get here. Raladic (talk) 03:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Raladic:, thanks for the ping. Will have a look a little later today. On its face, I don't agree with your contention as this was previously discussed. As it's contentious topic, I am unable to revert. However, the way it was already noted about the different publications was previously decided through consensus which can see from the edit history. If you wish to change it, you should obtain consensus per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. In the meantime, please self-revert.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but I did read the above discussions, which appear to have been centered on the journalist Steven Monacelli, who appears to have covered Bennett as one of a handful of journalists in Texas. Whether he has it out for Bennett or not, I can't tell, but it wasn't hard to find plenty of coverage outside of Mr. Monacelli.

You will find however that the sources I added, which ranged from New York (magazine) (WP:RSPNEWYORK), the NPR station KERA News, Hyperallergic (an arts magazine), and a recent Texas Monthly article on the uncovering of how dark money has infiltrated "local" news in Texas as an echo of CJR's pink slime report.

As well as a report from the Dallas Observer from October 2024 by Tyler Hicks, which has nothing to do with Steven Monacelli (who you discussed at RSPN in 2023), as well as Axios (WP:AXIOS), which that report (Dallas police, former mayors oppose 3 ballot propositions - Axios Dallas by

Tasha Tsiaperas was the only previously mentioned in a talk discussion news piece, but no inherent consensus against it was raised, since it also was unconnected to Monacelli. You're also (I assume) not going to have anything against one of the most reputable journalistic almost scholarly sources, the CJR, which was already present in the article and is being used "Columbia Journalism Review" - Search results - Wikipedia regularly on RSP to evaluate the reliability of other media], so their word is considered pretty high up on the rung of reliable reporting and the fact that they. There is additional reporting from the CJR (Tow Center audience study: Reader perspectives on partisan local news sites - Columbia Journalism Review that mentions Bennett some more and can probably be added as well. And this report The Real Story Behind the Dallas Express - D Magazine by Peter Simek was briefly mentioned here, but no objections and again, unconnected to Monacelli. In that same thread, it was also pointed out that common descriptions should be in the lead so it reflects harmony with the body and given this far-and-wide ranging coverage on Bennett and his political involvement and the entanglement that the Dallas Express appears to have presented.

There's also many details from As Local News Dies, a Pay-for-Play Network Rises in Its Place - The New York Times, currently missing in the article, right now it's just used for "In October 2020, The New York Times reported that Bennett had pitched a media network called Metric Media run by Brian Timpone to publish articles..." - that's a very charitable read of part of the source of the article saying "Ashford received around $70 million in federal loans intended for small businesses, making the publicly traded company the single largest recipient of such loans.... - our article cites Business Insider and right now said $56m - but Business Insiders article actually says at least $58m", also just a half sentence later, we ref the dmagazine article, which actually spells it out as "more than $69m", which aligns much more closely with the NY Times around $70m number, how did the $56m sneak into our article when it doesn't seem to appear in any of the 3 sources, as well as the word "at least" being missing from the lower number. Then there's also the whole resultant action by Mr. Bennett as the NY Times continues: "In response, P.R. professionals began ordering positive articles about him on Mr. Timpone’s sites....Eventually, Mr. Bennett returned the federal money. But he was not done using Mr. Timpone’s sites. Now Mr. Bennett owed money to creditors. One pitch...instructed a reporter to call one of his creditors and ask, 'Why did you say you were going to help, but then don’t help?'", that feels rather pertinent to mention that someone paid for favorable articles, and beyond that - "Mr. Bennett owned the hotel and dictated the article. His spokeswoman said in a statement that Mr. Bennett “has no relationship with the websites.” - wrote the articles themself?

I understand that you had skepticism of Steven Monacelli, but at this point, the reliable coverage connecting Bennett and Metric Media and the description of the Dallas Express ranging from right-wing to conservative, and all the more recent reports I found tended to describe it as the former, rather than the latter do not justify excluding this content at this point. We are not censored, and countless reliable media have described it as such.

Prompted by your response (and the curiosity of the missing info from the NY Times report, and the wrong number of the PPP loan amount (as I'd say that going from $56m to $69m+ is beyond a rounding error), I pulled up the Wiki library and found a handful of other resources for this article here.

Can a Great Museum City Survive the Censorious Right? by Michael Agresta from last month (July 2025) which covers the same story as Hyperallergic on some pictures being seized from an art exhibition as a result of reporting from the Dallas Express, so chances are, there might actually be a paragraph about that worth covering.

Some more coverage on Bennett as an individual for this BLP:

Bloomberg article about the PPP loan and donations. (appeared to have been re-published by various media around the country at the time).

And that it actually spawned an SEC investigation as reported by the WSJ - WSJ, SEC investigating hotels criticized for taking Paycheck Protection Program loans - CBS News

Probably also worth mentioning the $100,000 donation to Ken Paxton.

Backing of the Texas GOP leader for a state seat [.

And some involvement in a school voucher program pushed by Bennett: Inside the Secret Plan to Bring Private School Vouchers to Texas Pride and Prejudice in Princeton, Texas GOP Activists Are Pushing for School Vouchers in Princeton, Texas

Fighting Back Against SLAPP - Nieman Reports Feature article of Nieman Reports(Winter2023, Vol. 77 Issue 1, p38-45. 8p.) on SLAPP being used by rich business-people and that used Bennett's lawsuit against Monacelli as an example of abuse of the legal system and how the court not only dismissed Bennett's lawsuit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act that protects defendants from frivolous lawsuits, but also directed the lower court to decide on sanctions against Bennett's attorney for filing a SLAPP suit on behalf of Bennett.

At this point, I'd actually say there is likely enough coverage discussing the Dallas Express website that it could get split out from this BLP article with a section left behind if someone is so inclined.

Anyway, I I'll go do something else now and don't have more time right now to dig further, but this was an interesting random detour of research. Quite funny how I landed here. I have no horse in this race and only came here because I was confused about the lack of clarifying navigation when I tried to figure out who the Dallas Express is and quickly gleaming that the website clearly was not associated with the former newspaper. But the rather dense talk page got me very intrigued (prior to me asking Lowercase III to do some cleanup magic) and I do love a puzzle, so I spent the afternoon doing just that.

Hoping some of the editors vested in the article here can use them to improve the article :) (I'll go fix the wrong PPP number). Raladic (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought it had been generally agreed to discuss and reach consensus for changes on the talk page before implementing them in the article. I may be thinking of another article, but I am 90% sure it was this one. BD2412 T 03:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a talk header to that effect here, but did see the discussions which centered very much around Monacelli (and an overly long talk page, hence kicking off archiving), and I don't see anything to that effect in the talk archive either, I also checked the WP:AELOG and don't see any enforcement for this article.

CNMall41 referenced WP:BRD above, but this is a pretty clear case of WP:BRD-NOT, which is very explicit that BRD by and of itself is not a valid reason.

So given the multitude of new sources in reliably published outlets, and which are not written by Monacelli, and which not been subject to discussion here (other than the axios piece as noted above having been briefly mentioned) and most of the new sources I added didn't even exist at the time, I'd be hard pressed to see which policy based reason would apply here. Yes, we have WP:ONUS, but we do also have WP:OWN and consensus doesn't mean unanimity or satisfying every editor to ask their permission before being allowed to hit the edit button to add content to an article (barring some AE imposed on articles like say in PIA).

The bit of content I added satisfies the {{BLP editnotice}}, I ensured that the statements added were well sourced, in multiplicate, some may even say on the border of WP:OVERCITE, but that highlights that it's a pretty widespread usage by RS, so the ball is in CNMall41's court if they would like to contend that there is no RS out there that can satisfactorily write on the topic of this article.

I also found a few more sources on the real estate side that are probably worth considering for inclusion as it looks like the real estate companies have been through a whirlwind over the past year (plus in 2020 when the SEC launched an investigation):

• Texas Hotelier Monty Bennett’s Companies Under SEC Investigation (Aug 4, 2020)
• SEC investigating hotels criticized for taking Paycheck Protection Program loans (Aug 5, 2020)
• Dallas-based Ashford Inc. to unregister from NYSE, cut costs of public reporting company (Apr 3, 2024)
• Has Monty Bennett Hoisted Himself on His Own Petard? (Apr 12, 2024)
• Investor sues Monty Bennett over use of nonprofit media outlet (Apr 12, 2024)
• Activist investor takes aim at Ashford Hospitality CEO Monty Bennett (May 6, 2024)
• Blackwells Capital LLC v. Braemar Hotels & Resorts Inc. et al. (Apr 11, 2024)
• Monty Bennett survives attempt to oust him from top spot on REIT's board (May 20, 2024)
• Monty Bennett survives proxy fight – for now (May 16, 2024)
• Dallas businessman Monty Bennett's Ashford Inc. drops out of New York Stock Exchange (Jul 26, 2024)
• Another Monty Bennett Portfolio Is in Distress (Aug 15, 2025)

In any case, I'll let you or some other editor who's more vested in this article take it from here, but based on all of those sources, I'm quite surprised at the current state of the article that appears to be missing a lot of content. Raladic (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that there has been a great deal of discussion about the content of the article (quite frankly disproportionate to the relative importance of the subject), and in that discussion a balance has been struck between competing policies, part of which is discussing changes before implementing them. At the end of the day what we have here is a real estate guy who also has a "news" website, which is barely distinguishable from thousands of other websites Regurgitating the same body of content. In that context, the website itself really isn't notable, and excessive discussion of it within the article potentially overstates its historical importance. I do think some of the more recent details on the real estate business are interesting and worth discussing. BD2412 T 15:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a comment above about splitting out Dallas Express into a separate page. I know it was deleted a couple years ago and I cannot see any new sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT, but wondering if you have evaluated sourcing lately. If not, could you take a look and see if your opinion about notability has changed? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41: We see business falling all over themselves every day to try to get Wikipedia to talk about them. That is precisely why we have strong guardrails to prevent the promotion of companies (and websites masquerading as companies) from getting outsized mention in the encyclopedia. I do not think that the website in this case is encyclopedically notable, and I don't think Wikipedia should particularly be used as a platform to promote it beyond relaying the minimal fact of its existence. BD2412 T 00:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I felt the same but know you previously opined on it so was wondering if that opinion had changed.

So it sounds like the issues are the redirect target and what information about the website should go on a BLP page. There is no requirement that we have a subsection heading to redirect to. The information is already in that section and distinguishes the publications. However, since he has two distinct businesses (real estate and website publisher), maybe a subsection in a new "career" section would be appropriate? So an H2 heading of "Career" with an H3 subheading of "Real estate career" and another of "Publisher of Dallas Express." The paragraph can then be moved from the political section since it is more of his business and not politics. The redirect could go there. Thoughts?

Then the only thing that needs decided is what, if any, additional information should go under that heading. Right now, I think it has more than the minimal information about the website, but always open to discuss.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree with that as a place to start. I think his business dealings are of somewhat greater import. BD2412 T 03:39, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Let me write something up and propose sometime tomorrow. Want to take a closer look at some sources I found earlier to see if there is anything that may be appropriate to add. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I mean about the headings.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If the only difference (as it seems to be) is that the publication is being deemed part of his career rather than part of his politics, then I see no problem with this. The Metric Media item indicates that this is indeed a business venture. BD2412 T 17:17, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@CNMall41: Having heard no objection to this solution, I have gone ahead and implemented the header change. I tweaked the wording somewhat. BD2412 T 15:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed your response. Thanks for adding.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly edited the sub-heading, so it mentions both the publishing career and the Dallas Express website. Llll5032 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I reverted. Not sure why the heading is needed distinguished in that manner. Even his real estate career has no distinguishing title. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Including "(Dallas Express)" parenthetically in the sub-heading would be an improvement for these reasons: It would align the article proportionately with the RS, because a substantial proportion of RS discussing Bennett focus on the Dallas Express website. For redirected traffic on Wikipedia related to Dallas Express, it would follow the principle of least astonishment. Also, the Dallas Express seems to account for most or all of Bennett's publishing career, which may call for some additional specificity in the heading. I hope the reasons, policies, guidelines and essay points I listed here offer a compelling case. Llll5032 (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Dallas Express (disambiguation) was updated in August 2025 to ensure there was no confusion. It clearly state the website was established and published by Monty Bennett, with the link leading to the publishing section. The The Dallas Express (website) redirect was updated the same month. I would advocate for removing the subheadings altogether and put in chronological order per MOS:BLPCHRONO but I believe there is a consensus to keep it as-is in order to ensure there are no issues with the redirect being confusing. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It sounds as if you are making an accusation of WP:OWN and WP:TE (citing OWN directly and referring to BRD-NOT). The fact is, many of this, including the enormous COAT that you added after I asked you to self-revert, has been discussed if you go through talk page discussions, edit history, and discussions on editor's talk pages. The WP:ONUS is not one me, it is on you. There has been a POV-pushing and COI activity on this page so it is now about ownership. Since you stated you are "not quite sure what [I'm] trying to say," I placed the contentious topic notice at the top of the page for your reference. I am also restoring back to a stable version per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. Let me know which portion of the large text you provided you would like to discuss first, but please be CIVIL and get consensus if you plan to restore the content. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)