This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Please be careful in adding primary sources. If we add all the opinion pieces Frank has written, it might overwhelm or bias the article. We need secondary coverage per WP:WEIGHT. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. That Moore one is central to recent media coverage of guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanbach ( talk • contribs) 21:34, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
This page could use a copyright-free photo. If someone is down in DC perhaps they could ask Ted Frank; they may be able to reach him through AEI's website. --David Shankbone 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a clear CoI of editors working on this article, this applies to all sides and you all know what it is but lets not talk about it. Now its a real stub we should all not edit it and let wikipedia take its course OK. (Hypnosadist) 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should include his POV on documentaries. The film industry and buisness industries (like Bloomberg) do not consider IMAX movies, reality movies (Jackass) or concert movies as documentaries. That is their 'standards'. Ted (with no expertise in film at all) wrote an article published in several RW sites with a list of documentaries including IMAX, Jackass and concert films to argue that Michael Moores movies were not in the top 5 but much lower. This is a notable POV to include. •smedley Δbutler• 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this type of thing even appropriate for this kind of article? This really seems like a vanity article to me, but that is just my opinion. -- Chuck Sirloin 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, no, I dislike that section. Notable pundit or not, it has the terrible and easy possibility of turning into a place for Mr. Frank to simply be misquoted. If Mr. Frank is noted by multiple reliable sources as being critical of Wikipedia or of Mr. Moore, then include those references in prose. Otherwise, I support removal. -- Iamunknown 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed. -- Iamunknown 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The section on Frank's views is very, well, shallow at the moment. He writes predominantly on law and for blogs which express concern at excessive litigation. I added a sentence about his concern over culpability, but I don't know enough about class action and tort reform to make a good go of it. If anyone could look through his work and write something more meaty that would be good, and I shall alert WP:LAW that we need their help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
He's simply not notable enough. Seems to be just a run of the mill lawyer. A good one to be sure but we don't have articles just because they are good. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Frank. -- Tbeatty 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
{{notability|Biographies}}
tag because it is clearly needed even if the article survives. If the article is deleted this will be moot. --
Doug.
Talk 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Interesting. Incidentally, another Ted Frank is president of Axentis. Comes up in news archives a lot—about as much as this Ted Frank, but with actual profiles of the man. I think it actually has a equal claim for notability as this Ted Frank. Can we add a heading stating that Ted Frank might also refer to the president of Axentis? There's no need to disambiguate unless someone writes another article. Cool Hand Luke 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There is yet another Ted Frank, a lawyer at Arnold & Porter.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If the AFD passes as a keep, who's up for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ted Frank? A Wikiproject devoted to the many different Ted Franks in the world! -- lucid 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is this the proper name? Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person): not advised." Parentheses are normally how we distinguish: there is no doubt that "Ted Frank" is the most common form of his name by far. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree and that was a little out of line wasn't it to move this in the middle of AfD discussion. If anything it should probably be Ted Frank (lawyer) or Ted Frank (Tort Reform Activist). -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The following strikes me as POV and Unreliable:
With several friends, Frank also took over a failing left wing student magazine and turned it around into a centrist one. Schaeffer, Evan (May 11, 2005}, An Interview with Ted Frank of Overlawyered.com, Legalunderground.com. Retrieved August 26, 2007.
Take a close look at the source. It's an interview. Exactly who is providing this information? It appears to be the subject which creates a circle with respect to verifiability and reliable third-party sources and seems to violate restrictions on sources in articles about themselves. Even more importantly, the characterization of the paper as "left wing" turned "centrist" is borderline POV to begin with, but when you examine the source it appears to come from the subject himself through the interview, which is a serious POV problem.
There are several other things on here which seem to violate Self-Published policy.
By referencing these "sources" the editor is simply adopting the subject's views.
It can't hurt the article to improve the referencing, even if only by deleting the material that is bad.
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hearing nothing, and it being fully preserved above, I have deleted the specifically mentioned text, though I know there is more I haven't specifically mentioned.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs) 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor just reverted three edits by the User:Ted Frank, the apparent subject of the article. Alas, it was a troll account that has now been blocked. Nevertheless, one of the edits that could be a BLP problem - derogatory information from an unreliable source - is the identification of Mr. Frank as a famous early Internet troll. Although it was not a pejorative term then, it is now. Both the meaning and the attitude towards trolling have changed over time. I softened the language ever so slightly without changing the meaning....I believe the real Mr. Frank is on record saying he does not mind that his prior Usenet fame is mentioned in this article. Wikidemo 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources seem to be his blog. And why on earth does a wikipedia article have so much ink about his usenet postings. Do those count as an a "reliable source that is independent of the subject?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.133.105 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [2], at present Overlawyered just redirects to Walter Olson, who is linked earlier in the same sentence, and as a style matter we normally would not include both links - it makes it harder, not easier, for the reader to get all the background info. I do agree that we should not include "conservative" as an identifying descriptor for Overlawyered. There is no cite in either article for Overlawyered being conservative. We already identify it as a legal blog published by Olson on the subject of tort reform. Adding "conservative" to that, even if true, does not add anything to the reference, and it tends to increase POV polarization to flatten political causes down to a simple liberal-versus-conservative line. Tort reform in the US and other western countries does seem to be a conservative cause, but it does not have to be so. Wikidemon ( talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Frank's not currently at AEI according to their website. http://www.aei.org/frank Ben Reaper ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit. The article has room to discuss Frank's blog posts and usenet posts, but not his role in a national political election that was covered in detail in a best-selling and headline making book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.110 ( talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Jeux sans frontieres ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikidemon ( talk) 05:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I request an editor peruse the sandbox version of Center for Class Action Fairness, edit as necessary, and copy and paste it from my sandbox into a mainspace version if it meets WP:N requirements. Similar text should be added as the first subsection of this article, which is quite out of date. Thank you. Theodore H. Frank ( talk) 07:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
requested edit}}
For your consideration:
I humbly suggest that the latest coverage pushes the Center for Class Action Fairness (currently a redirect here) over the WP:N threshhold, and invite neutral editors to evaluate that assessment. A sandbox version is at User:Theodore H. Frank/CCAF. Theodore H. Frank ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
References
Why did the section on the Sarah Palin vetting disappear? That's been mentioned in books, magazine articles, and an upcoming movie, but has been replaced with SPS about a trip to the University of Alberta. I'd say that the vetting is the only thing that makes this neocon wingnut notable, so the change in section emphasis is very odd for a "neutral" encyclopedia. It's also funny how Frank's history as the Internet's biggest troll is in [snopes]] but not this article, even though Cole Stryker called Frank the forerunner to 4chan. 71.114.125.35 ( talk) 08:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Palin deserves it's own section. There is much more coverage about Palin, which is objectively historically important, than there is about Frank being in a conference attended by a hundred lawyers or speaking to a few dozen law students, but th public appearances has it's own section, even hough it's not notable, and Palin has next to nothing. (You can tell Frank isn't really notable. Someone like Palin (or Michael Moore) who is notable, speaks to larger audiences all the time, but doesn't have a filler section about their public appearances.) It violates npov to have that section because it's designed to promote Frank. A real encyclopedia, rather than one run by Frank's buddies, wouldn't have that section. If Frank died tomorrow, the obituary would mention Palin most prominently, if a newspaper even bothered to write about it. A Wikipedia article that barely mentions it is doing a disservice.
Cole Stryker wrote about Frank's trolling in his 4chan book. You can see it on google books.
A lot of class action attorneys criticize Frank, but it's not in this article or the Class Action Center article. (Law firms that are actually notable don't have discussions of their sub-million-dollar cases.) 12.130.124.19 ( talk) 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Show me multiple RELIABLE SOURCES which cover Palin and I'll give it its own section. Google books picks up nothing. Show me multiple RELIABLE SOURCES of " alot of class action attorneys criticize Frank". C'mon then, show me? If you want the article altered you have to provide some EVIDENCE of your claims in order for it to be written in. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For a long time, this article has given lots of space to Jon Huber's 2006 attack on Frank — too much (see WP:UNDUE), IMO. I've edited that text to try to provide more details, especially more context, in fewer words.
The series of events was:
(Aside: a worthwhile exercise for the reader is to study #1 and #2 before looking at #3.)
Our article previously did not mention #1. In my edit, I tried to summarize all three articles from scratch. Right now, I'm not sure how good my summaries are. Comments and improvements are very welcome. Cheers, CWC 10:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the article is very one-sided. And someone is trying very hard to hide the most notable fact about Frank, which is that he vetted Sarah Palin. GQ just did a whole article on Frank that was more detailed than any other source cited here. But there was no mention of the GQ article in this article. GQ not surprisingly focused on Frank's vetting history, while everything else in this article was reduced to one sentence, which shows the NPOV and WEIGHT violations. If a heart-attack victim of Frank's pharma clients shoots him tomorrow, the obituary will focus on Sarah Palin. So should this article, which discusses Frank's minor cases at length without mentioning when he loses, but managed to forget to include a section about what reliable sources call the most notable part of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
if you google Ted Frank Sarah Palin you'll find next to no sources. Nobody is trying to "hide" anything. There is considerable focus on Huber's attack because it covers many of the issues which Ted has to deal with and the common arguments against what he does. I had to add some criticism to balance it out neutrality wise. I think its valid if you consider what sources are available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is next to no sources? [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Saying there are "next to no sources" is not intellectually honest. So your of "invalid edits" just deleted the only references to the two biggest biographical articles about Ted Frank. Deleting reliable sources like GQ and the Wall Street Journal and Reuters so you can pretend that Frank didn't lose the Cobell case and have the article consist of cites to Ted Frank's blog seems to violate NPOV and WEIGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not true. See Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty, Kelly Ayotte, and Condoleeza Rice, all of which mention reliably sourced articles saying they are being considered for vice president. My edit was not speculating; my edit was a cite to the reliably sourced fact that a leading magazine, GQ, and a notable reporter thought it was notable that Frank is a Republican bigwig who is going to get appointed to an important position. 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Frank worked at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. And, yes, Ted Frank is obviously Jewish (google it), though you want to hide that, too. I made several dozen edits. You don't like three of them. So why revert all of my edits? Whats wrong with the GQ article? Whats wrong with the Wall Street Journal article? Whats wrong with the Reuters article? Whats wrong with the Cole Stryker book? Whats wrong with the Wikilink to Game Change and Game Change (film)? Whats wrong with mentioning the actor who played him in a notable movie? All of those were deleted. Why delete an entire well-sourced section about the most important notable fact about Frank? (No one made a movie about his speech at Vanderbilt, but that has its own paragraph.) Reliable sources disagree with the weight this article puts on Frank. No one calls him a writer: he's called a "vetter" or a "Capital Hill lawyer." There seem to be a lot of non-notable facts in this article to hide the notable ones. That has to violate WEIGHT. But every time I edit it my edits are reverted in an hour or two.
"Particularly active in protecting consumers from their own class action lawyers" - is this an encyclopedia article or an advertisement? Whats the cite for this?
Why are you attacking me when Blofeld says something untrue like "there are next to no sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, I suggest you drop the attitude. If there's something you think the article is missing and have reliable sources to back it up I suggest you construct an argument to persuade me hat you are right. Ranting on in this manner and placing excessive tags in the article is doing you no favours. Nobody is trying to hide anything. You say that I'm trying to hide something with Palin. What exactly?? What is covered in the sources then that isn't already mentioned? What does it matter if he is Jewish or neo conservative? Do you have reliable sources which make it worthy of mentioning? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You call my edits "invalid" though you can't identify anything wrong with them, and you say I have the attitude? The article is missing any criticism of Frank. The article discusses cases Frank lost without mentioning that he lost the cases. The article includes a lot of hooey to bury the notable facts about Frank. There is a phony original research section that says Frank has given a bunch of radio interviews but still no section about the only thing that makes Frank notable historically. The article is missing the two longest biographical articles about Frank, perhaps because they're the only ones that don't read like advertisements. The article is missing all of the notable things I added and you reverted as "invalid" without any explanation. Don't tell me that I don't have sources, because every time I try to balance the article you revert it. You still havent told me what sources I added were invalid. 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Areas of interest and expertise include product liability, asbestos litigation, medical malpractice, and pharmaceuticals such as Vioxx and he has been outspoken on health issues.[77][78]
Neither cite (one of which is a dead link) supports the praise. What's the RS for expertise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Reworded and sourced. One is not a dead link, it is just not public domain, I picked it up in a google book search. OK if not expertise, they are issues which concern him. You're becoming tiresome. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This is original research. None of these sources say "X interests Ted Frank." You're becoming offensive with your inappropriate personal attacks and refusal to edit collaboratively. You complain when I edit without "raising the matter with you" and then when I raise the matter with you, you insult me. I think you should take a break from this page. 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 21:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm the subject of the article, which seems to be in equilibrium after a short edit war. I understand the importance of NPOV, but some of the criticism added to the article in the last week is unfair. Also, because most of the article was written a year ago, it misses my most important wins and press coverage.
Are there any photos available to post? If anyone has a (appropriate, properly copyrighted) photo to add, we should add it. Ted, if you stop by and read this, would you consider uploading one to the commons? Capitalismojo ( talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Please be careful in adding primary sources. If we add all the opinion pieces Frank has written, it might overwhelm or bias the article. We need secondary coverage per WP:WEIGHT. Cool Hand Luke 21:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. That Moore one is central to recent media coverage of guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanbach ( talk • contribs) 21:34, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
This page could use a copyright-free photo. If someone is down in DC perhaps they could ask Ted Frank; they may be able to reach him through AEI's website. --David Shankbone 21:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a clear CoI of editors working on this article, this applies to all sides and you all know what it is but lets not talk about it. Now its a real stub we should all not edit it and let wikipedia take its course OK. (Hypnosadist) 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should include his POV on documentaries. The film industry and buisness industries (like Bloomberg) do not consider IMAX movies, reality movies (Jackass) or concert movies as documentaries. That is their 'standards'. Ted (with no expertise in film at all) wrote an article published in several RW sites with a list of documentaries including IMAX, Jackass and concert films to argue that Michael Moores movies were not in the top 5 but much lower. This is a notable POV to include. •smedley Δbutler• 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Is this type of thing even appropriate for this kind of article? This really seems like a vanity article to me, but that is just my opinion. -- Chuck Sirloin 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, no, I dislike that section. Notable pundit or not, it has the terrible and easy possibility of turning into a place for Mr. Frank to simply be misquoted. If Mr. Frank is noted by multiple reliable sources as being critical of Wikipedia or of Mr. Moore, then include those references in prose. Otherwise, I support removal. -- Iamunknown 21:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed. -- Iamunknown 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The section on Frank's views is very, well, shallow at the moment. He writes predominantly on law and for blogs which express concern at excessive litigation. I added a sentence about his concern over culpability, but I don't know enough about class action and tort reform to make a good go of it. If anyone could look through his work and write something more meaty that would be good, and I shall alert WP:LAW that we need their help. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
He's simply not notable enough. Seems to be just a run of the mill lawyer. A good one to be sure but we don't have articles just because they are good. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Frank. -- Tbeatty 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
{{notability|Biographies}}
tag because it is clearly needed even if the article survives. If the article is deleted this will be moot. --
Doug.
Talk 23:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Interesting. Incidentally, another Ted Frank is president of Axentis. Comes up in news archives a lot—about as much as this Ted Frank, but with actual profiles of the man. I think it actually has a equal claim for notability as this Ted Frank. Can we add a heading stating that Ted Frank might also refer to the president of Axentis? There's no need to disambiguate unless someone writes another article. Cool Hand Luke 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
There is yet another Ted Frank, a lawyer at Arnold & Porter.-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If the AFD passes as a keep, who's up for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ted Frank? A Wikiproject devoted to the many different Ted Franks in the world! -- lucid 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is this the proper name? Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people): "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (that is: if this format of the name is not the commonly used one to refer to this person): not advised." Parentheses are normally how we distinguish: there is no doubt that "Ted Frank" is the most common form of his name by far. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree and that was a little out of line wasn't it to move this in the middle of AfD discussion. If anything it should probably be Ted Frank (lawyer) or Ted Frank (Tort Reform Activist). -- Doug.( talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The following strikes me as POV and Unreliable:
With several friends, Frank also took over a failing left wing student magazine and turned it around into a centrist one. Schaeffer, Evan (May 11, 2005}, An Interview with Ted Frank of Overlawyered.com, Legalunderground.com. Retrieved August 26, 2007.
Take a close look at the source. It's an interview. Exactly who is providing this information? It appears to be the subject which creates a circle with respect to verifiability and reliable third-party sources and seems to violate restrictions on sources in articles about themselves. Even more importantly, the characterization of the paper as "left wing" turned "centrist" is borderline POV to begin with, but when you examine the source it appears to come from the subject himself through the interview, which is a serious POV problem.
There are several other things on here which seem to violate Self-Published policy.
By referencing these "sources" the editor is simply adopting the subject's views.
It can't hurt the article to improve the referencing, even if only by deleting the material that is bad.
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hearing nothing, and it being fully preserved above, I have deleted the specifically mentioned text, though I know there is more I haven't specifically mentioned.--
Doug.(
talk •
contribs) 05:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
An editor just reverted three edits by the User:Ted Frank, the apparent subject of the article. Alas, it was a troll account that has now been blocked. Nevertheless, one of the edits that could be a BLP problem - derogatory information from an unreliable source - is the identification of Mr. Frank as a famous early Internet troll. Although it was not a pejorative term then, it is now. Both the meaning and the attitude towards trolling have changed over time. I softened the language ever so slightly without changing the meaning....I believe the real Mr. Frank is on record saying he does not mind that his prior Usenet fame is mentioned in this article. Wikidemo 22:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources seem to be his blog. And why on earth does a wikipedia article have so much ink about his usenet postings. Do those count as an a "reliable source that is independent of the subject?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.133.105 ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [2], at present Overlawyered just redirects to Walter Olson, who is linked earlier in the same sentence, and as a style matter we normally would not include both links - it makes it harder, not easier, for the reader to get all the background info. I do agree that we should not include "conservative" as an identifying descriptor for Overlawyered. There is no cite in either article for Overlawyered being conservative. We already identify it as a legal blog published by Olson on the subject of tort reform. Adding "conservative" to that, even if true, does not add anything to the reference, and it tends to increase POV polarization to flatten political causes down to a simple liberal-versus-conservative line. Tort reform in the US and other western countries does seem to be a conservative cause, but it does not have to be so. Wikidemon ( talk) 16:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Frank's not currently at AEI according to their website. http://www.aei.org/frank Ben Reaper ( talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand this edit. The article has room to discuss Frank's blog posts and usenet posts, but not his role in a national political election that was covered in detail in a best-selling and headline making book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.110 ( talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Jeux sans frontieres ( talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wikidemon ( talk) 05:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I request an editor peruse the sandbox version of Center for Class Action Fairness, edit as necessary, and copy and paste it from my sandbox into a mainspace version if it meets WP:N requirements. Similar text should be added as the first subsection of this article, which is quite out of date. Thank you. Theodore H. Frank ( talk) 07:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
requested edit}}
For your consideration:
I humbly suggest that the latest coverage pushes the Center for Class Action Fairness (currently a redirect here) over the WP:N threshhold, and invite neutral editors to evaluate that assessment. A sandbox version is at User:Theodore H. Frank/CCAF. Theodore H. Frank ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
References
Why did the section on the Sarah Palin vetting disappear? That's been mentioned in books, magazine articles, and an upcoming movie, but has been replaced with SPS about a trip to the University of Alberta. I'd say that the vetting is the only thing that makes this neocon wingnut notable, so the change in section emphasis is very odd for a "neutral" encyclopedia. It's also funny how Frank's history as the Internet's biggest troll is in [snopes]] but not this article, even though Cole Stryker called Frank the forerunner to 4chan. 71.114.125.35 ( talk) 08:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Palin deserves it's own section. There is much more coverage about Palin, which is objectively historically important, than there is about Frank being in a conference attended by a hundred lawyers or speaking to a few dozen law students, but th public appearances has it's own section, even hough it's not notable, and Palin has next to nothing. (You can tell Frank isn't really notable. Someone like Palin (or Michael Moore) who is notable, speaks to larger audiences all the time, but doesn't have a filler section about their public appearances.) It violates npov to have that section because it's designed to promote Frank. A real encyclopedia, rather than one run by Frank's buddies, wouldn't have that section. If Frank died tomorrow, the obituary would mention Palin most prominently, if a newspaper even bothered to write about it. A Wikipedia article that barely mentions it is doing a disservice.
Cole Stryker wrote about Frank's trolling in his 4chan book. You can see it on google books.
A lot of class action attorneys criticize Frank, but it's not in this article or the Class Action Center article. (Law firms that are actually notable don't have discussions of their sub-million-dollar cases.) 12.130.124.19 ( talk) 15:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Show me multiple RELIABLE SOURCES which cover Palin and I'll give it its own section. Google books picks up nothing. Show me multiple RELIABLE SOURCES of " alot of class action attorneys criticize Frank". C'mon then, show me? If you want the article altered you have to provide some EVIDENCE of your claims in order for it to be written in. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
For a long time, this article has given lots of space to Jon Huber's 2006 attack on Frank — too much (see WP:UNDUE), IMO. I've edited that text to try to provide more details, especially more context, in fewer words.
The series of events was:
(Aside: a worthwhile exercise for the reader is to study #1 and #2 before looking at #3.)
Our article previously did not mention #1. In my edit, I tried to summarize all three articles from scratch. Right now, I'm not sure how good my summaries are. Comments and improvements are very welcome. Cheers, CWC 10:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that the article is very one-sided. And someone is trying very hard to hide the most notable fact about Frank, which is that he vetted Sarah Palin. GQ just did a whole article on Frank that was more detailed than any other source cited here. But there was no mention of the GQ article in this article. GQ not surprisingly focused on Frank's vetting history, while everything else in this article was reduced to one sentence, which shows the NPOV and WEIGHT violations. If a heart-attack victim of Frank's pharma clients shoots him tomorrow, the obituary will focus on Sarah Palin. So should this article, which discusses Frank's minor cases at length without mentioning when he loses, but managed to forget to include a section about what reliable sources call the most notable part of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 17:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
if you google Ted Frank Sarah Palin you'll find next to no sources. Nobody is trying to "hide" anything. There is considerable focus on Huber's attack because it covers many of the issues which Ted has to deal with and the common arguments against what he does. I had to add some criticism to balance it out neutrality wise. I think its valid if you consider what sources are available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
This is next to no sources? [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] Saying there are "next to no sources" is not intellectually honest. So your of "invalid edits" just deleted the only references to the two biggest biographical articles about Ted Frank. Deleting reliable sources like GQ and the Wall Street Journal and Reuters so you can pretend that Frank didn't lose the Cobell case and have the article consist of cites to Ted Frank's blog seems to violate NPOV and WEIGHT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not true. See Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty, Kelly Ayotte, and Condoleeza Rice, all of which mention reliably sourced articles saying they are being considered for vice president. My edit was not speculating; my edit was a cite to the reliably sourced fact that a leading magazine, GQ, and a notable reporter thought it was notable that Frank is a Republican bigwig who is going to get appointed to an important position. 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Frank worked at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute. And, yes, Ted Frank is obviously Jewish (google it), though you want to hide that, too. I made several dozen edits. You don't like three of them. So why revert all of my edits? Whats wrong with the GQ article? Whats wrong with the Wall Street Journal article? Whats wrong with the Reuters article? Whats wrong with the Cole Stryker book? Whats wrong with the Wikilink to Game Change and Game Change (film)? Whats wrong with mentioning the actor who played him in a notable movie? All of those were deleted. Why delete an entire well-sourced section about the most important notable fact about Frank? (No one made a movie about his speech at Vanderbilt, but that has its own paragraph.) Reliable sources disagree with the weight this article puts on Frank. No one calls him a writer: he's called a "vetter" or a "Capital Hill lawyer." There seem to be a lot of non-notable facts in this article to hide the notable ones. That has to violate WEIGHT. But every time I edit it my edits are reverted in an hour or two.
"Particularly active in protecting consumers from their own class action lawyers" - is this an encyclopedia article or an advertisement? Whats the cite for this?
Why are you attacking me when Blofeld says something untrue like "there are next to no sources"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 19:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, I suggest you drop the attitude. If there's something you think the article is missing and have reliable sources to back it up I suggest you construct an argument to persuade me hat you are right. Ranting on in this manner and placing excessive tags in the article is doing you no favours. Nobody is trying to hide anything. You say that I'm trying to hide something with Palin. What exactly?? What is covered in the sources then that isn't already mentioned? What does it matter if he is Jewish or neo conservative? Do you have reliable sources which make it worthy of mentioning? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
You call my edits "invalid" though you can't identify anything wrong with them, and you say I have the attitude? The article is missing any criticism of Frank. The article discusses cases Frank lost without mentioning that he lost the cases. The article includes a lot of hooey to bury the notable facts about Frank. There is a phony original research section that says Frank has given a bunch of radio interviews but still no section about the only thing that makes Frank notable historically. The article is missing the two longest biographical articles about Frank, perhaps because they're the only ones that don't read like advertisements. The article is missing all of the notable things I added and you reverted as "invalid" without any explanation. Don't tell me that I don't have sources, because every time I try to balance the article you revert it. You still havent told me what sources I added were invalid. 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 20:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Areas of interest and expertise include product liability, asbestos litigation, medical malpractice, and pharmaceuticals such as Vioxx and he has been outspoken on health issues.[77][78]
Neither cite (one of which is a dead link) supports the praise. What's the RS for expertise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Reworded and sourced. One is not a dead link, it is just not public domain, I picked it up in a google book search. OK if not expertise, they are issues which concern him. You're becoming tiresome. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
This is original research. None of these sources say "X interests Ted Frank." You're becoming offensive with your inappropriate personal attacks and refusal to edit collaboratively. You complain when I edit without "raising the matter with you" and then when I raise the matter with you, you insult me. I think you should take a break from this page. 64.55.78.101 ( talk) 21:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm the subject of the article, which seems to be in equilibrium after a short edit war. I understand the importance of NPOV, but some of the criticism added to the article in the last week is unfair. Also, because most of the article was written a year ago, it misses my most important wins and press coverage.
Are there any photos available to post? If anyone has a (appropriate, properly copyrighted) photo to add, we should add it. Ted, if you stop by and read this, would you consider uploading one to the commons? Capitalismojo ( talk) 23:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)