Talk:Lawrence R. Goldfarb

SEC Charges

I have moved and renamed the SEC charges section to avoid giving it undue prominance (was at the top). Location and titling is now consistant with other recent financial scandals. I also added a reference for that section. However much of the scandal section appears to be a copy/paste from a number of SEC notes. Despite the fact that they are not copyvios (because they are a product of the US govt) they are not correctly formatted to indicate that they are word for word (even paragraph long quotes). I think these should be reformatted or removed. Also, the entire rest of the doc contains a bunch of inappropriate EL which should either be converted to intl links (for a charity), or to references, or removed. Other than the scandal section the document appears to me to be non-neutral and overly positive focusing on his "avid" hobbies and his philanthropy, but I welcome opinions from the BLP experts familiar with this matter.  7  02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

To address the concerns above, I edited the links and reformatted a bunch of stuff. It should all be kosher now. FTR - I say we keep our feelings about the subject matter (both positive and negative) out of it. Wikipedia is supposed to be about presenting facts, not opinion. 'Nuff said. (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did several edits to the professional life section and added proper citation. Since the SEC settlement is resolved I have included the proper SEC article which includes description of the settlement. As others have pointed out, creating a proper BLP is difficult, so any opinions and comments are welcome. Currently, the article is still flagged for possibly improper external links. I request that other editors start a discussion with me here before things fall into another edit war. Feversleeved (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Popandlockitfool, I've noticed that you've taken these changes to the article very, very personally. Is there something here for you that is causing you such distress? Perhaps you didn't see my invitation to have an open discussion so that we didn't enter into another edit war. I understand if you want to make changes in the name of accuracy, but I sense that you have a lot of personal anger regarding his character. Oh, and you can also be fair without slander. Please discuss your thoughts and feelings with me on here, or my own talk page. Thank you. Feversleeved (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Feversleeved (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Feversleeved. Care to point to any instances of slander? Plus, how can you accuse others of bias? Do you see what I mean? Why do you think it's ok to use fake citations?Popandlockitfool (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Popandlockitfool. I suspected bias because your comments appeared to have a partial perspective, so to be honest I don't see what you mean. Please refer to the previous comments I removed on the talk page history. Calling someone a fraudster on Wikipedia is slanderous (please refer to Talk Page Guidelines WP:TPNO). However, I do agree that there are some citations that are probably not very strong. I am going to go over them, and if you would like to help, let me know what citations are upsetting you. Thank you. Feversleeved (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Feversleeved. That's fair enough, but I would humbly ask you to look back at how the page looked before I ever edited it months ago and how it looked after I did my edits. I made a fair and honest page. In all honesty, do you think that Wikipedia is here to make vanity pages for hedge fund managers? And yes, I did call Goldfarb a fraudster. Guess who else called him that. The SEC. Do you also think wikipedia is here for only positive praises of people? Did you go to college to work for someone like Goldfarb? And to babysit his wikipedia page? It doesn't belong to you, or him.

Now, to the issues of citations, most of the article is ok up till the Personal life section you added. The tumor stuff has no references at all, plus it's completely not relevant. I am totally right to delete. Ask any wikipedia editor.

The LRG racing stuff is weird to include because I looked it up. LRG Racing doesn't exist anymore and hasn't for years. Why do you say it's current?

Why do you say the SessionEX stuff? He's not listed on the SessionEX website, plus you have no citations.

Why do you say he performed with Bob Weir? You cite a video of him introducing Bob Weir once. Do you see the problem there? Again, anyone would agree with me on these types of things you keep adding here.

The same for Jerry Harrison and Rob Wasserman. Wasserman you have no citation at all, and Harrison you cite a page saying Goldfarb executive produced a record that Harrison produced. Do you see the problem here?

There are more to get to but I will leave it there for now. Stop accusing me of being unfair and disruptive to the page. And I meant how can you acuse others of bias and scrub anything negative from these pages when you work for Goldfarb and have an obvious agenda here. You have the most ultimate bias of all. It doesn't work like that. I could easily list numerous things which you would consider negative, but I would have proper citations. You've done a good job trying to whitewash the SEC things, and keeping it listed that he is Chairman of board of Om Records. Just don't go overboard here. Popandlockitfool (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Popandlockitfool! You made some valuable points to consider in regard to the weak citations, and I'll look at it much closely when I edit this article's content next. Feversleeved (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Feversleeved. I thought you weren't going to go overboard here anymore, but now I see you still believe that wikipedia pages belong to you and no one else. Please explain to me the problems you have with my edits? Why do you reference pages that don't even mention Goldfarb? Was the page I left negative or unfair?

Am I not allowed to edit this page in a fair manner? --Popandlockitfool (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Philanthropy

I believe there is some disagreement between myself and another editor about section blanking the "philanthropy" section. Is there any way this can be included in a factual manner and not flagged for bias? (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Latest Revision After Settlement of The Edit War

Admins User:Drmies and User:Youreallycan, I’d like to thank you for your attention to this page and the work that has been put into it by all parties. I have always attempted to adhere to and respect the guidelines for BLP while providing truthful, encyclopedic material. I have also looked at other BLP’s as comparable of how to create appropriate content. I apologize if my past actions have not reflected my intentions. By my observation, there are many pages that violate the BLP guidelines but are not monitored to the high degree this one is. It is my strong opinion that the only reason this page is red-flagged is because User:Popandlockitfool has made a point to diminish Lawrence Goldfarb’s relevancy in the arenas he has been and is highly active in. That being said, it is not my intention to “win” against User:Popandlockitfool. My intention is to provide truthful, relevant information consistent with the BLP guidelines and also consistent with other BLPs.

I want to pose a question: what is the precedence for BLP’s when there are pages that ostensibly violate the BLP quite clearly? I ask this because the latest revisions to the Lawrence Goldfarb page are not any more accurate than the previous revision and in fact, leave more questions than answers. For example, him being a “student” at Georgetown Law is much different than Thereafter he was a student at Georgetown University Law School where he regularly published articles for the Georgetown Law Journal. He graduated with his cum laude in 1988”, especially when the previous mention of his undergrad states his BA degree. Some citation available for this can be found at: http://www.lrgcapital.com/capital-team.php. Also, if someone wanted to check his writing for Georgetown Law Journal, they could easily call them up and find out, but this is something that cannot be referenced as a source because a link is not available. The internet is littered with bios about his time at Georgetown and graduating cum laude so I find it difficult to state otherwise. No one has ever questioned or proven he did not graduate cum laude from Georgetown, or did not write for the law journal.

The point is, there are many articles that overlook this type of information, but not this article which has been intensely scrutinized. If the previous revision qualifies as an “overstatement” then the current revision clearly is an “understatement.” So, I am trying to strike a balance and using the resources available to do so, but I do feel that the current version is actually more inaccurate because it goes out of its way to omit known information despite the fact that it appears to be more credible, it is not. It is clear that it is easier to refute/remove information than add/verify it with sources, and I do respect that, but by whitewashing the majority of information on the page it implies that facts from previous revisions were false or untrue when they merely needed a flag for citation or discussion. Feversleeved (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fever, you're just going to have to take my word for it, if you don't see it yet: the current version is much closer to what counts as an acceptable article under our BLP policies. And if you think that this is acceptable as a reference, you should probably re-read WP:RS. But the biggest issue here is neutrality: versions like this one will never (again) be accepted. The lead of an encyclopedic biography stating that the subject is an avid skier--please. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Drmies, I didn't even originate that version that you're referencing. That's from another user and was never present in my most recent revisions. Don't get me wrong: I'm with you on how absurd that entry was, and was clearly written by someone with no regard to Wiki guidelines. There's corrections to the areas of neutrality that I acknowledge in your revisions, but the point I'm stressing above isn't about contesting that. It's about understatement of his education as fact, and how some other BLP articles take precedence and do no follow guidelines in this area but are never questioned. Not to compare the magnitude of other financial figures but look at the wiki article on Warren Buffett who has no citation for his education. The citation for George Soros' education comes directly from his website. So Drmies, I hear you loud & clear on neutrality, but my main concern about your current revision is focused around the education. My listening for you is that you are just, rational, and fair; I hope you have the same listening for me. Feversleeved (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking of me. That he published while he was in school, I don't see exactly how that is relevant or notable. He's a hedge fund manager, not a legal scholar. Besides, it needs to be verified, esp. with third-party sources. That he graduated cum laude, or whatever, is that really encyclopedic information? I don't know. That's something you can ask on the appropriate noticeboard, WP:BLPN. Now, you make some claims about the current version, but I have yet to see anyone ask, "hey, did he graduate cum laude?"

      But don't take my word for it--take it up at the noticeboard and see if they agree with you. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Conviction vs Settlement

There has been a block-evading, IP hopping IP trying to whitewash the section that discusses the settlement and conviction. On April 16, 2014, Goldfarb pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in the information that had been filed against him in March 2011. That is a conviction. Toddst1 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Death

He died July 14 or 15 2023 173.56.245.25 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source to update the article. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What is your source, lets confirm and then will find an article as well? Nztahir (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

He died July 12. I have a death certificate. It is not published anywhere. How do I update based on a death cert? People need to know he’s dead. @Kuru 71.34.163.157 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing it? I can then use it and send it to Yahoo news.. They'd probably be interested in sharing that news. Nztahir (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

External Links

Hi, I am a bit new at this, but after reviewing this article I find out that the first link is bogus in the references. Should we remove it? Nztahir (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)