Talk:Overlawyered

Article creation

I am creating this article at the request of User:THF, made http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=279548553#Request_edit:_Overlawyered Following are the sources made in the request that I was unable (so far) to work in. Many of these are subscription sites that I cannot access (someone with Lexis probably can). A few were editorials or very minor mentions, e.g. a "thank you" notice in a book, or an article that simply mentioned overlawyered.com as a source... I'm not sure that it's worth listing individual legal topics covered by overlawyered unless there is something particularly notable, such as starting a controversy or being the first to have the scoop on something. I'm pausing for now, but the article could certainly use some expansion as well as categories, and project templates on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources I did not work in (so far - copied from COIN request):

Criticism:

Miscellaneous praise and citations in passing, inter alia:

Google Books, Google Scholar. If someone has NEXIS access, there are many more news articles in the 1999-2005 time range that are no longer on the web.

Material removed

This edit removed a fair amount of material. Whether something is undergoing an appeal or not is immaterial if reliable independent sources wrote about the topic. Otherwise we'd have to delete something like Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that content was in an article that has been deleted, it was basically copied here as well the user that posted it is blocked, suggest not replacing it. There has been a lot of discussion about the content if you need some links let me know. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libel suit coverage

As noted in other discussions, the libel suit between an aviation tort lawyer and Overlawyered did not warrant a separate article. However, that decision does not govern whether the litigation should be covered in articles as part of the coverage about the parties. We know with a certainty that the litigation happened from primary sources. We also have reliable secondary sources that reported on the litigation. Hence the fact of the litigation can be properly included in relevant Wikipedia articles. I have done so without repeating the allegedly libelous statement. For example, I can write in Wikipedia "Farmer X sued Y for libel." If I wrote "Farmer X sued Y for calling him a 'stupid old dairy cow'." I would be republishing the libel. As I noted in the AfD, there is a two-part analysis, the community should decide what it wants its coverage to be under Wikipedia policies. As a separate second step, if Farmer X does not like the article, he can contact OTRS and demand that the statement be removed and perhaps threaten a lawsuit. The Wikimedia Foundation can then make a cost-benefit analysis as to whether it is worth it to fight or remove the material. However, Wikipedia policies are clear that true sourced material presented in a NPOV manner should be included in the article. Here, we have an article about a website that covers the excesses of tort law. It is relevant and of interest to readers that such websites are (1) sued by tort lawyers (2) subjected to suits by tort lawyers filed after the statute of limitations that is designed to protect them from stale claims and (3) such tactics don't succeed. I don't want to edit war, but if I don't see significant objections within 12 hours, I will re-add my text. Racepacket (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the removal too, see above. WP:NNC, but this stub is very short however. The stuff about the lawsuit would be 75% of this article if included as-is. That would be quite WP:UNDUE, I think. I suggest you either expand this article with other material, or include only a very brief mention of the lawsuit in the current stub. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that explanation, Racepacket (and for finding those sources). I was worried about WP:UNDUE too, so I've shortened the section. Please check my work. Cheers, CWC 11:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to two related deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk v. Walter Olson (result: deletion) and [[1]] (result: no consensus). CWC 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]