Jump to content

Talk:Ted Frank/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Primary sources

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)

No. It's not. Incidentally, be mindful of WP:SOCK. Cool Hand Luke 21:48, 25 August 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)

I've removed the images. They could be easily replaced by free ones of acceptable quality in terms of encyclopedia use. --Iamunknown 21:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
When one becomes available the fair use ones can be replaced.Johanbach 22:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, does the article really need pics until then? Or indeed does it really need two non-free pics? --Chuck Sirloin 22:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
It positively can't have two, and even one is questionable. WP:NONFREE "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Question though: is C-SPAN public domain as a government work? I know the house and senate video is public domain, but am not sure about conferences. Cool Hand Luke 22:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the answer is "no". C-SPAN is apparently non-commercial, which we do not accept. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

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)

Saying "EVERYBODY STOP EDITING OK" and "let wikipedia take its course" is a direct contradiction. Most of the work on Wikipedia is probably at least somewhat of a conflict of interest-- interest is what makes people want to edit things --lucid 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

POV on documentaries

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. •smedleyΔbutler• 23:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's synthesis unless you have a source commenting on his allegedly notable POV. Cool Hand Luke 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Unless Michael moore or someone else complains about it and we can quote them, we can't say that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont see why it cant be included in 'recorded viewpoints' but Im no expert. •smedleyΔbutler• 00:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
If it was included, we couldn't add lines about how x organization uses a different methodology. Moreover, the "recorded viewpoints" section is a WEIGHT disaster already without including primary documents he wrote himself with no outside commentary. Cool Hand Luke 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


viewpoints?

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)

Nah, he is a notable far right American pundit. Johanbach 21:53, 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)

This is on-target. The section reeks of WEIGHT problems. We could probably list dozens or hundreds of topics that he's spoken on, but we should only list those that have received reliable third-party coverage. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I already corrected one allegation that seemed to misrepresent the source. ATren 22:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --Iamunknown 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And then reinserted. --Iamunknown 17:40, 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)

Nominated for deletion

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)

I was wondering when that would happen to this article. IMHO, he's borderline notable for being mentioned in the net.legends.FAQ -- but for some reason does not want that part of his life publicized. -- llywrch 05:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. Do we have any reliable sources about this? Are you sure it's the same Ted Frank? The name doesn't seem so uncommon. I think it would be an interesting addition. Cool Hand Luke 12:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The person mentioned in net.legends.FAQ made 17,000 usenet posts in 1993-1995 from University of Chicago servers, and claimed to be a law student there, which narrows things down quite a bit. What does that matter? People did a lot of things on usenet in the 1990s they would rather not relive.... Wikidemo 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A citation to the book Internet Culture has recently been added to Troll (Internet). It looks like a reliable source. It seems he was of the two most "notorious" AFU trolls (which, the book explains, had a different connotation back then: the other notorious troll was snopes). Would the FAQ itself be a reliable source? Cool Hand Luke 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's GREAT. Ted Frank was one of the most notorious trolls on usenet in the 90s? So notable. Let's add it immediately. Can anyone else dig up more on this? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
But "troll" seems to have had a very different meaning back then, so different that I think we should specifically explain it. The book makes "trolling" mean something more like "telling inside jokes to expose newbies." Cool Hand Luke 15:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, i have mentioned that it has a different meaning. Also, I have just searched him on google scholar and discovered he's written a book as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw that book, but I think a different Ted Frank wrote it. We don't have a cite for his age, but he went to Brandies by 1988, and nothing suggests that he was already pushing 40. Maybe it was written by Ted Frank businessman discussed below. About the parenthetical for troll; I'm going to take a break and if it's still in the article later, I'll try to think of a succinct non-prejudicial way to write it. Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Please do. Oh, and we can always ASK Ted Frank if he wrote it. :) He's not exactly incommunicado. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Very funny stop your harassment. (Hypnosadist) 19:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Come again? Why do think that Dev920's comment constitutes harassment? --Iamunknown 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Iamunknown his constant linking of the two bits of information is harassment, read WP:HARASS. (Hypnosadist) 19:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, I am officially asking you to desist from your ranting and harrassing of other editors. In the past two days you have done nothing but harrass and attempt to intimidate other editors because of your false and increasingly hysterical interpretation of WP:HARRASS. There is nothing wrong in asking a Wikipedian who happens to have an article on him to clarify details about his person. In fact, Ted Frank has no problem with this either because he happily responded to my question. YOU WILL NOTE I HAVE AT NO POINT CONNECTED THE TWO NAMES, even though his username is plastered at the top of this page. Stop, for your own sake, or at some point you're going to get yourself blocked. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You just violated WP:HARASS agin just like you did by re-inserting the above tag. Its not my interpretation is ArbComs. (Hypnosadist) 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dev, I did that about a week ago. You can see his response on my Talk apge; in essence, he thought I was harassing him by asking the question, although eventually admitted that he was the same person. (And for the record, I do know that the word "troll" meant something entirely different then from what it does now. A sad case where a perfectly good word for a practical jokester had its meaning mangled so that it means little more than "vandal".) Of course, I wonder if by mentioning this I would be considered harassing him all over again. ;-) -- llywrch 19:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The Justice Department cited a paper he co-wrote on blocking patents and antitrust.[1] That's not non-trivial coverage of Frank himself, but it does suggest he has some authority in this area (as opposed to his punditry on Michael Moore). Cool Hand Luke 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
How do we work that in the text? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
We should see what the original co-written article says, summarize that, and note that it's been cited by the DoJ in the footnote. I really should be giving this a rest for a while, but this is coming along nicely. Might have to change my vote... Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind doing that? I've never had to cite a legal paper before. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. I really should do this later though. His full name also brings up some COA cases. Like his bio says, he argued for Indian tribes and game manufacturers—in both California, United States v. 103 Elec. Gambling Devices, 223 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000), and Oklahoma, United States v. 162 Megamania Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 713, 719 (10th Cir. 2000). It also looks like he won an (apparently pro bono) INS appeal to get a refugee asylum for political persecution. I think this is all a little dubious per WEIGHT (all litigators have experience, and it's hard to tell what's notable), but appellate cases take a long time to prepare; more than op-eds, anyway. Incidentally, where did you get his birthdate? Seems like it should be cited. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
He's written it on his talkpage. I've been looking under his full name but I'm being distracted by other stuff as well. The whole not understanding law properly thing doesn't help either :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just added the {{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)
  • And I've just removed it. I'm not sure why you think it is "clearly needed" but first, it is usurped by the AfD tag; second, consensus at the AfD is that the article does indeed meet WP:BIO. Let's not litter the page with redundant tags that lack merit, regardless. --David Shankbone 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Ted Frank

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)

Why not write a stub and add a hatnote? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Ted Frank (businessman). Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to mention this Ted at that article but I have fiixed that. if this article survives its afd it should be moved and this page turned made inot a disambiguation page, SqueakBox 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure anymore. Google seems to think this Ted Frank is more notable (9 of the first 10 hits, I believe), and many articles about the businessmen appear to be press releases. This is probably an ok primary topic disambiguation. Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There is yet another Ted Frank, a lawyer at Arnold & Porter.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And it get more complicated. Do a Lexis/Nexis search on "Ted Frank" for the past five years and one of the main guys you see in the first few hits is a 30-year employee of NBC named Ted Frank who was promoted to Executive VP:Current programs back in 2004. The NBC entertainment president said of him back then "No one in the programming ranks has been more of an advocate for our product and our network than Ted Frank. His institutional memory and strategic advice will be invaluable to me in his new, expanded role at NBC." Considering that he was overseeing The West Wing and a bunch of other shows, he's probably at least as notable as the president of Axentis. But then again until I read the article on that company I did not know there was such a thing as "Sarbanes-Oxley users." Point is I am not naming my first kid "Ted Frank (last name redacted)" in order to avoid confusion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:26, 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)

Future editors may also find this link convenient: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikiproject Ted Frank. In the event these pages are created, my actions are join and delete respectively. Cool Hand Luke 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move to Theodore H. Frank

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)

POV and Self-Pub issues

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)

"Ted Frank" recent edits

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)

I think editor has been intentionally ambiguous about characterizations in this article, but many AfD contributers thought that AFU was essential to his notability, so it should stay. I'm glad you helped clarify what trolling actually meant back then. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Much better phrasing, Wikidemo. I battled that line trying to get it right, and I think you've finally nailed it. Trolling really was kind of innocuous back then - more like a mischievous practical joker than someone with hostile intent. I had forgotten that fact until I read about it here. But it has such a negative connotation today that I agree we have to be extra careful with it... ATren 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

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)

Lots of independent sources and a prolific writer and pundit, with an important position at a well-known think tank. The article survived a deletion nomination at the time of its creation so the question has been addressed before. As far as I know all the citations are reliable with respect to the propositions they stand for. His history as a famous Usenet persona is an aspect of his biography, not a source. Wikidemo (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Overlawyered

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)

Sorry, I didn't update my summary when I also added "conversative"; I had first noticed that it had been taken out by this this WP:SPA, then had done a bit of searching to see if it was characterized this way in multiple places (which is it); I'll see if I can find any such that are good reliable sources before I add it again. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, how about an analogy. Many people consider oysters to be "tasty", and you can probably find lots of sources for that - most obviously are opinions, but probably some reliable sources like a New York Times food column or food industry summary that use words like "delectable" for oysters. Others, of course, consider oysters to be "nasty" or "sometimes-slimy" or "bitter", and possibly one can find reliable sources for that. The article Oyster describes them as "bivalve mollusks" that usually live in a "marine" or "brackish" environment, without actually stating in the lead whether they are tasty or nasty. Now, supposing oysters were a relatively obscure subject like overlawyered, where one cannot mention them in another article without actually giving them some context. Suppose we were covering a neuroscientist, Joe Dakota, who made a life career of studying oysters. It would be improper to say "Joe Dakota (1908-1973) was an American scientist who made a career of studying the nervous system of oysters, a tasty form of mollusk." See, there are two errors in there. First is applying an unnecessary value judgment to something where the judgment is not really pertinent to the issue. Whereas oysters are defined as a class by their marine environment, they are not defined by tastiness. One does not need to know how tasty they are to know what Joe Dakota's career was about. Second, by forcing everything onto a spectrum of tasty or not tasty, that itself introduces a POV issue, because it asserts that the tastiness level is an important thing. With tort reform, although it is indeed a conservative issue indirectly (presumably because it is a business versus consumer issue at heart), the actual subject of tort reform is not necessarily conservative or liberal - it is to make the legal system more fair, efficient, less costly, and more in line with promoting the greater good, which is neither a liberal nor a conservative issue. The fact that the chips tend to fall on the side of business at the expense (directly, at least) of consumer victims is kind of like the chips falling in the case of oysters on the side of tastiness. Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, I've just created a stub article for the site, so the redirect issue should no longer be a problem. Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AEI

Frank's not currently at AEI according to their website. http://www.aei.org/frank Ben Reaper (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, new job and ref cited. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Palin

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)

I tend to agree. That's certainly a much more noteworthy quote than his views on, say, Wikipedia. If you're looking for material to trim, you should first focus your attention on his silly "recorded viewpoints" section. Cool Hand Luke 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the claim from the lede, I don't think it carries enough weight to be included there. ATren (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. It's the most notable thing on the page. Frank wouldn't be notable without it, but his role in the Palin vetting would be enough to make him notable by itself. It should be the first thing in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.41 (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Jeux sans frontieres (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't really agree, but I won't revert unless someone else chimes in. ATren (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As long as it merits its own section, as it now has, I'd call it lede-worthy. TJRC (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there's an argument to be made here. There are many sources about his rule in advocating tort reform and the Center for Class Action Fairness in particular. In contrast, there's discussion of him on a single page in Game Change. If more coverage about the Palin vetting is not forthcoming, I think it should be de-emphasized. Cool Hand Luke 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
That was precisely my feeling: that a single page in a book doesn't warrant a mention in the intro section, and that his notability is still primarily due to his work in tort reform and such. ATren (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
To put this in perspective, Ted Frank is covered on one page in Game Change for writing a last-minute report on Sarah Palin. Apparently, Frank was working for A. B. Culvahouse, McCain's chief VP vetter, who appears on a half dozen pages in this book and is by any objective measure more notable than Ted Frank. However, Culvahouse's biography does not cover the role in the lead, nor does it include a subheading exclusively dedicated to the subject. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Culvahouse is notable for other reasons, however. Frank isn't. Also the Culvahouse article doesn't even mention Culvahouse's service in the Reagan administration in the lead, I'm not sure its relevant for anything. I'm going to fix that article now. 170.170.59.138 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Jeux sans frontieres (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Ted is plenty notable with or without this new thing. He actively watches this page so in a bit of WP:IAR why not ask him if it's true or not? If it's true, and sourced, I see no reason not to include it, but I would add it to the body, not the lede. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. ATren (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Done.[3] Two caveats. First, as a matter of good writing, "Ted is the lawyer who blablabla" is sloppy English. We have already established in the article that Ted is a lawyer. So we should simply say "Ted did blablabla". Second, we should be very careful not to impugn Ted for his handling of the matter. There is a lot of talk that Palin was not thoroughly vetted, and that may be true. She turned out to be a big liability for the McCain campaign. However, we should not imply that Ted Frank's role in the affair was at all problematic unless we have some very solid sources saying so. Lawyers are often improperly impugned for their clients' faults. Let's suppose Ted vetted Sarah and communicated his opinion (which are likely to remain secret forever) to the appropriate people. He might have said "this one is dangerous, don't do it" or he might have said "completely clean, record checks out". Just like a doctor looking at a patient, a lawyer has to be completely free to voice their opinion, and the client (in this case if the vetting thing is true, the McCain campaign) can take it or leave it, and should never be forced to divulge whether it was against their lawyer's advice or not. What I'm getting at is that Ted Frank's role in the campaign may be noteworthy. Commenting on what this imlies about him is tricky business, and would require some very solid sourcing. I hope that's clear enough.

- Wikidemon (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the authors of Game Change, Ted Frank wrote a report from scratch in 40 hours that nonetheless highlighted several of Palin's vulnerabilities (Troopergate, inexperience, gaffes on her gubernatorial campaign). Contrary to your idle speculation that it will remain secret forever, part of his report is actually excepted in that book. It's now quoted in this article. This page is available on Amazon preview. p. 362. http://www.amazon.com/Game-Change-Clintons-McCain-Lifetime/dp/0061733636 Cool Hand Luke 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Possibly of interest, this conversation with Mr. Frank.[4] He mentions that his work during the campaign is treated in Palin's autobiography. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit: Center for Class Action Fairness

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)

At your service, sir! Folks, I'm tempted to just add the whole thing, with a little wiki-linking and editing for encyclopedic tone and a number of other subtle issues having to do with article content seemingly endorsing the subject. As an FYI, WP:N only concerns entire articles. The standard for inclusion in articles about noteworthy subjects (in this case Ted himself) is somewhat milder but has resisted codification. It has something to do with being of sufficient weight, relevance to the subject of the article, and avoiding stuff like trivia, point-of-view violations, random collections of information, and various other prohibitions. I use the term "noteworthiness" instead to cover this. We can add it if it's noteworthy, just my language. Unless anyone objects I'll likely go ahead within a day or so. Cheers, and congrats on the new venture. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry: the WP:N was for CCAF, which either meets WP:ORG, or is on the cusp of doing so. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
No objections here. The section already seems to have been added by another user, so I'm removing the requested edit tag as this seems to have been resolved. ThemFromSpace 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Question for Mr. Frank - one source says that you filed the objection to the Grand Theft Auto settlement on behalf of the Center for Class Action Fairness, which implies that you had the idea before making the objection, or at least before the success of the objection. So that we can get it right... did your foray into undoing proposed settlements convince you to start the org. in the first place, convince you to launch it as a law firm, or what? I think we can take the liberty of ignoring a reliable source if you say they got it wrong, but might as well be as precise as possible. Incidentally, I've edited the new text, so let me know if you have any comments or requests about that. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Which source is that? The GTA objection was in 2008; I had the idea in October 2008 after the success of the objection; and went through with the idea in 2009. (Separately, the GTA objection is now in two different places in the article.) Theodore H. Frank (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we'll leave the article to say that. I'll look it up when I have a chance. "Reliable" doesn't always mean correct. You know how journalists get things wrong sometimes... I think what might have happened is that when they covered this in 2009, by then your work on that case was under the umbrella of the Center. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

{{requested edit}}

For your consideration:

In 2010, CCAF successfully objected to a coupon settlement in a Central District of California class action alleging consumer fraud in the sale of Honda Civic Hybrids; the settlement would have provided $2.95 million in attorneys' fees, but only coupons to the class.[1][2][3]

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)

This seems to have been dealt with so I have deactivated the requested edit template. Smartse (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bronstad, Amanda (February 24, 2010). "Civic Hybrid class settlement doesn't pass muster". National Law Journal.
  2. ^ Rizo, Chris (February 23, 2010). "Group puts the brakes on Honda class action settlement". Legal Newsline.
  3. ^ True v. American Honda Motor Co., __ F. Supp. 2d __, No. 07-CV-0287 (C.D. Cal. 2010).

Why

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)

The section on Palin has not disappeared. It remains unchanged in the lede and a paragraph in the body of the article. I've re-added the sentence on trolling, in the form it used to be in. Please don't refer to living biographical subjects as "wingnuts", per WP:BLP and because this is not a WP:FORUM. Based on his biography at least he is within the mainstream of American political culture even if he does not neatly fit within either of the two major parties' stated platforms. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It's a WEIGHT issue. It's in the lede: why doesn't it have it's own section? Anybody who is notable gives talks, but you don't see that discussed on the pages of people who are actually notable. It looks like padding to make the subject seem more notable and to bury the criticism in self-published promotion. My tag was good faith and explained on the talk page, but you called it driveby which is uncivil. 71.114.125.35 (talk) November 2011 (UTC) 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.192.151 (talk)
No oops for missing the trolling + palin / McCain coverage in the first place? No matter. 4 months ago the article looked like this.[5] His moonlighting as an early Internet troll / personality during law school took up a full paragraph out of about a dozen, and so did his role in vetting Palin for the McCain camp, which seemed within the bounds of weight. However, his more recent public career as an anti class action settlement advocate (that's "wingnut" to some) was neglected and the article got a "dated" tag. Since then, a single editor, User:Dr. Blofeld, has expanded and substantially rewritten the article[6] to the point where it achieved good article status. But the trolling stuff dropped out and the vetting role didn't get expanded in the process. Make of that what you will. I'd personally love to see more coverage of the old trolling, as it seems to be a significant event in the early history of the net. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Why should I oops? There used to be a Palin vetting section. That's disappeared and been buried under "writing" with a bunch of non-notable stuff. The trolling was deleted to add other non-notable self-promotion. I don't see how this got "GA" when it violates so many Wiki policies.Including NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.192.151 (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
A substantial paragraph is not enough for what was a minor role? Seems that your view of NPOV needs to also note WP:UNDUE etc. Criticism of Frank is a large part of the article - larger than in most BLPs. Absent any real suggestion that Palin was removed as a POV issue, the tag is not valid. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what the problem is here. Google Palin Ted Frank, google books and web picks up extremely few reliable sources mentioning it. The amount of coverage in the article on it is reflective of coverage in reliable sources. If there were multiple sources documenting it extensively I'd give it its own section. The article uses reliable sources and that information is sourced to a reliable book from what I understand, the section has not been removed. I thought I was more than fair with trying to balance the article with criticism and try to provide a neutral article. The biggest Internet troll stuff was mostly removed because I could not find any reliable sources which still existed to back it up. All that was available was mislinks to web Jurassic era pages which no longer exist. And good articles should be based upon reliable verifiable sources. If Mr. IP can find me some solid sources covering this I will be more than happy to add it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Npov and weight

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)

I don't really see the NPOV issue (he did what he did, and as far as I can tell he doesn't mind being controversial). The WEIGHT issue is a pretty common one for individuals who are notable primarily for their professional accomplishments. Most of the sources, and perhaps all of the sources within their field, concentrate on the facts of their formal accomplishments. But other, more personal details like where they went to school, their home environment, etc., which are all biographically important in telling someone's life story, are going to be covered in fewer sources, and probably a different variety of less reliable sources. Where we can source it adequately, and it is biographically relevant, things like birthplace, family, education, etc., get more weight in the article than they would in the body of sources. All this stuff about trolling and vetting Palin does seem to be true, so putting it in a BLP / RS framework these are not extraordinary claims that require extraordinary sources. Just garden variety BLP / RS. I do agree with Dr. B that we should have stronger sources. He/she was pretty thorough here, but perhaps if we find something else it's worth taking a look at. Also, TF himself is aware of this page, if he feels like we got something wrong he'll probably point it out sooner or later. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Frank vs Huber

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:

  1. 2006-09-07: WaPo publishes TF's op-ed, "End Open-Ended Litigation".
  2. 2006-10-21: WaPo publishes JH's op-ed, "A Response to 'End Open-Ended Litigation'"
  3. 2006-10-22: TF replies at Point of Law.

(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)

This article was written a year ago. All of those sources your linked were published last week!!! At the time of writing they didn't exist and there was genuinely only one source mentioning it. I've readded the GQ source to support it but we don't speculate on people's job positions, we're an encyclopedia. We're not a crystal ball. We do not base our content on speculation but fact. If he is awarded such a position, then we mention it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 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)

You (64.55.78.101) have added that he is jewish and neo-conservative. Is there a ref? Is it neccesary in the lede? The little OR tags you scattered about seem overdone as well.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:54, 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)

expertise

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)

Requested edits

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.

  • There are a lot of positive quotes in the Ashby Jones article (which was positive enough that it generated several new donors for CCAF), but for some reason, editors have only included the negative quotes. That seems to violate NPOV to me. It certainly misrepresents the flavor of the article. Similarly, the criticism from the GQ article is included, but not the laudatory statements.
  • The article is out of date. My appellate wins in 2011 and 2012 are precedential and changed the law, and are thus more important than individual district-court cases. (I've filed dozens of objections, so singling out one here or there seems wrong unless the objection was in a notable case like Cobell or Sirius or Honda.) In particular,
  1. In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Lit., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), is mentioned in the article, but why it's important is not mentioned. Bluetooth makes it more difficult for plaintiffs' lawyers to profit off of meritless class actions by negotiating settlements that only pay the attorneys. http://washingtonexaminer.com/days-numbered-for-trial-lawyers-getting-outrageous-paydays/article/40773 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577002190221107960.html
  2. Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011), was an important precedent precluding the unfettered use of cy pres in class action settlements. http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/124000 http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202533208537&slreturn=20120631093625
  3. Dewey v. Volkswagen AG (3d Cir. 2012), holds that you cannot arbitrarily exclude a group of class members from relief in a class action settlement without separate representation. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/05_-_May/Appeals_court_rejects_VW/Audi_sunroof_settlement/ http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202557197467 http://product-liability.weil.com/class-action-law-suits/third-circuit-tightens-requirements-for-adequacy-of-class-representation/
  4. The Easterbrook decision in Robert F. Booth v. Crowley (7th Cir. 2012) got a lot of attention. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/06_-_June/Sears_lawsuit_only_benefits_plaintiffs__lawyers_-_7th_Circuit/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/06/13/easterbrook-strikes-again-slamming-flimsy-derivative-suit/ http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202559412553&slreturn=1 That last one calls me "indefatigable," which may or may not be accurate, but it is now verifiable. ;)
  • (Relatedly, the cy pres article is way out of date. But I don't have time to deal with the Wikidrama of being accused of promoting a right-wing conspiracy if I try to update it, though I'm on the same side of the issue as Public Citizen.)
  • I'm not a neoconservative. Don't know why someone keeps trying to add that. Only source that calls me neoconservative is an anti-Semitic blog that uses "neoconservative" as a synonym for "Jew." Not to speculate about motives.


These are not specific edits. Specific edits state what to remove or change (quite possibly copied and pasted from the article where possible) and essentially copy and paste ready additions. Also, I could not find the word "neoconservative" in the current form of the article, nor the name Moore. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo?

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)

Ted Frank himself hangs out here sometimes, maybe he can. Please Ted? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely, with a reputation like his I think he'd rather go as much unrecognized as possible..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Dr Blofeld, really. Entirely inappropriate.Capitalismojo (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Civil? I actually think it is the case. Why don't you ask him for a photograph and find out?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Frank/Archive_1&oldid=1140387370"