Talk:Ted Frank/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article should be reassessed. Ted Frank of the neoconservative AEI vetted Sarah Palin. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] I tried adding a section about that to the article, which seems a lot more important than the stuff that was in there, and was told it couldn't be included because there are "next to no sources" and that I made "invalid edits". Why are the edits invalid? Doesn't it violate NPOV to mention a radio interview but not the two most notable news stories about Frank? There's also lengthy discussion about a case Frank lost without mentioning that Frank lost the case. There is a large mismatch between what reliable sources say about Frank and what the article says about Frank. There's uncited stuff praising Frank, but my cite-needed tags were removed without explanation. I have complained about NPOV in this article several times. 64.55.78.101 (talk)

Again I ask you to stop with the conspiracy theories and address exactly what you want altered. You are bringing to light sources which were only published last week. Write in bullet points on the article talk page exactly what you want added and reliable sources to back it up and I'll respond and change/add it if I think its correct. Which case did he lose where it isn't mentioned. Contrary to your belief, nobody is hiding anything and it may just be you are more familiar with Ted's work than I am. I belief I wrote a pretty good article based on the sources I had at the time and I think its clearly GA quality and I'm sure others would agree. Some adjustments can be made to meet your concerns, but please stop with the attacks. The article would not have passed GA if it was strongly a POV.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right I looked at your edits exactly and the majority of its was inappropriate.

" In 2004, Frank won $215,000 investing in Greg Raymer in that year's World Series of Poker. Frank used the money to leave the full-time practice of law and engage in writing. But he lost thousands of dollars betting on the movement of Wal-Mart stock in the aftermath of Wal-Mart v. Dukes when he incorrectly predicted the result of the case. rank "comes across as more of an eccentric professor than a crusading lawyer."^[1] He "has slicked-back hair, favors dark suits, and looks altogether like a member of the Federalist Society, which he is."^[2] This is unencyclopedic trivia. Its none of our business what he does with his money and its unrelated to what is encyclopedic, his legal career. It is inappropriate to take swipes at his appearance. The one solid point I can see is that GQ has recently cited the document as the most infamous in vetting history. I've added that to the article and I agree it should now have its own section. But you state "the public perception that it was a failure" is POV and a gross generalization.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where the GA reviewer considered the POV problems in this article. This is why I'm asking for a reassessment. The GA review was sloppy, and just looked at the length of the article without looking at the content, or considering unsourced POV-like advertising. And I see no evidence that the GA reviewer did independent research and considered the omissions in the article.
We can delete the personal appearance unless other people want it in. I thought it was interesting, and so did multiple reliable sources. But your bias is showing. Every other article has a photo, so it's not true that personal appearance isn't encyclopedic. And the best Wikipedia articles include personal appearance descriptions when reliably sourced: see, for example, the GA Abraham Lincoln ("Despite his inelegant appearance—many in the audience thought him awkward and even ugly").
The "money" stuff is notable. Frank's Wal-Mart bet was covered by multiple sources that are more notable and reliable than the sources in this article. Your decision that it's not notable is original research: reliable sources thought it notable.
The "public perception that it was a failure" is reliably sourced in an article about Frank, and is included in other Wikipedia articles. It's not POV to include both sides of the story; my edit included Frank's defense.
You haven't defended or sourced any of my other critiques, so I will edit accordingly. 64.55.78.101 (talk) 13:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I concur that the financial content like investments in Raymer and Walmart are encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Tony you also thought Justin Bieber on Twitter was encyclopedic... I have taken the time to evaluate things and agree with much of what 64.55.78.101 has done, except he seems to be confusing information about work Frank has contributed to books and newspapers as somehow a POV and I don't think we should speculate on what his future job might be. The way he has edited makes it look as if he's a vandal. its a pity he couldn't approach me first time in a more constructive manner without the attacks and conspiracy theories. Must be the salt getting to his head.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying "works contributed to magazines" is POV. I'm saying that it's OR to decide which of Frank's views are notable. The WSJ says Frank is a tort-reform advocate; that's a reliable source and can be used. Another RS calls him an activist. We should use that. Dr. Blofeld says Frank has strong views on asbestos litigation. That's uncited original research with no RS, and inappropriate. How many articles has Frank written about asbestos? What reliable sources have talked about Frank and asbestos? How many law review articles have cited Frank's views on asbestos?
Particularly active in protecting consumers from their own class action lawyers, in product liability, and in civil procedure is both POV and OR. What's the reliable source for this characterization? Do the class action lawyers think he's protecting consumers? (Not according to the quotes in Wall Street Journal.) If you have to promote Frank like an advertisement, at least use something reliably sourced.
What is this "I didn't approach you" BS? I've been complaining about this page for several months. All of my edits were reverted. My talk page comments were ignored or falsely accused of being without reliable sourcing. The POV bias is further demonstrated that "Sarah Palin vetting," which everyone agrees is the most notable event of Frank's career, is buried at the bottom of the article below stuff that happened after the vetting. The organization is not chronological because 2012 stuff is before the 2008 stuff. The organization is not by importance of topic, because outdated reports on tiny little lawsuits ("Frank vowed to appeal" -- well, did he appeal or didnt he? there's a 30 day time limit. hint: look at the WSJ article you said wasn't a reliable source) are before the stuff that major magazines and books and movies have reported on. So what is the basis of the organization, other than to promote Frank?
Blofeld is so intent on promoting Frank that he includes the GQ quote about the "most infamous" document while deleting the explanation why GQ thinks its infamous. You have to go to other Wikipedia articles to find that out. Of course those articles have more traffic, so he wouldn't dare scrub what he scrubs in this article.
I don't think we should speculate on what his future job might be. We're not speculating. We're reporting what a reliable source said his future job might be. Dozens of articles do this: Marco Rubio (in the lead paragraphs), Tim Pawlenty, ect. There's a whole article about this: Barack_Obama_Supreme_Court_candidates#Names_mentioned. GQ thought it notable, and your original research that it isn't notable does outweigh an important reliable source.
Your "rv vandalism" edit summary was uncivil. I added several notable sources that were far more notable and reliable than the self-published stuff I deleted as non-notable, and you eventually were forced to concede that they were notable and should be included. People who are really notable don't have unencyclopedic content about talks on college campus and right-wing radio shows, unless you're trying to write an advertisement, and a lot of that section is original research from Frank's website. If a RS talks about Frank visiting lots of college campuses, let's use that. If not, reliable sources don't think it's notable, and neither should we. I've complained about that for months, and still haven't seen a defense. 64.55.78.101 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Blofeld is so intent on promoting Frank". Um, my motive for doing so? You say "People who are really notable don't have unencyclopedic content about talks on college campus and right-wing radio shows, unless you're trying to write an advertisement, ". So your motive then is to prove he is more notable by increasing the profile of the vetting case and diminishing other things he's done because articles on really notable legal figures, more notable than Frank ignore it too? Is this actually Ted Frank himself? Because your motive here is starting to look as if you are actually trying to raise his profile and disguising it with the added criticism. Link me three reliable sources which state that the "public perception is that the vetting was a failure" and I'll add it to the article. See the diff anyway, you got what you wanted, just show me the sources for stating the above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its so funny that someone who can find a Frank speech in Tennessee or a 1996 CSPAN appereance cant find any criticism of the Palin vetting. Try Google. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Also [19] noting your surprising blind spot on this issue.
Yes, Im Ted Frank and want to expose Ted Franks neoconservative ties to his AEI corporate masters and balance the advertisement you wrote for him. And you accuse me of conspiracy theories. That the best you got? Maybe Im Joe Biden worried about Sarah Palin being nominated in 2012.
Are you going to add reliable sources for the uncited praise and other original research about Franks expertise? 64.55.78.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your motives for trying to delist this article and add a lot of criticism are purely political and a conflict of interest then? I figured there was some motive behind your actions, as this doesn't stand a snow ball's chance in hell of being delisted. Not really, if you google book search Ted Frank Palin and Ted Frank vetting the only source that turns up on a quick check is the 2011 book which wasn't there at the time of writing. And there is no mention of Ted Frank in that LA Times article from 2008. I'm sorry you live in a legal world where everything is suspicious and belligerent. I had the choice to be a lawyer myself but I feared turning into a cynical paranoid bastard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even added a quote. Still protecting him? Ah I see, that explains why sources have suddenly come to light on the 2008 vetting with the 2012 election coming up in November. Believe you me, there was nothing which extensively discussed Ted Frank and Palin's vetting when I wrote it. And most of my fellow editors know I'm one of the best researchers we have and frequently find sources to support articles which are facing deletion which others struggle to find. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you going to add reliable sources for the uncited praise and other original research about Franks expertise". And what might that be? Specialist on tort reform sourced. Other issues he is concerned with are sourced without saying he is an "expert".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto

One reason that this article needs reassessment is that it is internally inconsistent. The Grand Theft Auto case is discussed in two different sections of the article and in two different ways as if whoever wrote the second section was unaware of the first section. Where should we consolidate them? The case was in 2008, but its in the Class Action Center section, though the article says that Frank founded the Class Action Center in 2009. It reads out of place in both places unless one reads the underlying articles.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203554104577002190221107960.html says But he didn't start objecting to class-action settlements until 2008, when he found himself a member of a class himself. The allegation: that Take-Two Interactive Software Inc., TTWO +4.24% the maker of the videogame "Grand Theft Auto," had defrauded consumers by including on the game disc some software code that contained illicit scenes. Mr. Frank objected to the settlement between the class and Take-Two, which gave class members a partial refund on their games but gave the plaintiffs' lawyers a seven-figure fee. The judge rejected the settlement on other grounds, but the case prompted Mr. Frank to switch his emphasis, and the following year, he launched his current organization, the Center for Class Action Fairness.

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/unsettling_advocate/ says Frank’s efforts to create the center were spurred by his objection to a $1 million settlement for attorney fees (less than $30,000 was allocated to class members) for In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation. Frank was a member of the class objecting to sexual depictions in the video game. The trial judge decertified the class, and that decision is being appealed.

http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/235378-legally-speaking-hardly-a-class-act Several years ago, Frank-at his own expense-traveled to New York and filed an objection to a proposed class action settlement involving the video game "Grand Theft Auto." Spurred by complaints about excessive sexual content in the game, class action attorneys sued its makers, Take Two Interactive Software. Although the software giant had received only $27,000 in claims from irate consumers, it agreed to a settlement in which the plaintiffs' lawyers themselves would collect a cool $1 million. Frank's objection succeeded, and the settlement was halted and the class decertified (the plaintiffs' lawyers appealed the ruling). Bolstered by this success, Frank was inspired to found the Center for Class Action Fairness, a nonprofit group that represents consumers contesting class action settlements.

http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202484335985&A_Conversation_With_Class_Action_Objector_Ted_Frank Ted Frank's purchase of a Grand Theft Auto video game eventually led him to quit his fellowship at the American Enterprise Institute and devote himself to objecting to class actions settlements that he believes are orchestrated mainly to enrich plaintiffs lawyers.

That explains why its in the Class Action Center section, but then it shouldn't be in the tort reform section. The article has random unattributed quotes from random articles without regard to whether the Frank-enstein-result is coherent, and whoever gave it a GA didnt read it carefully. A rewrite is needed before it gets a GA. 64.55.78.101 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GA reviewer did review it properly but like myself he is not a legal expert as you so obviously are. The article was and is fairly well written and GA quality. But it might have placed too much emphasis on some issues and not given a full picture of others to a level considered great to a legal professional but is generally acceptable to the average wikipedia reader, myself included. This is why experts are needed in so many fields to improve wikipedia and to see that certain issued aren't overlooked and that is it as accurate and balanced as possible. So you can't expect either him or myself to be aware of certain things. The article won't be demoted, trust me on that. But you are free to make the improvements that you feel would improve the article so long as you fill out sources adequately with publisher and date/author info and don't go the other way and make the article a scathing criticism. Yes ideally the Grand Theft Auto coverage should be addressed in one paragraph, but there was some overlap in discussing issues and cases.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

This page is just like any other talk page and it should not be blanked or deleted except in certain circumstances. This does not seem to be one of those circumstances. I think the best solution would be for 64.55.78.101 or another editor to say exactly which of the criteria this fails and how it can be fixed. The aim is to always keep the article at GA. Then this should be closed just like any other re-assessment and recorded in the article history. This appears to be challenging the articles broadness and neutrality, but it needs to state specifically how it fails these criteria. You might also want to read this essay, the standards for Good articles are not really that high. There is a citation need tag that was present before this started that should be sorted out at least. AIRcorn (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Closing as kept. AIRcorn (talk) 14:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference wsj was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference gq was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[wsj-1] Cite error: The named reference wsj was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[gq-2] Cite error: The named reference gq was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]