Talk:Ted Frank

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTed Frank has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 31, 2007Articles for deletionKept
August 25, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 16, 2012Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

WEIGHT violation by COI editor[edit]

In the case of Fogel v. Farmers, I won a reduction of attorneys' fees of over $16.3 million from a consortium of firms that included Finkelstein Thompson. And now an anonymous editor from Finkelstein Thompson is editing my page. They're as entitled to edit my Wikipedia page as anyone, but they're not entitled to violate WP:WEIGHT.

CCAF has won five major appeals that received national publicity from Reuters and legal publications; four of them aren't mentioned in this article. My work on the Citigroup Securities case was covered by the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Reuters, Corporate Counsel, Litigation Daily, and Law360, among others, and isn't mentioned at all. Classmates.com, also widely covered in national press (including ESPN!), we won millions of dollars for consumers, were praised by the district court for our work, and were singled out by Ars Technica by donating our $100,000 fee to the class, is also missing. But this plaintiffs' firm that lost a case against me is editing my page so that two unpublished nonprecedential orders from the Second Circuit (including one over a $2000 bill assessed against eleven other appellants!) and a blog post about it is now the largest part of the CCAF subsection. Can I suggest that a landmark win over a $35 million settlement that received national press coverage is more notable than an unpublished $2000 cost order?

There were two Wall Street Journal articles about me that were quite positive, but only negative quotes from them are included in this article.

If Wikipedia is going to claim this is a "good article," might somebody update it? Many thanks. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this at some point if still pending. In the meanwhile, per the above section and overlooking the sniping comment could you please provide a copyright-free photo of yourself? That would be helpful. Interesting that if you google your name, google cobbles together a photo from the Enterprise Institute plus the Wikipedia text. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's Wikipedia's policy on screenshots of television talk shows? I don't know that I have anything else in my possession that I want to license to Creative Commons. I don't really look like my AEI photo these days; don't know what their copyright policy is. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A screenshot of a talk show would be under claim of fair use because the copyright to the show is owned by someone involved in the production. The copyright policy, WP:NFCC, prohibits using copyrighted protected images of living individuals in most cases, even if it would be fair use under US law. Long and short, somebody has to be willing to donate a picture of you to the public domain. If you have a friend-photographer, want to find a Wikipedian and pose for one, take your own picture, jump in a photo booth, etc., you can do that through Wikimedia Commons, flickr commons (http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/ - you have to use the attribution option). If you have a speaking engagement you could even ask the audience if there's a Wikipedian in the audience who will oblige. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly considering putting this and the firm up for AFD, it attracts nothing but trouble, including troublesome lawyers themselves. This and the CCAF articles are more trouble than they're worth. By no means do we have to have articles on either. The way it is being discussed is quite frankly egotistical and wreaks of self-importance. I don't think there's a way this could be edited in which the subject and his enemies are going to be content and I'm sick of it being the target of self-important individuals who have nothing to do but criticize every part of it. I don't think it is possible to write a sound article on this without there being "PUFFERY" and "WEIGHT". Part of it is because the article is trying to make the subject sound more notable than he really is. So Mr. Frank, would you accept deletion of this and the CCAF articles? It would solve a major problem that keeps recurring. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to AFD even if (perhaps especially if) Mr. Frank agreed. He meets notability guidelines more than many BLPs and if trouble editing were grounds for deletion there would be 80% fewer articles on WP. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True. There's no chance this would survive a deletion nomination unless Ted asked for it, and even if he did there would be widespread opposition because he's plenty notable and a lot of people don't want to establish that precedent. I've seen far worse, I think Wikipedia's normal process can handle this one just fine even if it's painfully slow and tedious sometimes. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh he's notable, but in all honesty a lot of what he does isn't of considerable interest to the general public. I doubt they'd be voted to be deleted either based on coverage in reliable sources which is adequate not great though. Frank can opt to have the articles deleted if he has this many problems with them but I suspect he is too much of an egotist to do so. I had a lot of respect for this individual until he and his counterparts turned up here and began altering the article. I'm not a disagreeable fellow and would have been happy to update this but the way you've turned up here Frank has left a sour taste in my mouth. I can see that whatever the article says you'll persist in complaining in the future about it, and no doubt another enemy will come along and push his agenda. Well I'm not going to fight any battle to defend it, delist the articles as GA, delete the articles, plaster as many tags on the articles as you wish. The fact is given the subject I did a pretty decent job writing about this and would have been happy to make further improvements but for the attitude. I've officially disowned them. Best of luck Frank in getting people to understand you.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Collect and Wikidemon deleted the offending content? People tend to fulfill the Request Edits without actually closing them out, so I want to double-check before I take it off the queue. CorporateM (Talk) 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Collect solved the half of the problem that a COI editor added inappropriate content. The problem that my most notable cases and press coverage aren't discussed at all, while really trivial stuff is, remains. The CCAF article needs a rewrite for the same reason.. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the articles I identified the most notable cases based on coverage in reliable sources. For a lot of the cases there was nothing but dockets and your blog on it. As I said you can ask to have your articles deleted at any time if they're "trivial". Yes, that editor persisted and persisted in reverting and causing adding a lot of weight on those issues which I didn't agree with, but I wasn't prepared to go to such extreme lengths to revert it. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being so defensive. The problem is the article is out of date: since it was written, there have been larger stories written about larger and more notable cases, so the emphasis on smaller stories and earlier cases now violates WEIGHT. I'm not accusing you of doing something wrong because you didn't anticipate in 2011 that there would be press coverage in 2012 and 2013. Something that was a good article in 2011 isn't necessarily a good article in 2013, especially if more than half of the press coverage of the subject happened after 2011.
Your repeated suggestions of an RFD are not helpful. (For one thing, you misread me: I said there was trivial stuff in the article; I didn't say the article was trivial.) I agree an RFD would have been appropriate in 2007, but it was rejected then. For better or worse, since then, I've had major press outlets profile me for three different things (one of which, my pro-gay-marriage activism, isn't even mentioned in this article); been written about in multiple books; and been portrayed in a movie. I have zero chance of a successful RFD, and I'm not going to get accused of violating POINT by requesting one. So if Wikipedia isn't going to delete my page, Wikipedia needs to make it accurate.
If you're "washing your hands" of this article, then do so already, instead of making insulting talk page comments. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.95.221.175 (talk) [reply]
Well, stop moaning about it and how hard done by you are then and work with us constructively to try to improve it by providing sources here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are really not hard to find. I maintain a regularly updated page of sources at http://tedfrank.com/press. To this, you can add this American Lawyer profile that just came out since my last comment, which demonstrates my point about the weight issue: the three Frank cases this reliable secondary source considers most notable are unmentioned in this version of the article. Also: WSJ (reprinted here); Litigation Daily; Corporate Counsel; Wall Street Journal; Legal Intelligencer; Forbes; Forbes; WSJ; ABA Journal; Fortune; Reuters; Ars Technica; Litigation Daily; Wall Street Journal.
Gay-rights activism: Freakonomics, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed.
Congressional testimony: NY Times; Le Monde; Legal Newsline; Seyfarth Shaw. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is generally useful to share source on the Talk page of the article, especially if they are done in proper citation templates. In many cases the original author of the article (or someone else) can use these sources to improve an article they have a regular interest in. However, Request Edit is intended for requesting specific edits, as oppose to saying "here are some sources, can someone update it?" If there were factual errors or overt POV problems (as there were before) we would accept responsibility for fixing these. However, if we added Request Edits to each page that is outdated or imperfect, it would be on every article on Wikipedia. Seyfarth does have the option of attempting to write the updated material himself and if it is neutral, well-written and properly sourced, we will add it. If an editor has an interest in updating the article, the sources above will be useful and that is ideal if/when there is an editor that takes a sufficient interest. CorporateM (Talk) 15:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wildly out of date[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Frank&type=revision&diff=739233160&oldid=734717321

For some reason, people have been adding incorrect edits so that the page ceases to identify my correct employer. The article embarrassingly focuses on several non-notable cases while ignoring national press coverage for much bigger victories and accomplishments. Many many sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collect#Ted_Frank if someone would like to edit this mess of an article, which Wikipedia for some reason calls "good." at this point, it's so misleading as to be a real BLP issue, especially because I've seenreporters who rely on this nonsense instead of reality . Theodore H. Frank (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Collect's talkpage for ease of future editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don't work at Manhattan and haven't been a blogger since since 2013, CCAF merged with CEI in 2015. The cases mentioned are exceedingly non notable and not on my top ten. Better more notable coverage that isn't mentioned.

It's really unfair to me how badly out of date this article and the CCAF article is and I can't dare edit it. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, new home page and photo. https://cei.org/content/ted-frank Theodore H. Frank (talk) 05:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the concerns (as it is a 'Good article') I have tagged it with the Good Article Reassessment template, so someone from GAR will be along within their usual timeframe (I have no idea what that is sorry) to take a look. This may or may not be helpful, but they tend to know and identify what is 'good' by wikipedia standards fairly quickly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Only in death:17 months it seems, which is actually earlier than a lot. Anyway, some issues here (and at the Center for Class Action Fairness Good Article too). I have been passing what I can, fixing some and, as I will in this case, pinging editors to see if any is interest in fixing the problematic ones. Seems like there are some sources there if anyone is interested in updating the articles. @Theodore H. Frank, Grapple X, and Dr. Blofeld: to see if they are still around and interested before I start the formal reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay I updated it myself (some frm the above links, some from my own searches) and it is as good as any other article we claim as being good. Anyone is welcome to run the delist process if they disagree. I also redirected Center for Class Action Fairness to here as they are much the same (almost all searches of CCAF mentioned Frank) and it saves having to keep updating both. AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google case[edit]

«Frank objected to the settlement on the basis of being one of the estimated 129 million Google users in the United States. Google has called Frank a “professional objector.”» https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-court-google/u-s-supreme-court-to-hear-google-privacy-settlement-dispute-idUKKBN1I11G0?il=0 Does this fit somewhere in the article? --Nemo 15:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of notable things missing in this outdated article, which also has the wrong job title and employer. Needs a big rewrite.

-- 71.114.59.193 (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). TJRC (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Frank&oldid=1206185548"