Talk:Tim Howard (attorney)

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

Futher editing[edit]

I've just completed some major editing of the article and have removed much of the peacock wording and the point of view, although there's still ample amounts of it in the article.

I've also included 2 of the references that user:THF mentioned below. However, I wasn't able to write more about the Harold Lewis/Gifts scandal because I wasn't able to access some of the article. Adding this to the article would be beneficial.

Lastly, I've put the article on my watchlist. Ptim, don't revert the edits I've made. If you want to add further to the article, please provide references that include information on what you're trying to reference. Many of the links I removed had no relation to the entry on Tim Howard. John 21:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


For the rescue squad[edit]

Some of the news Howard is most notable for is missing from this article:

The description is a fair accounting of the Florida Bar rules violations and the facts therein. If the consent decrees are desired by editors, they can be uploaded as they track the same information found in the description. The facts are that there were no gifts to Harold Lewis; but that Harold Lewis sought loans from Howard and 30 others, and provided repayment checks to Howard and repaid most of the loans prior to the controversy. The federal grand jury found no violation of the law nor pursued any charges against any person. The two hour presentation before the Florida Senate had one understandable expletive at a highly emotional point in the discussion with the Senate members that Howard voluntarily sought without any public notice or request. The Vice President uses far more profanity in the public sphere. These responses and the editorial process clarifies exactly why it is important to have those that know the facts in depth provide facts, and why it is equally important to have those facts closely scrutinized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptim (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



COI alert[edit]

In case it's not obvious to all, it appears that Ptim (talk · contribs · logs) is P. Tim Howard himself. If that's true, there's a clear conflict of interest with his edits of an article of which he is the subject. Edits made by this editor should be scrutinized more carefully. TJRC (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No question on the potential conflict issue, however, to fully address the facts, no one knows the facts better than the participant, and they should be scrutinized carefully. The information is accurate and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptim (talk • contribs) 22:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI edits, 2009-02-18[edit]

There are edits being made by Ptim that have COI issues; minimizing the discipline as merely " moral conduct that ran afoul of technical rules" and claiming "an attempt to extort Howard." I'm undoing the whole mess. Ptim, please include reliable and verifiable third-party sources with future edits. TJRC (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited, the first is not on the Tim Howard discussed in this section. The other two are, and the consent decree cited covers the attempt to obtain 4-6 times the funds from Howard that were not legal, such activities are termed extortion. Failure to place check numbers, over payment, and a rule change on the title of the accounts in existence since 1995 are technical violations. These are the substance of the violations. (PTH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.19.209 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ptim: please add your comments at the end of a thread and remember to sign in and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If you really are the subject of this article, Tim Howard, you should know the meaning of "conflict of interest" and stop editing the article yourself. Post your comments (and sources!) here and others will take care of it. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Howard's role in the Harold Lewis affair is entirely absent from this article.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22tim+howard%22+%22harold+lewis%22&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

This probably belongs in the article somewhere, too. THF (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reprimands section removed[edit]

I have removed this section pending discussion. I am invoking WP:BLP so this section MUST NOT be replaced until there is consensus that it is fair and safe to do so. We discuss contentious material in its absence.

The section see here contains only one source. (One is not sourced and the third is a deadlink).

The concern isn't just with sourcing, it is with WP:UNDUE. Is it fair to record a list of raps in an article. I'd like that discussed before we do.--Scott Mac 10:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all undue. Howard has an extraordinarily bad history of discipline (most lawyers never face any discipline, and he's been disciplined three times, including an eighteen-month probation), and there is absolutely no evidence of it in this article. A single sentence is hardly undue. All three sources are good links.[4][5][6] THF (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the links

  1. [7] (This reads like a court report, and gives little or no details. It simply does not indicate notability at all.)
  2. [8] (sorry it isn't dead, it just had an extra character when I clicked). ditto with concerns.
  3. [9] this is a primary source and constitued WP:OR if used alone - it speaks not to notability

--Scott Mac 10:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More cites:

  • [10] "In a reciprocal matter from Florida, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that the D.C. Court of Appeals impose functional identical discipline and publicly censure Howard. The Supreme Court of Florida reprimanded Howard based on a conditional consent judgment in which Howard admitted there was a factual basis to find he violated Rule 8.4(c), for conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]

That's how reprimands are reported. Jhw57, UKexpat, and I all believe it belongs in the article. You and Ptim are the only ones who don't. The article is already unreasonably sanitized even with the mention of the reprimands. THF (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm seeing is public notices. I can give you these for the average road closure, or shoplifting offence. I'm seeing no media interest whatsoever in the impact of significance of the discipline. I've no idea what these other editors think, but in any case, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion based on policy and evidence. I'm still open to being convinced that this has significance - but I don't see it in your case so far.--Scott Mac 10:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Lawyer is a magazine for lawyers. Howard wouldn't hesitate to cite it if it said something nice about him. Same for the Jacksonville Daily Record and North Country Gazette newspapers.
Odd that you mention "media interest", as the two things the media was most interested in about Tim Howard are entirely absent from this article. THF (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Howard would cite, I have no idea and isn't remotely relevant. Can you show me any media interest in this, other than re-printing reports which include Howard in passing. Is there any discussion of the impact or importance of this?--Scott Mac 11:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the material in. It's well-sourced and probably the single most important factor in his notability. There are no problems with WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP in light of this. TJRC (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "probably the single most important factor in his notability" that's an assertion. Can you provide any evidence of that? Can you show me where anyone has commented on this subject and brought this up as part of his notability? You say "in light of this" there's no WP:UNDUE issues. In light of what - your assertion? We deal with sources here. Other than sources which are simply listing the disciplinary, are there any sources that comment on this, context it, or suggest it is important in an understanding of the subject at all. I don't want an argument, either such sources exist, or we've got nothing but opinion.--Scott Mac 21:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • THF has already addressed this above. I'm chiming in so it doesn't look like he's alone in this. I don't see the need to further elaborate on what's already clearly stated. I am not looking to convince you, please go ahead and have the WP:LASTWORD if that's important to you. TJRC (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I'm just seeking to discuss this. If you'd rather not, fine.--Scott Mac 21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think it's the single most important factor in his notability; I just noted that if you do a Google News search for this guy, the two most widely-covered events of his career are not even mentioned in this article (see the NPOV section above). But I do think a single sentence about widely-noted attorney discipline isn't undue, and that it would violate NPOV to omit it, since doing so implies the correctness of the default assumption is that an attorney hasn't been disciplined three times in five years. THF (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you say sounds logical, but we follow sources. Although we can verify this, we can't know whether it is a significant fact in his life without sources to say that. I'm looking but I'm finding no source that when discussing him feels the need to raise this. If you are right, then such a source should exist. If other media don't see this as important, then why should we?--Scott Mac 21:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're demanding tertiary sources, and by that argument the entire article should be deleted. We only require secondary sources. The media saw it as important: multiple media sources (secondary) reported the discipline (primary). THF (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm looking for secondary sources that are not just reprinting a disciplinary report that happens to have him as a subject. Indeed do we have any secondary sources that about this subject at all?--Scott Mac 22:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But your complaint is that the secondary sources are reporting about disciplinary action, and you seem to want a tertiary source that reports about the reports about the disciplinary action. THF (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Howard_(attorney)&oldid=1201531696"