Talk:Ted Frank

For older discussions, see archives:

• 9 March 2008 archive.

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?"

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[1], 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)

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.

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)

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.[2] 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.[3] He mentions that his work during the campaign is treated in Palin's autobiography. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

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.[4] 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[5] 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? [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] 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)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ted Frank/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article should be reassessed. Ted Frank of the neoconservative AEI vetted Sarah Palin. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] 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)

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." He "has slicked-back hair, favors dark suits, and looks altogether like a member of the Federalist Society, which he is." 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)

• 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)

• • 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)

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)

• 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)

"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)

• 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. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Also [33] 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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