Talk:Adam Leitman Bailey/Archive 1

Archive 1

File:AdamLeitmanBaileyheadshot.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AdamLeitmanBaileyheadshot.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

File:ALB headshot to use.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ALB headshot to use.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Page

Editors please review this page as it seems to lack details and is unclear why this page is noteworthy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&action=edit&section=13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.205.230.34 (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As per commentary on this page I will start to clean it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Adam_Leitman_Bailey If other editors assist it would be even grander. 67.205.230.34 (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This page had been largely created and edited by interns or other affiliates of the subject, and had a distinct promotional tone. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb/Archive for some additional information. An IP editor recently removed the puffery, and added in some other, less-flattering material from some of the same sources. I haven't reviewed those edits in detail, and perhaps that editor went too far. If there's disagreement about the edits, let's discuss it. It's better I think than simply restoring a bad version of the page! Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

For example - I don't know that it is appropriate to include detailed material about his (successful) representation of clients in particular matters just because the underlying event was itself newsworthy, and where the representation as such appears to have escaped third party coverage. The "Crane collapse" section of the longer version (here's a link) is an example - the event and its aftermath are discussed in the four supplied references, but Bailey is mentioned - in passing - in only two. Perhaps Bailey was, in fact, instrumental in obtaining a $1MM settlement there but that (unsourced) fact seems more appropriate to a CV than to an encyclopedia article. I'll try to review the others too but that's my thinking on that one, anyhow. JohnInDC (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has been vandalized.

The article had a great array of detail about Adam Bailey, and much of this was deleted and disorganized unnecessarily. I think that before such a drastic action is taken, there should be a consensus on the Talk page, rather than me needing a consensus to revert the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That is a content dispute, not vandalism. Indeed the IP editor said what he was going to do, with a link to the EAR discussion, before he did it. I am concerned that by reverting to an obviously flawed version, without any response to my attempts to discuss the matter and at the same time mischaracterizing the IP edits, you are showing little or no interest in actually improving the page. Please address the promotional issues, the puffery, and my own comments. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am going through the article to make less drastic changes to the article - for instance, restoring obvious editorial improvements lost to the revert (such as linking to the correct photograph; naming refs for more efficient citation), and whittling away at promotional material & puffery, e.g. gratuitous references to Bailey's role in various cases (particularly where coverage describes his involvement only in passing). Some of these many cases can probably be reduced to a sentence or two, given that - of what I've seen so far - much of the coverage does precisely that. JohnInDC (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The "Charitable Works" section reflected no significant 3d party coverage at all - something from Bailey's own firm, another mention in a publication by his alma mater, a registration page for tax exempt organizations, and a fourth page from a New Milford schools website. Most or all of that material was added the firm's own interns. Bailey should promote that sort of thing on his own web page, not here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The "RealDeal" article (link here) has Bailey as its subject and directly discusses - in both favorable and unfavorable terms - his theories, tactics and other actions in some of the matters detailed in this article. The criticisms in the RealDeal article are not just one or two passing comments, but rather seem to form the basis of the thing. For that reason it seems quite proper to include a brief discussion of those criticisms, properly sourced, in the section of the article pertaining to those matters, and I have done so. JohnInDC (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

That same article describes Bailey's talent for self-promotion, even captioning one section, "Master Self-Promoter". I don't think that observation particularly needs to be included in this article, but I do think it provides some useful context for evaluating the material that we find here. As noted above, this article was largely written in the first instance by interns from Bailey's own firm, who created a variety of sock puppets to (among other things) remove templates that did not reflect favorably on their efforts. Also, in reviewing the sources in the course of making the various edits above, I could not help but notice that the cases inserted by the interns as ostensibly "encyclopedic" are the very same cases highlighted on the front page of Bailey's web site. In one sense that is unsurprising - your interns would add to Wikipedia pretty much the same stuff that you want to trumpet on your own website - but on the other it reinforces the concern that the article has been serving as one big ad. JohnInDC (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because one publication has negative things to say about Bailey doesn't mean that it should be cited as fact that he is "one of the most controversial lawyers in America." Other publications, like Real Estate Weekly, make no such claims. Furthermore, the section on charitable work has four separate references, and is relevant to a biography of Mr. Bailey. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, COI

I made several discrete, defensible and measured edits, explaining the rationale for each one carefully here. Your response is to revert those edits wholesale - your fourth such reversion in just a few hours - without discussion, editorial undertakings of your own, or efforts to gain compromise. That's straight-up edit warring. I've warned you on your Talk page and your next revert may well lead to a block. More broadly, the article's edit history suggests a possible ownership issue. Finally, and most tellingly, I had heretofore assumed that you were not one of Bailey's interns who've been persistently editing this page, but in reviewing various related logs and histories I see that in fact you are. Special:Log/Falconclaw5000. That being the case I am going to undo your reversion, restore my own well-reasoned edits, and place a COI template on the page - the same kind of template that you removed, rather huffily, a couple of months ago here. I strongly suggest that you not only not again revert my edits but that you refrain from editing this page altogether. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've whittled down the crane collapse section and cleaned it up a bit. I am not sure it warrants even as much as remains, let alone its own section - the collapse got some coverage, as did the restaurant's relocation, but the lawsuit and settlement appear to have come and gone without much 3d party attention. I am not at all sure what elevates this episode above what laywers do all the time, namely file lawsuits and obtain settlements; and so I am not sure why it should receive more than brief mention here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never interned for Bailey, or even met him. Anyhow, let's talk about the intro paragraph. You insist on using one publication's description of him as "one of the most controversial lawyers," even though his rating on the Martindale-Hubbell site suggests no such thing: http://www.martindale.com/Adam-Leitman-Bailey/467155-lawyer.htm?view=cr. At the very least, both sources should be incorporated. Falconclaw5000 (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain the edit summaries to this log entry, from your account, Special:Log/Falconclaw5000 in which you claim to have been given a photograph personally by Bailey, at whose firm you said you intern. JohnInDC (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Do NOT remove my comments. I've rolled back your edit. JohnInDC (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary of review

I've looked at almost all of the listed cases, alongside their sources, and offer up these observations. I intend to make further edits based on them in the next few days, and welcome comments by disinterested editors.

• WTC mosque - I'm not sure this merits inclusion. The mosque was pretty high profile, the specific legal challenges less so, and (judging by these sources), Bailey's representation even less than that. This may be an example of what I have elsewhere described as "gilt by association", i.e., trying to puff up the image or reputation of one thing by playing up its relationship to another, well-known person or event.
  • Not worthy of inclusion. Was probono client. Perhaps 1 line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.89.32 (talk • contribs)
• Trump Soho - it looks like this victory exceeded most expectations, and may be a good example of actual noteworthy legal representation.
  • Sole source NY Post has both sides claming victory, and case was settled with neither side admitting fault. Not worthy of inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.89.32 (talk • contribs)
• Crane collapse - as I've said before, I don't see much here. Obtaining settlements on behalf of clients is what lawyers do. The collapse got good coverage but the settlement and Bailey, not much at all.
  • Nothing interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.89.32 (talk • contribs)
• ILSA cases - these also appear to be intriguing. It may do with a better caption, but these cases, like Trump, appear to reflect some interesting lawyering, which garnered actual 3d party coverage.
• Coalition to Save Harlem - haven't really reviewed this in detail yet but it may be a keeper as well.
  • Review comments below. Bailey started a group to insert himself into this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.89.32 (talk • contribs)

JohnInDC (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

ISLA - As Real Deal and other articles revealed Bailey is hated by developers who say he skirts the law.

Coalition to Save Harlem is almost a joke. Bailey founded a related non-profit organization solely so he could be the lead plantiff. Surely questionable ethical boundaries.

Will return to add more edits tomorrow.

65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

While this page has certainly suffered its share of promotional, POV editing, it would be as bad a mistake to head off in the other direction based on one editor's personal opinion or point of view. The Real Deal article certainly notes the controversy that Bailey seems to engender, but it is only one article and it's important to maintain balance. And, of course, any edits reflecting conclusions like "CSH was founded so that Bailey could represent it" would need to be properly sourced; this is not the place for speculation, innuendo - or even for facts that are not supported by reliable sources. JohnInDC (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologize. Google Harlem story and Bailey. Of course verifiable. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just slow down for a bit, eh? I'm all for a balanced article (as you can see) but it needs to be sourced, and well constructed. Your edits right now seem hasty and not well-considered. The interns seem to have taken a break, so we have time to do this right Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would Bailey's High School be of any interest? Read the NY Post on Trump, both sides claimed victory. Unclear why mosque is of note for his page (and it was probono), and clearly the Harlem issue is more media manipulation as The Real Deal noted. 65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

High schools find their way into Wikipedia biographies all the time. It's harmless and it's sourced. Just leave it. And like I said, we have time now. Falconclaw has been reported as a sockpuppet, we've got time, it won't hurt if there's a little exaggeration up here for a couple more days - particularly if removing it immediately means that the article begins to look like hell as poorly formatted / unsourced material finds its way in. You have an ally now in removing the sockpuppet nonsense - don't take it too far the other way. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Source - June 2010: The Real Deal - " In early 2008, he formed a non-profit organization called Save Harlem, solely to become the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit he was filing against a commercial landlord on 125th Street, Kimco Realty Corporation. Then he organized rallies and made sure politicians and reporters were there.Bailey said he keeps most of his clients out of the headlines, admitting that some people refuse to work with him for fear of ending up in the newspaper. But he’s not afraid to use the media if need be." Will leave it to you to take it from here. But Harlem issue is one he self created. And Trump both sides claimed victory.65.88.89.32 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at the Save Harlem material. I'm not much moved however by the argument that "both sides claimed victory" in the Post article. Both sides often claim victory even when one side is plainly on the short end of the stick. Ninety percent recovery in a *settlement* is pretty clearly a win, not a draw. And the tone of the Post article certainly implies that the plaintiffs pretty much got everything they wanted. As for the Martindale and Real Deal material in the lead - both editors need to leave it alone. Martindale's AV rating is, finally, a bit of smoke in that an awful lot of lawyers receive it; but it's a common bit of puff in these articles and doesn't mean much finally either way. The intern doesn't want the "controversial" quote in, but that's really the one article I've seen that's actually about Bailey himself, and the characterization permeates it. Both should stay. JohnInDC (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I revised the Coalition to Save Harlem to better reflect the facts - e.g. that this was not a grass-roots organization that sought out Bailey but rather much the opposite. With those changes, the entry should stay, even if at bottom it's just another exercise in self-promotion. The proposed demolition appears to have been a pretty big deal, the lawsuit changed the developer's plans, and was reported by 3d party sources. JohnInDC (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the entire Crane Collapse section. I don't see anything noteworthy or unusual about it - it's no more than, "an attorney helped some clients achieve a favorable settlement following an accident". As I've noted elsewhere, the accident and the restaurant's relocation (as well as mention of the settlement) were - briefly - covered locally. Bailey's representation, other than the simple fact of it, were not mentioned. It's swell marketing material, but is not encyclopedic. JohnInDC (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed comments about Bailey operating in "ethical gray areas" that are cited in the Real Deal article. If you read the article, none of these comments have an actual source. They are from a "anonymous" person or a blanket statement like "attorneys said." These are comments made by poor journalistic integrity with nothing to verify these statements. I am all for showing both sides of the story, but not when there is no source to support their claim. Harper0321 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added two new sources that are recent profiles on Mr. Bailey which do not mention anything about unethical practices. One from Real Estate Weekly, and another from Commercial Observer. Just because one article has unconfirmed comments about his practices, it does not make it relevant information to be included. Harper0321 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In rolling back the edits of these two new SPA accounts, I inadvertently removed the two additional sources noted above. I've restored them to the article and will undertake to make sure they are noted in all the right places. The rollback did put back in the Real Deal comments, which would seem to me to have as much a place in the article as the material praising Bailey's skills. JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that the "15 cases" link provides a bit more useful explanation of why those condo refund cases were interesting, and I intend to revise the current writeup to reflect that information. In the meantime I suggest Bailey's interns and the recently-minted single purpose accounts that edit this page review some of Wikipedia's policies about neutral points of view, conflicts of interest and autobiographies, as well as the aptly-named Wikipedia:An_article_about_yourself_is_nothing_to_be_proud_of. They'll help explain why trying to maintain this page as the Bailey firm would like to see it, with favorable information played up and unfavorable information excised, is a losing battle. JohnInDC (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Critical commentary

The article contains two critical comments about Bailey - or just one, perhaps, depending on how one feels about being "controversial". Anyhow the two statements are (in the lead), "He has been described as 'one of the most controversial figures in New York Real Estate'" and, in connection with the ILSA cases, "Bailey's tactics in these and similar cases created some measure of controversy within the New York City real estate bar. While local attorneys acknowledged Bailey's acumen and persistence, he was also described as an 'ambulance chaser' and a 'self-promoter' who sometimes operated in 'ethical gray areas' in recruiting clients." The source for both of these statements is a December 14, 2010, article in the Real Deal, a magazine covering New York real estate issues. Link. The article is an extensive profile of Bailey, describing his rise to prominence, his clients and his best-known cases - in particular the ILSA ones. The article offers both positive and negative commentary, including the foregoing two paraphrases (which I believe fairly summarize what the article says). In my opinion, including these two short criticisms (out of an article that contained many more) is fair and appropriate under Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living persons. These two criticisms here are brief, neutrally stated, and do not overwhelm the rest of this article. Bailey's interns and two recently-minted SPA accounts have repeatedly removed the quotes, accompanied by general complaints about "balance" and the source article itself, but neither has challenged the qualifications of The Real Deal as a reliable source - and I'm not sure that they can. (Indeed, the first version of this article, created by a Bailey intern, included the very same Real Deal article as a source.) I see no reason to omit this carefully phrased, properly sourced, and briefly stated information. Of course I might be wrong, and so I would be happy to discuss my reasoning and conclusion with any disinterested editor; but I intend to revert any COI / SPA editor who removes this language. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have revised the second critique to eliminate the "ethical gray area" language and substitute a quote from a second, additional source commenting on Bailey's skill at self-promotion. It now reads as follows: "Bailey's tactics in these and similar cases created some measure of controversy within the New York City real estate bar. While local attorneys acknowledge Bailey's acumen and persistence, he has also been described as an 'ambulance chaser' and 'marketer and self-promoter more than a legal virtuoso'." These revised observations, without the ethics language, are less inflammatory; they are supported by two separate reliable sources, and indeed seem consistent with Bailey's own view of himself, judging from this quote in the Real Deal article: "Bailey freely admits that he’s 'aggressive, overreaching and irrepressible.'” I welcome comments from disinterested editors. JohnInDC (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that Mr. Bailey has appeared in hundreds of articles and the subject of TV interviews, commentary and debates. The only basis of your tactics section where you refer to him as an "ambulance chaser" is one article where the reporter quotes an anonymous source without revealing the sources bias. It should be emphasized that this statement about his tactics was referring to one case, not his entire career. As a result this comment is defamatory and antithesis of being encyclopedic and has no basis to be in a wikipedia page. In addition, since you have established a "tactics" section you should also include laudatory facts about his successful tactics. In one of the articles you use as a source it also includes quotes from named attorneys stating he has "built a remarkable law firm" and "when a case gets bogged down, unlike most attorneys, Mr. Bailey knew all the right levers to pull." These comments about his tactics should either be moved into the ISLA section with the case they are referring to or there should be more comments added to include his entire career and not just this one specific claim. 207.38.220.52 (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see three actual profiles of Bailey among the articles cited here. The rest, rather than describing him, describe the cases he's been involved in, or quote him, or just provide general context. Two of the three profiles mention his flair for self-promotion and suggest that he may be where his true talents lie. If there are "hundreds" of other sources that we might turn to, then please set forth just a few so that we can have an actual discussion, based on reliable sources, rather than on vague assertions that two reliable sources here, writing directly and specifically about Bailey and consistent with one another, are trumped by scores of unnamed others. JohnInDC (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also be interested in hearing what criticisms the many Bailey-affiliated editors would, in fact, consider acceptable to include here - any? At all? Or would they be content only with a complete whitewash, a happy and laudatory listing of Bailey's successes with no mention at all of the occasional controversy (yes, "controversy") that from time to time seems to accompany his undertakings? The effort to engage in a discussion, to achieve some kind of consensus on how to neutrally, and completely, describe this fellow in this article, would be a lot less frustrating - and a lot more productive - if the various editors working arguing here on Bailey's behalf would offer some indication that they are not going to say no to everything. So how about it? Bailey's a New York City real estate lawyer. We have two articles from reliable sources covering New York City real estate issues, and Bailey specifically, which both describe him, in places, in less-than-flattering terms. What of that would they deem permissible to include? JohnInDC (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read my previous comment I said that these comments should be "moved into the ISLA section with the case they are referring to or there should be more comments added to include his entire career and not just this one specific claim," not that they need to be completely removed. I have made a few changes that DO NOT delete any comments from your tactics section but shed some light on more noteworthy traits that portray his entire career not just one case. All of these comments are found in the same source and are identified speakers in the article, not just an anonymous critic. I included the word "critic" in front of the ambulance chaser comment to show that this is not how everyone in the field views his tactics which is how it is used in the article to begin with. 207.38.220.52 (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with those changes. Thanks for the good faith effort. JohnInDC (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that User:OrangeMike has reverted your edits. I ask your forbearance in not restoring them immediately. Let's instead let it sit for a bit and see if anyone else comes to comment. We can proceed from there. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Most controversial lawyer" re-insert constitutes disruptive edit

User JohnInDC repeatedly keeps re-inserting a section about Bailey being one of the most controversial and unethical lawyers in real estate, despite the fact that he has found only a single source for such a claim. Imagine if on Barack Obama's profile, he was described as one of the most controversial and unethical presidents on the basis of a single article? Reputable sources in this area such as Real Estate Weekly, the Commercial Observer, and Martindale Hubbell reach very different conclusions. These edits are disruptive and may even constitute vandalism and I ask that they be immediately stopped. Antiapathy54 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record: In addition to removing properly sourced content accompanied by little more than the assertion that you don't like it, you have also repeatedly removed the Conflict of Interest template that remains entirely warranted given the heavy involvement of the subject's employees (including many sockpuppets) in the creation of this page; and have corrupted the Real Deal reference in the places you have allowed it to remain. These are precisely the kinds of edits that resulted in the prior block of the Bailey intern sockpuppets. JohnInDC (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record: You have completely ignored and dodged my point about the "most controversial lawyer" edits that you keep making. Antiapathy54 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's what the source says. Twice in fact. You are removing properly sourced content because - as best I can tell - you just don't like it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It directly contradicts multiple other sources. The article is sensational and not a good source. How about responding to my example about if such a rationale was used in an article about Obama? I can find multiple articles that say that about the President, but I doubt that'll be enough for them to be accepted into what should be an authoritative article. Antiapathy54 (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

While you are blocked, I suggest that you read up on Wikipedia policies concerning sources, criticisms, neutral points of view, conflicts of interest and various others - beginning with the ones I linked above - so that any discussion we have is well-informed. As you can see, simply continuing to remove information that you don't like, or which makes your (presumptive) employer uncomfortable is not going to work. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

One article referring to Mr. Bailey as controversial does not constitute him being the MOST controversial lawyer. No other article listed refers to him as controversial and it has no support except from one unsourced article about one case used to grab headlines with no relevance to reality. Harper0321 (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

This is on the BLP Noticeboard now

Let's discuss this over here [1] now. A lot of new eyes are needed on this one. Qworty (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion archived at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive162#Adam_Leitman_Bailey. JohnInDC (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Section on Tactics

This section on tactics is highly irregular for an article about an attorney. Please show me any other Wikipedia page for an attorney with a similar section. This seems to be written by someone with a personal vendetta against Bailey. 149.125.174.177 (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter what other articles have. This appears to be properly sourced content, and given the section's brevity there does not seem to be any undue weight. Those are the things you need to counter. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is always helpful for the new Wikipedia editor to read up on various Wikipedia policies, like neutral point of view, prohibitions against self-promotion and conflicts of interest, all of which have been serious problems for this article since its creation. All that aside for now, along with the very proper observation by Drmies above, Wikipedia articles about lawyers do indeed present negative commentary about their subjects, when the criticisms are supported by third party, reliable sources and do not, by their mention, threaten to overwhelm the article. For example, the well-known and highly regarded F. Lee Bailey contains a section on his disbarment, and the article about the equally renowned Alan Dershowitz describes allegations of plagiarism against him. JohnInDC (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Leave it to the person from DC to dish up some dirt. BTW, I had no doubt that other lawyery articles would have that kind of information. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Found some dirt myself, in the article history; I have semi-protected the article for a while. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed hundreds of lawyer pages on Wikipedia. My conclusion is that the “Tactics” section includes defamatory comments and anonymous sourced opinions that are not in the proper form for a Wikipedia page and are more suitable to be deemed vandalism. None of these pages include any defamatory remarks. None of these pages includes a “Tactics Section”. All of these pages when reporting only include negative occurrences or events that are facts and never include an anonymous source or an unsourced comment as used on Mr. Bailey’s page. Note in the “Tactics Section” the two items come from two different articles and both of them come from an anonymous source and the other does not have a source. There have been over 10 profiles written about Mr. Bailey that I could find including another one I found a few minutes ago “Three Court Cases that Matter to Real Estate” and taking a negative line from what appears in only one article, in my humble opinion, should not be deemed in suitable encyclopedia form. You mention F. Lee Bailey and Alan Dershowitz—both the negative comments for these pages are about actions they have taken or accused of which are facts and not comments on their reputation. No other lawyer has a reputation or tactics page. This is defamation using unsourced comments about his reputation and not defamatory facts like the other lawyer pages. Mr. Bailey has been ranked by Chambers and Partner, Super Lawyers and Martindale-Hubbell which all base judgement on ethical standards as well as career achievement. (207.38.220.52 (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

It seems to me that building a section on unsourced comments in an article stretches the utility of the page. Relevant facts might include any sanctions from courts or the bar association, anecdotes about frivolous lawsuits or defendant fishing, etc.... Anonymous sources buried inside a larger article don't really rise to the level of reliability that would make it useful to a reader. I think this is particularly troublesome with respect to a lawyer as they very often will sit across a courtroom from someone who will eventually have something bad to say about them. Basically this is nothing more than hearsay and not connected to any actual activities by the subject of the article. At the very least, these comments should be connected to specific actions before the comments have any real relevance to this article. Phraq (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. These comments are in fact hearsay as they have no named source to verify them. If wikipedia is intended to be encyclopedic and factual, why are hearsay and anonymous opinions being used to describe a mans career? Harper0321 (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The only editors to complain about this passage – at all – are obvious Bailey confederates. Twenty-two (!) sock and meatpuppets, including the immediately preceding editor, have now been blocked for their unrelenting efforts to maintain the promotional tone of this page and to strip from it any hint of negativity. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb. By contrast, all of the neutral and experienced editors who have expressed their opinions on the section (via edits and Talk page comments) have no objection and have thereby established a consensus concerning its propriety. Wikipedia is not simply one more media vehicle for Bailey to employ in burnishing his reputation and gaining more clients, and the campaign needs to stop. JohnInDC (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the passage was appropriate (though I guess it is presently moot). I am no sock puppet and I actually provided some suggestions on how this section might rise to the level of usefulness. I do think citing to information only bolstered by anonymous sources demeans Wikipedia though. At the very least, when such sources serve as the basis for inclusion on a wiki, they should be identified as such. In this case I don't think the sources add anything useful to readers. Whether or not the page is too "promotional" is irrelevant to question over whether or not anonymously sourced negative comments should be included. This disconnect actually makes me question the motives behind their inclusion. Phraq (talk) 04:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't explain it much better than I have here and at the BLP Noticeboard. If none of that helps then I don't know what else to offer. If nothing else, however, my extensive efforts to explain myself (not to mention the support of two or three other experienced editors in including the material) should insulate me from insinuations of bad faith. I recommend you go read up on this very important Wikipedia policy. Assume Good Faith. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. An important policy such as Assume Good Faith is only as useful as it is universally applied. Like I said, I think the editors on this page have it right now. The proper response to "too promotional" (a legitimate concern) is not unsubstantiated (even if indirectly so) defamation. Phraq (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

August 2015 edits

I would have to argue that given the fact that MR. Bailey and his firm represented the restaurant owner that received the 1 Million dollar settlement he would have to be considered as instrumental in achieving it. It is also worth mentioning on his page since this was a record settlement which many would have never anticipated reaching that sum. I'm sure there are public records (ie. court documents) that we can find for this case. Maybe you'd like to provide this conversation with some documentation that explains why his involvement in this case and it reaching the settlement had barely anything to do with Mr. Bailey. I would understand if he'd been only mentioned in one article but twice out of four but that is still 50%. Further, being mentioned at all in a case this significant only illustrates that his involvement in the case must be of some significance or else the publication would have mentioned others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GHFkRyan (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This page has been plagued during its life by edits from SPAs that come into existence, add favorable material to this and related articles, and then press for the edits' retention when they are undone by neutral editors. This is but the most recent example. This article is not here to gild (Mr.) Bailey's reputation but rather to tell, in neutral terms, who he is and why he is notable. I will look at the recent SPA edits to see if anything of them can be or should be kept, but really people affiliated with Bailey should just leave this article alone. JohnInDC (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I integrated the SPA's direct attribution of (Mr.) Bailey into the text - in the SPA's original effort the point was made twice, and I reduced it to one, using the SPA's more direct phrasing - but a NY IP came in shortly thereafter and reverted the change back, without comment. This was the same kind of tag-team meat puppetry that resulted in a dozen or so almost two dozen indef blocks a couple of years ago. Accordingly I am restoring my edit, again to eliminate a redundancy and in the spirit of collegial editing, using the SPA's own language. Please discuss the issue here at Talk before restoring the SPA edit, wholesale, again. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at your integration of the paragraph being debated and understand your frustration about the mindless edits by those affiliated. Having no real affiliation to Mr. Bailey I'd rather not be accused of "tag-team meat puppetry." You've removed the mention of him being credited as being one of New York's most powerful real estate attorneys which is beyond me since last I checked that actually happened and is in no way an attempt to flatter or advertise him. The Martindale-Hubbell rating which is included in his description is something he was awarded with, think of it as a recognition of his legal talent and track-record. Please explain to me how adding the mention that the commercial observer recognized his legal talent and influence is inappropriate for the page. The Commercial observer is a widely recognized publication and their mention of Mr. Bailey only illustrates his achievements. Therefor I'll be re-adding the Commercial Observer mention.GHFkRyan —Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I moved it. Now you have it in for the second time. I am deleting your (again) redundant reference, which is improperly in the lead. JohnInDC (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I also removed the "Chambers & Partners" reference as of uncertain reliability or notability. I don't see anything in the cited reference that indicates this to be anything but a listing, and following the linked material there leads to a page of material submitted by the firm itself, see here. This is not a meaningful third party reference as far as I can tell. JohnInDC (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As for your affiliation, or lack thereof, I hope you'll appreciate my skepticism there as well. Over its lifetime this page has been subjected to POV edits by almost 2 dozen sock puppets. It is a chronic, persisting problem. You have a grand total of 10 edits, all of them to this page or to ones referencing it, and all to add positive information about Bailey; and you have been joined in this effort by IP editors from the NYC area who also display an interest in this page and nothing else. Prior puppets have expressly denied any affiliation with Bailey whatsoever - then turned out to have been employed by him. See here. It's hard to credit any claim that you're a disinterested party. JohnInDC (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The way Chambers works is you are recognized by them and given their award. Once this happens they request that the firm itself fills in information about itself. Here is a link to the Chambers website that explains the award process. http://www.chambersandpartners.com/about-chambers I'm not sure as to your profession but if you do any research into Chambers & Partners you'll find out it is a notable organization to be recognized by. The same goes for the Super Lawyers awards, this is a widely recognized organization and an important milestone for an attorney. Here is a link to their selection process and about us section of their site. http://www.superlawyers.com/about/selection_process.html Feel free to do as much research as you'd like if you still don't believe that these two organizations are either credible or notable. You keep harping about sock-puppets and are using this as your only defense, doubt alone is not enough to have me agree with you that information needs to be removed. I will agree with you the moment you present ANY and I mean ANY research on your part which would prove otherwise. GHFkRyan —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference you supply says nothing about an award, or anything about Bailey's accumulation of several years' worth. A bit of research indicates that, this year at least, Bailey has been classified as a "Band 4" firm (4th out of 4 rankings) or maybe even just "Other Ranked Lawyer". The site's editorial commentary appears to be limited to, Bailey "has an excellent reputation for his expertise in real estate litigation". It's vague, its significance is unclear, and none of this is directly apparent from the link that you've provided. It is, as they say, too thin a reed to support the claims you're making for it. JohnInDC (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a little more research and learned this. It took a bit of digging but I arrived at this page, which indicates that the Bailey law firm is ranked in the practice area of "Real Estate: Mainly Dirt" as "Band 4" (out of 6, not 4, sorry) with a "Recognized Practitioner", presumably Bailey. At least that is the best I can make of the sidebar on the right side of the page that describes the "Chambers rankings" for Bailey and his firm. Another page, here, helps the reader interpret these terms. A "Recognized Practitioner", which rates below a "Senior Statesman", "Star" and "Eminent Practitioner", is defined as an attorney who

handles notable matters and / or has received some recommendation during the course of our research. However, they have not received a sufficiently high level of sustained recommendation to be included in the printed version of the Chambers guide. Instead, the 'Recognised Practitioner' category shows that these individuals are on our research radar. 'Recognised Practitioners' do not receive independent editorial comment, but they are able to provide a biography for our website.

Nothing about an award here; nothing about multiple years - indeed no independent assessment by Chambers at all - just a listing, alongside material provided by the firm itself. It's nicer to be on this on-line list than not, but no more than that, really - nice. To highlight it - particularly in the lead - really is puffery. JohnInDC (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

honors

"Bailey was named one of New York’s "Most Powerful Real Estate Attorneys" by the Commercial Observer blog in 2015" is this really worthy of mention? There is no indication that this is an actual award or that the blog is in any way notable. It smacks of desperation to include it.Theroadislong (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Reads a bit like a consolation prize for those who didn't make the top 100. I am sure it is an honor, but I'm not sure how meaningful a one it is. JohnInDC (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello again Theroadislong & JohnInDC. First I want to address the use of the term blog. The Commercial Observer is both a print publication and an online news feed of New York's most exciting and relevant real estate buys, sales and legal battles. They naturally include anything printed on their site but do not offer an online archive of their weekly print publication. Having been a print version which showcased this award I feel that the word 'blog' should be removed. Next I want to address the issue of notability and credibility. The Power 100 and Leading Legals are a major event for their print publication, think of it as a special issue. I assume neither of you are familiar with either the NYC real estate scene nor are you familiar with NYC real estate law, therefor I understand you not knowing how significant this award is especially in NYC. GHFkRyan (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2015

As for me, I'm not questioning the status of the Commercial Observer so much as the significance of this particular mention within it. As I said, it appears that Bailey didn't make the Power 100 so it's not clear what this listing is beyond a kind of Honorable Mention. (Link to article here). That being said, when I see a phrase like "a print publication and an online news feed of New York's most exciting and relevant real estate buys, sales and legal battles", it feels like I'm being force fed PR spin and fluff rather than actual information about what Commercial Observer is or claims to be. Which goes back to my basic objection to all of these edits, which is that they're just PR padding, offered up by an SPA whose only manifested interest in Wikipedia is in enhancing this particular person's reputation. JohnInDC (talk) 15:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

First, it's a fresh account. The Power 100 is highlighting the 100 most powerful individuals across all real estate fields which would include brokers, developers and/or landlords. Mr. Bailey was named 'one of New York's most powerful real estate attorneys' through the power 100's leading legals section. Therefor its not just an 'honorable mention' but an actual award. I am not asking the page to say that Mr. Bailey was named as part of the Power 100 but that the Commercial Observer has recognized him as one of New York's most powerful real estate attorneys, which they did. As to the Commercial Observer being a force fed PR machine I'd argue otherwise. It is publications like this one that are able to focus on a more local scale, rather than lets say the NY Times, Wall Street Journal or Washington Post which have such a large spectrum of news to cover that they couldn't possibly dedicate enough time on all of New York's activity. If you were interested in finding out information about your area's local real estate happening I'm sure there are publications that cater to those needs. New York is a real estate giant, deals are made that nobody could have ever anticipated and new groundbreaking law is made. Sadly most publications are a little busier reporting about wars around the world and issues that a larger readership find relevant. I hope this sheds some light as to why this publication is not a PR machine but a credible and relevant source of real estate news.GHFkRyan (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2015

I'm not talking about Commercial Observer as a PR machine but rather your edits and approach to this discussion. I feel like I'm talking with a PR flak rather than with a Wikipedia editor whose interest is in the best possible encyclopedia. JohnInDC (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to believe that you may be one of these "sock-puppets" you keep mentioning. You clearly have no knowledge about real estate law, the New York legal scene or its real estate market, let alone your own past editing history. The other pages you've edited are football and politics based so whats with your interest in Mr. Bailey's page? I can only assume you're either a person whose fallen on the wrong end of a judgement or you yourself work for one of his competitors. I've let you change the placement and alter the language but I'm taking issue with your use of the word blog. If this is your classification of blog then I'd have to argue that just about every news outlet is nowadays a blog or some sort of child dish social media campaign. Have you seen the number of hashtags everywhere these days? GHFkRyan (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2015

The reference for the The Commercial Observer content is a Wordpress blog, what is there to take issue about? I am here to build a neutral,reliably sourced encyclopedia and that is all. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

WordPress was first famous because yes they created a tremendous platform for blogs, but it has grown into a much more robust platform to build actual sites rather than just a blog. If a site being built using WordPress classifies this as a blog then you also consider the following sites blogs: NFL / TED / CNN / TIME / DOWJONES / UPS. All of these sites are WORDPRESS sites as noted on the WordPress website https://wordpress.com/website/. Please check your facts and the definition of a blog https://www.google.com/search?q=blog&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=blog+definition is is quite the opposite of what The Commercial Observer is considering its lack of this 'conversational style.' The comments section of the site I'd be willing to fold and call a blog but not the site overall. GHFkRyan (talk 17:02, 18 August 2015

I'm going to assume that the lack of comment or argument means you've (JohnInDC, Theroadislong) decided to allow for the word "blog" to be removed. If you still feel that an argument ought or should be made please feel free to present 'facts' as to the reasoning for the use of the word "blog" rather than opinion.GHFkRyan (talk 10:46, 19 August 2015

I haven't responded, because - as I have said a couple times already - my objection is not how the publication is characterized but rather the (non-obvious) importance of this mention. Apart from the blog issue, about which I have nothing to say, your only other comment toward me was your unfounded claim that you could "only assume" I have some vendetta against Bailey. That's two flawed assumptions now. You should read more carefully before you type - starting with the entirety of this Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it was an assumption, one which is still in the air. After-all I have every right to make these assumptions since you seem to be making them just as much. Putting that aside, I really have trouble understanding how being recognized as one of the most powerful individuals in your field in your respective city (yet alone NYC) is not worth mentioning especially when the publication recognizing you is one just about everyone and anyone with NYC real estate interest subscribes to either in print or web form. This publications job is to identify real estate issues and trends, they are amongst one of the most qualified in NYC to make this list. You've already allowed for it to be included, am I going to have to worry about you making further edits if I remove the word "blog." That word is not fitting of the publication and makes it seem less impressive, as if this were some TMZ award which seems to be your goal now.GHFkRyan (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2015

Assumptions can be dangerous, particularly when facts are close at hand. Read this Talk page, as I've asked. Read the linked sock puppet investigations (as I've asked on your Talk page), and the Biography of Living Persons discussion. Those are both linked above as well. After that, go review my Talk page and its many archives, and a few more of my contributions. (You cannot have looked at many of them.) After all of that, offer your informed assessment of which is more likely: That I'm a neutral, experienced Wikipedia editor who is trying to keep a chronically problematic page clear of POV / promotional edits, or, I'm someone who has crossed swords with Bailey in the past and has it in for him. JohnInDC (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Tot clarify: The allegations are facts as ALLEGATIONS. The LAWSUIT is as FACT. The details therein are FACT as allegations. I will link to online suit in its entirety and then bullet point the real, true and actual allegations beyond the selective "malpractice". Thank you for helping to realize the key missing attribution. DJPeebs 14:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

Recent lawsuit against Bailey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An editor has introduced an article from the NY Post relating to a malpractice lawsuit filed against Bailey in which the plaintiff claims to have a tape of Bailey telling the plaintiff "you're my bitch" now and suggesting that he commit suicide. I've removed those particular details because 1) they're reported as allegations in a lawsuit, not truth; and 2) they're pretty sketchy from a BLP standpoint as well. I invite the editor, and any other interested parties, to comment on why inclusion of this material is appropriate from the standpoint of both NPOV and BLP. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I introduced a paragraph that accurately reflects the content of the attributed article, well within Wikipedia editing guidelines. A subsequent editor not only broke the three-reversion guideline, but has also made Tendentious Editing, by not accurately reflecting the facts (the lawsuit was not brought upon by a client, but rather by a tenant in a building represented by Bailey and his firm. The editor has consistently insisted on keeping a misspelling of "accuses" and seems from all previous edits made on this page to consistently lessen and manipulate the facts in favor of Bailey. This is the definition of Tendentious and in a serial sense threatens the integrity of the true allegations against Bailey as well as the correct relationship between plaintiff and defendant. 22:17 Djpeebs

Thanks for coming here to discuss the edit. However, you need to discuss the substance of the edit, not your view of my attempts to fix it. The language from the NY Post article quotes a claim - an allegation - by the plaintiff in the lawsuit. The strong language used by Bailey isn't a reported fact - it's an assertion by someone who is unhappy with him and suing him for $25 million. On that basis alone the quote violates the neutral point of view policy, and, IMHO, is on thin ice as far as WP:BLP goes as well. Please address these concerns. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Why don't you read the complaint filed in Manhattan Superior Court, one that is a verified complaint (offered under sworn oath)before interject any further. The strong language used by Bailey is a reported fact per the verified complaint. It's not an assertion if it's a verified complaint. Please read the complaint in entirety instead of continuing to spew baseless mouth dribble. Thanks! StudProSeLitigant 19:37 8 March 2017

"It's not an assertion if it's a verified complaint" - does that mean that the defendant can't refute it, and it's binding on the court? If so then they do things very differently in NY than in most other jurisdictions! JohnInDC (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of links right at the top of this page about the BLP policies. JohnInDC (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a tape of bailey on the article. Its a strong claim and worthy of inclusion. No question. Richterer11111 (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Really? How do we *know it's him*? Just for starters. Because the plaintiff says so? There has to be more to it than a couple of short articles before we begin excerpting portions of private phone conversations between litigants. JohnInDC (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We know that it is him has it has been stated in a verified complaint filed in Manhattan Superior Court. Thanks!

Particularly a sensational and mysterious claim such as this - $25 million for unspecified damages for "malpractice" from someone who isn't even a client. Right now? It's a news blip, a lot of nothing. Oh, and before you write me off as some kind of fan or lackey of the guy, read the Talk page above. This page gets a lot of attention from both Bailey associates and people he's pissed off, and the job of the encyclopedia, and its editors, is not to indulge either side. JohnInDC (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If you feel that it is so sensational and mysterious, have you read the actual complaint? Do you have a juris doctorate? Are you a licensed practicing attorney? If all answers to those questions are all no, you are in zero position to judge what is sensational and mysterious. As you state earlier, the goal is to maintain the neutral point of view policy. Restricting the facts, as stated in the verified complaint, would constitute violating said neutral point of view policy. StudProSeLitigant 19:43 8 March 2017

Please go read the policies on biographies of living persons, undue weight to particular matters, neutral points of view and the use of primary sources. (Here's another along those lines.) When you're done with those, please see the policies about assuming good faith on the part of other Wikipedia editors, as well as the prohibition on personal attacks. When you're done with all those, let's have a civil discussion about the material you'd like to include. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that –Plaintiff has accused Dawson of specific actions and those specified actions have a right to be noted. Not to do so plainly constitutes direct contravention of Tendentious Editing. The Editir, who has made over a half dozen reversions to my original edit, continues to reduce this paragraph, refusing to include specificity beyond "malpractice". This glaring omission has served to eliminate the true, actual allegations, which are specified in the lawsuit. I believe these should be detailed as fact. This lawsuit has been filed and the details within are material. These serial reversions are clearly biased, preferential editing, clearly forbid by the Wikipedia Guidelines. DJPeebs 13:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

People are sued all the time. In this case, because the defendant is well-known in some NYC circles, it got (so far) brief attention in the NY Post and in a real estate publication. You really do need to go read WP:BLP, as well as WP:UNDUE. To me Bailey doesn't seem like a particularly nice guy, and maybe the lawsuit is entirely warranted; but it's not the job of Wikipedia to serve as an echo chamber for one side's allegations - allegations - in a brand-new lawsuit that isn't even out of the complaint stage. JohnInDC (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The allegations are just exactly as you state and the SPECIFIC allegations detailed comprise far more than mere malpractice. By limiting this paragraph to only one specific aspect of the allegation, to the exclusion of the others, is a gross manipulation of the facts of the allegations as publicly lodged. It is not the job of any editor to provide details de minimis, to the point where the actual allegations are lost in gross minimization and marginalization. To specify "malpractice" without also detailing threatening comments and unfounded accusations. I am happy to link to the actual suit and then details the actual allegations within. This is well within both WP:BLP, as well as WP:UNDUE. I strongly suggest you refresh your knowledge by re-reading Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing to my attention in an indirect manner that in order to be precise, I will link to the entire suit online and then bullet point each of the actual allegations, beyond the selective "malpractice", so that the paragraph accurately reflects the scope and breadth of the allegations. I accept this change need to happen before the actual, true allegations and not an objective distillation, is accurately reflected here. DJPeebs 14:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) Both of the cited articles describe it as a "malpractice" suit. Nothing more. How do you know more about it - and I guess more to the point, why? Separately, one party's allegations in a lawsuit (has Bailey even answered yet?) almost by definition can't form the basis of NPOV treatment of an issue in an article. JohnInDC (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I could ask you the same question. When Bailey answers, I'd want his quote included, but he hasn't. Meanwhile a lawsuit has been filed with specific allegation on public record. Once an attribution to the actual lawsuit is included, it is well within all standards you have thrown at me to details the allegations, in short form, as presented. For any editor to attempt minimizing and seemingly offering only prejudicial bias will, at that point, will be clear. DJPeebs 15:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

Please do not add bullet points from the lawsuit to the article. Once again the encyclopedia is not a place to echo or amplify the allegations of one party to a legal dispute.

You are welcome to ask me the same question, which I'll answer: I have no personal interest in Adam Leitman Bailey whatsoever. I don't know him, never heard of him before I saw this article, which I came to several years ago to remove puffery and praise that was being routinely added by Bailey employees and interns. Your turn. JohnInDC (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not know Bailey. Never heard of him. Never met him. I am very interested in law ethics. I will link to the alleged recording, so the public can have access to a key item that's been introduced as formal evidence in the case. I will also add a link, in an additional attribution, to the actual lawsuit, but will for the time-being refrain from specifying the actual accusations. I do this under protest as the lawsuit states malpractice as only one of several allegations, so to name that singularly to the exclusion of the others, is wrong. I reserve the right to add edits as this story evolves. DJPeebs 15:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Both of the cited sources already include a link to the recording. Another isn't required. If and when this lawsuit receives additional media coverage beyond the simple and bare-bones articles that we already have - then we can have a discussion about how much more should be said about it. In the meantime it's nothing more than one person's complaint (literally) against Bailey and it is inappropriate to amplify this one person's unproven claims beyond the coverage that reliable sources have given it to this point. JohnInDC (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other, so as you can see below, I've asked other editors for comments on the issue. It may take a day or so before the request bears fruit. JohnInDC (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes we are. I maintain that to include solely "malpractice", to the exclusion of the other specified allegations is objectively selective once access to the actual suit is attributed. I know there is nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines that expressly prevents this and there are hundreds of pages existing today which will serve as precedent for other editors to consider in this matter. DJPeebs 16:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We include "solely malpractice" because that is what the reliable, third party sources have reported. It's not for us to go behind that and flesh out what those sources have reported, based on the underlying primary sources which - once again - are the assertions of one party to a dispute and are not NPOV by any stretch. JohnInDC (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Now that there is a link available to the actual lawsuit, your argument above is moot. Please explain now how selective editing can be condoned. Thank you. DJPeebs 17:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC re lawsuit allegations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include details of the plaintiff's allegations from a recent, and not widely reported, lawsuit against the subject of the page? See discussion above. JohnInDC (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Since the editor has included one of the allegations to the exclusion of the others, shouldn't there be a reliable account of the actual allegations and not an objective de minimis entry? DJPeebs 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

Since the specific allegations include "malpractice" along with other detailed allegations, the editor has clearly been Tendentious in their approach to selectively choosing one allegation to the exclusion of the others. These edits are seemingly biased, subjective, preferential and unbalanced. DJPeebs 16:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. This RfC, although well-intentioned, is probably a waste of time. At present, the article cannot contain more than it already does without violating WP:BLP, and a consensus at RfC cannot trump policy. I just blocked one user indefinitely for BLP violations, and I will not hesitate to do the same for any other user who violates policy, particularly after being warned. Also, please bear in mind that BLP applies, not only to the article, but to this Talk page and any other page at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That's as much comment as I'd hoped to garner, and I'd be happy to close it out. The clarity is helpful. JohnInDC (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please let me know why a link to a newspaper article is OK, but not to the actual lawsuit on file? I'd also like to know how an editor decide which allegation of four to include and which to exclude. Where are the guidelines that speak of selective editing of public documents? Finally, when does a newspaper article reporting on a lawsuit become paramount to the actual lawsuit? Once I receive satisfactory answers to these pressing and critical questions, I'll stand down. Thank you. DJPeebs 17:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpeebs (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

March 2017 edits - "honors"

An SPA editor added as an "honor" bestowed on Bailey, an award from the "New Milford Educational Foundation". The edit was accompanied only by primary sources appearing to confirm that the award exists, but not by any third party source showing that the award, or Bailey's receipt of it, is significant. Given the SPA POV-pushing to which this article has been subject over the years, I removed it. The editor added it again, and I've removed it again (along with a change in wording re the description of Bailey as "controversial" that changed the meaning of the sentence away from what the sources said). I invite the interested editor to comment here so that consensus may be achieved about whether and how to include this material. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"Controversial lawyer"

The article says that Bailey has been described as a "controversial figure" in NY real estate, accompanied by a source that describes him as a controversial figure. A couple of SPA editors have persistently revised that to say that he has been "involved in" controversial cases, which is a different thing, and not what the source says. (One, two, three, four, five.) Given the extensive history of SPA / COI editing in connection with this article (including a score of blocked sock puppets), seeking to describe Bailey in the most favorable light, I have reverted this change to reflect the sourcing. I invite discussion from the editors who want to make this change; and from other, disinterested ones as well. JohnInDC (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Leitman Bailey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110911111744/http://law.syr.edu/professional-career-development/alumni-spotlights/adam-leitman-bailey.aspx to http://www.law.syr.edu/professional-career-development/alumni-spotlights/adam-leitman-bailey.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit redux

I'm confused as to why there is such heightened sensitivity to details about the lawsuit against Adam Leitman Bailey. The edits made are details found not only in both previously referenced articles, but the court filings as well. What exactly is the reason for being against said edits?24.177.32.40 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you review the previous discussions on this issue and then see if you still have questions. JohnInDC (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a comprehensive list of concerns, and when it's not so late I might do a better job of laying them out, but I'll start with: 1) Bailey said something mean to someone; 2) Bailey is being sued by that someone; 3) the mean things are included as an allegation ("allegation"!) in that lawsuit; 4) this is a squabble between two people that will play out in, and be resolved by, a court; and 5) in the grand scheme, as of right now, it's trivial and is plainly being included here - rather insistently I'd note - only to paint Bailey in an unfavorable light. Two other editors have tried to shoehorn this information into the article, twice before it's been removed as problematic under Wikipedia's policies re biographies of living persons, and at least two of those too-persistent editors have been blocked from editing. I strongly suggest that you ease off this and just let the article alone. JohnInDC (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

controversial and balance

This is a widely controversial attorney and this page reads like an advertisement and shouldnt. Adam1118918 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read through the (lengthy, sorry about that) discussion that has already taken place and see what you might have to add to that one way or the other. Right now the page doesn't seem to make anyone happy, which may be the best we can hope for it. JohnInDC (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

In any case there's no way the article can include the paean written to Bailey by the partner in his law firm (link), which you had added. It's not reliable, it's not a third party, and it's highly POV. JohnInDC (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit, again

User:Law Connoisseur removed mention of this lawsuit from the article. I reverted, in light of the extensive history of POV / COI / sockpuppet editing on this page. I'm moving this in from the User's Talk page, where s/he originally entered it. JohnInDC (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

1. The case has not been decided.

2. The plaintiff in this case cannot win on a case where he sues an attorney on a case that has not represented him.

3. The only source on this lawsuit is a tabloid article by the New York Post as a result of the prominence of the subject lawyer. Another publication The Real Deal, did not write its own article but simple cited to the New York Post's article.

4. This attorney is prominent with cases including taking on the President of the United States, the Ground Zero Mosque, The Save Harlem Case and the attorney who brought the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to New York to help save many of its citizens financial lives.

5. I do not understand reading the talk pages how someone who claims that he does not like the subject Adam Leitman Bailey can be allowed to be an unbiased part of the page. Law Connoisseur (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

6. This lower court lawsuit that has no historical value or precedential meaning does not belong on Wikipedia.

Law Connoisseur (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the material should stay. It's sourced and the description here is neutrally stated (and pretty spare at that). If and when the suit is decided - for or against Bailey though I agree "for" is more likely - then that resolution can be reported as well. It would probably be helpful too for Law Connoisseur to review prior discussion of this matter, above. JohnInDC (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how this case complies with Wikipedia's rules of conduct. The article is not proper for an encyclopedia. It provides no value or historically significance on the subject. Almost all high profile litigators have frivolous suits raged against them--but they are not worthy of Wikipedia. I have reviewed the past discussions and saw that JohnInDC stated that he does not like the subject Adam Leitman Bailey. I do not see another motivation of keeping this case on this page other than your stated hatred of the subject which makes you unqualified to be the arbitrator of the page. I have reviewed every American living lawyer's page on Wikipedia and all of them stay away from frivolous lawsuits without any historical significance. The subject Adam Leitman Bailey is frequently in the news and is credited by the New York District Attorney for keeping the Trump family out of jail--but instead you fail to cover real news but fight to keep an insignificant lawsuit on the page.

https://therealdeal.com/2017/10/04/i-dont-think-ive-ever-received-a-letter-like-it-read-the-trump-soho-memo-written-to-cy-vance-that-tripped-up-a-criminal-investigation/

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-ivanka-trump-and-donald-trump-jr-avoided-a-criminal-indictment

I have never met the subject but as a business person and lawyer, I submit that all attorneys deserve a bit more respect on their an encyclopedia page. JohnInDC is doing a disservice to a the subject who deserves a lot more respect on his page. Why not cover these incredible feats instead of spending many hours fighting for the New York Post and a frivolous lawsuit. Leave the garbage for the New York Post.Law Connoisseur (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm content to await comments by other editors on this subject. Meantime I'd like to note a couple of things. First, as a brand new editor, with all of four substantive edits to your credit, you may be unfamiliar with many Wikipedia standards of conduct between editors. Two of the more important ones are, "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks". My record on this page shows me to be pretty even-handed when it comes to other editors' disparaging, or singing praises of, Bailey, so I dispute your insinuation; and, even if there were no record at all, you need to display a little more patience and forbearance when it comes to editorial discussions on article Talk pages. Now, second. As I've noted, this page has a long and unhappy history of Bailey associates coming and trying to lard the article with happy news about his great accomplishments, or to purge it of anything that they don't like. Take a look at this page for a listing of editors who have been confirmed to be sockpuppets with conflicts of interest - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb/Archive. As you can see, the list is extensive. Further, in many cases these editors would create an account and then within one or two edits, come straight here and begin to write things as Bailey might like to see them. More than one of them too has directly denied knowing Bailey when that was demonstrably untrue. Look above at Falconclaw's comments above - he said he'd never met Bailey, but elsewhere claimed to have received a photograph directly from him. So. It pretty cleanly fits that unhealthy pattern, when you show up out of nowhere, make three edits to other articles and then come directly to this page and - as a putatively brand-new editor - remove two sentences that blandly describe a single event, and (as it happens) the only bit of negative information on the page. And then to boot, extol his "incredible feats" here.

Again, how about we see what other editors think. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect you are attacking the writer instead of defending the subject disputed lawsuit. Then you attack my work compared to your vast experience. I understand why--because the lawsuit cannot be defended. But it is easy to go after people like me who is an expert on law and I am working on several lawyer and law pages to make Wikipedia more accurate. According to what you have written in the past you have stated you do not like the subject Adam Lietman Bailey and then you do ahead and allow an insignificant lawsuit that would never belong in any encyclopedia. What I do not seeing you do besides attacking other people is find new content that deserves to be in an encyclopedia. Hence, I challenge your credibility and bias. Law Connoisseur (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm. I did offer reasons, and commented on the persistent sockpuppet / COI / POV issues only after you commented on my "stated" (!) hatred for the subject. That quibble aside, I note in addition to my earlier observations that at least some other lawyers' pages do in fact include discussion of unflattering and also arguably trivial events, such as F. Lee Bailey's drunk driving acquittal or the never-proven allegations of sexual assault leveled against Alan Dershowitz. We have to be mindful of WP:BLP issues of course, but Wikipedia articles are biographies, not hagiographies. Let's now see what others have to say. JohnInDC (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am very concerned about your hatred against this subject causing you not to think clearly. You are obviously biased and should not be allowed to work on this page as a result of your animosity for the subject that you pronounced recently. Looking at the page's history you struck down some important cases and the subject's relevance in them for no reson. Not you are battling over a frivolous lawsuit that you said yourself will not win.

The subject lawsuit is against Adam Lietman Baily for malpractice. All lawyers know that you would have needed to represent the person suing to have a chance of winning a case for malpractice. There is not allegation that this plaintiff was ever represented by Baily so he cannot be sued for malpractice making this lawsuit frivolous. If Baily was charged with sexual assault or Drunk Driving and the charges were not made up or frivolous then I at least cannot understand your argument. But this is a case that cannot win, the lawsuit does not allege any law being broken and is simply on the page because the plaintiff in the lawsuit made up a fake account and spent the day arguing for its inclusion. i am fairly new to Wikipedia but i am already working on 12 pages that need to be corrected and/or improved and i have yet to have to battle someone on any issue in the community and especially one that just does not pass the smell test.Law Connoisseur (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC Removal of Lawsuit Against Bailey Should mention of this lawsuit be removed from the page?

On July 3, 2018, Judge Robert Kalish dismissed a lawsuit in its entirety finding that a lawyer cannot be sued for malpractice when he never represented the adversary and that the comments were not defamatory. Here is a link to the decision: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=qMwR_PLUS_jo8ijsF1iO6zq2CrQ==&system=prod

More importantly for a Wikipedia entry, this was a frivolous case that has no place on an attorney's page. There was no new law to be made. The decision speaks for itself in explaining why the subject matter was rudimentary and basic--not in line with significant decisions like the Harlem gentrification battle, the case against Donald Trump, the Ground Zero Mosque, the use of the Interstate Land Sales Recording Act which changed real estate law for the ages including an amendment in Congress and the Sky View Parc case.

July 17, 2018

Today, I received a message from JohnInDc that because so many people opine on this page I must first put the removal up for discussion before taking down the page. Almost a month ago, I posted the above RFC seeking comment on the removal of the page for the reasons stated above. I waited weeks and no one commented. Today, i removed the page because no one responded to my request for comment. I researched JohnInDC and he seems to be the person running the page for years and admits that he does not like Adam Leitman Bailey in one of his entries. I believe I followed proper protocol and because I received no response I removed the entry and immediately heard from John whose interest in Mr. Bailey i do not know except that he has a fervent one.

I believe this would be the proper page to discuss the removal and i do not believe because Mr. Leitman Bailey happens to be a popular subject because he sued the President of the United States and the Ground Zero Mosque, irrelevant items like this entry should remain on the page. Mr. JohnInDc, i await your response since no one else has objected to the removal. Please stick to the facts and not hearsay or propaganda or ghosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cook907 (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I was too hasty in calling you out on your Talk page; I should have looked more carefully here first. I apologize. I have edited the entry to reflect the dismissal. As a general matter if some reliably sourced thing or event warrants inclusion in an article in the first place, the proper way to handle followup is to record the reliably sourced followup - not excise the material altogether. That's what I've done, accompanied by the reference you supplied. As for me personally - I don't care one way or the other about the subject. I just know that the article has been the target of abuse and POV pushing from both his friends and enemies, and I am trying to keep it in the middle. In a related, but separate, vein - you should refrain from making personal suppositions or insinuations about other editors. Assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

JohnInDC: First, I meant nothing personal by my comments. It is important for the page and this section to note that most of the comments and writings on the page have come from you, including a large rewrite at one time. Therefore, I am only suggesting that it may be difficult for you to be unbiased in your opinions since you are the primary author.

As far as this section, there have not been any other comments on the removal of the lawsuit section. The lawsuit was found to be frivolous and the judge dismissed it. I cannot find any reasons why it would belong on this page - it is not a significant legal decision, did not make new law, did not survive the first round of dismissals. It only made one tabloid and this section weakens the page, as other editors have hinted.

It's ironic that someone who appears to be shilling for Adam Leitman Bailey claims the lawsuit "only made one tabloid" when a quick internet search reveals that the lawsuit was covered by many outlets, including an outlet that favorably covers Bailey. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchlomosBff (talk • contribs) 17:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I open this up to comments from other editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cook907 (talk • contribs)

I didn't mean that you were being particularly offensive or anything, but rather that, it's better not to start right out of the box by suggesting that another editor wears blinders or is otherwise unable to edit objectively. Focus on the edits, not the editors, is what they say. Meantime I'm happy to hear what others say! JohnInDC (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

22 October 2018

JohnInDc:

I think it is worth noting in the lawsuit section that while the case has been initially dismissed, it is also under appeal to the First Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Here is a link to the appeal filing https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=C_PLUS_9tQfsKOT2P2u5rP_PLUS_seXg==&system=prod.

Also, the audio to the call where Bailey extensively threatens the Plaintiff is publicly available here.

I think it should also be included in the lawsuit tab as it is the basis for the lawsuit and included in the legal filings.

What do you think? Kind regards.SchlomosBff (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)SchlomosBff

I think it's fine as it is and until it receives more, and more extensive, coverage it's fine as it is. JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Curious as to what your reservations are pertaining to including a link to the audio? SchlomosBff —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a single exhibit in a private lawsuit that has, for now, been dismissed and, beyond that and revealing perhaps a certain coarseness of character, is unremarkable. People say nasty things to each other all the time. JohnInDC (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a fine line between saying something nasty in private and advocating for someone to commit suicide while acting (and being paid to do so) in a professional capacity. Without knowing anything about you nor rushing to judgement, as previous puppets have, we can come to the mutual assent that there are an abundance of mental health issues in modern day society. Had Bailey acted professional and not resorted to threatening arrest, threatening bankruptcy, tireless belittling, and advocating for an individual to commit suicide he would not have been sued. With respect to your comment about this being a single lawsuit that is under appeal, Bailey's foul mouth is also the subject of a sua sponte disciplinary proceeding from the NY Courts per the appeal filing. Furthermore, it is impossible to calculate the effects of Bailey's conduct. I do think a link to the recording should be included as a part of the commentary regarding the lawsuit. Please reconsider 24.177.35.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)SchlomosBff

No. We're not here to provide supplemental commentary, implicit or otherwise, on Bailey, his manners or his ethics. Even if the plaintiff ultimately prevails in the lawsuit, there's no basis for including a direct link to one particular exhibit in that suit. JohnInDC (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Literary Classics award

The firm looks to me like it specializes in helping self-published authors promote their books. It also seems to have a pretty close affiliation with the publisher of this book, "Home" - namely, Building Foundations Publishing Co. - and so I wonder if this is really a third party source and a meaningful award. I'll look a bit more into it but if anyone else has any insight, please add it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: There was a print-only article that circulated in The Real Deal that discussed Adam Leitman Bailey's book, "Home". That print article can be found here. It should come to no surprise that Bailey has used a self-published book in attempts to clean up his image. He appears to be quite concerned with the perception others have of him. Let's call the book and award what it really is..shameless self-promotion. Dpravada914 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

No where in the Real Deal article does it say anything about Bailey trying to clean up his image. Also user:Dpravada914’s comment stating it is "shameless self-promotion" does not coincide with Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View guidelines giving me reason to believe he is making an attempt to push this article to become negatively biased. The book in discussion won the silver medal in the Literary Classics Awards. Baseballdad (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The referenced article only describes Bailey as having a softer side, mentioning his inspirations for the book and the message behind it. This article is about his book, not about interest or self-promotion.173.167.211.241 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above comment. This does not coincide with Wikipedia's NPOV and it does not say in that article anywhere that he is trying to clean up his image. Additionally, a simple google search would show the validity of the book award. Saying the notoriety and validity of the award is unknown is not necessary to be included.173.167.211.241 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Page protection

I've protected the article for three days, following the request at WP:RfPP. I've reverted to the version of 02:46, 3 May 2019 to remove the worst of the problems. I've also removed the unsourced and poorly sourced text in the lawsuit section, and I've added a source for the suspension.

When editing resumes, please make sure that everything is supported by high-quality sources, per our policy on living people at WP:BLP. Anything contentious must be supported by a high-quality secondary source, not primary sources (such as court documents), self-published websites, or pages that have been taken offline. Anything contentious that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.

Editors should make sure they're familiar with the BLP policy before editing the article again. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 00:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

RFC

Many of the participants in this RfC are new users. Per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Meatpuppetry: "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion."

The only established editors who participated in this RfC are Markbassett, Redrose64, and SMcCandlish. Of these established editors, only Markbassett and SMcCandlish expressed a view on whether and where Adam Leitman Bailey's four-month suspension from the practice of law should be mentioned in the article. The consensus among these established editors is that the suspension should not be mentioned in the lead but should be mentioned in the body of the article.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I believe the line stating “He is presently under a four-month suspension from the practice of law after a finding of misconduct. [7]” should be removed from the first paragraph along with the removal of the line “It was announced on April 2, 2019 that attorney Adam Leitman Bailey will have his law license suspended for a 4 month term. [10] [11]” in the background section. It is rare to have this sort of information in any introductory paragraph for a biographaphical page. For example Linda Addison or William F. Aldinger III, both being former attorneys from New York, only have basic life timeline information in their first paragraphs. It makes sense for this information to be noted in the lawsuit against bailey section, but to have it in 3 separate locations across the page is a bit absurd for such a short biography page noting that the suspension is only for 4 months out of an entire lifetime/career. Cook907 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Disscussion

• In the body, not in the lead. The BLPLEAD and BLP generally run against sensationalism. A suspension is significant, but it’s just several months out of his life. And there’s just not much to say. Cheers

Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• @JohnInDC: Do you agree that information is acceptable to be removed from the lead and background sections? Cook907 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
• It should be in the lead as Adam Leitman Bailey will not able to legally identify as a lawyer for 4 months. The suspension is significant to where his firm cannot use his name and is legally forced to change their name for the duration of his suspension. After all,I believe the court order that states Bailey's 4 month suspension also references prior admonishments of Adam Leitman Bailey as well. NYCSPECTATOR (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)NYCSPECTATOR
  • @JohnInDC: Please do not let an Adam Leitman Bailey sockpuppet inhibit the truth. NYCSPECTATOR (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)NYCSPECTATOR
    • to piggyback on the comment made by User:NYCSPECTATOR in reply to the potential Adam Leitman Bailey sock puppet User:Cook907, the individuals referenced (Linda Addison and William F. Aldinger) were not recipients of any court ordered suspensions. Neither of them told any adversary that they should kill themselves either. Truthful information regarding his suspension is integral. As a potential Bailey sock puppet, you should realize that Bailey cannot identify as a lawyer in any capacity for the duration of his suspension. If he does, he is subject to further disciplinary measures. ***Dpravada914 (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    • The edits made by user:NYCSPECTATOR and user:Dpravada914 are explicit attempts to vandalize this page in accordance to Wikipedia:Vandalism guidelines. These accounts are using this article in an attempt to push a negative bias and a negative opinion creating a conflict of interest to evoke public embarrassment. In the past Dawson has created multiple social media accounts in order to threaten and virtually abuse Adam and he has been keenly tracking the edits to this Wikipedia article – all referenced here. We have absolute reason to believe he is trying to abuse Adam further by plaguing this page with his suspension materials. We suggest reverting the edits made by these accounts back to the page from March 29, 2019. Alblawfirm (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Agree This information was unnecessary for the lead and background sections, but understandable for the “Lawsuit Against Bailey” section. 173.45.178.139 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with the above comments. Wikipedia’s Lead Guidelines note that the lead should only emphasize material that reflects its importance to the topic. As stated previously, the suspension is only four months out of an entire career which is not a significant enough amount of time for this information to make sense to appear in the lead. Sixteensixtyfive (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with the above. Having this information in the lead runs against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead and WIKIs BLPLEAD regulations. The news-like sensationalism of this content does not belong in this lead. The time span of the suspension is insignificant compared to an entire law career. It should be removed. PreacherBob55 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  This information does not seem to keep the lead in historical perspective as the Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons page and the above comments suggest. The most recent events are not necessarily the most notable and it does not give the rest of the information in this article due weight. It should remain in the Lawsuits section, but not in the lead. Baseballdad (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  This information has no reason to be in the lead section. It is neither significant nor is it notable to be placed in the lead for such a short temporary suspension during a notable legal careers. According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead should not read like “a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph,” which this one seems to be becoming. MinnesotaMuskrat (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• I’m noticing user:dpravada914 has broken Wikipedia’s three-revert rule in an attempt to push back against previously agreed upon edits. How can this page proceed if this user is constantly reverting edits? Cook907 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Cook907: That is a serious allegation; please provide evidence supporting that claim. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Concur exactly with 173.45.178.139. This is much like including someone's DUI/DWI arrest and four-month probation for it. Not in the lead, not in a general section about their life, and probably not at all unless there's some encyclopedic reason to include it. Here there is, in one particular section, because it directly pertains to the subject of that section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trouble

Lol what an understatement Insane ...I liked that you used that word ...surely it is ....late night ...early to rise ...need to connect sos Abbeachgirl (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC Removal of Autobiography disclaimer

I believe the disclaimer above Adam Leitman Bailey's article page stating it is an autobiography should be removed. The back and forth between multiple editors who have not been deemed as "sockpuppets" or interns of Adam Leitman Bailey on this talk page gives me reason to believe that this page is, in fact, not an autobiography and it has not been extensively edited by anyone connected to Mr. Leitman Bailey. Cook907 (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done looking at article history it's clear that the article is still plagued with multiple connected users. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  And still ongoing, judging from the sockpuppet disruption of the RfC above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the sock-puppetry of this article has ceased and since the reverted edits and reference fixes made by @SlimVirgin: this article is no longer an "autobiography". Should the autobiography template be removed? Law Connoisseur (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
•  Done The edit history of the article in the past few months as well as its semi-protection gives me reason to believe its auto-biography status is no longer relevant. Cook907 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  Cook907, what exactly did you do? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 05:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  Usedtobecool Its not a matter of what I've personally done, but the edits that slimvirgin have made, including the removal of poor references and the reversion of edits made by sock-puppets, gives me reason to believe that this template should be removed Cook907 (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Remove I agree with the above, the recent edit history of this article seems to place it into a neutral tone and point of view, no longer making it an autobiography. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with the removal at this stage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Occupation edits

Should we remove (Suspended from practicing law beginning May 3rd 2019) from the occupation? The suspension is over and Mr. Leitman Bailey is able to practice law again according to this article Cook907 (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yes The article proves the suspension is over, it doesn't make sense for an inaccurate statement to be displayed. This should be removed. Pedestrianswimmer (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes The page is inaccurate and misleading with the ongoing suspension in the occupation section Law Connoisseur (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• No This is a significant enforcement action that should remain in the article, although the content should be updated, including a reference to a reliable source, confirming that the suspension is over. Encyclopedia biographies should include all the significant events of a person's life, both positive and negative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, since it's no longer accurate. If the temporary suspension is deemed encyclopedically relevant, it can be covered in the article body. It's not infobox material or lead material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

December 2019 edits - "Author"

I would like to add to Adam Leitman Bailey's latest book to the "Author" section, published May 20, 2020: Real Estate Titles: The Practice of Law in New York (Real Estate Titles, 4th edition). Adam Leitman Bailey co-edited the book with First American's Michael Berey and wrote the chapters on Adverse Possession and Easements. [3] Bppab Bppab (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)