Talk:Bryan Freedman

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Removal Highly Controversial Information due to BLP Concerns

The controversial section was removed because the case in question was dealt with in a civil court and did not escalate to criminal charges. The details surrounding the case remain unverified and were not validated in court. There's substantial apprehension about the potential for defamation since the individual who lost the lawsuit to Freedman (who was acting on behalf of the individual's husband) instigated this investigation. This situation strongly hints at vengeance and borders on a potential violation of the WP:BLP policy. The source is not suitable for referencing on the personal pages of living individuals. Pestalozzi90 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit.

The material in question does not constitute defamation, as it references a verified and credible news source. The reported settlement amount is accurate and thus meets Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability. The removal of this content, especially on dubious legal grounds, suggests a conflict of interest on the part of the user who deleted it. If we were to exclude all civil settlement information for living persons, that policy would also apply to any settlements that the subject has reached on behalf of clients, paradoxically.

Requesting admin oversight due to the controversial nature of the edits and potential conflict of interest involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthteller145 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The objectivity of the source is in question (see WP:BUSINESSINSIDER), so its use for ambiguous BLP topics is unacceptable. Pestalozzi90 (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Admin help}} I propose adding information from Rollingstone and Daily Mail articles to expand the story. However, a user named Pestalozzi90 seems to be a sock puppet, as they are making immediate changes only to this article. Here are the sources for review:

Truthteller145 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your new links are not much better, (see WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE).

As for the accusation of sockpuppetry, that's ridiculous to post from an account created just today.

And please do not start an edit war. Pestalozzi90 (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is happening again. I reverted this twice already. Someone keeps trying to post the same content from multiple accounts. It may need vandalism protection. 186.179.42.159 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested admin assistance the BLP noticeboard as content with BLP violations was repeatedly edited into the article. Care to explain your reasoning on this Rossen4 Canadianthe (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. It wasn't my intention to get stuck in an edit war. From my optic, WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and WP:YOUTUBE come into play, especially for WP:BLP. We don't have any good sources for the allegation as noted previously by User:Pestalozzi90. BLP rules clearly state contentious material that is poorly sourced has to be immediately removed, so that's what I tried to do, based on what the community had previously concluded.

What I don't understand most is when I kept pointing out BLP issues on the reversion and requested looking at the talk page, User:Rossen4 would just keep re-adding and then left that snarky message. That's not appropriate here. We have to have consensus. 186.179.42.159 (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]