|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 . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Cleveland||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This article was redone because the "L" in his last name was not capitalized. This was making it difficult to link him to other references in Wikipedia. Flowerpotman, a user, already cleaned up some of the references in the previous version and made it up to speed.
Well, to be "at the forefront" seems like an unnecessary phrasing, as an example. The tone of several sections reads like someone's bio on their own website might. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Innappropriate Content ?
This reads like a resume or commercial solicitation. The author's notability is not clear and many of the claims lack adequate support. I consequently recommended it for deletion.Posthoc777 (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion of puffery seems to be resolved long ago... The subject according to the references was a political columnist for a prominent international newspaper and every sentence is referenced showing his notability as a lead attorney in the military law subject area. Wiki policy allows for some basic info on the subject such as schooling etc and this entry is not off base but rather right to the point. Bottom line is the subject of this entry is notable and every sentence backs up that claim with reliable media sources.Aardvark31 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- I created this article due to my interest in third party politics, military and Constitutional issues. I hate to question the motives of people so I will instead copy just a few things form the sources that prove this guy very much meets the notability requirements.
law military nation region north america When troop protests meet technology By John Hockenberry, Adaora Udoji, Noel King Thursday, October 16 2008 Listen Add to Playlist .Protests by troops and veterans have been a part of American life since the Vietnam War. But technology has changed the game, and many soldiers say they are confused by military anti-protest rules that seem haphazard and subjective. Meanwhile, the military is scrambling to adjust its policies to fit a world changed by YouTube, blogs and digital photos. .Guest: Mike Lebowitz, an attorney who specializes in military free speech and a National Guard officer and Benjamin Mako Hill, MIT
Yale University Lecture Series: March 27 Mr. Mike Lebowitz Military Expression in the Modern Armed Forces
"I believe our service members are the soul and core of our community and I wanted to give something back," he says. So he contacted his CWRU criminal law professor, Lew Katz, who'd sent him encouraging e-mails while he was overseas, and enlisted his sponsorship in producing a festival called "Support Our Soldiers, Past and Present" in downtown Willoughby at the Gazebo at Park Point, starting at 10:30 a.m. Saturday, October 7. The free event will include music and speakers; donations (Lebowitz says phone cards are especially appreciated) for soldiers are encouraged.
It goes on and on. But to really prove notability, I will refer you to the fact that Wikipedia News posted an INTERVIEW with this guy which means that Wikipedia News thought him to be notable enough for a feature.
So we have a top legal person in a niche legal field with numerous news articles stating as such, I think to try and delete as not notable is flawed at best and suspicious at worst.Danprice19 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I still feel there's puffery going on here. As one example, noting the accomplishments of Anderson is not relevant to the subject of this article. Further, the discussion of his lectures at "top universities" includes a lecture at Yale. This, however, was a debate sponsored by a student club, not the university. To say he lectured at Yale suggests, in that university's parlance, that he was on the faculty. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look when I get a few minutes and edit accordingly. I think the Yale thing is that he is asked to lecture by different groups such as media, events, etc and speak as is the case with the media references and the Yale student group. But beyond these things which I can fix, I feel very strongly that this person more than meets the notability requirements and stays on track in regard to the areas that he is notable. But I'll look into your puffery concerns soon. Danprice19 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok. But the one example of his lecturing at top universities, if you will, is very much a stretch. I won't be contesting notability any more, but the article continues to promote the subject in ways that someone might do on their own resume in stretching the truth. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll agree that the subject is notable, but I still have concerns about the article. Compare it with the entry for a widely accepted legal expert like Erwin Chemerinsky. Claiming that Mr. Lebowitz is a "top attorney in the field of military law" is a very strong, broad statement. It requires acknowledgement from others in the legal community that he is in fact an expert. Publications or other examples of how he has contributed to the law of freedom of expression in the military would better support the claim that he is an expert. Refering to his own statements is not sufficient.
Well, I've cleaned up some of the worst material. But like the editors above, I have doubts. The article has been on my watchlist for a long time, and popped up because of an edit today fixing old links. I suggest letting live a while longer, see what improvements are made, and then go for an AfD if it doesnt improve. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)