Talk:Russell Abrams

Possible BLP violations from article

Extended content
== Education == Abrams received a B.S. in [[computer science]] from [[Boston University]] and and [[M.B.A]] in [[finance]] from [[New York University]].

Enterprisey (talk!) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

And other stuff from article

Extended content
Titan earned numerous awards as one of the best performing [[hedge funds]] in the world with significant gains in all of its funds during the financial crisis. Titan managed 1 billion dollars in its three funds under management and Abrams himself was recognized as a leader in volatility trading in both developed and emerging markets. References

Enterprisey (talk!) 02:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Additional Sources

It seems that only the positive sources are presently being represented in the article. Here are some additional sources that can be added, perhaps under a "Controversy" section:

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2010/12/08/russell-abrams-hedge-fund-accused-of-fraud-amid-losses-of-70/#356a8dfb2928
• http://pagesix.com/2014/10/10/ex-hedgie-drops-out-of-political-race-amid-sex-allegations/
• http://nypost.com/2016/01/06/horny-hedgie-bragged-about-sex-with-receptionist-online-lawsuit/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/russell-abrams-dogs-titan-capital-wifes-breasts-2010-9
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704858304575498133820107708
• http://dealbreaker.com/2016/01/hedge-fund-manager-sexual-harassment/
• https://www.law360.com/articles/514136/hedge-fund-exec-s-wife-tries-to-revive-nude-pics-row
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/07/everyone_is_wrong_in_hedge_fun.html
• http://gawker.com/5321966/sexually-harass-me-i-have-nudes-of-your-wife

Bradv 01:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

gasoline firebombing section (under Education)

The description of the subject's incident in college carries undue weight for this article. There is too much detail. As such, I am going to shorten it. Other editors, feel free to chime in here. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The college prank incident - it's illegal to publish this under Maryland law. The case was expunged from Abrams' record. It is illegal under Maryland law to publicize the arrest record of a case that's been dismissed and expunged. See citation here. Thus, the content must be legally deleted. --Kingprinciple22 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Kingprinciple22 looks like a vandal whose account was created solely to edit this article. Neither the Wordpress nor the 'law' cited seem to have any credence or legitimacy. If the New York Times published Abrams' attempted murder / arson charges (see sources), so should Wikipedia.The.dankest.keith (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the information has a place in the article. However, as Abrams was acquitted, I'm going to remove it from the lead, because there it carries undue weight. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Further investigation shows that all claims of legal troubles and lawsuits have little place in this article. Abrams' college legal issues were resolved (he was acquitted of any felony and served probation for what was deemed to be a prank gone awry) and lawsuits against him have not resulted in any serious settlements against him. (They appear to me more the results of disgruntled investors and countersuits from people he has sued.) None of this is truly encyclopedic, and appears to serve no purpose but to attempt to denigrate Abrams. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Legal issues content dispute

The.dankest.keith restored the legal issues information that I had removed from the article (see my discussion above). As this is now a content dispute, I invite @The.dankest.keith: to discuss this issue. Why do you feel that this material deserves such prominent coverage when all of the legal issues have been resolved? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy to opine here. I believe that the repeated scrubbing of all controversial *sourced* claims on Russell's page, particularly by IP users is problematic for two chief reasons. First, the subject's notoriety is almost entirely derived from his history of salacious lawsuits. A simple google search of 'Russell Abrams' reveals that 90%+ of the content on the first few pages relate to these lawsuits, particularly the claims by his former assistants. Second, I believe that his college firebombing is particularly newsworthy given the politically sensitive nature of the alleged crime. While not given jail time (outside of time served), the subject was **not** exonerated, but rather given probation. The fact is, he was punished by a US court for firebombing an anti-racism/apartheid protest. The wide coverage of the bombing in the Washington Post and the New York Times renders this worthy of mention. The case is not at all a college mishap - having been written about as recently as 2017 in the popular Maryland Historical Society site . This is absolutely relevant to the subject, and I would strongly question the impartiality of IP users claiming otherwise. The page has been edited several times by IP users and one times users of the site, in an apparent attempt to remove "defaming" content. I believe that the role of Wikipedia is to report the truth, and if the NYT/Washington Post, and a major historical society stand by a story, it is fit for inclusion here. The.dankest.keith (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@The.dankest.keith: Leaving off the behavior of other editors and concentrating our discussion on the article content, the prevalence of lawsuits against Abrams in his Google search result could argue that he is a rich man who gets sued a lot and is not notable for much else. That's not uncommon for rich people, and if that's the case, we should probably just delete the article altogether. The lawsuits appear to be largely without merit. The suit against him for fraud was dismissed; the sexual misconduct allegations appear to be largely aimed at his brother, and those that are aimed at him appear to be a nuisance countersuit in response to his suit over his secretaries' mishandling of his admittedly bad taste photographs; and the college firebombing incident (an unnecessarily dire and inaccurate term for simply having poured gasoline and setting fire) was dismissed as a college prank. Was it stupid? Yeah. Was it attempted murder? No. But that's what the lede of the article says. That is undue weight to a charge that was dismissed. I believe the continued presence of this information in Abrams' article serves only to denigrate him. The push to retain this information has been largely championed by single purpose accounts, so I have to wonder if the rest of the Wikipedia community agrees that this material deserves to remain. I hope this discussion can receive more attention to garner the consensus of the community. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@WikiDan61: I appreciate the comments regarding his notability, but it looks like there was previously a robust conversation regarding him clearing the Wikipedia standard when his page was marked for deletion. In general terms, I would agree with you, but given the frequency and extensive press coverage of each of the suits, believe that they're cogent and material to an encyclopedia entry regarding him. Every single article profiling him linked as sources (e.g. Bloomberg, Forbes, etc.) mentions the suits, and as a result so should we. There's a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia to include newsworthy dismissed and settled cases (see Donald Trump's page) that I strongly believe we should stick with here.

As to the details, I would disagree that the lawsuits appear to be without merit. I'm a trained lawyer, and can tell you that motions for summary judgement are used to dismiss 'meritless' cases, whereas motions to dismiss (without prejudice) are more reserved for cases with merit that do not meet the preponderance of evidence to prove the defendant guilty.

Regarding the firebombing, both the NYT and Washington Post reported the incident as a firebombing, not a 'gasoline pouring'. I believe that deferring to the sourced respected media coverage of the event is as fair and unbalanced as Wikipedia can be. Russell was arrested, charged, and held in jail pending trial for multiple felony counts of attempted murder and arson. Decades later, the story is being written about by the prestigious and widely respected Maryland Historical Society, so I believe it meets notability guidelines and does not carry undue weight. Happy to hear a dialogue here, but I think we should be vigilant about SPA's (one of which used the 'me' pronoun, presumably Russell himself) scrubbing the incident entirely from the page.

The case against him and his brother was largely reported as covering his brother, but if you read the linked complaint, widely covered (Russell) Abrams' behavior as well. Abrams ran Titan Capital Management, the entity that was being sued, so is eminently involved. I enjoy the dialogue, and would like to reach consensus here. The.dankest.keith (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is a biography of a living person, which - according to Wikipedia policy - needs to be handled with special care. A few relevant policies come to mind from the Biographies of Living Persons Wikipedia policy.

(1) "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Source: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This policy should be applied to this article, which would mean that the "titillating claims" of the lewd lawsuits should be deleted.

(2) "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Source: WP:BLPRS

One of the main sources used in the lawsuits section is the New York Post. The New York Post's Wikipedia page says it's a tabloid in the opening section: "The modern version of the paper is published in tabloid format." Source: New York Post. Therefore, in order to be in compliance with Wikipedia policy, content sourced to the New York Post needs to be removed.

The Education and Lawsuits sections seem to serve no other purpose other than to attack and denigrate the subject, and it certainly does not read like encyclopedic content. Those sections should be scaled back big time.

Finally, I would suggest that the disputes we are having about this article go to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard so that disinterested parties can objectively evaluate the article. Thank you for reading. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Powerhouse: I will dispute only one point of your argument: the fact that Wikipedia mentions that the New York Post is a tabloid refers solely to its physical format, not its journalistic style (see Tabloid (newspaper format) vs Tabloid journalism) although the NY Post has also dropped into the realm of sensational tabloid journalism. I agree heartily with bringing this article to WP:BLP/N. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at WP:BLP/N. Please address all further commentary on this issue to that page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia policy on living persons

wikipedia is clear on policies for living person - the mention of an arrest is forbidden without a conviction. as the final disposition of the arrest was the full dismissal of all charges and expunging of all arrest records, te sole purpose of the citation is to harass and violates the wikipedia policy on living persons what is clear is the continued reprehensible sabotage of implying guilt by accusation even when the final disposition of the claims contradicted the claims is shocking. placing false claims in lawsuits that were dismissed in the top to appear of google searches is the true aim of these edits and should not be ignored. the simple facts are simple - the cited allegations were resolved by federal judges in Abrams' favor - thus prominently showing accusations that were shown to be false is not acceptable and shows the true motivations of the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcg2000 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

lawsuits- tabloid coverage

lets be serious - the tradex lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgement for among other reasons the plaintiff did not lose money. the claims by pecile as to sexual harassment were dismissed by the EEOC after it was shown pecile lied when she claimed her relationship with marc abrams was non-consensual. thus the eeoc and a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. why would one place any emphasis on the allegations when they were shown to be false. what is clear and shocking is references to sandra piedrabuena and her lawyers statements being included on the page as they have no relevance and only purpose is to harass sandra piedrabuena or russell abrams but clearly violate the policy of wikipedia and third parties. the idea that tabloids covered lawsuits and they are readily available in the press would allow them to be covered in an area "controveries or legal issues" but they should certainly be shown to be allegations which did not survive in court or after an investigation. one must take into account the true nature and objectives for the placement of the lawsuits information and it is to sensationalize the allegations and not report the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcg2000 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

probation before judgement

probation before judgement is not probation as a verdict under maryland law - it is done before there is a resolution to the case. finally claiming there was a political nature to the case was not what the judge determined in fact the prosecutor did not even present any evidence to support such a claim and did not even make the claim. the newspaper stories do not even mention any political part - thus if the entire reason the story is newsworthy is due to the political component well absent that component which does not exist in any story covering the trial, it is not newsworthy and should be excluded. the wikipedia policy is clear on arrests which are resolved in a dismissal of charges for living persons and it is not to include them. it should be noted under maryland law stating a person was arrested is a crime if the arrest record was expunged as no records of arrest exist wikepedia is violating the maryland law on this topic and should respect the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcg2000 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)