Talk:David M. Friedman

Slate story

This story in Slate explains Friedman's bankruptcy work for Trump, and links to other WP:RS such as Fortune and Politico.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/16/david_friedman_israel_ambassador_pick_helped_trump_with_casino_debt.html
Trump’s Extremist Israel Ambassador Pick Is a Bankruptcy Lawyer Who Helped Him Pull One of His Greatest Scams
By Ben Mathis-Lilley
Slate
Dec. 16 2016
(Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts lost money every year and went bankrupt in 2004, with total 1995–2004 losses of $647 million. But it paid Donald Trump millions of dollars, by buying, for example, "Trump Ice" brand bottled water. Friedman, representing Trump, filed for bankruptcy and negotiated with creditors.) --Nbauman (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Section under career

I'm deleting this entire paragraph: "He has published articles and lectured on novel and complex areas of bankruptcy law. Since the inception of its publication, David has been ranked in Chambers USA as one of the "Leading Individuals" in the United States in Bankruptcy/Restructuring. Chambers USA describes Mr. Friedman as “a great talent and a force to be reckoned with,” “a deal-making bankruptcy lawyer but also a very good trial lawyer,” and recognized his “unique combination of skills.” He is also recognized by Chambers Global, which refers to David as "the man you want on your side when you are undermanned and outmaneuvered - he's an extraordinary fighter." He is perennially listed as one of The Best Lawyers in America in New York and as one of the top bankruptcy lawyers in the United States in the K&A Restructuring Register. David has been profiled by Law360 as a Bankruptcy MVP, described as “among the very top tier of bankruptcy lawyers.” In 2007 and 2008, Lawdragon named him one of the 500 leading lawyers in the United States. David has also been recognized in New York Metro Super Lawyers 2006 – 2016 and was the subject of a featured article in the 2011 edition. He has been distinguished as one of Avenue Magazine’s “Legal Elite,” listed as a local and national "litigation star” by Benchmark Litigation 2013-2015, listed as a “leading lawyer” by IFLR 1000 2013, 2014 and 2015, and highlighted by The Legal 500 in 2014 and 2015 in the area of Finance: Corporate Restructuring.[6]" It's not written in a neutral tone and it's irrelevant. The only source provided is Friedman's own biography, so it is obviously promotional material. Werónika (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict page?

I was recently warned by RolandR (talk) not to edit this page because it is subject to active arbitration. Since RolandR has neglected to tag this page with the arbitration warning (like that on the obviously Arab-Israeli conflict page Hamas) I was wondering if a future tagging was planned? Personally, I think it is overbroad to tag a page for the chosen American Ambassador to Israel as a page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I checked other similar pages (Talk:Daniel B. Shapiro, Talk:United States Ambassador to Israel), and they were, as yet, untagged.

Furthermore, I found the content of RolandR's warning bewildering. Among other things, he wrote that my edit contains "speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event." My edit expanded upon a previously existing paragraph regarding the discussed embassy relocation. The paragraph was not neutral because it discussed the "contradiction to longstanding U.S. policy under both Democratic and Republican presidents," without mentioning the relevant law. I attempted to correct this imbalance and provide a broader context. Me edit is below:

The relocation would, however, be in accordance with the controversial [[Jerusalem Embassy Act]], passed by Congress in 1995, which requires the relocation of the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Since its passing, the executive branch has consistently suspended any action under the waiver power of the act.

I believe this edit should be added. I just can't see how a law that directly contradicts longstanding US executive policy is "speculative or unconfirmed information." It already appears on Wikipedia in Jerusalem Embassy Act and can be found here as well: Avisnacks (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee ruling states that "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". There is no question that Avisnacks, who has made fewer than 400 edits since creating an account more than ten years ago, is covered by the first part of the ruling. The issue of relocating the US Embassy to Jerusalem is highly contentious, and relates to one of the key disputes in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is certainly reasonable to argue that making an edit about this is related to the conflict, and thus covered by the second part of the ruling.

As regards "speculative or unconfirmed information", Avisnacks added his/her own personal interpretation of the meaning and application of an Act, without citing any reliable source to confirm this. Such an edit is not mrerely speculative; it is also prohibited synthesis or original research, and as such should not be made by any editor, even one who has already been here for more than thirty days and made more than 500 edits. RolandR (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I am certainly short of the necessary 500 edits. I merely request that the page be tagged if is absolutely forbidden for new editors to edit it, so that they don't get caught up in sanctions. Simply put: if it's forbidden to edit, then tag it as such so that everyone knows; if it is permitted, then don't sanction new editors.

Finally, the relevancy of the Jerusalem Embassy Act is discussed here, all secondary sources, and therefore is not "original research". I cite sources from both sides of the political spectrum. The lack of inclusion of the act may represent a leftist bias, because the act is often quoted by conservatives in their support for the highly controversial embassy move.

I think a brief discussion of the act is merited. Avisnacks (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsupported References? The reference for the neighborhood as an "Arab neighborhood" is http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.752378 but that article does not include the term. Is there a published article that does? MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

oops! the reference section has errors in naming, and when I used the Cite tool, some of the references in personal life get re-numbered. I was unsuccessful in doing a manual revert to the original article. MichelleInSanMarcos (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of edits

I deleted several unsourced claims and added some new ones to this page:

1. No evidence that Friedman is from Hempstead, New York, while the New York Times states several times that he is from North Woodmere, New York
2. Claim that Friedman will work at the Consulate General in Jerusalem is dubiously sourced at best and only cites unnamed, anonymous government officials. I deleted it pending official confirmation.
3. Since Friedman is listed as a member of the Republican party, I cited information that said that he donated to the Republican National Committee.

Werónika (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on status

Friedman is not officially the ambassador until he actually goes to Israel and presents his credentials source. For instance, Daniel B. Shapiro was sworn in on July 8, 2011, but he was not officially the ambassador until he presented his credentials on August 3. That's the way we did it for all previous ambassadors. Werónika (talk) 16:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Marquardtika (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey @Marquardtika:, someone editing with the IP address 68.132.237.77 keeps on editing the page so that it says Friedman is currently the ambassador. I reverted it the first time, but then they added the information back in. I was wondering what we're supposed to do in this situation? I know there's some guidelines for how many times we're allowed to revert back and forth, or something like that. Werónika (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Werónika: I believe the guideline you're thinking of is WP:3RR. It states that an editor shouldn't perform more than three reverts on a single page in a 24-hour period. If another editor is adding problematic content and you're at risk of reaching 3RR, you can request page protection (so, for example, IPs would not be able to edit a certain page for a specific period of time), or you can report an editor to the vandalism noticeboard, or the edit warring noticeboard. Marquardtika (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Charitable activities related to US-Israel relationship

An editor recently reverted an effort I made to include information related to the ambassador's past charitable efforts that also relate to his role as ambassador to Israel. Here's the diff. The argument was made that this was already covered in the "Nomination" section, although not all of it was.

But the key question I want to bring up here is about how to structure the article.

In my view these matters make the most sense in chronological order of when he did this work and not just to place it under the "Nomination" section. The nomination is clearly the point when his past work became of interest to the media. But it's confusing to have it placed in the nomination section.

What do folks think? Do we put it all under the nomination section? Do we place these materials under "Early career and Trump presidential campaign" as I had done? Or do we create a section on his charitable work that preceded the Trump campaign? [[PPX]] (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've created the philanthropy section. Please help flesh it out. [[PPX]] (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Perplexed566: Sorry for the late reply. I think we should put it under the 'early career' section; I don't think it's notable enough to deserve its own section. And we can mention it again since it was brought up with his nomination. Woebegone (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that it's best to structure the article in chronological order, rather than a retrospective telling of his philanthropy as part of the confirmation battle. I believe that makes the article easier to read.

The question remains as to whether this should be an independent section or folded into 'early career.' One indication that this is notable enough for a section is that it was enough of a credential for the Trump transition team to mention in their brief communication justifying his nomination.

I'm eager to hear from more editors as well. [[PPX]] (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I just reorganized the article a bit. I agree that chronological order is best. I don't think an entire "Philanthropy" section is warranted at this time. It's best to integrate relevant material throughout the article. Marquardtika (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

nice work [[PPX]] (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Date of birth

Hebrew Wikipedia gives his DOB as August 8, 1958, but I haven't found any sources yet. Can anyone join in trying to find one? RM (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)