Talk:Fred Baron (lawyer)

June 2006 debate

I have expanded the stub. I also remove the incediary lawyer bashing which seems so prevalent on wiki articles. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for hit pieces. MollyBloom 06:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the comments about fundraising. This is not what this attorney is noted for. He is noted for his legal expertise. Are you going to add a bio comment on every Bush pioneer? This is ridiculous. MollyBloom 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

While discussing the ethic charge is pertinent, a long POV paragraph or two is not. This does not merit two paragraphs, 'for' the charges and 'against'. The fact is the charges were dismissed as meritless. MollyBloom 22:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Rob Oliver is vandalizing this page now, too. Some of the comments were well beyond POV.MollyBloom 23:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You might as well sign in robbie, its very easy to figure out who anonymous is Gfwesq 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic that notability of his fundraising & political activity is being questioned when such strong sentiments have been expressed elsewhere. There are any number of references to Baron in mainstream media in the context of a prominent influence peddler in politics thru his relationship with the Clintons, John Kerry, & most prominently John Edwards. He's also gone on the record making outrageous statements on the influence of the trial bar in politics. The corpus christi memo & events surrounding can itself be found reported on in dozens of outlets. The progressive daily paper in Dallas has run a great deal of featured articles on it. This certainly hasn't passed the sniff test to many peers, a number of judges, the media, or some members of the US Senate. I'm game for collaborating if you'd like to temper this. Baron is certainly a figure of note as one of the most successful class-action attorney's of our time and one of the movers & shakers in Democratic politics. He's also ruffled feathers & accumulated a lot of ill will. How would you like to see the aesbestos memo addressed? It's not really accurate to compartmentalize it as having been settled by an ethics review. This episode (fair or not) has been featured all over the place as an example and indictment of some lawyers ethics when tort reform is discussed.Droliver 16:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Baron is notable because he is one of the leading personal injury lawyers in the country. Therefore, the ethics charge relates to that, and was dismissed. His politics is not the reason for which he is notable. Your insistence on making this a hit piece will fail. As far as the ethics charges, it passed the sniff test of 4 ethics professors and the Texas Bar. A Republican in Congress - who criticised him - is not relevant to what happened in the case. Repeating slander in the Congressional record does not change the fact that ethics professors from different universities and the Bar found the claims meritless. Perhaps someone should look into the ethics of a certain Republican congressman.

As usual, you make broad statements without substantiation. Who are the 'number of judges' ? There was A judge. Who were the "some members of Congress"? There was A member. What were the 'dozens' of outlets? Conservative talk druggie Limbaugh? Shaun and Hannity? And who said the Dallas paper is 'progressive' ?MollyBloom 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The ethics charge is only mentioned in conservative hit pieces (e.g. the one in the NRO by that lightweight Ramesh "Party of Death" Ponnuru). This hardly makes it substantive. The facts are not on your side here. The charge was found to be without merit by the Texas Bar's ethics committee. The charge was found to be without merit by ethics professors from two different universities.

Moreover, l looked at the memo and I don't see where it told the witness to do anything but go over their lifetime work history and to speak with confidence. If you think the defense lawyers don't do the same thing with their witnesses, you are incredibly naive. The fact that Senator John Kyle abused his senatorial priviledge by inserting baseless slander into the congressional record, knowing he cannot be sued does not impress me. Your insistence in putting lipstick on this pig doesn't impress me either. What it reminds me of is the typical wingnut response to the book, None Dare Call It Treason by John Stormer or any of Anne Coulter's books- "but it has foot notes and everything, so it must be true!". Footnotes don't make bad research accurate and repetition doesn't make truth.

The charge bares mentioning, because it was made and it reflects upon his professional life. However, since the charge was found to be meritless by the only relevant authority (the Texas bar) and was dismissed and that dismissal is sourced, it does not rate more than a sentence to acknowledge its existence and the result. To add more would be misleading and we wouldn't want an encyclopedia to be misleading would we? That would turn Wikipedia into a propaganda outfit like Manhattan Claremont Institute or the NRO.

There is nothing inherently wrong with raising money for the Democratic party or donating to the Democratic party or donating to John Kerry or John Edwards . In fact, I did so and I applaud those who do/did. But fundraising is not really Baron's claim to fame is it?

If you insist, we can include a line that he is as successful in fund raising for the Democratic party as he is in practicing law. Gfwesq 22:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The ethics charges are discussed in dozens of different references. This wasn't some obscure event. References to it continue to pop-up in contemporary references to Baron, years after the incident. The trial judge & a TX Supreme Court Judge are both on the record speaking about this. Even the circumstances and events re. the ethics panel are challenged in the multiple Dallas Observer stories and numerous other editorials. There is no way to objectively look at that memo and conclude that the witnesses were being prepared with one toe over the line of ethical behavior. This episode is one cited in numerous articles for ethical challenges in the law. Again, if you want to temper this some make a proposal. Dismissing the event it as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy doesn't sit right. Would you like to get some others involved to review the numerous media references? That seems reasonable

I agree with there's nothing wrong with political fund-rasing. It in fact is one of the other activities that Baron is noted for & his success & influence in this endeavor are again, widely documented in the main-stream media. He is a mjor player & is notable as such. Yes, this part of his public life IS a claim to fame.Droliver 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Added brief line about his fund raising. Why not? It was a mitzvah. As for the ethics charge, again the only relevant authority, the one with the power to discipline Baron for crossing an ethics line, dismissed the charge as meritless. Kind of hard for you to get around that little fact, Doc. The fact that some people continue to bring it up doesn't alter the fact that the charge was dismissed as meritless. It doesn't alter the fact that ethics professors said it was baseless. I don't believe I said it was a vast rightwing conspiracy, but now that you bring it up, the vast majority of people who harp on it are professional wingnuts. It deserves a mention and the notation of the dismissal. And it got it.

I did look at the memo and what I concluded is that it merely instructed witnesses to know the details of their work histories and be confident of their testimony. Do you seriously think defense counsel doesn't instruct their witnessess in similar fashion? Don't be naive. It would be legal malpractice not to.

In this country, after a man has been declared innocent, we don't continue to stalk him, Inspector Javert. It is time for you to let go of the whale Captain Ahab. Gfwesq 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The memo desrves more then a casual mention. It was the subject of dozens of articles from sources ranging from large political publications (National Review), large newspapers (WSJ/NYT/Financial times), to the progressive local Dallas Observer which devoted no less then half a dozen feature stories on it. Only a lawyer trying to provide political cover can look at that memo and conclude it was anything other then witness tampering. Have you read the accounts described on what Baron, et al. did to try and squash the memo, harass the reporters, and try to 'compartmentalize' the whole issue to a paralegal?Droliver 14:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

only someone that didn't read the memo or can't read, or doesn't have a clue what witness tampering is would think that Baron was ever accused of witness tampering. Furthermore, there is a 'mention' that is an entire paragraph on this. Baron was cleared, no matter what publicity he received on this. You deleted the NYT article statement that 4 experts were called to weigh in on this, and concluded that no ethics rules were violated. You want to make this a hit piece and it won't happen.jgwlaw

Contrary to your edit memo, no one said the charge wasn’t serious. What was said is that it was baseless and without merit. Maybe this will help you understand.

merit

noun

the quality of being particularly good or worthy, esp. so as to deserve praise or reward

verb ( merited) [ trans. ]

deserve or be worthy of (something, esp. reward, punishment, or attention)

baseless

adjective

1 without foundation in fact :

baseless allegations. groundless, unfounded, ill-founded, without foundation; unsubstantiated, unproven, unsupported, uncorroborated, unconfirmed, unverified, unattested; unjustified, unwarranted; speculative, conjectural; unsound, unreliable, spurious, specious, trumped up, fabricated, untrue. antonym valid.

Did that help your understanding?

Now that I have helped you understand the basic definitions, no the memo doesn’t deserve more than a casual mention in a encyclopedia entry. Given the National Review’s rather long and sleazy intellectual history (support for segregation and the generally discredited ideas that African Americans should be relegated to 2nd class status; its embracement of the ultra right wing John Birch Society, and so forth) I am surprised that responsible conservatives would invoke that rag. Speaks volumes about the conservative movement, don’t you think? The fact that a propaganda outlet like the National Review repeated the baseless charge doesn’t give it merit. It just goes to show the bias of the National Review and why it is a propaganda rag.

The NY Times’ also reported Saddam had WMD (which, of course turned out to be a lie) and to this day will not admit the basic Whitewater charges that President Clinton as governor gave special treatment to Madison Guaranty were without merit (to recap, the GHWB Office of Thrift Supervision cleared Clinton in 1992 as did all of the special prosecutors- card carrying Republicans to the man AND of course it was a federally- not a state- controlled institution, but I digress). I am afraid NY Times cannot be cited uncritically.

The WSJ? I gather you haven’t read it much. I don’t know about the Dallas Observer and your characterization that it is a “progressive” is without citation and what if it is? The charge was still found to be baseless and without merit.

Only a non-lawyer could look at the memo and come to different conclusion that I and the counsel to the Texas ethics bar committee, as well as two University professors of ethics reached. Are you alleging we are all part of some vast left wing conspiracy? The charge wasn’t witness tampering by the way. You incorrect use of terms suggests you don’t know what you are talking about. I wouldn't presume to pontificate on surgical techniques without doing some home work. First learn your terms. Then I suggest you take a legal ethics class, read all of the caseses in your text and then review the bar ethics rules. At that point you might be qualifed to pontificate.

I have read that Baron aggressively defended himself. And your point would be? John Kerry wrongly assumed that media would look at the swiftboat charges and debunk them. Boy was that a mistake. We know now, that the Swiftboaters did not actually serve with John Kerry and were not actual eyewitnesses to the events. Baron did the right thing in aggressively defending himself. If only Kerry had followed his example. Gfwesq 18:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You've made some interesting arguments and points about your political worldview, but ignored the point. Baron & Budd's activity has been reviewed in detail by the media & criticised. Irrespective of the TX bar conclusion, the review and condemnation of the event by observers is notable, and in fact dominates most of the refernces to this event. The treatment of this can be tempered, but you mistreat this by dismissing it briskly. Droliver 18:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that those with a clear anti-lawyer bias keep raising spurious charges and claims all of which were dismissed as baseless, is no reason to keep writing an expose on it. It was sufficiently dealt with. I could write an expose on how the moon landing was done on a Hollywood set, but it wouldn't be accurate. It has nothing to do with my poltical world view. It has to do with facts. This an encyclopedia, not a conservative poltical rag with an agenda. My only agenda is to write an accurate article. Yours appears to be to make a tit for tat point. No dice. Gfwesq 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

No dice indeed. Everything in this article has been referenced with mainstream sources. Baron is much more the controversial figure then what you'd like present. He is portrayed as both celebrated & condemned in the entry, which accurtately reflects his polarizing public life.Droliver 03:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disaapoint you, but Overlawyered.com is hardly mainstream. In any event I can take mainstream articles and make Bush look like a Nazi straight out of Kafka with concentration camps, but that wouldn't be accurate, now would it? Gfwesq 13:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What is accurate is the well-documented story of behavior by his firm in re to this memo in aesbestos litigation. The article's cited are just the tip of the iceberg related to Baron & this event. Try again to negotiate this pleaseDroliver 19:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Under your definition doctor, Maxwell's on the record admission of alcoholism is fair game. Do you want to go there? My version is an accurate NPOV version. Yours is a deliberate misreading of a confidential memo to score political points. This is not a forum for your vendettas Rob. There is really nothing left to negotiate as you insist on a misleading entry. Gfwesq 20:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's ironic that you would argue elsewhere that an obscure & unpublicized procedural decision in a court case merited treatment, while a well-covered event with dozens of stories about it does not. There is nothing misleading in the treatment of Baron. He's recognized as celebrated and very controversial which is a fair assessment.Droliver 05:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you spot the similarities and differences? Both had charges that went to their professionalism. Both charges got short pararaph treatments (see the similarity?). Now lets talk about the differences. One was cleared. The other was not. Got it?

Now I have treated both similarly. I gave them both a one or two sentence description of what the charge was. I gave them both a one sentence description of the outcome. My write up was NPOV as to both. It is factual. Yours, however, is misleading as to both. In the case of Baron, you try to paint a picture of illegality, despite the fact that no illegality was found by the Texas Bar ethics commission and as well as by professors of ethics from two universities. Now most people would call that misleading and intellectually dishonest, but I gather from your contributions on breast implants, that your standards are a little lax. Please tell me how I was misleading in my reciting of the facts in Maxwell. You can't, because I wasn't. Gfwesq 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 3 experts weighed in, not 2. All agreed that Baron violated no ethics and no law. And as you mention, the Texas Bar found similarly. Fortunately, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the National Review, Overlawyers or other such right wing lunatics who would destroy any lawyer they possibly can. Wikipedia is not a partisan rag. And Oliver's vitriolic changes will not stand here.

As to Maxwell, the paragrah 'in question' is no longer in question. Others have pointed out it belongs in the article, and it will stay. Oliver was also told to stop deleting it. WIkipedia is not only not a partisan rag, but it is also not free advertising for plastic surgeons (or anyone else, for that matter). It is equally inappropriate for a lawyer to misuse Wikipedia in this way, and I have also seen that and commented on it.jgwlaw 18:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no go. Baron is who he is and has the paper trail that leaves him open to criticism from many fronts Droliver 00:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NO, it's Oliver who is alone in wanting a hit piece. HIS edit is a no go. Sorry, Robbie, but we'll take this to an Rfc if you continue.jgwlaw 00:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Geez Ollie that statement is true of everyone. It doesn't address the issues though, does it? I gather you have no counter arguement to make at this point. Gfwesq 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you hostility is from, Greg. I've invited you to negotiate this several times. Please invite an RFC if you wish. xoxo Droliver 00:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, there is nothing to negotiate. I am not in the habit of negotiating a deviaton from the truth. The truth is the tribunal with compelete jurisdiction in the matter dismissed the complaint as without merit. Baseless. Baron was completely vindicated by the tribunal. Your version implies there was merit in the allegation, which is the direct opposite of what actually happenend. If being partial to the truth makes me hostile, so be it. Gfwesq 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Gfwesq (who is Greg, anyway?)....I can only say that hostility breeds hostility. And Rob breeds it. WHen someone is completely exonerated as this man was, there is no place for a dissertation on all the criticism. One judge (and who knows what his agenda was) who criticized him, with an army of right-wing tort reformers eager to bash lawyers any way they can does not negate the fact that Baron was exonerated. Four independent ethics experts gave an opinion on the matter, and said he did nothing unethical. The Bar agreed and exonerated Baron. That is all that is said here.

To add all this would be the same thing as my adding in the article that G. Patrick Maxwell had admitted he went into treatment for alcoholism after he was sued. And the plaintiffs appealed the refusal of trial court to grant them access to his treatment records, becasue of the alleged cocaine addiction, that they argued interfered with his professional judgment. The appeals court rejected that argument. Therefore, bringing up Maxwell's alcoholism and alleged cocaine addiction would be the same thing you are trying to do here. Maxwell was much criticized for his addiction in his community, from what I understand,. Enough for the plaintiffs to want to explore further. However, to dwell on something that the court rejected (although in this case, unlike Baron, Maxwell actually was alcoholic) would be unfair, and wrong. I never suggested we do that, because it clearly would be inappropriate. But you are trying to do this with Baron, and we won't allow it.jgwlaw 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You fail to appreciate the difference between these two entries and the appropriateness of using potentially negative information on a number of levels. Baron is a well-known, politically-active public figure. The events surrounding the aesbestos mem continue to be written about & criticized by multiple 3rd party sources. Baron's name & quotes number in the thousands of hits on Google. That isn't erased by the ethics opinions Baron's comissioned. The maxwell example you refer to is on a non-public figure, not related to his notability, not a notable event in and of itself, only found in a primary source, & ultimately part of an allegation that was dropped by the plaintiff. Please refer to the wiki biography area [1]

Public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Example:John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe. Is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. 'Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source. Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources. If X's arrest records are relevant to his notability, someone else will have written about them.'' I hope this makes it clear. What per se do you object to in the summary as written? Do you feel like the investigative reporting on this were inaccurately characterized? Do you think it's a more appropriate entry under a discussion of asbestos fraud in the asbestos entry? I'm willing to listen to your POV hereDroliver 19:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I included the negative story as you know. I also pointed out that the only tribunal with jurisdiction found the allegation to be without merit. Other than sheer petty revenge, what's your point? Why do you insist on taking an allegation of misconduct which was found to be wholly without merit and trumpet it like it was the Gospel from St. Luke? To continue to trumpet the allegation as though he has committed ethical misconduct is misleading to the point of being a lie. Why do you have a problem with the truth? As for your questions, 1) I think the investigative journalism piece is not worthy of inclusion for the obvious reason: THE CHARGE WAS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT MERIT. What part of exxoneration don't you understand? 2) Asbestos fraud, if any at all, isn't germane to an article about Asbesotos. In fact it might give the mistaken impression that asbestos is safe and harmless. If you feel that way, perhaps you would like to inhale some asbestos fiber. I didn't think so. It might be germane to an article about Fraud. That said, since the witness preperation memo doesn't show fraud. As I have told you, as others have said, including the Texas Bar, making sure your witness is well prep is not fraud. Where in the document does Baron affirmatively insturct the witness to lie? He doesn't. What the memo says, is know your work history and know it well, like it happened yesterday. Because if you don't, the defense counsel is going to use any hesitation against you to infer you are lying or don't recall or cannot possibly recall and cast doubt upon your case. There is nothing wrong with that. Gfwesq 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess there is more to be addressed. Do you know for a fact that Baron "paid" the ethic professors and are you stating they were bribed? That is a serious allegation. 2ndly whether or not they were comissioned as you put it, the Texas Bar Ethics committee was not comissioned by Baron. It's their verdict that the allegation was meritless. Do you have trouble comprehending that fact? That fact other 3rd party writers have reading comprehension problems, is no reason wikipedia or its editors should. As for Maxwell, you are the one contending he is a public figure by arguing he is notable. There are differences in degrees of being a public figure. Maxwell, if he is notable in his profession is what is called a limited public figure. The allegation of misconduct in the Maxwell case goes to his professional capacity where he is (according to you at least) a limited public figure. The fact, if true, that the plaintiff dropped the case, does not exonerate him. That could only be done by a verdict on the merits of the case. A plaintiff could decide to drop a case for a variety of reasons. It wouldn't change the fact that the allegation was made and never disproven. Baron had a verdict on the merits of the professional misconduct allegation. That verdict, much to your dismay, was: he wasn't guilty as charged. If you can show a similar verdict in Maxwell's case, I would happily add a line to the bio that the he was completely exonerated. I suppose that is one difference between you and me. You don't seem to care that Baron was exonerated. Gfwesq 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

POV tag added because of sanitization

Fred Baron is a controversial political figure, and this article has attempted to sanitize his biography, ignoring all the controversies he has been in.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

It needs a complete neutral rewrite. That some of these sources are allegedly "right wing" is irrelevant: they are verifiable, and far more radical left-wing sources are cited in similar articles. -- TedFrank 18:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

NO. THIS EDITOR wants it to be a POV using unreliable resources and political attack ads. Many of the articles below repeat accusations that were found to be unsubstantiated and false.67.35.126.14 06:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of the allegations in the articles are substantiated. Note also that these allegations have been discussed in a law review article.[9] They're disputed, but they're substantiated. WP:NPOV requires that both sides of the story be told, not just the side of the story that an anonymous editor thinks is correct.

I admit that I am writing a book that has a section on the Baron scandal, and that I have an opinion on the issue, but I'm appalled at the systematic violation of the NPOV here. The appropriate way to handle this is to have a discussion that tells both sides of the story, not to send the allegations to the memory hole. Far-less substantiated allegations are included in other articles when the allegations are made by plaintiffs' lawyers. -- TedFrank 14:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Another story worth including: Thomas Koresec, Dallas Observer, Enough to Make You Sick, has a lot of documentation of Baron's political and lobbying efforts, and criticisms by other trial lawyers of the effects of his asbestos litigation strategy on seriously-injured victims.

The Wikipedia article also omits the litigation against Baron by his former law firm. -- TedFrank 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Links removed by POV edits

	*Dallas Observer expose - "Homefryin' with Fred Baron"  	 
	*Thanks for the Memories:How lawyers get the testimony they want 	 
	*Bench press:A pack of well-heeled lawyers calls for the head of mercurial Dallas Judge John Marshall 	 
	*Baron & Budd's mesothelioma website 	 
	*Slander by proxy 	 
	*Dallas Observer, "Toxic Justice" 	 
	*The control freak: how Fred Baron's attempt to spin the story of his law firm's tactics was memorable, to say the least 	 
	*Baron's judge grudge 	 
	*Columbia Journalism Review "Baring Baron." 	 
	*San Antonio Express News column - "City climbs into legal/lucre bed with Democratic trial lawyers"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TedFrank (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Note also that these allegations have been discussed in a law review article.[10] -- TedFrank 14:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, then let's have a short section on criticism, and include that. Note the date of that article, and when Baron was exonerated. "Overlawyered" is not a reliable source.Jance 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Baron hasn't been "exonerated." Litigation against him is still pending, as is a S.D.N.Y. federal criminal investigation that may or may not include Baron's law firm as a target. (Moreover, Baron admitted that his firm wrote the memo. Whether the witness-coaching memo is within the bounds of ethics is a legitimate controversy, as are the scorched-earth tactics Baron engaged in against those who dared to question his ethics.) I agree the article should mention that Baron succeeded in getting ethics charges dropped, and the article should also mention the controversy over the dropping of those charges.

Okay. He was exonerated by the Bar. If you have additional legitimate citations that he is a target of an investigation, then cite it. Pure speculation does not meet WP:BLP

Again, Baron acknowledged that his firm wrote the memo. There is evidence that it was used in hundreds of cases. He argues that it is legitimate. There is no speculation; there are numerous cites above. Both the criticism and his defense needs to be included. -- TedFrank 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

2. Overlawyered meets Wikipedia criteria; that you disagree with it is not a reason for exclusion. Moreover, the Overlawyered site is only mentioned for its reprint of a Reason article, and Reason also meets WP:RS. -- TedFrank 19:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No,both that site and "Reason" are patently political sites and do not meet WP:RS67.35.126.14 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Question to Jance/67.35.126.14: are you jgwlaw? Because your arguments have the same misunderstanding of NPOV and RS as hers, and you edit the same articles in the same style. Might just be a coincidence.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Reason is an award-winning magazine; Walter Olson, the editor of Overlawyered, was nominated by Legal Affairs magazine as one of the 125 nominees for "most influential legal thinkers" in America. Please show me the text of the WP:RS that excludes either site from citation--especially when the citation is to the criticism that those sites say. You appear to be defining "patently political" as "points of view I disagree with," because jgwlaw had no trouble inserting far more political (and, unlike Olson's work, unsubstantiated) material into articles when it came from left-wing groups. (Moreover, even if you were correctly characterizing these sources, there's nothing in the RS policy that bars "patently political" material from being cited--and every article about a controversial figure on Wikipedia has such material.) Your position contradicts Wikipedia policy. -- TedFrank 22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Links removed for a reason

The links someone used above were either political, or blatantly POV and not reliable resources. Please see Wikipedia rules on this issue. 67.35.126.14 06:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please see Wikipedia rules on this issue, because you're not applying them. -- TedFrank 13:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are the one not applying them. Some of these sources have already been nixed as reliable in other articles. And I was the anonymous user above, as I inadvertantly did not sign in. Contrary to your bald assertions, I am not a plaintiff's lawyer. Although I have done some plaintiff's work, most of what I do is defense/corporate counsel. Jance 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't care who you represent. Your edits have consistently sanitized controversial legal articles to eliminate points of view contrary to the ATLA POV. It's your edits I protest, not you.

My edits are well cited, and legitimate, in contrast with some of those you propose. You did object to me, when you wrote in the edit summary "plaintiff's lawyer..."

I don't care who you represent. I care about the violation of WP:NPOV, and your edits have consistently eliminated points of view that you disagree with. I object to the deletion of material that meets WP:V criteria when that deletion slants the article inappropriately. -- TedFrank 22:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. That you (or someone who edits just like you) have succeeded in deleting these sources in other articles does not mean that they do not belong in Wikipedia. They meet WP:RS, and that's what matters.

You are right. But Reason and Overlawyers are patently political sites and do not meet WP:RS. Period.

1. Let's be clear. I don't agree with the ATLA POV. I think it's consistently a pack of lies. But that doesn't mean that the ATLA POV should be deleted from Wikipedia articles. Rather, WP:NPOV requires that both the ATLA point of view and the truth be included, and readers judge for themselves. -- TedFrank 19:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Let's do be clear. I don't care what you think of ATLA.
2. It is quite obvious that you hate lawyers and the ATLA.
3. Your own personal bias should not be reflected in WIkipedia.
4. The professional body of ethics did exonerate Baron. If he is the target of investigation, then cite it.
5. I happen to think people who yell the loudest about lawyers are espousing a pack of lies. Jance 22:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good. You have admitted that you have no intention of complying with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and I can escalate this to the appropriate Wikipedia authorities for resolution. -- TedFrank 22:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NO I have not. You misrepresent what I said, evidently deliberately. What I said is that I don't care what YOU think of the ATLA. You need to at least try to sound credible. You don't here. I suggested that you write something on a criticism of this attorney, with appropriate sources and a citation for your claim that he is the target of an investigation. Instead, you prefer to bait and argue. That violates WP:AGF.67.35.126.14 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you reference WP:AGF in the same comment that you accuse me of "deliberately misrepresenting" you. But I've misrepresented nothing; at worst, perhaps I've misunderstood your words in the context of your actions.

You are the one who started accusations about bias, except your own.67.35.126.14 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I argued that both my point of view and your point of view belonged on Wikipedia under NPOV, even though I disagreed with your point of view. You responded that my point of view does not belong on Wikipedia at all. Your edits have not only systematically slanted the NPOV of articles by deleting contentions made by reformers, but you have gone on multiple people's talk pages to criticize them for citing Overlawyered, though it is a reliable source, because you disagree with it. For example, here; here; here; and here. After bullying edits to remove the cites (complete with statements incorrectly accusing Overlawyered of being "partisan", when it has criticized both Republicans and Democrats) you then point to your sock puppets' removal of Overlawyered as a source to protest its use in other articles, when it appears that you (and your spouse) are the only editors who take this position. -- TedFrank 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Overlawyered is a political site - which it clearly is. I did not say partisan, and I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. Overlawyered is not a reliable resouce. That I will fight to arbitration, if you choose. A number of administrators agreed on other articles that it does not meet WP:RS for good reason.67.35.126.14 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The accusations against Baron are well-documented. I'm asking for you to undo your own sanitizing POV edits to this article. It is easier to assume good faith on your part when you display it. -- TedFrank 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not undoing legitimate edits. If you want to add a criticism section that is not a hit piece, and does not use OVerlawyered and Reason, two notoriously political sites, go for it. That is good faith. Once again, your misrepresenting my statements and arguing without doing anything when I have invited you to do so, is not in good faith. And no, I will NOT revert to a version many moons ago that was a pure attack piece. I will also not agree to the use of Reason and Overlawyered. THese are extremely political sites. Note I did NOT say partisan, but I find it interesting that you would interpret it that way. 67.35.126.14 04:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I did not say that just your POV does not belong on WIkipedia. What I meant, which was very clear, was that your bias does not belong on WIkipedia. Neither does mine. This is not an issue of lawyer-haters v lawyers. This is an article on this particular lawyer. And your venomous hatred of lawyers (or the ATLA) will not be reflected in this article. I doubt any Admin or arbitrator etc would argue with that.Jance 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe you did say "partisan" in the past. Is this you, or just someone who edits the same pages as you with the same editing style and makes the same arguments on talk pages and has the same insistence on calling civil justice reform "venomous"?

Again, your steadfast refusal to acknowledge Reason and Overlawyered as legitimate sources, despite the fact that they comply with WP:RS, demonstrate that you are not willing to abide by WP:NPOV. You are demanding that pro-civil-justice-reform points of view be abolished from Wikipedia. There's no point in my attempting to edit this article when you have clearly stated in this talk page that you are not willing to adhere to Wikipedia rules, and that you are not going to undo your POV edits sanitizing all negative information from the article. I'll wait for mediators.

Finally, please stop inserting your remarks inside of my comments and leaving my broken-up comments unsigned, and please stop representing yourself as two or three different editors. It makes the talk page hard for third parties to follow. -- TedFrank 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP

1. I have not represented myself as two or three different editors. That is unwarranted and insulting.
2. Yes, I refuse to have this article turn into the hit piece it initially was - probably your writing, if I look back. Unlike you, I don't have the time to try to find something you said 6 months ago or more.
3. I am no longer going to respond to your ridiculous accusations. If you want to mediate, by all means do so. Cheers!Jance 05:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am removing personal insults and inappropriate accusations,.Jance 07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will continue to remove personal attacks. Ted needs to learn to be civil and address issues, not the persons,.Jance 07:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who want to know, about 8 months ago I had a different user name - jgwlaw. I will not discuss my friendship or relationship with another editor, and respectfully ask that others do not either. I am not and have never been a sockpuppet. Any Wikipedia editor that tries not to make more of this than there is, has suspect motives. Now, I suggest we move on and discuss the issue. I have no problem with a criticism section, as long as it does not overwhelm the article.Jance 07:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The record will reflect that "MollyBloom", "jgwlaw", "Jance", and 67.35.126.14 are the same person, and that Gfwesq is her husband. To that extent, Jance is correct that she has not represented herself as "two or three different editors," since there are at least four different identities on this talk page alone. -- TedFrank 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued NPOV violation through sanitization

Jance/jgwlaw/MollyBloom asked me to edit the page, and then simply reverted 8230 words without any justification or discussion, despite the fact that I even acceded to his unreasonable demand that I not cite either Reason or Overlawyered. My edits were well-documented (citing four law review articles, several newspaper articles, and a Senate Report). Worse yet, he also deleted the POV tag. This is not a good faith edit on the part of Jance/jgwlaw/Mollybloom. -- TedFrank 07:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss issues

Why don't we start with a short section and discuss it here, before making massive edits and overwhelming the article with criticism? That is not NPOV. Let's start with the law review, and when it was published. Then we can look at what the real point is, rather than a long diatribe. If there are legitimate articles about the man, let's discuss it. Jance 07:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jance I tried discussing this with you. Your only proposal so far is to revert and delete everything and remove the POV tag, delete my talk page edits, and leave insulting comments like Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't. on my talk page. I'm not negotiating against myself or putting up with this abuse any longer, and I'll wait until there's a Wikipedia administator involved. -- TedFrank 07:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC):

No, you haven't. Your first approach to me was an attack. I deleted your abusiveness on MY talk page. Why don't you stop now? I've only asked you a dozen times. Do you enjoy fighting? Are you trying to bait me? Or do you just enjoy being mean? I've asked you now a dozen times to propose something that we can discuss - not a criticism "section": that is longer than the article was to begin with. This is not discussion. And you know it. SO propose something,m if you wnat to discuss it. I welcome your good-faith effort to negotiate.Jance 07:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have told you 4 times that I edit by Jance and have for over 8 or 9 months. Your attempt to imply things that are not true is not unnoticed.. I also suspect admins will see what you are doing, as well. They are not fools, you know.Jance 07:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss here

No, Ted, you didn't try to discuss it. You attacked me, and continued to attack, after I asked you to stop. I left the POV tag, in case you haven't noticed. I also asked to start with a reasonably short section, since the article is short. Instead you wrote a long diatribe. So let's start here on this talk page. Why don't you propose a paragraph and we can discuss it?Jance 07:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that you don't want to discuss it. THere are sources other than Overlawyered which would probably be reliable, and a criticism section be written that isn't inflammatory and longer than the rest of the article. When I first saw this article, I believe written by you,the whole point of it was as an attack. This lawyer is not infamous. He is not the target of an investigation that I know of - if he is, please cite where. I have asked you repeatedly to just discuss, and you are unwilling to do so. I do not have time for your games.Jance 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have written a shorter criticism section. I disagree with Jance's incorrect characterizations of events: the record will reflect that there was a short paragraph there and you deleted it; I added a POV tag to reflect that deletion and you deleted the POV tag twice; I asked you to come up with a compromise edit, and you refused; I added a well-documented criticism section there that excluded all of the sources you found objectionable (even though I disagreed with your objections) with references to both sides of the controversy and you deleted it without discussion; and I have now attempted a third version. Your criticism of Overlawyered is not well-taken, because you have had no problems with using "political" sources when you agreed with them.[11], [12], [13]. Meanwhile, you have been insulting to me regularly[14], and reverted edits of mine that had nothing to do with criticism of Mr. Baron.[15] Please WP:AGF and avoid personal attacks. -- TedFrank 16:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not go by a real name here. You are violating WIkipedia rules. Again, you have a problem here and I am going to escalate it. Your attempt to discredit me and to dig and print personal information is going to get you in serious trouble, and I am going to make sure of it. You can disagree all you like. And by the way you are not in a courtroom,. You had a very long diatribe, which I deleted. Overlawyered is a highly political site, and I will produce, in arbitration or wherever it goes, ample proof. Also, your logic leaves something to be desired,. WE are talking about this article, not about me, not about another article. This one. Your continued harassment is noted.Jance 18:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about this article. Your argument is that Overlawyered is inappropriate because it's "highly political", but you use highly political sources all of the time. In any event, Overlawyered is not cited here: Walter Olson is, and he is a reliable source, especially given that the cite is to what Walter Olson says. Do you have a comment about my NPOV edit or did you just want to threaten me? -- TedFrank 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I think Mr. Frank is spot on with his observations re. both the validity of the sources and the importance of them in re. to the very publicized events re. Budd, Baron & Associates. Ted Olson's piece & some of these other mainstream journalistic sources dismissed as overly political by Jance truly flesh out these events.Droliver 02:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's no objection, I've removed Frederick Baron from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics. One of the users was blocked. --Sigma 7 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No objection. The problem came solely from that single editor's ownership of the article. Two other RFC/P requests are related to the same editor's tactics. -- TedFrank 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Move (from Frederick Baron)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed moving this to Fred Baron - apparently this is the name he uses for himself and is the most common usage in the press. Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Fred Baron does, in fact, go by "Fred," not Frederick. BrownHornet21 (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - see Bill Gates, Mike Read, Jack Lemmon, etc etc. Tevildo (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - commonly known as Fred Baron. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Kelly tried but failed just do the move because the existing redirect had an irrelevant history (a BLP attack added below the redirect code after the R.H. scandal broke). I've deleted the irrelevant history, so this should now be possible for any editor to do once they are confident there is consensus. GRBerry 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.