- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ater Wynne
edit* ... that Portland, Oregon, law firm Ater Wynne paid an $8 million settlement due to a former client's ponzi scheme?
- Reviewed: Hindu Temple of Dayton Aboutmovies (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Created by Aboutmovies (talk). Self nominated at 06:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC).
Doesn't this fall perilously close to resembling a hook that focuses "on negative aspects of living individuals"? The article goes on to say that "Ater Wynne had been Grifphon's law firm for a few years prior to the collapse of the scheme, though the firm's attorneys were unaware of the illegal activities by the company", but the hook doesn't make this known. Wouldn't it be better to focus on a less negative, less controversial hook here? Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. First, the negative aspects part is qualified by "unduly", and frankly without this recent burst of news related to this, the firm is not particularly notable - as in it is not undue weight. Secondly, this is a business entity (an LLP), not an individual, so it does not particularly fall into that rule. Thirdly, settlements by their terms always note that no liability is admitted, as in within the legal field we do not necessarily consider settlements to be negative, which it should also be noted this was a civil lawsuit, taking this even further from being particularly negative. If you read the source articles for the info, you get a better idea as to why there was a settlement, which due to UNDUE cannot really be included in the Wikipedia article. Lastly, as to the hook not making it known, that is sort of the point of hooks: "likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". If we explain everything in the hook, then no point in reading the article. But if you have a better hook, feel free to propose one. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's too many red flags here. First, the hook says that the firm paid $8 million in a settlement, but the source you used says the firm agreed to pay it and will pay it, but the settlement hasn't actually been formalized yet, and won't be subject to approval by a Judge for several months. So, this hook is premature. You also say that the firm is not particularly notable, and that's another red flag. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving them this kind of added visibility, particularly regarding a settlement that hasn't actually happened yet. And BLP still applies, even if the subject is a law firm. Please see WP:BLPGROUP. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- As to pay or will pay, that can be fixed with "agreed to pay". As to notability, take it to AfD, as that is the process if you think they are not notable. I didn't say they were not notable, just not super notable. If they meet the threshold, that's all that matters, not that they are on the same level as the largest law firm in the world. As to BLP, read what you cite to: "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." That's the first sentence. This firm is an LLP, which is a legal entity, thus per your cite, is not subject to the BLP rules. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Alt * ... that Portland, Oregon, law firm Ater Wynne agreed to pay an $8 million settlement due to a former client's ponzi scheme?
"The hook should refer to established facts that are not likely to change". The settlement has not been formalized. And, "hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided". Try another one. Viriditas (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's go with the third opinion, since despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary you still want to talk about the negative aspect. "Not likely to change" would be this, as settlements that have been announced are not likely to change. That's why they are announced, as you usually do not announce ones in negotiations. Not to mention, they did agree to pay, and that can't change, as they already agreed. Now could it fall apart and maybe then end up not paying, but for time immortal they agreed to pay. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy for someone to take a look, but IMO, this should not be at DYK. I don't have to take this to AfD to observe that the hook isn't notable (nor encyclopedic). The information is cited to local sources, indicating a local event. Compound this with the fact that as an editor, you seem to write about Portland and legal topics. This could also indicate a COI or POV that could lead to a "revenge" hook. After all, the sources indicate that Ater Wynne says they were not "aware Jawed's hedge fund was a scam...But under Oregon securities laws, professionals who offer material aid to a securities offering 'have a higher duty to perform reasonable due diligence and investigation.'" The sources also indicate that no evidence has been presented indicating the law firm was aware of the acts committed by Jawed. Finally, the settlement won't even be addressed in court until July 24, so it's not even a done deal. This is a negative hook about living people, and these individuals are mentioned in the sources you've used. I've honestly never seen this many red flags in my life. This hook should not run under any circumstance. It violates notability, NPOV, BLP, and the most basic rules governing hooks. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you think this violates all of those policies are some red flags for me. Read NPOV and BLP, and we certainly can have "negative" things, they just have to be sources properly. As to notability, you also need to read about that, as the hook does not have to be notable, just the underlying article, which is. The sources are not "local", as those are considered regional (see WP:CORP at WP:AUD). As to any sort of revenge issue, you might want to be careful as that is a borderline personal attack, as it focuses on me as a person and not my editing, and it is not particularly accurate. I write a lot about Hillsboro and Oregon, plus Liberia, plus Law, plus buildings, and am one of the top 100 editors by volume with absolutely no history of any revenge or blocks and have approaching 300 DYKs to go with a bunch of GA and a little FA content. And, again, the hook is accurate even if they never pay, as they did agree to pay. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- As to pay or will pay, that can be fixed with "agreed to pay". As to notability, take it to AfD, as that is the process if you think they are not notable. I didn't say they were not notable, just not super notable. If they meet the threshold, that's all that matters, not that they are on the same level as the largest law firm in the world. As to BLP, read what you cite to: "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." That's the first sentence. This firm is an LLP, which is a legal entity, thus per your cite, is not subject to the BLP rules. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- There's too many red flags here. First, the hook says that the firm paid $8 million in a settlement, but the source you used says the firm agreed to pay it and will pay it, but the settlement hasn't actually been formalized yet, and won't be subject to approval by a Judge for several months. So, this hook is premature. You also say that the firm is not particularly notable, and that's another red flag. Wikipedia shouldn't be giving them this kind of added visibility, particularly regarding a settlement that hasn't actually happened yet. And BLP still applies, even if the subject is a law firm. Please see WP:BLPGROUP. Viriditas (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. First, the negative aspects part is qualified by "unduly", and frankly without this recent burst of news related to this, the firm is not particularly notable - as in it is not undue weight. Secondly, this is a business entity (an LLP), not an individual, so it does not particularly fall into that rule. Thirdly, settlements by their terms always note that no liability is admitted, as in within the legal field we do not necessarily consider settlements to be negative, which it should also be noted this was a civil lawsuit, taking this even further from being particularly negative. If you read the source articles for the info, you get a better idea as to why there was a settlement, which due to UNDUE cannot really be included in the Wikipedia article. Lastly, as to the hook not making it known, that is sort of the point of hooks: "likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article". If we explain everything in the hook, then no point in reading the article. But if you have a better hook, feel free to propose one. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Please come up with another hook and review the wording in the current article for accuracy. If another reviewer disagrees and thinks this hook is acceptable, then they are welcome to look at the above discussion and share their input. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that chief justice Thomas Balmer was once the managing partner of American law firm Ater Wynne? --Storye book (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
