Talk:James D. Zirin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reliable vs unreliable websites

https://kentpresents.org/presenters/james-zirin.php This website is perfectly reliable to use as a reference in the article. Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

[1] This is just semantics. Is a fellow or has been? Lacypaperclip (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Does it have editorial controls and a gatekeeping process? Is it sourced by other RS? Also, I'm not sure past versus present tense is a question of "just semantics." We have an entire section on time-dependent statements at WP:MOSBIO. If he's no longer a Fellow we should not be claiming he "is a Fellow". We simply can't play fast and loose with BLPs - I'm not sure why this is a point of contention? Chetsford (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What are some of these sources?

We have some sources that are just the subject's name and claimed title. For instance -

• a past member of the advisory board of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

- what kind of source is "Zirin, James. "Boasrd Member" Is it a magazine, website, newspaper, book, government document? Did the subject personally declare this to the editor? It uses a web source template but contains no URL. This isn't the only source like this - I've tried to remove most of them ... am I missing something or is there an issue with correct WP:RS here? Chetsford (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I note these ... unusual ... references were added by the subject of this article himself [2]. Chetsford (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Disruption at this article by user Chetsford

The constant removal of perfectly good references added now by three different editors has become disruptive. There is a consensus by other editors that the references are okay. Your constant removal of sources and leaving cn tags over and over and over again is tiring and disruptive. Please stop or you will be looking at having to answer for your disruptive behavior at ANI. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Jzirin, FloridaArmy to this discussion as editors who have added perfectly good references to this artiicle. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

[3] (→‎Career: " Zirin, James. "Boasrd Member" is not a source ... asserting he serves on the board as proof of service on the board is not a documentary source)

Semantics again for the sake of disruption. Lacypaperclip (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

A primary ref is not a good source in this context when it's not supported by an independent source and especially in this case, with a high ranking position, it would be reported by indpendent RS. You vastly misunderstand how referencing works and in this case, as it's a BLP and has been contested it should not be added back until a discussion has taken place. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Primefac previously advised us both to focus on collaboration and I think that's good advice. Let's work on discussing edits rather than ominously declaring "[you will have] to answer" [4] for this or that or starting accusatorial threads on article Talk pages. Sound good? Anyway, back on subject - how is simply putting the name of the subject of the article in a citation tag a "perfectly good reference?" In the discussion I started just two sections above this one I asked that question and would love to get an answer in case I'm missing something (which is possible!). Thank you for your work here and your willingness to collaborate. Chetsford (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

::I took some time to read over all of this. Of course a primary source is not the best, but a better plan would be to leave a notation that a better source is needed. Removal of a source and replacing it with a cn tag seems a bit of overkill. Repeatedly doing so after different editors add sources to the same sections does seem disruptive to me. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you realize the "different editor" in question was the actual person* James Zirin (who has returned to us after having been recently blocked by Seraphimblade for making legal threats) adding a "source" into the article about himself? And that the "source" was just his name spelled out? (e.g."Chetsford is king of the world." [source: Chetsford]) See: [5] (*or a person claiming to be) Chetsford (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford In that case, perhaps this is something that needs to go through OTRS. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Great point, Chrissymad. Ultimately, it would be great if Zirin could reveal himself to us in this discussion instead of just pushing through edits as he just did again a few seconds ago! Chetsford (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford I've dropped an additional COI warning in any case. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Chrissymad Thanks for sticking at this! It took awhile but we finally got the claim that all his books were bestsellers removed so I think - if we tag team this - we can probably get the pep rally under a bit of control! Chetsford (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:TAGTEAM is not a positive thing. Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus.. Please explain? Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Chetsford what does get the pep rally under a bit of control mean? Bythebooklibrary (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of striking comments from two sockpuppets as recommended by WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Chetsford (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Op-Ed Lists

Should the list of op-eds be presented in the form of a bulleted list (see:[6]) or in prose form (see: [7])? Do we need an comprehensive list of all of the subject's letters to the editor and op-eds at all? Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all / don't list Prose per MOS:LISTBASICS and general readability; a bulleted list looks like a resume delete all per Alfie and SMcandish Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Prose, and while primary sources (the op-eds themselves) may be used in some cases to verify existence, we need not present a comprehensive list of every publication, which borders on fluff, trivia, and promotion (verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion). Perhaps a half dozen of the most prominent or most written-for outlets can be mentioned, with the understanding that those readers seeking more info can simply go to the author's website. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• List There was an issue when the list was written previously in prose. At first an editor complained when there no references listed at all for any of the op-ed pieces. Then several, but not all were properly referenced. At that time an editor put citation needed tags on every op-ed piece that did not have a reference. References were then added so each piece had at least one reference. Sometime after that the same editor who complained that there were no references then compacted the references into one giant, hard to read reference which made it appear that the article had fewer references in total. I think the list looks much neater and is easier to read, plus the reader can easily choose which reference they may wish to read. Regarding LISTBASICS or ONUS, I would say that in this particular case we should make it easier for the reader to choose which reference he prefers to read. I therefore invoke WP:IAR. The author has written over 100 op ed pieces, and the few that are listed are only a small sample of them. Lacypaperclip (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• List The list format makes it easier to read. The way it was before looked very clumsy. I vote with Lacy and say ignore the rules, especially if it makes readability easier for the readers. They are why we do all this, right? Bythebooklibrary (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is: how would this article have appeared in a printed encyclopedia, with professional editors, before Wikipedia catered to the whims of the masses. I don't think it's breaking the backs of readers to read a paragraph, nor even assume they absolutely must know that Zirin wrote an op-ed for, say, the short-lived New York Sun. The way I see it, a good article will focus not so much on what a person has done, but what they are most known for doing. So per WP:NPOV, we should cover the most notable aspects of a subjects career in rough proportion to their prominence, not mere existence, and I advocate prose over list for matters of style and to reduce the appearance of showcasing and excessive info. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Prose Only include important ones - we're WP:NOTDIRECTORY of newspapers he's written for. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Prose (Summoned by bot) Normally I prefer lists as they are clear and easy, btu in this case I do not see a large difference between the two in favor of List, and I think the prose format looks and reads just fine. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Don't list them. This version [8] is how we normally do this. Some writers have 50+ such credits, and columnists have even more, hundreds.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Prose - The content is better formatted as prose and per MOS:LISTBULLET, "Do not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." Meatsgains (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Delete them all (via RFC) Without context, this is just someone's CV. Prose vs List, it's still a load of largely irrelevant, somewhat promotional information. Instead, I suggest we pick a couple of the most noteworthy op-eds/publications and comment on them. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 19:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Note - striking User:Lacypaperclip and User:Bythebooklibrary's !votes per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Chetsford (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Omit entirely (Summoned by bot) Excessive detail per WP:NOT. This is not a CV. Frankly in examining this article I have doubts as to its notability, but I see there just was an AfD. Coretheapple (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Delete all (Summoned by bot) Neither the links to the Wikipedia articles of these publications nor the links to the articles in question do anything to bolster the content of this article. The list reads like a list of accomplishments, which is unsuitable here. Bradv 05:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
• Prose. Listing a few notable publications someone has contributed to is relevant to understanding them but spreading these out over a list gives it undue weight in pure length terms. There's certainly no reason to be comprehensive. Mortee (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on RfC question

• Comment This rfc is already flawed as not a neutral statement ie 'exhaustive list" and do we need the list at all pointed to get people to get rid of the list. By the way MOS is only a guideline. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. In deference to this, I've struck "exhaustive" and replaced it with "comprehensive." Chetsford (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

rfc is still flawed, biased, and non-netral. You have placed two separate issues in one rfc. That cannot be done. It is out of process. Lacypaperclip (talk)

Noted. I'm sorry you feel that way. Chetsford (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

If you really want an RFC on this you probably need to start over. Simply striking exhaustive but leaving it there for people to read is biased. Only one issue can be done at a time, and the statement has to be completely neutral and un-biased. You may need to seek some help. Lacypaperclip (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I note your concerns. Chetsford (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This RFC is flawed with a non-neutral statement! Please see discussion below. Does the RFC need to be closed and started over again with a neutral statement. Thank you for your time. Lacypaperclip (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

moving below There's no special role for admins in RfCs - there's no need contact them; you can raise concerns about RfC neutrality; it looks like it has been fixed so there's no need for more discussion. The RfC closer can take the neutrality of the statement into consideration however it looks like it has been fixed quickly before any real comments so doesn't seem to be a big issue. An RfC can raise any question - include two separate issues, whatever it is, it is merely a request for more comments. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

As a note, have removed the strikethroughed word as unnecessary. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I understand it, normal practice for anyone notable but not actually famous is that we list every published book If there are books we normally don't list anything lesser, if the notability depends only on the less-than-book works we list only those which are specially significant by some rational criterion.

And normal practice for quotes from book reviews is that they are included in the footnote, note the text., e.g. "the book has been reviewed by the ABC<ref> and the DEF <ref> . Furthermore the quotes cannot be cherry-picked to select the laudatory part. All book reviews, even the most negative, normally make a point of saying something positive . DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

I have made certain minor changes which are editorial in nature, do not change the sense and are not promotional or controversial.None of the changes could conceivably qualify as a COI.

For example, I was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York." That was my job title. "working in the Southern District of New York is not fully descriptive as I also worked elsewhere.

I also added a link reference to my talk show website www.jimzirinconversations.com.I added the name David J. Dickson who authored the review of The Mother Court in the Scottish Journal for completeness and accuracy. It was listed as "Your name."

I hope that you will approve these edits. Jim Zirin (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just a point of clarification, you changed the text from reading that you were an AUSA "working in" the "U.S. District Court" to be that you were an AUSA "for the District Court." This, of course, is false as U.S. District Courts don't employ AUSAs, the Office of the U.S. Attorney in the XYZ District does. After I changed it [9], you then proceeded to revert my edit [10]. Though, as Spintendo notes, since you've already gone ahead and implemented the changes this is really more a notification than a request. Chetsford (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed that to "Assistant US Attorney in Manhattan" which conveys the same thought but in less stilted language than is currently there. P.S. Hi Chetsford! Great DYK. Glad to have worked on it. Coretheapple (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant, that's perfect Coretheapple! Thanks much for taking care of it. Chetsford (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Reply:

 Declined COI edit requests are just that — requests. If you have already made these changes, then they are no longer requests. They are now edits. Have you already made these changes? Please clarify. Spintendo      15:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Merge in the stubs on his books so we don't just AfD them

The Mother Court and Supremely Partisan should move to this article, per recommendations at the barely-survived (no-consensus) AfD against the Zirin article. These book articles would not pass, and will be AfDed if not merged. Merging them also reduces the likelihood of another AfD against the Zirin article, by consolidating material and external sources on him, and even reduces the WP:PROMO / WP:COI issues, by reducing the number of questionable pages pushing this guy and his work in a non-neutral manner. Plus it'll make the content easier to police for WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY issues on the part of regular editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose There's nothing really at these two articles to merge over except an acknowledgment he wrote the books, which we already have. The rest of the content is pull quotes of reviews which are problematic there, and would be somewhat promotional and undue here, IMO. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

  The content will be easier to manage into policy compliance after a merge; that's much of the point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't really see that there's salvageable content which could reasonably be merged. Chetsford (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Don't merge The Mother Court - it satisfies WP:BOOKCRIT criteria #1, should not be taken to AfD, and would likely survive if it were taken there. I don't find the ease-of-policing argument compelling. It isn't a very good book article, but potential sources were identified during the AfD discussion about the author, and merging it into a biography of the author is not the way to encourage a better book article. No opinion on whether Supremely Partisan should be merged. It may narrowly satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT criteria #1, but there may be insufficient source material to construct an article that can stand on its own. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for a Review for Neutrality by an editor with a proven record of neutrality

I'd like a review for neutrality to be done by an editor with a proven record of neutrality tpuell (talk) 7:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC-4)

WHY WAS THIS DECLINED? AND WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpuell (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove Close Connection Template Message

James David Zirin is an American lawyer, author, and television talk-show host. His biography is of interest to his clients, viewers and readers. I just made some minor stylistic edits and reviewed this for neutrality of view point. Even though he himself is the main contributor here, it seems to me there isn't any issue. I cannot find anything that would qualify as self promotion or advertising. This very talk page also seems to support this point of view, since after February 2018 no further requests for cleanups were made. Please approve and remove the template message.

tpuell (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC-4)

 Declined I'd like the review for neutrality to be done by an editor with a proven record of neutrality, not a new user that we know little about and has only edited this article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a neutral editor as I !voted to have this article deleted in the AfD discussion, however, I agree it is very much improved. That said, given the history of this article (created as an autobiography from a user censured for making legal threats and subsequently shepherded here by multiple blocked sockpuppets) I think any review would have to be a very detailed, source-by-source review. The initial iteration of this article frequently slapped citations to statements of illustrious achievements that, upon close examination, the sources didn't actually support. The current version of this article uses a number of offline sources or walled sources (e.g. the COFR membership directory). This, in itself, is fine but due to the history of source falsification these need to be individually checked against paper records and this is a rare instance where AGF is not warranted (we've already AGF'ed once and our assumption was proved wrong). Specifically, among other things, I would like to see clarification that the subject of the article was an Assistant United States Attorney and not a Special Assistant United States Attorney.
That said, I don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape and our ultimate objective should be to de-template articles, not use templates as a scarlet letter proving past misdeeds. Chetsford (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This should serve as sufficient proof of Zirin's having served as Assistant U.S. Attorney: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/383/843/429292/ and this as being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/membership/roster

Again, I request a review by an editor with a proven record of neutrality Tpuell (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Better source needed tag

Hello, again. User:Spintendo, thank you for your recent article improvements. I noticed you added a "better source needed" tag to the Career section. Would any of the following work for you?

• https://www1.nyc.gov/site/ccpc/about/commissioners.page
• https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2014/05/from_red_scare_to/
• https://www.nycourts.gov/library/ad4/datas/november2014.pdf

There are other court records online identifying me as such, but I thought I'd start here and see if any of these helped. Also, if there's no more problematic text in the article, are you willing to remove the "connected contributor" tag per my request above? I've asked for feedback at the neutral point of view noticeboard and WikiProject Biography, and the article has received a series of improvements recently but the tag remains. Thanks again for your help. Jim Zirin (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the clarification was that editors wanted to know, in particular Chetsford, who earlier asked I would like to see clarification that the subject of the article was an Assistant United States Attorney and not a Special Assistant United States Attorney.. The sources provided above are not SDNY court records — those are all excerpts provided by the subject of the article, two of them in relation to a publication they have produced — none of them come specifically from the SDNY which is the only institution to speak with any authority on the subject, as they are the ones who employed the subject. With regards to the {{COI}} template, It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case Praxidicae — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You might try contacting them by placing a new message on their talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  21:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My concerns per above were satisfied. I'll defer to others though, regarding theirs. Chetsford (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The difference between the two positions I take it was that one was a salaried position while the other was a volunteer. Since that position being held was long ago, it's reasonable to believe that there wouldn't be too many sources to find, although this document does state the job position, there are apparently not many others to cite (that was the only case they worked on i suppose). If your concerns are fine with the already existing references, then I'll go ahead and remove the better citation needed inline template. Regards,  Spintendo  00:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Close connection tag

Hello, again. I'm Jim, the subject of this article, and I've updated my profile page to reflect this as well. I've had difficulty making and suggesting improvements to this page in the past, though my understanding of the site's guidelines was fairly limited then. I understand now that I shouldn't edit the article directly and should work with other editors to discuss and make changes on my behalf.

To start, I'd like to discuss with others how to remove the "close connection" tag. From what I can follow in the conversations here, I understand that someone should review the page for neutrality, but there's been no movement since Chetsford said the following in June: "I don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape and our ultimate objective should be to de-template articles, not use templates as a scarlet letter proving past misdeeds."

Might there be someone willing to review? If not, perhaps there are other places I could go to submit a request for help? Thanks. Jim Zirin (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Chetsford, I've tried in earnest to have the close connection tag removed by seeking review from uninvolved editors. I've posted at WikiProject Biography and the neutral point of view noticeboard. User:Finell and User:Spintendo have made a series of improvements, which I appreciate, but the tag remains. Given your familiarity with the discussions on this page, might you be able to recommend another place to seek help or even remove the tag? I saw User:Spintendo has already linked to User:Praxidicae (who added the tag) below, but I'll extend an additional invite to this discussion as well. Any pointers for resolving this issue would be appreciated. Jim Zirin (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll follow-up in both places, but you're on the right track. Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Chetsford, Thanks, and glad to hear. Do you mean you'll follow up at WikiProject Biography and/or the neutral point of view noticeboard? I just want to make sure I'm following the right discussions. Thanks again for any help resolving this issue. Jim Zirin (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Please let me know if I'm overlooking, but I have not seen any updates to any discussions. I'm still learning to navigate Wikipedia and don't want to miss anything. Template:COI says "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." User:Praxidicae, can you please explain what is non-neutral about the article?

The template also says, "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." User:Finell, given your recent improvements to the article (thanks!), do you have any thoughts on the appropriateness of the tag? Jim Zirin (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, again. I've been working to have the close connection tag removed for a while now. On August 16, I posted at the neutral point of view noticeboard, and on August 23, I posted at WikiProject Biography. After inviting involved editors multiple times here, I reached out to User:Chetsford on September 20, then posted a message on User:Praxidicae's user talk page on September 27. I was optimistic when I was told I was "on the right track" above, but the tag remains and no editors have identified any non-neutral content in the article. I've tried in earnest to get feedback or help from involved editors, so now I feel I must invite other editors to the discussion. @SMcCandlish and Worldbruce: You've both contributed to discussions on this page before. Are one of you willing to review this discussion and help decide if the tag can be removed? Thanks. Jim Zirin (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Source for book release

Hello, again. I see another editor has added the sentence, "In September 2019, he published Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits." However, no citation was included. I'd like to offer this source, a review by Publishers Weekly, to verify the book's release. I believe PW is a reliable source. I'm hoping an editor can update the page to the following: "In September 2019, he published Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits."

This Bloomberg News piece also verifies the book's release. Thanks, Jim Zirin (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 17-SEP-2019

  ISBN added  

• The {{ISBN}} and {{OCLC}} numbers for the publication were added to the article.

Regards,  Spintendo  17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I added another source as well. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to remove "close connection" tag

Hi, Jim here again (the subject of this article). As I've mentioned previously, in the past I've had difficulty making and suggesting improvements to this article, when my understanding of Wikipedia's rules was fairly limited. I now understand that I shouldn't edit the article directly and should work with other editors to discuss and update the page on my behalf. In addition to submitting a couple requests for editors to review using the "request edit" template, I've been working to remove the 'close connection' tag at the top of the page for months. Unfortunately, the tag remains despite all my efforts. I'm listing out what I've done so far below, to show my efforts for editors in case there's a step I've missed:

• Template:COI says, "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." I do not see a section explaining why this tag was added to the page. Per below notes, I've also asked several times if the editor who added the tag can identify problematic content so that I can help with it.
• On June 3, User:Chetsford wrote, "That said, I don't have any philosophical opposition to removal of the Close Contributor template if someone discovers that the article is now in a reasonable shape and our ultimate objective should be to de-template articles, not use templates as a scarlet letter proving past misdeeds."
• On August 13, I started the "Close connection tag" section above, asking for editors to look into neutrality concerns and remove the tag if there are none currently.
• On August 16, I asked for help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, but

no editors replied.

• On August 23, I posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, but

no editors replied.

• On September 3, I returned to the "Close connection tag" section above seeking help from User:Chetsford again, as well as User:Praxidicae, who added the tag. Chetsford said they'd follow up at the noticeboard and/or WikiProject Biography, and said I was "on the right track", but I did not see any replies on either page.
• On September 10, I specifically asked User:Praxidicae to identify any non-neutral content. Also, I invited User:Finell for feedback since they made a series of improvements to the page. Neither editor replied to my request for assistance.
• On September 20, I posted a request for help on User:Chetsford's talk page. No reply.
• On September 27, I posted a request for help on User:Praxidicae's talk page. No reply.
• On October 2, I returned to the above section inviting User:SMcCandlish and User:Worldbruce for feedback, since they participated in a separate discussion on this talk page. This was my attempt to bring uninvolved editors (specifically regarding the 'close connection' tag) to the discussion. No reply from either editor.

If the editor who added the tag is not willing to discuss, the tag is not meant to be a scarlet letter, and no other editors can identify problematic content, then I'm lost as to why the tag is still necessary. I've tried in earnest to seek assistance from involved and uninvolved editors at a noticeboard, a WikiProject, and at user talk pages, but no one seems available to help. I recognize Wikipedia editors are volunteers and this may not be a priority, but I'm trying to take the proper steps to remove the tag and I'm running out of ideas. The purpose of this summary is to invite involved editors yet again, and to outline why I believe the tag should be removed for another request for help at the neutral point of view noticeboard. I'm willing to take steps to address specific concerns.

Can an editor please review the article for non-neutral content, and remove the tag if appropriate? Thank you. Jim Zirin (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. I’m removing the tag as looking over the article, and talk page, it looks like the issues are likely resolved. If someone re-tags they should be willing to engage to resolve the assertion.

@Jzirin:, please read over WP:RS, the more exceptional the claim {example: Person X is the best foo in the world.}, the more exceptional the sourcing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Gleeanon409, thank you for removing the tag. I am glad to see this finally resolved. Jim Zirin (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Jim Zirin, do you have any other concerns? We don't automatically make our biography articles say whatever the person they are about wants them to say, but we definitely do take it into account. Especially useful is letting us know if we got any facts wrong such as wrong dates. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Nope, we're supposed to retain this tag on the talk page. It is not an alert to the reader (of the article) that there's something wrong with the content, it's a notice to other editors that the subject of the piece or someone closely connected to the subject is among its editors, and it serves that purpose exactly as it is supposed to. There is no "scarlet letter" aspect, but the fact that Jzirin remains active on this talk page and activistic about its development, in ways that indicate insufficient understanding of Wikipedia and how it operates, is precisely why this tag needs to remain here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, this section was concerned with the tag on the article, not the talk page as far as I could tell. I think it’s been resolved for now and the user is aware that they need to use the talk page instead of editing the article directly. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I agree that the content of the article has enough watchers now that COI shouldn't be an issue. Didn't even realize the article itself had such a tag until recently. 01:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

Hello again, I would like to add some details about the reviews received for my book, Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits. I am hoping that an editor can update the page to add the following favorable reviews: a review by the Washington Post, , a review by the London Times, and a review by the Spectator.. Thanks, Jim Zirin (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 03-DEC-2019

  Clarification requested  

• To expedite your request, it would help if you could provide the following information:

1. Please state each specific desired change and accompanying reference in the form of verbatim statements which can then be added to the article (if approved) by the reviewer.
2. The exact location where the desired claims are to be placed should be given.
3. Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed should also be given.
4. Reasons should be provided for each change.

• In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, the four required items are shown as an example:

Sample edit request

1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length." 2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section: "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length." 3. Using as the reference: Paramjit Harinath (2019). The Sun. Academic Press. p. 1. 4. Reason for change being made: "The previously given diameter was incorrect."

• Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with all four items from your request. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  12:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reviews for Plaintiff in Chief

Please add the following claim with regard to Plaintiff in Chief as the final sentence of the first paragraph under the heading Author: "The book was favorably reviewed in the Washington Post, , the London Times, and the Spectator.."

The applicable references are indicated.

The reason for the change is that the reviews were not available at the time of publication.

Thanks, Jim Zirin (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Inserted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Source for two new Opeds in The Hill

Hello again,

Please cancel the prior two requests for which I apologize. Since publication I have written two new op eds in The Hill which I would like to add to the page. I would like to add the details. The reason for the change is that I had obviously not yet written these articles at the time of publication. The new material would appear in the second full paragraph under the sub caption Author after the reference to the Huffington Post. I'm hoping that an editor can update the page to the following: Please insert "The Hill" with the two citations appearing below.and Thanks, and again my apologies.Jim Zirin (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

The request above asks for two items:

1. "Please cancel the prior two requests..."
2. "Please insert 'The Hill' with the two citations appearing below."

• These two requests are difficult to understand, namely, because the earlier recommendation for using the format of "Please change x to y" has not been used. Please clarify.
• When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!
  

Regards,  Spintendo  16:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Two op ed articles recently written for The Hill

Hello again,

I would like to offer another citation for two op ed articles I have written for The Hill. .

The reason for the request is that I had not written the articles at the time of publication.

The insert would appear in the second full paragraph under the heading Author after the reference to The Huffington Post and before the reference to The Nation.

Thanks.Jim Zirin (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409:, thank you for adding these sources. I've worked to format the citations so the error messages are removed:

• <ref>{{cite web |last1=Zirin |first1=James D. |title=The shifting impeachment positions of Jonathan Turley |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/473227-the-shifting-impeachment-positions-of-jonathan-turley |website=The Hill |accessdate=December 19, 2019 |date=December 5, 2019}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web |last1=Zirin |first1=James D. |title=Will the Supreme Court protect the rule of law, or Donald Trump? |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474749-will-supreme-court-protect-the-rule-of-law-or-donald-trump |website=The Hill |accessdate=December 19, 2019 |date=December 16, 2019}}</ref>

Are you willing to replace the incorrectly formatted citations (#26 and #27) with these correctly formatted citations? Thank you for your help. Jim Zirin (talk)19:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 DoneGleeanon 409 (talk)03:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC).

@Gleeanon409:, thanks again for your help. Jim Zirin (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Merge book stubs here

It's been several years now and this trio of WP:COI-infused micro-stubs has not improved even slightly. With all their content combined (and more easily watchlistable by proper editors for any further attempts to misuse Wikipedia as a promotional platform), we might end up with an at least marginally encyclopedic article. What we've got right now is Zirin WP:GAMING our system to give himself three promotional articles at once:

• James D. Zirin: Narrowly survived deletion, at a "no consensus" AfD on 4 January 2018.
• The Mother Court: Survived deletion, at a "keep" AfD on 3 June 2018. The basis for the keep was reviews in various reputable publications; however, most of these reviews are not very in-depth, so WP:SIGCOV / WP:BOOKCRIT is actually in some doubt.
• Supremely Partisan: Narrowly survived deletion at a "keep" AfD on 11 June 2018. While the reasoning was the same as above, the close was actually faulty and should have gone to WP:DRV (closer falsely claimed "WP:BOOKCRIT certainly appears to be met, and nobody is really arguing otherwise", when the central point of the AfD was an argument otherwise, as most of the reviews were either not in depth, when in major publications, or were more in-depth but in specialized publications that make a point of reviewing every single new book within that speciality, making them also rote reviews that do not actually help establish notability).

While AfD may have collectively declined to do anything about these non-encyclopedic, overly promotional blobs of text, which appear destined to never improve, that does not tie our hands editorially. We can merge these into a more encyclopedic and at least Start-class article, instead of shotgunning tiny stubs all over the place. Each of the book articles will make a reasonable section in the bio article, and the redirects left behind can retain the book-specific categories.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Mr. Zirin fails notability guidelines. He is not well known anywhere, and his books do not sell well. Any random person can publish a few books and marry an heiress, and does not thereby become sufficiently notable to warrant a BLP wikipedia article. 163.191.255.9 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

AFD is thisaway. Primefac (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)