Talk:Evan Mandery

message: Mandery graduated from Harvard University in 1989 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Social Studies, and then went on to graduate from Harvard Law School as Juris Doctor in 1992. His first book was The Campaign: Rudy Giuliani, Ruth Messinger, Al Sharpton, and the Race to Be Mayor of New York City (1999, Perseus Books), an account of his time working for Ruth Messinger on  the 1997 New York City mayoral election. He has also published numerous articles dealing with the application and ethics of the death penalty.
:I've tagged the 'fact' re. $3000 as ref required.  Chzz  ►  01:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Career

message: This topic/section is continued at the topic/section Pending on Whether to Delete COI Tag on this talk page. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  continuing on death penalty, poker, and possible COI 

message: I have a COI, so I don't want to edit this article.
I previously questioned a poker win amount as unsourced and someone tagged it (see this talk page). Someone else removed the tag without saying so in the Edit Summary and without supplying a source. In the present paragraph on poker, the first citation is for a dead link and the second is the wrong URL (it should be http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-players/21894-evan-mandery/results/overall) and "approximately $60,000" should be restated for the sourced total.
A Works or Publications section perhaps could be added, to list what Mandery has published, including academic works.
Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is continued at the topic/section Pending on Whether to Delete COI Tag on this talk page. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  poker again and works 

message: This discussion is at an editor's talk page, but may be continued here. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI basically 

message: The latest edits are an improvement and hopefully more will be done. One item not mentioned on this talk page and resulting from the new edits is that, because infoboxes are not accessible to users with visual impairments who depend on their computers to read pages aloud for them, the infobox should have only information that also is in the article's text. In this case, that's his spouse's name and the number of his children. Thus, that should be worked into the article, if sourceable, or deleted from the infobox. Sourceability is required even for information not likely to be challenged; if a source does not exist, even if it's not cited, it isn't supposed to be in, but one should wonder how a non-COI editor would have that information without a source. It is legitimate information for the article and thence for the infobox. (I shouldn't do the editing, because of my COI, and I don't have the sourcing.) Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is continued at the topic/section Pending on Whether to Delete COI Tag on this talk page. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox accessibility and family 

message: I plan soon to ask that an uninvolved editor or admin review the article for deletion or resolution of the COI tagging. It may look like we (the latest editor and I) are working at cross-purposes, but we're not; we're just working nearly simultaneously and I'm not always online, so when something occurs to me I may have to wait until another day. At the moment, these issues, relevant to NPOV (neutral point of view), are evident:
* A citation is still needed for the "$3,500" statement, for which a Citation Needed-type template had been added and then deleted without explanation. If it is not sourced within Wikipedia's policies and gudelines, the statement should be deleted, because poker is rife with bluff and the size of past winnings would be part of bluff if not sourceable. All three sources cited in the article's Poker section appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. A player's self-report of winning probably would not meet them.
* The lifetime poker winnings are $57,472, according to the source cited, and I touched on this issue earlier. Rounding it to $60,000 is mathematically acceptable but I question whether it should be rounded to the nearest $10,000, which has a promotional-tone effect, or the nearest $1,000, thus to $57,000, in which case it can be described as "over $57,000" if that's preferred to an exact figure.
* The deletion of the Persondata template is puzzling, as its presence in all biographical articles is intended by the  documentation and Wikipedia:Persondata. If this article is an exception and should not have it, that should be explained.
* A promotional writing style is in various passages and the tone should be neutralized.
* A search for "Evan Mandery" in EbscoHost subscription database available at some libraries produces this (this information is correct but incomplete, more being in the databases Academic Search Premier, MasterFile Premier, PsycINFO, SocINDEX with Full Text, Humanities International Complete, and Readers' Guide Abstracts (H.W. Wilson), and possibly all are searchable in a single search within EbscoHost):
** He's a coauthor of The Expungement Myth., in Albany Law Review, 2011-2012, and he's asociate professor and chairperson, criminal justice department, John Jay. The latter can be added to the Career section, if still true, and apparently it is still true, per http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/profiles/criminal_justice.aspx?key=[email]=%27emandery@jjay.cuny.edu%27, as accessed today (that URL, however, if it is to go into Wikipedia, may have to be not linked but formatted with the "nowiki" tags displayed for the technical reason that the URL includes internal brackets). Anything in the Wikipedia article's lead should generally also be in the body, as the lead is a summary of the body, and, in this case, stating in the body that he's an associate professor would clarify what is meant by "professor" in the lead, a reasonable summary but potentially readable as inflationary if not clarified in the body.
** He's the author of:
*** Testing the Marshall Hypothesis and its Antithesis: The Effect of Biased Information on Death-Penalty Opinion., in Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law & Society, 2010
*** Commentary: Mercy and Contrition, in Criminal Law Bulletin, 2006
*** Federalism and the Death Penalty., in Albany Law Review, 2003
*** In Defense of Specific Proportionality Review, in Albany Law Review, 2002
*** Qualified Immunity or Absolute Immunity? The Moral Hazards of Extending Qualified Immunity to Lower-Level Public Officials, in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1994
** He may be a letter-writer to Criminal Law Bulletin, 2006, possibly stating a correction; it may be related to a letter in the same issue by Barry Latzer
** Reviews other than in Booklist, Publisher's Weekly, or Library Journal:
*** Q, in TLS (Times Literary Supplement (U.K.)) in 2012 (possibly, TLS content is avalable elsewhere, although thetimes.co.uk seems to have a paywall)
*** The Campaign, in Public Interest, 2000
** The Campaign was discussed in No Fems Allowed in the Fight Club., in The Village Voice, 1999.
* I have not searched any publication titles for possible controversies, although I don't expect much, if any. Controversies about the article's subject have to be covered, if sourced and assuming due weight.
Not everyone might have the free database access my public libraries offer, but it will take me longer to do the research and it might be better if done by a non-COI editor, although, when time permits, I can try to help at this talk page, if needed. Thanks for the work.
Nick Levinson (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw new edits. It is not a violation of the policy against promotion to state facts and attributed opinions, and any that were removed can be considered for restoration (I leave that to other editors). It is promotional tone and selectivity of only favorable content that are not allowed. But information, even if highly favorable, may be neutrally stated, as long as it meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: One item is left and that is that Mandery is "asociate professor and chairperson, criminal justice department, John Jay [College of Criminal Justice]. [That] ... can be added to the Career section, if still true, and apparently it is still true, per http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/profiles/criminal_justice.aspx?key=[email]=%27emandery@jjay.cuny.edu%27, as accessed ... [Sunday] (that URL, however, if it is to go into Wikipedia, may have to be not linked but formatted with the 'nowiki' tags displayed for the technical reason that the URL includes internal brackets). Anything in the Wikipedia article's lead should generally also be in the body, as the lead is a summary of the body, and, in this case, stating in the body that he's an associate professor would clarify what is meant by 'professor' in the lead, a reasonable summary but potentially readable as inflationary if not clarified in the body." You might have missed that in the first post above since it was included with another item and perhaps I should have separated it. I'll assume good faith and that this edit or something to similar effect will be included or that not including it will be adequately explained. In the meantime, I expect to request a review through the COI noticeboard momentarily, with an eye toward removing the  template from the article if the noticeboard posting results in a decision of satisfaction on point. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

text: It was in my notes for today but I was stuck on something else and have to get off the Internet now, so I'll probably go to the next step tomorrow or the next day. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm an admin, I'm here, and I'm so uninvolved I have absolutely no idea what any of this is about. So if you can, please give me a little bit of time to get my head around it all. Regards Manning (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  pending on whether to delete COI tag 

message: OK - there are some minor NPOV issues that could be addressed. 
*Mentioning every single review a book received is excessive, and does make the article seem a little promotional in tone. If the NYT has reviewed a book, it is superfluous to also mention a blog reference.
*Generally we do not characterise reviews as "good" or "positive", unless we are intending to present the full range of responses, including any negative reviews. The exception is when a book has received "universal acclaim", but that is a rare instance.
*Generally specific sections should exist only for areas where the subject is notable. In this case the subject is not notable for his poker career, so it should be only be briefly noted in a "career" or "personal life" section, and the stats (winnings etc) are unnecessary. As a comparison, see Craig_Ferguson#Personal_life - Ferguson is clearly notable for his comedy, television, and writing, but is not notable for being an aircraft pilot, so it only merits a brief mention under "personal life".
None of these NPOV issues are show-stoppers. 
As far as the COI, I'm still working on that, although I am not particularly disturbed by anything I've seen so far. Manning (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality review (admin)

message: I've now reviewed the COI situation using information provided to me off-wiki. I'm now quite satisfied that the COI tag can be removed. Manning (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: COI review

message: OK, after reviewing, I've cleaned up the article to make it more neutral.
# - Redundant references were removed. Where a fact had two or more refs, I removed the weaker ones, especially if they were of dubious value (eg. one was to a "blockshopper" website)
# - Low priority reviews were removed, such as Boise and I09
# - the poker section was deleted, as the subject is not notable for this. A note was added under "career". Likewise the Poker Player category was removed, this is only for notable players
# - different editions and translations were removed from the "books" section. We only mention the first edition of a book and do not list individual translations.
# - Academic papers were removed, these are only listed if the paper itself is notable (eg - won an award, or was the topic of secondary media coverage)
I note from above that an editor has stated that the claimed degree in social studies is not supported by the ref provided. If so, this should be removed, or provided with a reliable ref. "Blockshopper" is not a reliable reference in this case, such real estate services are under no obligation to verify the data they report.
Manning (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup