Talk:Lawrence R. Goldfarb

message: I have moved and renamed the SEC charges section to avoid giving it undue prominance (was at the top).  Location and titling is now consistant with other recent financial scandals.  I also added a reference for that section.  However much of the scandal section appears to be a copy/paste from a number of SEC notes.  Despite the fact that they are not copyvios (because they are a product of the US govt) they are not correctly formatted to indicate that they are word for word (even paragraph long quotes).  I think these should be reformatted or removed.  Also, the entire rest of the doc contains a bunch of inappropriate EL which should either be converted to intl links (for a charity), or to references, or removed.  Other than the scandal section the document appears to me to be non-neutral and overly positive focusing on his "avid" hobbies and his philanthropy, but I welcome opinions from the BLP experts familiar with this matter.    7  02:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: SEC Charges

message: I believe there is some disagreement between myself and another editor about section blanking the "philanthropy" section. Is there any way this can be included in a factual manner and not flagged for bias? (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Philanthropy

message: Admins User:Drmies and User:Youreallycan, I’d like to thank you for your attention to this page and the work that has been put into it by all parties.  I have always attempted to adhere to and respect the guidelines for BLP while providing truthful, encyclopedic material.  I have also looked at other BLP’s as comparable of how to create appropriate content.  I apologize if my past actions have not reflected my intentions.  By my observation, there are many pages that violate the BLP guidelines but are not monitored to the high degree this one is.  It is my strong opinion that the only reason this page is red-flagged is because User:Popandlockitfool has made a point to diminish Lawrence Goldfarb’s relevancy in the arenas he has been and is highly active in.  That being said, it is not my intention to “win” against User:Popandlockitfool.  My intention is to provide truthful, relevant information consistent with the BLP guidelines and also consistent with other BLPs. 
I want to pose a question: what is the precedence for BLP’s when there are pages that ostensibly violate the BLP quite clearly?  I ask this because the latest revisions to the Lawrence Goldfarb page are not any more accurate than the previous revision and in fact, leave more questions than answers.  For example, him being a “student” at Georgetown Law is much different than Thereafter he was a student at Georgetown University Law School where he regularly published articles for the Georgetown Law Journal. He graduated with his cum laude in 1988”, especially when the previous mention of his undergrad states his BA degree.  Some citation available for this can be found at: http://www.lrgcapital.com/capital-team.php.  Also, if someone wanted to check his writing for Georgetown Law Journal, they could easily call them up and find out, but this is something that cannot be referenced as a source because a link is not available. The internet is littered with bios about his time at Georgetown and graduating cum laude so I find it difficult to state otherwise.  No one has ever questioned or proven he did not graduate cum laude from Georgetown, or did not write for the law journal.  
The point is, there are many articles that overlook this type of information, but not this article which has been intensely scrutinized.  If the previous revision qualifies as an “overstatement” then the current revision clearly is an “understatement.”  So, I am trying to strike a balance and using the resources available to do so, but I do feel that the current version is actually more inaccurate because it goes out of its way to omit known information despite the fact that it appears to be more credible, it is not.  It is clear that it is easier to refute/remove information than add/verify it with sources, and I do respect that, but by whitewashing the majority of information on the page it implies that facts from previous revisions were false or untrue when they merely needed a flag for citation or discussion. Feversleeved (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Latest Revision After Settlement of The Edit War

message: There has been a block-evading, IP hopping IP trying to whitewash the section that discusses the settlement and conviction.  On April 16, 2014, Goldfarb pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in the information that had been filed against him in March 2011.  That is a conviction.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conviction vs Settlement 

message: He died July 14 or 15 2023 173.56.245.25 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need a reliable source to update the article. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

text: What is your source, lets confirm and then will find an article as well? Nztahir (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He died July 12. I have a death certificate. It is not published anywhere. How do I update based on a death cert? People need to know he’s dead. @Kuru 71.34.163.157 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind sharing it? I can then use it and send it to Yahoo news.. They'd probably be interested in sharing that news. Nztahir (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Hi, I am a bit new at this, but after reviewing this article I find out that the first link is bogus in the references. Should we remove it? Nztahir (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links