Talk:Michael Avenatti/Archive 1

Archive 1

Project Sunlight – Executive Summary (May 8, 2018)

• Michael Avenatti. "Executive Summary.pdf" (PDF). Dropbox. Retrieved May 9, 2018. (tweeted by Avenatti)
• Michael Avenatti. "Executive+Summary.pdf" (PDF). Dropbox. Retrieved May 9, 2018. (tweeted by Avenatti, now 404)
• Michael Avenatti. "Executive Summary Alleging Payments To Cohen Shell Corp". Retrieved May 9, 2018 – via Scribd.
• Michael Avenatti. "Executive Summary". Retrieved May 9, 2018 – via Scribd.
• Michael Avenatti (May 8, 2018). "Project Sunlight – Executive Summary (08.05.2018)". wordpress.com. Retrieved May 9, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website= (help)

Z75SG61Ilunqpdb (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Misleading statement in "Career" section

"It was later reported that Avenatti had obtained the bank records of a different Michael Cohen."

While technically correct, this statement is ambiguous and misleading. It makes it sound as if Avenatti got the wrong guy entirely, when at this time, only 0.4%, of the total amount is known to involve anyone other than the Michael Cohen who owns" Essential Consultants". I suggest that this be clarified. Sbergman27 (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point, that is not what the Newsweek article reports, so I corrected it.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Politics

You guys might want to consider adding a 'politics' section here. I'm not going to do it, but Avenatti's been making speeches about immigration cases at Democratic events. He's a future player. If he can make enough hay out of suing Trump it will put him on the map, if it hasn't already. Regardless of whether he has overt ambitions, he'd have to be blind not to know the position he's put himself in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4023:864F:8CDD:A96D:D853:3FEC (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the politics section would be relevant for this individual. He has announced that he’s considering running. Unfortunately someone removed it saying that it was supposedly irrelevant when I don’t know how it is. Somehow Wikipedia lists Elon musk’s political views. Why shouldn’t we list the views of someone who has publicly announced that they are considering a run for office? Hicknowgone (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hicknowgone, the section is at Michael Avenatti#Potential 2020 presidential campaign. As far as his political views, has he ever expressed any? If there is anything about them in reliable sources, feel free to suggest an addition. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Change the Portrait

All the profiles I have seen of people alive today have color photographs with minimal artistic enhancement. Why does Avenatti have a black and white photo with obvious artistic lighting? It looks completely out of place on the United States presidential election, 2020 article. Paul F Villerius (talk) 10:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the photo dates to before he became such a public figure. Surely some free-use photos are available now, or could be taken. Trivialist (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble determining what's fair game and what isn't. So far, all I've found for sure are free-use sites that watermark the images. Paul F Villerius (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there are CC-licensed photos on Flickr? Trivialist (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Race (other than "white")

If he is a pro racer with 2 dozen races, how come we only have one listed in the table at the bottom? Oh, and as for running in 2020: Help us Michael Avanatti; you're our only hope!

Because the number of auto races in US is so great it can not even be reliably counted, and because auto racing is likely the most expensive sport in the world, almost every auto race involves some prize money for the winner. Anyone who participates in a sports event where prize money is awarded to a winner, is by definition a pro athlete or in this case pro racer. --Autolanding (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You were joking with this, right? Man, I remember when you liberals just lionized this lawyer creep. So embarrassing for you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.11.66.115 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Domestic violence charges

I'd rather have a source separate from TMZ before putting this in the article. It's also unclear what section it should go in, there's no "Personal life" section currently. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a better source: https://abc7.com/michael-avenatti-arrested-for-domestic-violence-in-la/4689491/ And some others here [1] although we need to be careful, some are things like the Washington Times (whose gloating headline tells where they come from). I think we should create a personal section which would include this. I'll see what other info I can find. --MelanieN (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

power~enwiki: OK, I started a Personal Life section. If you want to add the arrest story (preferably keeping it to a sentence or two) I'll look for more info and better sourcing for the rest of his personal life. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the story is misleading without the addition of the fact that his ex-wife's attorney's have issued a statement denying that she was involved in any such incident with him. It all seems like a huge Nazi-style set-up organized by a certain unnamed politician - from CBS NewsHowardFredrics (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm removing it from the lead. Seems WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A lawyer who is staging himself for a 2020 presidential run, being charged with a felony, seems about as serious a charge possible considering if convicted, he'd almost certainly be disbarred. Not even to mention the possible prison time and loss of enfranchisement in the political process. 2601:982:4200:A6C:A90B:92DA:1BCD:8D04 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That's a really big "if". WP:CRYSTAL also applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is not a minor event. He was charged with a violent felony which brings severe punishment if convicted, especially for a practicing attorney. To many people, this would be the worst day of their entire life. The irony is almost too precious for someone such as Avenatti, who positioned himself as a feminist and a "fighter for good," and for woman's rights and special interests. This deserves to be in the lede; if not now, very soon as this story continues to unfold. A law office in southern California describes this as being the requirement to be charged with felony domestic violence.

"Unfortunately, for those convicted of a felony, probation is not a likely sentence, even if you do not have a previous record.Injuries that lead to a felony prosecution are severe, such as broken bones, injuries that require sutures, or severe trauma that causes permanent damage to the body or brain." 2601:982:4200:A6C:A90B:92DA:1BCD:8D04 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

References

No one has a WP:CRYSTALBALL so frivolous arguments about what will be relevant in 10 years shouldn't be given editorial weight. This is a notable controversy over a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and the coverage given (see WP:DUE) is enough to discredit any claim that the story is minor. Per WP:MOSLEAD, The lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. this probably belongs in the lead and almost certainly goes beyond just Personal life, which unfortunately is often improperly used as a dumping ground for unfavorable stories on BLPs. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

And WP:BLP preaches caution rather than sensationalism. The WP:10YT is not a "frivolous argument". If this gets dismissed it will have been quite silly to have it in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but caution can be exercised by using reliable sources and presenting issues in an NPOV manner. It doesn't mean exclude, and in fact, WP:PUBLICFIGURE actually requires inclusion, (If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's in the article. Nobody is objecting to that. It's UNDUE for the lead, at this point, though that may change in time. WP:NODEADLINE for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Very strange update. Avenatti just tweeted that he was never even charged or arrested. This is in contradiction to the official LAPD account, police records showing his bail/charge/arrest, and reports from credible sources. As an aside, blaming this all on a 20 year old "twitter troll" is also quite bizarre considering the facts we know.2601:982:4200:A6C:5959:667:ACC1:C34C (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

References

No, he said he hasn't been charged, he was arrested on suspicion, and I don't see a single RS saying he was charged. CBS News comes close by saying he is "facing" a charge. And the "facts we know" about Jacob Wohl is that he laughably smeared Mueller with sexual misconduct accusations. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We have his current legal status in this image. and the LASD inmate site 2601:982:4200:A6C:5959:667:ACC1:C34C (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

References

New Update. We have the accuser's name. Mareli Miniutti. She has filed a domestic violence restraining order. While not a reliable sourch, Cernovich, someone obviously with a vested interest against Avenatti, has claimed to see them together at a mutual "book party." In any manner, the chance that this was all a "hoax" is becoming increasingly unlikely as the LASD/LAPD accepts the domestic violence retraining order, in accordance to the charges recommended some days ago. If the felony charges are finalized, I believe this must go in the lead.2601:982:4200:A6C:546F:1895:EAC3:41F2 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

References

FWIW - latest news (~5pm/et/usa, 21 November 2018) re Michael Avenatti - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Important to add that the Los Angeles Prosecutor is still recommending misdemeanor charges. Avenatti has implied that all charges were dropped, but the felony was downgraded to misdemeanor recommendation. 2601:982:4200:A6C:2C6B:AE61:E8B2:2CC4 (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Prosecutors declined to press charges. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

"and referred allegations that he roughed up his girlfriend to the city attorney for a possible misdemeanor case." From the exact article you referenced. Your edit that they declined all charges must be changed, as it is simply false. 2601:982:4200:A6C:2C6B:AE61:E8B2:2CC4 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

2601:982:4200:A6C:2C6B:AE61:E8B2:2CC4, nope. All I added was this: "Prosecutors declined to press charges." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 08:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I added the referral for possible misdemeanor charges. Note that this was not a RECOMMENDATION that misdemeanor charges be filed; it was just a referral to the city attorney to see if they want to take some kind of action. (In California, only the county district attorney files felony charges; city attorneys can file misdemeanor charges in some cases.) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Minor erratum

Hi,
not a native speaker, but doesn't "Avenatti also represents Daniels /x/ a related defamation suit against Trump" (lead, 2nd para) lack an "in" (x marks the spot)? T 85.166.162.64 (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

EDIT "While there, he handled a number of high-profile cases, including a $10 million defamation case against Paris Hilton,[34]" by adding "which was resolved amicably by the parties, although it is unclear if any payment was made by Hilton under the settlement agreement." cite to https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-hilton-zeta-graff-settle-lawsuit/ Cverner2 (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I didn't include "although it is unclear if any payment was made by Hilton under the settlement agreement" as it appears worded to imply a presumption of fault on one side and was not supported by the source. Plus the Hilton case is just one clause in an already long sentence and didn't need the speculation. Schazjmd (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2018

In CAREER section, end of paragraph FOUR reads: "and a $39 million malicious prosecution settlement.[43]" However, the cited link indicates the settlement was to settle a counterclaim in a trade secrets civil action and included "a non-exclusive license for use of certain infrared technology."

Even more importantly, Avenatti's name does not appear as counsel on the Westlaw cite of the case: "Attorneys and Law Firms

• • 311 Latham & Watkins; Daniel Scott Schecter, Charles Courtenay, Los Angeles, and Svetlana M. Berman, San Francisco; Bickel Brewer; William A. Brewer III and James S. Renard, Dallas, TX, for Appellants.

Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati; James A. DiBoise and Charles Tait Graves, San Francisco, for Respondents." Cverner2 (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done You're correct, the source didn't match the description of the case, removed it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Rampant leftist bias/inconsistent down-playing of DV arrest

I am shocked, utterly shocked, by the total absence of the recent news in this article's lede. My shock turned to complete disbelief when I scrolled down to the buried, downplayed, pathetic couple of obvious ass-kissing sympathetic, incomplete, one-sided sentenced, sepulchred in a barely visible afterthought in his Personal Life section. Boy do I not regret no longer donating to Wikipedia. This behavior and rampant leftist bias is absolutely disgusting. Sadly it has become a patter. As well as stuck-up, obstinate administrators who run their mouth off, silence positive/contributory edits, ban new accounts for trying to help, etc. What a disgrace. Someone please fix the bias here. 75.68.39.125 (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Even for a biography on a living person (Wikipedia treats BLPs with kid gloves), I was quite surprised by the first sentence of this article—and I’m a very experienced wikipedian.

Our Elon Musk article reads …“is a technology entrepreneur, investor, and engineer.” As of today, this article’s first sentence reads …“is an American attorney and entrepreneur.” Such language, for an entire first paragraph of a lede, misses what is by far the primary reason Avenatti has achieved any significant notability.

The first paragraph of the lede, which is clearly geared to highlight his virtuous attributes, seems over the top. It cites him as being a race car driver (“He is also a professional race car driver”…) but, according to Driver Database, he's never started with a pole position, been on the podium only once (in 2012), and his last race was in 2015. So I would have left the suggestion that he is a race car driver out of the lede where the notability of it is exaggerated and comes across as “Gosh golly, he has that dashing Ultra Brite smile as he shakes that magnum of champaign.” His racing exploits belong later in the article.

As for the second paragraph of the lede, it seems there are those wikipedians here who are dedicated to the proposition of toning down the negatives. Back and forth struggles with tone and balance—and our very policies—on Wikipedia are common; everyone has a say in striking a proper balance. We need more volunteer contributors to familiarize themselves with our policy on biographies of living persons and weigh in on this article (discussing things first here on this page). Greg L (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

@Greg L: The primary reason for his notability is that he's an attorney. He's most known for representing Stormy Daniels. And, he has also raced professionally. So, the first paragraph seems perfectly balanced to me. The second paragraph mentions things that are not so positive, like having his suit against Trump dismissed and Daniels saying he filed it without her leave. There may be some more WP:RECENTISM in that paragraph. I don't see any suggestions in your comment about what to change. If you're suggesting we add the DV allegation to the lead, then you really need to brush up on WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: No, I was not suggesting we add the DV allegation to the lede. Your ending you post with such a rhetorical conjecture, and that if that’s the case I therefore need to brush up on WP:BLP (apparently to become as awesomely knowledgeable on our BLP policies as you) is nothing more than classic wikipedian passive/aggressive being a dick. Grow up.

As to your statement “the first paragraph seems perfectly balanced to me,” I could agree with you, but then we’d both be wrong. Greg L (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Greg L, can you please adjust your tone? This style of conversation isn't suitable for resolving anything. Bradv🍁 01:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I can't talk to someone that WP:UNCIVIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Just like I don't support defaming Avenatti by treating the woman's allegations as uncontested fact, I also don't support defaming the woman by linking her to a man known for a lot of bullcrap. That's mysogyny. wumbolo ^^^ 19:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s heartening to see that the lede in Wikipedia’s article has finally caught up with the reality of Michael Avenatti. It’s far beyond this brochure-class state I objected to because it was so detached from both current affairs as well as the body of the article. There’s clearly been a lot of work on the article in May. Greg L (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"I am shocked, utterly shocked, by the total absence of the recent news in this article's lede. My shock turned to complete disbelief when I scrolled down to the buried, downplayed, pathetic couple of obvious ass-kissing sympathetic, incomplete, one-sided sentenced, sepulchred in a barely visible afterthought in his Personal Life section. Boy do I not regret no longer donating to Wikipedia." Amen! I am consistently astounded and embarrassed by the pathetically sycophantic treatment that leftists receive from the editors on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.11.66.115 (talk) 15:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Is Avenatti a publicist?

I think it's pretty clear that he is "a person whose job is to generate and manage publicity for a company, a brand, or public figure – especially a celebrity – or for a work such as a book, film, or album." power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Many professions, such as lawyering, encompass aspects of other professions; he's not a publicist, per se — he just acts like one. (A post-verdict career change, perhaps?) Lindenfall (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"I find it obvious"

Many people find many things "obvious," but is it supported by a RS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Avenatti&diff=887643060&oldid=887642743 soibangla (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a primary source. [2]. We are unable to comment on whether this is "obvious". power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Reference 66 is a secondary source. The federal judge issued Avenatti "a choice" that if he wanted to join he would have to end what the judge called his "publicity tour" of TV appearances and tweets about the case.[66] Avenatti withdrew the motion, and appeared on MSNBC that same day. [3]. He has made a legal decision to engage in a publicity tour. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That does not make him a "publicist." It may him a publicity seeker, and by one man's opinion. He is an attorney by profession, not a publicist. soibangla (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I can remove both "publicist" and "entrepreneur". power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing supporting the specific word "entrepreneur" either, and this was initially created by a paid editor. I've restored my change and added a "disputed" tag. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

March 25, 2019 - The Manhattan US Attorney's office said Monday that it is charging attorney Michael Avenatti "for attempting to extract more than $20 million in payments from a publicly traded company by threatening to use his ability to garner publicity to inflict substantial financial and reputational harm on the company if his demands were not met."

Evictions and other civil issues

This Wiki fails to mention his many evictions in Orange County. He was evicted from his home on Lido Island {https://bigleaguepolitics.com/stormy-daniels-lawyer-squatted-in-a-12m-home-while-evading-taxes/} as well as from his office in Fashion Island (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-eviction-20181116-story.html) - both for non payment..--2600:8802:2200:9D80:B4E2:CC6C:BCAB:221F (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Bradv🍁 05:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

"and a leased 2017 Ferarri 488 GT Spider while his law firm..."

"Ferarri" is misspelled. Should be "Ferrari" Vu0tran (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Bradv🍁 05:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Page should say "was" an attorney. Correct me if I am wrong, but convicted criminals are disbarred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.80.108 (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Avenatti has not been convicted, nor has he been disbarred. Bradv🍁 05:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

(Primary) Sources

Could it be possible to include references to the primary sources (e.g. the actual court filing documents) for the relevant lawsuits, particularly the most recent ones? I know it's easier to just cite the Washington Post, CNBC, or Reuters, but these are secondary sources and due to bias and selective reporting they are generally not preferred if the primary sources are available. 66.183.158.218 (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No per WP:BLPPRIMARY. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Your IP shows two edits, so I'll assume you are new. It may appear odd to outsiders, but a biography of a living person has more restrictive rules than, say, the history of an event. Wikipedia editors are supposed to prefer secondary sources (if accepted as reliable) over primary sources (whose interpretation requires synthesis). The presumption being that reliable secondary sources are professionally qualified to evaluate the primary sources. (Some secondary sources have been judged to be biased and unreliable and are not allowed.) Court filings may contain assertions that eventually may be proven factual or may be unproven. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

A significant portion of the article addresses his legal trouble, arrests, etc. The lead should summarize the body, and therefore needs to include information on this. Natureium (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

There was a concise summary.[4] Keeping in mind WP:UNDUE, WP:Recentism and innocence until proven guilty, I thought it was appropriate since this is not his first set of criminal charges or lawsuits. Going into more detail in the lead would be premature and undue.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced information - Fraud and embezzlement

For the second time today, Bradv has deleted information on this page, claiming that it is unsourced, when it clearly was.

Deletion: "Federal agents subsequently seized a Honda HA-420 twin-engine jet from Santa Barbara Airport that was co-owned by Avenatti and former client, Indigo Systems co-founder William J. Parrish, as the latter was about to embark on a flight. Parrish successfully sued Avenatti in 2017 for $2.1 million for failure to repay a 2013 loan. Avenatti had not appeared in court to defend himself, and is appealing that judgment."

Attached source: "Agents also showed up at Santa Barbara Airport to seize the six-seat jet — just as the plane’s co-owner, infrared technology mogul William J. Parrish, was about to climb aboard for a flight. Parrish has been tangled in years of legal disputes with Avenatti, his former attorney. Parrish sued him and won a $2.1-million judgment last year after Avenatti failed to repay a 2013 loan and did not show up in court to defend himself. Avenatti is appealing the judgment." and "At Avenatti’s instruction, according to prosecutors, Marchino immediately wired the $2.5 million to Honda Aircraft Co., LLC, for the purchase of Avenatti’s half share of a small HA-420 jet." https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-avenatti-hassan-whiteside-embezzlement-20190421-story.html

That I'd eschewed "infrared technology mogul" for "Indigo Systems co-founder" is the only difference. I'd dial direct, but I already tried after the first deletion (of the entire section, which now seems like some kind of section or content blanking violation to me), got accused of writing a wrong date, which I had not, and then slapped with a couple of "Discretionary sanctions" banners on my TALK page for disagreeing. I find all of this very heavy-handed and lacking in any goodwill. Other opinions invited and appreciated. Lindenfall (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall, I also fixed the incorrect date that you added back. And as you admit, the "Indigo Systems" bit is not sourced - where does it come from? Per BLP, we insist on high-quality sources for all information pertaining to living people, and poorly sourced information must be removed promptly. I have no problem with including the information, but it must be cited to a reliable source, preferably several. – bradv🍁 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Erratum: The incorrect date was not added by me, and was yours, who had noticed it, to fix (as noted in discussion on your page). I didn't simply add back, I reversed your deletion of an entire section. "Mogul" seemed WP:PEACOCK, but I do like to include a specific identifier to any name that I add. I forgot to link the source for that one "bit", as you so aptly put it, and that is the singular unsourced item in all of this, all along. I think I just forgot that it wasn't in the other two sources by the time I was done. However, you did not delete those three words, "Indigo Systems co-founder". Instead, you chose to delete the entire passage of sourced information, to which Parrish, our mogul, was incidental. As with your previous deletion of the entire section which had included a high-quality source for all information; it appears that you delete copious information on slim purchase without concern for the valid work done. That you did not even acknowledge your false statement about April 21, which you had made as an insult to my ability to even ascertain information in the source, but, rather, slapped some banners on my TALK page, seems a further indication of an absence of goodwill and a heavy hand. Hence, I invite other opinions from other editors regarding these wholesale sourced content deletions. Lindenfall (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lindenfall: Quoting from BLP policy again (which you really ought to read):

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

and

The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

I contested the incorrect and poorly sourced material, you restored it. I will ignore your assumptions about my motives. – bradv🍁 04:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have read it, of course. While you state that you, "contested the incorrect and poorly sourced material" there was no incorrect information in the entire section, aside from a date added prior, by a previous editor, and the only unsourced "bit" (again, so apt) was three words that were neither contentious nor specifically about Avenatti, and which you only mentioned in your second-last comment, just above. Again, "unsourced or poorly sourced" does not describe what you deleted. You did not contest, but deleted. Had you contested it, that would indicate goodwill and collaboration, and we would not be here now. Later, had you acknowledged the error of your own subsequent and unfounded insult, perhaps we would also be anywhere but here now. You seem unable or unwilling to admit to any error in judgement or deed. Only one of us has made any assumptions, and that was you, both on your own TALK page, and each is false. Your motives are not in my purview — your written comments and actions have been, as is reflected on your TALK page, where I now return to answer to your latest display of goodwill and assumption, being another insult as devoid of fact as your last one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bradv#Michael_Avenatti Lindenfall (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"Politician" in lede

An IP changed the lede to say that Avenatti is an "attorney and politician". I reverted it, but it was added back in with the claim that he was a candidate for president. Are there sources describing Avenatti as a politician? Is there a good reason to include this and/or his party affiliation in the opening sentence? Since he was never nominated for nor held political office, this claim is incorrect, right? – bradv🍁 00:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I also reverted this, but the IP re-added it. IMO we should not describe him as a politician. He never actually ran for office, much less held office. In a search [5] I was unable to find any sources describing him as a politician, and without sources it is Original Research for us to add this. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

He is not a politician. He didn't run for office, he didn't hold office, he wasn't elected, he's not a politician. The IP comes with this specious and irritating "well he talked about it" argument, as if that matters--it does not. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, we're on the same page then. I didn't think "politician" was a fair descriptor either, but it seemed like an odd point of view to push. I've removed it again. – bradv🍁 00:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I was really hoping we could get them to come here and talk about it. But we weren't getting their attention. Maybe after the block expires. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed - he's not a politician and I am unable to find any sources confirming he has or is running for office. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a politician; just acts like some. Lindenfall (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Avenatti/Stormy relationship

As per the lede Avenatti became famous because of his representation of her. Avenatti has now been indicted for stealing from Stormy by the SDNY. We should include this in the lede.

The lede refers to his multiple indictments, including embezzlement. The details are in the article text. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd say that the lead already has too much detail that belongs in the body of the article. Lindenfall (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Broken link "Avenatti is acchttp://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/19-TE-30259-2.pdfused"

It's in the "Fraud and embezzlement charges" section.

The page is locked so I can't do a thing. That is all.

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Creepy porn lawyer" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Creepy porn lawyer. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I just semiprotected the page to stop a slow moving edit war (that I had participated in). The opening sentence says this:

Michael John Avenatti (born February 16, 1971) is an American attorney, best known for his representation of adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Donald Trump, and his felony conviction for attempting to extort millions of dollars from sports apparel company Nike.

IPv6 editor(s) were adding this (bolded italicized for emphasis):

Michael John Avenatti (born February 16, 1971) is an American attorney and convicted felon, best known for his representation of adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Donald Trump, and his felony conviction for attempting to extort millions of dollars from sports apparel company Nike.

I do not understand people's insistence on adding "CONVICTED FELON" right off the bat like that. In this case, it's repeating the fact that Avenatti is convicted of a felony twice in the opening sentence. But, maybe that sentence is too long, so I'm opening this discussion here. Should the opening sentence be changed to something more like this?

Michael John Avenatti (born February 16, 1971) is an American attorney and convicted felon. He represented adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Donald Trump, and was convicted for attempting to extort millions of dollars from sports apparel company Nike.

Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The opening sentence also states that he represented a legal client. By your logic, there's no reason for the word "attorney" to be in there either. DeaconShotFire (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Why haven't you responded yet? You've been active elsewhere. DeaconShotFire (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Attorneys aren't the only people who provide representation. Agents, for example. He is an attorney and he notably defended Stormy Daniels. And he was convicted for trying to defraud Nike. Those two big points are covered in the first sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, he represented Daniels in civil matters and wasn't her criminal defense attorney. She had another attorney do that work. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but the first sentence lists off the professions, activities or generally the things that people are known for. Many other people have "convicted felon" listed in the first sentence of their page, a good example is Martin Shkreli. (Martin Shkreli (/ˈʃkrɛli/; born March 17, 1983) is an American former hedge fund manager, and convicted felon.) It's something he's noted for, it's something he's done. It's helpful for people skimming through the page. What hassle is there in changing the paragraph to suit this standard? DeaconShotFire (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, this to me is an argument for rewriting the opening for Martin Shkreli and not vice versa. And by your logic, should we also change Willie Nelson's opening sentence to "American musician, actor, and convicted felon"? How about Nick Nolte? Robert Downey Jr? Or should this style only apply to people deemed to be "less acceptable"? And if so, who gets to decide that? Alvint69 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that it was just reverted by another admin who called it "prejudicial" -- indicating prejudiced or biased -- and that you haven't yet responded, I'm beginning to suspect that the reason you don't want to fix this mistake is because you don't want the article outright saying that he is a convicted felon; you want to hide it from anyone skimming through the page, or at least make it reasonably vague and later in the sentence. Perhaps this is due to a personal editorial conflict of interest? DeaconShotFire (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DeaconShotFire, you shouldn't assume anything other than good faith. You didn't ping me and I have lots of pages on my watchlist, so I didn't see this until just now. Another admin editor (Alvint69 is not an admin) called it "prejudicial" and I agree. The article's first sentence absolutely says that he's a convicted felon. You want it to say it twice to really bash readers over the head with it. That fails NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

DeaconShotFire, you're not being genuine or constructive when you say things that are obviously not true like "I'm beginning to suspect that the reason you don't want to fix this mistake is because you don't want the article outright saying that he is a convicted felon". It literally already says exactly that in the opening sentence. Please stop the theatrics. Alvint69 (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu Why are you suddenly against your original proposal of reformatting it into 2 sentences? The first sentence of any person's wikipedia page lists off their career endeavours, and generally what they are known for. You totally ignored my example of Martin Shkreli's page which immediately describes him as a hedge fund manager and a convicted felon. Where is the hassle in making this change to comply with this wikipedia standard? Furthermore, how is my desire to immediately present the reader with correct information and description of a person's noteworthy things a desire to "bash readers over the head with it"? How in any way is this unneutral? By your logic, Martin Shkreli's page is "bashing readers over the head with it" by mentioning it twice. The only difference is that they are in seperate sentences. Why don't you head on over and abuse your power to edit that article? Coincidentally, Martin Shkreli is apolitical. Why should you get to make this decision for this page? DeaconShotFire (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence, as it is, absolutely summarizes Avenatti. It mentions that he's a convicted felon, and the third lead paragraph gives lots of detail about the crime, maybe too much for the lead. Anyone who sees the lead of the article, as it is, should get that he's a convicted felon. Your point about people missing it makes no sense to me. The info is presented. The compromise I suggested was to create some discussion, and I'm disappointed nobody else has chimed in. I never said I was advocating for it. Shkreli's page isn't relevant here because it's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. It may be wrong on that page, and it should be brought up there, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have requested more input at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Michael_Avenatti. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I've seen in other articles where we don't say that the person is a convicted felon, we say "xxx was convicted for xxx. So in this case I think the first example makes the most sense. He also not most famous for being a convicted felon. He is famous for his felony conviction and for Stormy Daniels, etc. I think there's a slight difference in the wording and how it seems. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I agree that he's more famous for Stormy Daniels than Nike. And I also prefer it as it is. Not all articles do "X is a convicted felon", and frankly I don't think any article should. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I'm in two minds about that. Bernie Madoff, for example, was famous for his financial schemes but they turned out to be a scam. Guy (help!) 17:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. (full disclosure: I'm the one who wrote that version of the opening sentence). Alvint69 (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• (From BLP/N) This lede is completely f'ed up, I'm sorry, none of the three are acceptable at all. "best known for" is probably the first sign that one is trying to prove a point. There is no need to identify why the person is notable in the first sentence, just by the end of the lede. Were I to write this to avoid the problems but hit all the key points:
• Michael John Avenatti (born February 16, 1971) is an American attorney and founder of the law firm Eagan Avenatti, LLP. His firm has represented various celebrity defendants and has filed suits against Fortune 100 companies. He has appeared on broadcast television as well as in print as a legal commentator and as a representative for prominent clients, including his representation of adult-film actress Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against President Donald Trump.
  On several occasions starting in March 2019, Avenatti was indicted in California and New York on multiple federal counts including extortion, fraud, and embezzlement related to the Nike Corporation, as well as tax evasion. In June 2019, the State Bar of California filed a proceeding to "involuntarily" enroll Avenatti as an inactive attorney—in effect, to suspend him from practicing law in California—based on evidence that, according to the State Bar, could lead to Avenatti's disbarment. Avenatti had denied all the charges. Avenatti was convicted of all charges against him in a New York court in February 2020, and currently is held in prison awaiting sentencing. --Masem (t) 21:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, this does seem to downplay rather the two things for which he is actually known: representing Stephanie Clifford (and landing her with a stinging bill as a result) and extorting Nike.

  Josh Barro: "So, Ken, is Michael Avenatti a good lawyer?"

  Ken White: "I'm not sure he is a lawyer any more, Josh". Guy (help!) 17:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  There's no requirement that we have to spotlight what a person is known for as early as possible in the lede (certainly not in the first sentence), though obviously it needs to be in there (though I'd argue if representing Clifford is really as important as made out) Impartialness and neutrality needs to take precedence over notability particularly in a BLP. We certainly don't rush to push "good" things for award-winning actors, artists, scientists, etc. do in the first sentence, we shouldn't be doing the same when that's more negative-like publicity. --Masem (t) 18:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Masem, no requirement, no, but it's a common convention. Why have you heard of this person? Oh yeah, it's the Stormy Daniels guy. Guy (help!) 21:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yep, it's common convention. And as I mentioned it's pretty much a de facto contract for other consumers of this information. Alvint69 (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• You know, I was just going to say no redundancy. It's condescending. And lose the "best known for" and break up the run-on sentence, but now after reading Masem's proposal, I think that looks very good and much more encyclopedic. Thanks Masem. I'll go with your suggestion. Zaereth (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I also like the general style of this opening, but I disagree with dropping a descriptive and short opening sentence. IMO a "best known for" clause is helpful. Very often, I look up someone on Wikipedia just to refresh my memory on why that person is noteworthy. I'm sure others do this as well. I just want that quick opening sentence and be done. In the above version, I would have to read pretty far into it to remember that Avenatti was the Stormy Daniels guy. It may appear condescending to some people who already know this information, but you definitely can't assume someone looking up a subject here already knows all the facts. In fact, you probably have to assume the opposite. Also, a lot of services scrape info from Wikipedia to provide users with information about a subject, and they often only use the first sentence or two (for example, Apple's "lookup" feature). A pithy first sentence is helpful to those guys, as well. Alvint69 (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I do want to stress that the overall (wikipedia-wide) rush to push "convicted X" for persons well known for something else is disturbing, this case no different (particularly when X is a white collar crime compare to more violent crimes) It needs to be in the lede but there's got to be a treatment that respects the person's life before the conviction, unless it is 100% clear that the conviction has shown that part of the life to be completely bogus or tainted or whatever (eg getting to some of the Catholic priest issues). Here, there's little doubt that while Avenatti did white collar crime, he stll did fair and reasonable legal work that was above the table and recognized for its value, so the lede shouldn't demean that with rushing to criminalize him since thats not how sources present him either. --Masem (t) 22:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    • If you set it up so that "violent" crime gets treated like real crime but "white collar" crime is treated as something lesser, you're in effect creating a type of class privilege that is inappropriate. Yes, violence creates pain and hardships, but so does financial crime.... and "white collar" crimes tend to be more the crimes of those in power. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't settle it by how heinous the crime was, but by how much it is necessary in defining what this person is. For example, Charles Manson is a convicted murderer, and that's all he is known for, so we should start off by saying it. Not "he is best known for" or that he was convicted of felony murder, but he is a murderer. Same with his associate Bobby Beausoleil, who has graced BLPN a time or two over this. He has a small in-prison career as a musician, but that pales in comparison to his involvement with Manson, so it's appropriate to lead with "he's a murderer".
      • In this case, a convicted felon is nowhere near central to what the subject is. Foremost, he is a lawyer. His primary notability comes from the clients he has represented, as a lawyer. His felon status is a far second to this, as a lawyer. Whenever possible, start with the broadest, most all-encompassing definition as possible, and then branch out into the different aspects. Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• Not a fan of x is a convicted Y in the first couple sentences of a lead unless it is what they are most known for. Even then not really a huge fan. In this case they are most known for Stormy Daniels and the conviction stuff is a distant second or even third. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that the Nike stuff is a distant second to the Stormy Daniels fame, but American conservative circles are definitely making a big deal about it so it probably belongs in the opening sentence as well--at least while it's so topical. Alvint69 (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Certainly is important and does belong in the lead. I am just not sure it is something defining about him so would move it a little farther down the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
      • I can live with that. Alvint69 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What you think is irrelevant and unimportant, so don't be so arrogant as to presume it is both. You haven't proven that he's more famous for his connections to President Trump than he is for his felony conviction. What the hell are you talking about when you say "far second"?? You can't prove this! This is stupidly vague! Just because you think it isn't defining about him? Who are you to make this decision? DeaconShotFire (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If what we think is irrelevant and unimportant, wouldn't what you think also be irrelevant and unimportant? Why is your opinion clearly "right" while everyone else's is "irrelevant and unimportant"? Once again, this kind of mindless theatrics is not constructive. Alvint69 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why is the page currently by your standards and not mine? Why does yours take precedent? DeaconShotFire (talk) 13:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Because a plurality of people weighing in (both here and as expressed by edits on the article) want it this way. Alvint69 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And quite frankly, your consistently melodramatic and inflammatory rhetoric on this talk page proves that you are probably the person least capable of evaluating whether the language in the article is fair or neutral enough. Alvint69 (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not about what we think is irrelevant or important. When it comes to what is more notable (carries more weight), that is simply determined by a preponderance of reliable sources. What got more coverage in the news? That's it. Simple for us Wikipedians to determine, because that's what we do. But all that determines is how much weight (space, in comparison to the size of the article/lede) to give it. It doesn't determine placement, and that's not all there is to writing an encyclopedia to read like an encyclopedia. There is actually a format to it, going back to Pliny who is the father of the modern encyclopedia. This formula is based on expository style, as is almost all non-fiction writing. Encyclopedic style is actually very, very similar to journalistic style, with some important differences.

We start by answering the most important question first, the what. What is this thing we are defining. In this case, the thing is a lawyer. In everything else he does, that is still what he is. The next questions to answer are when, where, who, how, and why, and always in that order.

Next is to describe what he did that makes him a notable lawyer, rather than one of millions of non-notable lawyers. It makes absolutely no sense to do this in terms of what acts were more notable or not. We're dealing with actions now, so we have to factor in time. These events occurred in a certain timeline. In that timeline, his conviction is a far second. Of course, events in timelines may overlap, and it would be confusing to the reader to write this in a perfect timeline of events, so we can break those events into separate paragraphs, but they should still go in the order they occurred. Masem's proposal does this very well, and quite eloquently I might add. I support that paragraph 100%. That's what an encyclopedic article should start out like.

He is a lawyer, and as a lawyer he did lawyerly things. As a lawyer, he got famous for his association with his clients (or whatever they are, it made him famous). As a famous lawyer, he was convicted of a felony, and now he's a lawyer in jail. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, as a lawyer, if he had not represented Stephanie Clifford, I doubt we would know him from a hole in the ground. If he had not represented Clifford, I doubt the Nike extortion would have lasted beyond one news cycle. Guy (help!) 17:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of lawyers, businesspeople and others that rarely make it out of the business section into the front pages, but otherwise meet notability guidelines. It is not our place to be focusing on high publicity events first and foremost, only to recognize the weight they carry and thus the relative proportion to be covered in the lede. But not order. There is a great misnomer that the first sentence needs to be the tell-all of the topic - the entire lede as the whole should be the summary as a whole, not any single part, and if that lede as a whole is missing out in any part, then we have a problem. But it needs to be structured in a logical, orderly fashioned, which includes respecting principles of neutrality and impartiality. --Masem (t) 18:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, oh come on. Do you seriously think we'd have an article on Avenatti without the Stormy Daniels thing? I've Googled with date ranges, apart from a couple of motorsport blogs I can find nothing on him prior to 2017. Guy (help!) 21:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arguably, his work prior to and including 2016, if neither Stormy Daniels nor the situation with Nike happened, may still have lead to some notability for him or more likely his firm. The cases he had were significant enough (NFL) to have drawn some attention to that. Obviously, Stormy + Nike easily make him pass any notability bar, but I could argue that there's enough news involving him before 2016 that at least we'd have an article based on presumption of notability (or that the AFD would be a long, protracted one because of how frequently he is tied to some higher-profile cases as a lawyer) --Masem (t) 21:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, where, though?Google is reluctant to yield it up for me. Guy (help!) 22:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Google news, Quote search on his name, limit to "12/2016" and earlier. Some of the hits are, unfortunately, present-day stories filtered into old news papers so I had to skip those sources that were doing that, but that still got me 30-40 sources to at least start reviewing - not necessarily all demonstrating notability but at least they are referring to him and the cases he had. --Masem (t) 22:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I tried this and still got nothing beyond namechecks. Guy (help!) 17:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he was notable before 2016 or not, the point I'm making still stands that there is no policy or guideline that demands that the first sentence(s) of the lede need to indicate why a topic is notable. The net sum of the lede obviously must do that, and with respect to DUE in terms of the rest of the article content. We do require the lede be written in an neutral and impartial tone and that likely requires pushing any subjective content (positive or negative) towards the backside of the lede, depending. --Masem (t) 17:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "Criminal Status" in the Sidebar

The same sources that repeatedly tried to add "convicted felon" to the opening clause of the lede also added a "Criminal Status" entry in the right sidebar. I think this should be removed for the same reasons. I suspect it was added simply to give readers a prejudicial reaction to the subject, it has an "icky" feel to it, and I think it makes the article feel less than neutral.

This entry is far from the norm even for people with convictions, and Wikipedia probably doesn't want to get into the highly subjective business of deciding which people "deserve" it. For example: you could argue that if Michael Avenatti deserves this tag, so also do Willie Nelson, Nick Nolte, and Robert Downey Jr, since they are all notable people with well known legal problems. Alvint69 (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the edit history, it's clear that whoever added this did so solely to influence opinion of Avenatti in a negative way. They were also responsible for adding the "convicted felon" and "Creepy Porn Lawyer" phrases to the lede, both of which have since been removed. I also suspect it was not a coincidence that this was placed next to the "Democratic Party" tag in the sidebar, which has also since been removed. See the string of anonymous ipv6 edits on 3 March 2020. Removing this also. Alvint69 (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

We don’t know the motives of the person who put this there just like we don’t know your motives. But we do know that it’s pretty common on Wikipedia to have a section in the introduction saying criminal status or charge or conviction for this or that. While I would agree with you in part: putting that someone was convicted anywhere on their Wikipedia profile is likely to prejudice the view of them based on the fact their whole relevant life story never can be fully told in a wiki article. However, there’s also the idea that we shouldn’t be treating his profile differently than others who are famous enough to have profiles here along with convictions.

I think it’s more appropriate to remove things if they violate the rules rather than simply whether it was posted by a supporter or detractor. Hicknowgone (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we can safely infer something about the person's motives if they choose to use the moniker "Creepy Porn Lawyer".  :) Alvint69 (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's "busted (ex-)lawyer who bilks his clients and shakes down corporations". Accuracy is important ;-) Guy (help!) 17:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

So his status as a felon, being "icky", prevents it from being added? I was under the impression that this website was concerned with article neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.77.170 (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The "criminal status" tag being prejudicial--and intended to be prejudicial--is both what prevents it from being added and what makes it "icky". Using this logic, should we also add a "criminal status" tag to the Rosa Parks page, since she broke the law by not sitting in the back of the bus? And as I mentioned before, we don't have have such a tag for Willie Nelson, Nick Nolte, or Robert Downey Jr. Why is such a tag appropriate here and not on those pages? The answer to that is obvious: their issues with the law is not what defines them. The only people who want Avenatti's issues with the law to be what defines him are those with a political agenda. Alvint69 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this all moot as he hasn't actually been convicted yet? Until he is, I suggest we lay off the application of the "convicted felon" term, as it's not merely factually incorrect, but also premature. 2607:9880:1A38:138:28C3:199D:F8A4:E920 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Avenatti was convicted but he is awaiting sentencing. P.S., I get that convicted felon might seem like it’s challenging the neutrality but using the word “icky@ is not the most encyclopedic.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:81BB:4365:AF8F:8C9F (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

He is a convicted felon 24.164.151.6 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Removing recent edits due to BLP guidelines and other issues

Hi, I just removed a bunch of anonymous edits of similar content as those that have been removed 1000 times before. I'd like to repeat a couple of issues that keep coming up:

• The link to the page which shows eligibility to practice law cannot be used as a citation for edits, because it violates BLP guidelines. The information on that page must be "processed" by reliable secondary sources (preferably several) qualified to to interpret the information on that page. Admins, correct me if I'm wrong on this.
• Even if that citation were allowed, that's still an interim status if I understand it right. The final status is pending "official" sentencing. It's probably a formality at this point, but let's wait a little longer instead of trying to predict the future.
• Even if that citation were allowed, it technically only refers to the subject's eligibility to practice law in CA (although it would certainly cause him to flunk the "character" clause for every other state bar).
• As has been discussed here and on many other pages, the phrase "convicted felon" is not appropriate for the lede (at least not the opening clause), if that is not the primary reason the person is noteworthy. And no, pointing to other pages where this has slipped through temporarily is not a good enough reason to allow it here.

Alvint69 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving to bottom, as I believe this is the newest thread. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Agentgfunk (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)I'd disagree with about 100% of this. Firstly, the page that shows his ineligibility WOULD BE the secondary processed source - as the original source would be the board of executives, CA bar association, etc. The person creating the page would already be secondarily verifying the record and then posting it on the internet. Not only that, but you're incorrect for a second reason. If we can't use official government records as sources in a wiki encyclopedia, then god only knows what we can use. Secondly, it's not in "interim status," as you claim. It very explicitly states he's unable to practice law. And so what? Just because he's "awaiting sentencing" means nothing, except he was *convicted of a felony* (as stated in the first line which you changed) and is literally awaiting sentencing. There is no legitimate excuse in my eyes to "wait a little longer." He's been convicted already. Thirdly, his ability to practice law in CA is all that's relevant. You need to take a state bar exam to be able to practice law in the corresponding state. Do you have any evidence he ever even took a bar in a different state? I doubt you do. His only license to practice WAS in CA, and it's been revoked, therefore he is a FORMER attorney, and that must be placed in the lede. Fourthly, the reason convicted felon DOES go in the lead here is because that IS what he's most known for here in America. He was in the public light otherwise for a VERY short time for representing Stormy Daniels (whom he later was sued by as well). At this point, he's been disgraced in the public light for a longer period of time than he wasn't, so "convicted felon" is the appropriate lead here.

IF we can't agree on this, we should probably escalate this.

-CJ

Agentgfunk (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)Just adding another note, if you don't revert your own changes, I'll revert them for you. I'll give it 48 hours.

Please actually read the BLP guidelines. They explicitly state, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The guidelines also describe what makes for a proper secondary source and why (well, the "why" is implied); please read it.

As far as adding "convicted felon" to the opening clause, this has also been discussed many times on many pages, including several times on this page. I'm not going to repeat that discussion, but I will disagree with your disingenuous and specious statement that Avenatti is known for his conviction. He's known for his actions as an attorney (mostly for suing Donald Trump on behalf of Stormy Daniels), and for his outspoken criticism of Trump and conservative politicians. Some of those actions as an attorney (his dealings with Nike) led to his conviction.

While I'm sure everyone here values your opinion, there are rules for a reason. It is not up to you alone to arbitrarily decide what goes into a page and what doesn't--especially the page of a living person. The guidelines also state that any contentious material must be removed immediately. This material has proven contentious long before you got here. I can't speak for the admins, but insisting on putting the exact same material back in this page without consensus will likely earn you what it earned those before you: a ban on edits and a temporary lock on the page.

Alvint69 (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

former attorney

The subject has announced that he will never practice law again, as quoted at this source: "I will never have the privilege of practicing law again." As such, that makes him a former attorney. Those who are asking us not to forecast the future would be right if we were saying he was disbarred, but we label folks as "former" all the time for saying that they are out of the business. The "former" description should be reinstated in the opening. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

George H. W. Bush famously swore “no new taxes”, and we know how that turned out. People sometimes don’t tell the truth—even attorneys. People sometimes also change their minds. Avenatti said what he felt was in his best interests at his sentencing, so I take it with a grain of salt. To be safe, he’s an attorney until he’s (officially) not.

- Alvint69 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Phil isn't licensed to practice but we still call him "doctor". Avenatti still has his JD. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert

Hi. I don’t know if this counts as vandalism per se (I know Wikipedia has a specific definition of what vandalism technically is) but I thought I’d let the main editors of this page know that somebody edited this page earlier today to put the linked word “hoax” after the mention of the COVID-19 pandemic in one of the opening paragraphs. Do with this information what you will, I just thought I’d make note of it in case this happens again. TazmilyKoala (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. The IP user's talk page has been marked with a gentle warning, which means there is now a record of this having done. I have also checked that that IP address made no other similar edits, so all is clear for now. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence tense

I understand that per MOS:BLPTENSE, articles on the living should generally be in the present tense and those of the dead in the past tense. With respect to the lead sentence of the article, the following sentence from that MOS page seems relevant: If a person is living but has retired, use is a former or is a retired rather than the past tense was. On that basis I adjusted 'was an attorney' to 'is a former attorney', but was promptly reverted twice now. I'd like to know on what basis such a flouting is acceptable and whether this extends to other articles on the similarly disbarred. mahir256 (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"Michael Avenatti was an attorney" implies the subject is deceased and is indeed inappropriate. "Is a former attorney" is not really great but it's better because then we know he's still alive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

While I have self-reverted it to adhere to BLPTENSE - the excuse that "they will think he is dead" is weak, and unfounded in articles in which no death date is listed in the infobox, or elsewhere in the article. It also unnecessarily opens the door to 3rd parties in articles being thought of in the same way, for example:

John Doe was an assistant prosecutor assigned to the case. is common - but under the statements above it should read John Doe is a former assistant prosecutor who was assigned to the case.

That is over-complicating the statement and introduces completely unnecessary word-salad... and the result is there are only a zillion articles to fix. No - that is not a discussion really for this page (and I just might be (stupid?) enough to bring it up on the MOS talk page), but I wanted to make it clear where I was coming from on this. In the end - he was an attorney. He no longer is. Regardless if he is dead or alive. <EOL> Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe Wiki MOS:BLPTENSE was lightly decided. I suspect the average reader of a Wiki bio lede start sentence "[name] is an [occupation]" or "[name] was an [occupation]" will assume the verb "is" or "was" applies to "[name]" and not to "[occupation]" and assume "[name] is" implies "is alive" and "[name] was" implies "is deceased". If you know [name] is alive then you might assume "was" applied to [occupation] but not all readers would know [name] is alive or deceased no matter how famous or notorious [name] is. "[Name] is a former attorney" may be world salad but it seems to me unambiguous world salad is better than ambiguous wording. --Naaman Brown (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The 2nd half of my response above & mentioning of word-salad was not in reference to bio lede, but to 3rd parties within an article - of which there are many in many articles. It is showing the problem that this adherence introduces elsewhere in articles - not in the bio lee. There are a zillion articles which are not in accordance with this policy, as a result. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)