Jump to content

Talk:Stanley Woodward (attorney)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6533:46A2:8D23:2134 (talk). Nominated by BeanieFan11 (talk) at 23:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Stanley Woodward (attorney); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall:

  1. QPQ is OK because this is the IP editor's first DYK nomination.
  2. There is one neutrality problem: He has also represented January 6 rioter Ryan Samsel who has been accused of igniting the January 6 attack, [...] is the only non-neutral statement, as rioter, although from the source, is still a contentious label. I think it would be better to rephrase it to something like: He has also represented Ryan Samsel, who Kyle Cheney refered to as "a prominent Jan. 6 rioter accused of igniting the Jan. 6 breach." & immediately follow with "Cheney 2022" footnote.
    Peaceray (talk)
Hi. I'm the IP who drafted the article. My IP address changes periodically (not my doing; the computer company). And I've submitted other DYKs through helpful other editors as here, so they can get the credit. So I'm happy to step forward and do a QPQ here. It's at Template:Did you know nominations/Words (Piri & Tommy song).
  • I've also addressed the reviewer comment.
  • Can someone please look at and opine on the issue discussed in the below talkpage comment at Talk:Stanley Woodward (attorney), re an editor's deletion of much of the lede and infobox? That would be helpful, before the DYK is published.
2603:7000:2101:AA00:7468:9C4F:BECE:5B21 (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Peaceray (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.
Overall: Peaceray (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Deletions from lede and infobox

[edit]

I believe that the deletions from the lede are not in line with wp:lede. "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents..... It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on ... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points... The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources."

And the deletions from the infobox as well make it inferior, as they delete relevant information and add "high profile" instead - which is subjective and not RS supported. Those changes should be reverted. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7468:9C4F:BECE:5B21 (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Sundayclose was correct in removing the specific clients from the lead as it is meant a summary of its most important contents.
However, I do think that that edit removed important information about the type of clients Woodward represents, therefore I added this more generic summary: His clientele has included those subpoenaed or convicted for the January 6 United States Capitol attack and current or former aides to Donald Trump. Peaceray (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Peaceray had it right. Consensus seems clear. IP should stop their edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Peaceray has it right as well. In fact, so right that it belonged in the infobox. In agreement with him I put those words there. Less subjective than the "high-profile clients" substituted - which is also of course less informative. There's been no edit-warring. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:7026:BDF2:8AA8:DA5 (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose vs list

[edit]

We had prose describing this fellow's clients. That was recently changed by an editor into a non-prose list format. Thoughts on which is better? I've seen editors in the past assert that prose is preferred in these circumstances. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C85:CA1C:6C32:129E (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles; Quotation marks removed

[edit]

There were a number of refs to article, wherein the quotation marks around the article titles have recently been removed. I know not why. Thoughts? I think they belong there, as they were. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C85:CA1C:6C32:129E (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

As has been pointed out in edit summaries, the subject of this article is notable because of coverage of him representing certain people. He's not other notable. There were two images of those people in the article. However, an editor has (now twice, once after the explanation of their relevance) deleted the images. His explanation was "These images are of his clients, not him." But that simply ignored the prior point, already made to him. He also references MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. But my reading of that rule reveals nothing that supports removal of the images. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:D815:6811:5162:EC62 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]

An editor is deleting relevant material about Woodward's cases. Leaving only part of it in - as in the charge, but not the result of the case. If the result is not favorable. This smacks of something other than proper editing. Of course since Woodward is a lawyer, his cases (the charges, and the result) are relevant. Not credible to claim they do not belong in his article. Perhaps User:Bruxton, who promoted the DYK above, can opine, as this page gets little readership.2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "smack" of anything. The article is about Woodward, not his clients, and you added excessive detail about his clients, so much so that the section on clients made up about half of the article. You've made these kinds of edits in the past under various IP addresses (all in the 2603:7000 range and located in Manhattan), and you have been told by multiple editors that it is inappropriate. You waited a while and then came back and started resuming the same kinds of inappropriate edits. The mere passage of time does not confer on you a special privilege to make these edits. If readers want to know more about the clients they can click the links. Stop doing this, and particularly stop edit warring. As you have been told multiple times, you do not WP:OWN this article. If you continue on this path, the article will be semiprotected and then you won't be able to edit it at all. And here's the bottom line (as you again have been told many times): you need a clear consensus here to continue these disruptive edits. Sundayclose (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lawyer's notability is derived from his work in the law. Which for a lawyer with clients, means the cases he handles for clients. You quite peculiarly have a penchant here for deleting the most relevant information in that regard - the convictions and sentences of his clients. I'm at a loss to figure out why. If there is any disruption here, or perhaps non-neutral editing, a neutral editor should be able to see from whence it stems.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:948B:39F8:685B:16A6 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An infobox must be brief. You added the very same information previously and it was reverted. Again, stop edit warring. You will either be range blocked or the article will be semiprotected if you continue. That's the last time I'm saying that, so it could happen after your next disruptive edit. Sundayclose (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors above agreed that what you just deleted from the infobox was appropriate. That is the consensus. Why did you delete it, and refer to the addition of the consensus language as edit warring? And why would you think that the editor following consensus should be blocked? Rather than - if anyone you - the editor deleting the consensus version, as it is reflected in the above discussion? I'm a bit surprised by your very hostile comment, when it is clear that you are editing against consensus. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:948B:39F8:685B:16A6 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)r[reply]

Requested move 19 September 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was:

Participants were not convinced that the attorney was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, instead holding that the pageviews of his relatively recently-created article were likely buoyed by WP:RECENTISM. Instead, there was agreement that a WP:NOPRIMARY solution would be most appropriate here, and that a DAB page should be created at the primary title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Primary topic. Per WP:PTOPIC. See, inter alia, pageviews. Would also I imagine require that "Stanley Woodward" be changed to "Stanley Woodward (political aide)". 2603:7000:2101:AA00:20F3:1000:9685:AD85 (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). 162 etc. (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just higher pageviews in the last month. It is decidedly higher pageviews over the past three years. Over twice as many. And as to the last month, it is higher pageviews not just in the "bursts," but rather sustained throughout the month. Nearly every single day in the month (if not every single day), it had higher pageviews. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:20F3:1000:9685:AD85 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page was recently created, therefore lacks historical data to determine if the current pageviews is not the result of just the Capitol trials, and trumps the long-term significance of the other Woordward. – robertsky (talk) 16:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I follow. The pageviews of the relevant pages over the last years - not just last month - shows a clear preponderance for the attorney's page. And the cases he is handling clearly as well have long-term historical significance; unless you are of the view that the January 6 events and the Trump litigation are not of historical significance, which I would find to be a curious view. As pointed out, the assertion above that the focus on him during the last month was not sustained is simply not accurate, so that as an assertion for a contrary view is not convincing. IMHO. And it is not as though this is a one-event case; the attorney clearly represents notable people in multiple events, which in many instances are ongoing events. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:20F3:1000:9685:AD85 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page is created only in June 2023. There is nothing before from this page that to compare with, therefore I am not convinced that the long term significance of this person is there for now. For determining the long-term significance of this subject, we can only wait for time to pass (WP:CRYSTAL) and see if the subject would still be in the limelight and the pageviews are of a more sustained pattern. – robertsky (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused. Sorry for repeating myself, but even with its creation date, the article clearly has pageviews already reflecting it as the primary topic over the past 3 years. Recentism would be it being the primary topic for a month or two, but not for a year. This isn't that. And it passes the test "In ten or twenty years will this .. still appear relevant?" That' why even one-time events (such as January 6) have articles immediately. Rather than them being deleted on the assertion of recentism. If an article has had most of the pageviews for years, as here, it matters not when it was created. And again sorry to repeat, but you haven't addressed the fact that your additional rationale - that "it indeed had higher pageviews in the last month, but most of them were of bursts of traffic rather then sustained throughout the month"- was not at all the case, but rather the opposite was true, as it had higher pageviews on every single such day (or close to that, if not) .. so given that you consider sustained throughout the month pageviews to be of moment, the facts lead to a conclusion that is other than your initial one. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:589A:DCA8:1EE8:726A (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to June 19, 2023 there were no page views of the attorney article because the article did not exist. Regardless of the number of views for the other articles, it's recentism. Recentism is more than a week or two. Three months is not a basis for comparison. And as I said below, this can wait for time to pass. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Wikipedia will not be damaged by waiting. The worst that happens is that readers will have to make an extra click on the hatnote at Stanley Woodward. Sundayclose (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree with that. The pages need a parenthesized word or two to let the reader know they are on the right page. "Sr." and "Jr." makes it sound like they are father and son. Sundayclose (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are their real names, including the suffixes. And the suffixes are used by good sources (see, e.g., NY Times: "Prosecutors questioned whether Stanley Woodward Jr. could defend Walt Nauta while also representing Trump employees who might take the stand...") I don't think readers will assume father and son. The hatnote + disambig page should clear up any ambiguities for the reader. Neutralitytalk 02:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not always use Jr. and Sr. in article titles. For example, Joe Biden. And in this case it creates two problems. If I search and end up at Stanley Woodward Jr., I don't know if it's about the attorney until I read part of the article. Wikipedia is written for the convenience of readers, not those us who want to nitpick about using Jr. and Sr. Secondly, to complicate things even more, it suggests that these people are father and son. Sundayclose (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course we don't always do anything on article titles. In this case (and others), however, actual names (natural disambiguation) are less confusing to the reader than vague titles. "Sr." and "Jr." have the virtue of immediately suggesting to the reader who the younger person is. [And, if they really are father and son, that would seem to make the choice even easier (cf. Harold Ford Jr. and Harold Ford Sr.). I'm not so enthused with Stanley Woodward (political aide) because it could just as easily be Stanley Woodward (diplomat). And since the attorney (Jr.) very frequently represents political aides, I think the parenthetical might not be as clarifying as you would hope.
As for Joe Biden: we don't use "Jr." in the article because the president is clearly the primary topic (indeed, we have no article on his father, Joe Biden Sr., who is not notable). Here, however, the two Woodwards both have articles and seem equally notable; there is not one primary topic. Neutralitytalk 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stanley_Woodward_(attorney)&oldid=1241129872"