Talk:Edgar Snyder

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

Declaration per WP:COI[edit]

The user Esamktg (talk · contribs), who contributed in the effort to improve this article so that it could be reinstated, appears to be employed by Snyder's law firm. (This individual e-mailed me, and their e-mail address's domain was edgarsnyder.com.) I have already notified them of our COI policies. Now that the article is in mainspace rather than userspace, I'm taking a moment to make this information public in case there are any questions or concerns later. —Bill Price (nyb) 20:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No content in lead about Snyder's saturation advertising[edit]

I added content in the lead about Snyder's ubiquitous advertising (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Snyder&diff=858762823&oldid=858761395}. It was then removed by another editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Snyder&diff=next&oldid=858762823). I added the content because it's the overwhelming, or perhaps only, reason Snyder is notable. Therefore, I was shocked there wasn't anything about it in the lead. The Pittsburgh area has literally thousands of lawyers, but Snyder became notable because he completely saturated television and other media (radio, magazines, phone books, etc.) with his advertising. It made him very famous (or infamous, depending on one's outlook) and put his name recognition locally at nearly 100%, according to sourcing already in the article. So I felt it was vital to expand the lead to include why he became so well known and therefore notable. Without the massive advertising, he very likely would not be Wikipedia notable. The lead should include the highlights of the bio, and Snyder's advertising is the reason he's a household name in his city. Therefore, I feel the content I added should be restored. Thoughts? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the citation provided says. Softlavender (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is not what the citation says? There are numerous citations. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The verbiage you added in that edit, cited to this: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add that cite. It was already there, although that cite is not even necessary in the lead. I simply added the content about the advertising, which is verified in the body and in the cumulative sources. He's not notable because he's a lawyer. He's notable because he's a lawyer whose advertising strategy made him extremely well known and led to the local media's interest in covering him. Thus, the sentence in the article that says, "The advertisements helped propel Snyder's profile to the 'near-saturation point,' with an estimated 98% name recognition." I don't understand why you're fighting so hard to prevent a vital fact about this guy from being included in the lead. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You added the verbiage directly in front of the citation [2], even though that's not what the citations says. The verbiage is non-neutral, of questionable accuracy, and does not belong in the lede. If you like, I can add neutral accurate wording to the lede that is actually substantiated by the viewable citation. Softlavender (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Let's see what you come up with. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I like what you added to the lede (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Snyder&diff=858772638&oldid=858771770). A lot. I just found this editorial from Pittsburgh's major newspaper (http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2014/08/01/No-right-to-know/stories/201408030062), which opens with "If everybody in Pittsburgh knows personal injury lawyer Edgar Snyder, it’s because he made them know him. With his promotional TV ads and billboards, he made himself one of the most recognizable figures in the region." Also, this story (http://www.post-gazette.com/business/legal/2013/09/30/Attorney-from-Breaking-Bad-captivates-lawyers/stories/201309300010) in which Snyder comments on a TV show (Breaking Bad) lawyer similar to himself: "He stole the finger-point from me!" Mr. Snyder joked, referring to his TV ads where he points at the camera..."I can't walk down the street in Pittsburgh without someone pointing at me." All of this goes to my point that his being a household name in Pittsburgh because of his advertising needed to be in the lede. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Divorce[edit]

IP, Softlavender, the pair of you have gone over the three revert rule, and the biographies of living persons exemption is contentious in this instance. So stop it now, or I will block the next one of you who reverts. As a free third opinion, I would advise you to get another source that explains the divorce, use that as a citation, otherwise just replace "divorced" with "separated", which is a lesser but appropriate term. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The divorce proceedings, which began in early June 2014, were sealed in July 2014, so there is no further information available about it. They are no longer married but no one can post anything publicly about the divorce. I find it highly unlikely that the proceedings lasted more than 7 months (i.e., past the end of 2014). In my opinion we should not just leave the information hanging just because it is under seal. If we do, then 10 or 20 years from now the article will still say they "began divorce proceedings" and will still be left hanging. Softlavender (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only other source I can find is this one. No reliable source seems to have said the divorce is complete and finalised; it probably is, but we haven't got a reliable source saying it (unless somebody can produce one). So I would leave it as "separated", which seems to be about the best compromise I can think of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained, the divorce was placed under seal so there's not going to be any further public mention of it past July 2014. Softlavender (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Softlavender, "there is no further information available about it"! It's about time that you finally admitted it. And the fact that you "find it highly unlikely that the proceedings lasted more than 7 months" is absolutely meaningless with regard to our responsibilities as editors. You cannot add content based on opinions and assumptions. You cannot add content that can't be verified by a reliable source. Ritchie, I found the edit warring exceptions policy, WP:3RRNO. It says one of the exemptions is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." Softlavender added completely unsourced, contentious content (saying that Snyder and his wife divorced in 2014) even though she knew there were no sources that said that. The two included sources are about how their divorce proceedings had recently begun. Many divorce cases are withdrawn; many last for years. So, the content as it stands now (that they're going through divorce proceedings) reflects precisely what the sources say. If the divorce in fact was ultimately finalized, then additonal content, and a source to verify it, can be added. And, no, Ritchie, we cannot say they're separated. That's another assumption. Do you have a source that says that. And don't forget, the sources that are there are from 2014. So if sources can be found about their current status (separated, divorced), then that would require new, separate content. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have any strong opinions one way or the other; I was simply suggesting an easy way to close the debate down so you could both move on. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IP, you don't have any proof of your claim that "they're going through divorce proceedings", since the last possible public information on that was from July 2014. Your statements "If the divorce in fact was ultimately finalized, then additional content, and a source to verify it, can be added" and "So if sources can be found about their current status (separated, divorced), then that would require new, separate content" are also incorrect, because the proceedings were placed under seal beginning in July 2014 and there will be no further sources so no further sources can be added. Softlavender (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? Look at the article ("...began divorce proceedings in 2014") And read the sources. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to resort to insults when people disagree with you, then you have lost the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was in 2014. You stated above "they're [now] going through divorce proceedings", for which you have no proof and which is extremely unlikely. Softlavender (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about how the current content reflects exactly what the 2014 sources say. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see references to "estranged wife", which indeed implies separated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The articles do not just imply, they state very clearly that she left him in March 2014, and that she does not deny that she left him. Softlavender (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares? Of course they physically separated; a divorce case had just been filed. But nothing in the sourcing says they were legally separated. And it's beside the point. This entire dispute was about you repeatedly inserting content that you already knew could not be sourced (that they divorced in 2014). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point here. They demonstrably separated in March 2014; it is highly unlikely that their divorce proceedings lasted more than seven months (lawyers don't let their own divorces drag out because they know how ridiculously costly that is and they know the ins and outs of the law); and it is not a great idea for the Wikipedia article to infinitely remain with something stated or implied as being (still) in process that is in overwhelming probability not still in process. I agree with Ritchie333's solution of using the word "separated", Ritchie, if you would like to make that change I would support it as a good workable solution. Softlavender (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to stop with all your irrelevant assumptions and speculation ("it is highly unlikely...", "lawyers don't let their own divorces drag out...", "overwhelming probability..." etc.). We edit based on reliable sources, not on what an editor believes is likely or probable. You have absolutely no idea how long their divorce case dragged on. Nor do I. It could've been three months or three years. Many divorces drag on for far more than a year. I know a couple whose divorce case went over four years. In any case, the only important fact necessary about this matter is that they filed for divorce and when it happened. Saying they separated, whether legally or not, would simply be "duh" content. Obviously, when a couple goes through a hostile divorce like this one, they separate. It goes without saying. The only other important detail would be if the divorce was actually granted. If that ever gets published, it should be added when it happened. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Saying they were "separated" implies to readers a legal separation. At the time of those sources, we don't know if that was the case. So it would be pure speculation. All we know from the sources is that they lived in separate places. But their physical living arrangement does not belong in the article. They started the divorce process in 2014; that's enough. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the word "legally" is added or the word is wikilinked to legal separation, it doesn't mean or imply anything other than that they separated. Plus the sources are clear that she distinctly left him. It's important for the article because if we just say they "began divorce proceedings", they might have quickly dropped them and reconciled since we provide no further info. Adding that they separated lets the readers know that this was an official (and fairly acrimonious) parting of the ways and not simply a filing; since we provide no further info this seems important. It's important that the article not seem incomplete or left hanging. Softlavender (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would clearly imply it. Yes, she "left him"... physically. That's all we know. It doesn't matter what they "might have" done. All that matters is what the sources say about the legal status, which is that a divorce case was started. We can't provide further info because there is no further info. If it becomes available, we'll add it. We tell what we know. And the last we know from reliable sources is that they started divorce proceedings. Their living arrangement in 2014 is irrelevant. Readers can read the sources for all the details. So when you say, "Adding that they separated lets the readers know that this was an official (and fairly acrimonious) parting of the ways" shows that you're still missing the point. No, it was not an "official" parting of the ways. It was actually an unofficial parting of the ways, not an official (legal) one. We don't know what happened after that time and we know of no legal rulings on the case. You're making assumptions again. And, no, it's not important that this particular issue is left "hanging." This is an encylopedia, not a TV drama. Many BLPs have content about incidents where the resolutions are unknown; particularly those involving legal matters. So you can't inappropriately force content into an article simply because you want a nice neat package that's wrapped nicely. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Softlavender (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd go with just "separated" still; however the discussion has been publicised on WP:BLPN so hopefully somebody else will turn up and help cement a consensus on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the BLPN post was removed by the filer. Softlavender (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I now think just "separated" is incomplete, and does not reflect what we know, which is why I would prefer "separated and began divorce proceedings in 2014". Softlavender (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender is an experienced and (mostly) very sensible editor. But, having read all of the above and all of the (rather limited) available sources avaiable online, it seems to me that IP2605 is 100% correct here. There is also the legal aspect to think of - proceedings are sealed for a reason. Suggesting that the couple are indeed divorced, contrary to a clear court decision to protect the outcome of proceedings from public scrutiny, seems to be just asking for trouble. 86.187.160.16 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is being discussed. We are discussing whether to add the words "separated and", or whether to just say "separated" or whether to leave it as it currently is. Softlavender (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this thread was created precisely because of what IP 86 is discussing and so they are appropriately commenting on that issue. All you do is keep repeating yourself, while refusing to address numerous specific objections. And the BLPN was withdrawn because it was solely about your inserting completely speculative content into the article, which you finallly admitted could not be sourced. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

This article seems to have been created by someone with a COI as noted above. I don't see an assertion of notability let alone any evidence. All of the coverage is local. Is being the "best known" personal injury attorney in a particular city enough? Don't they all run lots of cheesy adds? Why do we have an article on this subject? What is the lasting significance? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I tend to agree. When I saw that Pittsburgh was the 63rd-largest city in the U.S. I was quite impressed. But when I now check the 2017 population estimate of 302,407 I see that it's actually smaller than that of my home city of Newport, which had a population in 2011 of 306,844. Now I know that the legal system of the U.S. is very different from that in the U.K., but I really can't imagine an article which opened with e.g. "In 2009, the South Wales Argus called him "Newport's best-known personal injury lawyer". I'd be really at a loss to field an article about "Wales's best-known personal injury lawyer" (whoever that might be). All the supporting sources here are either self-published or from the local Pittsburgh press. Is this individual really notable at all?? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but not because of the size of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is a major metro area that has thousands of lawyers, and Snyder's practice isn't limited just to Pittsburgh proper; he represents clients in all areas of Greater Pittsburgh, which has a population of over two million. He's very well known locally solely because of the advertising saturation he employed for many years (e.g. television, radio, phone books, billboards), but I don't believe that makes him enyclopedically notable. Look at the sources. Anyway, you can put the article up for deletion and see what happens. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. An WP:AfD seems likely to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edgar_Snyder&oldid=1196414651"