Talk:Daniel Herman (publisher)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Daniel Herman (publisher). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202142615/http://comicbooknerdsarehot.com/page51/index.php?id=2305726207225158357 to http://comicbooknerdsarehot.com/page51/index.php?id=2305726207225158357
 * Added tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/2004100129
 * Added tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/2001088750

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Dille Family Trust
Actual filed Court Documents are not a slander site. This is a real controversy backed up by a Federal judge's opinion. Stop edit warring Maravelous (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)]]

Hello. Court documents might be truthful, but they are not accepted on a biography of living person on Wikipedia. Some court documents are considered NPOV Primary sources. Wikipedia relies on NPOV Secondary sources--sources that are considered consistently truthful, but are not directly involved in matters the way a court is.

Hi. The above note (not mine) was my rationale for deleting this section. The court documents are not cited directly, but rather through a website (http://geer-herman.com/) which shows strong signs of bias, including the phrases "Have never seen a Judgement as harsh as this one against Geer Herman" and "Caveat Emptor if you are thinking of hiring the law firm of GEER- HERMAN". I'm skeptical of the relevance of the documents themselves, which appear to describe a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. Although Geer-Herman is listed as a claimant, they are not listed as counsel, and Daniel Herman's name does not otherwise appear in the documents as far as I can tell. The documents don't seem to demonstrate the assertion that "The case is still ongoing with allegations of fraud, mismanagement and outright theft being leveled in court documents against both Herman and Geer." This section appears to have been added and reverted a few times by different users. Perhaps it could be discussed here on the talk page, rather than fueling an edit war? Vannevarmorgan (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * One of the citations that confirms the legal documentation is The Hollywood Reporter, a bona fide publication. Thanks for your blatent attempt to cover up this egregious fraud.  Mr. Herman made his own article as seen by the history, he has to live with it being accurate Maravelous (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Court documents, or indeed any primary sources are not recommended to be used in Wikipedia, and especially not in BLPs (even when not posted to anonymous websites with added editorialising). The Hollywood Reporter article does not name either Herman, or his wife. If it is a notable controversy, that Herman is notably involved with, then there should be better sources to use. Curdle (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Make sense- Court documents name Geer the Trustee and the article names her- so does the Boing Boing article Maravelous (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * BoingBoing is a blog. It may be a very informative one, but it is still a blog, and not a Reliable Source and so should not be used except in very limited cases, for instance when the writer is a recognised expert in their field. The writer of that piece has only written two articles (the other one about exactly the same case) there, isnt on the list of regular contributors, and goes under the name of "Rogers Anthony", which as its a reversal of Buck Rogers original name, "Anthony Rogers" makes me wonder if it's a pseudonym. They also quote the website with the documents, described as a "website set up to expose what is going on".
 * These court documents are still primary documents, posted by an unknown person, with no official oversight, who has added in their own opinionated comments. What is the guarantee they are even real court documents, or that they haven't been altered? there is no way to tell. They should not be used. Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY The only RS does not mention Herman, and so does not support any of the statements. Curdle (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Please note Maravelous has been warned many times (I just warned on their Talk page, and see these warnings listed here) that NPOV-Primary sources are inadequate. It may be sensible to block that editor from this page. Mcfnord (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm unclear why the section is even included. It appears to be a coatrack. Can someone identify a source that clearly shows it is noteworthy in the life of Herman? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have some agreement about the current heading, that the section relates to a number of different subjects, and I've considered relocating much of this to Buck Rogers. However, many details pertain to Mr. Herman: With him as its lawyer, the trust filed for bankruptcy (which the judge may have ruled inappropriate), handled IP improperly, ignored court directives, and abused legal procedures. I don't think a trust could do all that without the cooperation of the attorney. Attorneys drop bad clients all the time, but he didn't. Mcfnord (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems to be WP:OR. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thing this isn't the article! A court heavily criticized legal choices this attorney performed in the court. This mostly matters because the asset is well-known, so move this history to Buck Rogers if you want. I think the asset is the reason this subject has an entry. Mcfnord (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved this Buck Rogers portion to the Buck Rogers topic. Mcfnord (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

List of works as publisher
This seems a rather blatant attempt at promotion without regard to encyclopedic value. If anyone can find a GA article with remotely similar content, it might help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)