Talk:Daniel M. Petrocelli

Someone keeps trying to delete what the New York Times reported re Weinstein
This editor keeps trying to delete the substance of the N.Y. Times article in which one of Harvey Weinstein's victims recounts a horrifying experience with Mr. Petrocelli.

First attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_M._Petrocelli&type=revision&diff=938185522&oldid=938184510

Second attempt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_M._Petrocelli&type=revision&diff=941956864&oldid=940471956

Please stop trying to delete information that is critical of Mr. Petrocelli. Wikipedia is not a publicity website. The information was in the N.Y. Times, which is as authoritative a periodical as there is. The editor claims it's "WP:LIBEL" but that's for courts to decide, not you, and Mr. Petrocelli has never filed a lawsuit against the N.Y.Times over the story. His response to their reporter was, "no comment." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyondabove14 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Beyondabove14, you need to familiarize yourself with WP:LIBEL, it's when an accusation is made and accusations are not for Wikipedia. WP:COPYVIO means it is a cut and paste job and when you look at the source it is taken verbatim from the article. Not sure why the bots didn't pick up on that. MattyMetalFan (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerns - Publicity, Promotion, Source Verification.
This article cites a number of sources in which the information conveyed in the article does not match the information presented in the original source, instead it adds embellishments that cause the article to read similar to a resume. I have marked a couple of these. Further verification efforts are hindered by a number of broken links, these too need updated and verified.

On tracing the edit history I found a number of major contributors who have been banned due to sock-puppetry and suspected ties to paid-edit work. I'm not suggesting that this is the case for the entire, or even majority of content, but I think it signals the need for a review, verification of sources and updates that present a broader view of the subject.

As another editor pointed out, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not intended for publicity or promotion. I hope other editors might join in and check whether the sources match the articles claims. Sadke4 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)