Talk:Harry Litman/Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Harry Litman.webp

what a mess
Ugh, this article is a mess. Clearly there's been some COI editing along the way. I just am so uninterested in fixing this. —valereee (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I get your point and frustration. Lots of time articles like this fly under the radar until someone attracts notice to it by posting a question about it somewhere (e.g. the Teahouse). That's seems to be what happened here. Once an article like this is noticed, others tend to try and improve in bits and pieces as best as they can to bring it more in line with relevant policies and guidelines; if that can't really be done, then such articles tend to end up at WP:AFD.Most likely there was some COI editing going on over the years as you suspect, but COI editing isn't expressly prohibited per se, just highly discouraged, and is something that can be cleaned up. The editor who posted WP:THQ has stated they don't have a COI so I don't there's any reason to not believe them, but other who previously edited the article might have had. Whether that warrants a COI tag is unclear, but I can understand why the tag was added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , yeah, I get it. I think it's ongoing, but if you want to remove the tag, that's fine. —valereee (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I added COI edit notice to the top of this talk page. That way there will still be some guidance about what to do if you have an COI and want to edit this article if the COI tag gets removed from the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal life
I tried to cleanup the "Personal life" a bit with this edit and left an edit summary explaining why, but it much of it was re-added (in good faith) here without really an explanation why in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines or even following WP:BRD; so, I've removed it (and some other stuff) again here and feel it's something to be sorted out here on the talk page.First, the children's names probably shouldn't be mentioned per WP:BLPNAMES even if they can be properly sourced. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and, therefore, doesn't necessarily need to include as much detail as perhaps a newspaper article/interview might. With minor children, in particular, there's no reason to mention them directly by name unless they're somehow Wikipedia notable in their own right or are more contextually relevant than just being the children of the article.It's quite possile that Litman's wife and mother are Wikipedia notable enough to support stand-alone articles on their own. I've asked about his wife at WT:MARTIAL, but not sure if "Masters world champion" meets WP:NSPORT and not sure whether she would meet WP:NACADEMIC. His mom seems to have a much stronger case per WP:NBIO given the length or her career as a lawyer and perhaps civil rights advocate, but probably more and better significant coverage will need to be found to establish that. If stand-alone articles about the two do end up created, then it would be find to add details about their professional accomplishments to those articles; however, I'm not so sure they need to be included in this article here since they really seem to be a tad bit WP:COATRACKING. Litman's parents were lawyers (I'm assuming his father also died, but not sure so apologies if he hasn't), and Litman's claim of Wikipedia notability seems to partly due to his legal career; so, mentioning his parent's were lawyers seem sound because what he experienced as a kid probably influenced him greatly. Perhaps this should be expanded upon in the "Early life and education" section if more sources can be found. I'm not so sure individual cases his parents might've been involved should be mentioned though, unless the case itself has a Wikipedia article written about it. There's nothing mentioned about Litman's parents in Connie Hawkins and only a brief paragraph about a possible lawsuit against the NBA; so, it seems a bit WP:UNDUE to mention that one case by name since there's no real connection to Litman himself.Similar reasoning for his wife's jui jitsu accomplishments and being a mathematician. Subjects of Wikipedia article often have spouses who, in turn, have their own careers; however, unless the spouse's career is somehow directly tied into the article subject's Wikipedia notability or the spouse is Wikipedia notable in their own right, there's probably no need to mention any career details about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's worthwhile to include the basics about his family. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on how you define "the basics". For me, that's obviously the wife's and parent's names, but not so sure about any extra information, particularly when it seems not really relevant to the Wikipedia reader's understanding of who Litman is as a person. For example, the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times profiles of Litman (here and here) simply mention his wife by name and that the couple have three children. I'm not saying Wikipedia needs to do the same just because it's being done by others, but it does seem sufficient from Wikipedia's readers given it's the only time the wife is mentioned in the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone responded to my query about Litman's wife jui jitsu accomplishments at WT:MARTIAL and it appears she's not Wikipedia notable as a martial artist. It also appears (at least according to the person who responded at WT:MARTIAL) that the "world champion" claim might be technically valid in a sense, but not really such a great accomplishment given the it appears to be for low-level classes with only a few participants. I really think adding something like three-time world champion" or even "world champion" would be a kind of overstatement/puffery unless we want to add more contextual detail about what that means; however, I don't see any way to neutrally do that without making someone look a little bad. I believe the expression "World Champion" carries lots of weight and readers are going to assume it probably means much more than winning the lowest level class where there were only three other participants and then winning the next-to-lowest level class where their was only one participant. That might be a great thing for a newspaper interview with her husband and even social media, but it seems too much for a Wikipedia article about her husband. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

removed resume tag
Still needs a lot of work, though. Most of the article had very closely paraphrased his many online bios. I removed one para that had been copied verbatim. —valereee (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to clean things up. Do you think that WP:C-P paragraph needs to be WP:REVDELeted? I'm not sure how long ago it was added. It looks like it might've been added here, but some bits might have been added earlier. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , frankly I'm a bit terrified of revdeling something with so many edits after it..., advice? —valereee (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI!  16:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The revision before that edit is mostly titles so I think it's ok. I've done much larger revdels for similar violations before, I think it's ok to revdel in this case because it doesn't step on too many peoples feet. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 16:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks...lol, if I'd made that edit, I would totally be looking over my shoulder for a couple days wondering when someone was going to show up to explain what I did wrong! :D —valereee (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you . -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For Valereee
Hi Valereee,

I hope that this is what you had in mind.

So let's see. I think you deleted a number of entries and then also posted a warning on the page as follows: "This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2020) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (September 2020)"


 * I'm not sure who you mean by a major contributor who appears to have a close connection with me. To the best of my knowledge, no family member or friend has contributed to the page.  I'd like to remove that cautionary note, but I'm not sure what sort of evidence you would need.
 * It would be great if possible to see the previous version that you edited. is the possible?  for now though I'm just going on memory in terms of deleted entries:
 * I believe you deleted my work on several cases: US v Murphy (the Pittsburgh Mayor); US ex rep Washington v EDMC (Largest False Claims settlement ever in a DoE case); and PA general counsel for Kerry Edwards campaign.   Were those for lack of proof?  They were all covered the newspapers and I'm happy to try to hunt for articles.
 * There's quite a bit more to add re Talking Feds but I'm not sure if you deleted portions or not-- I just don't remember what was there (I have not by the way edited the article)
 * You seem to have deleted my parents' involvement in the Connie Hawkins case. It was a landmark case, there's a whole book about it, it's extremely well known.  what do you need me to supply there?
 * ditto my wife jiu-jitsu titles and her previous career as a bass guitar player. do you need records from the jiu-jitsu organizations?  It's true that there are different classes of world champions, but there's no doubt that the organizations consider them as such. And we have a flyer I think or promotional materials for her old band.  would that suffice for the bass guitar part?
 * oddly you added an entry about the Jordan Miles case suggesting it was declined by my office. But that was many years after I left office.  I'm not sure why you added it and it seems to suggest inaccurately that it while I was there.
 * now that I look at it, it also seems as if you deleted some details about my US attorney tenure, eg tried cases in the trial court and court of appeals. these also are very well documented.  I'm not sure why you took them out.

there are likely some more entries. As I say, I don't have the previous version to compare. but hopefully we can discuss these points when you have a chance.

Thanks very much

Harry Litman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.126.150 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is the talk page for the article about you.
 * It's important to understand this is not "your" article. Wikipedia articles are not controlled by the entity the article is about like a LinkedIn page is. We have very strict rules to protect biographies of living persons, which you can read about at WP:BLP, but all information in all articles must be cited to reliable independent sources, so the simple fact something is true doesn't mean we include it. Most of the information that was removed would have been done so because it wasn't cited to a reliable independent source, didn't seem appropriate for this article, or some other policy-related reason.
 * You can see all previous versions of an article in its page history. At the top of any page, you'll see a tab that says View History. Click on that, and you'll see a list of every saved version. Click on any of the dates to see the version that was live that day. In the case of the Harry Litman: Revision history, there are multiple dates that are struck through and are not visible because they contained content that was a copyright violation, possibly from some online bio of yours. Probably someone you know thought they were doing you a favor by copy-pasting from a bio, but Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously.
 * The warnings about needing additional citations is there to let other editors know there is information in the article that is not cited to a reliable source. The warning about a major contributor having a likely conflict of interest was due to additions by User talk:ApplePieMom, who seemed to be an acquaintance of yours. We ask that anyone with a COI -- which of course includes you -- declare that COI on their own user page and at the article talk, and we very strongly prefer editors with a COI not edit articles directly but instead make edit requests at the article talk page. Another editor, if they think the edits are appropriate, will directly edit the article. (The exception to this is actual libel; any editor can remove that from any article at any time, with an appropriate edit summary explaining, then post on the talk page what you've done and asking for help. An admin can hide it in the article's page history.) To remove the COI banner I just need assurance that you won't edit the article directly.
 * The stuff about your wife's and parents' accomplishments probably isn't appropriate for the biography of you, but the reason we've got your mom and your wife's names in red is to tell other editors that these may be notable people; someone may at some point decide to write those articles. Re: your parents and Connie Hawkins, the thing to do would be to go into the talk page at that article and/or 1961 NCAA University Division men's basketball gambling scandal, declare your COI, and suggest edits that would start to flesh out their part in that. Once it becomes clear that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, an article might eventually be spun off.
 * Yes, anything that has coverage in reliable independent sources such as newspapers or academic works or books is something you can bring here to make an edit request. Flyers or promotional materials from an organization you're associated with aren't considered independent. We can use your own bios for noncontroversial personal data like years of birth & graduation, the fact an undergrad was in history, etc., but your own bios can't be used for showing that, for instance, a case you were involved in is worth noting here. That has to come from a reliable source, and it should probably have been reported outside your own hometown and the town the case was associated with or someone will probably argue it's routine coverage and not notable enough to discuss; I'm not deeply familiar with how we handle those kinds of things, but you're welcome to read up on it at, like the best place to begin is Notability (events). Obviously if the case has an article and you're mentioned in that article, we'd consider it worth discussing in the article about you.
 * Sorry, I know this is all a lot to take in. Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve. If you create an account, let me know; it'll help with communication. Meanwhile you can ping me (notify me that you've responded here) by starting a post with and ending it with four tildes in the same edit; if you don't do both in the same edit, the ping won't work, and it can't be fixed, you have to open a new edit and do it correctly. —valereee (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ETA: I've changed your numbers/letters to bullet points, as they're easier to use with WP's formatting. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of IP address
Hi Valeree

I left a long response to you in the talk section yesterday and it seems to have disappeared?! This can be pretty confusing. did you receive it. It had double asterisks responsding to 4-5 points. But here's a new request: could you please remove the IP address that I inadvertently provided in my initial communication to you? Thanks. Fuguefortinhorns (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for registering an account! I've removed it from the history here. Re: your response, no, I didn't see it, and there aren't any edits showing since the one by the IP. You must not have hit publish changes (bottom of the screen)? I'm sorry, Wikipedia is very confusing at first. Most new users are trying to do things like fix the odd typo, and they slowly kind of build to long discussions on talk pages after making multiple such edits.


 * The ping didn't work -- you aren't meant to include the nowiki stuff. Ping = 2 open curly brackets, the letter u, vertical slash, username, 2 close curlies.


 * I'll leave some helpful links for beginners at your User talk:Fuguefortinhorns. That page is actually yours -- you will receive messages from other users there (there are notification icons at the top of every page that let you know when someone has pinged you or left a message on your user talk) and you are free to archive or remove any messages you've seen. You aren't required to respond to them, although it's best if you do. —valereee (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Harry?
I've created Roslyn Litman. I'd love to be able to include a photo, but we are very serious about copyright. We can use a tiny version of something we find online under fair use, but it would be nice if we had a free use image.

The easiest way to include one would be to use one that you or one of her family or friends has taken themselves which has not appeared online yet. If that's a possibility, upload it/have them upload it at Wikimedia Commons, name it something I can find (like RoslynLitman1.jpg) and ping me here or at the article about her, post to my talk, or email me from my talk. Unfortunately you can't just email it to me, it has to be uploaded by the copyright holder.

(Re: a photo of you here, same goes. We can also use a fed gov portrait, if there's one somewhere.) Valereee (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits 13 May 22

 * Specific text to be added: Notable cases in private practice[edit]

Litman was lead counsel for the relator in Washington v. EDMC, a False Claims Act case against a for-profit education chain. The case resulted in the largest settlement ever in an FCA case involving the U.S. Department of Education.[9] He was counsel for Richard Cordray, then director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in contemplated litigation against President Trump to prevent Cordray's termination. Litman represented Pittsburgh Mayor Thomas J. Murphy Jr. in a successful effort to prevent indictment on federal charges.[10] He also served as co-counsel by appointment of the Department of Justice in two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.[11][12] A Democrat, Litman served as Pennsylvania state counsel to the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and post-election counsel for Western Pennsylvania to the Obama-Biden presidential campaign in 2008.


 * Reason for the change: This entire section was deleted, however Harry Litman has handled over 100 cases in his career with the few that I've included in references below being the most notable and the subject of considerable news coverage. Please reinsert the section above.


 * References supporting change:

WASHINGTON V EDMC [fn 9] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/education/09forprofit.html, Aug 8 2011, p 1 “The depth and breadth of the fraud laid out in the complaint are astonishing,” said Harry Litman, a lawyer in Pittsburgh and former federal prosecutor who is one of those representing the two whistle-blowers whose 2007 complaints spurred the suit. “It spans the entire company — from the ground level in over 100 separate institutions up to the most senior management — and accounts for nearly all the revenues the company has realized since 2003.” https://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2015/11/16/edmc-to-pay-95m-to-settle-department-of-justice.html The whistleblowers' lead counsel, Harry Litman of Litman Law Firm in Pittsburgh, said in a statement that the amount of the settlement was driven by EDMC's ability to pay. That was echoed by Attorney General Lynch, who said "an important part of this settlement was a factored in the company's ability to pay." 3.https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2015/11/16/EDMC-reaches-nearly-100-million-settlement-with-federal-state-prosecutors-over-recruiting-practices/stories/201511170011 ❌

RICH CORDRAY CASE--CORDRAY v TRUMP et al https://www.respanews.com/RN/ArticlesRN/Cordray-book-details-his-nearfiring-78576.aspx In the end, an old friend who clerked with Cordray on the Supreme Court, Harry Litman, agreed to represent him without charge. As the pair began working on defenses for potential claims in a firing, fitness for office became a clear possible tactic. ISBN13: 9780197502990 Watchdog: How Protecting Consumers Can Save Our Families, Our Economy, and Our Democracy, p 185 ❌

TOM MURPHY CASE https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2006/06/29/Murphy-s-deal-was-no-crime/stories/200606290298 The arguments of Murphy's counsel, former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, proved persuasive. Boil them down to this: Go after Murphy and the federal government would need to go after many others, such as Republican Gov. George Pataki of New York, because "under the theory of the proposed indictment, [countless scenarios] would be converted in a stroke from common political bartering to a necessary federal investigation.'' https://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2006/06/27/How-Murphy-s-lawyers-faced-down-feds/stories/200606270135 “Essentially, Mr. Murphy's lawyers, led by former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman, talked the Department of Justice out of prosecuting their client, alternately arguing that the government had no case to bring, could not win whatever case it brought, and could even face a suit to recover any costs incurred by the former mayor if he were brought to trial and acquitted.” ❌

76.88.61.155 (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks good! You can proceed and add your suggestion in a new section, except the last sentence ("A Democrat, Litman served as Pennsylvania state counsel to the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and post-election counsel for Western Pennsylvania to the Obama-Biden presidential campaign in 2008."). As per WP:BLP, this should not be included as it is unsourced. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Actualcpscm, this is a COI editor who shouldn't be editing the article directly. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Valereee As far as I know, allowing a COI editor to directly edit the article is possible. The COIREQ template response options even include an option for this, as you can see in the template above. As I understand it, direct COI editing is a problem when it is done without approval. However, when an impartial editor has explicitly approved an edit, there's no reason it can't be done by the COI editor as long as it is implemented exactly as it was suggested. Since the article content would be the same no matter who makes the edit, and the talk page history clearly shows if an edit was approved, why would this be a problem?
 * In many cases, allowing a COI editor to proceed with making their suggested changes can significantly speed up dealing with COIREQs (and make it less tedious), which is extra convenient given the currently very problematic backlog.
 * If my understanding of the COI policies is wrong, please do correct me; you clearly have a lot more experience around here than I do. Actualcpscm (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Actualcpscm (LMK if you don't wanted pinged) Yes, it's possible. It's inadvisable, though. The IP is the subject of the article.
 * The reason I advise COI editors never to edit directly is partially in their best interests: COI editing attracts hostile attention. Literally every comma will be scrutinized. And for very good reason: many living persons would like to mold the WP article about them into what they want it to be. It's best if a neutral editor does any direct editing, and generally with a big spoonful of caution. Answering COI edit requests is a very demanding job. I want to see the COI tell me "replace X with Y" and provide the source, but I never just stop there. I try to think about what I'd write from scratch from those sources.
 * In this case, for instance, I would object to these edits. The first citation mentions Litman once, and it's just as a quote from an expert. To me it doesn't seem to support adding anything. Same for the rest. Routine coverage, to me. All the sources seem to be about the case, not Litman. Cobbling together this paragraph from these sources is...well, not something I'd do. This stuff should go on his LinkedIn, not on the WP article about him. Valereee (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Valereee (Same for your pings) I understand what you mean, some interesting food for thought. Thanks for your feedback!
 * Regarding the specific suggestion, I guess your approach ("how would i write it from scratch?") is different from mine, which has been more one of verification rather than reconstruction. It's probably a better one for COIREQ, so I'll try to incorporate that going forward. Thank you again :) Actualcpscm (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for COIREQ, IMO we have to be willing to let there be a backlog. Not that many editors really want to address those, and we don't want that fact to mean COI editors get to walk all over our policies. I'd rather let them wait until someone comes along, which usually they eventually will. And in this case, we're talking about multiple requests, each with multiple parts and multiple sources to check. Valereee (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)