Talk:Larry Klayman/Archive 2

SCOTUS denies cert
AP reported today that the D.C. district court's dismissal of Klayman's lawsuit against Colleen Kollar-Kotelly was kept standing by the supreme court. Here is material for a formatted footnote: Oct 6, 9:41 AM EDT Court won't hear appeal over judge's conduct http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CONSERVATIVE_ACTIVIST?SITE=AP He said she was prejudiced against him and asked that she be fired. The courts said no. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Clinton ruling overturned?
In "The Clintons" section, I removed the line about the ruling being overturned on appeal, because I wasn't able to verify it, but my edit was reverted. This was something I wrote months ago and I appear to have been mistaken, and the statement is currently not backed up by sources. Escp99 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I remember it was overturned, but the only source I could find what the court decision itself. Would that be an acceptable source?  --Weazie (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link? The one referenced is the original judge's decision and it doesn't mention the outcome. Klayman disputes that it was overturned, and that's why I had doubts. Escp99 (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Larry Klayman. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.policycounsel.org/18856/31601.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nndb.com/people/781/000118427/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal Action Against Justice Kagan?
The article states that Klayman has brought legal action against Justice Kagan. However, the reference says only that Klayman planned to do so. Further, the linked reference is to a non-neutral source. Perhaps a more appropriate source might be this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/politics/scotus-health-care-recusal/ However, the request for recusal is probably not really a "legal action" as contemplated in the opening paragraph. Magic1million (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that as well; I'm going to delete it. The source (of dubious reliability) says that Klayman intended file an ethics complaint against Kagan to have her disbarred.  It is unknown if Klayman actually ever did file, and in any event it was obviously unsuccessful.  (And filing a complaint isn't really a "legal action" either.)  At the bottom, Klayman's seeking Kagan's disbarment or recusal does not seem particularly noteworthy, and certainly not lede-worthy.  --Weazie (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Condense Lawsuits
As it stands now, the list of lawsuits is very lengthy. I am not certain of the value of having each lawsuit listed in a separate subsection. It seems that the section could be condensed quite a bit, and the article streamlined overall.Magic1million (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Recognizable Quotes
One editor is rejecting as "unneeded" a section on "recognizable quotes". In the case of Klayman, these quotes are absolutely needed to illustrate his concerns and approaches. Examples:

- "Mr. President, get up off your knees, put the Koran down, and come out with your hands up."

- The Southern Poverty Law Center has collected excerpts from some of Klayman's speeches and writings.

Please discuss Wikipedia policies relevant to the inclusion or not of this section in the article. Thank you. Cerberus (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * please offer Wikipedia policy criteria for your deletion of factual and informative content, preferably on this talk page.


 * The bulk of the quote is already in the article. Also, under WP:BRD, bold edits that are reverted are then to be discussed on the talk page; the onus is not on the editor who reverts.  Weazie (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For the second time, I am reverting and then discussing on the talk page. Per WP:BRD, the edits should not be again merely reverted and reinserted.  As to the edits themselves, the bulk of the first quote is already in the article.  The new quote does not otherwise appear in the article, but the "recognizable quote" section is unnecessary.  It adds little, is pushing WP:POV, and the quotes themselves aren't particularly "recognizable."  Moreover, the quotes' "recognizability" is original research; Wikipedia requires a reliable source to say the quotes are recognizable.  The article as is adequately conveys Klayman's character; too much and there will be WP:WEIGHT concerns.


 * As I under WP:BRD, you cannot use it to justify removing my addition -- which in fact, is not very bold in any case. Please reread WP:BRD.  To quote: "BRD is never a reason for reverting".  You have treated it as such.  You are engaged in multiple reversion of a factual edit based on a reliable source.  Please see WP:Edit_warring.  If you have concern about "recognizable", consider editing that word.  Note that Klayman is proud of these quotes.  They should not be viewed as violating WP:POV.  There is not just one quote, so your comment that it one of them is mostly included is not persuasive.  Plus, the section calls for more quotes to be added.  I'd be happy to have the quote moved entirely into the new section.  It is hard to see how you can dispute the notoriety of the first quote: see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/larry-klayman-obama-quran_n_4094589.html or do a web search.  Klayman created waves when he said that, and he has repeated it multiple times since.  (See the references for the quote.)  If you can think of a quote he is better known for, add it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerberus0 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note it is Bold - REVERT - Discuss; not Bold - Discuss - Revert, as suggested in the edit summary. And, yes, please reread WP:BRD: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."  WP:BRD is not a blanket prohibition against reverting, nor was WP:BRD cited as a justification to revert.  The edit is not an improvement; it cannot be fixed by refinement; and specific reasons were given in the edit summary and on the talk page -- exactly as BRD suggests.  BRD goes on to state, "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverts, because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring."  Two different editors have reverted the addition of this section; please respect the established editing process and discuss its possible inclusion here, instead of reinserting and accusing others of edit warring.
 * The additional section is in part unnecessary because, for the third time, the first quote already appears in this article; it is redundant. But more importantly, Wikipedia does not gather quotes that people have said; no other article has a freestanding section for "recognizable" (or "famous") quotes; notable sayings are instead woven into the context in which they were said (like this article did with the first quote).  A "Quote" section risks becoming a coatrack for whatever POV an editor would wish to push, which is why the edit cannot be fixed by refinement.  --Weazie (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry Klayman. 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/20140124103859/http://www.nndb.com/people/781/000118427/ to http://www.nndb.com/people/781/000118427/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518083043/http://kjzz.org/content/136962/man-sheriff-joe-arpaio-hired-investigate-federal-agencies-tries-intervene-contempt to http://kjzz.org/content/136962/man-sheriff-joe-arpaio-hired-investigate-federal-agencies-tries-intervene-contempt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

When was Klayman actually a federal prosecutor?
The article as written only mentions in the lead that he was a federal prosecutor for the Justice Department. It doesn't say when he served in this capacity between college and founding Judicial Watch (or later) or who appointed him. The article should include this information.68.80.130.184 (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Larry Klayman. 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/20160719125830/http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/07/18/risen-cleared-on-labeling-cia-contractor-a-con-artist.htm to http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/07/18/risen-cleared-on-labeling-cia-contractor-a-con-artist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove Cases
Right now, large sections of the page read as a round-up of Klayman's legal cases. Are these really notable? Maybe they send a point that Klayman pursues some pretty wild or conspiratorial cases (e.g. the Obama ebola lawsuit). But I don't know that each and every one of these belong in the article, at least not all with their own sub-head. Does it make more sense to remove them, or to discuss them together in a just a paragraph or two? Magic1million (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The endless litany of doomed cases for horrible causes are what makes him notable, so: yes. Many of the sources include a roundup of cases, we are basically following them here. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I think the changes over the past day have greatly improved the article. Magic1million (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Serial Citations in Intro
Per JzG's suggestion, I am starting a talk section about WP:OVERCITE in the intro paragraph of this article. Although the citations are to valid articles, there do not need to be multiple citations for most or all of the intro claims. For example, there do not need to be 2 citations to support the proposition that Klayman founded Judicial Watch. And one valid reference mentioning that Klayman had a number of lawsuits against the Clintons should be fine for the intro. Trimming the refs in the intro should make this page easier to edit and read. Magic1million (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am fine with reducing the number of footnotes per claim, or grouping them, but if there is redundant sourcing it may support other content elsewhere in the article, so I'd like to discuss which sources you want to remove so we can decide whether they should be retained for other content. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything with a refname, I will rescue so that they are still properly formatted when they appear later. Other than that, I imagine citations are provided later in the article if they are needed. Magic1million (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's the exact opposite of the point. If there is no refname it is not referenced elsewhere (because it can't be other than by duplication of the entire ref) and thus needs to be reviewed and potentially worked in elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely do not understand that point you are making. I do not mean that in a sarcastic or snarky way, I am just legitimately confused. Is your concern that one of the references won't appear in the article if removed from the introductory paragraph? If so, I don't understand that concern. There will be 100s of articles (edit:) external sources that could be linked to as valid references for any article here. But the goal is not to have a compendium of the best references, but rather to simply make sure the article text is properly referenced. But I may be genuinely misreading your concern. Magic1million (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Trim or Combine Case Descriptions
I'm re-upping an issue that I had raised previously, which I feel was solved by edits at that time but which is becoming a potential issue with the article again. At this point, the article contains a fairly exhaustive list of the cases that Klayman has initiated. I wonder if there are starting to be notability or WP:TOOMUCH concerns. Right now, there are descriptions of 5 different cases that were filed last year. I propose that it would be best to summarize or combine some of these. And some of these can probably be cut altogether. For example, I'm not convinced that it's very notable that Klayman represented Jackie Beard Robinson in a defamation suit. Magic1million (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I tightened and grouped (and moved to the bottom) the three defamation/portrayal suits. Moore's suit arguably merits its own paragraph (as he and Klayman are political allies), but the basis of the suit is fairly unrelated to either's political advocacy.  --Weazie (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2021 suspensions.
Klayman has three law licenses: D.C., Florida, and Pennsylvania. In January 2021, the D.C. Court of Appeals placed an interim suspension on Klayman's D.C. license. The Pennsylvania Bar also issued a suspension: a 90-day suspension that was reciprocal discipline in response to the D.C. Bar's suspending Klayman's license for 90 days in 2020. The Pennsylvania reciprocal suspension is not notable because Klayman's license there has been inactive for years, and was imposed only because the D.C. bar previously had suspended his license. --Weazie (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)