Talk:Paul Bilzerian

OF COURSE he would be an Armenian. 2601:8:2B00:55A:6945:A16:1B41:D6F8 (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutral POV
Wikipedia requires a Neutral POV Neutral_point_of_view. Several statements in the article show bias and/or are claims that aren't substantiated or attributed.

Examples: "In 2002, the government confiscated Bilzerian's ownership in Cimetrix and drove the company from several years of high sales growth and profitability to the verge of bankruptcy.[citation needed][neutrality is disputed] Bilzerian has always maintained that the government lawyers are seldom concerned about the shareholders but rather in making a name for themselves by prosecuting high profile and often innocent businessmen." The first sentences makes an unsubstantiated claim, with bias in favor of Bilzerian and against "the government". The second sentence continues with biased language that should be sourced to a specific quote from Bilzerian.

"Bilzerian has maintained that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should have reversed and vacated his conviction based on two subsequent unanimous United States Supreme Court decisions that mandated his conviction be reversed. Instead, the Court of Appeals simply ignored the Supreme Court decisions and let his conviction stand." The reference for the first sentence is an unrelated Supreme Court decision, with no clear link to this case and no clear mandate why his conviction should be reversed. The second sentence implies that normal jurisprudence was not followed, without a clear reason why. If these are opinions attributable to someone specific, that citation is never provided.

"Bilzerian argued the real reason the SEC opposed his bankruptcy was so that the SEC Receiver could control all his assets through an extremely cooperative federal judge in Washington who allowed the SEC to go after Bilzerian's wife and children in complete disregard for an earlier bankruptcy court judgment." The phrase "complete disregard" is inflammatory and biased language. There is no citation to support that Bilzerian argued this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.170.169 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Mugshot as main image
@I Mertex I and RedSoxFan8888: I see a bit of an edit war going on between you two over whether or not to include a mugshot of Bilzerian (File:Paul Bilzerian mugshot.jpg) as the main image of the article. I encourage both of you to discuss why, per Wikipedia policies, the image either should or should not be included. —C.Fred (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there another image that is not a mugshot and that is under a free license? --I Mertex I (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Another picture has been posted. RedSoxFan8888 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @RedSoxFan8888: Can you tell us more about when and where you took the photo? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

February 26, 2019 in Frigate Bay, St. KittsRedSoxFan8888 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @RedSoxFan8888: Chance meeting? And why does the image description say it was taken in 2006? —C.Fred (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The date on the photo in our file is February 26, 2019, and the place is Frigate Bay, St Kitts. But it is possible it could have been taken in 2006 in Tampa, Florida (the only other possibility) and transferred to a new folder on February 26, 2019. We saw him and his wife in 2006 and 2019 and took photos at both of those times. RedSoxFan8888 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @RedSoxFan8888: The new image is even lower resolution than the mugshot. Clearly, the mushot is of a better quality photo.

--I Mertex I (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The first image is technically of higher resolution but it also has several mugshots.com watermarks. Shouldn't that disqualify the first image when another non copyrighted image is available? TryKid (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the mugshot is truly PD, it should be available somewhere else without the watermarks. @I Mertex I: Any chance you could help with looking for one? —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I already removed the watermarks using Photoshop. --I Mertex I (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , yea.. I am not sure that is allowed. Idan (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the problem? --I Mertex I (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,I dont think it is legal do remove copyrighted watermarks in photoshop. Idan (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure is legal. The image is in the public domain, that means is not copyrighted. Also, the image does not belong to mugshots.com. --I Mertex I (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)S
 * I just checked their TOS: "All original material at this website is subject to copyright. Certain materials reproduced on this website are believed to be in the public domain." So, I agree that the image is in the public domain, even after they applied watermarks to it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)