Talk:Mark Zaid

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

This is nothing but advertising

This entry seems to be nothing but promotional material for the individual in question. 96.232.26.65 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've tagged it properly. There is no question that he's notable. FYI, I am personally acquainted with Zaid from Albany Law School. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Bias Toward Lawyers? I don't understand how this article about Mark Zaid can be labeled as "nothing but promotional material". I have seen this comment about other notable lawyers. (I feel like I am an example, to make that self-interest disclosure. See Thad Guyer). There are about 1.2 million living lawyers in the U.S. and maybe a thousand or so of these are notable public interest and civil rights lawyers. Zaid is one near the top of this short list. Wikipedia describes itself as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet [that] exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it." Wikipedia pages are filled with biographies of living athletes from professional and even college sports, because lots of people of all ages want to read about the notables from these sports. The same is true of Wikipedia articles about actors and entertainers, television shows and movies. I submit that in a culture historically obsessed with media and entertainment about lawyers,with series like Law & Order, The Practice, etc., there are many readers who want to know about the living notables of the legal profession, and in particular, lawyers who represent victims of discrimination, terrorism, repression and even crimes by governments. Mark Zaid is one of these, and people want to know about him. If readers can't get living biographical information on Wikipedia, where are they supposed to get it, go to privately maintained overtly self-promotional websites not subject to comment or editing? Are they supposed to have to do all there own research in newspapers or journals, the archives for many of which require subscription, or which may not cover significant work by lawyers like Zaid because in a news-entertainment culture such work may get little or no press? Readers need to know about men like Mark Zaid (who I have never met or ever communicated with) who through their professional hard work and excellence are having an impact on law developments and human and political rights. Wikipedia is either a new generation of "encyclopedia" or it is not. Readers need "real time" biographical (and even autobiographical) information about the leaders in any profession, including law-- and about "living persons" who can make a difference while they are still alive and achieving. Signed Thad Guyer. --Tmguyer (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in (or added back in) four sources about his work as a commentator. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Zaid. 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/20100729134426/http://www.aolnews.com/article/wikileaks-diaries-raise-question-is-secrecy-dead/19568479 to http://www.aolnews.com/article/wikileaks-diaries-raise-question-is-secrecy-dead/19568479

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Zaid. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org/government_un/interviews/global_focus
Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20050223231344/http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/articles/judgehalts.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20080820013925/http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/articles/judgehalts.html on http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/articles/judgehalts.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comic books

These links need text in the article.

Personal comic book website
Mark Zaid Interview at Abnormal Use

Pjefts (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat, Republican, or Independent

Conservative sites are noting that this has just very recently changed since the coup tweets came out. I'm not an editor here, I don't know the rules, but this page is going to be getting some attention. I'd try to keep it factual. Wikipedia doesn't have a great reputation on political issues. 75.70.95.192 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a great reputation. All edits to this article have to be verifiable in reliable sources. We're not here to speculate on subject's political affiliation.- Mr X 🖋 02:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then why did it change on the site right after the coup posts? How many Democrat operatives spend their time here? Edit: the coup post need to go up here, of course. Super relevant! Edit: It's changed three times now. First it was Democrat, then Independent, and now it's gone. I think considering what I looked at, leaving it out is fine. But, the coup tweets should be added. I guess to do that I would need to provide reliable sources mentioning those, plus I'd have to argue relevance? Is that correct? 75.70.95.192 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your policy question, as this is a WP:BLP you would need to provide reliable sources that do not violate WP:RS or WP:UNDUE. I would also suggest checking WP:RSP. Rainclaw7 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]