Talk:Jeffrey Clark

Restores full name of his M.A. School

Joseph R Biden Jr. school of Public Affairs and Administration at the University of Delaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.165.151 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeffery Bossert Clark might have been a better title

I think renaming the page was misguided. Google-searching on the full name "Jeffrey Bossert Clark", with quotes to get exact match, gets over 14,000 hits. His name is usually spelled out when it occurs in newspaper headlines and official web pages. -- M.boli (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu, in moving this article, you cited WP:COMMONNAME, which reads in part, "Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." There are currently five references cited in the article with his name in their titles; three use his first, middle and last names; one uses his first and last name; and one uses just his last name. Add to that, the one cited reference written by Clark uses his first, middle and last names. I think all of that argues against this article move. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Pemilligan, Google News says there are 2,130 results for "Jeffrey Bossert Clark" and over 200,000 for "Jeffrey Clark". Regular Google search gives me 15,200 vs 260,000. Some "Jeffrey Clark" results are likely not about this person, but many surely are. The news sources out there today mostly refer to him as "Jeffrey Clark". The disambiguation provided by the "Bossert" is unnecessary also because there are no other people known as "Jeffrey Clark" with a Wikipedia article, only people named "Jeff Clark". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked the first 11 pages (110 entries) of Google search for "Jeffrey Clark".

• After the first page, which has a lot of this week's news, there are 8 which are JBC, and 92 which are other people. And of the 8 which are this guy almost all are the news from the past week. (You have to check some of them: there is an environmental lawyer Jeffrey R Clark, there is a Supreme Court document referring to a different JC, there is a law journal article by a different JC, etc.)
• Checking on Google Scholar, it seems that he uses JB Clark and Jeffrey Bossert Clark.

I agree he has appeared in the news a lot this week as "Jeffrey Clark". I am dubious that is the name he is most frequently known by. But I can see that the case is less clear-cut than I first thought. -- M.boli (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is a disgraceful hatchet job and needs to be entirely rewritten.

This is why Wikipedia has gotten such a horrible reputation when it comes to political articles -- to call this tendentious would be an unmerited mercy. Not only is it badly biased against any objective rendition of this person's biography, it is also badly written. It looks like something from a junior college newsletter from the local anarchist club, written after too many pot brownies and Cheetos. The article betrays a plain hostility toward Donald Trump, which may make some editor smile but it screams POV; this is still supposed to be a kind of "encyclopedia" that provides information and not invective, right? Just one example is the first sentence where Clark's most significant action in life is apparently assisting Donald Trump to "subvert" the 2020 election.

I write this first to indicate that this article needs multiple changes that eliminate the biased language and overall approach, but also to again express my dismay at the way Wikipedia apparently has been taken over by a primarily left wing cabal of editors and administrators. This imposed viewpoint, or its counterpart, does not belong in any objective information source. I've heard Wikipedia laughed at more over the past two years than in all of the decade prior, and dismissed as much. The mass of the articles remain hit or miss, the historical, science, general information ones, and that's fine, I try and edit here to improve typos and poor phrasing. That said, any foray into the political realm and you can count on some left to hard left stance in the article, much like can be found in "news" sources like the New York Times and the Washington Post (which have become indistinguishable from net rags like the Huffers).

Wiki needs to do better, and this article needs to do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

this article needs multiple changes that eliminate the biased language and overall approach Your specific recommendations are welcome. Please provide them. soibangla (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So this article sucks because of a lack of something? As of Oct. 2021? Well, is the article better now, @Sychonic:? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC).

New Civil Liberties Alliance

As of October 13th all references to his position at NCLA were removed from their webpage. An IP editor inserted that. I removed it from the article, but it seems to be true. Not even a press release saying he is spending more time with his family. Maybe somebody can find out his current status vis-a-vis the NCLA and update the article more formally? -- M.boli (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Best I got at this point. He was listed on the staff page yesterday.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=125231

https://web.archive.org/web/20211012222129/https://nclalegal.org/team/

soibangla (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

That's hopeful. Richard Hasan is a famous lawyer, he might be able to find out the story. He sometimes writes for Slate. -- M.boli (talk) 03:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Legally Illiterate Person Took Down Data on Clark's Radioactive/Environmental Case

Someone removed my "article addition" about Jeffrey Clark's leadership in the environmental law/bankruptcy case on behalf of Sherwin Alumina, a now bankrupt, defunct company which left 1.3 Billion cubic feet of radioactive, caustic and toxic waste in crumbling dirt impoundments on the side of a very important Federally protected bay of the Gulf of Mexico called Copano Bay. Clark's lawyering skills allowed the shareholders of that company (China MinMetals and Glencore) to walk away from any liability for toxic clean-up when that toxic and radioactive waste collapses into those "Waters of the United States" which is expected to happen, with 80% probability, in the next 7 years, as predicted by a gigantic Texas-licensed civil engineering company hired by Sherwin Alumina.

The person who removed the addition to the article "Tacyarg" is LEGALLY ILLITERATE concerning Clark's involvement in the Copano Red Beds radioactive and toxic site. The addition to Clark's biographical text, concerning the Copano Red Beds case in court is supported by the contents what the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas f=and U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas official COURT FILES on the Federal courts' website pacer.gov. I even gave the court case numbers in the body of the text I wrote so that legally literate people could read the information in the actual court files which are online. The text I wrote are also incontrovertable FACTS....where the property is located, how big it is, what marine bodies of water are next to it, the fact that Jeffrey Clark was the lead environmental bankruptcy lawyer on the case, the U.S. District Court judge finding the fact as to who owned the company (China and then China and a Swiss mining company Glencore).

I have been an environmental litigation lawyer and a member of the State Bar for 44 years. My family owns a house in Rockport, TX where this nuclear waste site is, with its 1.3 billion cubic feet of radioactive waste judged at risk of collapsing into the treasured "Waters of the United States". The court case records show Jeffrey Clark as one of the lawyers for Chinese company then Chinese/Swiss company's "attorneys of record" in the bankruptcy case.

Deletion of this sort of factual information being deleted by illiterates is exactly why knowledgeable, legally and educated people diss Wikipedia as a garbage source of information.

There are 4 major news media outlets who will launch this information in their background stories on Jeffrey Clark if and when he is criminally indicted for his alleged crimes...which my comment absolutely did not even mention. Among those media sources are the New York Times and the Washington Post. Wikipedia had the chance to "have the basic facts first" about this case litigated by a man who is/will become the country's most famous environmental lawyer, but some legally illiterate know-it-all (perhaps Chinese) deleted the information

Wikipedia's loss. New York Times and Washington Post's gain. Jeffrey Clark and his former employer can no more change the information in the Sherwin Alumina court files (let alone the State of Texas public records) than FOX can take down the information which is in the court files on the Dominion case against them. GeorgetownLawAlumni (talk) 11:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as you say, it was I who reverted your change. The issue is the sourcing - please see the links I put on your user Talk page on citing sources and referencing. Tacyarg (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)