Talk:Marshall Sylver

"Prosecutors accused Sylver of swindling consumers that were promised double the cost of the program (which was between $4,500 and $6,500) if they did not double their investment"

They were promised money back if they did NOT invest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.23.102.202 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Reading WP:BLP, we're guided as follows: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

It's my opinion (with which other editors may potentially disagree) that this biography of a living person should not sensationalize what was ultimately a criminal mistrial, which may have only been reported as a local news item. Restoring text about this subject should be done only after passing the burden of evidence.

I came upon this biography after doing work on other biographies related to blackjack players. - Whole milch (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

:I'm restoring the legal issues that were deleted. Here's why:

:1. WP:BLP Does Not Forbid Negative Information—It Requires That It Be Well-Sourced and Balanced

:The Biographies of Living Persons guideline (WP:BLP) indeed emphasizes sensitivity and caution, particularly around contentious material. However, it also explicitly allows inclusion of negative or potentially harmful information if it is verifiable, presented neutrally, and comes from reliable sources.

:All of the criminal information in question is supported by reliable, published sources ([24]-[28] as noted), including reporting from reputable news outlets. These are not anonymous claims or tabloid speculation, but facts reported through legitimate channels.

:Notably, WP:BLP states:

:“Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately. If such material is reliably sourced and relevant to the subject, it may be included.”

:The key terms here are "reliably sourced" and "relevant". This content meets both criteria.

:2. The Information is Highly Relevant to Sylver's Public Career and Public Persona

:Marshall Sylver is a public figure who built a career around persuasion, wealth-building, and motivational speaking, often tied to financial programs. When someone has been charged with fraud relating to these very same business practices, it becomes directly relevant to understanding his public career and the controversies surrounding it.

:Furthermore, prior criminal convictions (even if relatively old or minor in nature) help provide context to the legal challenges faced in 2003 and give a fuller picture of the public reception and scrutiny he has faced.

:This is not salacious or tabloid-style reporting. It is part of a complete and factual biography.

:3. Mistrial Does Not Equal Irrelevance

:The fact that the 2003 fraud trial ended in a mistrial does not make the information irrelevant or undue. A mistrial does not equate to exoneration. Wikipedia is not a court of law—it is an encyclopedia. Including the facts of the indictment, trial proceedings, defense argument, and outcome (mistrial) is not an accusation of guilt but a reporting of historical, well-documented legal proceedings.

:Moreover, the entry does not imply guilt—it clearly notes that a mistrial was declared and gives the defense attorney’s argument. This represents a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV.

:4. Local News Coverage Does Not Invalidate Notability

:The argument that this was "only a local news item" does not hold up. First, many court cases—even involving national figures—are covered locally due to jurisdiction. Local coverage from established newspapers, if reliable, meets the standard for WP:RS (reliable sources). What matters is the credibility of the source, not its geographical reach.

:Additionally, when someone is publicly marketed as a financial expert or motivational figure, even local coverage of legal action against them is not trivial; it is directly related to their career and public perception.

:5. The Material Is Not Sensationalized

:The concern that the article becomes "sensationalist" with this material included seems to stem from the subject matter itself, not the tone in which it is presented. The existing draft does not include emotive language or insinuate guilt—it simply reports documented events and outcomes.

:This approach is consistent with how similar biographical articles treat legal controversies involving public figures. To remove it entirely arguably creates a misleadingly sanitized narrative, which is equally contrary to the spirit of WP:BLP.

:To summarize:

:Sylver's legal history is reliably sourced, factually accurate, and directly relevant to the subject’s public career.

:It is written in a neutral, non-sensationalist tone.

:It complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies, including WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

:The information's inclusion is encyclopedically justified, especially for a figure whose career centers on financial advice and persuasive influence.

:Therefore, I strongly recommend the restoration of the removed content. Removing the entire section risks compromising the article’s neutrality and completeness. - Dobbs1955 (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::This sounds like ChatGPT responded. You are mixing policies such as notability versus inclusion. You are also ignoring that as part of writing from a neutral point of view we "should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies" per WP:CRIT. - Whole milch (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Your statement reflects a misreading of WP:CRIT. The point of WP:CRIT is that perceived negatives should not be corralled into their own Bantustans but placed naturally within the narrative of the article where they are topical. Most often these sections exist because defenders of a subject wish to remove criticisms, so they create one and say "this belongs in the criticisms section", or in the extreme case a Criticisms of Marshall Sylver article. This is why WP:CRIT identifies them as POV forks. It's not saying that criticisms aren't allowed.

:::These aren't mere "criticisms" but prosecutions, one of which resulted in a six month vacation in the can. I suppose the Feds must have criticized his counterfeiting somewhere along the way, but that's hardly the most significant element of the story. I agree, though, that the logic of WP:CRIT would seem to apply, as these three prosecutions, related only inasmuch as the same personality is behind all three alleged crimes, are corralled into a "Legal issues" section, when a more encyclopedic treatment would present each as its own event in the context of the biography.94.109.136.233 (talk) 12:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Actually, that is exactly how WP:NOCRIT works. Also, see WP:ONUS. Seems like the content has been challenged so you would need consensus here prior to adding. Will start the discussion for you below.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Moving here per WP:ONUS and WP:NOCRIT. Wikipedia is not the place to settle offline disputes. Please get consensus on this prior to edit warring:

In 2003, Sylver was tried on nine felony charges of fraud related to his Millionaire Mentorship Program. Prosecutors accused Sylver of swindling consumers who were promised double the cost of the program (which was between $4,500 and $6,500) if they failed to double their investment; no consumers received such a refund. Dominic

Gentile, Sylver's lawyer, had argued that the alleged victims were not entitled to a refund because they did not do their part in the program. He said several of the students had not completed homework assignments or did not complete them satisfactorily. Aside from indictment charges, Sylver faced "numerous other gambling debts."{{Cite news|title=Indictment returned in millionaire scheme|work=Las Vegas Sun|url=https://lasvegassun.com/news/2003/apr/15/indictment-returned-in-millionaire-scheme/}}{{Cite web|title=State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General|url=https://ag.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/agnvgov/Content/News/PR/Archive/2003pr.pdf}} A mistrial was declared after jurors were unable to come to a unanimous verdict.{{Cite news|url=https://lasvegassun.com/news/2003/dec/22/hypnotist-may-face-new-trial-for-fraud/|title=Hypnotist may face new trial for fraud|date=2003-12-22|work=LasVegasSun.com|access-date=2018-03-24|language=en}}

In 1996, Sylver was convicted of misdemeanor battery for assaulting a police officer. {{Cite book |last=Theroux |first=Louis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-H6PcLTdxNAC&dq=marshall+sylver+counterfeiting&pg=PA239 |title=The Call of the Weird: Travels in American Subcultures |date=2008-09-04 |publisher=Pan Macmillan |isbn=978-0-330-47348-4 |language=en}}

In 1984, Sylver pled guilty to the sale and possession of counterfeit federal reserve notes. He served six months in a federal prison. {{Cite news |last=Grimes |first=William |date=2007-02-07 |title=Back on the Road, Tracking the Red, White and Odd |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/books/07grim.html |access-date=2024-06-22 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}

{{reftalk}} CNMall41 (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:For what it's worth, the second two paragraphs are from a single person who wrote a book on the subject. I cannot find any independent sources to support. As far as the mistrail, it is reliably sourced and I moved to career (which also needs a heavy rewrite). --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I just don't see, why is this in the biography at all? I hope I'm not mistaken, but looking at the article as it stood a few years ago, legal issues were not even part of the narrative. And the references for such are all local. - Whole milch (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You can always make a case for the removal, but the statement I left has several sources to support it unless I am missing something. The others were from a book author and there is nothing else to support (hence removal). Of course, others could always advocate for returning that. I would also suggest those here advocating for/against the inclusion should read WP:COI and WP:PAID and make the appropriate disclosure if applicable. The page history raises flags in that regard. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)