Talk:Craig Rothfeld

Neutral Point-of-View

This article appears to be objective and sourced with good articles (Business Insider, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Reuters, among others). I think the tags concerning neutral point-of-view can be safely dropped. Friednoah (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: add neutral media coverage (COI)

Hi, I am the subject of this article. To comply with WP:COI, I’m requesting an uninvolved editor add one, neutral sentence citing recent mainstream coverage.

Proposed text (to be placed in the "Career" or "Media coverage" section):

In 2025, NBC News published a profile of Rothfeld’s prison-consulting practice, discussing his work with high-profile clients and the growth of the industry.

Rationale: This adds a reliably sourced, neutral summary of recent coverage per WP:V and WP:DUE. It avoids promotional language and does not synthesize new claims.

Thanks! 2603:7000:2401:B090:2804:FFA4:4CB2:83CF (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Not done: A statement indicating that a profile was published is not in itself noteworthy. Can you resubmit with a proposed edit discussing the contents of the profile? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Request to remove "multiple issues" and neutrality tags

I’ve substantially rewritten this article to address the prior neutrality and conflict-of-interest concerns. The page now complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies, and I’d like to request a review for removal of the {{multiple issues}} banner.

Changes:

• Rewrote the “Prison consultant career” section to eliminate promotional language and ensure a neutral, fact-based tone.
• Added significant independent, reliable sources — including NBC News and others, replacing or supplementing older, self-published or local references.
• Verified major factual claims (education, conviction, consulting work, notable clients) through publications.
• Removed any content that might have relied on self-sourcing or implied bias.

It is my opinion that the rewritten version now follows WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:RS standards. I’m requesting that another uninvolved editor please review and, if appropriate, remove the cleanup templates.

Thank you very much for taking a look! Juneblay (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: You should be able to edit this page yourself as it is pending changes protected which still means that anyone could edit it, but their changes are subject to review. Edit as you please.

Theeverywhereperson  (talk here) 09:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The editor requesting review can use instructions given at WP:PEER and use {{subst:PR}} to request review and should check Wikipedia:Peer review/Guidelines. Using the request edit function unnecessarily places the article on the list of edit requests.Slomo666 (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)