Talk:Dan Bilzerian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Instagrams Biggest Playboy

Dan has been in the news a lot this week and he is being referred to as Instagrams Biggest Playboy. Should there be a reference to this, as this is how he is gaining the interest of the general public? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613072/Video-shows-Instagrams-biggest-playboy-throwing-porn-star-roof-breaking-foot.html 31jetjet (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC) 31jetjet

I'm not sure this kind of negatively slanted information is appropriate for a BLP. I'd be open to changing my mind depending on the language you'd like to add though. Jeremy112233 02:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why somebody who seems to be nothing more than a former soldier without success, a gambler and investor in whatever without visible contribution to human society should be in a wiki at all. Oh, I forgot: He's an American. O.k., that's something else. 84.151.153.230 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has quite a few documents that describe how an individual is determined as notable. They should explain any misgivings you may have. One can always challenge a page based on those policies as well if you feel the page is undeserved. Jeremy112233 16:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014


He states that he was kicked-out

Kicked out does not require a hyphen.

Stevemiller57 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Heart attack quantity

The cited source makes it pretty clear that he suffered three heart attacks. Is there any constructive reason to change that to two, or are the IP editors just disrupting the article with the repeated change? —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looked like IP vandalism or hi jinks to me. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Misleading description?

Isn't the description as actor a little misleading? He appeared as a stunt actor in one movie and he paid to be in Lone Survivor. Also, he sued Peter Berg's production company as the contract was $1 million for approximately 80 lines in the movie which was reduced to a mere 5 words or so. I am no hater trying to minimize it but the description would suggest he has an actor career while he clearly has not. He is not even mentioned in the cast of both other mentioned movies. 82.181.94.197 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

'Venture Capitalist' needs to be removed

There are no sources to back up the venture capitalist claims, so according to Wikipedia policy they should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.55.242 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm removing it. It has no readily identifiable basis in fact, however its not very hard to estimate his motivations for claiming that. Removed. LoverOfArt (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Who he is and what he is known for

Dan Bilzerian deserves a Wikipedia page due to several things: - his large internet / social media following, specifically on instragram / facebook / twitter - where he is one of the most followed celebrities in America - perhaps, his success in a few poker tournaments

The majority of his wealth is from his father. He has made some money playing poker, but the most of it is from his father.

So there should be more focus on his internet following and what causes that. He lives a lavish lifestyle, posing pictures of near naked women, guns, boats, private jets, and partying constantly.

He has not invested in a significant number of companies - or raised money from other to invest in companies. Furthermore, he has not invested in any notably successful companies. As a result, the "venture capitalist" tag is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.81.252 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

When you look up his poker winnings it is obvious that over 90 percent of his fortune comes from his father. There is no mention of this in the article. He might like to call himself a venture capitalist but Wikipedia is supposed to be factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.127.86 (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This wiki is nothing more than a free advertisement. His "accomplishments" are nothing of note. He is nothing more than a self-deluded trust fund brat who claims to have almost been a Navy SEAL, claims to be an actor but only by buying his way into movie roles (and then getting edited out) and claims to be a professional poker, though his earnings are less than he what he spends daily on paid bikini models to hang on him during publicity photo shoots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.179.22 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I am not on "Dan-O's social media team", but the subject is clearly not notable for how he has obtained his wealth, but far more for what he has done with it. The sources cited back this up as they mention the subject having a trust fund, but little more beyond that. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits immediately reverted

Would other followers of this page please take a look at the edits I uploaded, which were instantly reverted by Scalhotrod? I feel my edits were in NPOV and helped added a little more specifics to the article, and certainly to the description of the subject in the intro. Would appreciate help and feedback on this. JNorman704 (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey JNorman704, I just replied to your note on my Talk page, but in short your edit amounted to re-adding fairly promotional or "pro-Bilzerian" content that has been in the article previously and reverted by several people plus I assume his various detractors. Personally, I have nothing against (or in favor of) Bilzerian, I'm just trying to apply BLP in light of the various factions that seem to be editing this article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies Scalhotrod, I really appreciate it. I was definitely not trying to be pro or con, just flesh out a few details. Would you mind if I pass a few revised edits by you? For instance, I feel that his acting section should be updated with the Bruce Willis movie, as he is listed fairly prominently in the credits on IMdb.JNorman704 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that I should be the judge of what goes in or not, but I think the Talk page is the perfect place to discuss it. And yes, I personally agree, he has enough acting roles that is worthy of mention. But that's coming from an Inclusionist that used to work in the Entertainment industry... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again Scalhotrod. I really appreciate it. JNorman704 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

99 % completion of navy seals training

I have made this edit 3 times now and had it instantly removed by the admins. Please explain why you keep removing it. He went through 238 days out of 240 of the navy seal training that is exactly 99% that is verified and cited by the interviewer in the article referenced. Are the admins biased against this information or is there a reason they do not want it showing that he completed 99% of the training? Here is the exact quote referenced in the article : " Dan, as a former instructor myselfItalic text, I know that your instructors did have a good reason. Reflect on the reason and become a better man for it. After all, you did complete 99% of one of the hardest military selection courses in the worldItalic text."[1] furthermore there have been numerous edits I have put on the page to correct typos and misinformation that has been removed by the same admins [2] [3] I will discuss each one on a separate subject but would like input as to why they keep getting reverted. I am not trying to be combative sincerely asking why a obvious factual matter and quoted and cited reference is getting taken down every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthanonymous (talk • contribs) 04:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

on a side note I am trying to learn how to link admins names on discussion section but do not see how to do so, if someone could point me in the right direction Truthanonymous (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://sofrep.com/26399/exclusive-dan-bilzerian-talks-to-sofrep-for-the-record/
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scalhotrod
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OWAIS_NAEEM
I'm not expert on Seal training (nor is the average Reader either), but my understanding is that Bilzerian's situation is not unique. Whether he completed 51% or 99% is insignificant in the context of his article. The fact that he was in the program is the key element. The "99% completion" in my opinion adds an element of controversy that is unnecessary and unwanted in any article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


While I can see that issue, why then do you allow controversial content on his page such as nik richie and the dirty then? " Although as early as 2012, website TheDirty.com founder Nik Richie began to document Bilzerian's lifestyle via his website." the reference in that article is for 2014 not 2012 and the first known mention of Dan on thedirty.com is in the last month of 2013 well beyond dans following and fame. I have also made that edit 3 times and had it reversed. It seems to me there is an unfair bias on the page and while I am not pro or con on the subject, I do not understand why negative content is allowed but positive is removed. another example is the removal of him being a navy veteran, that was taken down, which by the way is why I started paying attention in the first place because he did serve and is a veteran.

The section leaves too many questions unanswered. Isn't the Seals an elite unit, whereby you transfer in from the regular Navy? There's no mention of him joining the Navy, nor indeed any mention of his schooling or Naval officer(?) training - why? It seems most odd that the 'nearly made it as a Seal' bit has no lead-up whatsoever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.70.204 (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

We're limited by available sources and WP:SYNTH prevents us from making and stating conclusions based on multiple sources. Furthermore, the article isn't about the Seals. If someone wants to know more about them, they can click the Wikilink. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Social Media "Subject"?

Is that a new "title" for a person now? Is that the reason to make a wikipedia page...when wikipedia is already getting crapped on for too much focus on celebrities? Why is "social media subject" a description for ANYTHING AT ALL??? All news in EVERY FORM is a social media subject. The weather is a social media subject. Pull your heads out of your butts and fix this worthless wiki article or delete it. Dan Bilzerian isn't someone worthy of being on this site and I'm sure some dumb fanboy will insist he does. Cram your fanboy idiocy up your dumper and get real. Dan Bilzerian is a poker player and little else. What's next? You gonna describe him as a "beard grower" or a "person who poses with mostly-naked women"? Gimme a damned break.

lol I just noticed someone "fixed" my change to include "actor" and "social media subject". Is there some way we can stop (Personal attack removed) from forcing their myopic opinions of this man on the rest of us? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.24.57 (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

photo

Should we add a picture in the infobox?83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2016

Add line to end of Personal Life section

In February 2016 Blizerian announced that he would attempt to bicycle from his home in Los Angeles to Las Vegas, a distance of over 300 miles, in 48 hours, as the result of a wager from fellow professional poker player Bill Perkins for the amount of $600,000. Bilzerian, a non cyclist, has 30 days to prepare for the challenge. Disgraced former professional cyclist Lance Armstrong has offered to help Bilzerian train for the challenge.

[1] Tj7878 (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you provided is not all that reliable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Dan Bilzerian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

University of Florida

He never graduated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.253.83 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

that's safe to assume, but you should provide a source. --Enyavar (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Military career

He didn't have a military career. He was dropped from BUD/S and then discharged. I believe he was not in the military for more than 1 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.253.83 (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

thanks for that input, though you should provide a more reliable source than "I believe". The so called sources that are currently in the article are already shi**y enough, I don't think they are better than "the reporter asked him personally and he told it that way". But that is also "I believe". --Enyavar (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Presidency campaign

The following should be added to the section regarding his run for presidency.

"In December 2015, Bilzerian indicated through social media that he endorsed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, citing his respect for Trump's ability to remain unfiltered in the age of political correctness."

references:

http://www.gq.com/story/dan-bilzerian-and-donald-trump-hang-out

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2015/12/17/celebrity-endorsement-of-the-week-king-of-instagram-dan-bilzerian-for-donald-trump/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4601:84D1:18AB:652B:3E4E:A28E (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://bikesy.co.uk/features/fitness/can-dan-bilzerian-ride-330-miles-from-la-to-vegas-in-48-hours-gets-600000-if-he-can/

The link to the article in Bluff magazine ( note-16 ) http://www.bluff.com/magazine/actor-astronaut-asshole-17067/ leads to a 404 page. Simple addition of index.htm leads to the actual page http://www.bluff.com/magazine/actor-astronaut-asshole-17067/index.htm The correct link was easily found by googling astronaut-asshole site:www.bluff.com 78.22.174.246 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2016


This article is missing large amounts of information. Including the apps and fantasy football platform that he has created. Oliver Donovan (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to follow the instructions in the template and provide specific changes with supporting references.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Three heart attacks"

This article says that he suffered three heart attacks, though the source cited for that claim only mentions three "heart conditions." This is inaccurate and should be corrected. Jeb428 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The source claims he had "a double heart attack", then again a heart attack that was later diagnosed "pulmonary embolism". Since the source isn't really based on reliable research, we could also simply delete this alleged information. It may be true, it may be wrong, it's probably half-true just like much of the rest. --Enyavar (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

"Professional poker player" etc.

What is needed for such a 'title' in the introduction sentence? As far as the article knows, he played in 2009 in the World Series and landed on position 180. That's it, the rest is courtroom talk and wagering. People come in here and claim that he won 50 million by playing poker (though, professionally in tournaments???), yet there's never any proof given. He may tell some blogger that he has 500 million when he might actually be bancrupt: There is no reliable information on his wealth, at all. The second title that was just inserted today was "Ex-military man". I'll remove that one forthwith, it's just posturing. Next we know, someone also inserts "actor" or "abortive candidate for presidency in 2016". More halftruths. --Enyavar (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dan Bilzerian. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Bilzerian. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Bilzerian. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

"Career"

As others have rightly asked, including user:Enyavar above, it is not clear whether Bilzerian meets the definition of a "professional poker player". While he has told media reporters he has won $50 million dollars, and millions more, his recorded winnings are $36,626 according to official poker sources: [1] and [2]. This should definitely be discussed. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion: The term "amateur" poker player, instead, may be a more appropriate description for him. Anyway, his notability is not questioned at all here (I'm saying that amid the current deletion nomination of the page) - he is one of the most popular socialites in the world today, judging by insane social media presence and gossip-coverage in the news worldwide. Shalom11111 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I completely share Shalom11111's views/concerns re: Bilzerian's status as a "professional" gambler or poker player as there appears to be little or no independent support for that claim. Agree Bilzerian is notable for other things, but the title of "professional" gambler requires at least some reliable confirmation from 3rd party sources, not from the subject himself. Because that confirmation is clearly absent here, the title of "professional" should be removed pending confirmation from reliable 3rd party sources. DS Cable (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds about right. If you want to adjust the lead section of the article accrodingly, go ahead. Bilzerain's description and main notability remain his status as a super famous celeb. His official poker earnings all come from a single 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event in which he finished 180th, and he's not even ranked, so a pro he isn't. However, at the same time it is clear he is a gambler, both in this cards game (in casinos for example) as well as in other fields he gambled big on (like this example) -that also deserves more mention in the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: The issue seems to have been fixed. Shalom11111 (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Heart Attacks

According to Bilzerian, his sleeplessness and over dose of viagra let to 2 consecutive heart attacks. His friend gave him a 100mg pill which he took another one of those later to make a grand total of 200mg instead of a normal dose of 15-20mg ParinnayC (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@ParinnayC: Assuming that it was actually relevant to report in an encyclopedic, biographical article, we cannot do anything with any of this information in the absence of a citation of a reliable source. General Ization Talk 13:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

'He was reportedly dropped from the [SEAL] program for a "safety violation on the shooting range."'

I saw this claim made in several locations on the internet and ultimately tracked this wiki as the source, which in turn cites this article. Upon reading the cited article, I'm a little concerned that our commentary here is not a complete or NPOV summary of the SOFREP article, and selectively quotes in such a way that is misleading. While the author does say that, he goes on to agree with Dan that the safety violation was likely a pretense from instructors who "were looking for any excuse to drop him."

I'm not sure what to make of Bilzerian, and I'm aware he tends to be polarizing, but I think we have a duty to convey the information available from sources as accurately as possible. I'm also aware that this particular SOFREP article has been discussed here before, which is why I'm opening discussion before making an edit. What about a change to the following?

>'Bilzerian entered the Navy SEAL training program in 2000; however, after several attempts, he did not graduate. While he was reportedly dropped from the program for a "safety violation on the shooting range," it has also been suggested that his instructors "were looking for any excuse to drop him."'

104.159.238.182 (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this is also a misrepresentation of the source (a highly POV essay, it must be noted), if taken with even more context. The passage reads, in full:

I’ve verified that Dan was in BUD/S 229, 238, and 239 before being dropped from training with class 239 for a safety violation on the shooting range. To address the “no good reason” comment from Dan, in my opinion it’s likely that his instructors felt that he wasn’t a good fit for the SEAL community and were looking for any excuse to drop him from training.  This why we call it a “selection” process, and it doesn’t end, even when you get to your SEAL Team. Dan, as a former instructor myself, I know that your instructors did have a good reason. Reflect on the reason and become a better man for it. After all, you did complete 99% of one of the hardest military selection courses in the world.
— "Dan Bilzerian Talks To SOFREP For The Record"

So, in my reading there is no suggestion at all that the violation was a pretense, and in fact the author (speaking purely from personal opinion, by his own admission) comes down on the side of Blizerian's dismissal being "for cause" — even if the specific cause given may, perhaps, have been somewhat opportunistic or contrived. Just because something was used "as an excuse" does not mean that it's a false claim.
Beyond that, "it has been suggested" represent what we call weasel words, and generally such claims are not encyclopedic. One person's opinion does not make for a reliable source. It's an undisputed fact that Blizerian was dropped from the program, and on what official grounds. The reasons ascribed to his dismissal or those responsible for it, though, are a matter of speculation at best, if not pure personal bias. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I won't pretend to have command of the English language, but I'm perplexed that you take issue with the use of the word "pretense." In fact I see that pretext, charade, subterfuge, artifice, facade, fabrication, and excuse are all listed as synonyms of pretense, and "to contrive" is a verb analog. I also see it defined as "professed rather than real intention or purpose." Take your pick from the synonyms, but you've essentially restated the definition of the word while claiming there is no indication of it at all.
At any rate, I have two major thoughts re: your revert. 1) That source, as far as I can tell, is THE source for the proposition that he was dropped for a safety violation. All other sources I can find are citogenetic, leading back here and ultimately to the cited article. So why is it an "undisputed fact" that a shooting range safety violation was the "official grounds", but it is "one person's opinion" that it was a pretext? We've got the same source for both, quoted directly. It seems terribly NPOV and illogical to suggest the self-same source is good enough to prove a proposition but not to call it into doubt. (FYI, I found a youtube video where Dan himself discusses the issue on Joe Rogan, if you're curious, but he characterizes it in a more nuanced way, emphasizes the supposed "violation" was contrived, and does not say it was the reason.) 2) I agree that the use of weasel words is bad, so how can we do better? Acknowledging that the original proposition you've reverted to makes exactly the same use of weasel words ("he was reportedly dropped"), how can we state in an encyclopedic way that he was dropped for a contrived safety violation? I do not think reverting back to an equally weasel-worded and cherry-picked claim which casts him in a negative light is a positive contribution to the article. 47.224.90.232 (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@47.224.90.232: Thanks for taking the time to reach out, and for your input here. (I appreciate the Talk page message, as well. In the future, if you prefer you can have the system automatically generate notifications to users by mentioning them using a template like {{reply to}} {{user}}, or {{u}}. I placed a {{reply to|47.224.90.232}} at the start of this comment, which is why It shows "@47.224.90.232".
I suspect that won't generate a notification, because I don't believe the system will notify IP users. (There's no way to be sure the person receiving the notification is the same one being replied to, since addresses can be shared or change.) But AFAIK notifications can be sent to editor accounts by IP users as well, so a {{reply to|FeRDNYC}} will automatically alert me to any future replies. (One final caveat: The edit where you add the notification template also has to include a standard signature (~~~~) — if you forget to sign and make a second edit to add the signature, the notification won't go out, and if you forget the template and try to add it later, same thing.)
Now, back to the discussion. I call the shooting violation "undisputed fact" simply because, well, nobody seems to be disputing it. As you note: Dan himself discusses the issue on Joe Rogan, if you're curious, but he characterizes it in a more nuanced way, emphasizes the supposed "violation" was contrived... So, it sounds like we have confirmation from Bilzerian himself regarding the violation, then? Whatever his views about the validity or legitimacy of those charges, he apparently doesn't dispute that he was charged with the violation during his time in the program. Now, Bilzerian is a first-party source, so for the most part information can't be used if it's based purely on his own statements. But here we have a second source that corroborates at least some of the details. Though it's critical to make the distinction that Bilzerian's opinions can't be corroborated simply by another source, even if that source agrees with them. Opinions are still just opinions, no matter how widely held.
As far as the article's phrasing goes, there's actually a pretty big distance between "reportedly" and "it has been suggested". The fact that some information has been relayed from a second party does not in and of itself constitute weasel-wording, it's the nature of the information that matters. Take these two statements, for example:
  • I'm "reportedly" from New York City.
  • "It has been suggested" that my mother wishes I'd move out of her basement.
The first statement is fairly well-supported by evidence: My username, the other information on my User page, the fact that I went to a college in upstate New York... there's a good deal of evidence that I am indeed a New Yorker. That seems like a fairly easy statement to vet, if need be, and most people would typically choose to believe it, at least until given reason to think otherwise. (And rightly so: It's true.) The second statement is simply false. Even its core insinuation has no basis in reality: I haven't even spoken to my mother in 20 years, I certainly don't live with her. But even if I did, unless they were in contact with her how could anyone say with any confidence what she thinks about anything? A person can believe or assume anything they like, but simply saying what they think is true doesn't elevate it to the level of fact.
"Reportedly" is relaying a statement presented as fact: I’ve verified that Dan was in BUD/S 229, 238, and 239 before being dropped from training with class 239 for a safety violation on the shooting range. There is no opinion or editorializing to that statement, all of the information is simply presented at face value. Could the author simply be lying? It's possible, yes, but unless someone's disputed these facts or denied some part of them, there's no real reason to think the claim is less than factually accurate.
"It has been suggested" takes an opinion and dresses it up in facty clothing. in my opinion it’s likely that his instructors felt that he wasn’t a good fit for the SEAL community and were looking for any excuse to drop him from training. Even the person making that statement doesn't claim that it's anything other than his personal opinion about the situation. In fact, he's very careful to make it absolutely clear that the statement is nothing other than his POV, because as a uninvolved party he can't possibly offer any factual information as to what motivated Bilzerian's instructors to drop him from the program, no matter how familiar he may be with the types of situations and types of people involved.
Still, as things stand I'm mostly content to let your updated wording stand, though it remains to be seen whether another editor will take issue with it. The one exception is the re-insertion of "pretext".
It's important not to try to define words by their synonyms, because synonyms don't mean exactly the same thing, they're merely words that can be equivalent or interchangeable in certain contexts. A word's meaning is in its definition, and Wiktionary defines pretext| as: A false, contrived, or assumed purpose or reason; a pretense. The WordNet dictionary definition is similar: something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason. A "pretext", in other words, is a "false excuse". And as I said before, nothing in the source material gives any suggestion that the shooting violation was in any way false or concocted. So, I'm going to again remove that (just the claim that the violation was "a pretext"), because to characterize it that way is putting words into the quoted source's mouth. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
One significant quibble - as far as I know the word “pretext” was never added to the article. I only ever quoted the source directly and exactly, and my original proposed edit still appears above. In so far as you disagree with my word choice or “putting words into the quoted source’s mouth” here on the talk page, you’re somewhat tilting at windmills. While you seem to be insisting that “pretext” necessarily involves falsehood, a point I still disagree with (note use of inclusive or in your definition, and I see numerous definitions including the one I cited with no such connotation), it’s not really relevant to the article.47.224.90.232 (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Bilzerian entered the Navy SEAL training program in 2000; however, after several attempts, he did not graduate. He was reportedly dropped from the program for a "safety violation on the shooting range".[20] Noah100th (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

Dans girlfriend is he’s little sugar baby Marina Gomez from Berlin New Jersey. She’s 26 and a college student and artist. 2601:83:8101:1A60:BD53:2D90:E58C:2746 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AngryHarpy‍talk 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Dan Bilzerian has a son

Dan Bilzerian has a son named Pat Bilzerian who has been kept out of social media but now at 19 years old he is coming out and does the same as his dad. AnonymousTV (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dan_Bilzerian/Archive_1&oldid=1144185873"