Talk:Peter Paul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look at "What links here".24.120.168.55 06:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm holding strong on the description of Peter F. Paul as a drug dealer and convicted felon. Calling him a "controversial businessperson" is his fantasy. None of his business dealings have ever been notable except in his own head. Try to find any press coverage that mentions him as a businessman except where his "business" was a crime, or he is describing his own past. Uucp 13:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous and an assault on the credibility of wikipedia for some Clinton toadie to hijack the life story of a man who has been highly successful in various careers that he has mastered. He has no idea of the successes that were publicized of Mr. Paul in the 70's when he was developing the World Trade center and Free Trade Zone of Miami, in the 80's when he presided over two foundations as a gubernatorial appointee to work with the Chief Justice of the United States and with Jimmy Stewart in activities with lech walesa and Boris Yeltsin, in the early 90's when he created his own media icon, Fabio, and was quoted in Forbes, the wall Street Journal and every major newspaper in connection with catapulting Fabio into the public consciousness as a voice for wome's issues. The media coverage of the successes Paul established for Stan Lee Media had nothing to do with a crime, but all to do with projectas and partnerships with the best brands in business and entertainment. His life and a reference to him should not be held hostage by some snivelling Clinton acolyte. If wikipedia allows this to continue, it will be identified as a biased and unreliable source.Cybertrend 08:32, 11 August 2006 (EST)

Mr. Cybertrend, I am doing my level best to keep the Peter Paul articles true to the evidence. If you know better than what has been published, please let us know. Most of the things you describe above have never appeared in the press, or appear only as "Paul claims ....". What has appeared in the press has been his criminal convictions and lawsuits. This is not personal for me, and I don't want to give offense to anybody, but there is a standard for quality on Wikipedia that I am trying to uphold. If you have access to better information about Paul, please let us know. Uucp 13:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr Uucp- It is more than disingenuous for you to say that referring to Peter Paul on the disambiguity page as:

a convicted drug dealer and securities felon, controversial political donor, is doing your level best to keep Peter Paul articles true to the evidence.. Mr. Paul has been referred to in countless articles between 1975- 2001 in very positive terms for numerous civic and business activities. It is absolutely not true that his only claim to fame relates to the securities problem he had in the course of defending the assault on the stock of the company he founded. he was the largest shareholder when the Clinton's interfered with his funding, causing his stock to collapse. If you would read the articles referenced in the Biography article about his life before the Clintons- before December, 2000, you will see he had an outstanding career. He was profiled in the Los Angeles Business Journal for his business acumen in 2000, along with positive references and quotes in Forbes, Wall Street Journal, L.A.Times< People Magazine, Entertainment Tonite, Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous 1993-1994. The Clintons enabled him to do the first ever booksigning in the White House in 1994 in the President's Message Office, and Hillary Clinton allowed his client, Fabio, at his request, to lift her off of the ground and pose with her while being held by her posterior. It is clear that your objective is to rewrite his biography to conform to your biased agenda to protect the Clintons from his ongoing efforts to hold them accountable. His landmarl civil fraud suit is set for trial on March 27, 2007, although Hillary is no longer a defendant (which is being appealed) Bill has lost all of his appeals to dismiss the suit and he faces damages of more than $30 million liability for frauds he and Hillary directed. Cybertrend 19:07, 11 August 2006 (EST)

Mr Uucp- Peter Paul was never convicted of drug dealing, and any further references to him in that capacity is libelous. he plead guilty in 1979 to possession of cocaine, not to distribution or sales of cocaine. An unopened bag of coffee samples were discovered by a swat team minutes after it was deposited in Paul's garage, without Paul ever opening or seeing the bag. The party that deposited the bag was doing so to avoid prosecution for his own separate activities, and Paul's guilty plea without trial was independent of the validity of these actions. He did not plead to, nor was he convicted of "drug dealing or sales". That is a fact. Stop defacing and vandalizing the disambiguity page accordingly! Scuzzler 13:02, 12 August 2006 (EST)

Um, sure, but pleading guilty to a felony (assuming that your plea is accepted) means you have been convicted of a felony. I recognize that drug possession and drug dealing are not the same, but your insistence on a difference between "pleading guilty" and "convicted" looks like POV spin to me. Kestenbaum 01:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Scuzzler sock puppets are being purely dishonest here. According to the Washington Post, Paul pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. If that doesn't make him a drug dealer in the eyes of the law, I will eat my shorts. [The Washington Post, October 9, 2005, p. W10]. Above, editor "Scuzzler" accuses me of libel. I challenge him or her to find any room under the law in which it is libelous to call somebody who went to jail for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute a "drug dealer". It is a fact, Paul was a drug dealer. Period. The sock puppets should stop trying to spin it as anything else. Uucp

You have ignored the entire rationale behind why the disambiguity page should noT be the place to refer to Paul's convictions- since that is not what he is known for and the purpose of that page is to present what he is known for to distinguish him from others with the same name. it is only your agenda that requires your description that ignores what he is in fact knwon for. you are therefore vandalizing the page Scuzzler 11:41, 14 August 2006 (EST)

Peter Paul was not a notable business person. Your claim that he has been celebrated as one in the press is incorrect. In the hundreds of articles about him that I have read, he is called a businessperson only when (a) describing himself, or (b) in the run-up to his defrauding of Stan Lee Media. To prove this point, I checked the Nexis database for EVERY appearance of Mr. Paul in their newspaper and magazine database in the last six months. Here is what I found, and the complete text of how he was described in each case:

New York Sun, July 13: "A former Internet executive who bankrolled the event, Peter Paul, had three convictions at the time and later pleaded guilty to securities fraud." NO OTHER DESCRIPTION

New York Sun, June 14, "former Internet entrepreneur and four-time felon" NO OTHER DESCRIPTION

New York Sun, April 10, "former Internet entrepreneur. . . who has four felony convictions" NO OTHER DESCRIPTION. This article however does have an amusing description of Paul irritating the court with piles of snapshots. "Judge Munoz complained that Paul's legal team "inundated this court" with photos of Paul with the Clintons..."

Investor's Business Daily, April 7, "three-time convicted felon Peter Paul" NO OTHER DESCRIPTION

St. Louis Daily Record (and syndicated to two other papers) March 11, "Peter Paul who, unbeknownst to the Clinton campaign, was a ne'er-do-well who had been convicted years earlier on drug charges." NO OTHER DESCRIPTION

I have changed my stance on the main article page. I had been thinking that Paul's article should be a paragraph long, mentioning his various convictions and his run-in with Hilary Clinton. Now I think it ought to be only a sentence long -- "convicted drug dealer, securities felon, parole violator, largest donor to Hilary Clinton's 2000 senatorial campaign." The journalists who wrote the articles I cite above seem to think he's not worth even a complete sentence.

A suggestion, Scuzzler -- since you think Mr. Paul's story is not being properly told, why not create a personal webpage in which you can tell his side of the story? You can be as selective as you like in your sources, and argue for his good character, and do all sorts of things that you can't do in Wikipedia. If, as you suggest from time to time, you have a personal tie to Mr. Paul, the article here can even link to your website as a source. Uucp 03:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Uucp -- You admit your sourcse about Paul are all based on articles written in the last year- you are ignoring articles written from 1976-2001. Since the article is a biography, and it involves various activities with foirmer Presidents, Hollywood icons and Paul's own highly publicized media activities with fabio and Stan Lee for yrars before 2001, it is ridiculous to quote references to Paul while he is in the midst of a pitched battle with the Mainstream media and the Clintons. His allegations resulted in criminal indictments and fines so far, and his civil suit, the first ever to accuse a Senator of conspiring with a President to commit business frauds, is set for trial on March 27, 2007. Hillary was dismissed as a defendant, but President Bill Clinton is proceeding to trial with Hillary as an unindicted co-conspirator. Your refusal to acknowledge these facts demostrates your pro-Clinton agenda. No one has asked you to determine the bona fides of Mr Paul's career from 1975-when he developed a landmark building designed by IM Pei in Miami, the first air rights ever to be granted by a US city to a private developer,through 2001 when he had problems resulting from the Clinton's abuse of their relationship with him.

Cybertrend 09:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pushing POV on Wikipedia (and sockpuppetry)

1. Cybertrend/Scuzzler/Franklyn2: this is not the place to try to redeem the reputation of Mr. Paul. You can do that on a personal website. If you provide new and interesting information, objective editors will reflect it in the articles here, and may even link to your website as a resource.

2. Those who are coming to this nonsense for the first time, note that the apparent team of Paul supporters who appear here are all the same person. For example, "Cybertrend" left a message on my talk page today and signed it "Scuzzler". Uucp 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note to Uucp, please do not keep inserting the following:

American businessman, convicted drug dealer and securities felon, controversial political donor

Wikipedia also has policies on NPOV, meaning that we are to take the middle ground, not to vilify or endorse anyone. Your discription is an attempt to vilify the person. The discription:

entrepreneur and political figure

is much more NPOV than yours. It does not matter what you personally think. Wikipedia will always take the middle ground as discribed by WP:NPOV. Regards, -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 17:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. He has four felony criminal convictions. Calling him a criminal is a matter of fact. Calling him an "entrepreneur" is much more POV than calling him a felon. Uucp 18:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we settle on:

American businessman, political figure, convicted securities felon

Calling him a drug dealer is digging up the past (the very distant past, from the page of him, it appears he is not known just for being a drug dealer). Political figure covers the Clinton thing (and just because a lawsuit is dismissed doesn't mean it didn't happed). Calling him a drug dealer will give people a very bad first impression, something he doesn't deserve. -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 22:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this, but I continue to disagree. 1. the drug dealing is certainly relevant; it's the reason his political donations in 2000 became controversial, and is therefore the only reason other than the Stan Lee Media scandal that he has been in the newspapers in many years. 2. The idea that a summary of this person should give prominent mention to his non-criminal business dealings is predicated on the assumption that the correct way to solve an editing dispute is to average the views of the people participating, but this would be a terrible policy. If I were to go to the Muhammad Ali page and add a mention that he had "six inch canine teeth, which protrude from his mouth like those of a saber-toothed tiger," and boxing fans corrected this, and I reinserted it over and over again, the correct response would not be to compromise with a statement like "Ali's teeth are unusually long and sharp."

I am glad to forward to you copies of any of the source articles from the Peter F. Paul page. This man is not a notable business person. His only notable entrepreneurial activity (Stan Lee Media) turned out to be criminal. His only notable political activity (the 2000 party for Bill Clinton) is significant only because of his prior drug dealing, and his enthusiastic (quixotic?) filing of lawsuits afterwards.

Don't let yourself be swayed by the sock puppets; this is not Jeffrey Archer or Michael Milken, a public figure whose criminal activities eclipsed prior, legitimately notable actions. Paul is an aggressively self-promoting character who, by my best research, has done little (nothing?) notable that was unconnected to his crimes. Uucp 10:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)