Talk:Giovanni di Stefano/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we keep the text of the article without the history? Avruchtalk 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of libelous information is probably a sufficient argument. Fred Bauder (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Deja vu all over again. You can can it libel; I call factual information we should be presenting to our reader as part of our duty as an encyclopedia. I'll throw the NPOV tag on there for now, but I seem to recall a perhaps more accurate template being thrown on here previously (though it was nixed for being in user space). Any thoughts Fred? I'm thinking of calling it something along the lines of {{omission}}, after the well known sin -- Kendrick7talk 20:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't the offending revisions have been removed and the rest restored? Time consuming, I'm sure, but isn't that a not uncommon solution? Avruchtalk 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting claim you have there fred. Do you have any reading of fair use or US caselaw where it makes sense?Geni 22:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Well?Geni 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NPOV tag

Anyone who comes to this page due to the NPOV tag to figure out what the issue is, should do a web search (eg google) as it appears we are not allowed to say due to concerns about lack of funds to defend against a lawsuit. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Problematically, even saying that could itself be libelous? That's my chief concern; well, that and the foundation should either WP:GROWAPAIR or admit they don't actually share the ideals of writing an encyclopedia anymore. The publicity from such a lawsuit would obviously garner ten times the funds of fighting the lawsuit, so one really has to wonder what's really going on here. Once every living person in every third world country realizes they can file a lawsuit in their local kangaroo court and force wikipedia to say whatever they want about them, the damage to the project could very well be the end of it. Kim Jong Il is a god among lesser mortals and president of the greatest country on Earth.... etc. Sorry, couldn't afford the lawsuit! -- Kendrick7talk 22:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do you presume the Foundation had anything to do with this? To my knowledge unless there is something I don't know about, the Foundation neither asked for nor condones this latest deletion. I personally certainly had nothing to do with it. I think it is absolutely critical that we maintain neutrality and due respect for WP:BLP issues. The best way to do that is to have Wikipedia assert essentially nothing about controversial subjects itself, and to rely exclusively on top-notch reliable sources in problematic cases. Having said that, Fred has been around for a long time and knows what he is doing, and so I also recommend that we WP:AGF here. No need for dramatics. It's just an edit conflict.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize then. It seemed like a reasonable assumption as Fred had done a similar reset a few months ago, and, like Sisyphus, we worked back through to a version I had thought everyone but Mr. Stefano could live with. This reset was deja vu like I said above. Since Mr. Stefano was still squawking, I just imagined something had changed higher up the ladder. I'm happy to hear things aren't as bad as I had thought and that my pessimism was misguided. -- Kendrick7talk 08:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It's about avoiding unproductive litigation. The notion that we could raise money by courting litigation may be correct, but is nevertheless a waste. What's wrong with letting the media take the lead? We can wait til they do. Fred Bauder (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Kendrick7, feel free to ask around for a grant/liability insurance/or the equivalent with regard to this single article or the more general issue. It would be wonderful if some well funded freedom of information oriented person or organization legally committed themselves to the defense of WikiMedia and its editors when quoting content previously published by a major news outlet. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is the libel issue if an American editor posts information sourced to a newspaper that is reasonably believed to be true or not obviously false? I understand the question of intent is not as key in the UK, but in the US where are we exposed here? Avruchtalk 23:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that someone with deep pockets can bankrupt someone with more limited resources, even though no wrong was done. As far back as Roman times, litigation has been used as a weapon to crush those with fewer resources. It is not just the money, but also the time. How many hours do you wish to give up over the next two years over this? WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Hours I can sacrifice. Money, not so much. Well, I could put in a beg up the genetic chain, but thats cheating. Avruchtalk 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the best long term solution is to find someone like the ACLU who will agree to be legally liable for some specific class of edits such as quoting content previously published by a major news outlet. But starting with some organization merely willing to sign a document being responsible for all legal liability for a specific claim on this specific page might be a way to bring the issue to the attention of whatever white knight might choose to protect Truth Justice and the American Way - so to speak. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, legal damages are something that an outside entity can cover - but injunctive relief or non-money damages can't be born by anyone other than WMF. I think WMF just has to take a stand that legal content shouldn't be restricted for fear of frivolous lawsuits. Avruchtalk 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The WMF stood up to lawsuits in both Germany and France (and won). I have every confidence it is all about money and picking one's fights based on timing and resources; so that if someone could sign up a deep pockets for the money part, WMF would be willing to stand up for the non-money liabilities. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the real danger for this sort of issue is if one of our readers takes our article at face value, somehow ends up damaged because of it, and finds out we've deliberately left out information that would have prevented said damages. Then we'd be in a situation that's truly actionable in a court of law, I'm afraid, even in Florida. As such, I've added a new warning template. -- Kendrick7talk 01:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that your legal analysis there is accurate... But I do prefer the new template. Avruchtalk 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the new template is an improvement also. The "legal analysis" seems to me to be a preemptive strike against a similar legalistic stretch in the opposite direction. Good strategy. I like it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't think we should be stating publicly that the foundation would be bankrupted or outclassed by di Stefano litigation, it certainly isn't my understanding of the situation at all. It seems to me that di Stefano was talking about threatening various individual editors with litigation, not the foundation, anyway. Besides, we have a living persons policy and Fred appears to have been acting on that, and I think he has done the right thing in order to protect our editors from off site attacks, even ones they doubtless would have won. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Omission tag

The omission tag is inappropriate. We have omitted nothing which we have a reliable source for. What we have omitted is material which implies facts but are not sufficient sources for them. Fred Bauder (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I count very quickly: the BBC, the Guardian (UK), The Independent (UK), and the Sunday Times Magazine. All report that he was jailed for fraud in 1986 (see below for details). The Guardian reports that the conviction was overturned on appeal. As far as I am aware, you don't get any better sourcing than that for figures in the news. These are major newspapers who print these claims without batting an eye, in England, a notoriously litigious place.

What I recommend is that Wikipedia make no claims about this at all. None. But we must report on the salient facts, and we should do so by quoting these sources without embellishment or conclusion-drawing of any kind.

Some details:

"In 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud. He says this was quashed on the second appeal and a sense of injustice remains, making each victory against the system a sweet revenge." BBC

"Last week, the Guardian disclosed that Mr Di Stefano, jailed for fraud in 1986, was under investigation by the police and the Law Society. He claims his conviction was overturned but has not provided evidence to support this and the Guardian has a copy of the 1987 judgment rejecting his appeal." Guardian

"He had also spent three years in an English jail in the 80s for theft - the conviction was later overturned on appeal." Guardian

"Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud at the Old Bailey in 1986 and jailed." The Independent(London)

"As a result, he found himself at the Old Bailey in 1986, and after a 78-day trial he was jailed for five years for conspiracy to obtain property by deception and fraudulent trading." The Sunday Times Magazine

I think it completely impossible for our article not to include these facts, which so many fine publications have seen fit to print in their own profiles of him.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP that erased Jimbo's comment (temporarily) resolves to Rome. Avruchtalk 15:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest somebody add this information to the article and then remove it from the talk page. I don't think there are any doubts about who removed the Jimbo thread. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No need to remove it from the talk page. Avruchtalk 16:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I just did but won't complain if somebody reverts me (didn't think I would ever be reverting Jimbo). Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Self-revert in light of what came afterwards. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sense of injustice

Please do not re add this stuff without some strong sourcing. The sourcing you are using is weak, and needs to be multiple sources. Thanks, Mercury 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually these are excellent sources and I am being fair. Please see Jimbo's comments above. This material is well known, well sourced and written in a neutral way, as evidenced by the title. In terms of British news the Guardian and The Sunday Times are as good as we will get. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything else other than a news outlet available? Regards, Mercury 17:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice work so far, but wikipedia should avoid "success verbs" in cases like this. Rather than "the guardian disclosed" it could read "the guardian said". The difference is that the first formulation asserts both that the guardian said so, and that it is true. Similarly, we are reporting currently that the conviction was overturned, but it would be better to say that the bbc said the conviction was overturned.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, I'd be ok with that. I feel with BLP's especially, when we use news sources, they need to be quoted as saying. I still have to read the above from Jimbo. I don't particularly like using them on BLP articles such as this. As an aside, have you considered registering an account? Mercury 17:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, that was me, editing from my cellphone. Didn't feel like logging in. Claiming comment now. :) I just now made some relevant changes in this regard.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
My editing isn't perfect, cheers for the amendments, which I fully endorse. And for the record I fully support a solution that records this stuff in a completely neutral way, I personally do not endorse any of it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, GDS here. Repeating material that is defamatory and subject to litigation for defamation is DEEMED defamatory likewise whether Wikipedia endorses the comment or not. You cannot defame a person even by innuendo neither in the UK, US or worse in Italy and such is covered by the Act. I HAVE NO CONVICTIONS and you have the certificate. That is evidence. Newspapers speculate and use conjecture and opinions. Documents as I have exhibited to you and I did this for a purpose so that any action I took, as I have,m against Wikipedia Inc and certain officers (and editors) would be perfected. Knowingly defaming someone (as is in this case because I have sent you documents) makes the defamation aggrivated and enhances penal and civil sanctions. As I have said to you in my e mail delete the whole darned page as I am not that interesting in any case. Giovanni Di Stefano (also edited from mky cellphone as could not be bothered to sign in as pnazionale). Happy New Year!
Any happy new year to you also. You are going to have to be careful not to give the impression that you want to take legal action. I don't think you do, but be careful about the impression. Also, if you could find a reliable source for that, it can be asserted in the article. Do you have any on hand? Regards, Mercury 18:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
GDS, we use newspapers that specualte and use conjecture and opinions. Can you find a reliable source that says you have no convictions. Anyway we are absolutely not taking sides against you in any way so we are not defaming you either as a project or as individuals and it would surely be counter-productive for this to go any further. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
SqueakBox:- Mr Wales and Mr Bauder have my CERTIFICATE showing NO CONVICTIONS. Its why I sent it to them long ago. You can ask them to send it to you. The hearing in the Van Hoogstraten case in 2002 also available and sent to Mr Bauder and Mr Wales shows that the Treasury Solicitors CONCEDED that I have NO CONVICTIONS and of good character. E mail me and I will send you myself both. gds1955@tiscali.it or g.distefano1955@virgilio.it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.151.122 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo, Fred, is this in OTRS anywhere? Guy (Help!) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I did not find anything after a search of the OTRS dbase. Jim or Fred might have more info, as my search was not exhaustive and did not include some areas of OTRS... Mercury 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, might be in legal. Regardless, it may be irrelevant. WP:ATT - we say precisely who says what, and if our anon friend can provide citations to correctons published ion said papers then we can include that as well. If there is a lot of information out there saying this stuff, which there undoubtedly is, and if, as he says, the information is wrong, and he can prove it, this would be the ideal way to get the facts straight. Simply omitting the claims is unsatisfactory, it leaves the reader puzzled as to why we don't have it and ensures that every couple of weeks we get the same circular argument. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Guy above and I'll add, it would be extremely helpful if you would source these claims in the article. Removing sourced information, or adding unsourced information is likely to be reversed. The easiest solution is to source your counterclaim. Regards, Mercury 19:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think 'A sense of injustice' is an appropriately neutral section header. I've changed it to "Personal legal issues" which draws no conclusions. Avruchtalk 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree, and I've taken it a step further. Regards, Mercury 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason I didn't say just 'legal' is that he's a lawyer and its kind of confusing, given the other 'legal' type headers. Avruchtalk 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. di Stefano has sent me "documentation" written in Italian which I find wholly unconvincing. I believe the documentation shows that he has a clean record *in Italy*. But that's not for me to judge. I am only reporting here on what reliable sources have said, period. I wonder if he would be willing to state, for the record, whether or not he was jailed in the UK as reported by several news sources. The only thing I am getting here is that he may have some objection to the notion that he *has* a conviction, since he claims it was overturned. That might very well be fine, but nonetheless it remains true that the Guardian and other have reported that he was convited, and that conviction later overturned (though sources are somewhat in disagreement on this point).

I also really like the header "A sense of injustice" because it makes clear why this is relevant. Let's try to go slowly here, anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find a compromise. I don't like headers with a "sense" of anything, it makes it appear not neutral. What are your thoughts? Regards, Mercury 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
We have to stay with WP:Verifiability policy and reliable source guideline here. Clearly the countries of interest to GDS include both Italy and at least parts of the UK. If the defamation stuff GDS refers to has been reported in the Italian news or elsewhere we should report that too, but specifying which country it refers to. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Mr Di Stefano would care to answer. Is there any objection to the documentation you sent to Mr Wales being made public so Italian Wikipedians and others expert in the field may clarify its content? Thanks. ... luke (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jimbo. So now we fall back, as others have said, on WP:ATT and WP:RS. Please, GDS, do give us citations to good sources that put your side of the story. Not covering the issue of the reported conviction and appeal is not an option given its prominence in those sources which discuss the subject, so let's be absolutely sure to get it right. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The latest edits by Squeakbox twice assert as fact that the conviction was overturned. Do we have any sources to support this? The sources cited only report this as GDS's assertion, so surely it should be described as such in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Its the same ref, what I am trying to do is give more prominence to the overturning for reasons of NPOV and BLP but we don't have to mention it twice, but then the New Scotsman second paragraph also seems to repeat itself. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've changed was overturned to "was quashed", that should make the statement fit the ref perfectly. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the quotes round "was quashed" take care of that one, but there is still the sentence, "The overturned charges were for conspiracy to obtain property by deception and fraudulent trading", which reports as fact that the charges were overturned, which doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I just repeated my previous solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Can someone please move this article back to Giovanni di Stefano. I can't seem to do it myself. Someone replaced that page with a disambiguation page, but as I commented on Talk:Giovanni di Stefano (disambiguation), that move makes very little sense given the relative obscurity of the two non-lawyer di Stedanos. I have since moved the dab page to Giovanni di Stefano (disambiguation), and would like to restore this article's original title as well. I wonder if this move from GDS to GDS (lawyer) wasn't done in a odd attempt to affect future Google search results (in response to the subject's complaints?); if so, is that appropriate--let alone effective?. Please discuss here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think putting a disambig note at the top of the lawyer Stefano article is sufficient. Avruchtalk 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is, undo the move. Avruchtalk 18:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to be discussed. I've asked an admin to undo the move. Regards, Mercury 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think that having the dab page at the root might actually be more prudent, per WP:BLP, although that is really a very minor thing. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The section I just removed

The section I just removed contained as a source a link to http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071030/3/287t.html . But at least at this moment, this is a 404 not found! The topic of the removed paragraph has to do with the question of whether or not Mr. di Stefano has claimed that the John di Stefano convicted in 1986 was a different person (a cousin). I find this question poorly covered in the remaining sources, and actually of very minor importance in any event to his overall biography. Mr. Giovanni flatly denies that he has ever made this claim.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The source is the NZPA not yahoo. Did you even try to find the other coppies out there?Geni 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried and failed. Did you look at the other references you restored? Two of them do not even mention the name "John" that I can see! Can you check them to double check my work? And if the other two references are not valid, remove them? Notice, too, that in your restoration you have Wikipedia asserting as fact something which is very much in dispute. It will be better to simply leave it that the New Zealand Herald makes the claim. Giovanni denies it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The version you are asking for exists. Since you can see deleted revisions you can even go look for it. A version (with yahoo rather that NZH as a source so you would need to update that) would appear around the time as my most recently deleted edit.Geni 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we must have a miscommunication. You added some text to the article which cited 4 sources for the "John/Giovanni" aspect of the story. For 2 of those sources, I was unable to see any reference to the "John" name. So I wanted to know why you added those into the article. And I wanted you to check that the sources are actually valid before adding them back. Possibly you have a very good reason and I just overlooked it. I am not asking for any other version. I am asking you to do good work if you are going to edit the article.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
again what you ask for exists. Should be in the history of this talk page November to December. You can see this.Geni 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Geni, please. I am asking you a simple question. Why did you add back those references that, apparently, have absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand? Is there an answer to that question? If so, please just state it for me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There answer is the result of a month long debate. You can see it. I can't and I would rather looked at what was actualy writen at the time rather than rely on my memory.Geni 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the WP:UNDUE argument. I don't think we need to detail every twist and turn of the scandal here. -- Kendrick7talk 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
That was tried. The accusation came that insufficient sources were being provided and that we were talking about someone else. Again see the deleted talk page history.Geni 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems like a relatively minor point overall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
On the surface maybe in reality it isn't. The denials we have either been based on a successful appeal or mistaken identity. Again you will be able to find this covered in the talk page history.Geni 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Because of the sensitivity of this article, we should take as much time as is needed with this: Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Wikipedia:Libel comes into play here, as well as sourcing, which we need to take the utmost care with. It's what constitutes a reliable source within WP:BLP which is a large concern for us. --Solumeiras talk 17:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah all that has been kinda done several times. see the deleted history of the talk page.Geni 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. In the absence of any known response by Mr di Stefano to my December 29 invitation, editors are invited to carefully review the sources *listed here* for conformity with our policies and guidelines.-- luke (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
GDS responded to me and I will edit the article to help create an NPOV version, so probably not good to say he isn't responding, but yeah I am not hurrying. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the reply SqueakBox. I'd asked for GDS's documentation (supplied to Jimbo Wales) to be made public if Mr di Stefano cared to do so. You are acting as an intermediary, so do you know if he has a problem with that and, if so, would he be prepared to say why? There is also the question of Jimbo Wales's recent contacts with Mr di Stefano, and whether any points from those discussions should be considered here. Thanks again for your help. -- luke (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Sense of Injustice" v. "Personal Legal Issues"

I'm having trouble seeing how the first one is NPOV. If anything, it is misleading to someone looking at the table of contents for the article and needlessly emphasizes a single quote from him. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why anyone would edit war to insert 'Sense of injustice' into or back into the article. Personal Legal Issues seem a lot more generic and undeclarative. Avruchtalk 23:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)