Talk:Norman Hsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Norman Hsu has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 27, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Bio

I don't think it's vandalism to add to the information bar that he's considered a fugitive. If I'm not mistaken he is indeed. This story calls him a fugitive donor. [1] Ainttalkin 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a newspaper headline. Avoiding that warrant or not does not officially provide enough to back the term "fugitive" on the Wikipedia article. Adding that term would violate WP:BLP.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

A blog is not considered a credible source? Even if the blog is just reporting on the written statement that the lawyer Lawrence Barcella wrote to the Wall Street Journal defending Hsu and the Paws from the implication that Hsu reimbursed the Paws for their donanation to Democratic politicians? Media Matters also reported on Barcella's written statement. Would that be a better source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.94.31 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Also, the August 28, 2007, Wall Street Journal article doesn't say that Hsu once owned the house that the Paws now live in. Rather, it says that Hsu once listed the same address as the Paws as his own residence. Listing an address as your residence doesn't necessarily mean you own the place at that address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.94.31 (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The bio section looks much better now with subsections. Cm22 15:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Hsu graduate UC Berkeley

None of the references I found so far indicate that Hsu actually graduated from Berkeley. Can anyone verify that? Ronnotel 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Hsu turned himself in. [2] Jumping cheese 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, added to Fugitive section. Ronnotel 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken Identity

The "Friends of Norman Hsu" received a $7,500 donation from Ted Sioeng on 3/11/95. [3] This suggests the possibility that Hsu was living in the U.S. at the time and running for a political office. Cm22 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there has been some question about a possible mistaken identity - it hasn't been confirmed that this is the same Norman Hsu as described on this page. Ronnotel 02:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... One blog does in fact report that there are "Two Hsus". [4] Some supporting information would be desirable, such as the location of the other Norman Hsu and relevant election records. Cm22 02:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that a link to the Senate report was on this page earlier, but removed about two days ago over concerns of a mistaken identity. Here is the diff - the change comment says something about a Norman Hsu from Hacienda Heights, a member of the School Board and in the GOP. Certainly we should error on the side of caution as per WP:BLP. Until we can positively link the Norman Hsu of this article to the Senate report with a reliable source, I think it should stay out. Ronnotel 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This 2001 article does seem to confirm that the Norman Hsu receiving a donation from Ted Sioeng was the individual living in Hacienda Heights. [5] Cm22 03:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice spot. Unless Norman Y. Y. Hsu is the same as the one in So. Cal (unlikely?), then we should definitely not list the Senate report. There's been a lot of verbiage on various blogs linking the 1996 scandal to the 2007 one, incorrectly it seems. Ronnotel 04:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Instead of posting a bunch of links here, I'll just state a few things here that I know as fact, so anyone can search the internet for more. Norman N. Hsu of Southern California (Chinese: 徐乃星) has served more than 10 years at the Hacienda La Puente Unified School District. He is ethnic Chinese born and raised in Indonesia (somewhere on eastern Java), lived through WW2 (Japanese occupation) as a child, moved to and attended college in Taiwan. He and his wife moved to the United States and worked for the USPS all their careers (and through his early school board years), but he had to retire from federal employment to run for State Assembly (District 60 [1992-2002]) in 1998 (for which I was a office volunteer for his campaign). He lost in the primary and continued serving the school board until now. Hacienda Heights is where the Hsi Lai Temple (where Gore visited and Chinese-American Democrat fundraisers did their illegal deeds) and where Matt Fong (former State Treasurer who won the GOP 1998 US senate nomination but lost the general election to incumbent) resides. So it is no surprise these Chinese-American candidates received donations from Sioeng, if he was giving to bigger "fish" (Clinton/Gore, DNC, etc.) already. The "Friends of Norman Hsu" report about a 1995 donation is likely linked to Hsu's school board campaign. "Friends of..." is usually related to a candidate, not fundraisers. HkCaGu 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Would a brief article for Norman N. Hsu be appropriate? Cm22 22:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it would probably be AfD'd. Better is a short disambiguation page - I'll put one up. Ronnotel 23:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incident Involving Organized Crime

I have removed the section alleging "ties to organized crime" and inserted a brief summary of it into the biography section. It is disingenuous at best to describe being kidnapped and tortured by the mob as having "ties" to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMarshall (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal to me either way, but borrowing money from someone like Raymond Chow, a self-confessed mobster, certainly seems like "ties to organized crime". Ronnotel 02:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimarshall's reference to "the mob" is too vague and misses two important points. The first is that one of Hsu kidnappers was a ranking member of a triad which had reached out from Hong Kong to the U.S. West Coast. The second is that Hsu's lawyers disclosed that he had debtor-creditor relationship with his kidnappers. Wikimarshall's edit makes Hsu appear an innocent victim. The original entry had a more neutral tone, indicating that Hsu had a brief connection with organized crime but did not specify whether he was innocent or complicit in the events which unfolded in Foster City. I'm seeking to restore the original entry. I have changed the section heading to "Incident Involving Organized Crime", since this is more neutral and emphasizes that this was a singular incident and not necessarily repeated. I think the text within the section is neutral. If there are any objections, I would suggest updating the section rather than deleting it. Also, I object to the phrase "the mob" as colloquial and not appropriate for a encyclopedia entry. Cm22 06:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the original text was actually more NPOV than the replacement. Perhaps WikiMarshall can be specific about issues with that text that can be addressed? Ronnotel 11:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
They have been. I would have reworked it a bit more throughly myself, but was short on time. WikiMarshall 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to migratie this text to a footnote (subject to my limited abilities using the Wiki markup language). It is a significant event, but is probably best mentioned very briefly in the text and then elaborated upon in a footnote. Cm22 09:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a reference from a story by a Bay Area TV stations (KGO ch 7). The story uses somewhat sensational language, but it is interesting because it has an interview with Raymond Chow, who confirms that he did in fact know Hsu. Chow would not answer questions for an earlier LA Times story. I think I'll just leave this at the end of the article rather than converting to a large footnote. It seems like there is a lot about Norman Hsu's past which is not yet understood. Cm22 15:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be in the 'Biography' section, but I don't like it being a separate subsection of its own. One, it gives it undue weight; it's not (currently) that important in the scheme of Hsu's life and notability. Two, it's out of chrono order - whatever he was doing with this person in 1990 was likely due to his collapsed financial state at the time, something that isn't apparent in the current arrangement. Three, the text is longer than it needs to be; there's no need to get into the time of day, the number of occupants in the car, etc. We don't go into that level of detail for the Colorado train incident, which is likely more relevant. Wasted Time R 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a closed issue yet. Having the subsection out there might bring out other readers who are aware of additional information. If there is nothing new for a while, then I would not object to migrating to a footnote summary. (Lest anyone think that crime figures don't mix with genteel society, I recommend them to read about the association of Anthony Pelicano with some of the most elite Los Angeles attorneys and some of Pelicano's attempts at violent intimidation of an LA Times reporter.) The editor who relocated the Hsu-Chow incident was approximately correct about chronology, mainly because the affair terminated before his 1992 fraud conviction. Cm22 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I also tend the think the section could use some editing as per WP:UNDUE. I'm neutral on whether it deserves it's own sub-section. Ronnotel 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I folded the alleged kidnapping instance into the 1990 part of his biography. Minimalism is the right way to go here. The references have been maintained. Cm22 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Burkle

I think the information regarding Hsu's fund-raising ties to Burkle is inappropriate detail for the intro. I'm hard pressed to see why it even belongs in the article at all - why is this notable? The citation supporting it is a blog - it should be supported by something more reliable. Ronnotel 15:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro is improved with the sentence about Burkle commented out. It didn't fit in the intro, and there isn't enough relevance or substantive fact to put it in the main body of the article. Cm22 16:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Burkle co-hosting, if true, is relevant, since Burkle is a big figure in Dem/HRC circles and this would indicate Hsu's importance in the same circles. From indirect Google evidence I think it's sourced by the August 28 Wall Street Journal article, but not being a subscriber, I can't read the whole thing. It obviously does not belong in the intro, but should go in the 'Biography' section, just before the mention of the planned Quincy Jones event. Wasted Time R 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. But I would strike anything about 'Green Acres' or Raymond Lloyd. I would also strive for brevity as per WP:UNDUE - perhaps it can be worked into an existing sentence? Ronnotel 17:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, obviously the irrelevant stuff would go out. It would be something like, "By 2007, his status within the Clinton campaign had risen to the level where in August, he co-hosted a $1 million dollar fundraiser at Ron Burkle's Beverly Hills estate,[cite] and in September, he was scheduled to co-host a major gala fundraising event featuring music legend Quincy Jones.[8]" Wasted Time R 17:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Ronnotel 17:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this Chicago Tribune entry that reiterates what the WSJ story said, so I've added the above text. Wasted Time R 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese name

Need his Chinese name, in Chinese characters. Badagnani 05:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it 徐元源? Badagnani 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just World Journal's "guess" (phonetically correct but textually not-necessarily correct). The Chinese press in the U.S. has not arrived at a verifiable concensus. If "Yung Yuen" is indeed correct, in Wade-Giles (as Hsu is), it would be somewhere along the line of 永原. So unless verified (Hong Kong government might very well have records), better to stay silent.HkCaGu 05:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expertise. Most Chinese sources are just transliterating Norman. Badagnani 08:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

徐咏芫 is his Chinese name according to Hong Kong's Next Magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.254.60 (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That would be in simplified characters. In Hong Kong's traditional characters it would be 徐詠芫, which yields more results in Google. (Note that the Next Media Group does not allow browsing articles outside Hong Kong.) HkCaGu 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

More publications jumping onto the 徐詠芫 bandwagon, and someone created an article in Chinese with that, so I added his Chinese name on line 1. HkCaGu 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broshahan's statement

Broshahan's statement in second para of fugitive section now seems to be discredited by Hsu's repeated attempt to flee prosecution. I think it should be struck or somehow altered to acknowledge Hsu's subsequent attempt to escape. Ronnotel 12:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The subsequent escape is described in the next paragraph; the irony of Brosnahan's statement left as it is works just fine. Wasted Time R 12:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I qualified it as to timing to provide context - i.e., before the second attempt, and trimmed it down a little. Ronnotel 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction section

The reaction section seems a little light. There's been a tremendous amount of activity that hasn't been reflected in the section. I tagged it in the hopes that someone might be inclined to do a little digging. Also, there's been reaction from a lot of quarters, not just Hsu's donees. I think a subsection on Donee reaction is appropriate, but that shouldn't preclude other reaction. Ronnotel 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the tag you are looking for is {{expand}}, not {{cleanup}}. Wasted Time R 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks, I'll replace Ronnotel 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I attempted a rewrite of the section. I thought maybe we should not do a lot of name dropping of various politicians. I cite Bob Kerrey mainly because his commments generally show the full circle of responses. I cite Hillary as a contrast to Kerrey. Some will think I have gone easy on Hillary, but I don't think she should be unnecessarily highlighted in this article. It's mainly an issue of balance. Cm22 09:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with article

A quick stop-by. A few observations. First, the header section attempts to describe him as a fundraiser who happens to be a prominent businessman and who happens to be a fugitive / criminal. Hsu's notability is not for his being a Democratic fundraiser, and it is incorrect to say as much. The extent of his fundraising would hardly deserve a mention on Wikipedia. The only issues that make him notable are: (i) he started some clothing companies; (ii) he became a fugitive for many years after being charged with running a ponzi scheme, and most importantly (iii) he was caught leading a double life as a political operative. The article ought to be recast to reflect that.

Second, the article covers the investigation, which is not notable. "Wall Street Journal report that", "several days after xxxx. it was revealed that", this kind of tone is inappropriate to Wikipedia. Either he did or he did not. It does not matter who reported it, unless the subject of the article is investigative journalism...which is it not. If a claim can be verified to reliable sources, it should be reported as fact. If not, it should not be here. Our mission is not to cover breaking news, it is to compile information once we can be sure. Wikidemo 09:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I take your point regarding the investigation. I've been gradually reducing the mention of the investigation (which was much more prominent in the article last week!) but we need to continue that process. However, I'm not sure I understand your comment about the intro. It's pretty standard in a bio to have the first sentence describe what someone does for a living, regardless of what makes him notable. He is an American businessman, and a political donor. With this context in place, it becomes possible to tie them together a little later with the sentence that begins - "Hsu achieved notoriety. . .". In that sentence, his notability is established as being linked to possible campaign financing irregularities. Perhaps your comment refers to the detail regarding his donation activities? If so, then yes, I agree that that can be trimmed down, might be a bit too much detail for an intro. Ronnotel 13:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a weight concern, I suppose, depending on just how important his status as a criminal is vis-a-vis his business life. We wouldn't cover Ted Bundy as a Republican party operative and law student who happened to be a serial killer, he's a serial killer who, as a biographical detail, worked for the party and attended law school. The danger is that it severs partisan goals, even if unintentionally, to build him up as an important Democratic party donor (which he is not) only to say he is a criminal. That may be what makes it an interesting news story and why Republicans promote the story, but it is not legitimately why he is notable or notorious. If it became a major political football, then the fact of it being a political football might be useful in itself to cover as a piece of politics.Wikidemo 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
In my view, Hsu's notability and media interest is in the intersection of his weird business life, his twice-fugitive status, and his status as a big-money political party donor. I don't know what your threshold level is for "important Dem Party donor", but the amounts he's raised isn't chicken feed. And I don't see this as a partisan story - these bundlers and money men are a figure in every campaign, both Dem and GOP - as today's WSJ story says, "His tale also shows the foibles of the U.S. political fund-raising system, which attracts a crazy-quilt of donors -- including ordinary citizens, the powerful trying to expand their fame, the ambitious seeking favors and social outsiders seeking a ticket into the American elite. Campaigns say they try to screen this mélange of donors, but the task is difficult and the hunger for cash means they sometimes don't look too closely." That description matches both parties. In this case it's Dems he raises money for, and the article needs to say that. If next month a GOP bundler becomes notorious for doing something, that article will say he or she raises money for the GOP. And note that the sources the article is using are all very mainstream media outlets - WSJ, LAT, NYT. So in sum, I don't see anything wrong with the intro in this regard. Wasted Time R 15:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I would agree, Hsu's notability is closely tied to his association with his political activities. Saying otherwise would be disingenuous. That his story may benefit one party or another is irrelevant. Had he not been a prominent donor there would not be a story at all. Also, the analogy to Ted Bundy is inappropriate. Bundy's crimes had nothing to do with his political activities while Hsu's activities form the basis of a formal investigation by the FEC and the US Justice Department. Ronnotel 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Good points. What would be disingenuous is if we pretended he's not important at all. This is just trying to get to the heart of what it is about him that is worth reading, so as to focus the article introduction and overall weight/balance accordingly. I still say he's not notable as a fundraiser. If you covered him just for having raised a few hundred thousand dolalrs there would be thousands of others who also deserve articles. He is barely notable as a businessman (nobody thought he was worth an article until the scandal broke). He's notable as a discredited fundraiser (subject to whatever standard of proof we're waiting on) and a business fraud. So the blow by blow details of who he raised money for, why, when, etc., are really peripheral, and after the story fades in a few weeks the details of his investigation and prosecution won't be that important to know. The relevant point may be, as the article says, that he is part of a political money-raising system that has been called into question for raising money from suspect sources and for not investigating the background of its people. Wikidemo 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we are probably in agreement that there is probably too much detail in the intro regarding his political donations. Do you want to take a shot at trimming it down? Ronnotel 21:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cut at a trimmed-down intro:

Norman Yung Yuen Hsu (born October 1951) is an American businessman in the apparel industry and was a notable fund raiser for the Democratic Party and Democratic causes. His fund raising activities ended after suspicious patterns of "bundled" contributions were report in the news media in 2007. Hsu was then discovered to have been a long time fugitive, having failed to appear for sentencing in a 1992 fraud conviction. His behavior became increasingly erratic in 2007 after turning himself in to California authorities and then fleeing the state before being recaptured. Cm22 02:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
That looks good to me, except that we should take out the statement that his behavior grew increasingly erratic because it is a summary/judgment about a living person and Wikipedia urges us to be extra careful bout that under WP:BLP. I would just let the fact speak for itself by wording the last sentence "After turning himself in to California authorities he fled the state and was recaptured." Wikidemo 03:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I agree wit you fellers. . .Ronnotel 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The word "erratic" was based on published news articles where Hsu is described as wandering around the Amtrak train with his shirt off [6], as being delirious [7], and as being distraught[8]. To start out with, I'll leave out the word erratic, although I think this phrasing would not violate WP:BLP. Cm22 06:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In practical terms yes, I think that's erratic. But I think it's too much of an editorial leap for us to connect those dots, particularly if the news sources don't actually use "erratic" or similar terms to describe the behavior. Maybe he had a nervous breakdown, or a stroke, or took some medications, or the witnesses are exaggerating. Maybe people make a groggy dash from sleeping cabins to the bathroom in their sleeping clothes all the time on Amtrak trains....Most people on the run from the law are probably distraught. I just think we should try to use as neutral language as we can and stick to the facts. In the long run, it probably doesn't make any difference to things whether he was acting crazy or perfectly sane. That's more of a news-y thing than an encyclopedic thing. There are few cases I can remember where a fugitive's state of mind was really an issue. OJ Simpson's slow-speed chase through LA, perhaps. Wikidemo 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The word "erratic" is in fact used in news articles. However, I do think that the intro reads better as per your suggestion. Cm22 03:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Defense Section ???

It seems like the "Defense" section (2.4) is really not necessary. Does anyone else want to delete it? Comments about most of the Paw money coming from Winkle can be integrated elsewhere. Cm22 09:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I originally added it because the defense material was becoming repetitious in some areas and I hoped that concentrating them into one section would reduce that. I think the article does deserve to have a coherent argument defending Hsu's actions. That said, the section really isn't being maintained - not a big issue for me either way if someone wants to restructure and improve. Ronnotel 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Although it perhaps keeps the article balanced to have a defense section, there has been nothing coherent about the statements from Hsu's attorneys (Barcella and Brosnahan). The Media Matters stuff is opaque and difficult to read. Given the facts as they are, I would say that it is almost impossible to offer a coherent defense for Hsu. Brosnahan's comments about Hsu's "mental health" may be an indicator of how the defense plans to proceed. Cm22 16:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree there's not much coherent being said right now in his defense. However, I think leaving a placeholder will encourage those who can add useful information. I'd leave it in, if for nothing else to deflect criticism of bias by removing it. Ronnotel 17:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it as part of a general cleanup. It seemed to have a current events character which had started to go stale. We lost two Media Matters refs, but those were not actually news articles. I'll work in the the WSJ ref that was lost ([9]) Cm22 16:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Losing base citations

Those of you doing trimming edits need to be more careful — if you remove text that includes a base citation (something with <ref name="foobar">{{cite ...}}</ref> in it), then you risk orphaning any citations that refer forwards or backwards to that (<ref name="foobar"/>). As I write this, the citations that go with references 7 and 12 have been lost due to this effect. When you remove a base citation, you need to find if there are any forwards or backwards references to it, and migrate the base to one of them. Yes, this is a pain and is a limitation of the primitive Wikimedia citation software, but it has to be done. Wasted Time R 12:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Losing citations altogether

The recent "trimming" and "balancing" edits described above have turned the article from one that was very carefully cited into one with many uncited claims. Some of these claims we know to be true (that Hsu was a HillRaiser) but the citations have been lost in the shuffle. Some of these claims we do not necessarily know to be true: says who that Clinton "disengaged from Hsu earlier than many others in the Democratic Party"? I get the impression that every prominent Dem recipient defended Hsu on the initial improper bundling charge, then fled from Hsu as soon as the fugitive history was revealed. Was Clinton really different in this regard? And where did all this stuff about ununified state databases and silent local officials come from? I have added {{citeneeded}} flags as needed. Wasted Time R 13:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The article was becoming unreadable and incoherent, which is why the edits were made. In particular, the intro was only updated after concurrence from one of the most active contributors. If you believe an important reference is missing, please put it back in. I don't think we need citations on every sentence, especially when information is obviously available in already cited sources. Citations are of course always needed for direct quotes, and I was careful to do this to this when quoting Bob Kerrey, for instance.
I wasn't trying to be difficult on this, but if you read things like Wikipedia:When to cite and WP:BLP, for a potentially contentious, biographical article such as this one, you really do need to cite just about sentence. Furthermore saying that information is available in already cited sources doesn't help much; is the reader really suppose to look through 28 different articles (the current total) to confirm something? So it's worthwhile that you've gone through and restored the citation level. Wasted Time R 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
With regard to Clinton, she did repudiate contributions earlier than Rendell and Patrick Kennedy, for instance. Roughly speaking, there were politicians who reacted to his one-time fugitive status, and politicians who reacted to his two-time fugitive status. However, I think a detailed list of names does not need to be in the main article. We might want to add a footnote with additional explanatory text.
With regard to the multiplicity of campaign contribution databases, it is an obvious fact to anyone looking up contributions online. The national databases don't pick up all state contributions. The figures published in the WSJ are only an approximation, and additional contributions can be found. Cm22 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. I removed the discussion of multiple databases for being a non-sequitur. I also excised the repeated "citation needed" markups as not appropriate, since the statements are supported in the body of rerences supplied. I will try to add any key reference articles which are missing (can anyone help here?). Cm22 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've relented and put in citations as recommended. Cm22 21:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move "Status as Fugitive" to Major Subsection ?

Currently the Status as Fugitive section segues from the Paw family discussion. Should this be a separate section just under the bio? Cm22 05:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the 'Biography' section as covering everything up to just before the late August WSJ and LA Times reports came out. After that the story becomes complicated and branches out into several different directions at once. I'd be inclined to leave this structure in place for a while at least. Wasted Time R 11:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I created the current structure last week as the article began to expand rapidly. It's clear that the story has continue to grow exponentially and I think we will need to reorganize at some point in the not too distant future. For instance, I suspect that with the revelation of Hsu operating what may be a Ponzi scheme, the Source of Income section may need to be turned into a section titled 'Operation of illicit investment scheme' and rewritten significantly. I also expect there may be a number of other donors in a similar situation to the Paw's and we may want to change the title of that section, too. Ronnotel 13:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] East Coast version of Paws

There have been some Philadelphia Inquirer articles about some east coast associates who are in a similar situation to the Paw family (though not as of limited means). Would this merit a subsection? Cm22 05:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a subsection dealing with claims of illegitimate or bogus "bundling" in general, which could discuss the Paws, the east coast associates, etc. Wasted Time R 11:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spin-off to Hillary Clinton campaign article ?

I have been of the opinion that the Norman Hsu article should not dwell too much on Hillary Clinton, and my observation has been that her campaign has responded to the Hsu issues more promptly than other Democratic candidates.

However, there are some facts in the latest Hsu newspaper articles today (10 Sept 2007) which might merit inclusion in the Hillary Clinton Wikipedia article. (I am not brave enough to involve myself in that article, which I imagine could be like wading into a piranha infested river). It does appear that her campaign ignored warnings from both donors and the DNC that Hsu might be scamming investors and intimidating them into making contributions. My take on this is that the Clinton campaign was not vigilant, but once confronted with irrefutable facts they responded quickly and forthrightly.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how easy it would have been to do a criminal background check on Hsu since his date of birth may have been reported differently at different times and Chinese nationals do not always have middle initials. Cm22 08:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a long-time editor on the Hillary Clinton articles, and your description of them is sometimes correct! There is already a brief treatment of the Hsu matter in Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#Presidential_campaign_of_2008, and a much longer one in the subarticle Hillary_Rodham_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2008#The_Norman_Hsu_affair. Both will be maintained and expanded as necessary as the story develops. Wasted Time R 11:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Your subarticle looks ok -- it seems to be a good chronology. I'm going to try to add a link to this subsection, although I'm worried this is a little risky depending on who edits the Hillary article. Cm22 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As a novice editor, I might suggest that you remove the specific references to publishers (Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, WorldNet Daly) per comments received on this article. I think the only remaining publisher reference in the main Hsu article is to the WSJ (probably out of respect for opening up the story). Also, the sentence starting with "Some bastions ..." seems a little overwrought. Cm22 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've changed this to a "See also" entry, which is to better way to point to another article in this case. The other article is political in nature, as it's about a campaign, and in such an article describing which media outlet breaks certain stories is very relevant. For example, some 1990s Clinton administration controversies came out of the exist-to-hate-Clintons media (e.g. Troopergate from American Spectator and its ilk), while others came out of the mainstream press (e.g. Whitewater from the NYT). It's important to show in the Clinton campaign article that the Hsu story has come out of the mainstream press. Wasted Time R 00:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The citations speak for themselves as to the source of the stories. If you eliminate the MSM name dropping, it will look more professional. The "bastion" sentence is a little too much to take. Other than these stylistic items, it is a good chronology (and will get better). Cm22 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journalistic responsibility to report crimes

I think the LA Times did some very good investigative work uncovering Hsu's fugitive status. However, I am informed that the LA Times Washington bureau had been tracking Hsu for some time, and it wasn't just like they read the original WSJ story one day, did a few quick internet searches and wrote their story the next day. What I don't know is if they knew about his fugitive status before the WSJ story came out. If they did know about his fugitive status beforehand, did they have a responsibility to inform law enforcement? What are the legal/ethical issues here? Cm22 08:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine they thought that since Hsu was "hiding in plain sight," there was no danger of delaying publication of their knowledge of his fugitive status until they had the story ready. But not for us to worry about in any case, unless the LA Times comes in for public criticism on the matter. Wasted Time R 11:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hillary Clinton whitewash?

Where is the evidence that Hillary Clinton "disengaged relatively quickly" from Norman Hsu? The citation for that claim says nothing of the kind. Looks like original research to me. It certainly isn't properly cited. Who cares if she did it earlier than Ed Rendell? 74.77.208.52 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The wording has been changed to be more precise and more neutral in tone. 09:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. I found the NPR citation verifying that she was the first to return Hsu's bundled money. Thanks to the individual who formatted the citation properly. 74.77.208.52 18:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I appreciated that you discovered this citation. I think one of the strong points of the article is the list of references. Cm22 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bail now set at $5 mil, but wasn't Hsu was arrested under a no-bail warrant?

The original sealed federal warrant has been released [10]. The warrant is clearly marked "no bail", yet we read that bail was set at $5 million by a Colorado court. My assumption is that the federal charges must already have been dismissed, though I don't know whether a formal dismissal has occured yet. If Hsu is released on bail and then flees again... oh well... it would just be yet another embarrassing spectacle for the lawyers and judges of the United States. Cm22 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw an e-mail from DA Hautzinger that explained that Colorado law requires bail in all but capital murder cases. However, I would have thought that i) Hsu may be using stolen money, ii) Hsu may pose a danger to himself, and iii) forfeiting money seems not to be a deterrrent might have swayed the judge. Kinda crazy, I know. Ronnotel 11:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No news yet of whether Hsu has posted bail. Cm22 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More numbers and names

Some detailed numbers to watch for in other sources: [11] (SEWilco 03:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

In general, blogs are not considered reliable. However, these numbers seem fairly well documented and supported. Anyone else second the motion to put these numbers in even though they are blog-based? Ronnotel 03:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the WP:RS rules are often stupid and foolish — in popular music articles we have to give credence to careless, not-really-knowledgeable newspaper writers over meticulously crafted fan websites — so I support violating the rules on every justifiable occasion! Wasted Time R 03:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 27, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: For the most part, yes. However there are some minor syntax issues. As you move eventually towards WP:FA, I would obtain the help of an experienced copy editor. Also, you should expand on the lead, which needs to summarize the article. I mean, it does provide a brief summary as is, but I'd say expand the summary to at least two or three fleshed out paragraphs before WP:FAC, which is a long way off.
2. Factually accurate?: Sourced to an impressive (59) references, though I counted at least three that just listed hyperlinks, and the rest look like they are formatted to WP:CIT. Just make sure you have all the cites formatted correctly.
3. Broad in coverage?: The article is pretty thorough, with the subsections on Biography, Controversy regarding political donations, and Legal actions. However, some of the smaller sections could be merged, and small paragraphs could be merged as well. Though if you plan to expand them with more sources, that is a moot point.
4. Neutral point of view?: Article is indeed phrased in an NPOV manner, and it seems from the read that the editors are staying close to the actual cites, which is good.
5. Article stability? Article history looks pretty good, some contributions from anons, just keep an eye out for potential vandalism. Talk page discussions look to be pretty polite as well.
6. Images?: One image, which I am a little unclear on. If it is a booking photo, it is a booking photo. But it has a creative commons tag. I would suggest you consult with the folks at Wikimedia Commons and see if the image is safe to upload there. If not, provide a detailed fair use rationale at the image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Cheers, good luck, and start thinking about some of those suggestions before going to the next step, which I would recommend to be WP:PR. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Norman hsu.jpg

Image:Norman hsu.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)