Talk:Caesar DePaço/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit war

The recent addition of a paragraph concerning a controversy that recently arose over this article's subject seems to have inspired a mounting edit war. I would engage the user(s) in question, but they seem to be using different IPs (@2001:818:ead7:3400:bdad:79d:f91c:e20d:, @2001:818:ead7:3400:e053:baf8:3409:245e:, @213.22.125.193:, @94.132.21.75:), so I was unsure of the proper venue. At any rate, I've reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Caesar DePaço, to call attention to this.

The content in question was mostly added by me but with a minor addition by an anonymous user. I understand this content can be seen as contentious, and to the best of my ability I tried to the best of my ability to keep it verifiable with ample in-line citation to reliable sources. To this moment, none of the engaged users appeared to challenge them. Instead, what can be found in the article history are repeated spurious assertions that it is false content, more than one threat of legal action, and unexplained removal of the content in question. One user, @Cristiano Tomás:, prefaced the paragraph with a {{Disputed-section}} template, but no explanation for it was ever given, neither on edit summaries nor here on the article's talk page. Other users (@Ashleyyoursmile:, @Serols:, @RicardoFilipePereira:) also seem to think the removal of content to be unjustified, as they reverted it, same as I did.

In short, I'm opening this discussion to call for wider attention to the dispute. RickMorais (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

My inclusion of the disputed section was to act as a precaution, given the precarious nature of editing a biography of a living person, with my justification being that despite some sources reporting that DePaco donated to Chega, he has continued to deny this. In my view this is the definition of a disputed section, but I apologize for not including my justification in my edit summary. I have refrained from editing since realizing how contentious the topic is, as I neither wish to edit war nor do I know what the proper protocol is for resolving a situation like this where the subject of the biography disagrees with claims in the press, so I also welcome community discussion on the matter. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I was slightly worried the paragraph might be read as too heavily one-sided, but I failed to come across any reliable sources with responses by DePaço or Chega. Still, I don't think that's reason enough to do away with the section, as the controversy is unquestionably notable and the sources reliable (I think). RickMorais (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting that SIC has taken down the Grand Ilusao episode featuring DePaco (Grande Ilusao: Cifroes e Outros Demonios), which spurred this media storm. The other episodes of Grande Ilusao on Ventura are not taken down, so what this means in general is uncertain, but it may beg questions on the credibility of the claims made in the now-deleted episode. Thoughts, @RickMorais:? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is clear example of censorship through edit war. The connection has been reported as it should be in wikipedia. I am adding it again and reporting this sort of behaviour as clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.250.120.65 (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Cristiano Tomás: I have no idea of what that means, but thank you for pointing it out. There doesn't seem to have been any sort of correction or retraction from the news network, however, so we shouldn't assume as much. Googling this again, it seems an opinion piece by a Chega parliamentary legal advisor has been published on i (Portuguese newspaper), and its content probably should be included to ensure a balanced view (the only thing close to an official response I've found thus far). RickMorais (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@RickMorais: please note @Cristiano Tomás: has clearly taken the decision to editorialize this article against Wikipedia policy. He keeps removing and "cleaning" the article, now having sanitized the article with a new, "clean" title for what are very serious allegations. --92.250.120.65 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to the Visao citation [1], he says he is non-partisan and has friends in all political circles in Portugal and the United States. This must be documented per WP:BLPPUBLIC. I also do not understand the controversy of this section. It seems clear from these news sources he is indeed a political donor to CHEGA. Why is this presented as an allegation that requires all of this attribution? The section can be shortened since the sentences in the first paragraph just repeats themselves (that he donates money and hangs out with members of the political party). Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a controversy, there was a concerted attempt at censorship, first through random accounts, now through an editor. The key to the matter here is the connection to known drug dealer Fernando Madureira, and the very real possibility that DePaco purchased the consul position from Cape Verde in order to conceal potentially illegal activities. This is entirely speculation, so I will leave it out of the article, however the links to Madureira are real, and we know the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cape Verde has resigned immediately after this story broke. This is a major scandal in the making, and Mr. DePaco and associates are probably pulling in late hours to make this vanish and not tarnish his name. --Kranke133 (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Everyone, stay cool and keep discussing. Please read WP:IMPARTIAL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Fences&Windows 03:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page again due to disruptive eduting. On a language note, the Portuguese word "exonerar" means two very different things in English: "remove" and "exonerate". I think the former use is the most accurate, because he was removed from his post rather than being found innocent after an investigation. Fences&Windows 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, exonerar alguém de algo means in 99% "remove somebody from something", very less common es discharge sb. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It says "The Prime Minister, Ulisses Correia e Silva, said today in Sao Miguel, that Portuguese businessman César do Paço will be removed from his post as consul of Cape Verde in Florida, in the United States, to which he was recently appointed, contradicting Luis Filipe Tavares, who yesterday ensured the continuity of the multimillionaire in the post, despite all the controversy." CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, so "he was exonerated from the position of Honorary Consul of Cape Verde in Florida" is misleading. "Exonerate" isn't used that way. Fences&Windows 21:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

I have blocked one editor for legal threats and extended confirmed protected this page and Summit Nutritionals International. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Caesar_DePa%C3%A7o_-_legal_threats. Fences&Windows 20:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In the process, a lot of material was restored that shouldn't have been there in the first place, as discussed in the two sections above. I can't figure out how to edit it now.

I took a look at Kranke133's contribution history and it looks to be an account created to attack Caesar DePaço, or at least that's all it's ever done: [2] Is this actually allowed on Wikipedia?Gustav Benedictis (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sioux Pharm vs. Summit Nutritionals Int.

I was trying to figure out why Kranke133 seemed to think it so important that Summit Nutritionals does or doesn’t have a facility in Sioux Center, Iowa.[3] It seems the answer is right here:[4] it’s completely irrelevant to the biography of Caesar de Paço, but was of central relevance to a lawsuit which looks to now have been dismissed.[5] The section about this lawsuit is currently the largest in this article, even though, as discussed above, half the links don’t work and those which do don’t even mention Caesar de Paço.[6]

I can think of no explanation for these unorthodox editorial choices besides that Kranke133, nearly all of whose contributions have been to attack de Paço and Summit Nutritionals, was a party to this lawsuit.[7] I looked for coverage of the lawsuit in the press but couldn’t find any, which explains why he relied upon court filings, FDA letters and the like. One of the links he gave is actually his own personal session with caselaw, which is why it doesn’t work for anyone else.[8] Going forward, I don’t think Kranke133 should be contributing to this article as he does not approach it from an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Date of appointment

Does anyone have a date for DePaço's appointment as Consul for Cape Verde? It is strange that the article said that he was dismissed as Consul without first saying that he was appointed, when and by whom, etc. It does give dates for his position representing Portugal, but between there and the Cabo Verde resignation/dismissal is a blank.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chega sections merged

I have just merged these two sections as they are about the same thing. These paragraphs consume literally half of the body of the article. Clearly the controversy is significant and deserves to be covered.; however, the length strikes me as excessive. I'm going to see if there are ways to trim it down while leaving the key facts clear and intact.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference problems

I hope this is the right place to comment. There are several entire sections in this biography, namely "FDA Warning for false labelling and chinese origin of "Made In USA" products" and "Sioux Pharm vs Summit Nutritionals Int." which are cited only to court filings or to to the subject's own website, and two of the links don't even work (warning the first will hijack your browser until you close out the window):[9][10][11][12] This strikes me as very problematic in any article, but especially in a biography as it would seem to allow both the subject and litigants against him to say whatever they like about one another. Seems to me that content should be based upon the assessments of reputable third parties.

Also, I'm not clear that any of them even mention the subject of the article. Identical text with the same references exists on the article for Summit Nutritionals International. Is it normal to duplicate the same text across multiple articles? Gustav Benedictis (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the poorly-referenced passages spammed from Summit Nutritionals International. Gustav Benedictis (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

You've sanitized this article from properly sourced information. Going to report this as vandalism and remove your edits Kranke133 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not properly sourced; that's the problem. See the title of this section? "Reference problems" – of the four links they either don't work or they don't mention Caesar DePaço. Links which hijack one's browser are especially not valid references. I will guess that the cite.case.law link works only for you – are you in some kind of litigation with the subject? It would be obvious to any neutral person that links which don't say anything about Caesar DePaço do not belong on a page about Caesar DePaço.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since your cursory response did not address the objections put forth, and over two entire months you’ve not bothered to rejoin the discussion, I’ve gone ahead and re-removed your unjustified additions.Gustav Benedictis (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I am unable to babysit wikipedia constantly, however you have removed sources from both this article and the main article improperly. I will ask for moderation to avoid another edit war. Kranke133 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)