Talk:Finn M. W. Caspersen

Attorney's letter

Hello. I would like to initiate a discussion of the Finn Caspersen wiki page. If you look at the history of today's changes, you will note that I initiated changes, based on a blog that includes a letter from the lead attorney who represented the Estate of Finn Caspersen. The attorney's name is Denis Conlon, and he had a long career at the IRS before going into private practice. See http://www.mbslaw.com/d_conlon.html The letter says that the IRS vindicated Caspersen and directly refutes the New York Times article that is a primary source for the previous version of the wiki page. The New York Times article relies on an anonymous source. We all know that major newspapers make mistakes -- particularly when relying on a single anonymous sources. See Wall Street Journal in lead up to Iraq War. At the very least, don't you think that the wiki page for Caspersen should acknowledge that there is a disconnect between Caspersen's lawyer, who has gone on the record, and one anonymous source in a New York Times article? How do we blindly rely on one anonymous source and discount someone involved who goes on the record? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.240.30 (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'd agree that if the IRS vindicated Capserson then it would be worth adding to the article as it stands, my question would be why we only have a letter on a blog as evidence of that. Pardon my ignorance but are the results of IRS investigations not on the public record somewhere? Would it not have been reported in other newspapers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me answer your question as to whether Caspersen's vindication would be reported in newspapers by discussing the process of a civil tax fraud case in the United States. The IRS and Department of Justice effectively act as the prosecutor, gathering evidence and coming to an internal determination of the taxpayer's liability and culpability. The taxpayer may accept that IRS determination and pay that amount which would not necessarily be published in a newspaper. But if the taxpayer contests it, then the case goes to trial in tax court. The results of the actual court case would be publicly available. In this instance, Caspersen's estate provided all information to the IRS, which eventually determined that he had overpaid by $7,000 in one year and had a technical fine of $14,000 in another year (a year in which he had $2.7 million of income). But because nothing was contested in a court of law (Caspersen's estate would have no interest in contesting the IRS's determination in their favor), it was not published in newspapers. Maybe it is not surprising since that the NY Times article was so wrong, since it relied on one anonymous source for all the specific allegations. Anonymous sources often provide inaccurate information, either intentionally (because they have an axe to grind -- and what business titan like Caspersen doesn't have enemies) or unintentionally, because the source's understanding of the facts is simply wrong. For one of a million examples, look at this recent journalistic fiasco at Rolling Stone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus The Caspersen wiki entry suffers badly because it (i) relies totally on one anonymous source in the New York Times article, which is regurgitated in the Vanity Fair article, (ii) the IRS process did not create a public record and (iii) the Caspersen family must have just tried to move forward with their lives, instead of going on the public relations offensive. What is the result of this stew of these three ingredients? I would argue that the result is that the wiki article in its current form is grossly inaccurate. I looked at the talk page history, and I am impressed with the pedantic approach to verification of each sentence -- indeed of each word. It's darkly ironic, then, that the most provocative theme of the entire article -- that Caspersen was a tax cheat -- appears to be totally wrong. If you don't agree with my previous edits, then why don't you try to fashion some yourself and acknowledge that the attorney for the estate of Caspersen says there was a vindication and that the previous media articles were inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.240.30 (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• To IP 72.229.240.30 A user who reverted edits on this article yesterday asked me to take a look at this issue. Writing that we shouldn't trust the New York Times because other news sources get it wrong now and then is a logical fallacy (i.e. your reference to the egregious example of Rolling Stone's UVA rape article). Comparatively, it would be the equivalent of saying Finn Caspersen and his supporters lack credibility because other rich people got in trouble. Stick to the facts of the matter at bar, not to straw men and fallacies of comparison. The fact is: The New York Times is a reliable source per WP:RS (Wikipedia's policy on what constitutes a reliable source to support statements in an article). The New York Times is seen by the world as the arbiter of what is "fit to print" and what can be relied upon in the diverse media and information marketplace. If you disagree with their coverage and think it libelous, sue them. Comparing the New York Times and Vanity Fair pieces to a letter from an attorney who answered a question for the article subject's son is untenable in that with the latter there is an obvious a conflict of interest and that undermines both the edits made on this article and the reliability of the letter to support them as a source. In particular: the blog posts a "private and confidential" letter to the article subject's son Samuel. It is the sole post on said blog. Either the subject's son as recipient of the letter or someone connected to him posted it on the blog. By deduction, that means either he or someone connected to him sought these edits on the Wikipedia article. Reliability requires third-party sources not connected to the article subject. This ensures their lack of bias and objectivity. The blog and the letter do not have that reliability or any severability from the subject. The New York Times, Vanity Fair, by comparison, are given the deference because of their years of reputation, editorial policies, and the good will of time and content for being a reliable historical source. If your letter is picked up by the news media (even as a correction which is unlikely), specifically mentioned in the reliable news media as adjudged by a reasonable Wikipedia contributor in an unquestionably reputable news source, the article can be changed. At present, the letter's use to bolster a claim is both a conflict of interest given its closeness to the article subject and its unreliable as a substantive source (it is a primary source which is rarely used to substantiate an objective statement). Lastly, many of the IP edits on this article, dealing with the decedent's financial issues and trying to soften the mentions of "suicide" seem to be close to locations where the Caspersen family resides or does business, or by parties that possibly are associated with the Caspersen family. These contributors seem to focus their efforts on this one article. While this may be coincidental, it looks incredibly suspicious and you as well as other IP editors ought to review Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and state their affiliation. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to thank the authors of the previous comments, which I find quite educational. I certainly respect and appreciate both the wiki procedures and the dedication of the likes of Jack the Vicar and Ian Rose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.94.135.52 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• TO IP 38.94.135.52 and IP 72.229.240.30: I know that if reliable sources reported the information you have uncovered as stated in the attorney's letter and his investigation, I would be moved to revise the article to reflect their statements in a respectable fashion. It would not completely remove the New York Times and Vanity Fair information but would open the door to compare the older reports with the newly discovered information by stating something along the lines of "earlier reports said x, a subsequent investigation refuted the claims of x" with the requisite facts. To completely remove the information from the earlier reports would be a disservice to history and would remove an opportunity for the new information to directly counter and refute by comparison the older reports. If the historical record is to be corrected, it is appropriate to point out where it previously went wrong to further cement the credibility of the amended or corrected record. I would suggest to Mr Caspersen's son, and his attorney, that they ought to consider seeking media coverage in the way novelist Philip Roth took to The New Yorker to refute the claims in several third-party sources that a character in his novel The Human Stain was based on one person when Roth asserted repeatedly (to limited avail) that it was not so and the character was based on another person. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Stain#Anatole_Broyard_controversy and http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html). You may consider contacting the New York Times' ombudsman (which I believe is now called their "public editor") at http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/contact-the-public-editor/?_r=0. I cannot guarantee that any third-party reliable media sources will run with your information. After all, it is six years after their initial coverage of Mr Caspersen's death. However, if you are successful in getting your information into the public view in a reliable source, it would behoove either myself, User "Ian Rose", or any other responsible Wikipedia contributor who happens to come upon it to incorporate such material into the article accordingly. I hope that this conversation and suggestion is edifying and assists you in this concern. JackTheVicar (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A few points in light of today's news:

1. the blog source given for this "attorney statement" is not up to wikipedia's standards for a citeable sources, period. Nor can an attorney's statement on behalf of a client ever be considered NPOV. I don't have a problem with the article mentioning these facts, but right now the article appears to me give a phony authenticity to what could be a coverup of actual questions about Caspersen's honesty. Committing suicide as a means of passing ill gotten gains to legatees by avoiding prosecution (which would disgorge the illegal profits) has been in the news several times lately, it would appear that people actually do this, so why not Caspersen? 68.175.11.48 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

2. the NY Times is widely recognized as being among the most reliable sources of information in the US. Even when they quote anonymous sources they take pains to corroborate and 2nd source the information, so the statement above that "news media make mistakes" while factually correct is a very weak argument when it comes to questioning information published in the NY Times. And now the NY Times today has republished with no qualifications, no references to the POV attorney's statement, the allegations against the senior Caspersen in their article mentioning that his son has now been arrested on financial fraud charges. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/business/dealbook/private-equity-executive-accused-fake-investments.html 68.175.11.48 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd advocate that the attorney's letter be better sourced, and that qualifications be added to indicate that attorneys quite frankly cannot be trusted when they state that their clients are innocent. I'm not expert enough to know what the IRS is capable of pursuing after somebody has died, but UBS and other institutions have paid huge fines for aiding US tax evasion and I have not seen enough (or any) evidence that Caspersen was not involved. 68.175.11.48 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Featured article review

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Proposal for procedural FARs on ColonelHenry FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)