Jump to content

Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

"Notable clients" section

I'm not sure that a blurb about a movie on "notorious" people is sufficiently a reliable source to quote as to who di Stefano's clients are or have been, particularly Harold Shipman in light of this article which is already cited as a reference. I've switched the references into citeweb style (since some people can't be bothered with using a reference format beyond putting a URL in tags), and added {{fact}} tags to the clients where no reference has been provided. If in a reasonable time these client names haven't been referenced, they ought to be removed. Avruch T 18:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This particular Guardian article does not seem particularly reliable as it reads like it was written by a journalist with a grudge and is the kind of attack piece that BLP and NPOV would preclude us from using, whereas the tv blurb is both from a respectable source and is in accord with our BLP and NPOV policies. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, The Guardian is a reliable source. An article having a negative POV when it is a major newspaper doesn't make it not a reliable source. BLP is not an excuse to whitewash articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not say anything about the Guardian as a whole, merely about this article. The Guardian is quite capable of smearing occasionally and this is a good example. RS is not an excuse to blackwash articles about living people but if BLP dictates we present living people in a reasonably favourable light and do not blacken their name then that is what we a s simple editors need to do. WE need these checks and balances, otherwise any anonymous editor with a grudge could mis-use wikipedia to pursue it. I think you and Avruch both know we cannot blacken di Stefano's name in this article because of BLP. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does the BLP policy state that BLP articles need to be "reasonably favourable"? Here is what I read:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Combine this with the emphasis, throughout the policy, on neutrality and reliable sourcing... And I think the assembly makes a clear refutation of your view that this or any other BLP about a well known individual must be favourable in coverage. Avruch T 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes butt he version you appear to want is not in any way neutral. Novbody is saying do not include negative material in the article, we are saying it must be balanced byu positive material, of which there is plenty but the version you seem to want is way too negative for our NPOV policies and that is where the BLP violation is, and this issue must be addressed. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Neutrality and balance are not the same thing at all. We don't add artificial balance when the sources don't give it to us. We are not lazy reporters who give equal time to every single opinion. That's not the way NPOV works ever, whether or not a subject is a BLP. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your interpretation of our policies is profoundly wrong, especially given that sources are generally what editors provide. editprs who claim NPOV and BLP do not matter because that is what the sources say are misreading our policies in a profoundly negative way for the project. You are just plain wrong here as pretty much all regulars editors acknowledge, and what you are saying is very destructive. Even convicted murderers have to have their articles subject to NPOV and BLP and di Stefano is actually a respectable man reliant on his reputation. Who are we to say different. We are not empowered to smear anybody's reputation. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Read what I wrote. Read what you wrote. Then ask yourself if they have anything to do with eachother at all. NPOV and BLP always exist. No one is saying they "do not matter". The point is that neutrality and balance are not the same thing thing. If you don't understand that frankly I'm not sure you should be editing anything remotely controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well you got about one out of ten for politiness so let me respond in kind by saying I am a lot more qualified to be editing these controversial BLPs than you are, sir, based on my experience of you, myself and the issues we face. If you really like think that because I don't support di Stefano's name being blackened because that is what you allege the reliable sources say then we face an impasse. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand that balanced pov and neutral pov are not the same thing? This has nothing to do with BLPs in particular. Read for example, evolution or global warming or intelligent design. If you can understand after that how balance and neutral are not the same thing good, if not, then I suggest you reread NPOV in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV means including all POVs to create a balanced article, which is what is needed. Not an article that makes him into a superhero or a superdemon, not one that enhances his reputation or blackens it. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't mean we include extra weight to POVs that aren't representative of the relevant sources. Thus for example see Kent Hovind- the article is almost uniformily negative because that's what the sources have. "balance" is the refuge of the lazy or incompetent reporter. It is not connected to NPOV. If you don't understand this distinction you really shouldn't edit anything controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I am more than qualified to edit controversial articles like this and far from what you are saying being true it is vital, it appears, that people like me hold the liner on articles like this. And with GDS we have loads of positive sources but also your assertions are plain wrong re NPOV and perhaps it is you who should be reviewing your approach to this area or not be editing controversial BLPs such as here or at Don Murphy. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, if you are claiming that there are many positive sources then that's a separate issue. But we do not add false balance. NPOV and V dictate proportionality with the sourcing, not artificial balance. Do you understand that or not? Look at Kent Hovind - the vast majority of sources are negative and the article reflects that. That's not a BLP issue or an NPOV issue, quite the opposite. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

TO AVRUCH: I am going against my dad's advice and intend spending every single penny that I have on lawyers and private investigators and suing you for defamation. You are truly a person with some kind of personal grudge against my dad for whatever peverse reason but believe you me I WILL find out who you are and anything known against you and I will do what you do and place it on the internet for ALL to see. You are not the spirit of Wikipedia nd require legal exorcism. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.144.150 (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

82.57.144.150 you are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for making legal threats. Please do not attempt to post again until any legal issues have been resolved. Fred Talk 12:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review this ANI thread, where I have asked for semi-protection of this page due to legal threats and evidence of ongoing personal attacks by a banned user. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 13:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Mining interests

aparently looking to buy a mine in 1999 Don't know if the deal went anywhere. In adition it thinks that in about 1995 he was involved with a Midlands hotel group which nicely fills the gap between the run in with the US authorities and his footballing stuff in 1999.Geni 13:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly mention the attempt to buy the mine and save jobs. Thanks, SqueakBox 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Not until we can get hold of the Financial Times date 29/11/99 which I belive tells us what happened next. Should be able to do that in a few days.Geni 14:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there is no hurry. If you can get a screenshot I would appreciate you emailing it to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspect You will be able to find some of the detail here.Geni 14:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That page is not of itself a reliable source. And as ever we get so much mixed information about GDS who clearly is not a fugitive from justice in the UK. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
However the FT would be which is why I would like to get hold of it (and will be doing so with any luck).Geni 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the more reliable sources we have access to the better. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this BBC article not a reliable source? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone does think it is an unreliable source though it does say a lot of different things, some of them somewhat confusing, but to use it as a source that he was trying to buy the mine would be great; my only reservation is that we do not know if he did buy the mine or not. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the mine closed in January 2005, see Ellington, Northumberland. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thats fine, from a writing and policy standpoint; NPOV and BLP are not involved in any capacity at all to detail his plans (regardless of what came of them) to buy a mine, or any business involvement with a hotel firm. It's totally non-controversial stuff, so there are no policy concerns to even worry about. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh we know he didn't see this. I've got the finacial times articles (there are two that cover it and I think we now have the full story).Geni 15:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not reliable because it is little more than gossip. Using it introduces the typical unresolved libelous information we have alway dealt with in this article. How could he have returned to the UK and participated in criminal cases, which we know he did, if he was "under indictment in the UK? Fred Talk 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the wrong question. The more interesting question is why did the italians arrest him. The extradition request by the british authorities was withdrawn in 1997.Geni 15:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It certainly is not controversial to be interested in buying a mine or having interests in hotels but the alleged warrant and the alleged fraud are very controversial and certainly should not be added to the article on the basis of this one source. And there may well be an argument that because the article contains these allegations we should not link tot he article even though we could perhaps still mention the mine and hotel interests as these have been sourced here. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are discrepencies here between sources, it does not mean that one is unreliable and the other is reliable. On what evidence from other published sources (not from email statements or primary sources from the BLP subject) do we have it that information in this BBC article is unreliable? Was this fellow ever under indictment in the UK? If so, that can be reported. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We cannot present an article that is a mess and if we do not know what clearly went on then as editors we should tread extremely cautiously, which is what I believe both Fred and I are counselling, and we certainly cannot say he is a fugitive from the UK, for instance. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If he's not a fugitive, no, we can't say that. Was he at any point in time under indictment or a fugitive however? Also, if a news story gets one fact wrong based on re-reporting what different, normally reliable sources got wrong, we do not exclude everything else in that source that misfired on one detail. There is no provision or reasoning under policy that allows anyone to do that. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I agree we should add the piece about the mine but i am not sure whether we should add the source to the article because of the other things it says. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no provision or policy that supports excluding it or not linking to it, unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We know what went on up to a point. In 1991/4 Suffolk police decided to issue a warrent for his arrest (and his wife and another man) due to alleged events around 5 hotels in the midlands and Sandhurst Assets in 1991. Di Stefano then moved to belgrade (The Independent Dec 1, 1999). Accourding to Sandhurst Assets Corporation the warrent was withdrawn in 1997 (Financial Times Nov 29, 1999; p. 02). Which fits with other sources. However in Nov 1999 he was arrested in rome.(Financial Times Nov 29, 1999; p. 02) On Oct 10, 2000 he appeared before magistrates in Ipswich accused of conspiracy to defraud and fraudulent trading (Daily Record (Glasgow); Oct 11, 2000; ANNA SMITH; p. 9). In june 2001 the case was haulteed by the judge at Basildon Crown Court due to the time taken.(Daily Record (Glasgow); Jun 2, 2001; AIDAN McGURRAN; p. 25).
About the only think in question is when the Suffolk police decided to issue a warrent (91 or 94) and if it was ever withdrawn. (oh and what exactly Di Stefano's involvement was with Sandhurst Assets but that is less significant)
Geni 15:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is none of this (which is sourced/sourceable) mentioned in the article? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Same reason new zealand isn't mentioned. Same reason talk page keeps getting deleted. Fred is being somewhat over jumpy.Geni 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We have a section on his personal legal issues, and we must be careful for reasons of BLP, this is one of the most sensitive articles we have. And I don't think Fred is being over jumpy and support his actions to date on this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
there is a difference between being careful and white washing. Heh some of the stuff that was floating around mid 90s (The Times (London); Jul 27, 1997; David Leppard, Tim Kelsey; p. News.5).Geni 16:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just curious on the reasoning here. The information Geni mentions if sourced is not controversial. This is a notable figure, who had a notable run-in at one point of a legal nature with the UK government, given the years long coverage across the British Isles. How is that possibly not notable to include? Fred, why would we exclude this information? There is no provision for this. It's akin to excluding the legal troubles from an article on Naomi Campbell. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the following link: http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/blogHome2.php April 19th heading YOU MUST STAND UP TO BULLIES! Legal action has been taken against the following: WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC, WIKIA INC, Jimmy Wales, Frieda Brioschi Florence Devouard, Domas Mituzas, Michael Snow, Jan-Bart de Vreede, Kat Walsh & anonymous editors known as ‘Avruch’, John Reaves, JoshuaZ, Lawrence Cohen et al. See and note with care the observations below the letter to Wikimedia Foundation auditors. Giovanni Di Stefano

So now Giovanni and his son have issued a legal threat on Wikipedia. Interesting. Avruch T 21:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So are we now ready to deal with the BLP issues on this article. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The two threats are absolutely irrelevant to the status of this article. Di Stefano can sue or pretend to sue anyone he wants. The article will comply with the consensus view of the applicable policies, particularly BLP and NPOV, and that means accurate referencing and not leaving out pertinent information because the subject might object to its inclusion. You are free to continue to argue that the article needs to be artificially favorable to the subject, but it doesn't appear that your position has support either on this page or in policy. The actual weight of the sources, not your opinion or mine, is what should be reflected in the content. Avruch T 21:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe your assertion is so. I am not excusing GDS or his son but on the other hand the aggressive editing to smear di Stefano on this article has been equally unacceptable, i mean what is wrong with you guys. If you are unable to adhere to our BLP and NPOV policies perhaps a different hobby would be in order. And since when did consensus of a tiny number of editors ever trump NPOV. I am not arguing for anything other than NPOV, I do not want an article slanted in di Stefano's favour but nor do i want one slanted against him cos 2 or 3 editors think they are entitled to smear him. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, the accusation that any editors are trying to "smear" di Stefano is offensive. I'll ignore it from di Stefano himself (giving it the weight its due) but from another editor its beyond acceptable. No one editing this article currently or participating in any discussions on this talkpage has attempted at any time to smear di Stefano. I'll ask you to refrain from insulting other editors with baseless accusations in the future. Avruch T 21:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Amusing that you chose to issue a cheery welcome template to an account whose only actions were to issue two threats, one of a lawsuit against editors and the Foundation and Wikia (which is nonsense, but oh well). Avruch T 21:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is welcoming newbies amusing. Or perhaps you would prefer it if he had no grasp of our policies. interesting concept but not worht very much. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia BLP policy?

Nowhere does the strong introduction to the policy allude to any need to "comply with the consensus view of the applicable policies, particularly BLP and NPOV, and that means accurate referencing and not leaving out pertinent information because the subject might object to its inclusion."

What it says is very sensible. Start by erring on the side of caution when it comes to biographies of living persons.

The material requires a high degree of sensitivity, not a "consensus view." Again, the requirement is to err on the side of caution. If you have to reach consensus in order to include it in a BLP article, then don't include it.

Adhering "strictly to applicable laws" has nothing to do with reaching "consensus." If all you're considering is consensus and NPOV, you should not be writing BLPs.

"We must get the article right." (Emphasis mine.) When you dance around this point in any way, you are abusing the BLP policy in an irresponsible way. Wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Malicious gossip should not be an open playground for amateurs on Wikipedia.

Cut it out. By "it" I mean your indefensible defenses of your actions: if you have to justify a BLP by "consensus" the materials don't belong in a BLP on Wikipedia. Consensus is not neutral, it is not verifiable, it is not NPOV. It's a limited number of editors deciding what to include. I just read the policy. Here it is for you to read. --Blechnic (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


I've read the policy a number of times, but I'm glad you've just read it. You might consider the possibility that your particular interpretation of it doesn't govern, and that it is the consensus interpretation that is important. BLP is an editable policy that generally reflects a consensus view of what we should be doing relative to these types of articles. Similarly, there is a consensus interpretation of how the policy should be applied. Usually its a good idea to get the sense of policies like these rather than interpreting the individual textual requirements as "law," since you or I or anyone can change the specific wording of the policy at any time. Avruch T 03:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain that's why it was written the way it was, and why you had to remove it. Your interpretation, that no policies are policies, does not support your view that policies are reached by and interpreted according to consensus. It is clear you intend to do whatever you want with this article without regard to policies of any sort. It's a curious thing to choose to do, but I can't stop you, and I've lost as much interest in you as you've exhibited in the opinions and contributions of others (strangely necessary for consensus). I suspect you won't get what I'm saying. --Blechnic (talk) 03:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Deciding what is and is not a BLP problem is something the community reaches as a consensus. For example, sometimes convictions are worth mentioning, sometimes they are not. While BLP dictates that we should when dealing with living people err on the side of caution, the ultimate decision is by consensus. All policies on Wikipedia are interpreted ultimately by consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. And the community never bothers to write the consensus in the article on the policy or place certain emphases in the article. Oh, that community consensus, and ephemeral thing, not weighty, not bothersome when one has a personal axe to grind against another human being using Wikipedia and "consensus" and its airy nature is the way the to go. No, the community has a brain and understands, by the way the policy is written, precisely what is at stake here. It is a well-thought out policy, and the community expressed its consensus in the policy article. Read it. Or post where else the community consensus on this policy is. Please, think first, strike back in disagreement after some thought about where exactly a user would go to find the community consensus on a policy. --Blechnic (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you complaining about, specifically? I'm not sure I understand your point. What have we included that is "indefensible"? If you see it in the article, perhaps you'll remove it? All articles are built by consensus, and needing a discussion to demonstrate consensus for the inclusion of a bit of information doesn't immediately mean that it shouldn't be included. That position makes no sense. The policies are written by a consensus, and interpreted by consensus, and applied by consensus. You and a couple of others have said that we are somehow violating that consensus by editing this article... Can you be more specific? Which of my edits has violated WP:BLP? What detail in the article should be removed? If you can't point to something specific, stop accusing us bad faith and policy violations. No one has a personal axe to grind. I don't care about the subject at all, just the quality of the article about him. Avruch T 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Bolded nickname

The nickname "The Devil's Advocate" in the lead is bolded, but shouldn't nicknames be italicized? I couldn't find anything about this in the MOS, but IIRC this is the convention in other articles. AecisBrievenbus 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

***Regarding just the nickname, there is nothing negative about the phrase "the Devil's advocate"... it is an honorable thing to "defend the undefendable" in a system of justice. My understanding is that Mr. di Stefano's primary concerns have to do with questions raised about his legal qualifications, and about reports alleging that he was himself imprisoned for some time, etc. Those questions have been covered in multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources, and in all such cases our job is to report accurately on what those sources have said, neither endorsing nor rebutting their views, but just neutrally summarizing what is out there.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Posted to the AfD for this article. Avruch T 12:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I read it as well, but that's not what I asked. My question was: shouldn't it be italicized instead of bolded? AecisBrievenbus 12:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, that makes sense to me. I know what you asked, but since it was a comment first about the nickname and there was conveniently a brand new nickname section, I figured I'd slap it up here. Avruch T 12:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The nearest thing I can find is MOS:MUSIC#Classical_music_titles, which gives several options for presenting nicknames of music works, and none of them mention bolding --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Eek, I did not mean for my words to have any special weight regarding what is in the article, I was merely making a side comment that in a system of laws, we expect and hope for lawyers to work ethically and honorably to ensure a fair trial even for the guilty. Many who make a career of it might quite honorably accept the title "Devil's Advocate". Regarding the bolding, again I do not wish for my remarks to be given any special weight, but I have never seen bolding in any similar cases. I don't think italics are necessary either, but I suppose what should be done is whatever is normally done. I don't think this is a "nickname" in the sense of a name that he is commonly called, is it? It is just something that one newspaper said in a headline.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
a couple of headlines and other comments but it's fairly new and far from universaly used.Geni 16:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's a quote of the article, then it should just be inside quotes, so I'll just unbold and put quote it when I can get Sceptre to leave the article alone later. It could be argued that the author of the article is using it to refer to this person by something that is not his proper name, so it's being used as a nickname, but that would be extrapolating too much, IMHO --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a consensus it shouldn't be in bold, I have been bold :) Some more references for the nickname might not go amiss, to better demonstrate that it is widely used. the wub "?!" 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, rather, since WP:BLP tells us to be specially careful, change the sentence to what the article actually says, and then re-add the nickname claim only when/if a secondary source for its use is found, or several examples of UK media using the nickname are found --Enric Naval (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC) source the sentence clearer like I did here, use the sources better, since the BBC source on the same sentence clearly supported the statement, but that wasn't made clear from its placement, thus the confusion --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Most recent case

I was just wondering if there was a reason that this most recent suit against Wikimedia et al wasn't listed in the 2008 cases. It seems pretty big if he is suing for 50 million Euros. Also, we have sources to prove it, some that he wouldn't deny as he posted them. Any suggestions on how to go about adding this and not get in trouble? - ђαίгснгм таιќ 14:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it's completely groundless. This is a legal hissy-fit. HalfShadow (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If it gets covered in secondary reliable sources then it should be mentioned in the article. Not before that. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Already covered by The Guardian [1] "Wikipedia, which di Stefano says he is suing because the online encyclopedia has allowed people to badmouth him while denying him retaliation and correction.", but it's on an opinion column. I'd have to say that GDS's own law firm blog is probably a reliable source for statements from GDS, since we can assume that he controls what the blog claims about him --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no real need to include it at this point, particularly based on a paragraph in a blog post from the Independent (not the Guardian, I don't think, unless they are the same entity). If it gets broader RS coverage at some point, we can include it then. Avruch T 19:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

no disclaimers?

Doesn't this infringe Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Hidden warnings of various types are accepted.Geni 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Not really, it's a hidden comment for the benefit of contributors. The No Disclaimers policy is about disclaimers for the benefit of readers. --Tango (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean --Enric Naval (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Saddam Hussein 2

Irish Times (Dublin); Aug 9, 2005; p. 8

From this article it is pretty clear that di Stefano was one of several hundread people claiming to reprsent saddam. In adition in august 2005 Saddam's family decided that Khalil al-Duleimi would be the only authorised lawyer at that point.Geni 19:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well he clearly had more than one lawyer working for him, I don't think anyone disputes thaty. What you are saying sounds like the only authorised lawyers were those working under Khalil al-Duleimi, which really does not help us one way or the other re this article. And of course before the day when the other lawyers were allegedly sacked other lawyers not working under Khalil al-Duleimi also appear to have been working for Saddam, and as far as I am aware we don't know when he was working for Saddam (I haven't seen any info about this) yet we have an abundance of sources that GDS was a lawyer for Saddam and so have no reason to doubt this, even based on the further evidence you have given us, Geni. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
While this BBC article [2] doesn't mention di Stefano it does describe Khalil al-Duleimi in late 2006 as being his chief defence lawyer. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
In this Fox News article, also from late 2006, [3] Khalil al-Duleimi confirms that di Stefano was working as a part of his team defending Saddam so there can be no doubt that di Stefano was involved. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

I'm confused, what's wrong here? Could anyone give me a brief explanation so I can try to help with this? STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We (OTRS) have been working with Mr di Stefano for a considerable length of time to try and remove material he doesn't wish to have in an article about him, which is entirely understandable. The newer problems arise from representations we have from Mr di Stefano who has said he will take legal action unless we take various steps to maintain the biography here to his satisfaction, or delete it. I don't think there's anything that you can do to help, and to be fair, we really need those people who have been and can continue some form of dialogue with Mr di Stefano and who are very well aware of the problems here. Nick (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that OTRS tickets are confidential, but on this talk page and in the AFD discussion I haven't been able to find the concerns Mr. di Stefano has with this article. Could you give some indication of what they are? Does he have a problem with specific information in the article, or does he not want to have an article about him at all? Such information would help us understand his side of the story better, which could help community discussion on this topic. AecisBrievenbus 19:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Basicaly anything that dates between about 1986 and 1999.Geni 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That is complete rubbish, Geni. He wants a balanced article not one that smears his reputation. For instance there were false claims that implied he is unable to enter the USA, which is both a BLP violation and also untrue, as a link in the above thread indicates. Some edityors here, thopugh, do not want a balanced article and fight tooth and nail against having such an article and hence this lawsuit which could nsee wikipe4dia destriyed because of the unwillingness to follow our policies by a tiny minority of editors. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the question was asking what the concerns are that he expresses in OTRS e-mails, specifically. You aren't an OTRS volunteer, are you? Avruch T 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not no, I have nothing to do with OTRS but Aecis was actually asking what di Stefano's concerns were not what the OTRS concerns were which are anyway confidential and none of our business as editors. Please read what he says first before amking slightly off comments, we are concerned with trying to make this article acceptable to GDS not trying to break teh confidentiality of OTRS. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(<--)What you wrote is an almost exact duplication of what you wrote above, a few times. I'm guessing since he's read the talkpage and the other discussions, if what he wanted was there he wouldn't have asked. Personally, I'm not concerned with making this article acceptable to GdS. It doesn't need to be, his personal standards aren't what drive articles on Wikipedia. I'm concerned with making it/keeping it acceptable vs. Wikipedia standards. You haven't really articulated what, specifically, about the article or any past edits is a problem. You've accused multiple editors, on multiple occasions, of bad faith editing on this article and attempts to smear di Stefano. You've agreed with others who state that editors of this article lack moral fiber. Since there is the potential for a lawsuit, I would hope that you would recognize that making such unsubstantiated comments is particularly problematic. Fred, for his part, has removed the information that he specifically regards as problematic. I'm sure he believes that while the remaining information is more or less acceptable the article as a whole is poorly written. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that this article needs to be more favorable than not to the subject even if that is not what the reliable source coverage of him dictates. That is what we call original research, where you attempt to substitute your own synthesis for the actual coverage from reliable sources. Myself and others have tried to explain this, and we've tried to get you to explain and back up your assertions as to policy and the history of this article. We clearly haven't convinced you, and you haven't provided the sort of evidence that would convince us. Since we won't be able to agree on this, I'll ask you to do two things:

  • Please refrain, in the future, from accusing anyone of editing in bad faith or attempting to smear/libel/defame di Stefano. These are personal attacks for which you can be blocked.
  • When criticizing the article, or claiming that it is unbalanced or unfair to the subject, please be specific. If you have no specific objections regarding content in the article, stop objecting until you do.

If you can't manage these two things, which all editors should be able to do on all article talk pages, then we will have to pursue a more formal sort of dispute resolution. Avruch T 20:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal

Okey which bit of this are you haveing problems verifying?Geni 21:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Any of it. Can you help me out. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't remove something as "unverified" without any discussion here or any more specific complaint as to what the problem is. Its sourced, are you saying you looked it up and didn't see it where it was cited to? The standard for inclusion is verifiable, not "verified by SqueakBox." Avruch T 19:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Imagine that, finding the source doesn't require a "huge UK library" after all. [4]. Look, and ye shall find. Avruch T 19:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I gave you the newspaper the date the author and the page and enough details to figure out the keywords. Can be pulled up through a search of various news databases or if all else fails google.Geni 19:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Well at least we can all see the article now, I'll take a look. And for the record I am not saying all sources have to be verifiable by me but by your average editor. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry are you seriously trying to claim that a newspaper from 2004 is not verifiable by your average editor? Do you know anything about research at all?Geni 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore this again today, if SqueakBox refuses despite my request on his talkpage (see associated discussion there) then I will put it back and remove the disputed tag tomorrow evening. Avruch T 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am definitely not going to restore this which would could not be done with a simple revert anyway, as if we restore this we would need to include the url tot he article and also to emntion this other chap called John di Stefano who has 20 convictions and is clearly not Giovanni which is a completely different name. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
We've been throught this [ http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10473104 normaly different people have different fingerprints]. An interesting medical anonomly no?Geni 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I would add that I strongly oppose any inclusion of this material as an editor on BLP and NPOV grounds, I'll take a look at your NZ article link. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that he had a NZ wife but otherwise a strange article, especially the wierd bit about the allegedly ill-fitting trousers, which tends to indicate this source is not reliable. And there is not the slightest evidence that John di Stefano was in any way related to this other chap. What fingerprint tests? Where? is this verifiable? is it just a cheap comment from a journalist who appears not to like GDS. We simply cannot sail so close to the BLP vio wind on an article as delicate as this one on the basis of one unverifiable sentence in a newspaper article. For instance who made the fingerprint comparison? The NZ police will not have had this John peron's fingerprints to check and it is unlikely that anyone would tell this journalist anyway. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What about the part in the Guardian article that says John di Stefano and Giovanni di Stefano share a date and place of birth, and that GdS used the name John di Stefano on his children's birth certificates and in a trial in 1986? Avruch T 21:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(broken the section here to create "New Zealand expulsion" below and make clearer what I was exactly talking about) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand prohibition to enter the country

(this section was broken up from "Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal" section) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(Still misleading title: I changed it from "expulsion" to "prohibition to enter the country". Reasons below) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-listing sources (it appears that he got a lot of coverage by news.scotsman.com due to the Dundee club thing):

At what point is something covered by enough reliable sources that BLP will allow us to publish it? (I'm talking about the expulsion of New Zealand, which is currently missing from the article. The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal issue is also mentioned on some of the sources, but I haven't reviewed this in depth) From list above, only the Guardian does not mention the prohibition of entering New Zealand. If an event is covered by reliable sources, then we are supossed to add it to the article per WP:NPOV. Are all of the sources above (except the guardian, which does not mention New Zealand) unreliable?

NZ Herald has extensive details of the events while on New Zealand. Are we assuming here that The New Zealand Herald is not a reliable source for events happening on New Zealand? If it's not reliable, why is it cited as a reference on New Zealand article and on such a huge list of articles which includes other living people like Wayne Barnes, Michael Green (diplomat) or even Clint Rickards where it's used a source for how an Assistant Commissioner had to resign from the New Zealand's Police because of involvement on sex trials?

Can anyone review the sources and see any problem with the sources before I add the info to the article? I would also welcome advice on where on the article place it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Information for most articles is included as long as it isn't trivia and can be sourced, but BLPs typically adhere to a stricter standard. While you've got the sources for the New Zealand thing, and there are sources for the solicitor credentialing issue, the dispute here hasn't been on whether sources can be found - its whether, having found them, anything should be included in the article (and if so, how much.) If we included each of those sources, or even a blurb about the contents of a couple of the articles, it would be giving a significant weight to that one issue. Does it merit that much weight? Avruch T 03:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that BLPs need to adhere to a stricter standard, but I think that even with a strict standard it still merits inlusion. Because I think that it's a notable event on the biography of any person having gone to a country "apparently with up to $100 million to invest, and he sought to buy $59 million of Auckland property"[5], having then been prohibited from entering the country as a "prohibited immigrant" for involucration on a fraud case after claiming to National Business Review that it was your cousin[6], getting it reported several times on a national newspaper as having been "chased out of Auckland by an aggressive TV crew"[7], getting called "international fraudster"[8] and other things on the same paper, and then getting this event used against you on regional scottish media when you are trying to buy a local futbol club[9]. Two years later the International Herald Tribune considers that it's a notable enough event to mention it as a statement of fact on an article about Pakatoa Island's status on the "Properties" section.
I think that it has enough weight on Giovanni's life and reputation to merit a short paragraph with 3-4 sentences (this is only for the New Zealand thing, btw):
  • 1 sentence: mentioning the quantities he intented to spend and the attempt to develop on Pakatoa Island,
  • 1-2 sentences: the expulsion by authorities at airport when returning, and the reasons given by authorities,
  • 1 short sentence: the mention of this event on scottish media when trying to buy the futbol club
It shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight when compared with "Music producer" (1 short paragraph, 2 sentences), "Football" (1 long paragraph, 10 sentences), and "Founder of political party" (2 short paragraphs, 2 sentences). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to including that information in the "Personal legal issues" section. Might as well keep all the lawsuit-magnet stuff in a single section for easy suing. Avruch T 19:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We should include he was married to a New Zealand and that he went there. If we have to include any further info we should also include these facts and in the PLI section not in a separate section but I would oppose any mention of the alleged expulsion as being problematic and unnecessary; it doesn't add to our educational aim re GDS. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"alleged"? Do you have any source that the expulsion never actually took place and that the references on those sources are based on something not true? Do you imply that the sources I listed above are not "reliable third-party sources" as stated on WP:BLP? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, Squakbox is right on saying that it's an alleged expulsion. According to NZ Herald, Giovanni was stopped at the airport after landing, so, technically, you could say that he hadn't still entered the country. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Hum, I don't remember any policy saying that we can only include material that adds to our educational aim. Actually, I don't remember any policy mentioning a educational aim, and I found no such mention of such a thing on WP:PILLARS. Can you ellaborate further?
The marriage thing should go on a different section than the expulsion, unless there are sources that state that it was relevant to the expulsion. Sources listed above don't indicate such a thing --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Prodding talk page to raise any more objections before I started making a draft paragraph to post here for review --Enric Naval (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

there do not appear to be any objections.Geni 13:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Media interest

A small bit in The Independent. Polly (Parrot) 03:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If GDS was reported accurately by The Independent, we now have Di Stefano's permission to say he is a 'shite person'. I have no wish to do that, but he is now accepting that he was banned from America, (albeit with the proviso that the ban was later overturned). If GDS has accepted this, then surely there can be no grounds for excluding this from the article. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You see, that's the problem. You have a source that he was banned, but no source that the ban was lifted. So if you use the first source, you create a false impression that he is banned from the United States. Fred Talk 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that the ban was lifted?Geni 22:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You are missing the point, Geni, BlP empowers us to remove potentially libellous statements such as this, we simply cannot be creating such false impressions and the easy way not to is not to mention anything about the issue. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are not prepared to consider if a statement is true or not then "potentially libellous" is utterly meaningless. It would roughly translate as any negative statement about a non dead person that didn't count as common insult. If you think the ban has been lifted present evidence.Geni 00:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you not read this fox news link I gave above which not only shows he was working for Saddam but also shows he was in America late 2006 as part of that work. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Umm it quite clearly places him in Amman not the US.Geni 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What, you really think that Khalil al-Duleimi would entrust GDS to do that if he thought GDS could not enter the US? And would GDS have agreed? Anyway the reality is that if you have no reliable sources that he is currently banned from entering the US we simply cannot imply that this is the case, as you appear to want us to. Its not for us to prove he can enter the States, it is for you to prove he cannot. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Baseless speculation. In any case the article implies nothing we simply mention that he was denied entry to the US in 1993 (his appeal against that in 2005 was turned down but we don't actualy mention that). As and when you provide some evidene that he has since been allowed into the US we will mention that.Geni 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So, he appealed on 1995 to the US court [10] and got turned down, and then he appealed again on 2005 and got turned down again? It looks like a mistake on the dates, since we don't have a source for any 2005 appeal. P.D.: See on section below, it appears that the second appeal was not to the US court but to a british court about the fraud conviction, so it could have been on 2005. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This article mentions his problems with Wikipedia; what does everyone feel about including that? Myself, I don't see anything wrong with including sourced material, but regular BLPites often have problems with it, so it can't to discuss it first. Celarnor Talk to me 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And your reliable source for this claim. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Which claim?Geni 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
What claim? It's all there, just read it. Celarnor Talk to me 06:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I tagged this sentence here for clarity. I think that it's a reference to the alleged overturning. Mind you, I'm not sure of how it applies, since the court decision on the former sentence is about how the INS can deny him a visa, not a decision to not give anymore any visa to him. That paragraph really needs to clarify this point.

From context (and here I'm speculating on what probably happened), it appears to mean that he asked later for another visa to the INS, and it was given to him, so the court decision wouldn't apply since it only speaks about the case when INS denies the visa (maybe Giovanni meant that the INS overturned their decision, and he was not talking about the court case?). I have absolutely no idea of on what circumstances Issue_preclusion is supposed to apply on this case. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that his fraud conviction was "squashed" on his second appeal, see this 2005 BBC article [11]. The guardian says that he made an appeal and failed [12] but that's from a 2004 article, so it's consistent with the second appeal happening on 2005 and succeeding. I think that we have a bit of confusion between the US court denial to appeal a visa, and a british court second appeal of the fraud conviction. Still not sure of where exactly the preclusion term applies, current wording seem to apply to the US court, but that does not seem to make sense. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the US deportation, denial of re-entry and appeal. Also, it was confusing to mention it right on the same paragraph as the UK appeal, since they are different things (and the US court decision does not mention the UK appeals). --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Radical Party of Great Britain into Giovanni di Stefano

The result of the Afd discussion for Radical Party of Great Britain was a mix of delete and merge. The AfD closed with "no consensus" with a WP:BOLD redirect by the closing admin. Most of those recommending merge recommended merging into Giovanni di Stefano. The bold redirect got reverted so I'm opening this merger discussion. There is very little material in Radical Party of Great Britain, a merge isn't much more than a simple redirect. Comments? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect seems fine to me. Nothing really to merge. Avruch T 13:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Seems like best action. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The discussion wasn't even up for a day as an official merger discussion. I wonder if anyone will revert it citing procedural grounds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Procedure for procedure's sake is insanely stupid. Sceptre (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article in The Independent

mentions the lawsuit. Worth reading. Serendipodous 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Not exactly a flattering picture painted of di Stefano there, and I can't imagine the acknowledgment that he has no problem with what is written in the article will help him in his supposed legal case. On the other hand, I don't think I'd add anything to the article using that particular piece as a reference. Avruch 23:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
What a journalist claims he said in an interview is not likely to effect a wikipedia case one way or the other. On the other hand there may well be a lot we can use as refs in order to reach our hopefully collective goal of NPOVing the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The only information likely to come from this piece that isn't already in the article is going to be quite negative. I'm not sure we need much more negative information in this article, although the bit about the authors due diligence in relation to his background as an avvocato/solicitor's clerk is interesting at least. Avruch 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Popham the author of the Independent did NO 'independent' due diligence but merely repeated the defamatory aspect of the Scotland on Sunday article. If one goes e.g. to www.ecba.org then to search and then to the country of Italy you will see GDS registered. If one goes to www.avvocati.it and then in the search section taps in 'giovanni di stefano' you will find GDS registered as is the same with the American Bar and the International Bar Association etc etc. The article from the Independent is subject to a PCC complaint and a criminal action which di stefano has posted a copy. Just by simple research (if any was carried out) Popham would have found GDS registered which is why thew article is subject to litigation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.149.111 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This lists GdS, but it also says information is submitted by the registrant and confirmed by them with a disclaimer against accuracy. Its a self-listing registry, obviously, which doesn't amount to much as evidence. The other site (avvocati.it) also appears to basically be a yellow book listing, with this notice written in Italian: "Ogni richiesta di modifica dei propri dati, può essere inoltrata tramite e-mail all'indirizzo info@avvocati.it o fax al numero 0733 233155 indicando il proprio nome, numero di scheda e le modifiche da apportare. L'eventuale richiesta di cancellazione dall'elenco, può essere inoltrata tramite e-mail all'indirizzo info@avvocati.it o fax al numero 0733 233155 indicando il proprio nome, numero di scheda e l'oggetto "Cancellazione dati da elenco Avvocati.it." I don't read Italian, but it appears to be a notice on how to correct wrong information in your listing. Avruch 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that ANYBODY can register with the European Criminal Bar Association?? It is clear that those that have been critical of Di Stefano have now been caught out and trying to cover ther tracks or make excuses. If AVRUCH expects us to believe that anyone can register with the International Criminal Bar and the ECBA as well as the ABA and the IBA and defend people in Iraq then someone truly is trying to make fools of us. I am no supporter of GDS but also know he is properly qualified and no criminal convictions and has never been hauled before any disciplinary commission of the Law Society. FURTHER, the Independent article describes him in the caption photo as "DI STEFANO QC" well if that is the worgth of their research Lord help them in Court. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.33.174 (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Straight from the ECBA page:

DISCLAIMER: The contact details on the website are provided as information only and should not be regarded as any form of recommendation by the ECBA. The ECBA recommends that anyone who requires the assistance of a lawyer makes their own independent checks on the quality and reputation of their legal advisor. The accuracy of the contact details of this website are the sole responsibility of those individuals and the ECBA takes no responsibility for any matters that may arise due to any inaccuracies. The individual or organisation must ensure that the provision of these details on the ECBA website does not contravene any national legislation, guidance or professional regulations and the ECBA takes no responsibility for any such breaches.

Avruch 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read carefully AVRUCH that is a disclaimer regarding the QUALITY AND REPUTATION of work by a lawyer NOT that one is or is NOT a lawyer. You are now running scared it seems because you and others have been caught out. Why dont you concentrate on other aspects of GDS life that are more vulnerable rather than absurdities and actually now insulting our intelligence. Most newspapers in the EU are against J Wales and with GDS on this issue and its interesting that one of those news groups is Mail Group who certainly is no admirer of GDS. Just accept please that you are wrong on this and other issues but what we cant figure out is what GDS has actually done to you (other than issue criminal proceedings against you also) for you and certain few others to be so silly and leave yourselves so open??? The article is no way like an entry in an encyclopedia but an attack on him. Write a book on him and make those allegations it will be better than ruining wikipedia which is what you have done and why you are not an administrator. Those that voted against you cannot all be wrongt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.33.174 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the disclaimer for the details. There is another different disclaimer linked on their main page that appears to state that it takes no responsability for any of the content of the website:

Disclaimer

The European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) maintains this website to provide and disseminate information. Our aim is to keep this information accurate, the ECBA accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of the content.

Information on this website is considered public information (unless otherwise noted) and may be distributed or copied. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, for the documents available on this website the ECBA does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, reliability or usefulness.

Some of the documents on this website may contain links to information created and maintained by other organizations.

Please note that the ECBA does not control and cannot guarantee the accuracy of these materials. [13]

and I saw nowhere on the site that they guarantee that lawyers listed on their site are registered anywhere. Their about page says that they are a independient association, so EBA is not an official organism [14]. It does not look to me like a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I just noticed that his ECBA listing does not claim that he is a lawyer on Europe or Italy or that he can represent anyone there, so there is not really any contradiction between the Independient article and the ECBA listing. The listing claims jurisdiction on "EU & New York", and bar membership on "American Bar/International Bar/New York bar". Doesn't this make implicit that he does not have neither jurisdiction nor bar membership on Italy?
If you search for all advocates on a country looking at Italy, you can find advocates that list "Jurisdiction(s): Italy" and that list his bar as "Bar Association of Milan"; or "Jurisdiction(s): LONDON" with bar "LAW SOCIETY"; or "Jurisdiction(s): Bari" with bar "Camera Penale di Bari"; or "Jurisdiction(s): MILANO" with bar "ORDINE AVVOCATI DI MILANO".
I still fidn that it's not a reliable source for the article, mind you. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see why GDS has hit Wikipedia with a 50m euro claim as well as some of the private individuals now because even when you have been caught out on issues you still try and find a way to justify absurd claims you have made although I must concede you are merely repeating what were claims from Scotland On Sunday (who have never repeated those claims) and The Guardian (who have never repeated those claims) and why many media organisations that have or had no liking for GDS suddenly turn against wikipedia. If you are seriously trying to suggest that GDS being a member of a number of Internationally recognised Bar Associations and who actually defends indicted people all those Bar Associations are not really Bar associations or can have their websites manipulated then you are insulting our intelligence. I wish GDS well in his venture and so do many media organisations now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.33.174 (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I just mean that he appears to be registered as lawyer on the US and New York, but that he doesn't appear to be registered as lawyer in neither Europe nor Italy have jurisdiction on EU & New York, doh, I misread "EU" as "US". I think that I made an objective conclusion after examining objective facts. Or rather, I misread the source and made myself look like an ass :( --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Maybe Giovanni can actually act as a lawyer on the EU throught his membership on the International Bar. I am an idiot for not noticing this, sorry for the inconveniences I might have caused. I apologize to the IP for doubting his word. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

On his diary entry of 3rd July 2008 ( http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/blogHome2.php) Di Stefano publishes the criminal lawsuit issued against Peter Popham of The Independent and the Press Complaints Commission. The HOT PRESS INTERVIEW is published on his website and worth a read: (http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/files/FLinesWikipedia3213.pdf) HOT PRESS is a subscription magazine but its free on Di Stefano's website. There is article also in the Irish Mail on Sunday heavilly critical of Wikipedia. I am sure GDS will post it on his website ultimately as its not available online yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.149.111 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC) In fact here it is (http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/files/Mos%20article.pdf) and its pretty critical of Wikipedia and it seems others will follow Di Stefano's lead. In his diary (http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/blogHome2.php) July 6 entry Di Stefano makes clear his intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.149.111 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)/Archive_3&oldid=1146569526"