Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:06, 17 April 2008

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Try Again

Let's try again. Please respect Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Please don't link to sources which imply information we lack a good source for. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that there is a link on the Misplaced Pages entry for Ford Open Prison to this article, but no mention of Ford Open Prison within the article. This is in contrast to other entries under Ford Open Prison, for example, Ernest Saunders, who links from there and has reference to Ford Open Prison within his article. Please could you explain this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.171.246 (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

I posted this before, but the page has been re-created. There does not seem to be any evidence that Stefano acted for Hussein. The reference cited previously was to an interview in which Stefano claimed that he represented him. The news reports of Hussein's trial make no reference to Stefano in their list of his legal representatives. Stefano himself supported his assertion that he acted for Hussein by a) reference to his video diary in which he confirmed that he acted for Hussein and b) referring to the fact that he had bodyguards when he visited Bhagdad. If anyone can cite a reliable source that states that he acted for Hussein then he can be reinstated in the list of clients. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish, there is masses of evidence that he acted for Saddam, you need to make the effort to research before unilaterally deleting easily sourced material in a controversial article that merely ruins the little NPOV we have. eg . Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is this: If there were ANY evidence that he acted for Hussein, wouldn't he have cited it previously? Or shouldn't another editor cite it if they believe there is any? Squeakbox, I would be quite happy if you found a reference for this from a reliable source such as BBC News, and by evidence, I don't mean "Mr Di Stefano says he represents Saddamm Hussein". DavidFarmbrough (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There is still a problem with the article as it is using the CNN transcript as citation for his acting for Hussein. Is there no independent corroboration of this? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How about and . Thanks, SqueakBox 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Van Hoogstraten

I can't find any evidence Di Stefano acted for Nicholas van Hoogstraten. The reference for this was a 2002 Guardian article in which a hopeful Di Stefano turns up at the Old Bailey on the day of his sentencing claiming to have "received a phone call saying that he, Mr Hoogenstraten , sought advice on the outcome of his trial" - there being no mention that Mr Hoogenstraten made the call himself, and even admitting "I have never met him before in my life". He claims to be due to lead van Hoogstraten's appeal, whereas the BBC report on the appeal in 2003 states that the much more probable figure of Geoffrey Cox QC represented the jailed property tycoon.

Once again, until anyone can find a reliable, first hand source for the assertion that he represented Van Hoogstraten, this should be kept out of the article. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source. Why are you so anti di Stefano? That is the real quesion. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not anti him - I think he's a colourful character and I quite enjoy his contribution to our media. If anything, I am anti sloppy journalism. I just think that the article needs to be accurate. I was not questioning the reliability of The Guardian as a source, in fact I was using its article to support my suggestion that there was no evidence that Di Stefano acted for 'Mr Hoogenstraten'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What a prize wally is this Farmborough thing if its his real name. The whole case in the High Court regarding my dad (Regina (Van Hoogstraten) v Governor of Belmarsh Prison 1 WLR 264) which is always quoted if this Farmborough man actually bothered to read is is ABOUT the right for my dad to represent Nick which dad won! It is the same with Saddam Hussein it is obvious that Farmborough (if its his real name which I doubt as most of the anti DS editors have no guts to come out in the open save a few) is very much against dad. I think that my dad sent documents from the US District Court and others to Squeakbox and I would ask him to publish these. as dad is in Iraq right now and back tomorrow I am sure that when those documents are published by Squeaqbox this wally Farmborough will, one hopes, have to apologise. Its a good job he went to a private school in England or so he says as there is no evidence of that but frankly his ability to research properly sucks!!!! MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.57.169.84 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This personal attack has been brought to you by an anonymous IP. -- Donald Albury 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not anonymous I am the son of Giovanni Di Stefano and if you read carefully what I said especially about the personal attacks by Farmborough on my father and the citation regarding the High Court case that a child of three could have figured out you will find it is accurate and no more an attack on anyone than what is occuring on this article against a living and practising lawyer. Michele Santino Di Stefano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.214.136 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well to summarise what I was saying originally, the statement that he acted for Van Hoogstraaten was not supported by the article cited as its source. Rather than call someone a wally, wouldn't it simply have been better to have replaced the reference to the Guardian Article with a reference to the Belmarsh Prison one? There is no need for anyone to get cross, why not just improve the page? That is after all what we are all here for...isn't it? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do feel there is work pending on this one and that we must treat di Stefano sympathetically and trust sources that abundantly say he was Saddam's lawyer, is Van Hoogstraten's lawyer etc. I have been planning on doing stuff and got distracted (by work and another issue on wikipedia). Well I will try and get something together, possibly using a temp. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He is being treated sympathetically. No one is trying to use private eye as a source.Geni 22:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think GDS thinks that, and re our living biography policy I believe we have a duty to treat him sympathetically. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

His opinion is an irrelivance. Given what the article currently excludes it is currently sympathetic to the point of being in violatation of NPOV.Geni 23:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a duty to treat him sympathetically. We have a duty to insure that the article about him has a neutral point of view, that it does not give undue weight to minor or peripheral issues, and that it does not contain unsourced or poorly sourced material that is detrimental to him. -- Donald Albury 15:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is the one. Certain people, though, are bitterly opposed to NPOV here, which of itself demands sympathetic treatment. We are not a troll site but your first comment, Donald, appears to be trolling. please re-read our policies as you appear to have a poor understanding of them. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to start then???? MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.239.132 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Soon enough, this article is a disgrace and some people call that NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempts to make it NPOV have been met with repeated deletiion of both the article and the talk page (in violation of the GFDL mind). Still if you insist on trying you might want to start by looking into that gap between the late 80s and 1993.Geni 22:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

requested protection

I have requested that this page be protected again to forestall anymore edit warring. This article is a minefield of BLP problems and edit warring over controversial issues just simply can't be allowed. 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be wise. It would be helpful if editors could plough through checking the facts, because I just picked two points at random that I was interested in and followed them through, and found them to be built on very shaky ground. This shouldn't turn into another Pedro Lopez. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How long for. I certainly wish to keep working with this article, adding new information to it. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Its protected for a week. 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Requested again, same reason. Avruch 19:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"He also has founded a political party"

Does registering yourself as leader of a political party with the Electoral Commission mean the same thing as founding a political party? DavidFarmbrough (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

For someone who went to private school and is a self professed know it all Mr F you actually know very little and seem incapable of proper research save trying your silly best to defame my father so why don't you have the courage to e mail my father your full contact details as others have in the past who have had the courage to do so and assume your own responsabilities for your petty little actions that frankly amaze even a young man as me. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.3 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Could we confine ourselves to discussion on the article please? There are rules here about civility. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, absolutely, after all how else would one found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission, I am at a bit of a loss as to what you mean, David. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wondered whether this was an idea that was just proposed but never came to fruition, particularly as there weren't any candidates in the 2005 General Election. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well when that is sourced we can re-add it too. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well know we know why you have it against my father Mr Farmborough because you work for VanDerPumps Solicitors in London. If you look at the Electoral Commission Website you will see scores of political parties but what you are trying to do is to rubbish anything my father has the courage to do that people like you, who purportedly went to private school, have no guts to do. This is a talk page and please will you answer our firms e mail as we are a little tired of your trying to minimise all that people do. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.3 (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Any two people who are prepared to pay £150 can register as a political party in the UK. See . All registration means is that electoral candidates are allowed to include a party name on the ballot paper if they stand in an election. The concept of registration didn't even exist in UK law before 2000, so the question, "how else would one found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission?" is absurd. Political parties existed before this date; they just didn't have statutary recognition. And yes, we can look at the Electoral Commission website and see that all sorts of groups are registered, but don't exist as political parties in any meaningful sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments seem based on original research based on your opinion of the matter whereas what interests us is verifiable reliable sources. Can you, for instance, back up your claim that "all sorts of groups are registered, but don't exist as political parties in any meaningful sense", I take it your absurd isnt verifiable but if you can do so then please do. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I provided references to substantiate my comments. The first link shows that any two people with £150 can register a political party, and the second (if you look down the list and check out the parties there) shows that there are loads of "vanity" parties there - just see if you can find any sources to substantiate the real-life existance of most of them. For the fact that there was no statutary recognition of political parties in the UK before 2000 see "Forman, F. N. (2002). Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom. Routledge. pp. p. 283. ISBN 0415230357. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)". Do you deny that political parties existed in the UK before this act? If not then there clearly are ways to "found a political party other than by registering it with the electoral commission", and all of the major UK political parties were founded in these other ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the original research is in how you interpret the information, not the information itself, for instance assuming that vanity parties are not legitimate political parties or assuming that because the procedure for founding political parties was different before 2000 that this should somehow affect the way parties are founded since this date. If 2 people can found a political party for 150 quid that means that "founded" can refer to 2 people with a few quid who register a party and doesnt say have to refer to the way either parties were founded before 2000 or how well known parties such as the SDP or Goldsmith's party were found. Is this clear? Hope so. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you "founded", and I've changed the wording in the article to clarify how the party was founded. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a particularly delicate article on a living person so we have to make sure the sources back up our statements. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Drug dealers

This not only confirms him as Saddam's lawyer but also brings up this interesting case of the UK gov trying to take assets of suspects rather then convicted criminals, and shoulsd certainly be added when and if the article gets unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a press release by someone close to di Stefano so probably not independent enough to decide the saddam thing.Geni 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Now is the time for interested parties to step forward and resolve any differences, not afterwards when the article becomes unlocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read this page with interest and would note two things. Firstly the only evidence that we see of this man representing Saddam comes from himself or unverifiable sources. Secondly I think we have a much larger issue to look at for example his criminal convictions - I would give you this article as an example of good research;

http://news.scotsman.com/giovannidistefano/Giovanni-Di-Stefano-The-Truth.2469479.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.10.199 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet another 'stronzo' that cannot see further than his nose who hides behind numbers. All those that have defamed my father have been sued in Italy and you will see just how efficacious the law here is as others found out recently. Look at the founder of Misplaced Pages instead of my father who works harder than all of those that have nothing else to do but sit and be armchair critics. See this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=525571&in_page_id=1770 MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.7.217.94 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about jimbo.Geni 22:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox's edits

Uh, your last two edits - what are you talking about? There was a discussion on this page that found "Personal legal history" or "Personal legal issues" to be preferable to "A sense of injustice" which is an editorial and not encyclopedic style heading. Additionally, the last part is unsourced - and I didn't remove it after it was reinserted, I simply asked for a source in an edit summary of an unrelated and minor edit. I don't know that my edits were a "blatant vio" of anything, and I'd prefer if in the future (particularly on this article) you think before you write. Avruch 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the previous discussion which was archived:

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

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

I certainly agree with this. "A sense of injustice" is neither neutral nor encyclopedic as a title. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There was actually a discussion prior to that one, in which Jimbo expressed support for "A sense of injustice" and myself and one or two others disagreed. Avruch 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr di Stefano has a huge "sense of Injustice," I see no problems with its inclusion. Giano (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that he does, but section titles should be neutral, not a reflection of what the subject of an article thinks. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

European lawyer

The characterization of di Stefano as a European lawyer and a link to it is very important as it clarifies a number of confusing side issues which can mislead the reader. Such as if he is not a member of the Law Society, how can he be a lawyer or practice law in England and Wales? If he is not licensed to practice law in England and Wales, how can he represent people as a lawyer in England and Wales? Likewise the language in the court decision about his being an Italian Advocato should remain as it similarly clarifies the situation. Fred Talk 11:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that neither the quote from Jackson nor the determination that he is a) a member of the Law Society or b) a current EC lawyer is supported by the source. I could be wrong, though - I've been shown a certain pdf that I'm sure you've seen, do you have reason to believe that the pdf circulating of the decision is incomplete or incorrect? It doesn't appear to be, and the quote is certainly not there. It does say that he should be afforded the access of a European lawyer, but only for a specific period of time that has passed. For reference, it is pages 263 through 271 of the 2003 World Law Report (I think). I was going to shoot you an e-mail about this today anywa, actually. Avruch 12:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't send me any cases. I don't have time to read them. That he is a European lawyer is part of the framework, the background of the article. It is supported by the European Union's agreement on the matter. If you remove that orienting information from the beginning of the article, the reader can easily become confused. It is rather obvious from the newspaper coverage that one or two English jurists have not understood what was going on. Reporting their error does not help. Fred Talk 13:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - so it would seem that the .pdf I've got is not the same as the source for the above text, suggesting that the .pdf is of something other than the final decision. It certainly isn't complete documentation of the case, as its only a few pages long. Thanks. Avruch 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• MSDS: Can you provide an actual citation to the transcript you've quoted above? That sequence doesn't appear in the cited reference (which is actually the World Law Report, and the pages I've reviewed). The WLR reprint also does not include a declaration that GdS is a "European lawyer," so if possible I would like to see a citation to that as well. Thanks, Avruch 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "On the evidence before the court, Mr Di Stefano is an Italian avvocato who falls within the definition of "EEC lawyer" in the 1978 Order." European Economic Community lawyer, see European lawyer. Fred Talk 04:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• To me, it seemed like the judge was saying a) that there was no direct evidence to suggest di Stefano was not, at the time, a qualified European lawyer and that later on the judge b) determined that challenges to his status would violate his clients rights, and so put off definitively answering the question. The responsibility for determining his eligibility, at that point, went back to the Law Society after the conclusion of the case. It seems like the source doesn't support the conclusion that he is currently a European lawyer - he may well be, but it seems like the WLR reprint of the decision does not say so directly.
• The other issue is that the transcript, which contains the quote from the judge, is not part of the cited source. Is there an objection to reworking that quote so that, rather than being a direct quote, it is a synopsis of the courts position in that decision that can be cited to the WLR? The other option would be to provide a citation to the transcript itself, if that is something we normally do. I think we could, in this case, since the quote is from the presiding judge on the issue before the court. Still, we'd need a valid reference. Avruch 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fred on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that, although there isn't a vote on - can you say what you agree with specifically, and why? Avruch 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No but we do base ourselves on consensus and I thought Fred expressed himself well on this one and agreew ith him, specifically that we can call him a European lawyer and that this edit made the article worse not better. BLP means we do not paint a black picture of this individual, and this must be at the top of our minds in editing here, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you can't be specific about what you agree with, or how my edit (I haven't looked, I'm assuming that is my edit you linked to) made the article worse? I agree that we should be careful with BLPs, and I have been. Still, we shouldn't cite a fact in a BLP article to a source that doesn't support it, wouldn't you agree? Avruch 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to say AVRUCH you truly are a ------. Why do you wish to distort facts that a High Court Judge found about my father? Gosh you should get a life. Better still borrow some of dad's because in comparison you, in the words of Van Hoogstraten, seem to be a non entity just looking to slag people off. MSDS

Avruch, it was indeed your (multiple) most recent edit I refer to, ie I prefer the European lawyer to the Italian_honorifics#Academic_degree link and I prefer the Mr Justice Jackson quote to the the presiding justice quote which in the way you have done it is shifting the NPOV in this article away from di Stefano, and that is completely not satisfactory as we must create an NPOV article on thsi man. I hope this is clear enough, I can't really be any clearer. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, clarity is important. Its important to be clear that, in a BLP, we should be strict about using only reliable sources, and we should similarly be strict about using them correctly. The Jackson quote is sourced to the WLR reprint, but the quote does not appear there. You are saying we should leave it? My reading of the WLR reprint, again, does not appear to support the fact that he is a European lawyer now - he may be, he may not be, I don't know. What I do believe I know is that the question is not decided by the source. Clarity is, indeed, important. I'll be clear and say that I have no specific intentions for this article, and no real opinion on the subject; my interest is only that the article is neutral and appropriately referenced as all BLP articles should be. Perhaps it would be useful to raise this question at WP:RS/N if you feel the source is being cited correctly. Avruch 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AVRUCH you truly do show your colours.....this is a finding of FACT and the Crown had to pay my dad's costs for their stupidity. In case you don't understand look up stare decisis.....judicial precedent...the High Court made a finding of FACT in 2002.....appeal refused with costs in favour of dad. How stupid can you be or are you trying to interpret a finding to suit your way???? Get a life pls. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stare decisis doesn't affect a finding of fact, Michael. The finding is limited, very much so compared to your apparent interpretation. If you want to contribute constructively to this endeavor, you might investigate the benefits of civility and reasoned (and supported) argument. Avruch 14:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WHAT are you talking about??? The High Court found as a FACT and a RULING that my dad IS a lawyer and IS entitled to a number of issues the least the right of audience. A finding of fact! The Crown tried to appeal and were REFUSED! They had to pay costs. That is it! Why you wish to try and go beyond such is beyond me and it would appear all others. If it irks you that dad is a lawyer who practises worldwide then that is your problem. Don't inflict it upon others. my dad has a million and one faults but being a lawyer is NOT one of them. If you want to blacken him as it seems you do I and my brothers and sister can certainly tell you his faults. But for all his faults he is a great dad, always there notwithstanding he is away a lot and has done his best showing us love, affection and given us security despite his personal life. He is in Iraq a lot, he has access to HVD (High Value Detainees) represents Tariq Aziz, just managed to release Humad Humadi, even certain presidents dont get near Camp Cropper. If dad was not a lawyer do you think he would have access to the highest level of security in the world????? Or maybe he is a spy or something I guess that will be your next suggestion..... if you want scandal about dad find it elsewhere not where you are looking. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to argue with you, and that your father is a lawyer that practises worldwide doesn't bother me at all. What I would like is to have the article written and sourced correctly. Whether he is a great dad or not is totally, completely 100% irrelevant to this article. I have not said that he is not a lawyer, and you're right - if he can visit high level detainees in US military custody, he probably is. But the reference use for his status is not sufficient. If you read the report as reproduced in the WLR, it does not say that he has permanent standing as a European lawyer. It does grant him that status during the remainder of the van Hoogstraten trial, because to do otherwise would impact van Hoogstraten's human rights. After the trial, the issue is remanded to the role of the Law Society - who it is clear from the decision intend to challenge his status. The only other available statements from the Law Society appear to say that he does not have status as a lawyer in the UK, but they are in articles that I wouldn't use as a reference. So the question is - do we have a source that says he is currently a European lawyer? I'm not out to get your dad or anyone else, I simply want the article to be appropriately referenced. Why is that a problem? I would think that this is a goal you could agree with, because its how we keep unsupported statements about controversial individuals out of articles about them. Avruch 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

European lawyer (break 1)

The finding of FACT that he is an Italian lawyer is a finding of fact permenantly! My dad is NOT a member of the law Society or the bar council and he does not have to be because ec directive 77/249 makes it only necessary to REGISTER with the law society or the bar council if any EU lawyer wishes to practise PERMENANTLY in the member state. Mr Justice jackson found that dad, of course, IS a lawyer and thus IF dad wanted to practise FULL time in the UK he has to register but as dad does NOt he did not register. That is what it is all about. The finding of fact that dad is a EU lawyer was NEVER challanged. The Crown wanted him to register. he did not want to because the law said he never had to unless he wanted to live and work in UK FULL TIME which he does not. He was right and got his costs. Dad can thus work in the UK 'from time to time' but cannot do so FULL TIME unless he registers. That is actually clear from the transcripts and juidgement I sent you. Why you wish to represent something that is clearly not is obviously a matter for you but it shows your prejudice towards him under a pretence of wanting to write a proper article....read the article. everything is prejudicial from football aspect to law. I agree with SqueeqBox its a frigging disgrace and people like you are the cause of it. MSDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Rules from the UK SRA are on point here, and I don't see a requirement to register only if someone intends to practice permanently in the UK. Whether he is required to register or needs some other credential in order to be considered a lawyer in the UK or a "European lawyer" anywhere is not the point - the point is that, true or not, it is currently referenced by something that does not support the contention. If you, or anyone, can calmly address that point in light of what I have written above I would appreciate it. The next step, if these issues can't be addressed here, is a request for additional input - on the issue of this reference, the other references used in this article and the sources currently not used in this article via either a request at RS/N or an RfC. Avruch 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree we need to ramp this up via dispute resolution of one sort or another if it cannot be resolved here on talk. NPOV cannot be trumped by anything else and the real problems here are making an NPOV article that fits our BLP policy. While arbcom cannot comment on content they most certainly can comment on the insertion of POV into the article that harms GDS and that has been inserted on numerous occasions. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very happy to make a statement if you file an ArbCom case over attempts to correctly quote a cited source. Avruch 16:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

If I file a case it will be concerning our NPOV policies. You seem to think that a reliable source trumps both NPOV and BLP and I find that extremely worrying, though this is not about you or I but about di Stefano, his reputation and an Rfa would try to get arbcom rulings about enmforcing BLP when it concerns the reputation of a living person. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of a BLP policy that isn't intrinsically linked and, actually, totally dependent on the reliable source policy? Reliably sourced negative information trumps dubiously sourced positive information - NPOV doesn't require us to have a nice article about di Stefano, just an accurate one. Avruch 19:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a recipe for a BLP violation and needs resisting both here and in the article of every living person but especially living people who are dependent on their reputation in the real world, and our BLP and NPOV policies do demand that we do not paint these people in a black light and your failure to understand that is why I am at least reflecting on where to take this (possibly to arbcom to comment on the issues (not the editors). Thanks, SqueakBox 19:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do, so far you haven't proffered an argument that convinces me that BLP trumps a neutral point of view (NPOV is a core policy). Neutral doesn't mean artificially balanced positive vs. negative, it means that our article must reflect the balance demonstrated in reliable sources. I'll continue to edit this article, and all other articles, on the same basis. If you feel that this requires an Arbitration case... Well, feel free. Avruch 19:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"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 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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages nd require legal exorcism. MSDS

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles