On 15/11/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
private musings wrote:
Giovanni di Stefano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano)
- and a sticking point in article work.
The implication of recent editing there is that we can no longer mention or refer to sources like The Times, or The Guardian even on talk pages, if they may lead readers who click on them to think worse of the article subject.
This presents problems.
BADSOURCES anyone?
<runs immediately for cover, and means every word. Please use the world 'Clown' instead of 'Troll' when responding to this post, and 'broohaha' instead of 'drama'>
If you already know this is a bit dramatic, could you find some way to lessen that? For example, explaining both sides of this in a sympathetic or NPOV way before stating your conclusion?
That would make me feel more comfortable there's an actual issue, and it will help the people on the other side see that you have heard and understood their side of it.
Thanks,
William
Well I would but Fred Bauder just deleted the talk page. Still here goes. Reports from three continents over a period of over a decade show that in 1986 Mr Di Stefano was convicted of fraud in the UK. Souces include the Scotsman the Guardian the Independent a newspaper from new zealand (Di Stefano went there in the early 90s but wasn't allowed to stay) and US court records (Di Stefano was removed from the US mid 90s no idea why he was there).
The other question is is Mr Di Stefano actually a lawyer. By normal sourcing standards we could get as far as probably (no really solid evidence that he is but the evidence against is mostly of the newspaper X couldn't find any records type). By the sourcing standards being applied by Fred to the fraud conviction thing we can't really say that he is.
Anyway against that we have what?
Well the short version is that the information isn't publicly avialble. Something is going on through the back channels and Jimbo is involved. Private eye (oh yes just to complicate matters they decided to report on the thing) guessed at legal threats and are probably right (mind you if you are Private eye legal threats are never going to be that far out of your mind) but no detail of those threats. The person you might want to ask is SqueakBox.