Talk:Denise Eisenberg Rich

:Línea indentada

Sources

I'm going to put sources here. They should be used to expand and reference the article:

PUBLIC LIVES; Songwriter Who Doubles as Friend of Bill, by EDWARD WONG, New York Times, October 11, 2000

Her E. Side Life of Glitter Loses Its Luster, by Corky Siemaszko, New York Daily News, January 25, 2001

Lady Gatsby, a 2006 feature article about Denise Rich in Yachting Magazine

Oh, That's Rich, by Scott Brown, Entertainment Weekly, March 2, 2001

David in DC (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back to this eventually, but if someone wants to help, I'd be obliged. I hope I've done enough to establish notability and to achieve a consensus not to delete this first effort by a new contributor. As I said at the AfD don't bite the newbies David in DC (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

"Joi de vivre" article and the "Denise Rich" profile from the social diary may not comply with the rules on wikipedia for reliable sources. Losing them would lose:

(1) two of the daughters' names, and (2) the statement about the origin of Marc Rich's fortune.

The first can probably be sourced elsewhere. If so, great. If not, so be it.

The second is more problematic. That kind of information should come from a sturdier source, I think. What do others think? David in DC (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Tax evasion leak

I quote: "Among nearly 4,000 American names is Denise Rich, a Grammy-nominated songwriter whose ex-husband was at the center of an American pardon scandal that erupted as President Bill Clinton left office.

A Congressional investigation found that Rich, who raised millions of dollars for Democratic politicians, played a key role in the campaign that persuaded Clinton to pardon her ex-spouse, Marc Rich, an oil trader who had been wanted in the U.S. on tax evasion and racketeering charges.

Denise Rich.Denise Rich.

Records obtained by ICIJ show she had $144 million in April 2006 in a trust in the Cook Islands, a chain of coral atolls and volcanic outcroppings nearly 7,000 miles from her home at the time in Manhattan.

The trust’s holdings included a yacht called the Lady Joy, where Rich often entertained celebrities and raised money for charity.

Rich, who gave up her U.S. citizenship in 2011 and now maintains citizenship in Austria, did not reply to questions about her offshore trust."

From http://www.icij.org/offshore/secret-files-expose-offshores-global-impact --Methossant (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is important information and, personally, I admire the work of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. But it's got a definite point of view and it's fair to wonder about it's nuetrality. I'm not moved to delete the material attributed to it, at least not yet, but I'd like to see other sources added for this material. I'll go looking for some. In the meantime, I'm going to as WP:RS=savvy editors to offer us some perspective. David in DC (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Pardon

It is plausible conjecture that Denise purchased the pardon for Marc. It is plausible conjecture that her own conduct had nothing to do with it. WikiP shouldn't state either conjecture as fact, but it should mention, as fact, that both conjectures are widely debated in the public mind. I further assert that for WikiP to remain silent on, say, the fact that a certain feline is herbivorous, is the same as WikiP stating that such feline is NOT herbivorous, for if the issue is nowhere mentioned in that feline's article, where it WOULD be mentioned IF the feline WERE herbivorous, any reader of the article will infer, as fact, that the feline is carnivorous. No, the article doesn't SAY that, but if the feline were herbivorous the article WOULD say THAT, and it doesn't, ergo the feline is carnivorous. That is how you convey untruths to a WikiP reader by omission. You've done exactly that with this article's SINGLE SENTENCE about the pardon of Marc Rich. You convey untruth, or convey as consensus-accepted fact something that is mere plausible conjecture, by not MENTIONING the plausible assertions that Denise did (and plausible assertions that she did not) purchase a pardon on Marc's behalf. Your single sentence leaves this impression: "Oh, a propos of nothing, her ex-husband sneezed. By the way, he got a pardon. Coincidentally, while this was going on Denise had a pesky persistent hangnail. And was slathering Clinton causes with money."69.86.131.77 (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson