Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)

RFC for New Zealand inclusion

Is the expulsion from New Zealand enough notable, relevant, NPOV, BLP-compliant, and appropiate for a biography? See proposed draft for inclusion and diff of inclusion[1].

There are multiple sources from national and regional mainstream newspapers describing the events directly or referring to them, so verifiability and reliability should not be a problem. See the draft for a list of sources.

Please remember that this is not a straw poll, so state reasons for why you support one option or other. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a way shorter version (updated to remove unwarranted assumptions):

On 2003, Giovanni di Stefano travelled to New Zealand to make multi-million property deals. In 2003, Giovanni di Stefano travelled to New Zealand, where he made several multi-million bids on property. [1][2][3][4][5] The authorities discovered that he had not disclosed a conviction in England in 1986, and declared him a prohibited inmigrant. [1][4][6]

• "shorter version" looks good to me. Hag2 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• That draft appears to give the incident its proper weight. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good for inclusion, draft is OK

• Support. Several points.

Notability: I think that it's a notable event on the biography of any person:

1. having gone to a country "apparently with up to $100 million to invest, and he sought to buy $59 million of Auckland property"[2]
2. 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 that was convicted[3],
3. getting the events reported several times on a national newspaper, with mentions like having been "chased out of Auckland by an aggressive TV crew"[4],
4. getting called "international fraudster"[5] and other things on the same paper,
5. losing multi-million deals because of these events [6]
6. getting this event used against you on regional scottish media when you are trying to buy a local futbol club 4 years later[7].
7. having the expulsion mentioned when talking about you on an australian newspaper[8] and several british newspapers
8. two years later the International Herald Tribune considering 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.

collapsed long list of additional reasons
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reliability issues: I think that there is no doubt left that the events actually happened. We have enough published third-party secondary reliable sources. the sources are mainstream newspapers that are in use on other BLP articles with no controversy: New Zealand Press Association, Australian Associated Press, NZ Herald, International Herald Tribune, Sidney Morning Herald, The Scotsman. In particular, the draft relies on many places on NZ Herald sources, see list of articles that link to the newspaper, where many BLPs are listed. as an apart, the events are also echoed on the magazine of an association dependant on UK's Law Society[9], altough this source is not used on the draft. Weight issues: I think that it has enough weight on Giovanni's life and reputation to merit a short paragraph with 4-5 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: discovery of the conviction 1 sentence: the expulsion by authorities at airport when returning, and the reasons given. 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), "Founder of political party" (2 short paragraphs, 2 sentences), "Claim of lawsuit against Wikipedia" (1 paragraph, 2 sentences). The events are added to the bottom of the article, on the "Personal legal history" section, as agreed with other editors, and are not mentioned on the lead to avoid weight issues. Privacy: Mr. Di Stefano is a public figure, the New Zealand events are public and have been publicited widely. On New Zealand on a national newspaper (NZ Herald) and TV (by Paul Holmes (broadcaster), whose article says "hosting New Zealand's number one rating breakfast show (...) widely reputed to be New Zealand's highest-paid broadcasting personality"), and then on a scottish newspaper on UK (The Scotsman), an australian newspaper (Sidney Morning Herald), an international newspaper (Int. Herald Tribune), two news agencies (New Zealand Press Association and Australian AP) which in turn made the news appear on Yahoo News. Defamation: The events are public, the sourcing is excellent with reports by multiple reliable sources (so it's most probably true), relevant to the subject (as justified on "notability" section of my comment), BLP and Neutrality: the wording has been tweaked to be as non-partisan, neutral, and factual as posible, criticism present on the sources has been left out as not relevant to the subject's notability in spite of been heavily sourced (out of the 10 sources, 9 call him "fraudster" or "convicted fraudster", some citing a british judge that called him "a nature's fraudster") Gossip: This is not some rumor about someone having a new secret lover, being reported by yellow press. What we are talking here is of multi-million property deals going sour and a prohibition of entering a country, all reported at multiple mainstream newspapers. And all affecting the reputation of a public figure at the crucial moment of adquiring a football club for several millions of dollars. See previous thread and above section for comments, support, and what appears to be consensus per WP:SILENCE (it wasn't).

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• support. Fairly significant event in New Zealand and some impact internationaly. Rhe fingerprint thing has some significance towards the Giovanni/john thing.Geni
• support but no strong preference about which form we use. Certainly being not permitted to enter a major country is not a trivial event and it was reported in multiple reliable sources. We must not forget that our obligation is to present content neutrally, not to to present content sympathetically. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Good enough, but merits less space or a different writing

• Support the shorter version (which can be integrated into the paragraph on 1986 affair - as a consequence of that case). As long as the NZ authority did not indict him for a particular wrongdoing - other than the 1986 memories - there's no need to incite what looks like another suspicion of fraud. NVO (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Zee problem is the very short version states something we can't really be sure of.Geni 09:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hum, I don't get it. What is that something that we can't be really be sure of? --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Di Stefanos motivations for going to NZ.Geni 18:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see what you mean. Does this correct the problem? [10] --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not good enough, should not be mentioned at all

• Suppoort Its tabloid news, these papers latch onto gossip to make money. We, on the other hand, are an educational encyclopedia which cares deeply about BLP, and this inclusion serves no purpose other than to do di Stefano down. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• At heart in the issue is the fingerprint analysis. Finding multiple mainstream articles that merely recite a fact ad naseum (i.e. Di Stefano was fingerprinted and found to be a John di Stefano), is hardly as good as discovering who first fingerprinted Di Stefano, and why, when, and where, and what is the accuracy of those records; for example, are they Interpol records? Jim Cusack writing in the Irish Independent wrote that someone named "John di Stefano" was convicted of bank robbery in Clifden, Ireland in 1975 and then subsequently was referred to a mental hospital where he was diagnosed as insane; yet the validity of that accusation depends upon finding the relevant supporting documents at the 1975 Galway Circuit Court, not within the pages of mainstream newspapers (which merely repeat Cusack's inferences). Criminal accusations have been leveled against Giovanni Di Stefano in several European countries. Those accusations make Di Stefano's New Zealand explusion seem minor; yet getting to the truth before repeating those accusations in a Wikipedia BLP should be a primary concern. Hag2 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

who first did it is of no importatance it that matters is someone did and the New Zealand authoritories were able to get hold of the. We know the UK authorities will have fingerprinted anyone they have convicted. We know that New Zealand has friendly diplomatic relationships with the UK. If a request went through interpol or some other channel is of no real significance and in any case the information on that is unlikely to in the public domain. The records of the expulsion and the reasons for it will be possession of the New Zealand government/police and the British government/police. When would probably be some time in 86. Why would be because he was arrested or convicted. Accuracy well fingerprint technology is fairly well established. Where would be England or Wales. At the moment we are talking about the events in New Zealand rather than the 1970s. If you wish to discuss what happened in the 1970s that is a separate debate.Geni 18:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

One thing. This draft is about what the New Zealand authorities thought that they had discovered, not about whether the NZ authorities were wrong or not on their assesment at the time of the expulsion. The fact is, fingerprint or not, the NZ authorities were convinced that he had a conviction, and so they kicked him out banned him accordingly. Later on, it was made clear that the NZ authorities were right, when GDS said that he was the one accused on the conviction and that he had appealed it twice, but that's a different matter for a different draft. Ídem for other accusations of other stuff, they have nothing to do with why the NZ authorities banned him and they belong to a different draft. Let's keep the different issues separated or it will become a messs. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

di Stefano, entering the United States

So there appears to be a disagreement over detailing di Stefano's immigration status in the United States. There has been in the article for some time a statement needing citation that after Stefano was denied entry he was then subsequently allowed to enter. SB seems to be insisting based on that this uncited claim be included if any mention of that is in the article. Rather than push Squeakbox even further over 3RR, and rather than cause him to misuse the term "trolling" more, I figured we should discuss this on this page. So far three editors seem to have a consensus that this is NPOV without the line. Does anyone agree with SB? Also, I hope that SB will use this as an opportunity to explain his view in more detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox seems to think he owns this article, and that no other interpretation of NPOV but his could possibly be correct - even though no one appears to agree with his particular interpretation. He is in crystal clear violation of 3RR, and he's very lucky he hasn't already been blocked. SqueakBox, you are not the unilateral arbiter of content on this article. You do not have the authority to revert, over and over again, what a group of other people believe should be in the article. If you think something shouldn't be there, then discuss it on the talkpage like a normal editor. Avruch ^T 07:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Around 1992, the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service deported him from the United States due to a fraud conviction on the UK on 1986. Months later he was denied re-entry. In 1995, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that Di Stefano did not have standing to challenge it under the Immigration and Nationality Act though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then.

— Personal Legal History, paragraph 3

As I interpret the situation: the first part of the sentence ("In 1995, the United States...") is factual information. Whereas, the latter part ("...though di Stefano has been able...") is, so far, unsuspported by any reliable (and credible) fact. (To the best of my knowledge, the ONLY supporting evidence for this latter part comes from Mr. Di Stefano himself who claims that he has entered the US on four different occasions although he does not cite when, where, or why.) Unfortunately, the first part of the sentence without the second part does seem to be tilted towards a negative opinion heavily. After all, if a man has been deported, has tried to confront that ruling, and has lost a right to a hearing, then a reader could construe that there is good cause to infer that everything derogatory about Mr. Di Stefano can be equated with the word "undesirable". (Incidentally, I have a problem with the grammar of: "on the UK on 1986". I believe it would read better as: "in the UK in 1986".) Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the sentence is tilted heavily. Facts sometimes are negative, and we are constrained by WP:V. The first part is verifiable, the second part is not. Presumably if the second part is true di Stefano can get someone in INS (or whatever it is calling itself now. Is that part of Homeland Security?) to say that he entered the country and get a statement to that effect. di Stefano certainly has the influence to do that. Until he does that, or something like that we are constrained by verifiability. NPOV and V do not mean we cannot have articles with negative facts. For a similar situation, one might wish to look at Kent Hovind where much of the verifiable information is negative. I've looked for a long time for something positive that's verifiable but I haven't succeeded nor have other editors. Neutral point of view is not sympathetic point of view. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I say not "just the sentence" is tilted heavily, but the entire biography. If the full wave of both the British and the Americans has crashed upon Di Stefano (as per the 1986-1995 rulings), then an average reader will begin to side with the flow of the tide. Personally, I do not care; Di Stefano has greater problems than whether or not he can enter the United States. However maintaining a neutral point of view throughout his biography seems to be the agenda. Perhaps it would be sufficient to relegate his current difference of opinion to the district court ruling to a footnote citation at the end of the sentence. I believe it is possible to find somewhere where Di Stefano has stated that he has "entered the US on four occasions". Since his remark would be a quote, it would not matter whether or not it was truthful. Hag2 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Er, but if neither the US or the Brits are happy with him, then that's a verifiable fact. The impression an article gives doesn't make it non-neutral if it is well-sourced. Incidentally, I've looked for claims by Di Stefano that he has in fact entered the US and other than difs on this talk page and on the article page (which for obvious reasons are not reliable for a quote from him. That has serious OR and V issues) I have been unable to find them. If you find something better, more power to you. Another issue is that claiming that he can now enter the US could imply that the case was somehow overturned and thus poses a possible BLP issue about the judges themselves since having cases overturned does not reflect well on judges. Thus, without a better citation there's a BLP reason to remove the sentence.

Ah yes, Er, *smile* I have found that my reference to "four occasions" really refers to his entry into Auchland. So the burden at the moment is for someone -- anyone -- to provide any sort of reference (good, bad, or indifferent) that can authenticate the claim "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then." Without something, the claim is merely fiction. Hag2 (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no source that di Stefano is currently barred from entering the United States. By including a court decision from 1995 which concerns a conviction which is known to have been overturned the impression is created that he is currently barred, but no source to that effect is cited. Fred Talk 02:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which conviction? And when was it overturned? It's a US ruling saying that the INS has the right to deny him a visa to enter the US. It's not a conviction, and he doesn't need to overturn it in order to re-enter the US, he just needs to convince the INS to give him a new visa in spite of the conviction at the UK. The point here is that the UK's conviction has not been overturned, so the original INS decision stands, until we can prove that he was given a new visa to enter the US.

To prove this, GDS can simply send a photocopy of his US visa to OTRS, where the date of entry on the country is after 1995. We could also find a newspaper article where he is interviewed by a journalist on US territory.

(Also, if you are saying that the UK conviction was overturned, notice that the UK conviction was in 1986, and the US ruling was on 1995, and the US ruling says nothing about the UK conviction being overturned). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the relevancy of the whether or not he is currently allowed in the US to the UK conviction. Connecting whether or not the conviction was overturned is serious OR and moreover isn't that relevant. I'm puzzled by an attempt to remove well-sourced content based on a tenuous concern that it might be taken to imply something. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Things appear and disappear around here so frequently that I get a little foggy in my mind. Peter Popham's 3 July 2008 Independent "Devil's advocate: The world's most notorious lawyer defends himself" laid out the facts surrounding GDS's 1986 conviction, then incarceration, and subsequent appeal (see paragraphs 44-47). So it is hard to understand how someone believes that "the UK conviction was overturned" unless it is due to the fact that Popham's referenced-article was deleted for some reason. It should be noted also that within that article Di Stefano does not mention a second appeal, rather he claims that the records against him are forgeries.

The relevance of the 1986 conviction is in the expression "moral turpitude" to which GDS pleaded guilty. In viewing the facts surrounding the 1986 conviction, the 1995 US 53 F.3d 338 showed that "District Director Ferro [in Rome] denied Di Stefano's application for a waiver after weighing (a) Di Stefano's conviction in England and (b) the absence of any demonstration of rehabilitation against the purpose of Di Stefano's visit to the United States." The 53 F.3d 338 ruling upped the ante by "concluding that Di Stefano lacked standing to bring the matter before the district court and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the waiver application." Which, more or less, has left Di Stefano exactly where Eric Naval has described him: he needs to obtain a visa, or show that he has one at present. And, in order to do that, he needs to demonstrate that he is worthy of having one. Until he does, it is doubtful that there is any truth in the phrase "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then". Thus, unless someone else can produce a verifiable and credible reference to support the phrase it is unsupported and fanciful. Since Squeakbox insists on placing the phrase in the sentence the burden now is upon him to produce support. Hag2 (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV trumps whatever argument as does the genuine BLP concerns here. We are an educational charity and that does nopt give us the right to stalk an individual like we are here. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've decided to discuss things on this page as requested. However, I'm less than happy with your response which seems to be less than productive. It should be clear at this point that 1) many editors disagree with you about what constitutes a neutral description here and 2) what constitutes a BLP concern. This is especially relevant given that as I explained there is arguably a BLP issue in the other direction by including this claim. Your last point is simply irrelevant and frankly uncivil. There isn't any "stalking" going on, merely writing of an article using reliable sources about a well-known figure. I don't know what universe that constitutes stalking in, but not in mine, and not, I suspect, in most other peoples. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is the BLP subject who feels stalked, and who has so often expressed concerns about this, you may think editors here are not stalking him but I am afraid that does not make it so, nor do a tiny cabal of editors in any way trump either BLP or NPOV concerns. Surely we are here as an eduactional encyclopedia and focussing obsessionally on his alleged personal legal difficulties using very poor sources is not the way to educate anybody. I am left with the impression that we do not care about GDS or his reputation, and this is not acceptable. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox has an intractable desire to have this article be "balanced" in terms of criticism and positive information, which might be neutral in terms of pH but is certainly not compatible with NPOV. He's been edit warring for many months, ignoring consensus and refusing to consider other points of view in discussion on this page. So what can we do about this problem, other than bowing to the will of a persistent edit warrior with a clear point of view?

• A user conduct RfC
• A proposal on an admin noticeboard for a topic ban
• An request for arbitration

Which of these do folks suppose is most likely to move this problem towards resolution? Avruch ^T 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you elaborate on the three points, please? I believe a RfC has been exhausted on the issue of "NPOV trumps whatever...", and I do not know exactly what the "topic" is in the topic ban, unless your reference to the topic is : "di Stefano entering the U.S."? In the case of the latter, I believe SqueakBox has made himself very clear on that issue as well. Hag2 (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The topic would be "Giovanni di Stefano, and related articles." I'm not interested in an RfC about NPOV - that has been exhausted, and the community view on this issue is clear to most. A user conduct RfC, however, specifically about SqueakBox's conduct around this article - that is something we haven't tried (that I know). Avruch ^T 17:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that you may consider banning (or removing) altogether an article on "the topic of Giovanni Di Stefano", I think I could follow that reasoning. Perhaps the time is not right to consider a biography on living individuals who do not want one. Di Stefano has made himself quite clear on this issue. A move such as that would be very gutsy...or a sign of weasel weakness. In my opinion there will always be room to maneuver in the future.

Personally I would cut the three paragraphs (mentioned below) from "Legal Career", drop the entire subsection "Personal Legal History", and move all citations involved (in that big edit) into a section labeled "Notes and References".

Anyone wishing to discover the "Life and times of Giovanni di Stefano" would need then only to click a newspaper article in the Reference section, and then determine whatever he wishes.

I believe these editorial moves would make the main article neutral, readable, and acceptable to Di Stefano. I believe also that Di Stefano would drop as a gesture of good faith his Wiki... lawsuit . Finally, I believe these moves would make the article appear (and sound) more encyclopedic. Hag2 (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand Avruch. He is speaking of bannign Squeakbox from this and related articles. Your suggestion of pairing the article down or deleting it, both violate previous consensus on the matter. We do not remove articles about notable people simply because they threaten to sue the foundation. If the foundation feels a need to take the article down they will do so. Apart from that such behavior is unacceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You have evidence that a lawsuit has been filed?Geni 04:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe using Wikipedia as search criteria at Studio Legale Internazionale Diary will answer your question. I believe GDS uses the expression "lawsuit" and "criminal action" in several titles. In addtion, the level of his intimidation is further revealed by his 19 April 2008 entry "You must stand up to bullies". Hag2 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that he didn't fill a lawsuit, instead he made a complaint to Rome's General Prosecutor, see relevant section on article, and a past discussion on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you interpret these two sentences from "You must stand up to bullies": The reason of our formal notification is that whilst there is a pending lawsuit with a specific and designated amount requested in damages we are of the view any failure on the part of your most esteemed firm at not accounting such in the off balance sheet contingent liabilities may well lead those who are considering donating amounts to the Foundation into doing so under a serious misrepresentation. There is a contingent liability to the said companies as above as well as to all those named on a joint and several bases and this should be reflected on the balance sheet. Is GDS's use of the word lawsuit incorrect, or perhaps the wickedness of an Italian/English Bablefish translator? :) Hag2 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That page is from April 2008 [11], while his comments on the talk page that the lawsuit consists of raising a complaint to the General Prosecutor are from July 2008. Heh, I suppose that there is no mistranslation there, just different interpretations of what "pending lawsuit" and "I have sued for defamation" mean :P . Personally, I think that his use of sentences like "a legal action has been commenced in Italy" (in the linked page) leaves a lot of room for interpretation of what exactly he plans to do. As far as I know, he hasn't still filled any actual lawsuit as such. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor should any editors here in any way make a deliberately negative articles because of alleged intimidation of wikipedians by di Stefano, that, were it to occur, would be a real abuse of editing privileges. And if we are talking about banning people from the article we should start with Josh and Avruch for their persistent ignoring of NPOV and BLP_ policies and attacking those trying to defend these policies. Violation of BLP of course also includes making accusations of intimidation by di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, I don't think anyone is trying to make a negative article in response to di Stefano, and again, most editors here seem to disagree with your idea about what constitutes NPOV and BLP relevant in this context. I strongly suggest that you get into your head that reasonable people can disagree about what constitutes NPOV. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well for the record I do not wish to see anyone banned from this article, and I certainly hold no grudges against you or Avruch, both of whom I know here from way back. Nor am I exactly editing the article in a repeated antagonizing way (in the sense that I have not edited it for days.). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So where do we stand on the phrase "though di Stefano has been able to re-enter the US since then"? It has been almost two weeks since the discussion began. It seems to me quite evident that there is no supporting documentation for the phrase. This, of course, is in direct violation of the principle of no original research. I believe that under these circumstances we are permitting a falsehood to be spread throughout the world. I do not believe Wikipedia would find this acceptable. Hag2 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for supporting evidence of any form and have been unable to find any. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

squeekbox has his passport visa entries but cannot be published as violate Data Protection Act and Italian Law. zieglar J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.41.243.108 (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a fair way to deal with this issue is to propose a consensus vote on removing the phrase, allowing ample time for any detractors to produce supporting evidence to OTRS. Since we have given already two weeks+, I propose an additional two weeks; thus taking us up to 10 September (or thereabouts). I believe also that such a proposal should be based upon a significant number of respondents e.g. greater-than-or-equal-to twenty, not just a few e.g. less-than-or-equal-to six. At present, I vote remove. Hag2 (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also support removal. I'm also a bit disturbed by the claim that Squeakbox has been given the relevant material and didn't mention it. I hope he will explain to us if he does have access and if so why he didn't mention this. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite happy to see the phrase removed as long as we remove any mention of the incident whatsoever, otherwise are we not breaking NPOV, for neutrality, and BLP for having an article that the subject feels adversely the subject of the article. Sorry, Josh, what relevant material have I been given, if I had a reliable ref for the American entry I would of course add it. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nyet this is not a POV issues and BLP does not say what you appear to think it says.Geni 19:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"...as long as we remove any mention of the incident whatsoever" (Squeakbox). I believe that you are padding your argument, Squeakbox, with too much fluff. The phrase "tough...has been able..." clearly is an unsubstantiated fantasy. On the other hand the facts surrounding "any mention of the incident" are what they are facts. If the tone of the article becomes negative due to the facts presented, then that is the way "the cookie crumbles". If a living individual leads a less than stellar life, are you implying that his editors should ignore those facts and treat him as Cinderella? Hag2 (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem as though we are getting anywhere on the issue of the phrase though Di Stefano.... I changed the B-class rating on the entire article to ??? and left my comments on the separate subsection talkpage. Hag2 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The other early 90s stuff

So asside from the new zealand stuff we have

The Sandhurst Assets thing can be traced though the Financial Times and the Daily Record (Glasgow)

MGM thing can be traced through variety LA times and more recention mentions in the gardian.

The run in with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal[12].

At the present time the third appears to be the best documented. Geni 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The SOLS DISC TRIB is JOHN di stefano and evidently NOT GIOVANNI and unless you can prove otherwise again as SqueeqBox says one is making simply unfounded allegations....Pasquale Del Cavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.125.242.27 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

At this point the claim that mr di Stefano has not gone by the name of john during the 80s/parts of the early 90s is not credible. So far the US courts the New Zealand police and quite a selection of quality newspapers have reported that they are the same person.Geni 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr Shawe was struck of TWICE it would appear and hardly a reliable source and again the newspaper is The Guardian of years ago that we know was subject to a lawsuit and which the journalist Cowan was sacked shortly afterwards.... Pasquale Del Cavi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.125.242.27 (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No records of any such lawsuit or sacking exist.Geni 00:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

But hey it isn't as if it hasn't been reported by others.Geni 00:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Leah Sumray

"Jeremy Leeming, defending, said Sumray apologised to the court, but her reasons for non-attendance was not to take a foreign holiday"

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article670762.ece

"In mitigation, Jeremy Leeming, said Sumray went on holiday to Fuerteventura because she was fearful of repercussions if she gave evidence."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-507364/Lottery-millionaire-jailed-ignoring-court-summons--going-sunshine-holiday-instead.html

"Jeremy Leeming, defending Sumray, said his client had apologised to the court, but she was young and naive and did not realise what a serious position she was putting herself in."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/11/lottery.uknews4

And we know Stefano is not allowed to practice in the UK or registered in Italy. How can we possibly report that he is representing Ian Strachan?

"Strachan is being represented by lawyer Giovanni di Stefano, of London and Rome.

Dubbed the "devil's advocate", he has a client list which includes Saddam Hussein, Harold Shipman, Moors murderer Ian Brady and M25 killer Kenneth Noye.

But the 51-year-old appears to have no formal legal qualifications and the Law Society refuses to recognise him as a solicitor, not least because of a previous conviction for fraud."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490216/Sex-drugs-blackmail-plot-royal-Im-innocent.html

Since Strachan's legal team appeared to be headed by Simon Jowett, this seems like just another of Stefano's publicity stunts. Rich Farmbrough, 00:57 31 August 2008 (GMT).

If anyone here actually has any common sense they would stop and cease this nonsense..re Strachan see this site, ie Strachan's own website: [13] ...how many more supposed 'editors' are being paid by Wikipedia to try and find something on Di Stefano???? Pasquale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.70 (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The sun in particular is not a very good source and the daily mail is also probably not a good choice for this article.Geni 01:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Regular readers will be amused

"His new legal team includes controversial Frenchman Jacques Verges - known as "the Devil's advocate" - as well as four Italian lawyers and a French-Lebanese."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7409933.stm

Rich Farmbrough, 01:04 31 August 2008 (GMT).

This is a salient point. Consequently I believe the labeling of both Di Stefano and Verges as an advocate for "The Devil" require us to make a notation of this fact in both articles such as: "The Devil's advocate[nb 1]". I will be happy to perform this task if no one objects. It requires creating a subsection within "References" called "Notes", and then adding coding for a <ref group=nb name=ex02>...</ref>, with a relevant remark contained therein. I believe both articles will benefit greatly from the addition of "Notes". Hag2 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

notice: I will perform this task within 24 hours if no one objects. Hag2 (talk) 12:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Giovanni di Stefano → Giovanni Di Stefano — Capitalization preferred by the subject of the article, sources use both capitalizations interchangeably. See archived discussion where nobody raised any issues. — Enric Naval (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary Glitter?

Well I suppose his absence from the list of purported clients was like Mrs Bun being missing from the Baker's family. He is not a 'convicted pedophile', or even a convicted paedophile. He was convicted in relation to child pornography and for "committing obscene acts with two girls". Paedophilia in itself is not a crime, even in Vietnam. So I have deleted that from the description. But did the Irish Independednt just take Di Stefano's (or a press release put out by him) word that he acted for him? Because when he came back to England I saw GG's lawyer on television and it wasn't GDS. David Corker was the solicitor DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

google news search suggests there is a press release flaoting around.Geni 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

To assume that GG has one lawyer is OR, and rather crass OR at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe but past experence suggests that claims that Di Stefano is someone's lawyer do not always turn out to be true.Geni 01:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

we have seen your example of STRACHAN with you saying that GDS is not Strachan lawyer YET when you are confronted with Strachan's own website who CONFIRMS that GDS is the MAIN lawyer then you fail even to apologise...what is required is the real motivation behind the likes of Naval, Geni etc who are actually stalking and harrasing GDS in this manner and using what is supposed to be an encyclopedia as a tool.... Pasquale de Santiis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.224.235 (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)