Talk:Salem Chalabi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


An editor named killerchihuahua made unsubstantiated, inaccurate and controversial edits I would like to address here. There is no indication Chalabi studied British (the term used in the last posted edit) law and he is NOT registered as a lawyer in the UK/Britain; he did take a US law degree after studying at a US college (w/a gap of several years in between); he worked in NY as a corporate lawyer and then worked for a firm based in London (and NY) doing corporate law. It appears incorrect then to simply list him as a "British lawyer." His current US law registration status in NY is delinquent. This is publicly available information and accurate and should not have been removed. The published information on the unified courts web site is listed as updated daily and he is not listed as resigned or retired, as previously posted by Culverly Cottage.

Ahmed Chalabi is a major (one could even argue sole, if one goes the nepotism/connections route) reason Salem Chalabi is listed here. Every article about SC mentions Ahmed Chalabi - every one (that I have seen, and certainly a vast majority, if I missed some).

Ahmed Chalabi's arrest and convictions history is relevant as it was part of articles on Salem Chalabi (for reasons I'm not going to bother retyping now but feel a review of the articles will show). Ditto Zell; this is not "guilt by association(!) in the normal outraged sense of the term; Zell was SC's business partner, who he chose to associate w/(and who I don't think - I could be wrong!- was a criminal himself); it was news for the reasons listed and was majorly reported, and thus any legitimate Wiki bio (which is a summary of major news reports, public data on the person/subject) would need to mention this and the uproar it caused (the firm was in fact dissolved by Chalabi as a result of same - how can that NOT belong here??? What concerns me is killerchihuaha is listed as an administrator/editor and to have such a loose regard for the truth or newsworthiness or the purpose of wikipedia makes me concerned; however, I understand editors/admins work on many articles and so things may slip through the cracks, research and accuracy wise.

If people think the listing of A.Chal's convictions is too long, I'm okay w/the original short summary sentence that was there, although it may lack flavor. Opinions?

Also, the murder charge and removal from Tribunal belong upfront imo because they are major news in terms of a brief upfront summary of his newsworthiness. (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Chalabi rectified his US legal (lawyer) registration status, so I have removed the delinquent status as he is now listed as active/registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [ ]

Abdul Huda Farouki[edit]

There are tons of sources online that say Farouki and Chalabi were friends. For example this one from Newsday [1], or this one from the New York Observer [2]. Are you claiming that all these articles are incorrect? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)