Talk:Allen Stanford/Archives/2015

Ummm he was a Billionaire
Prime Minister accuses Texan billionaire of “political interference” Fri, 23 Feb 2007 15:04:00

See also: "Soon after he was awarded a knighthood last November, Sir Allen said he would be touring the 17 constituencies in the country outlining his proposals for the future development of the island."

http://www.cananews.net/search/?q=Allen+Stanford&page=4

CaribDigita 13:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I change the topic slightly now... Most of his banking units around the world have been nationalised...  The Government in Antigua has taken over his land. (To keep it in the hands of Antiguans) and so on. He must not any longer be worth what he once was.

Even if he wins this case in the U.S. his land is probably as-good-as gone. Most Caribbean Governments maintain the powers for the state to take over land property similar to the Eminent domain laws in the United States.
 * Antigua set to OK Stanford land seizure
 * Antigua's lower house backs Stanford land seizure

CaribDigita (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Honours
I've partially reverted the recent change to page as the references state he was awarded "Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of the Nation". This is a separate honour to the "Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" In any event, this article is not the place to discuss the history of either honour - a wikilink to a page on that honour is sufficient. DrFrench (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Knighthood
According to this article from International Herald Tribune his knighthood is honorary. This article in The Times does have a picture caption 'Sir Allen', but througout the article itself he is referred to as 'Mr Stanford'. One would expect The Times to get it right. I know that Stanford calls himself Sir Allen. However, Paula Yates used to call herself Lady Geldof, as though her husband were Sir Bob Geldof.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Times likely did this because Stanford was knighted by an Antiguan official, not by the British royal family. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Award of Knighthood
This may not have been from Prince Edward, see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082378/Palace-row-crickets-Sir-Allen-knighthood.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.92.231 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added that information to the article.—greenrd (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The award was by the Government of Antigua and Barbuda. But they are able to do that because it is the same Monarchy and the Governor General in the Commonwealth realms have the same cerimonial powers as the queen. Example.

Tribute to Sir Lloyd Published on: 10/26/08. -- Pictured: SIR LLOYD being knighted by Governor-General (of Barbados) Sir Clifford Husbands. CaribDigita (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Family life
His grandstanding has increased suspicions that England have become unwitting accomplices to the ego trip of an eccentric billionaire. Last week Stanford, who is separated from his wife and has six children, denied rumours that he had sacked his girlfriend, Andrea Stoelker, president of the tournament’s board of directors, after she had a liaison with Chris Gayle, the captain of the Stanford Superstars

Source- The Times (online) (London UK) 2nd Nov 2008

If you really want controversy about Stanford.
If you really want controversy about Stanford, you can research his past run-in with the Prime Minister of Antigua. Now those- were sparks.


 * Profile of Antigan and Barbudian Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer
 * Spencer, Sir Allen in war of words

CaribDigita (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't his financial services business originally located in Montserrat? I read in Private Eye that he only relocated his banking to Antigua in 1990, in the process changing its name from Guardian to Stanford International Bank. Macphysto (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * These articles are also controversial - allegations of financial fraud. I don't know if the conclusion is true, but some of the details might be true.      RobRedactor (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stanford named in paternity suit "COPYRIGHT 2007 The Miami Herald

Byline: Joan Fleischman

Jun. 10--Texas billionaire Robert Allen Stanford, who purchased the 57-room Tyecliffe castle in Gables Estates from the Wackenhut family in 2003, is now a defendant in a Miami-Dade paternity suit.

Louise Sage, 40, says Stanford, 57, is the daddy of Ross Allen Stanford, 11, and R. Allena Stanford, 9. She wants custody, plus child support -- lots.

Stanford is chairman and CEO of Stanford Financial Group. Its "core businesses are private wealth management and investment banking for institutions and emerging growth companies," the corporate website says. " here:  http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32296562_ITM  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobRedactor (talk • contribs) 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Stanford Financial Group
I've created an article on the company, Stanford Financial Group. Much of the info in Allen Stanford section should be moved there. Rosiestep (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Age 50000000000000
The infobox says he is 50 zillion years old, which is probably not true. Can somebody fix it? I can't seem to.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Resolved!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Links to Bernard Madoff and Ramalinga Raju
Earlier I removed the "See also" section as it only contained links to Bernard Madoff and Ramalinga Raju, businessmen who are said to have admitted large-scale fraud. Someone reinstated the section without giving a reason. I have removed the section again as I still feel that both the people linked to are not of direct concern to the article. The only connection is the suggestion of large-scale fraud, which is pretty tenuous - there are many such people, many more will no doubt emerge. Indeed, I think it is possibly a WP:BLP violation for Stanford to be linked to these other people as at the moment this is simply an investigation.--92.40.32.133 (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not just an investigation, since Stanford has been arrested. The accounts at Stanford have been frozen and a receiver appointed. Peterlewis (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the 'see also' section as this is pushing at the boundaries of BLP. I'm also not aware that Sandford has been arrested. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article: Its syas that he has been arrested and charged. Peterlewis (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Has he been charged?
When somebody is absent can they be charged? Should it be: "...charges have been prepared..." or "...will be charged upon his arrest..."--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no criminal charges on file. The only charges so far are civil: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressReleasesMolt/idUSWAT01100020090218 Tripodian (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether criminal or civil, does being charged mean actually sticking a piece of paper in a person's hand? Should the lead be changed to "...awaits charges..." or something? I am not a lawyer so I don't know the answer to that one.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, one doesn't have to be present to be "charged" with an offense (whether criminal or civil). The lawsuit can proceed without him, and if he doesn't bother to show up (whether in person or by proxy), the government can ask a judge to enter a default judgment against him. Tripodian (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thank you kindly.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * He probably would have to prove he couldn't make it to the United States in time... Afterall he lives in Antigua and Barbuda not the United States. CaribDigita (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There might be an arrest warrant. See:

Accused Financier Under Federal Drug Investigation

Authorities: Stanford May Have Laundered Drug Money for Mexican Cartel

By JUSTIN ROOD and BRIAN ROSS

February 18, 2009

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6907429&page=1

Tripodian (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Does Anyone in Antigua know if he still owns any portion of his airline Caribbean Star?
I know his airline Caribbean Star and Caribbean Sun Airlines were merged. And then Caribbean Star and LIAT were merged. But does he still own any minority holding in LIAT now??? CaribDigita (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Published sources don't agree that Caribbean Star Airlines and Caribbean Sun Airlines merged; rather, they say that the latter was sold. See that article.  As for LIAT, the Stanford Financial Group got a 35% equity share when Caribbean Star Airlines merged into it; see the article Caribbean Star Airlines for details and the source.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 21:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The CEO of LIAT came out and said that Sir Allen does not own any part of LIAT. LIAT denies Stanford is a shareholder. CaribDigita (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

FBI Found Stanford - Please Update Article
Stanford was located in Virginia on Feb. 19, 2009. He was served with court papers but not arrested since he has not yet been charged with a crime. TheBossOfCollect, aka67.40.1.35 (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If a source can be found, yeah - it should be included in the article. The last I'd heard he hadn't been seen, and we should tread very carefully as this is one of the premier sources these days where people come to look for info so we can't put just anything. This is a fast developing news story though, so I might just have missed it .Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One source is Times Online, here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5769259. Thanks! TheBossOfCollect, aka67.40.1.35 (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating! TheBossOfCollect, aka67.40.1.35 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Rent debt
I hope this is the right protocol, this is my first time helping to correct part of the subject's bio. Currently the phrase in question currently reads: "In 1983, Stanford received a default court judgment of $31,800 by a landlord for back rent on a failed health club in Waco.[6] Since then he has expanded the insurance and real estate company his grandfather founded in 1932 into a global wealth management firm." The phrasing of the above passage is crafted in such as way to suggest that Stanford was awarded $31,800 from the landlord. In fact, the opposite is true, according to the sourced citation, which reads: Court documents reveal that in 1983, Allen Stanford was slapped with a default judgment for failing to pay back rent on the lease for the health club. The judge in the case signed an order permitting the landlord, Allied Development Co., to collect some $31,800 in unpaid rent plus interest from the man who reportedly now has $2.2 billion in wealth."

I don't have a horse in this race, but I am familiar with poorly crafted damage control and this is what it smells like, folks. I hope it can be fixed.-- User:Unbereivabr

Philanthropy
His charitable efforts are well-documented. His alleged crimes are allegations at the present time. He is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore he is a philantropist who used his own money until proven otherwise. How is my logic? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The logic is fine; it would be nice to have more examples of (large) charitable activities by his corporation, or by him, personally. (As in: well-documented)


 * Personal opinion: a philanthropist is a rich person who devotes a more-than-normal amount of time and/or money to charitable activities. Bill Gates is a perfect example, today.  On the other hand, a rich person who donates, annually, 1/4 of one percent of his/her wealth - in the case of Stanford, this would be about $5 million annually - is essentially not even coming close to tithing.  (Assuming a modest income of 5% of net worth, Stanford's annual income on $2 billion of wealth would be $100 million.) And I have a hard time thinking of someone that miserly (relatively speaking) as being a "philanthropist".


 * Bottom line: What determines the aptness of a label like "philanthropist" isn't a matter of personal opinion, but rather of what reliable sources say. If the newspapers say he is one, that we're not in a position to dispute that (see WP:NOR).  On the other hand, if it's only his website that is making the claim, then we shouldn't accept it on its face - Stanford does have some known credibility issues.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 14:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we agree. Independent info showing he is really a philanthropist is needed. Let's dig for 48 hours. If nothing is found, then "ZAP", the term 'philanthropist' gets removed from the article. What do you think?


 * As for the logic, this brings up the whole Robin Hood thing. Can one be a philanthropist using ill-gotten gains?)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It doesn't. We are Wikipedians and as such we have no opinion on that type of thing--or at least we should keep it out of the mix.  It is not up to us to decide if someone is a philanthropist or not.  If there are reliable sources that state that he is then he is.  It is not up to us to make these types of opinion calls.  I personally don't think Kate Winslet can act, but obviously someone else does.  So she is listed in Wikipedia as an actress, along with mentions to her Oscar.  I can't look at her work and state, well, she really is awful so I don't think Wikipedia should list her as an actress.  I may not agree with the way that Stanford got his money, but that does not make him less of a philanthropist.  Who is to decide what is "ill-gotten" gains?  He has just been charged.  You don't know if his money is "ill-gotten" gains or not.  It is not a topic for Wikipeidans, but if there are reliable sources then he is a philanthropists. Period.--InaMaka (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I agree.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, we're all agreed (and, as importantly, in line with Wikipedia's approach to things controversial). I did a Google News search on , and found some interesting sources, which I'd love if someone else would take and incorporate, with relevant information (within reason) into the article:


 * http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/02/18/stanford-and-philanthropy
 * http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/02/13/magazine-cover-of-the-year?tid=true
 * http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/stanfordtwenty20/content/story/376172.html (Stanford warned that he was "not a philanthropist")
 * http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_sports?id=161415871 (specifically called one)
 * http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/2008/02/27/england-or-oz-a-one-off-one-day-match-in-antigua-the-prize-10-000-000-89520-20332936/ (again, called one)
 * http://www.nationnews.com/story/308114199043057.php (specifically is said not to be one)

Overall, except for the difficulty of getting good images for the article, I really think there is enough current and historical information to make this a featured article, should people want to put in the time. This guy is really interesting. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also noteworthy under Personal section
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6275031.html (Houston Chronicle)

-He preferred to speak with a British accent, so infatuated was he with the mother country’s history and sporting customs. He claimed to have traced his lineage to 17th century Yorkshire, renamed his $10 million Miami-area mansion Tyecliffe Castle and felt more at home at a cricket match than a football game.

-He has an estranged wife, a girlfriend, former girlfriends and at least six children by four women. The monthly tab to support them all runs upward of $200,000, according to court records.

Article organization
I moved the text from this new section to the existing "Fraud allegations" section. A couple of comments:


 * It seemed like an artificial separation.
 * It's not at all clear that we've reached the "aftermath" of this matter.
 * This article should be focused on Allen Stanford the person. We have a separate article for what happens to his financial holding company and its subsidiaries.  I encourage editors to add details about the companies in that other Wikipedia article.  And yes, a lot of duplication is unavoidable, but this article should have much more of an overview/sketch of the company's rise and fall, with the details in the other article. -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 01:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The article had become a collection of short paragraphs with first level titles. I organized the article more chronologically and hierarchically with less titles. I strongly agree with John that the article should focus on Allen Stanford the person. Therefor I moved the separate section about a business whereabouts after allegations of fraud back to the Fraud allegations section. It may well be the case, however, that this section should be moved to business article altogether. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My two cents...


 * Philantropy and knighthood ought to be two separate headings regardless of size as they are not quite related.


 * Waco club matter ought to have a subsection heading.


 * Controversies heading is too soft considering FBI charges subsection lays within.


 * Good work on the Background and business career section, although it may eventually need to be split.


 * Good call on the Personal affairs subsection.


 * Good call on the Aftermath move to Fraud allegations part.


 * Cricket section seems stray, but I can't think of a better name or placement.

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Cricket" section ought to be something like "Sponsorships and publicity". At one point, the article had information about Stanford Financial Group sponsorships in tennis and in golf.  The picture that needs to be painted is that here is a guy who had a lot of connections to the rich and influential via sports-related funding ("marketing", not philanthropy).  The golf and tennis stuff should go back in.


 * I've removed the Waco club matter. We're taking all of $30,000.  Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information; a fact that helped fill out an article can, as that article expands, become relatively trivial. (The link to the source of this text is still in the Wikipedia article, so readers can still find it, if they want details beyond what is in the Wikipedia article.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 14:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
...Says he is known for 2.2 billion. Should that statement be qualified with the word "wealth" or something? Also, Nationality is stated as American, yet he has dual citizenship.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points. I looked at Template:Infobox Person, found some more parameters, and made some changes.  Feel free to make improvements.  (I think there is a distinction between "nationality" and "citizenship" - as, apparently, did the designers of the template - and so I showed both.)  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 13:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Splendid! Now all we need is a photo of the man himself. The article is really coming along.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
I really think this section name should be changed. The items listed within are not subject to strong disagreement, the chief characteristic of a controversy. They are really legal troubles. The term controversy should be used to describe matters pertaining to abortion, stem cell research and the like. Not to tax liens, judgments, and criminal charges. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased that somebody changed it. Also, good call on the 'Interests' heading. Now Cricket and Philanthropy are well placed. There has been good work in the past few weeks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Past Tense?
The first paragraph currently reads that Staford "was a prominent financier, philanthropist,[2][3] and sponsor of professional sports ..."

Several problems with this:

1. The first paragraph should (to my thinking) state what Stanford is, not what he was. As it stands, the paragraph is poor opening for a biographical entry: "what he is" should come first, "what he was" later.

2. The word "was" suggests that he is deceased. I would rewrite the bio using the phrase "former".

3. In terms of what he was -- is he really no longer "a prominent financier, philanthropist, and sponsor of professional sports"? He's been charged with fraud, but does this make him no longer a prominent financier, no longer a philanthropist, no longer a sponsor of professional sports. I'm not sure it's clear that he is no longer any of these things, in terms of verifiable facts. It might be better to state that he "is a prominent financier", etc. If it's clear that he's no longer a prominent financier, I would indicate that fact by stating that he "is a prominent former financier", etc.

I don't know much about the man so I'll leave the details to someone who does.

66.41.224.240 (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any victims??? If so, who are they???
Who are the victims? This Wiki article - and it seems all of the media articles - say that Stanford operated a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme. . . . . but where are the victims???? In the Madoff fraud, there are huge lists of them, and you can go talk to them in Palm Beach, the Hamptons, Beverly Hills, etc. This guy Stanford seems to have invisible victims. Show me the victims. I don't see any. Natives of Antiqua??? I don't think so. I'm sure they lost money, but they are close to poverty in the first place. I don't see any victims here who could account for a $7 billion fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.43.30 (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a discussion forum. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't understand. When a question like that gets asked, he's asking if somebody can post a link to who the victims are.  I would also like to know that.  Nobody is moaning like they did with the Madoff scam.  Maybe the victims are all Latin American drug kingpins???  Anybody know???  Any news links???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been trying to ascertain my self. I also can't tell if the losses for his company were caused only by actual fraud or if it is 'cash-flight' as everyone rushed to pull their money out (after the news broke) and/or a mixture of assets all around the world being devalued (property etc.) due to the credit default crisis. Stanford himself made a statement after he turned himself in that the authorities that arrested him have been finding his money all around the world so he "didn't have a ponzi scheme". So that made me a little curious. Perhaps one day I'll try to look through his company's 10-K SEC filing and look up the past history for property value etc. CaribDigita (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously a talk page isn't a discussion forum. That would have been irrisponsible naming of the page...... 130.243.215.197 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of victims in the cricket community including West Indies cricketers who were encouraged to re invest their million dollars won in the Stanford challenge match. http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/391438.html http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/391464.html  johnnybriggs (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC) johnnybriggs (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but mere millions by professional cricket players could not come anywhere near to the billions Stanford is charged with sucking into his ponzi scheme. I mean, there aren't too many candidates here.  With Madoff's scam, he scammed some of the wealthiest Jews in the United States (the Picower estate agreed to give back $7.2 billion in bogus profits), plus he got billions from Jewish Russian oligarchs and gangsters via Sophie Kohn/Bank Medici).  There have to be some large names here - otherwise the mathematics do not add up.  I know "drug lords" and "drug kingpins" have been mentioned in the press, but has anybody heard/seen any actual names???  Very few people have this sort of money.  Maybe he had money from a couple of dictators, I don't know.

" Stanford drug informer role claim" - BBC
Here's the story - apparently the next edition of Panorama (not yet broadcast as I type) will present evidence that Stanford acted as an informer for the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Loganberry (Talk) 03:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

45
Note 45 seems to be vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.109.137 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Knighthood Revocation
Are we jumping the gun here? Even the source says that he has not yet been charged and that the order to revoke his knighthood has not yet been served. Britmax (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious: 'Jumping the gun' in what fashion? In terms of the criminal allegations? or that his knighthood was revoked? The Governor-General already signed it, thus it is already an active order.  Now, the Attorney General and the rest of the Government of Antigua just needs to inform Stanford and his lawyers that they must return the documents by a certain time-frame as they belong to the office of the Governor-General. CaribDigita (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just concerned that the fact that he has not been convicted or notified and has therefore possibly not exhausted any appeals process that may exist means that we are wandering prejudging the issue. Britmax (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no appeals process. The knighthood is revoked. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True. There is no appeals process.  That would be like if someone was granted the "Keys to the city" and then the city voted to revoke it.  Who would that person appeal to? that same city? CaribDigita (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Stanford looks VERY different
Texas must have some brutal prisons or something. Sheesh.

He's been getting beaten up in prison pretty regularly. I saw his picture and didn't recognise him. He's got a whole lot of grey hair now and his face is all swollen from getting beaten up. Compare before and after. Before: A new airline is born for the Caribbean, 2006 (Bottom photo) After: 'Savagely beaten' Stanford asks to be freed 2010

Unfit to stand trial?
According to the BBC a judge has ruled he's not fit to stand trial "based on his apparent impaired ability to rationally assist his attorneys in preparing his defence". Is this a complication of his... encounters? Also, might be worth adding to the article, but I haven't followed the case at all and I'll leave it to someone who's been working with this article. SDY (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC) The absence of this material makes this article look very suspicious in terms of accuracy. It appears to be either or both POV and/or non-current. 122.151.87.163 (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Allen counter-suing US government for 7.2 billion claims he's still a scapegoat.

 * Stanford Strikes Back! Jailed Financier Files Big Suit Against Feds
 * Allen Stanford files $7.2bn countersuit
 * Allen Stanford sues US authorities for $7.2bn damages
 * Stanford lawsuit seeks $7.2 billion in damages

CaribDigita (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

translation in to Chinese Wikipedia
The 18:07, 1 January 2012‎ Klemen Kocjancic version of this article was translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

New source
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Langford, Terri. "Retiree's big loss stirs a reaction by Stanford." Houston Chronicle. Wednesday February 1, 2012.

Has he been found fit to stand trial?
The article says a judge has found him fit to stand trial, but the article cited as source just says that a judge is considering his fitness, not that a ruling has been made. Have we a more conclusive source? Nandt1 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagged with factual accuracy
because an anon has been making changes that do not appear to be true. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

nationality/citizenship
Those are two names for the same thing. I request one or the other to be removed. Either stay with "nationality" or "citizenship". Norum 06:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Tell that to the Scottish, Welsh and English nationals who are citizens of Britain. The concept of a "nation" is not the same as a "state".  Pyrop e  17:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is called ethnicity. For example...someone is a citizen/national of the UK, but ethnically he/she is a Scot, Welsh or English. Norum 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not at all. NOAD: "nation |ˈnā sh ən|, noun, a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory". Living here in Canada I can tell you that Quebec has a "National Assembly", and the most oft used term for aboriginal groups en masse is "First Nations". The word "nation" has a very wide spectrum of meaning and is used distinctly from the term "citizen", which is a legal term relating to official recognition by an established state entity.  Pyrop e  19:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That is "ethnicity". Norum 00:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Repeating yourself doesn't make you right. Go read some dictionaries.  Pyrop e  15:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not repeating myself, but I know I am right. If you think that ethnicity is the same as nationality and citizenship then I can't help you much.  For example...look at Lapps (Sami)(lets say the ones in Sweden)..they are citizens and nationals of Sweden, but their ethnicity is Sami.  Another example...Kashubians...they are citizens and nationals of Poland, but their ethniciity is Kashebian.  So yeah...I am the one who actually has done some reading.....Norum 06:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the word "nationality" has a very broad range of meanings, which overlap with "ethnicity" at one end and "citizenship" at the other. A "nation" is not synonymous with "state", and the fact that the term "nation state" has been abbreviated by many people doesn't make it so. To return to the UK, could you explain to me why the rugby tournament is called the Six Nations Championship if England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (which includes both north and south, so forming a trans-state nation) are not considered nations? Why is it not called the "Six Ethnicities"? There have been many people of African, Afro-Caribbean and Asian ethnicity that have played for English national cricket, football and rugby teams, yet I challenge you to show me even one person with an English passport. And what would you even mean by "English ethnicity"? The Cornish would certainly have issues if you described them as ethnically English. How about those people whose genetic heritage and culture owes more to the Danelaw (Scandanavian and Angles) or Wessex (Saxon and Jute)? Heck, I grew up in a town with just about as many street names ending in "-gate" as Gothenburg has "-gatan", but I wouldn't describe myself as ethnically Swedish. Within Scotland there are plenty of people who consider themselves ethnically Celtic. How does that fit with your facile definition of "nationality"? Even within the UK there are deep disagreements over the link between citizenship and nationality; hundreds of people died in the 20th century because of those disagreements. Using your own example, there are Sami people in Sweden, Norway and Finland. They share far more in terms of culture and history than any of those groups do with the majorities of the states that they live in, and there are certainly many within their communities and within the academic community that regard the whole as the "Sami nation". Very similar situations are apparent here in Canada as well, with most First Nations people requiring their Canadian passport in order to travel outside North America and yet they regard themselves and are recognised in the rest of Canadian society as belonging to the Cree Nation, Algonquin Nation, or one of the other myriad nations. To crudely simplify the term "nationality" to meaning "citizenship" is not how the term is used in the English language, and I suggest that belligerently broadcasting your imperfect grasp of English vocabulary and idiom isn't a great way to get people to take you seriously.  Pyrop e  14:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me see them produce a Cree or Algonquin passport.....I agree that it is slightly different with Scotland, England and Wales as they form the UK. But they all used to be independent ages ago.  There are exeptions to every rule. As for your last comment....I'll let the baby have its candy....  Norum 04:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You have a limited understanding of a word. That's your issue, not mine.  Pyrop e  13:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Right...anyways..I suggest that you check the following and see for yourself. http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2011/

The following clearly shows their "nationality" in referal to which country they "represent".... as in what "passport" they hold..as in what "citizenship" they have. If you can't understand that, then that is not my problem. My point has been proved. End of case. Norum 16:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's just one meaning, and that's a fairly poor example of it. Had you actually done your homework you might have found this, which actually codifies the sporting nationality of a racing driver. However, even there you shoot yourself in the foot as the reason that is has to be explicitly codified is that there are multiple meanings for the word "nationality". That's the meaning that the FIA currently applies, and even they have used different meanings at various points in their history. Try Jochen Rindt for example... A driver that never had Austrian citizenship yet always raced with Austrian nationality. Go figure, eh? Why can't you get your head around a word having multiple meanings and senses depending on its context and usage?  Pyrop e  20:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you have failed as the answer is clearly there. It reads that "....he was raised by his grandparents in Graz, Austria, where he grew up and started motor racing.".  So despite being born in Germany, his ethnicity was Austrian and because of that he was allowed to race under Austrian flag. Same goes for Nico Rosberg who has raced for both, Germany and Finland.   There is also an exception to every rule, sch as the Catalunyans and the Basqs.  You do make some valid points too.  Norum 04:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are contradicting yourself and claiming that citizenship and nationality are different. He never held Austrian citizenship yet the FIA recognised him as an Austrian national based on his grandparents? Hmm. I also ought to point out that there are never exceptions to rules. When you find an exception your rule suddenly becomes a disproven theory.  Pyrop e  17:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am not contradicting myself as it goes hand in hand. I am just saying that there are a few exceptions to every rule and the case with  Rindt was the best example.   Norum 03:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought of this whole issue and I realized that I was wrong and you were right. Norum 15:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
Stanford's infobox states that his occupation is "Chairman and CEO Stanford Financial Group", however this company no longer exists and Stanford is not CEO of it. How could the infobox be updated to reflect his new status as a prisoner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingowasher (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Modified infobox to reflect this. --Seduisant (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated removal of photo
Someone (possibly more than one person) has been repeatedly removing the photo from the article (see this, this and this edit). I have reverted this action each of these times. Two of the times when the photo has been deleted, an edit summary has been provided saying that the photo is demeaning or non-neutral. My view is that the photo is a useful illustration of the person who is the topic of the article. This is certainly not the only mug shot used to illustrate a Wikipedia article. Also, I don't think it is actually so obvious that the photo is a mug shot when looking at it. Stanford doesn't look disheveled or hostile or drugged in the photo, and there is nothing else in the photo such as a prisoner number placard or height reference marker to make it obvious that it is a mug shot. It is simply a head shot of a well-groomed man looking directly at the camera with a pleasant expression on his face. In any case, I think the question should be discussed here on the Talk page to reach a consensus before the photo should be removed from the article. I notice that the user accounts that have removed the photo seem to have no other edit history, or no history except modifications of this article and the related Stanford Financial Group article. Some of the other edits by one of these accounts have been clearly unconstructive. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The removal of the image has been done by me. I find it to be completely non-neutral. It is obviously a mug shot image, and the caption which reads “Allen Stanford mug shot” makes it appear even more so. I would ask for there to be either a removal of the picture all together or a replacement. I have not acted in a malicious manner by removing the image, and have not changed any of the article to suit my preferences so long as it is totally accurate. Ross Stanford (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)User: Ross Stanford


 * Among the general public, Allen Stanford's notability is closely associated with his having been accused, arrested, and convicted of criminal activity. All that is well-documented and already discussed in the article and is, in fact, most of what the article is about. Everyone who gets arrested and accused of a serious crime gets a mug shot photo taken. So how is it a problem to show his mug shot? Even if he would later be shown to be completely innocent, the mug shot would continue to exist and to be a valuable illustration of who he is and what happened to him. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)