Talk:Antônio Petrus Kalil/Archive 1

Delete
Delete: The author of this entry published a personal offense of the person in question. He refers to all the events simply mentioned in the references and attributed to different groups of people to be on his account. In addition, references include a lot of speculations and assumptions and do not portray reliably the facts. It really seems like the author is trying to attack the person in question for not so clear reasons and picks out only specific speculations in order to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexxk21 (talk • contribs)


 * The discussion on whether or not to delete this article can be found at Articles for deletion/Antonio Petrus Kalil. - DonCalo (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from DonCalo, 20 December 2010
Please replace the current text with the one below, restoring deleted referenced information and adding new: DonCalo (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Proposed article moved to Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments
The user DonCalo consistently breaches the wikipedia rules by posting tendentious writings. Some of the disputed arguments in this sense are:

1. On one given section he claim: "According to prosecutor Antônio Carlos Biscaia, the bicheiros built an association (the so-called cúpula do bicho), corrupted authorities and cops and eliminated 130 people. The head of this association was Castor de Andrade.[4] Judge Denise Frossard convicted 14 bicheiros to six years of prison for criminal association and racketeering; they were found responsible for at least 53 deaths." - Disregarding the grammar mistakes, it is at least "dubious" whatever information is posted if in one line he claims that Mr. Kalil killed 130 people and on the following line he killed 53... seems like quite a serious claim and the difference from 130 to 53 does not make any sense at all. Now, the funniest thing is that none of the articles posted as reference (many on broken links, by the way) relate mr. Kalil to any deaths.


 * The article does not claim that Mr. Kalil is responsible for the deaths. It says the association, of which Kalil is an important member, has been charged and subsequently has been found guilty of those deaths. In summary, it gives the context in which Kalil is operating, not his individual responsability. The broken links can be restored, meanwhile they should be kept to enable people to look them up in a library, if they choose to do so. - DonCalo (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure if you can read portuguese, but please show me where in these articles it says where it mentions of anyone being found guilty of any deaths, and where is Mr. Kalil associated with these deaths.


 * The links have been restored. I don't know if you can read English, but the article gives the context of the trial; it does not go into individual responsabilities. The information is important, because it gives the context in which Kalil is operating. DonCalo (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are already contradictory by themselves. Not only you used an OPINION article, written by Antonio Carlos Biscaia, the prosecutor of the trial (hence completely biased), where HE ACCUSES the group of being involved in 130 deaths, but you also use another article where they were said to be accused of 53 murders but not even ONE could be proven. For starters, please notice the incoherence in the number of alleged deaths, what happened to these 77 people that were murdered on the line before. Secondly, according to brazilian law, you are innocent untill proven guilty. If the Brazilian law did not consider whoever was accused of these murders guilty, how can you? Finally, you cant account on one persons biography, the trial of 14 other people, some of which did not even know each other. If you have a friend who committed a murder or whatever the case was this doesn't make you a murder either. One example of how this association is wrong: If you are going to write about Pau Gasol, LA Lakers player and good friends with Kobe Bryant, would you write on his page about his involvement with alleged sexual offenders? They are good friends and play together, but this information has no relevance on how Mr. Gasol leads his life or any other Lakers player for that matter. Also, if you are not going into individual responsibilities, and assuming your sole interest is creating a reliable encyclopedia entry, if you want to write about the whole context of the event, you should so by writing an article about the event, and not relating the lives of 14 different people to only one. This information is completely out of place.


 * The prosecutor in a trial is a reliable source. As for the rest of your rather confused argumentation, describing the context in which a person operates is legitimate, in particular when the person is one of the most prominent people in that context, as is the case with Kalil. - DonCalo (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite arguable considering he is the interested party against the accused, especially when he never proved any of his claims. Quite interesting how you never comment on your number inconsitency either.


 * There is a difference between charging 130 people by the prosecutor and found responsible for at least 53 deaths at the trial. I explained that already above. A prosecutor is a public functio; he has no particular personal interests. - DonCalo (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

2. He uses a copyrighted picture, when WP:NFCC policy clearly prohibits the use of fair use images when free content could be created.


 * Issues about images should be addressed elsewhere. - DonCalo (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You received TWICE an official request to not use copyrighted image, yet decided to ignore.
 * It has not been removed by the admins who are working on copyright issues; so, there is no need to remove it. - DonCalo (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see three messages on your talk page from ADMINS saying you should not re-post that picture as you have no rights for it, yet you chose to ignore.


 * That is because the image is orphaned because you keep on deleting it, not because there are copyright issues. - DonCalo (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You just proved how pointless it is any kind of discussion on an issue with you. You only take in account whatever is in your own interest. The reason you received the message three times is because it will be deleted soon, ad you failed to give any arguments to sustain the use of copyrighted images. You have been notified three times, and a simple click on a link on your talk page would show you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turcao.jpg - "This file is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and allowed only under a claim of fair use per Wikipedia:Non-free content, but it is not used in any articles. Unless some reason to retain it is given, the image will be deleted after Wednesday, 29 December 2010. Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles." I really doubt that the reason this message was posted is due to the image being orphaned.


 * The reason given was the image being orphaned because you deleted it three times; that reason was repeated three times. - DonCalo (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

3. DonCalo goes beyond the scope of the article making accusations do the sons of Mr. Kalil who are neither relevant nor true and do not reflect the sources either.


 * The information about his sons gives relevant information on how Kalil manages his business as well as the ongoing activities of the family. This has been discussed at length before when the article was nominated for deletion, which was declined. - DonCalo (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If his sons were relevant for a wikipedia entry, they would have their own. If you are writing an article about Mr. Antonio Petrus Kalil, you should stick to the point and not go on with assumptions beyond the scope of this article. That said, until recently, before what you call "vandalism" made by me, you affirmed that Mr. Marcelo was involved in illegal gambling activities. He indeed is responding this accusation (in liberty) and has not been condemned, in which case you cant imply anyone's involvement anywhere if even the Brazilian justice has not. Regarding his other son, Antonio Petrus Kalil Filho, there has NEVER been any accusations whatsoever about his involvement with any gambling activities, and your article does not mention that either. Also, when you talk about his sons, you mention several times a certain will but this will cannot be found anywhere in your references.


 * If you don't read the references, you will obviously not find them. Here is the link to the reference: http://noticias.terra.com.br/brasil/interna/0,,OI1693177-EI5030,00.html

Still don't see a testament here. Just an article with speculations and anyways not reflected in your article as they should. This "reliable" source is from 2007, it has been 3 years since these speculations took place, the trial has been going for the same period, yet Mr. Kalil Filho was never even considered to be implicated on any of the accusations you make.


 * The newspapers that are used as references are considered reliable sources. - DonCalo (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You cite your data from the testament but fail to show it. Secondly, even if there was such testament, the fact that your LIVING father has something on his testament that will be yours once he is DEAD does not mean you are or will ever be involved with such thing. Finally, your source is from 2007, and none of the claims that it makes hve ever been taken in consideration on the last three years. How reliable is that?


 * I added another reference about the existence of the testament. The date of the references is irrelevant for its veracity. The references give ample evidence of the involvement of his sons in the business. - DonCalo (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Every change made to the text was followed on an explanation why, and they were all ignored by DonCalo who considers himself the "owner" of this wikipedia page and does not accept any changes made by someone who not himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.228.100.153 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not consider myself the owner of this article, but I do object to deletion of relevant information and references. - DonCalo (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the mr. Kalil was considered a relevant person and the article was not deleted does not give you the ownership of the article, nor does it give you the right to defamate his and his familie's name and write whatever you want. I did not erase the article, only made corrections for accuracy purposes, no changes I made go against your references and the references that were erased were done so because the information you imply to be there has nothing to do with what you wrote. Hence, if a reference does not have anything to be refereced about, it should be deemed irrelevant and therefore deleted.
 * You could not possibly have known that because the reference you deleted was with a broken link, which has now been restored. The is the best evidence that you do not even care to look at the references, but simply delete information you do not like. There are 23 references to 19 reliable sources and I don't think you can refute anything that has been written down here. - DonCalo (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good part of your so called reliable sources are not even posted in the newspaper website. Regardless of the fact that many things you wrote on this entry are not even in your sources, anyone could copy, paste, and edit these articles and make it look like they want.


 * It is obvious that you are acting in bad faith, you still have not explained your claim that the article did not reflect the references while you could not have read them, because the links were dead. - DonCalo (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont you dare accuse me of bad faith while you are the one vandalizing a BLP.


 * Your bad faith is obvious. You only delete information including proper references, while I try to improve the article adding extra information and reliable sources. - DonCalo (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I have disabled this request as it does not seem to have consensus at this time. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BLP concern
We have an article here that editors are saying is not clearly sourced, and the sources are all in Portuguese, which makes checking difficult, yet the claims are contentious. Two questions:


 * Are there any English-language sources about this person?
 * Are all the sources reliable per this definition? For example what is this source? This link is dead. This link goes nowhere. Not clear what kind of source this is, and so on. The sources have to be high-quality to be used for contentious claims about living people.

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first source you mentioned is the Diario de Pernambuco, one of the major newspapers of the State of Pernambuco, and a reliable source. I tried to update the dead links and the ones you describe as dead are now working again. O Dia is a major newspaper in Rio de Janeiro. All reliable sources. - DonCalo (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering whether we can host this, Don, without English sources, with such serious allegations, and with the family objecting. Would it not be more appropriate to host it on another language WP? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As can be seen on these two academic papers, (page 25), O Dia, is considered a major populist newspaper in Brazil. This means that theyre credibility is as reliable as an article from News of the World or National Enquirer. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first study is an analysis about representation of the female body in the Rio carnival through the media. It does not say anything about the reliability of crime reporting of O Dia or about bthe bicheiros. The second study only mentions O Dia once and does not say anything about its reliability as well. - DonCalo (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The first study is an analysis about representation of the female body in the Rio carnival through the media. It does not say anything about the reliability of crime reporting of O Dia or about bthe bicheiros. The second study only mentions O Dia once and does not say anything about its reliability as well. - DonCalo (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One of the issues the IP removed was "they were found responsible for at least 53 deaths." What is the source for that, and what does it say? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The source is O Globo (major newspaper in Rio de Janeiro, once again a reliable source) of April 13, 2007, Contraventores já foram condenados há 14 anos. The article says: "Havia oficialmente 53 mortes imputadas ao grupo." Which, according to Google translate, means: "There were officially 53 deaths attributed to the group." The group being the 14 bicheros sentenced in 1993. - DonCalo (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would they have been released if 53 deaths were "officially" attributed to them, and what does "officially" mean in this context? Also the article says something about 130 deaths, which the source doesn't mention. I'm going to remove that section for now. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Officially" means according to sentence in 1993. Why were they released? The point is that the bicheiros have been corrupting judges and police for many years, as explained in the article. The 130 deaths are mentioned by Antônio Carlos Biscaia, the prosecutor in the 1993 trial (in the article with a dead link, which now has been restored). I am restoring that section as the source is available again. - DonCalo (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "according to sentence" means, Don. I'm going to remove that section once again, per BLP, as an admin. Please don't restore it until the sourcing is nailed down, and I think we do need English language sources for the most contentious points. We can't imply someone is a mass murderer based on reports that most of us can't read, and which may not be the best sources available anyway.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have explained a dozen times by now, all sources are reliable Brazilian newspapers. If those cannot be used, which can? As I have explained before, the article does not personally charges Kalil with the deaths, they are attributed to the association of bicheiros, of which Kalil was a prominent member. WP:NOENG states: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, provided that English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."Unfortunately there are no English language sources available, but you are free to use Google translate to check them. - DonCalo (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We can't host a contentious BLP that doesn't have a single English-language source in it, in part because it makes it difficult to check the contentious claims, and in part because the absence of sources suggests this person isn't notable in the English-speaking world. I note that the Portuguese WP doesn't make these claims about him. Would it not be more appropriate for you to host the article there, so that editors familiar with the sources and language can check the allegations?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I find this a rather weak argument. Look for an admin or editor who does speak Portuguese - I am sure they are available. - DonCalo (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could help with that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try, is there a notice board for these kinds of issues? As for notability, I added an English language source. There is also an English language book available on Brazilian Criminals mentioning Kalil, see here. - DonCalo (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's helpful. I asked for help on the Portuguese noticeboard, though I'm not holding my breath as it doesn't seem much used. I also requested input at the BLP noticeboard here. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This book cant possibly be considered a source for this article given that its content comes entirely from... WIKIPEDIA, and the author of these "chapters" was no one else but DonCalo himself. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I found another English language source, an academic book, and restored a large part of the section you deleted, since a lot of the information is confirmed by the new source. I did not include the death number. I will when I find confirmation of those. - DonCalo (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can link directly to Google Books pages if preview is available, e.g. p. 200 is here. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just like the article from Biscaia, the credibility of this book should be considered at least questionable, taking it account that this chapter was written by one of the interested parties of the trial. Despite the facts that the sources provided by Don Calo state this several times, he never mentions in his writing the fact that Judge Frossard quit her duties as a judge after this trial to take advantage of all the publicity she got and run for a legislative seat. Even if the source was supposed to, it is not quite clear where "a lot of information is confirmed by the new source". She briefly mentions Kalil being arrested in 1993 in 3 lines and thats it. Finally, there is nowhere in source 8 stating that Kalil was convicted for forming armed gangs. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Frossard mentions Kalil several times. A judge is considered to be an impartial arbiter of a case. Frossard as well as Biscaya are probably to most knowledgeable people on this issue. Saying that Frossard is not credible is like saying the Judge Giovanni Falcone is not a reliable source on the Sicilian Mafia because he was murdered by them. The conviction for armed gangs was a mistake, he was convicted for criminal association. That has been corrected. - DonCalo (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you argue that a judge is considered to be an impartial arbitrer of a case while accusing someone to corrupt judges and claiming that "...the bicheiros have been corrupting judges and police for many years"?189.25.64.39 (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Frossard could not be corrupted, that is exactly why she is a very reliable source. Judge Frossard was subjected to pressures from both the political establishment and the Judiciary itself and her life has been threatened. She has been the target of assassination attempts that she attributes to hired guns in the pay of game kingpins. A former military policeman allegedly received an offer of US$270,000 (R$1 million) to kill Frossard, but was arrested before he could commit the murder. - DonCalo (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again, i would like to refrain that the lives of his sons are beyond the scope of this article, especially considering Antonio Kalil Filho was never accused of any involvement with gambling, as stated by Don Calo. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The information about his sons is relevant as it shows the scope of Turcao's business. Wikipedia is not a court case, it will also take into account other information from journalistic sources, for instance. - DonCalo (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You mentioned he is accused of involvement with gambling. Accused by who? yourself? 189.25.64.39 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Turcao is not under house arrest. He is currently responding to the accusations in liberty. He can be seen daily on physioterapy sessions at the gym of his son's hotel. With this in mind, there are no grounds for the use of a copyrighted picture violating the wikipeidia policy WP:NFCC. DonCalo has been warned about this several times already and yet still preffers to ignore it. Thank you SlimVirgin for devoting your time in enforcing the following of wikipidean rules. This is very important for the good standing of our wonderful site. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source for the fact that Kalil is not under house arrest anymore, you are of course free to add that to the article. Statements of somebody using an IP account are not credible, even if he is family. You keep deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The warnings about the image were because you deleted them and they became orphaned. "Our wonderfull site"? The only thing you ever contributed to Wikipedia is deletions. - DonCalo (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not know who I am, so dont accuse me of anything. The credibility of someone using an IP address is the same as someone who writes false, contentious contents about others while hiding under a nickname. After all your edits and especially after you cite a reference from something you wrote, you give all the reasons to suspect you have some interest in defamating the name of mr. Kalil and his family, which violates the WP:COI rule. If you mean deleting false, biased material that violate the WP policies, indeed I am proud of those contributions. Your contributions on the other hand systematically are challenged by its contentious biased material and attempted ownership of articles not to mention the total lack of respect for wikipedia policies. That does not make you a good editor. Can you prove that Kalil is CURRENTLY under house arrest? 189.25.64.39 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not written anything and I don't know what you are referring to. As to Kalil being released, I checked again and he has indeed been granted a habeas corpus. I corrected the fact. In stead of whining all the time about my alleged personal interests, just show me the facts with reliable sources and I will look into it. - DonCalo (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have given up in making changes as it is pointless, considering you will undoit no matter what like you have done so many times. There would be no so called "whining" and complaining if you followed the rules as they should. I never argued against the fact that Kalil was involved with illegal gambling as this is widely refferenced, but im not gonna sit and watch while you invent things against him and his family. As posted above, one of the books you cite as a "credible english source" is based on wikipedia articles written by you. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Don, it's not a question of whining. We're making the most serious allegations possible here. We're relying on sources that most of us can't read, and which we have no way of knowing are carefully written and researched by good writers. Several of the links were dead; other claims weren't sourced at all, or were outdated. The default position here shouldn't be "it's in the article; show me what's wrong and I'll check it." The default has to be: "we'll add it when everyone's satisfied that it's correctly sourced." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Specific concerns
To the anon, would you mind listing here the particular sentences in the article that you're questioning? And also, if you could, the sources that you feel are not reliable enough.

I wouldn't normally ask for contentious sentences to be posted to talk, but I see all the most serious claims have been discussed several times here already, so it can't add to the harm, and it would help us to sort things out. Anything we decide should not be in the article can be removed from the talk page too. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem slim, I will list them here. I just wanted to add though, that my concern is not only to what is written in the article, but more on how its being written. If you look back on the history of this wiki entry, DonCalo has systematically ignored wikipedia rules, and wrote things however he felt like, and if anyone dared to make any changes, he would undo and add even more questionably sourced defamatory content. Whenever he has no more arguments to sustain his text, he claims it was a "mistake". This seems more like a trial where the accused is considered guilty unless proven the contrary instead of the other way around. Also, there are several basic misinterpetations or generl implications. On an article that is supposed to be about one supposedly notable person, there are more mentions to facts that happened to 30 other people, than to this man himself. Of last note, there is a great ammount of alleged, supposed and similar words to describe some of the claims made by the article, given that these articles are from 2007, if they were anything more than rumors, there would be a certainty about it and not allegedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.64.39 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is backed up by 28 references to 24 sources considered reliable. Everyone can make mistakes and when you point them out they will be corrected. The problem is that you consider everyone who does not think Kalil is innocent as a biased source. For example, you slander Prosecutor Biscaya and Judge Frossard as being biased. These are highly respected professionals that finally did not give in to the pressure by the bicheiros. The information about the criminal association of the bicheiros is very relevant, because Kalil was one of the founders of that association and was considered to be the head of it for a while. That is exactly the reason why it should not be deleted, as you did. - DonCalo (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mistakes do happen and they are acceptable when noted to be out of good faith. You have been writing this entry for more than two years already and yet forcefully argues against everything that goes against your biased point of view. I never said kalil was totally innocent. Indeed he was convicted for criminal association because of gambling, but that was it. You have written several times about armed gangs and murders and several other things and would not correct these "mistakes" even when warned about them not being correct. Nowhere i have given any opinions about biscaya and frossard being good or bad... i just pointed out facts that were backed up by your references: Both of them took advantage of the high profile of the case to pursue political carreers. At the same time that you accuse the bicheiros of controling the judiciary system, you cant say that the only two that are correct judges are the ones who convicted them, especially when its clear they took advantage of the situation. Regarding your credible sources, you also include several times the most sensacionalist of the newspapers in rio not forgetting to mention the great english language source you provided: a book made of wikipedia entries made by you! 189.25.64.39 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no law against judges or prosecutors to pursue political careers. In the case of Frossard that was in 2002, nine years after the trial. I honestly did not know the book was on the basis of the articles written in Wikipedia. However, that book is not used in the article, so it is not very relevant for the discussion. - DonCalo (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By looking at the history of edits made by DonCalo, one can notice that he only makes changes to the entry whenever he is challenged. This gives me reason to believe that he has some interest in defamating mr. Kalil WP:COI as oposed to his claim of making a fair encyclopedia entry. All of his edits are contentious and start from the premise of "guilty untill proven not" which fails the WP:NPOV guideline.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.64.39 (talk) 03:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If there is a mistake this has been corrected. I find it very strange that this is held against me. I have no interest in defaming Kalil. Very little is known in the English speaking world about the bicheiros, that is why I wrote this article. Let's establish some facts here: Kalil was found guilty of criminal association in 1993 and he has been charged again in 2007. The latter case still needs to trial. Criminal charges against someone are relevant information, even if the court decides against them, which of course should be mentioned when that will happen. - DonCalo (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The picture violates WP:NFCC

2. " Turcão and his brother "Zinho" were among the 14 bicheiros of Rio de Janeiro who were arrested in 1993 for criminal association and forming armed gangs.[4] According to prosecutor Antônio Carlos Biscaia, the bicheiros built an association (the so-called cupola do bicho), corrupting authorities and police. The head of this association was Castor de Andrade.[5] In May 1993, Judge Denise Frossard convicted 14 bicheiros to six years of prison for criminal association and racketeering.[4][6][7] In December 1996 they were all back on the streets, granted parole or clemency. Turcão had been convicted for criminal association.[8]"

Though the given sources dont even relate him directly to this, more of in a context of "these 14 men", Turcao was arrested and convicted for involvement in criminal association related to gambling, nothing to do with armed gangs, murders or whatever else DonCalo claims. This paragraph used to relate him to 130 (?!?!) murders and still relates him to armed gangs even though a "mistake" was recently pointed out. Also, if on line 3 it is already mentioned that judge frossard convicted them for criminal association, is it really necessary yo repeat this on the next line? Also, sources 4 and 5 are nothing more than personal opinions of some of the people involved in the trial, lacking partiality (SOURCES 4,5 and 9). If Kalil had written a chapter of a book or an article expressing his point of view on the matter, it would also be just as biased.


 * As explained a dozen times before, the information about bthe cupola is relevant because Kalil was one of the founders and a very prominent member having headed it for a while. First you blame for giving generala information about the cupola in an article about Kalil, and then you blame me for making the conviction of Kalil specific. I fail to understand the logic behind this. - DonCalo (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The mistake has been corrected, I fail to understand why this is held against me. As explained over and over, Prosecutor Biscaya and Judge Frossard are highly respected professional doing their job. If Kalil had written a book, his point of view would also be taking into account. - DonCalo (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

3. "On April 12, 2007, Turcão and the other bicheiros Anísio Abraão David and Capitão Guimarães were among 24 people arrested in the course of Operation Hurricane for alleged involvement with illegal numbers games, bingo parlours and the distribution of slot machines, known in Brazil as "nickel hunters" (caça-níqueis). Raids by the Federal Police uncovered big payoffs to judges, police officers, prosecutors and lawyers by the bosses who run the game. Piles of documents were seized and US$6 million in cash confiscated" Is this an article about Kalil or the event? For starters, the Washington Post article (reference 14) does not mention Kalil at all. Neither does the article on the NYT (reference 15). Not to mention the Chinese (?) reference that only mentions Kalil as having been arrested. Why is this 6 million in cash even mentioned if they were found on someone elses house that had nothing to do with kalil? Lets not forget that these articles that are being used as reference to this entry are talking about the detention of more than 50 people for different reasons, not only mr. kalils.


 * Once again, Kalil is a prominent member of the bicheiro cupola; he is member of an organisation, a fact established by the courts. Information about that organisation is relevant to give the context in which Kalil is operating. - DonCalo (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

4. "Documents found by the Federal Police while serving the search warrants on April 12, 2007, showed that the gambling mafia paid R$1.14 million to the three policemen every month.[17)"

Couple of mistakes here. For starters, what the article claims is that "A Polícia Federal apreendeu documentos na casa de Luciano Andrade do Nascimento, conhecido como Bola, que indicam que a máfia dos bingos pagava uma mesada de cerca de R$ 1 milhão a policiais federais, civis e militares" Documents found at the house of a men called Luciano Andrade do Nascimento, INDICATE that the gambling mafia paid a monthly wage of R$ 1 Million (not 1.14) to policemen from the federal, civil and military police (not three policemen as the "Mafia Expert" wrote). A few phrases later, the same article claims "Não se sabe com que freqüência a mesada seria supostamente paga nem os nomes dos beneficiários." , which means, it is not known the frequency of this SUPPOSED payment and neither to whom was this money going to. Contradictory to say the least.

5."According to a last will and testament seized by the Polícia Federal, the then 82-year old Turcão who suffers from a heart disease, passed on his interest in gambling to his son Marcelo Kalil Petrus, who allegedly had left the country with some US$ 15 million.[19][20][21] Authorities claim that he is the bookkeeper of the slot machine mafia, and he was arrested in August 2007.[22] According to the Prosecution, Marcelo Kalil is part of "the summit of the organization", because he is a recipient of the benefits of illicit activities and contributes to the success of the criminal enterprise.[23] His other son Antônio Petrus Kalil Filho is also accused of being involved in the illegal gambling rackets.[19] According to Turcão's last will and testament, he received the so-called pontos de jogo do bicho (animal game gambling sites), in Niterói, São Gonçalo and parts of the Zona Norte (North Zone) of Rio.[24]"

First of all, this entry is about Antonio Kalil Sr., not his children, if they relevant enough for an own article, this should be the place for allegations, if not, writing 25% of the article about his kids is far beyond the scope. Second, As mentioned shown earlier in this talk page on two academic papers, Jornal O Dia (of reference 19 and 24, among others) is famous in brasil for its sensationalism and lack of populist journalism, thus they do not fit as a wikipedia reliable source. Third, I read, and re-read several times these articles and was not able to find where does it say that Marcelo Kalil allegedly left the country with 15 million, would be ncie if you could point it out, please DonCalo. Fourth. the sources contradict themselves, by reading these articles, I still could not understand when was Marcelo supposed to have taken over his fathers business. By reading these articles and the what the mafia expert wrote on this entry I have a couple of questions: Would be nice if Calo could shed some light to this and also where all these information was taken from, considering the trial is running on secret of justice, where this kind of information and documents are not permitted to be presented to the press.
 * Is this testament valid before the arrests of Operationg Hurricane and Antonio Kalil Sr. was already retired while he supposedly corrupted judges and politicians? Which means all these allegations on the wikipedia entry are about the wrong man who was arrested by mistake?
 * Is this testament only valid after the Antonio Srs. death? In this case, how can you accuse his two sons of having being involved with gambling if they have not inheritted anything?

Finally, with regards to his sons, DonCalo mentions Antonio Kalil Filho being accused of involvement with illegal gambling. Accused by who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.64.39 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Don, I'm thinking it would make sense to reduce this page to a stub, then rebuild it on a subpage using only the highest quality sources, leaving out any source regarded as sensationalist in its own country. The article should be relying on the Brazilian equivalents of The Times of London. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 14:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. All sources are reliable sources. O Globo, Folha de S. Paulo, Correio Braziliense etc. are considered to be Brazilian equivalents of The Times. O Dia may have a touch of sensationalism, but they have broken major stories. There is no trial for defamation against the newspaper regarding their coverage of the bicheiros and the stories are backed up by other newspapers. The story about the testament is backed up by another source. - DonCalo (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just that there seems to be a lot of information not about Kalil, and some of it is hard to understand. For example, the issue of the wills and the son, and the fact that the father is alive—meaning the will hasn't caused anything to be passed on—so it's not clear what's being said exactly.


 * A will is always written when somebody is still alive. There are now FOUR sources confirming the existence of the document, including from the judge who oversees the case. That is sufficient evidence it exists. - DonCalo (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My question is what is the relationship between the will and the rest of the claims about money and the sons. "According to a last will and testament seized by the Polícia Federal, the then 82-year old Turcão who suffers from a heart disease, passed on his interest in gambling to his son Marcelo Kalil Petrus, who allegedly had left the country with some US$ 15 million." (a) he did not pass it on because he is still alive; (b) what is the relevance of the heart disease point; and (c) what is the relationship, if any, between the will and leaving the country with $15 million?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this should be an article about the organization, rather than the individual, but for now I'm thinking we could start with this stub:

Then build it up sentence-by-sentence, making sure the sources are the best available, that the material's directly relevant to Kalil, and that the article doesn't deviate from what the sources say.

Couple of questions: is he still one of the operators of jogo do bicho? And which is the source for the date of birth? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 15:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion comes down to deleting the article. If you want to do that move it to AfD. I have added several additional sources, which back up the information already provided. This already addresses your concerns. - DonCalo (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not deleting the article; you can re-add the rest of the material so long as everything's carefully sourced -- though I do agree that this should have been deleted at AfD and some of the content perhaps merged into an article about the organization. Can you say whether he's still one of the operators of the game, and what the source is for the dob? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything is already carefully sourced: there are now 35 references from 31 sources, which probably makes it one of the most referenced articles on Wikipedia. Whether or not he is still operating the game is unclear. His lawyers claim he is suffering from Altzheimer. The will is evidence that he passed on the daily operations to his sons, which is a very strong reason to keep the information about his sons, as it shows an ongoing enterprise originally set up by Turcao. - DonCalo (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The first sentence says he is still operating it; if there's no source for that we shouldn't claim it. What is the source for the date of birth, please? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the stub. If some other interested volunteer is able to find credible, non-biased and relevant information about the topic, he should write an entry about it. The only thing I disagree is that this writer be DonCalo. I think he should be banned on editing this article, considering he has been using it for the last two years to defame the image of Kalil and his family, and if it wasnt for several hours of arguments and discussions, no changes would be made. One good example of his lack of WP:NPOV comes from his utmost disrespect for the WP:NFCC rule. Even though he knew that the image on this entry could not be used, despite being warned several times by admins, he still restored them without giving any justification, just because he wanted and since he feels ownership on the article he does not accept any other opinions about it (hence this long discussion we've been having where he tries to justify the unjustifiable of the inconsistencies of his work). Thank you for your interest in this case. 189.25.64.39 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources that mention Antonio Petrus Kalil

 * In Portuguese
 * Diario de Pernambuco, 2005 x 2
 * Istoé, 1997 and 2003 x 2
 * Correio Braziliense x 3   (available on the site of the Secretary of the Federal Revenue of Brazil)
 * O Dia, 2007 x 3
 * Folha, 2007 x 2 (available for subscribers here)  (available for subscribers here)
 * Folha, 2007 and 2008 x 4
 * O Globo, 2007 x 4
 * O Globo, 2007 (mentioned as Turcao)
 * Expresso da Notícia, 2007
 * Ministerio Publico Federal, press release, undated ; judicial investigation, 2007
 * Consultor Juridico, 2007 and 2008 x 3
 * Supremo Tribunal Federal, 2010


 * In English
 * Denise Frossard, "Women in Organized Crime in Brazil", 2007, pp. 194, 201.
 * The People's Daily (China), 2007

Sources that don't mention him

 * In Portuguese
 * O Globo, 1998


 * In English
 * Associated Press, 2007
 * The New York Times, 2007

Questions for Don
Don, could you post here which source you used for the date of birth, please?


 * I cannot find the source anymore. If I remember well it was in a legal document requesting a habeas corpus. This article from 2007 says he reached 82 years of age in March 2007, but does not mention the 18th. So it is in March 1925, but the 18th is unclear. I probably have the source at home, but I am travelling at the moment. - DonCalo (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Would this have been an online legal document? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. - DonCalo (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I listed above the sources used in the article. With this edit, you added more. Does that mean these sources have been added to the article, or are these just new sources you've found? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They are both a rearrangement of the old sources (with restored dead links when possible) and a list of the new ones. I think we now have all the currently used sources listed. - DonCalo (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My question is: are all these sources used in the article? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All these sources are used in the article. - DonCalo (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You added this source for the date of birth (March 1925), but I can't see it in there. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I already explained that above. The article from 2007 says: Aos 82 anos, completados em março, e com problemas cardíacos, o contraventor Antônio Petrus Kalil, o Turcão .... That translates as: At age 82, completed in March, and with heart problems, the offender Antonio Petrus Kalil, the Turcão .... I trust you can do the math yourself. Happy new year, by the way. - DonCalo (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's an odd way to put it "At age 82, completed in March ..." Even with the translation I wouldn't know what that meant if you hadn't explained. This is the kind of issue that's making checking the sources very difficult. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Stubbifying
Don, I'm going to replace this article with the stub suggested above. I'm sorry about this; I know you object, and I respect the reasons for your objection, namely that you've put a lot of work into adding sources, and you believe it's all correct.

The problem is that the fixes have been slow in coming, and everything is having to be pointed out multiple times before it's corrected or sourced. It means the job is extremely time-consuming, and in the meantime there may be inaccuracies in the article.

I'n going to add the stub to Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, where the article can be rebuilt sentence by sentence. Editors doing that should make sure of the following:


 * The article should not deviate from the sources.
 * The sources should be reliable secondary sources, not primary sources.
 * The inline citations should make clear which citation covers which point.
 * The sources must be high-quality; no sensationalist newspapers.
 * The sources should be English-language wherever possible.
 * For anything contentious there should be in-text attribution: "according to newspaper X, the prosecutor alleged that Y."
 * The material must be directly relevant to the subject. Family members should not be included unless reliable sources make clear reference to them in relation to the issues that made Kalil notable.
 * No guilt by association; no SYN violations.
 * The issues raised here by 189.25.64.39 should be given particular attention.
 * Any images should be released, or will need a strong fair-use rationale because Kalil is a living person.
 * The language must be disinterested in tone: phrases like "they were back on the streets," instead of released from prison, should be avoided.

Once there's a version on the draft page that is nailed down, it can be moved over to mainspace. I'm sorry, Don, but I don't know how else to proceed for the best. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are being unfair. You cannot even read Portuguese; as such your are not qualified to judge the article. I will challenge your decision. Please, have the decency to point out the right place to do so. - DonCalo (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but the point is precisely that most of us can't read Portuguese, and the single other editor on this page who can (apart from yourself) is raising objections. As things stand, you're waiting for other editors to check the sources, point out errors or dead links etc, before fixing them, which is a lot of work. I think the situation needs more pro-active input.


 * The best place to object is on the BLP noticeboard, where I started a discussion about this recently. See Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. I'm sorry you feel this is unfair. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Don, I removed your responses above, because adding them in between my posts was making the list of source criteria unclear. I'm reposting them below:


 * [Re: deviating from sources]: It does not deviate from sources; show me an example. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: primary/secondary sources]: All sources are multiple reliable secondary; primary sources are used as back up. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: high quality sources]: Sources are mostly well respected Brazilian newspapers and are multiple. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: English sources]: Sources are English wherever possible. There is nor rule against foreign language sources although it is noted that you plan to institute one based on this case, see: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.
 * [Re: in-text attribution]: That has already been done several times; it can be done where people think it is necessary. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: family members]: Family members are only mentioned in relation Kalil, either as fellow defendants in the same trial or as successors to his illegal businesses. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: guilt by association]: The court decided that Kalil is a prominent member of a criminal association; as such crimes attributed to that association are crimes that can be attributed to Kalil as well. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: 189.25.64.39's points]: All his objections have been addressed when they were specific enough to be adressed. They are either maintained with extra references or removed.
 * [Re: images]: The image is now up for deletion according to the proper procedure. The decision will be respected. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [Re: "back on the streets"]: Nobody ever objected to that phrase, but this can be fixed easily without stubbifying the article. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear slim, thank you for taking a fair vision of this case and stubbifying this article. I would just like to ask you if there is any possibility that Don might be blocked from editing his page as his actions have clearly shown some conflict of interest. For the past 3 years he has been the sole editor of this page, not allowing any changes made by anyone else. All his edits have been extremely contentious with the sole objective of showing the world how bad he thinks of Kalil. When he mentions that this is one of the most cited article on wikipedia with so many sources claimed (not judging right now credibility or if they even are reflected in the article) I wonder if it that was even necessary, considering the little notability the subject has in the english spoken world. The objections he made to the stubbing of this article were the tip of the iceberg to assure me of what his intentions are, and I will take the liberty to answer them to prove him wrong.


 * [Re: deviating from sources]: It does not deviate from sources; show me an example. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Example - you kept the incident of the 1.14 million Reals despite being warned of the inconsistencies. You also never ecplained where the R$15 million come from. Not to say the whole accusing of murders that have been there for over 3 years and you objected any edits.


 * [Re: high quality sources]: Sources are mostly well respected Brazilian newspapers and are multiple. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say mostly, you already admit that not all of them were. You simply have been putting loads and loads of papers that mention the incident to see whatever sticks... your point of view is: If no one complains, then its ok.. and this is not how a wiki article should be written.. but very well fits to the description of an attack page.


 * [Re: English sources]: Sources are English wherever possible. There is nor rule against foreign language sources although it is noted that you plan to institute one based on this case, see: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.
 * After very long arguments you finally decided to look for english sources, but once again, with the whatever sticks policy... of the three sources you had, two of them did not even mention Kalil, on the Chinese article, the only time his name is mentioned is to say he was arrested, period.


 * [Re: in-text attribution]: That has already been done several times; it can be done where people think it is necessary.
 * Once again with the "whatever sticks", how can you say "It can be done where people think its necessary" when you are the only one that writes in this entry and never thinks its necessary?


 * [Re: 189.25.64.39's points]: All his objections have been addressed when they were specific enough to be addressed. They are either maintained with extra references or removed.
 * You never answered who accused Antonio Petrus Kalil Filho of being involved with illegal gambling and yet never removed. You always knew that the picture you posted was illegal and yet decided to ignore several warnings about that, makes me wonder if what you really want is the best for wikipedia (possible legal threats?) or the best for your personal interests (posting a picture of the subject in your attack page).


 * [Re: images]: The image is now up for deletion according to the proper procedure. The decision will be respected. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, if you already knew that the image was not supposed to be there and had no objection with it being removed, why did you restore it several times?


 * [Re: "back on the streets"]: Nobody ever objected to that phrase, but this can be fixed easily without stubbing the article. - DonCalo (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you really interested in writing an fair encyclopedia article or just blatantly attacking someone? Why does everything have to be corrected only whenever there is an objection? You don't use the fairness rationale from the start as you should if your sole interest would be contributing to making wikipedia better.

With all that said, I would once again request that user DonCalo should be blocked from editing his page with due to constant disruption and conflict of interest. A lot of productive time has been wasted on nonproductive arguments over the past weeks and I am sure that while he as long as he is allowed to edit, we will keep having the same problems over and over again due to his disruptive behavior. Personally, I don't think there is enough relevance for an article about him in the english wikipedia, especially considering that no one had been bothered even in the portuguese one, where it was only recently translated from the english entry. On the other hand, if users of wikipedia consider him notable enough to have an entry here, a stub is a good starting point and if he is relevant enough, im sure there would be other users interested in writing about him.

Of other note, I was reading the page on verifiability of sources and wondered if Denise Frossards book would qualify as a self-published source, considering her interest and bias in the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicksy123 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure you can bill your time to your client, so I would not complain if I were you. It is impossible to reach consensus with somebody who wants me blocked editing this page, who thinks that a judge and a federal prosecutor are unreliable sources and thinks academic studies are biased. - DonCalo (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is even harder to reach any consensus with someone who is only worried about making attacks instead of writing an encyclopedia entry, which is the point of this website. You should worry more about answering the allegations against your wrongdoings in this page rather than accuse me of being whoever you think you are. By the way, I am not a lawyer and am making no money here, though I would probably be able to make a lot, considering the endless discussion you are turning this into by your disruptions. Regarding your allegtions about judges and federal prosecutors... you were the first to point out about the corruption among Brazilian magistrates, so you cant come now and say that everyone is bad, except the ones you like. All I did was point out that they had personal interests in this case and also took advantage of the situation to pursue a political career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicksy123 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not have any personal interests in this case and an aticle on a convicted criminal saying he ia a convicted criminal cannot be considered an attack page. As to corruption among Brazilian magistrates, that is widespread, but Antônio Carlos Biscaia and Denise Frossard are considered to be exceptions on that rule. They have no personal interest in the case apart from trying to stamp out corruption, which in the case of Frossard nearly cost her her life. You are very good in turning arguments upside-down: now Kalil is the innocent good guy and the people who had him convicted and whose sentence has been upheld by other courts are the villains. - DonCalo (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is about a convicted criminal just like the stub says. I am not opposed to the stub, and have never made any comments against it, the point is you go way beyond this point with several attacks. You never answered to any of my points or the examples I gave, yet choose just to argue and keep with your accusations. Honestly I do no believe you have no interest in this case considering all you have done, all the time you spent to attack someone on something that should be so simple. you are wasting everyones time here with your disruptions. Vicksy123 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so we agree we are dealing with a convicted criminal. You still want to remove Frossard and Biscaia as reliable sources? Or do you now finally admit they are reliable sources, regardless of their political careers many years later. This issue is quite crucial, if these sources are not allowed you are dismissing yourself as a neutral editor on this issue. - DonCalo (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If any one is dismissing themselves as being a neutral editor on this issue this is you. I never said Antonio Kalil was not a convicted criminal at any point, and never opposed to what is said in the stub, but he was convicted for illegal gambling, you are accusing him of several other things out of your mind and implying other things about his family. Now you cant say that the all of the judicial system of Brazil is corrupt except for the two people that you like. All I said is that just like kalil and other people accused, Biscaia and Frossard were interested parties in this trial, and as you pointed out it is usual for magistrates in brazil to have alternative motives for things they say, so how can you guarantee that all the others are the bad ones and only biscaia and frossard are the good ones? You have been claiming a very high number of deaths to this group and when questioned why they why were they not convicted for those deaths, you said that it was because they corrupted the authorities. Considering they were tried by biscaia and frossard, are you saying that they were not convicted for these deaths because biscaia and frossard were corrupt? By the way, you still did not answer any of my previous questions. Vicksy123 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I never said Biscaia and Frossard were corrupt or had "alternative" motives, these are your unreferenced allegations. All the evidence is against these false allegations. The deaths are attributed to the association of bicheiros, the cupola - of which Kalil was a prominent member - not to individual members of the association. This has been backed up by multiple very reliable sources. You are turning the issue upside-down. Biscaia and Frossard never have been accused, let alone convicted, for corruption or abuse of their position. Kalil is a convicted criminal who is charged for the same kind of offences again. Are you denying that Kalil was a prominent member of the cupola? Are you still opposing to Frossard and Biscaia as reliable sources? Are you denying that Kalil has been charged again? Are you denying that his son Marcelo has been charged as well? - DonCalo (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, all you do is attack and turn away from the issues raised. You blabber on and on and never answer what is asked. You say these deaths were attributed to the association of bicheiros, attributed by who? Frossard? If so, why did she not convict them? Once again, no one here has mentioned the fact that biscaia or frossard are corrupt or not except for you. When Slim asked you why were they not convicted if they "officially" killed 53 people your answer was "               "Officially" means according to sentence in 1993. Why were they released? The point is that the bicheiros have been corrupting judges and police for many years..." Can you please be more clear about this? Who did they corrupt to get away from these murders you are implying? The judge? Vicksy123 (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Show me were I said Biscaia and Frossard were corrupt. I never said that; on the contrary. The only one who blabbers here are you. This is the third time I ask: Are you opposing to Frossard and Biscaia as reliable sources? Do you accept the academic study of Frossard, which has been published in an academic book? - DonCalo (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the deaths linked to the association of bicheiros:
 * According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association. The deaths were linked to the bicheiros at the trial, but individual responsibility could not be established.
 * Biscaia: … o Ministério Público apurou o envolvimento de "banqueiros" em mais de 130 homicídios relacionados com o jogo do bicho e comprovou o esquema de corrupção centralizado e dirigido por Castor de Andrade …, que contabilizou a propina a policiais civis e militares, servidores públicos, inclusive do Ministério Público e do Judiciário, e até a conhecidos políticos que receberam ajuda financeira para suas comprometidas campanhas eleitorais. (The public prosecutor found the involvement of the "bankers" in more than 130 homicides related to the animal game and proved the corruption scheme directed by Castor de Andrade …, which accounted for the bribing of civilian and military police, public servants, including prosecutors and the judiciary, and even prominent politicians who received financial aid for their electoral campaign.) - DonCalo (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are answering your own question yourself... for starters your two sources contradict themselves alone. Biscaia claims 130 eaths, frossars claims 53... theres already a big difference there. An how can you rely on a source of a prossecutor and a judge that affirm someone killed so many people yet did not convict them for that. You cant just blatantly accuse someone of something and that is it. you have to prove it. They can say whatever they feel like but that wont make it true, if it was true they would have been convicted, just like you can blabber as much as you want but that wont turn a biased opinion into a fact. Vicksy123 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so you are not recognizing former federal prosecutor Antônio Carlos Biscaia and former judge Denise Frossard as reliable sources. You also do not recognize the article Women in Organized Crime in Brazil] by Frossard published in Women and the Mafia? If you don't you should remove that source from the stub you already agreed to. Your argumentation does not make such sense. First you agree to a stub which mentions the article of Frossard twice, and now you say she is not a reliable source. - DonCalo (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that I am compromising in order to avoid unnecessary conflict on trivial matters does not mean I agree with everything. You are making very serious allegations and unless you can prove them, you cant just say whatever you want and think this is it. If you want to take the source out ouf the stub, go ahead and i will not object, but I wont accept your implying things out of your own opinion. Before we go on with this argument let me just understand your claim because not even that you made it clear. How many people did they kill 130 or 53? Are you 100% sure that this is true?Vicksy123 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, so you now do recognize them as reliable sources, or not? Why won't you answer that with a clear yes or no? - DonCalo (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Don, the problem is that you are using Portuguese sources, and English is not your first language. That combination is producing translation problems. Sentences such as: "The public prosecutor found the involvement of the 'bankers' in more than 130 homicides related to the animal game ..." don't tell us much—"found the involvement of X in Y" doesn't mean much in English. Second, prosecutor put forward arguments, but what matters is what the court accepts. Third, it's sometimes 130 and sometimes 53. Fourth, there were no convictions. Fifth, no one has said Kalil was responsible. Sixth, Frossard says Kalil was in charge in 1981, and there's no timeframe given for these alleged deaths, so it's not even clear that anyone is saying a group he was in charge of was implicated.


 * In short, it's all too murky for Wikipedia. Would you consider writing this for the Portuguese Wikipedia instead, where you could do it in the language the sources are in, and where other editors could easily check them? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
I've added a week's protection for now as material was being added again without clear sourcing. Don, please rebuild the article at Talk:Antonio Petrus Kalil/draft, then move it over when there's consensus.

The sourcing problems include the unsolved murder that you sourced to Frossard, which is not online that I can see, or if it is you didn't link to it, so that makes it hard to check. And the sentence "According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association:" it's not clear what that means. Who attributed these deaths to the organization? Do the sources link the deaths to the subject? Why was no one charged?

Also, if this is a biography, you ought to start with some biographical information, if it's available, rather than going straight to the criminal charges. The point with a bio is to produce a rounded picture of the person. If that's not possible, the page should be renamed, or merged into another page. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to Frossard's page 186 -- http://books.google.com/books?id=KJLBLxYBUysC&pg=PA186 -- please look at it to see how to write Google Books URLs so that you're taken directly to the page (if preview is available). It does discuss the shooting of the ex-policeman, one who had spent 40 years in prison, but it also says it was another policeman who shot him, one that was friendly with the group running the lottery. To say only that it was unsolved makes it appear that you're linking it very closely with the subject.


 * I really think you should consider writing an article about the group, rather than any of the individuals. To write BLPs, you're being forced to squeeze the sources of material not directly linked to the subject, and it becomes hard to know how to write up the indirect links in a way that's fair and accurate. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. I commit to rebuilding, with very clear sourcing adding the quotes referred to in Portuguese with translation and article summaries provided by Husond, which probaly makes it one of the most referenced articles on Wikipedia, and still you object. The sentence "According to the newspaper O Globo, 53 deaths could be attributed to the association" is very clear. I added that the murder is unsolved exactly for the reason not to attribute it to Kalil. That the murder is unsolved is Frossard's article in a section that is not online, but that does not mean that it is not there. You are creating conditions for editing that are impossible. I don't see any reason to write an article only on the group. Kalil is a very notable person in Brazil, that is very clear ((see this edit). And by the way, who appointed you as chief editor of Wikipedia? - DonCalo (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm here as an admin following your two requests for page protection on Dec 20 and Dec 28, the second made when you were the only person who had been editing the page since the last protection, which set off alarm bells.


 * The problem is this:


 * you're trying to write a biography but you're not including much biographical information, so it's turning into an attack page;
 * most of the sources are in Portuguese and therefore can't be checked by most editors;
 * English is not your first language, so you're not writing the material up as clearly as it needs to be written;
 * you're including very serious allegations that at least one other editor is objecting to, and you're requesting semi-protection to stop him from removing those claims; and
 * there have been complaints for over a year from accounts and IPs—e.g.           —who it appears may be, or may include, the subject's family member(s), something that Wikipedia, its Arbitration Committee, and the Wikimedia Foundation take very seriously. Here are their attempts to remove material from the article since August 2009:             One of the IPs has listed specific concerns here.


 * I didn't understand this: "That the murder is unsolved is Frossard's article in a section that is not online, but that does not mean that it is not there." It is Frossard who says that another policeman killed the first one, and that page is online. Is there another Frossard article somewhere that you're using?


 * Please write this up on the draft page. Use only the best sources. Do not deviate from what the sources say. Don't add your own opinions or your own summaries. Make sure you follow the BLP policy closely. And get consensus from the anon for the final draft. If the two of you can't agree, you can ask other editors for input to settle the matter, and then place the final result in article space. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm DonCalo. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Antônio Petrus Kalil because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ''You keep deleting properly referenced information without any explanation. Please stop or explain your reasoning. '' DonCalo (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * DonCalo, once again you are harrassing a BLP by writing false statementes just like you did two years ago. Ill start by giving one brief example from this statement "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for formation of armed gangs, money laundering, smuggling and corruption.[5]" Please show me where, on this very clearly explained article, it says that Mr. kalil was sentenced for armed gands, money laudering or smuggling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Harassing a BLP? I don't know exactly what you mean. I just reverted your unexplained deletions of properly referenced information. - DonCalo (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You are writing false facts that are not in your sources, just like you did two years ago. I gave you an example but you decided to ignore it. Please show me where on youre sources does it say that Mr. Kalil was sentenced for armed gangs, money laundering and smuggling as you mention in the following passage of you "unbiased" entry: "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for formation of armed gangs, money laundering, smuggling and corruption.[5]" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.73.193.83 (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

DonCalo, I am glad to see from your edits that at least in some way you admit you were wrong, even though you still choose to ignore my inquiries. Are you sure you really are able to translate portuguese to english? How can you possibly confuse "armed gangs, money laundering and smuggling" with conspiracy? 186.73.193.83 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On your request this has been changed into: "On March 13, 2012, he was sentenced to 48 years in prison and a fine of BRL 11 million (about USD 6 million) for conspiracy and corruption". The original was based on a AFP article that mentioned "formation de bande armée, blanchiment d'argent, contrebande et corruption" or in its Spanish version "formación de banda armada, lavado de dinero, contrabando y corrupción". However, apparently not all these crimes could be linked to Kalil, so this has been corrected. - DonCalo (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)