Talk:Efraim Diveroli

Use of the phrase "Convicted Arms Dealer"
Efraim Diveroli was not convicted of arms dealing, he was convicted of fraud. This is an important distinction. The United States Government gave Mr. Diveroli a literal license to conduct his arms-dealing business. The constant use of the phrase "Convicted Arms Dealer" gives the reader a picture of a guy selling weapons illegally, which is not the case. The idea that Mr. Diveroli's contracts were in and of themselves illegal is factually inaccurate and confusing to the story. He was an arms dealer, and he was convicted of a crime, but it's important that the two ideas are distinct. Ldiff23 (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This criticism is invalid and can easily be compared to "convicted [any profession.]" A convicted Wall Street broker isn't convicted because of their job but because of a crime. Arms dealing isn't illegal. 75.72.165.43 (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of Diveroli's religion
If we don't say the Price is a "Christian American" arms dealer, why is Mr. Diveroli's religion included? His religion, as far as I can tell, is irrelevant to this. I've removed it again. If reverting please explain why it's relevant.Thalia42 (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably irrelevant to his arms-dealing activity but the same can be said of any personal information (such as date of birth, nationality, which school he went to, his gender, etc. etc.) However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in a biographical article, like this one, about him. 213.103.207.51 (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So why isn't it included for other religions? It seems problematic to emphasize Mr. Diveroli's religion while not even mentioning the religion of other arms dealers.  Unlike date of birth, religion is often a target of discrimination/hate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia42 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations on appearing on Wikipedia's main page as a "Did you know..." listing. I've been involved in the DYK process, (never successfully, I might add!) and so I know the time it takes and the coordination required between between editors...let's just say it isn't the easiest thing to accomplish. You deserve recognition, appreciation and applause. Thank you very much to all the contributing editors who made this listing possible.:The Very Best of Regards,  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Difference between indictment and conviction
Many users continue to add that Diveroli was convicted of several dozen fraud charges. This is not true. While he was indicted with over 80 counts of charges. He only plead guilty to a single charge of conspiracy. Just because you are indicted with a charge, does not mean you are also convicted of that charge. Otherwise there wouldn't be any trials. Ldiff23 (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims
Claims that Diveroli tried to hire somebody to kill a witness during his trial have largely been deemed false and have continued to be unsubstantiated. Wikipedia pages should not spread false information meant solely to hurt the reputation of an individual, especially one that is still living. Ldiff23 (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Content Issues
There appear to be some content issues with this page. There is a lot of WP:PROMOTION, and deleting (or obfuscating) relevant facts that make Diveroli "look bad". Diveroli is mainly notable for his activities at company AEY, which was involved with some very high profile crime with the US government. This is easily Googleable, and there is tons of material surrounding it. Essentially, AEY shipped old, bad Chinese ammunition to fulfill a $300 million United States government, and got caught. They had a lengthy record of failed contracts before this, which is notable in that it calls to question why the US government gave AEY such a large order in the first place.

The page is being edited to downplay this, to a significant degree. Any input welcome. Thanks! --FuzzyGopher (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard for noteworthiness is whether information has been published in reliable secondary sources, and biographies such as this one should be conservative with both praise criticism (WP:BLPSTYLE). I moved some material from the lead section to the body of the article – the lead seemed to be weighted with material implying wrongdoing on the part of Diveroli, rather than simply summarizing the contents of the article (see MOS:LEAD). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard for noteworthiness is whether information has been published in reliable secondary sources, and biographies such as this one should be conservative with both praise criticism (WP:BLPSTYLE). I moved some material from the lead section to the body of the article – the lead seemed to be weighted with material implying wrongdoing on the part of Diveroli, rather than simply summarizing the contents of the article (see MOS:LEAD). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional (primary) source


—Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Encylopedic Tone
I fixed the tone of the article as best as I could having decided to work on this due to the high traffic it was receiving. Drocj (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)