Talk:Evelin Banev

Conspiracy Theory
It's a bunch of accusations without any evidence. A report that "people think" this is happening, without any evidence, is a conspiracy theory.

The first reference "http://www.mvr.bg/en/AboutUs/StructuralUnits/National+MoI+Services/GDBOP/default.htm" doesn't reinforce any statements made in the preceding sentence.

The second source requires a subscription and seems to be based only on the opinion of one man. I wouldn't call this entirely factual. http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2013/03/06/2016702_aleksei_petrov_ako_brendo_progovori_za_borisov_i/ ?

The fourth source came back as a 404 error. http://www.pik.bg/emanuil-jordanov-tsvetanov-se-izkazva-kato-shef-na-rpu-slava-bogu-otiva-si. Personally, I don't think Tsvetan Tsvetanov has a very neutral opinion on this topic, so I don't think we should be using this article.

-- Kndimov (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "edits", i.e., the deletions of cited work, by Kndimov are in a manner of editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. All circumstances around this article could be labeled "accusations without any evidence" or else an article about this public person would not exist at all.


 * Kndimov is deleting the cited additions of others, assigns undue importance to a single aspect of a subject, repeats the same argument without convincing, and is editing with a sustained bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.122.12.73 (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All sources have been updated and are accurate 27.122.12.73 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * All I did was delete material that was like a conspiracy theory. The sources given (at the time) represented people's opinion only. I don't think it is fair to accuse people of being involved in kidnapping without having actual evidence to support your claim. Anyone can make up a story/accusation, that doesn't mean it should be included in the article. -- Kndimov (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

On-going edit war over criminal convictions, indictments and alleged criminal activities
It's time to squarely address the various issues this article faces, and answer some basic questions of who, what, why, when and where:

1. Where is Banev now? Reliable sources indicate that he was convicted for cocaine trafficking in Italy in July 2013 -- is he currently serving prison time in Italy? Please link sources immediately below.
 * A May 2015 Sofia Globe article indicates his whereabouts are unknown. Presumably, he was extradited to Bulgaria to stand trial and fled following his acquittal by the appellate court. This may be supported by, though my Italian is rudimentary. Alakzi (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "He remained in custody in Italy for a certain amount of time but was handed to the Bulgarian authorities due to his case in his home country." Alakzi (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

2. What is the status of Banev's criminal conviction in Bulgaria? The trial court conviction was apparently overturned on appeal, but it the appellate court decision was apparently overturned on further appeal by Bulgaria's highest court. Was the original conviction reinstated, or did the high court remand the case for further action by the lower courts? Does the conviction stand or not? Please link sources immediately below.
 * The SG article does not make this clear. I've not found any other sources yet. Alakzi (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Supreme Court of Cassation Returns Money Laundering Case Against Evelin Banev to Sofia Appellate Court" BTA Bulgarian News Agency

3. What is the status of Banev's criminal indictment in Switzerland? Does the indictment still stand? Has the case proceeded to trial? Please link sources immediately below.

4. What is the status of Banev's criminal indictment in Romania? Does the indictment still stand? Has the case proceeded to trial? Please link sources immediately below.

This article needs the attention of objective, third-party editors who have not been involved in the slow-rolling edit war since January 2015. It would also be helpful if we requested the assistance of an editor with English and Bulgarian language skills, because it appears than many of the news sources are in Bulgarian. An editor with a knowledge of Italian might be helpful, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 5. Was Banev convicted in absentia in Sofia? He appears to have been in Italy from July 2012 to July 2013. Alakzi (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kidnapping
The section titled "Kidnapping of Banev's daughter" appears to have very little to do with Banev. It could probably be summarized in 1-2 sentences. Thoughts? CorporateM (Talk) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The kidnapping appears to have been an attempt to intimidate Banev to avoid implicating anyone else during this 2013 drug trafficking trial in Italy.  Could use your help in answering and sourcing the questions above -- there apparently is a useful series of online articles in the English-language Sofia Globe which address most of these basic questions in whole or in part.  From my cursory review of this article's history, it is apparent that one user has repeatedly removed factual details supported by reliable sources regarding the subject's legal problems in Bulgaria, Italy, Romania and Switzerland.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Bulgarian gang boss Evelin Banev's daughter kidnapped", BBC (3 March 2013)
 * "Bulgarian 'Cocaine King' Trial Resumes in Italy", Novinite.com (29 March 2013)

Collaborative editing
I got some pings at the noticeboard and noticed numerous, drastic edits in article-space that took place without Talk page discussion. Given that there are multiple editors involved, the topics are complex, etc. I think it would be better to focus on one section at-a-time and to start discussions on the Talk page before making bold edits. This prevents edit-wars and results in more collaborative editing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Having spent some time reading the series of English-language articles regarding Banev in The Sofia Globe and Novinite.com last night and today, most of the "complex" issues become reasonably clear, at least to this practicing attorney. I have also requested that an editor with Bulgarian language skills evaluate the Bulgarian-language sources for content and reliability.  In the mean time, I respectfully request that you review the English-language sources linked here and on the BLPN discussion page.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Translate will usually do a decent enough job to get the gist of a foreign language source. It would be better to be more specific about which sources you are referring to, what information is missing or mis-construed from them, and to present your argument as a separate string, since it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the subject of this string. CorporateM (Talk) 17:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually trying to be fair to both sides, and by extension to the subject, by having someone who is fluent in Bulgarian evaluate the content and reliability of the Bulgarian-language sources previously linked in the article. I already tried Google Translate for a couple of Bulgarian news articles, and got English word soup as a result.  We also need someone who is familiar with and can make a rough assessment of the reliability of these Bulgarian language sources.  From an English-language article perspective, the status of the criminal proceedings against the subject become more clear with each article I read.  After evaluating the Bulgarian-language reliable sources, I suspect we may find there is very little dispute over the fundamental facts as reported.  As to the underlying facts of the criminal cases, we may never know the exact truth, but that's not our job -- that's impermissible original research per WP:OR.  That's why have prosecutors, judges and juries -- and reliable media sources to report and evaluate their actions and decisions.


 * Feel free to break this into a separate discussion thread, but I would suggest that the first step in a more collaborative approach to editing this article -- your speficic thread subject -- would be for each participating editor to review the English-language reliable sources we do have for the basic facts of the criminal proceedings against the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistaken translation, mischaracterization of Italian judge's statement?
I have temporarily removed the following from the article, pending (a) determination of the reliability of the Bulgarian-language source, and (b) confirmation of a correct quotation and translation of the Italian judge's comment regarding the use of circumstantial evidence in the Italian trial that resulted in Banev's conviction and sentencing to 20 years:


 * "The prosecution claimed that a gang headed by Banev smuggled six tons of cocaine into Italy between 2006 and 2008; while the Italian judge who sentenced Banev, stated in an interview with a prominent Bulgarian newspaper that "until now not a single evidence of Banev's guilt has been deposited; Banev has never been caught in the act of crime, and he was sentenced only by the testimonies (which were presumed truthful) of other defendants". "

I am a practicing lawyer in two U.S. states, and I can tell you that accused persons are convicted every day in the United States solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence -- with no direct eyewitness testimony -- and this is not in the least bit unusual. If I understand the Italian judge's comments correctly -- and I am reading an English translation (via Google Translate) of a Bulgarian translation of an Italian's judge's comments in Italian -- he is saying that Banev has different appeals options to challenge such circumstantial evidence, and that may impact the length of his 20-year sentence on appeal. But let's be perfectly clear: the Italian trial court convicted Banev for drug-trafficking and sentenced him to 20 years in 2013, and the conviction was already upheld on appeal in 2014. As I understand it, there is now a second appeal pending, but his status in Italy is convicted.

It would also be helpful if we could find the Italian judge's original comments in Italian media and translate them directly from Italian into English. I have also requested the assitance of a Wikipedia editor with Bulgarian-language skills. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd reworded this with Special:Diff/671107187, before being reverted for the gajillionth time. Alakzi (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I can confirm that the quote by the italian judge is in the source and is mostly correctly translated. I'd only correct "in the act of crime" to "on a crime scene". The newspaper in question isn't great, it's part of super controversial media mogul Delyan Peevski's media group. Nevertheless, it's a lot more likely that this is a reliable quote rather than something they made up. 's reading of the case is accurate too, this person is convicted in Italy. Hope that helps!  — Toдor Boжinov — 12:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Todor, could you perform a word-by-word translation of the Italian judge's quoted statement, from the original idiomatic Bulgarian? There are several elements that don't ring quite right, including:


 * 1. "not a single evidence of Banev's guilt has been deposited" - Apart from the odd phrasing in English, there were many items of evidence presented of Banev's guilt, but they were either circumstantial or based on documents.  Should "not a single evidence of Banev's guilt" be translated as direct evidence of Banev's guilt, as distinguished from circumstantial evidence?


 * 2. "sentenced only by the testimonies (which were presumed truthful) of other defendants" - Presumably, "sentenced" may be better translated as convicted?  To be clear, the judge is saying that Banev was convicted on the direct testimony of his co-defendants, correct?


 * 3. How "prominent" is the Bulgarian newspaper, and what is the newspaper's name?


 * 4. "Banev has never been caught in the act of crime" - Again, there is a difference between being caught in the act of committing the crime, and being caught after the fact -- properly translated, is this the distinction being drawn by the judge?  It would not make a heck of a lot of sense for the convicting judge to say this otherwise.


 * Thanks for your help, Todor. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * With pleasure! Here's my attempt, which might be awkwardly phrased at times because I tried to keep it as close to the original as possible:
 * "On the question of whether an appeal make sense, judge Mandzi (Manzi? Manzzi?) replied positively because at least up until now not a single piece of direct evidence of Banev's guilt had been presented, he had not been caught on a crime scene even once and he had been convicted only based on the testimonies of other culprits and defendants, considered to be authentic."
 * 1. I don't know how I didn't spot this. It clearly says "not a single piece of direct evidence". Clearly, the judge doesn't deny there's circumstantial evidence.
 * 2. The Bulgarian word осъден can mean either "sentenced" or "convicted". In this case, "convicted" is the better translation. And yes, you are correct, what you wrote is what the judge is saying.
 * 3. The newspaper's name is Monitor and it's a prominent national daily with a large circulation. Though it's definitely on the tabloid side and not considered a newspaper of record in any way.
 * 4. This part is better translated as "he has not been caught on a crime scene even once". So yes, the judge is saying he was not caught in the act of committing a crime.

We have returned to a false narrative
Significant changes (including the restoration of poorly translated/mistranslated text and the deletion of top-tier English language reliable sources such as the BBC) have been made to this article in the past two or three days. The net effect is to completely exonerate the subject from previous criminal charges, when, in fact, Italy's supreme court has ordered him to be retried. This needs to be clarified, and the mistranslated comments by the Italian judge need to be corrected. This article is not the subject's facebook page, and the hagiographic graphic discussion of his junior sports career and self-published novel need to restored to the NPOV-compliant text that previously existed. Be prepared for significant changes in the next few days. The current version is a mess. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)