Talk:Giovanni Di Stefano (fraudster)/Archive 6

Time in serbia
I've got a ref for his arriveing in 1992:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_19990321/ai_n13936611/

Also gives his activities up to 1993. ©Geni 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two words of that article don't exactly inspire confidence in its accuracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly not a reliable source, not that that will prevent certain users from trying to insert it into the article if the history of this article is anything to go by. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has been noted.©Geni 19:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we can sourcethe 92 date from the new zealand herald then


 * http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3581432
 * Can also source link with Radojica Nikcevic and events up to 93 although we lose story of how arkan got mixed into things. They also translate the radio statation name from the serbian Pingvin.©Geni 19:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As long as any additions remain uncontroversial I see no problem with this. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Saddam
His legal team were Khalil Ad Dulaimy, Wadoud Fawzi, Issam Azzawi, Ramsey Clark, Bushra Al Khalil, Ahmed As Siddiq, Mohammad Tayyib, Ziad An Najdawi and Curtiss Dubilz. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
 * You are acutely pathetic and a poor excuse of a so called lawyer Farmborough always changing your name on Wikipedia and its those like you that cause more harm than a thousand di stefano's and its why i wont bother reverting your really pathetic changes...i advise you get a life and stop trying to ruin wikipedia with your very pathetic mission against this man as he is quite good at doing that himself...get real... Rich Farmborough II —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.209.110.167 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WHY NO POSTING WHEN POSITIVE PRESS ABOUT HIM
In the past two weeks several media including the Guardian have written positive articles about him and new cases; Crippen, Charles Richardson, Tariq Aziz, and of course his mandate to Prosecute Blair all reported by reputed (shall we say)media yet whenever anything positive is published including the Guardian whose reporter was fired as a result of publishing incorrect and defamatory material, nothing is updated on the main article page. This article reads so one way that no wonder this guy took criminal action against certain editors and the founder of this site who by the way are all sent for trial whether they know about it or not in accordance with the infamous Italian legal system. Either we should ship up on writing a balanced article with regular updates or ship out and just delete the whole darn thing. We who have followed this site for years are beginning to look silly publishing one sided articles as this. Its not what Wiki was designed for and our policy of one sided articles has lost us credibility. Letts get back on track please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.46.15 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Post here a few URLs to the news articles, and I'll get to work this tuesday. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some about a possible prosecution of Tony Blair and about the Charlie Richardson case. There's also another case not mentioned by 81.44.46.15 that has picked up some recent press. We already mention Dr. Crippen and Tariq Aziz, but here are some recent reports on developments in the Crippen and Aziz cases that may be useful in expanding the coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tariq Aziz many reputable papers cover this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/29/iraq-court-gives-tariq-aziz-new-10-year-sentence/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.74.41.138 (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

THE ARTICLE IS NOT ACCURATE AND CONTRARY TO WIKI FOUNDING RULES
I have been following this article also for two years plus. It is full of sarcasm and inaccurate with what is obviously a 'grudge against this man' by certain editors for whatever reason. It is no wonder he has issued criminal actions and I note with alarm the matter is going for trial. Can I say I despise the Italian system that allows trials sometimes without even bothering to notify those affected. But in this case the whole article is biased full of tripe and truly silly and sarcastic comments. The way it is written there is nothing good about this man yet despite all he still practises and still goes to Iraq and is still security cleared. For example how can anyone challange he is the alwyer to Tariq Aziz, Al Majid, humad Humadi and those executed in 2006? He went to Iraq was security cleared by the US Military and attended clients. How stupid it is to write otherwise. That various governments don't like him well that is their choice. He won in the Admin Court in the UK with his right to visit his client Van Hoogstraten as his lawyer. Why try and make it sound that it was otherwise. It is time that with this type of person we woke up. He is what he is whether we like it or not and has clients and is a lawyer like it or not. I am against targeting people. Allegations made against him in 2003 and 2004 today it is 2010 and he is still around and practising. Why on earth don't we all wake up. Today two articles came out on him regarding Chemical Ali in the Express and Ian Brady in the Sunday Mirror. Why are they not posted? I lived in Italy 4 years and someone from Wiki will end up in jail over all of this all because some silly people have their own agenda. Lets stick to the facts and leave the conjecture to other sites. OK my opinion given now I will leave it and probably not say anything else but after two years watching I could hold back no more. Does anyone agree with me pls ?? the common man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.184.205.146 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * happy new year, 91. :-) - we can probably chat about some of your objections, if we can sort of focus them a bit? - maybe you could suggest a small wording change to start with, and we can take it from there? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Italian Judge in Rome has sent 9 to trial for defamation against DS with preliminary hearings in April next year the list of those including one in Spain, England, USA and JW all for trial. Editors who hid behind ip addresses were found after 2 years investigation by Italian Postal Police! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.74.41.138 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think only GDS or people acting for him hid behind IP addresses. My address is in the phonebook - maybe I'm not one of the nine. Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC).

disambiguate page a good idea?
I noticed we now also have Giovanni_di_Stefano (a different article about a different chap) - and can't help but feel that it's not really on to have two distinct articles separated only by the case of the 'd' - time to revisit the issue of a 'disambiguation' page? Privatemusings (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I feared this because of the problems with the desambiguation term. We could use "Giovanni Di Stefano (lawyer)", but it would probably be more correct to simply use "Giovanni Di Stefano (personality)", like in Giovanni_di_Stefano_(disambiguation). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've re worded the lead, and would support a move to 'Giovanni di Stefano (personality)' - incidentally, this might be desirable to the various folk who get a bit angry about this article too, because it might obfuscate from searched for 'giovanni di stefano' a little? Don't really see that as particularly important myself, but thought it worth noting. Ps. I think the article is 'move' blocked? - I would have done the move in the spirit of being bold, but guess it's a good thing to get a consensus of some sort here anywhoo... any objections or thoughts about the move? Privatemusings (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the move. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * okey dokey - I'm going to ask for a move to Giovanni di Stefano (personality) - then I'm going to ask for the disambig. page to shift the D to lower case too - then I think we'll be in better shape.. Privatemusings (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman). The discussion was confused, but this title seems to be the most generally accepted—"lawyer" is considered incorrect because there is apparently no evidence that he is in fact a lawyer, and "personality" because it is perceived as non-neutral (and, I may add, not a good disambiguator). Ucucha 00:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * hmmmm... I've changed my mind about the renamings, and have altered the move requests accordingly - I think it's pretty uncontroversial to get consistency across the GdS articles, so hopefully what I've suggested is sensible. Privatemusings (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni Di Stefano → Giovanni di Stefano — per discussion Talk:Giovanni_Di_Stefano - requires move of other GdS page also Privatemusings (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * His name is Giovanni Di Stefano so altering the article by re-naming him again makes more of a laughing matter the article. What most of us do not understand frankly is why this slant against him? Now even his name wrong!! The Analyst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Move the page, but preserve the capitalization of the "Di". It's not a matter of personal taste, it's a matter of what capitalization the sources use, and what capitalization the subject uses for himself.
 * I made the capitalization proposal here some time ago and nobody complained. Please don't change the capitalizations by an impulse, and much less while in the process of making a multiple move. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah - I should have known when I said 'I think it's pretty uncontroversial' that of course it could be! - I think you're spot on - leave the capitalisation, but go ahead and move. I'll try and get someone to take a look at this :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The man's name is Giovanni Di Stefano now its one thing writing articles that clearly prejudice him, but another that gets his name wrong. Its not if anyone here agrees. If you cannot even get his name right it says a lot about the rest. A person's name is not an opinion but a fact! It may be the only fact that you get right in this article if his name is written correctly because all else is frankly a laughing matter. the analyst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose and move to Giovanni Di Stefano (lawyer). Indeed a person's name is a fact. If you can support the claim "Giovanni di Stefano" was his correct name, this is fine, though it would still need a disambiguation. Otherwise we can only work with disambiguations. However, "(personality)" doesn't seem to be acceptable. He is not just a personality, but (obviously) a lawyer, and that's also what he is known for. Using the generic and show-affine "personality" instead displays a negative bias. PanchoS (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * next bit of solid evidence that he is a lawyer will be the first. Going by his longer term history "Businessperson" might be closer until you consider what happened to most of the businesses he was associated with (although the one that got taken over by a serbian warlord at least had novalty value).©Geni 19:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or "Businessman". There is a limit to this recent phobia at gender-specific usage. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The capital "D", you forgot the capital D in "Di" when making the move >-< --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that the Law Society of England and Wales was unable to verify that he was an actual lawyer, which means that he can't act as a lawyer in the UK. And the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal ruled that he can't appear as a solicitor in Ireland before he didn't produce any evidence that he had legal qualifications in Italy or anywhere (second paragraph from the end) and (back when the judge had not still ruled). And that, according to the Independient, he is not listed in Italy's national registry of lawyers . That's why it was asked to move it to "(personality" and not "(lawyer)". Using the word "lawyer" is misleading and it contradicts the most reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would urge against using such a meaningless word as "personality" as a disambiguator. Surely Giovanni di Stefano (sculptor) and Giovanni di Stefano (architect) were also "personalities", so that word disambiguates nothing. Indeed, who is not a "personality"? "Businessman" seems to me to be the best suggestion so far, because, whether or not "lawyer" is accurate, Mr Di Stefano has had other notable business interests apart from Studio Legale Internazionale. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * although personally, I'm happy with (personality), I'm also ok with (businessman) - both seem accurate enough to me - Enric (and others)? Privatemusings (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with businessman. The article actually under-reports the number of bussiness that GDS has had. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As his ID shows 'avvocato' (see case of Van Hoog)how anyone can describe him anything other than lawyer/avvocato is beyond comprehension and he is certainly not a businessman and has not been I think since 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 10:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you account Mr Naval for this link pls: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Strange-News/Dr-Crippen-Letters-In-Killers-Grave-May-Show-Innocence-And-Explain-Exhumation-Ban-Lawyer-Says/Article/201003215570164?lpos=Strange_News_First_Home_Page_Feature_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15570164_Dr_Crippen%3A_Letters_In_Killers_Grave_May_Show_Innocence_And_Explain_Exhumation_Ban%2C_Lawyer_Says  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the newspapers are lazy and keep calling him "lawyer", when they should be saying "legal adviser" (as in, one of the people advising him, and not the main lawyer representing him in legal papers placed in front of the court. Let's remember that anyone can present papers to the court as a "McKenzie Friend"). The same newspapers that denounced that he wasn't a lawyer will call him a lawyer when doing an article about one of his clients. I have yet to see a source saying "oh, we were wrong, he was actually a lawyer". Let's also remember that he is the owner of a legal studio, so he has lawyers working for him. He can get one of his lawyers to take the case, and then he can do all the talking. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolute rubbish you only have to look at say for example the Biggs case and Crippen Giovanni Di Stefano is on record as lawyer not whatever you call it MKenzie friend what a load of rubbish Mr Naval it is obvious you are not checking your facts and are misleading people. Di Stefani may be a bad person he may even be the most terrible man on this earth but you now wish to doubt even the press who call him lawyer, you doubt court records in high profile cases where he is on record where the Justice Minister writes to him Giovanni Di Stefano who is on record regarding his clients, its no wonder this man is suing you and all you can come up with is that the newspapers are lazy well maybe the other so called newspapers you seem to rely upon are lazy too and if I am not mistaken in the Hoogstratin case the High Court Judge Jackson recognised him as a lawyer and he got substantial costs. Please don't ruin the already tarnashing reputation of Wikipedia for your own arrogance. Thank you get it right lady  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mister Giovanni, we have spoken previously about what Judge Jackson actually said, and about how it was followed by an enquiry from the Law Society (2004), and a failed appeal in Ireland (2006). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another example of paranoia from certain editors this is 'get it right lady' female contributor.Have no idea what your private conversations, if they actually exist,with anyone but you are clearly wrong. There are others with diverse opinions. GIRL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RESTORE AGAIN A GOOD LAUGH
RESTORE A GOOD LAUGH

A GOOD LAUGH

I have never had such a good laugh as reading this entry. It is so far fetched that it just goes to show the bias that other sensible editors have spoken about and why many editors have resigned. It is not a fear of litigation it is a fear of being ridiculed and as such sensible editors just resign. Either this article is written properly and we act as an encyclopedia or it remains a comic site. How this man must be laughing all the way to the bank. He is in the newspapers, English, French, Italian, US, Brazilian even, each week, and he acts for clients and you still refer to him as a 'personality'! That is actually publicity for him because a 'personality' has a greater kudos value than just 'lawyer' which he obviously is. We are going backwards and all because of what seems reading the history of this, and other similar articles, petty jealousies or so it seems anyway. We are becoming a joke and worse unreliable and it is because of articles such as this. (the tinker). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.144.212 (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC) You have expressed it well. The whole article is a joke and undermines the guiding principles of Wikipedia. The Mediator Man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.75.113.183 (talk) I have to say that I cannot help but to agree. The article is wholly biased and totally inconsistent with the facts. This man is a practising lawyer and I find the whole saga quasi-political and potentially defamatory but worse insulting to common sense readers. We need to revise who can and cannot write articles and what should and should not be included. It is my guess that if this man came top of his class with 99% the article would probably say "he failed to attain 100%"...I think that most follow the drift. The analyst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.94.100.89 (talk)
 * um... ok :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me and others I have discussed this with the whole article violates principles of Wikipedia as it is full of comment and conjecture and little fact. No wonder we are loosing credibility with articles such as these. the analyst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.18.145 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actualy it's rather the reverse or did you miss this week's private eye?©Geni
 * fyi - haven't thought about whether it fits or not though. Privatemusings (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My golly gosh the arrogance of some of you, now even his name is spelt wrongly...oh well I suppose he can always now say "It isn't me.." and be right!!!! the analyst —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.37.18.145 (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Information about file movings etc

 * As you see, this article is now at Giovanni Di Stefano (lawyer). Its talk page had 5 archives. I found some older talk discussion which had been in Talk:Giovanni di Stefano and some time in year 2007 someone had deleted it to make way for a move; I undeleted it and moved it to this talk page's Archive 1; thus I had to add 1 to the numbers of the 5 existing archive pages, to keep them in time order. I deleted a quantity of talk pages and talk archive pages whose history consisted only of redirects :: these were the usual "litter" of unwanted redirects left behind by page moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being prepared to lend a hand here, Anthony - unfortunately I think the current (lawyer) title is probably not so good (per Enric et al above, and in the past) - perhaps if we can clearly establish the support for the (personality) title, we can find the way forward. I feel like most of this is my fault anyway for messing around with Di vs. di which caused confusion - my apologies for that. best, Privatemusings (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

GENERAL NORIEGA
http://www.corriere.it/esteri/09_settembre_19/panama_noriega_grazia_2219248c-a52f-11de-8486-00144f02aabc.shtml

This is from a reputable Italian Paper and is crystal clear about Di Stefano and another client! thanks Lady Luck80.94.100.89 (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean its clear that this man is a lawyer why we must tolerate some of these people who wish to misrepresent things is beyond me! Bones for Sale 80.94.100.89 (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Noriega also added. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OMAR BENGUIT
http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno.it/GdM_dallabasilicata_NOTIZIA_01.php?IDNotizia=333294&IDCategoria=1

From a reputable paper as well as a number of video stories from Italian TG5!!! 80.94.100.89 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

http://news.google.es/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=it&hl=it&q=giovanni+di+stefano%2Bdanilo+restivo%2Boki&ncl=dR-PorLQf-N3jjM&cf=all&scoring=d

Need I say more? Lady Luck 217.125.176.2 (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Added, even none of the protagonists of this history have an article in wikipedia. Looking at it:Caso_Elisa_Claps, it would seem that the murder was famous in Italy. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SADDAM HUSSEIN
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/saddams-defense/66c7son

From a reputable news media source.....80.94.100.89 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RICKY GERVAIS
ok, so the title of this section has no bearing on the content, but I wanted to continue the name association game of the previous few sections :-) - I just popped in to offer support for describing GdS as a 'businessman' - on balance I think it's better than 'personality' and previous discussions have detailed why 'lawyer' is, in my view, misleading and inappropriate. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Bachelors
I have removed "Apparently, this is what prompted Decca Records to release a hits package of The Bachelors that made it to the top 40 on the UK, with that package including their I Believe duet with JustCarmen." as this is comprehensively wrong.

Firstly, the "Apparently" is non-encyclopaedic. If it's someone's opinion then it should attribute the quote. Second, the references quotes were to an archived article about the "collaboration". The article is not viewable without subscription, but the reference to a "collaboration" shows an inaccuracy; a collaboration is between two or more people. The Bachelors were passive in their part of this venture, because it was simply an archive track being used as a backdrop to a new recording, so it was not a collaboration. Third, the Daily Star Article about Gary Glitter's homecoming, also cited as a source, has a footnote that incorrectly states that the "new version of their No.1 hit I Believe made the top 40 in the UK", which is not borne out in the Wikipedia The Bachelors article. It can be surmised from the mention in the same footnote that "Di Stefano had a hit single in his native Italy when he was 15." that The Star was relying on Di Stefano as a source. Fourth, the deleted section states that the Bachelors' compilation's release was by Decca, whereas the Bachelors article states that it was Universal who released this collection, following their acquisition of the Decca catalogue. Fifth, the deleted section states that the 2008 compilation included their "duet" with Just Carmen, although the Amazon track listing shows only the number one version of I Believe to be included. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MGM
Stefano claims, in this interview, to have taken over MGM. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+LAW+UNTO+HIMSELF.-a0126018770 Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC).