Talk:Jacqueline Pascarl

Selective deletion
I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 04:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The entire edit history of this article has now been wiped, not just the libel bits? --Commking 03:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you must have looked at the history of this talk page, rather than the history of the article. The article history is intact, with only three edits removed. Snottygobble 03:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, thanks. --Commking 03:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
Does this article still require cleanup? Looks ok to me? --Commking 01:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag is removed.. --Commking 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the general references sought tag at th head of the article. References have been added.  Some specific facts need citations to support.  Any other facts, editors are unhappy with should be tagged with fact.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Post Abduction
She has another daughter, born 2001 (Father: Iain Gillespie) I read in the paper she had this baby to a married man, who went back to his wife in the eigth month of the pregnancy, but this comment says it was actually Iain Gillespie? Where did this come from? --Commking 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Wao Lin" Affair
Just a note, someone called wao lin is continually adding incorrective data to this entry regarding the paternity of Jacqueline Pascarl's youngest child. The daughter is question is the legally recognised daughter of her husband, Bill Crocaris. Verity is not the child of Pascarl's former husband, Iain Gillespie. I have amended this continuous assertion due to the legally provable nature of it's wrongness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4kids (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 May 2006  (UTC+10 hours) I know the family very well and these wrong assertions are terribly distressing to the small child involved as it is coming up in public discussion. Please be responsible and do not base your wikipedia comments on gossip garnered from ill researched magazine and newspaper gossip items. Just because you heard it, doesn't make it true and correct. REal people are involved and small children too!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4kids (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 May 2006  (UTC+10 hours)


 * First of all my user name is Lao Wai. That oughtn't be too hard to remember?  Second, I am not adding any information regarding the paternity of Pascarl's daughter. I do not know.  I do not care.  She may be the legally recognised daughter of Mr Crocaris, but what is the evidence she is his biological daughter?  The article should not make it sound as if Ms Pascarl was cheating on her then husband.  Her marriage broke up in 2000.  She had a daughter in 2001.  She remarried in 2002.  I have no idea what you mean by "legally provable nature of it's wrongness" but if you have proof bring it forward.  I do not care if you know the family well.  You cannot make changes based on some anonymous editor's claim to know people well.  In fact if you know them so well should you be editing?  She is all of five years old.  Somehow I don't think that taking a neutral stand on her paternity is going to be upseting.  Nor do I think that Ms Pascarl is such a public figure people are going to read her entry on Wikipedia all that often.  The fact is the only person adding poorly researched gossip is you.  I am taking a completely neutral issue on the girl's paternity.  She was born in 2001.  After one marriage broke up but before another was formalised.  There is nothing else to add to that.  Lao Wai 08:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the information is wrong, feel free to contribute with the facts. Dates of births, marriages and divorces and not unreasonable for a public figure. --Commking 11:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The edits by 144.133.93.78 have now reached a point where they can be considered vandalism. This article needs to be watched closely to preserve it's integrity. --Commking 14:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After another edit by 144.133.93.78, I have corrected the article once again AND THIS TIME PROVIDED REFERENCES. Find a better reference or leave it alone please. --Commking 07:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite these references, Mr. Anonymous 144.133.93.78 blanked it out again. My advice to this person is to register and explain himself, or find himself unable to do any further editing. (and his edits have been reverted again, of course) --Commking 08:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * various comments all from the same IP, finally blanked —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.93.78 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 May 2006  (UTC+10 hours)


 * Currently there is a reference for the paternity comments, comments she says are untue. I have written to Ms. Pascarl advising her put up some sort of Home Page/Talk Page to act as further reference. --Commking 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There never were any such references. Lao Wai 08:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The references have been blanked out again - but check the history. The references are local newspapers --Commking 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Pascarl objects to two references - the references to a businessman which have nothing to do with me, and my neutral stand on her daughter's paternity. Both have been blanked out.  I do not care about the businessman and that seemed a little too much like gossip anyway.  But on what basis can we make a statement about her daughter's paternity?  What I did was change it so that it was neutral on the issue and that is the way I think it ought to be until we have proof of paternity.  Are you sure you're getting e-mail from Ms Pascarl? Lao Wai 10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's two references which state that Verity was not Crocaris's child and so far no references have been provided which state otherwise. In fact, there's currently very little of the article contained in the references.  Since this is a biography of a living person, special care has to be taken to only include that which we can provide a source for.  I'll wait a while to see if any further references turn up (I haven't been able to find much of anything online), otherwise, we really need to gut the article to what we can support. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to finish this off, I have changed the biography section to be closed to NPOV. --Commking 07:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC


 * Well, I'm getting email from someone claiming to be Ms. Pascarl - I have no reason to believe it isn't and I'm happy to assume that it is in good faith. Certainly the only persons who could/would object to this would be connected to the family somehow anyway. Ms. Pascarl is currently considering her options and may well provide further references. I'm also questiong whether we really need to know who the biological father is anyway - Verity is firmly now a part of the Crocaris family, and even if there is in fact some scumbag businessman who did the dirty on her in the past, who cares? This is Wikipedia, not That's Life magazine. We don't need it. --Commking 00:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely, the only reason to mention any of the children's fathers is in reference to the abduction. However, that doesn't resolve the problem with most of the article being completely unreferenced.  Anything we cannot provide a source for needs to go.  I also fail to see the use of a section on her current husband? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the info here is in Pascarl-Gillespie's book. I've added that as a reference. Husband Bill is only mentioned because he was her spokesperson during the recent interest when Shah visited. Thus he gets only a minor mention at the bottom - he was public, he was on TV, so he's there. --Commking 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I have removed the section on Verity's paternity. It's just plain gossip and does not contribute to the article. --Commking 03:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating that media report has published that a Sydney businessman fathered Verity is completely factual. This is different to claiming "Verity IS the daughter of a Sydney businessman". Speculation on the girl's paternity and reporting what the media has actually said are two entirely different things.


 * At best, It's gossip - tabloid gutter trash - not really suitable for an encyclopedia. This isn't Womans Day magazine. Without references or citations, as is the case here, it's potentially libel. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on the matter - it's not allowed. Check it out here: biographies of living persons. No question. --Commking 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. And just about every piece of information on this has been based on media, public and other published reports. The fact that Jacqueline's first two children got kidnapped was based on media reports. Her former status as a Malaysian princess was also a media report. The names of her current and former husbands are most likely from newspaper and/or magazine reports. Can I see non-media citations for those? Or should we go dig up her birth and marriage certificates to make sure there's a "credible" reference here? Or why don't we just ban media reports as citations on Wikipedia altogether? Due to one person's incredible distrust of the media, I can now see that all media reports are totally fictional (as a side note, Verity's paternity was actually published in several major newspapers in Australia trusted for their credibility, not 'Womens Day' as you speculate). I understand if you want to be chivalrous and potentially protect Verity from sensitive information - for all this back and fourth talk she is a real child who is likely to be reading this in the future - but stop shoving reasonably reliable piece of information in the gutter and attack the media or the editors.


 * I don't think you do. The onus is clearly on you, as per Wikipedia policy, to provide references. As these comments you wish to add are negative, and the article is about a living person, different rules apply - See Biography of Living Persons policy reference at the top of this page. They are potentially libel according to Wikipedia policy. You will notice, if you check, that no Australian newspaper that I can find has the comments you claim on their website. If they were there, they have obviously retracted them. After the claim appeared in the papers, Ms. Pascarl-Gillespie strenously denied what you are claiming, and the articles then disappeared.


 * Many things in this article can be, and are, verified with references and citiations. Your claim regarding Ms. Pascarl-Gillespie's daughter isn't, and so as per policy is not allowed. Show us the references! --Commking 00:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Thoughout the article, the actions by Raja Bahrin are described as "abduction" and "kidnapping". That strikes me as a partisan characterization of the events (about which I have no factual knowledge, having only heard of any parties involved via a question on WP:CITE). These characterizations seem to be those by Ms. Pascarl-Gillespie, but I presume Mr. Bahrin would characterize matters differently (moreover, the legal frameworks of the different countries are likely different on custody issues). A more neutral phrasing is desirable; or if these phrases are used, perhaps they can be used with attribution. LotLE × talk 19:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, the guy took the children illegally to Malaysia in defiance of Australian law, his ex-wife's wishes, and a decision of a court of law. What else can you call the illegal removal of children?  I do not have much time for Ms Pascarl or her dramatics but surely there is no other way to describe what happened?  It does not matter what Mr Bahrin thought he was doing.  What he did was kidnap his two children. Lao Wai 20:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What does Malaysian law say on the question? Apparently (from the article itself), the Malaysian court awarded custody to Mr. Bahrin subsequent to the transport of the children out of Australia. In an international encyclopedia, we shouldn't simply choose a jurisdiction to advance a specific interpretation.  Moreover, even the "defiance of Australian law" seems to rely on an interpretation of law rather than a specific judicial ruling; the article itself simply states that the Australian court recognized the initial custody agreement; not, for example, that Mr. Bahrin was tried in abstentia for kidnapping.  Perhaps a more neutral phrase might be something like "...transported the children to Malaysia in apparent violation of Aussie law.[1]"  With a citation that supports that specific fact of violation of Aussie law.


 * As I say, I've know anything whatsoever about any of the events for a couple hours total, and my knowledge relies only on this article. But I know that prominent custody disputes never have only one side to them; I'm almost certain Mr. Bahrin would characterize his actions as something other than an abduction (and quite likely, so would the Malaysian press).  LotLE × talk  20:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to cut in the middle here, but Malaysian law is irrelevant to the question at hand. The crime was committed against three Australian nationals in Australia.  You cannot say that 9-11 was an apprent terrorist act on the grounds that it may or may not have been a crime in Afghanistan.  The Malaysian Court made no judgement on the kidnapping - and the guy is a Prince anyway and so above the law - only on custody.  And it did that, as you point out, subsequent to the abduction.  It is simple.  The Prince illegally took two children from Australia to Malaysia.  What a Court in another country did or did not do subsequent to that is irrelevant.  An intepretation of the law?  The law is clear and it does not need a judicial decision to make it clear.  Again no one has been convicted for flying planes into the WTC but that does not mean murder was not committed.  The Prince is a Prince.  There are good reasons for him not being tried although I would like to see what happened if he steped foot in Australia again.  Weasel words, especially associated with criminal acts, ought to be avoided I think.  I am sure that Mr Bahrin would choose other words.  In my recollection he side-stepped the whole issue saying that Ms Pascarl converted to Christianity and so he had to "protect" his children.  Lao Wai 07:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that in any terms removing children from their mother without their mother's knowledge or agreement is not OK, no matter what for most English speaking readers. There are some people who find all sorts of barbarous things legal and acceptable (eg FGM, just to think of something I and others find outrageous, no other connection with FGM and this case is intended).
 * The article also states "Bahrin signed over custody of their two children, an arrangement which was later ratified by the Federal Family Court of Australia." Having signed over custody, to remove the children form their mother without discussion is characterised as ...? I would stand by the use of the words abduction and kidnapping.  Family disputes can be messy and this one is.
 * The reference given (footnote number three currently) is from an Australian senate committee. It uses the word "abducted".  It doesn't qualify the defiance of Australian law with the word "apparent".  Paragraph 9.42 talks about Malaysian law and the measures the father had put in place to make his actions lawful in Malaysia - probably useful to put some of that material in the article.  Paragraph 9.45 notes "this case illustrated how different legal systems can give different verdicts in custody cases and the importance of The Hague Convention to enable return of children to their normal place of residence. It further illustrates the [Australian] Government's inability to intervene in private legal disputes and where dual nationality is involved"
 * It could be really useful if some Malaysian editors contributed.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am currently researching for a mjaor update to this article. Expect a lot of content soon. But in the meantime, consider this: An accomplice, Bryan Walter Wickham pleaded Guilty to Criminal Abduction. He was convicted under Section 70 A of the Family Law Act and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. A crime was actually committed. --Commking 22:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like information worth including in the article.


 * But we should still present any information in an NPOV way. It looks like some editors have some personal opinions on the custody issue of the article; I do not, having never heard of it before today.  But I definitely would not be inclined to agree with what AYArktos suggests that: "removing children from their mother without their mother's knowledge or agreement is not OK, no matter what for most English speaking readers".  I am aware of any number of custody disputes among non-celebrities where a mother does not necessarily get custody, even where a prior agreement existed to such effect. In many or most such cases, I would be inclined to defer to courts on such matters... the folks of my personal acquaintance, however, have not usually had complex international jurisdictional issues.  Still, even between US states (I live in the USA), jurisdictional conflicts arise: If Massachusetts says the dad should have custody and Texas says the mom should have custody, it is not self-evident which court is "correct" here (and this sort of thing comes up all the time in the USA; jusisdictions wind up favoring their own residents in disputes, despite their professed neutrality).


 * Indeed, as presented in the article, I would be inclined to sympathize with Ms. Pascarl-Gillespie more than with Mr. Bahrin... but it also seems fairly apparent that the article directly and indirectly reflects Ms. Pascarl-Gillespie's efforts to advance her position over that of Mr. Bahrin. LotLE × talk  02:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, even between US states (I live in the USA), jurisdictional conflicts arise: If Massachusetts says the dad should have custody and Texas says the mom should have custody, it is not self-evident which court is "correct" here (and this sort of thing comes up all the time in the USA; These sort of things don't come up in Australian family law - The family court is a a court run at he Federal level, not the state level. We don't have an issue with jusisdiction as they simply don't overlap - each countries law applies only within it's borders. As the decisions of both countries courts have been mentioned in the article, I can't see any NPOV issue here?


 * The POV issue is exactly what I mention at the top of this talk page section. It's not NPOV to describe the removal of the children as "abduction" or "kidnapping" if one jurisdiction says one party has custody and another says the other party does.  I wasn't claiming anything about Australian states and federal authority, but cleary Oz and Malaysia are different jurisdictions.  I apologize if my US analogy/example was misleading: I just was observing that even sub-national jurisdictions can differ, so these questions aren't always entirely clear; but if the analogy is bad, just ignore it.  LotLE × talk  04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like information worth including in the article. Sure - but not without a reference. I've got some really juicy material that I just can't use, corrupt officials, DFAT and Navy shenanigans.. - I got this from Ms. Pascarl, but it seems I don't have a reference/citation that satisfies Wikipedia's requirements.. --Commking 04:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That raises suspicion in my mind about the info. Definitely read through WP:RS several times in considering the source.  It's hard to imagine a source that is more partisan about this specific question (except, I would presume, the father who would be equally partisan).  LotLE × talk  04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the article called Jacqueline Pascarl-Gillespie is all about her, after all. It's not about the abduction. If properly referenced, her point of view is worth stating there, don't you think? --Commking 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, of course. When I read it again, I left the kidnapping remark, since it seems to be clear that it is an expression of Ms. Pascarl-Gillespie's opinion.  But I changed the language in the lead to more carefully indicate who is making a statement.  The difference here is between (1) "The children were abducted" and (2) "According to Pascarl-Gillespie, her children were abducted".  The first probably can't be supported in an NPOV way, at least not with what we have so far (an actual criminal conviction would probably warrant the flat description).  The second is fine, as long as we cite it.


 * I actually don't even think it matters too much if he perspective of Mr. Bahrin is presented specifically, per se, since the topic is Pacarl-Gillespie, not the custody/abduction. Her "state of mind" and public advocacy of a particular position is presumably what's notable in this article... it's just a matter of making it clear that that is what we are describing, not the underlying facts that may be disputed.


 * I seem to get myself in trouble with analogies, but let me try one unrelated to the custody/abduction thing. Just because Pascarl-Gillespie is an actor, I have that in mind.  If we were to write that "Nathan Lane is the most versatile actor working on the Broadway stage" that would be distinctly POV, and no-go.  I make no judgement about Lane's acting quality, but an opinion isn't neutral, it's not a question of true or false.  On the other hand, if we were to write "According to stage critic Foo Bar, 'Nathan Lane is the most versatile actor working on the Broadway stage'", that would be perfectly NPOV (as long as it was properly cited).  Moreover, it wouldn't be necessary to find some counterbalancing quote that said "Flaz Blam claim Lane is a poor actor"... it's not a matter of counter-balancing every statement, just of attributing the source of each opinion clearly.  LotLE × talk  05:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It turns out that anything Jacqueline Pascarl-Gillespie says can't be added here, as it can't be cited or referenced. If it appears in print, or on the web, that's fine. But any interview that can't be referenced cannot appear on Wikipedia, so the gods have decided. This means I can't add all the stuff I wanted to, which is a pity. As Jacqueline Pascarl-Gillespie is still writing a book, and has contractual issues, she can't put up such material on the net anyhow. So all my work is for naught. So be it.. you can check out that discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Verbal:_Referenced_from_the_Source.3F --Commking 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * another reason why original research isn't allowed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research --Commking 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand a thing :\ sorry Remaz ahmed nage (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jacqueline Pascarl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060919151417/http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20261325-661,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20261325-661,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

dont understand
I swear I don't understand a thing from this channel or what ever it is....I just herd it's something very close to vocaloids.And that's all.....when will we start making those cool videos and stuff :[

Plz any one just explain...... Remaz ahmed nage (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacqueline Pascarl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929020557/http://www.jacquelinepascarl.com.au/ to http://www.jacquelinepascarl.com.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)