Talk:Pearlasia Gamboa/Archive 1

Multiple issues
Links outside were made, especially re Melchizedek. Links from other articles were made. Lead reduced to 3 par.s General cleanup tag is vague, but lead was reorganized per MOS in conpliance with article body. So I am removing issues tag, but please indicate specific additional problems here if any still exist that I did not see or correct. More current RS information after 2009 would be helpful. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest rephrasing the image captions to short phrases/sentences. Also please follow proper citation format, it makes validating the information posted easier. Moray An Par (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will get on it tomorrow morning. What does "proper citation format" mean? 71.121.31.183 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For example
 * should be
 * This would be displayed as
 * Notice the difference between 1 and 2. There are many other citation templates that Wikipedia uses. I just used this one as an example since most of your references are court litigations. Here is a complete list (WP:Citation templates). Moray An Par (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will read about WP:Citation templates and try to pick the most relevant one, and use it consistently here, which will be a good WP editing learning experience, but might take a couple of days (and I will do the same in other unrelated articles I have contributed much to). I came back to fix the "image captions" prblem, but noticed that it had already been taken care of by another editor. I checked associated articles and they are mostly all cleaned up, but I will recehck and clean them myself if I find anything. On considering comments of other editors, I now agree with others, and I think the only relevant articles that should have (only a few sentences of ) content are listed under the article hat, and Filipino American should not mention her at all (unless someone else wants to put her name there as a warning. In my own opinion, "warning" is not in any way a role for an encyclopdia like WP, so I will not insert it there. But I would not object to another editor putting it in there. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will read about WP:Citation templates and try to pick the most relevant one, and use it consistently here, which will be a good WP editing learning experience, but might take a couple of days (and I will do the same in other unrelated articles I have contributed much to). I came back to fix the "image captions" prblem, but noticed that it had already been taken care of by another editor. I checked associated articles and they are mostly all cleaned up, but I will recehck and clean them myself if I find anything. On considering comments of other editors, I now agree with others, and I think the only relevant articles that should have (only a few sentences of ) content are listed under the article hat, and Filipino American should not mention her at all (unless someone else wants to put her name there as a warning. In my own opinion, "warning" is not in any way a role for an encyclopdia like WP, so I will not insert it there. But I would not object to another editor putting it in there. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Article title
What is her real name? Sorry I'm too unfamiliar/lazy to research it myself. Given that she uses lots of it, I suppose that using her real name as a title would be best. Moray An Par (talk) 03:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to federal court filings, Pearlasia Gamboa is her current legal name in the US. She has different "real" or "legal" names in different countries, has changed her legal name several times in the United States, and comibines her various "legal" names to form numerous permutations, also that her ficitious business names are all "similar" but "legal", even if the activities they perform are not. According to these court filings, and the newspaper sources spanning the years, the use of multiple aliases, multiple similarly named fictitious business names (all using the same profit and loss statements), the presentation of a facade of religion and wealth, and humanitarian donation in Philippines, is how she has been able to operate in the open for 20 years. There is nonRS speculation on websites claiming she and her husband work with Philippine intelligence agencies, and thus stay out of prison. But in August 2010, the feds put him in prison, and got a federal order against her to stop all the aliasing, and reimburse the victims, but it was a civil judgment. There is argumentation implying she is about to have criminal charges filed against her, now that the judgment against her ordering her to stop was obtained, and she ignored it and continued her same activities. I don't know if you have access to the court records and transcripts online, but they are physically located in San Francisco (and in Florida, but I have not seen those). 71.121.31.183 (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
To be honest, the entire article sounds like an attack page. The overuse of scare quotes, the way this has been liberally copy-pasted into several articles, quotes, slanted adjectives, excessive detail, and questionable image captions (See WP:MUG) is very inappropriate. Please see WP:BLP and WP:SCANDAL. While the article needs to be wikified, it also suffers from excessive recursive wikification. Links that all lead to this page (which I think is virtually half the wikilinks in it, currently). I would fix it, but I'd be more liable to delete everything in it.  Obsidi ♠ n Soul  05:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also strongly recommend that the original author revert all his additions to other tangentially related articles about this.  Obsidi ♠ n Soul  05:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another editor removed attack aspects of image captions. Multiple circular redirects and overlinking here was cleaned up. Tangentially related article content (e.g., Beverly Hills) was reverted. Centrally related articles were reverted or highly shortened to one or two sentences so as to be specifically relevant to those articles. Article was wikified. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article still needs major reworking per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Please Read them both carefully, in their entirety. Every article on Wikipedia should be neutral, sourced, encyclopedic overviews. This is pretty close to an attack piece. Fix it or axe it until you have time to. Ocaasi c 22:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The article wording was drastically changed after the POV tag was placed, and media characterizations collected into a section, and pulled from the lead. Washinton Post and other newspapers using such quotes as they do indicates something extraordinary. I noticed you also did some edits. What do you suggest to do with the media reports? There are some things about her doing humanitarian donations on numerous ocaissions that I had in a writeup before doing the first edit, which would at first seem to add balance, but they all ended up being tied to being part of another fraud scheme later to emerge related to the new area of operation where the humanitarian donations were made. There is much more on how the frauds decimated particular lives of impoverished individuals in Bangladeash and Philippines, where she pretended to do microfinaincing for the Church, then used the bits and pieces from these rural poor people to buy the biggest house in Beverly Hills, but these were was not included. There are also a bunch of alleagations about violence, but not by state officials, so not included. Do you have specific suggestions beyond what you already did? Have you checked the sources? 71.121.31.183 (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent changes have improved the tone, which was the major problem. An article should not be structured to suggest Wikipedia agrees with the characterization of a person, even an evil one (see Hitler).  Technically, all notable aspects of Gamboa's life should be represented, not only those connected to 'proving she's a con-artist or criminal'.  If you have any notable info, include it, and give it whatever context is necessary and accurate.  I have not yet waded into sources.  Ocaasi c 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead has been rewritten in a neutral tone. It appears the same has already been done in the article body. Does anyone object to removing the neutrality tag? 64.134.233.35 (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are the diffs since the POV tagging. It appears the article has been cleaned up, especially when User:Collect knocked out almost the entire over-the-top lead. WPSilence for two weeks since since tag removal notice by User:64.134.233.35 indicates total WP:Silence consensus. Wikification by a number of named editors appears to have satisfied User:Obsidiansoul's request when the tag was put up, and he wrote that he will not be back here out of lack of interest in another comment. I checked the sources, and the article neutrally reflects their content. (Even more neutrally than wording in most of the news articles.) But does anyone know the rules on removing a POV tag put in by another editor? 68.65.169.174 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need permission. Out of courtesy to community members, let two whole weeks pass after above notice before removal, since not every editor logs on every day. (I thought this article was a hoax from reading the other boards on this topic, until I read the references here. Very strange stuff.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.72.58 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since no objections, its done. 64.134.232.211 (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Worldwide activities section
Responding to a comment on another talk page that the worldwide activities section does not merit a section of its own, as it is just a single comment, the section has now started to be expanded to detail the activities in each area of the world. It is proposed that ultimately the activities be either arranged in chronological order, by topic of activity, or by region. Because of the complexity of the "labyrinth", chronological order is likely best. Editors may help by checking the source and adding dates. The alias section will similarly be expanded by usage and chronological or other order of use of the alias. 71.121.31.183 (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

shipwreck of a biography
Right now the lede is a full-fledged catalogue of every accusation and crime possibly attributable to a person. See WP:LEDE for what a lede ought to be. Wikipedia is also not a listing of every misdeed and crime attributable to a person. The article for this presumably despicable person could be mightily trimmed, to say the least. Collect (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lede trimmed, references linked, and reworded for neutrality per your edit summary. 98.234.235.21 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Fantasy Island: The Strange Tale of Alleged Fraudster Pearlasia Gamboa
Fantasy Island: The Strange Tale of Alleged Fraudster Pearlasia Gamboa By Peter Jamison published: July 06, 2011

http://www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/2549339/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.239.108 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If ever a case exists where IAR applies, this is it.
[Link redacted] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.239.108 (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As this is off-wiki there is nothing we can do. However some admins are now watching this page in case any new drama emerges. Manning (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Physical threats for editing at Wikipedia is more than "drama". Why did you delete the links to discussions about this Wiki article taking place outside of Wiki. Why should only admins have this info, and which admins? PPdd (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Accurate information about Gamboa
In 1996, state prosecutors obtained a civil default judgment against Gamboa barring her from operating BankAsia AG in California. If noone objects, I will change the article so it is correct! All of the allegations against Gamboa are civil except the "arrest warrant" in the Phiippines and we don't know if the person that put that case up didn't just make up a case number as there is no link to a substantiated source for this. Nicolai Dolgov (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolai Dolgov (talk • contribs) 03:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the source of your assertion "In 1996, state prosecutors obtained a civil default judgment against Gamboa barring her from operating BankAsia AG in California"? Information not in some reliable source cannot be added. The change can only be made with more a more reliable source than the ones already used, which include Sacramento Bee, SF Weekly, etc. What is the case number where the original information would be supporting your assertion? 64.134.229.49 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Gamboa's Children
It is unfair to the children of the subject of the article to be included in such a notorious scandal which is no fault of their own - especially a minor! It seems a blatant violation of Wikipedia rules. I have changed the details in the Personal section to reference only that Gamboa is the mother of 3 children, and her marital status is unknown.Nicolai Dolgov (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The identifications seemed to rely on WP:SYNTHESIS of sources; the relationship was never directly stated in some of the sources previously offered. A wedding announcement doesn't cut the cake as far as the notion that her children are worth a mention here. If reliable coverage exists directly stating the relationship, that might change things. The number of children isn't jumping out at me in reliable coverage, either. Stating her marital status is unknown is meaningless. They should go. The father-in-law "world's greatest con man" quote is missing from the source and is misleading generally (reporter published a book; it wasn't in the WSJ). See here for a searchable version. I'll be removing the section. JFHJr (㊟) 03:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "the root of all of the evil unleashed on David was grounded in the book 'The Fountain Pen Conspiracy' which falsely labeled David as the "world's greatest con man."'' ??? 24.130.156.204 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not a reliable source. Try finding one not associated with the subject, or cite to a page in the book itself for verification. I tried looking in the book and didn't find anything matching that claim. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That source is less than not reliable. Also not reliable, but from the website of a former congressional aid - "Chief among these criminals was Dr. Clifford Noe. (That’s right, Dr. No.) Noe was finally busted in 1972. Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny described this organization in his book The Fountain Pen Conspiracy. In that book, Kwitny called David Pedley ”the world’s greatest con man”. Someone needs to find a hard copy source or alternative search engine or this can't go in. 24.130.156.204 (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Their Dominion of Melchizedek Bible has the same quote in it. Content can go in as "according to their Dominion of Melchizedek Bible, David Korem's father was called the 'world's greatest con man' in The Fountain Pen Conspiracy, a 1972 book on fraud crimes by Wall Street Journal reporter Jonathan Kwitny. 64.134.225.197 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article review
I'm working through the article, from the body up to the lead, to (a) tie statements to reliable sources and (b) remove some of the more random attack parts (the bulk of the article was discussing her husband, which is better done by brief mention and wikilink to the article on RoM). So, for a few days, the article structure may be a little odd. Bromley86 (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

✅ Bromley86 (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)