Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-19 Peter F. Paul

What's going on?
The page is about an american criminal named Peter Paul. W1z4rd objects to his being called a felon in the opening line of the article (though he does not seem to dispute that the man is a felon, or that his felonies are the only notable thing about him). W1z4rd's arguments seem to be primarily ad hominem (that editor UUCP is politically motivated to include these words, something editor UUCP denies, though frankly it probably doesn't matter even if he were, given the fact that Peter Paul is noteworthy only as a criminal anyway).

It may be worth noting that this page was originally created by a team of sock puppets as a hagiography to Paul, and that an edit war was fought over its content before the sock puppets were defeated. See this version for an example of the page as the sockpuppets would have had it. Editor UUCP does not accuse editor W1Z4rd of being one of the sock puppets, but given the page's history, it seems worth pointing out that his efforts are essentially similar to theirs, to downplay Paul's criminal past.

What would you like to change about that?
The words "convicted felon" should be kept in the first sentence.

Mediator notes
Assuming their are no objections, I will take this case for mediation. -JodyBtalk 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Case is opened. -JodyBtalk 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This case is closed due to a lack of participation by W1z4rd who has not edited the Wikipedia in almost 90 days and has not responded to a request to continue. JodyBtalk 13:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Case is open; notification of parties is underway. -JodyBtalk 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed JodyBtalk 13:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminder
A reminder has been left for User:W1z4rd to rejoin the discussion. The editor shows no contributions since January 21, 2008 in any namespace. -JodyBtalk 14:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Acceptance of mediation
Each party should note acceptance of mediation and acceptance of the mediator below. Please watchlist this page as all discussions will occur here.
 * 1) No objection from me. Uucp (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Or from me


 * Very good, thank you both. For clarity, please give us a two or three sentence opening statement below. I know that you've done this on the talk page of the article, but it will give us a very clear, concise place to begin our discussions. - JodyBtalk 14:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement by UUCP
W1z4rd would have you believe that Peter Paul was a noteworthy businessperson, and should be described as such. However, this is untrue. None of his previous business activities would have qualified him for a wikipedia page at all. In a previous discussion of this sort with Paul's sockpuppets, I ran a Lexis/Nexis search for Paul -- see how he was described in every case:


 * New York Sun, July 13: "A former Internet executive who bankrolled the event, Peter Paul, had three convictions at the time and later pleaded guilty to securities fraud." NO OTHER DESCRIPTION
 * New York Sun, June 14, "former Internet entrepreneur and four-time felon" NO OTHER DESCRIPTION
 * New York Sun, April 10, "former Internet entrepreneur. . . who has four felony convictions" NO OTHER DESCRIPTION.
 * Investor's Business Daily, April 7, "three-time convicted felon Peter Paul" NO OTHER DESCRIPTION
 * St. Louis Daily Record (and syndicated to two other papers) March 11, "Peter Paul who, unbeknownst to the Clinton campaign, was a ne'er-do-well who had been convicted years earlier on drug charges." NO OTHER DESCRIPTION

Conclusion: impartial, third party, reputable print sources invariably describe Paul as a criminal in their opening lines. Why should we do differently?

W1z4rd compares Paul to various businesspeople and celebrities who have committed crimes, and points out that they are not primarily described as criminals on Wikipedia. This is true but irrelevant. Peter Paul is not like Tim Allen; he is more like Frank Abagnale, John Peter Galanis, or Martin Frankel. Peter Paul was not a notable business person. In the hundreds of articles about him that I have read, he is called a businessperson only when (a) describing himself, or (b) in the run-up to his defrauding of Stan Lee Media.

The man is a drug-dealing securities fraudster who has gotten himself into the newspapers making accusations about Hillary Clinton that were thrown out of court. Let's call him a felon and be done with it. Uucp (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening statement by W1z4rd
After looking at the wikipedia articles for Theodore Kaczynski, Al Capone and Robert Downey Jr (amongst others) I could not find the words, "and a convicted felon" in any of the opening sentences. Why now for this article? Am I allowed to go and edit those other articles to include those words? The whole page on wikipedia seems dedicated to his criminal activities. I accept he committed criminal activities, but to have those words in his opening line seems over the top. He is more than just a "convicted felon". Would it be possible to see a list of people who have "is a convicted felon" in the opening line of their wikipedia article?

PS. Sorry about the length of this... I am South African, the guy seems to be someone I wouldnt let my dog bite, but still my point stands.

Suggestions and clarification
We agree that his felony conviction is well documented so there is no WP:BLP issue herein.

In its present state, Paul is described as a felon which is the conflict. Is there any problem with the last sentence reads: " In 2000, he became central to a campaign fund-raising scandal involving Senator Hillary Clinton?"
 * I am not sure I understand the question. Paul hosted a multi-million-dollar party to raise money for Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign, using money that he had defrauded from Merrill Lynch. Clinton's campaign manager underreported the value of the party and was asked to pay a fine. All of this is copiously well footnoted in the article. I suppose one could take issue with the word "scandal," as nobody in the Clinton campaign was ever convicted of a crime, and I suspect nobody would remember the incident if not for the various lawsuits that Paul filed afterwards, and his various efforts at publicizing them. I don't think any of these is germane to the issue under debate here, which is whether or not it is appropriate to describe Paul as a criminal in the opening sentence of the article.Uucp (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I'm just looking for common ground here in the opening. If that sentence is not questioned and is acceptable, then we can move onto the central discussion. I think the sentence is acceptable to all but I don't want to assume anything. Just want to make sure we agree that he is a criminal/felon whether we use it in the opening or not. -JodyBtalk 12:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * David Rosen was convicted by the Federal Election Commission for filing a false report according to the US Department of Justice Website US Department of Justice Statement about David Rosen's conviction for work with Hillary Clinton Senate Committee It is me i think (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That article is about indictment and says nothing about conviction at all. Uucp (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and make the assumption that there is no controversy over the sentence referenced above.

Now, does anyone assert that the use of the phrase "convicted felon" is against any wikipedia policy? If so, state here in a timely fashion. -JodyBtalk 16:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)