Talk:Peter F. Paul

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Big cleanup[edit]

This page has been usurped by a Clinton operative intent on misrepresenting various facts relating to the biography of whistle blower Peter Paul. Facts regarding Paul's incarceration in 1979, e.tg. Paul served an eight year sentence, are not accurate. He ultimately served a 5 1/2 year sentence with six months served on furlough doing intelligence work for the government. So, how long did he really serve? These facts are unknown by Uucp and should be disputed- along with most of the other negative characterizations of Paul. uucp admitted he has not done the research necessary to corroborate his statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Franklyn2 (talk • contribs) [1]

Much of the text on this page clearly came from Paul or somebody close to him, and it was *very* POV. I've cleaned it up as best I can, and I encourage others to made further passes over the material. Uucp 18:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that another anonymous account is back at work, adding praise for Paul to the page, deleting my comment above from the Talk page, and attacking Paul's apparent enemies. Peter? Is that you? Uucp 15:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UUcp is clearly a Clinton operative interfering with the posting of corrections to false statements and characterizations placed on this site. As far as a POV issue, there is no reason to place the fact that Peter Paul is a convicted felon in the first sentence of his bio. Do you see that on Armand Hammer's site or George Soros' site? They were convicted felons along with Tim Allen, Don King and Roger Clinton, yet that fact is not included in the introductions to their bios. All corrections being made to the false statements posted by UUcp are being removed and we protest that to the wikipdeia administrators!!! User:Franklyn212:08 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to get this out of the way first: Let's stick very narrowly to finding ways for improving this article. Trading accusations won't accomplish anything, except poisoning the overall climate and making constructive debate that much harder. Please assume good faith — we need everyone's help to improve this article and to make it conform to the usual standards of verifiability and neutrality, so let's not make that harder by assuming that others don't share these goals.
That said, I think Franklyn2 has a valid point regarding the lead sentence. I wasn't convinced that Tim Allen or Don King are comparable, but then I realized that it gets needlessly complicated: we probably won't find any precedent that we can all agree is comparable to PFP. However, it's still constructive to look at articles on other people who have been involved in scandals or convicted of crimes. Without trying to invite a comparison, while checking out sources from the 1980s I was reminded of Michael Milken. Have a look — I think that article does a better job of dealing with the POV issues. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article needs a lot of work. However, I think it's important that his felony status be mentioned at the top. Don King is famous for non-criminal acts, and would have his Wikipedia page had he never violated the law. The same is true of Tim Allen, and even Michael Milken (though his page would be a lot smaller). I see nothing in Peter Paul's background that would have made him notable if not for the crimes he committed in 1979 and 2000, and the scandal that resulted at the Clinton fund-raiser. His entry might be improved by reducing all the non-scandal stuff to a single sentence ("a former lawyer who acted as agent in the early 1990s for Fabio..."). Uucp 12:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Paul has been credited in news and broadcast media for a variety of credible activities long before he became a Hillary Clinton whistleblower, and long after his felony convictions in Miami in the late 1970's. His landmark civil fraud suit,Paul v Hillary R Clinton et al against the Clintons was upheld by the California Supreme Court in denying Clinton's appeal to have the suit dismissed. His FEC complaint filed in 2001 was credited with causing the FEC's finding in its reports filed on January 26, 2006, that Hillary's campaign treasurer violated FEC laws when he filed false FEC reports hiding Paul's $721,000 contribution to Hillary's Senate campaign. Paul packaged the biographies of and with Muhammad Ali, Tony Curtis and Buzz Aldrin. He was credited in Forbes, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Entertainment Tonite and Life Styles of the Rich and Famous with turning Fabio into an international Romance Icon from being an unemployed model on Romance Covers when Paul discovered him. He was profiled in teh Los Angeles Business Journal in August, 2000, featured in a cover story in the IQ magazine published by Adweek, Brandweek, Mediaweek etc in 2000. None of those, and countless other stories, referred to paul as an ex-felon or a habitual criminal. see photos, videos and commentary on links to the navigation bar on www.hillcap.org. Franklyn2 6:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Open questions[edit]

1. How long was he sentenced to jail for the 1979 crimes? Early versions of this page said 8 years, but the recent wave of sock puppets have changed it to five and a half. Uucp 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now answered elsewhere on this page, and in the article itself, with multiple citations. Uucp

2. What precisely was his involvement in the Stan Lee check-kiting scandal; was he charged with crimes there? How was the case resolved? Uucp 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul was originally charged with two co-defendants for their actions and was dismissed from the indictment in January, 2005. 24.196.167.104

3. Has he been involved in any legitimate business since the death of Stan Lee Media? Uucp 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

he had the most successful producer of English language teaching CD-Audios in South America based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. when he was detained for extradition to the US in August, 2001, while he was in direct contact with then Asst Atty General Chertoff, preparing to return to the US voluntarily, his company had sold over 4 million CD-Audios to teach Brazilians English since 1999. 24.196.167.104

4. Why did he switch his loyalties from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party? Uucp 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul had left politics after entering the Entertainment business in 1991, He packaged the autobiographies of Muhammad Ali 1989, Tony Curtis (who he managed for two years 1991-1993) and Buzz Aldrin (who he managed from 1987-1989). He created Fabio as an international Romance Icon from being an unemployed model and was credited by Forbes and the wall Street Journal as well as Larry King, for his acumen in media positioning. When he became Hillary's largest contributor it was because bill Clinton asked him to do that as part of an employment agreement they entered into for bill's post White House services as a rainmaker for Stan Lee Media and for Paul's Free English initiative to give away English fluency programs over the internet. Paul only gave money to Hillary because of his desire to build his company's with Bill's help. A business objective not a political one. 24.196.167.104

5. A discussion of how the cocaine conviction was connected to the 1979 fraud conviction -- from early versions, this page has claimed they were related. Uucp 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cocaine found in Paul's garage in October, 1998, was placed there among coffee samples by an operative in the Cuban Coffee Deal, Duane R Olson. It was left there for 30 minutes when a SWAT team came to retrieve it at Olson's direction. Paul never opened the bag. See the 22 page Magazine Article in Tropic Magazine, The Miami Herald, 1979, "The Blonde Who Talked Too Much" by John Dorschner. He pled to possession, along with conspiring to defraud the Cuban government (not a crime under the Trading with The enemy Act) to avoid a trial that would expose his activities with foreign governments and American intelligence operatives related to anti-Castro activities. His associate was Watergate Burglar and Castro assasination leader Frank Sturgis. Paul's conviction was supposed to have been overturned later, and he was promised a pardon for taking the fall. Instead, his sentence was reduced from 8 years to 5 1/2 years by Judge Norman Roetger after four agnecies requested his sentenced be reduced to time served a year later. Paul blew the whistle on then President Jimmy Carter's connection to Castro through Bert Lance, who was Carter's campaign manager and also apartner with castro in launderintg Castro's US drug money through WFC Corporation, a merchant Bank Lance secretly established in Miami. 24.196.167.104

6. Basic background -- where is he from, where did he go to school, marriages, etc. Uucp 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul's history has been recounted in various articles including "Paul Takes The Fall" By Paul Rodriguez, Insight on The News, October, 2002 (linked to the www.hillcap.org site) 24.196.167.104
I found the answer to one personal detail, in Comics Journal, May 2001. He was married three times, one of these marriages for only 60 days. Not sure where this would fit in the article, though. Uucp 11:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological formatting[edit]

The chronological formatting dates to early, very POV versions of this page. I think the story would be much easier to follow if more conventionally organized. I will get to this when I have a chance, but I invite others to take a crack at it (other than the crowd of sock puppets who have been vandalizing the page). Uucp 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking[edit]

Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge[edit]

I've removed the following passage:

"[PFP] was awarded the George Washington Honor Medal from the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge for his programs."

The reason is that I cannot find any indication that this is true. I've checked the Freedoms Foundation's website, and cannot find any mention of PFP. If anyone can find a source, please post it here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The award was presented to the California Bicentennial Commission for its programs and projects during 1987, all of which were developed, coneceived and produced by Peter Paul as program director while he was President of the california Bicentennial Foundation which raised the mopney to underwrite all of the projects of the Commission. while the award was technically presented to the Commission, it was for Peter Paul's activities with the Commission, and was therefore presented to him by Chairman of the Commission, Jane Crosby at the awards ceremony in 1988. --cybertrend 13:56, 22 July 2006 (EST)

1979 conviction[edit]

How long was PFP sentenced to jail for the 1979 crimes? Early versions of this page said 8 years, but the recent wave of sock puppets have changed it to five and a half. (originally posted by Uucp, moved here during refactoring)

I think we need to distinguish between two issues: What was the sentence? How much time did he actually spend in prison? Needless to say, we need sources for both. Information on sentencing will probably be easier to find. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources concur that he got eight years for the cocaine charge, and three years for fraud, to be served concurrently; he was paroled after three years but, after being caught violating parole, was sent back to jail. I don't know exactly how long this second stint behind bars lasted. The sock puppets used to edit this out but seem to have given up, now that sources are provided. Uucp 12:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the last round of Franklyn2 changes,[edit]

"Franklyn2" has made a number of changes, unbacked by evidence, mostly aimed at softening Paul's crimes. In many cases, the text is added before one of my researched, footnoted entries, so that it appears that my footnote applies to his/her addition as well. I think all of these should be removed, including (1) the claim that the ship in 1979 "was abandoned in Costa Rica and never sunk". TIME Magazine believed that the boat was to be sunk as part of an insurance fraud, a fact that Franklyn2 removed. (2) the claim that the cocaine came from "a coffee caper participant [leaving] a sealed bag containing cocaine in his garage" does not match Paul's guilty plea in federal court, and should be removed. He was sentenced to jail for eight years for having cocaine with the intent to distribute, not for having a messy garage. (3) The claim that he was sneaking into Canada "to meet with representatives of Contra leader Eden Pastora" is unbacked by any evidence. Might be true, but I doubt he could prove it, and does it really matter? (4) Franklyn2's citation of "The Reliable Source by Llyod Grove" August 17, 2000" is a fabrication. The "Reliable Source" column did not even run on August 17, 2000. The closest date on which it ran was August 18, and the article mentions nothing about Peter Paul. In fact, I checked all instances of the column in 2000 and neither Warren Burger's nor Peter Paul's name appears even once. This "citation" should surely be removed, and it may make sense to pull the award that he claims to be citing. Uucp 12:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italic text The citation provided below proves that the research presented by Uucp is fabricated to misrepresent the facts as they really exist. there was in fact an August 17, 2000 Reliable Source column, it did mention Reagan, Burger and Paul together.Italic text (from the sock puppets)
OK, I went back to Nexis, and found the story they are referring to. It ran under the title Jerry Springer Drops In on 'A Silly Show' and includes the following sentence:
"[Paul] faxed us, among other testimonials, a letter of commendation from Chief Justice Warren Burger for his work on the 1988 bicentennial celebration of the Constitution." Not sure what to do with this; the article already credits Paul with working on the celebration. Uucp 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklyn2 and friends have long claimed that Paul was responsible for getting "It's a Wonderful Life" shown on Russian TV, and further claimed that this was the first "American TV program" to be shown on russian television. I can find no evidence to back either of these two claims. Franklyn 2 inserted a footnote citing the Wall Street Journal, January 6, 1992. Factiva shows no mention of either Peter Paul nor "It's a Wonderful Life" on this date. I have removed the citation and the claim.

I have similarly removed the discussion of his award from Warren Burger, which can not be found in any source, and for which Franklyn2 produced a fraudulent citation of "The Reliable Source by Llyod Grove" August 17, 2000". As discussed above, the column did not even run that day, and neither Paul nor Burger were discussed in the column on any other date that year.

I have tried to keep the text in line with what has appeared in newspapers. Absent an article verifying Franklyn2's claims that Bill Clinton caused the bankrupcy of Stan Lee Media, for example, I will continue to delete his/her accusations on this point.Uucp 02:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go right ahead. Wikipedia's policy of verifiability doesn't allow us to have dubious, unsourced claims here. Eventually, every claim that doesn't have a verifiable source will be removed from the article. Meanwhile we can tolerate some of the more innocent statements that currently lack sources, but unless someone can find and cite sources for them, even those will have to go. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Mark: Uucup is intentionally misrepresenting facts stated and supported in Peter Paul's biography. The Washington Post article is found under documents at www.hillcap.org. A picture of the article, showing Paul with Ronald Reagan, can be found at www.hillarytruth.blogspot.com. The article has beeen referred to in countless other stories and can be found in the FEC General Counsel Report filed on January 26, 2006, relating to the penalties imposed on Hillary Clinton's campaign for hiding more than $721,000 of Paul's contributions. Can I reach you by email? I am not conversant in using the discussion tools on wikipedia. However, Uucup has an agenda that must be recognized and disallowed in rewriting the true biography of peter paul. To confirm what Paul did in Russia, Paul Weyrich, President of Free Congress Foundation and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation worked with Paul on the historic first American Broadcast to a Russian televison audience in history. Also see the videos posted on Google Videos to show some of Paul's activities. Please advise how I can present you with evidence demonstarting Paul's claim to fame for numerous activities reported over the years, should not allow the argument that he is only known for his felony convictions. I have known Paul for 32 years and have witnessed his villification since he became a whistleblower. Investigative journalist and editor of Insight on The News Magazine Paul Rodriguez spent $100,000 and 3 years investigating Paul and his allegations and found he never lied about anything. Paul Franklyn franklynventures@charter.net

March 14, 2006 changes[edit]

First, an introduction to those who are viewing this page for the first time. There are a couple of accounts, which may in fact represent one person and his sock puppet, which have been trying to whitewash the "Peter F. Paul" story for some time. They did, in fact, create the original page here. Their changes typically include removing any reference to criminal activity on Paul's part (he has been convicted of several crimes), removing any reference to his time in jail (he has had at least three stints in jail, one of which they referred to as a "move to California"), long rants against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and accusations that anybody who tries to clean up this page are secret agents of the Clintons. They also delete paragraphs from this "talk" page if they don't like what's being discussed.

When pressed for sources, they have historically made them up (see discussion of this above). When pressed further, they have referred to legitimate sources but mischaracterized their contents (see for example, the 1987 article in the Los Angeles Times attacking Paul, which was cited by the Sock Puppets in the last round of changes in his favor). Recently, they have also taken to posting home movies on Google Videos and citing them, which creates for exhausting fact-checking because you have to watch the whole thing to see if it bolsters what they claim. In every case that I checked, they did not. For example, a video clip of the young Will Smith at the tournament of Roses Parade was footnoted to demonstrate that "Paul arranged for the Monument to the Constitution sculpture, dedicated by President Ronald Reagan, to lead the Tournament of Roses Parade on January 1, 1990, with Will Smith riding on the front of the float." In reality, nowhere did the clip mention the "monument", nor Ronald Reagan, nor Peter Paul.

Paul was the founder and president of the American Spirit Foundation, Smith thanks the Foundation for choosing him to ride on a float carrying the monument.User: 24.196.167.104 (signing as Franklyn2 below, seemingly proving the sock puppet hypothesis)

I have tried to be generous to Paul throughout this edit. For example, the only printed source giving details on the "Cuban Coffee Caper" is a TIME Magazine article from 1979 that never mentions Paul's name. Other people are named as responsible, but never Paul. However, he claims that this is the event for which he was convicted, and I have accepted this.

Changes in This Last Big Edit (forgive me if I leave out anything, ask and I'll expand if needed)

1. removed white washing of the Cuban crimes by the sock puppets, reintroduced the notion that it was also intended as insurance fraud, as explicitly stated in TIME Magazine.

2. Removed claim that he was visiting the Contras when he was busted travelling illegally to Canada. No proof of this has ever been shown anywhere.

Information presented in court filings,USA v Paul et al, Eastern District of NY, 2001. User: 24.196.167.104 (signing as Franklyn2 below)

3. Added a citation on his claiming to have been successfully sued by Cuba

4. Removed irrelevant text in his discussion of the California Constitution job. I looked up the Los Angeles Times article that the Sock Puppets cited, and was amused to see that it was an editorial attacking Paul. Added some of their complaints against him.

5. Removed discussion of connections to Ronald Reagan unbacked by video evidence provided by the Sock Puppets.

http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=6see washington post article with quotes about paul and reagan User: 24.196.167.104 (signing as Franklyn2 below)

6. Removed text about the Stan Lee Media story unbacked by video evidence provided.

7. Removed quasi-citation "as reported in TIME Magazine"; the maximum size of SLM has not yet been shown from any source, though it shouldn't be hard to find out.

8. Removed some anti-Clinton material that doesn't belong in this article.

9. Could not find any evidence of a Robert Novak column in 2001 titled "Hillary's Donor," so I removed that citation and the facts supposedly proved by it.

Here is article.
"Hillary's Fundraiser, June 28, 2001 http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/hillary2.htm User: 24.196.167.104 (signing as Franklyn2 below)

10. Removed a long paragraph that sought to "soften" his securities fraud. The original text, citing the government's summary of the case, is easier to understand and more reputable.

11. Removed a couple of paragraphs at the end attacking Hillary Clinton. These may be appropriate on some other page, but they do not belong here.

Uucp 11:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You must investigate the 7 part series, the Fraudulent Senator on www.newmediajournal.us, to confirm many of the facts Uucp has denied and omitted. 4 journalists independently researched Paul and they have supported every fact that the Clinton sock puppet, Uucp has removed. Robert Novak's article is referenced above. The Lloyd Grove article in the Washington Post that this a**hole, Uucp, says doesnt exist can be found at http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=6, the same source as the August 15, 2000 Washington Post article that is cited by Uucp. Every criticism and omission of facts made by Uucp is a result of an intentional effort to misrepresent facts that Uucp knows or should know are bona fide. It is disgusting when the good intentions of Wikipedia to present a user created encyclopedia are kidnapped by pollitical idealogues like Uucp who have a better facility at manipulating Wikipedia than others. User:Franklyn2 22 March 2006

POV dispute, Jul 4, 2006[edit]

This page seemed to be well documented and balance in early May. Since then, it has been hijacked by partisans and amounts to a paean to his (mostly or entirely not noteworthy) business dealings, plus a long apologia for Mr. Paul's crimes, and accusations against his perceived enemies (especially Bill and Hilary Clinton). Uucp 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


POV dispute, Jul 5, 2006[edit]

I strongly object to Uucp's ongoing efforts to edit this site with his own anti-Paul, pro-Clinton POV. He now objects to sourced clarifications of mischaracterizations he has made and quoted from inaccurate sources. uucp has made making false accusations regarding the existence of Washington Post and Robert Novak artciles, and has presented speculation as fact on a regular basis.

His POV is not to be credited beyond all of the negative spins and characterizations of events that are opposite to the reports of reporters who have published stories quoted in the piece- particularly the Fraudulent Senator Series, the Insight on the News series and World Net Daily's ongoing coverage of the battle between Hillary Clinton and Peter Paul. A review of the discussion page bears out the fallacies presented by Uucp as proven regularly by this user and others. Scuzzler 17:59, 5 July 2006 (EST)

UUCP Defacing the Peter Paul send to page, July 21, 2006[edit]

uucp has repeatedly defaced the disambiguity page that directs inquiries made of Peter Paul to the Peter F Paul page. Clearly it is Uucp's agenda to villify Peter F Paul as much as possible to discredit his proven allegatiosn of Hillary Clinton campaign frauds. There is no reason to refer in the disambiguity page in a one line reference to identify the right peter Paul, to his criminal history when that is not why his is well knwn. It was not the publicity surrounding his convictions 25 years ago that thrust him into the public eye- it was his role as partner with Spider man creator Stan Lee in founding Stan Lee Media and his role as the largewst contributor to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign that made him a whistleblower causing the indictment of her finance director and the only fine against her campaign. please stop Uucp's efforts to use Wikipedia for his polirtical agenda Cybertrend 14:06, 22 July, 2006 (EST)

This article is awful[edit]

It must have been written by one of Peter Paul's lawyers. Check out how the fact that his suit against Hillary Clinton was thrown out for lack of evidence was hidden in a subordinate clause in one sentence in a paragraph full of spin!24.120.168.63 18:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion above; the page was created by Paul or a friend of his, in terrible form, was made good by editors in early May, and then polluted to the current terrible state by Paul or his friends, using a variety of sock puppets, in the months since. Uucp 18:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Among the many abuses by "cybertrend" and his sock puppets, they have been totally dishonest with sources. I spent almost countless hours in the Nexis and ABI/Inform databases tracking down sources, and scrupulously footnoted the facts in the early May version of this article. Cybertrend and his sock puppets have left my footnotes in place, but inserted information that bears no resemblance to what was in the original sources. They thereby create the illusion of a scrupulously researched article, whereas it's essentially all fabrications by the sock puppets, bearing footnotes from unrelated articles, or articles that said the opposite of what the sock puppets have now put in place.
In addition, they have put online various webpages or articles consisting of interviews with, or claims by Paul, and cited them as proof that the claims are true. Nonsense. Uucp 23:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uucp is a Clinton operative intent on Mischaracterizing the Facts Surrounding Hillary Clinton's Whistle Blower[edit]

Uucp has consistently endeavored to spin every fact about Paul in the most negative, unfactual way while protecting Hillary Clinton's misconduct from being exposed based on the public record. Paul's credibilirty has been established through an FBI affidavit that confirms Paul's allegations,the indictment and trial of Hillary's finance director for election law fraud in hiding Paul's contributions, and a secret FEC settlement by Hillary's campaign which admits that her treasurere filed false reports hiding more than $720,000 contributed by Paul. ALL the public record is linked to www.hillcap.org, including the media that explains what really happened. Uucp is clearly pushing the Clinton agenda to attack the messenger and distort the message.Wikipedia should not be hijacked by such a clear effort to rewrite history as it unfolds. As far as Hillary Clinton's dismissal from the civil fraud and coercion suit Paul brought against both Clintons and others for defrauding him and causing his company to collapse, the California Supreme Court denied the Clintons' appeal in 2004 to dismiss the case and only when Hillary belatedly asserted a first amendment right under a California law designed to protect candidates in conducting campaigns, arguing that her tort liability is different in a fraud case than her husband's liability, because it was part of her fund raising, was she able to get dismissed as a party to the case. The case was set for trial for Bill Clinton for March 27, 2007. Uucp is making every effort to dissemble and obfuscate the facts surrounding Paul's successful efforts to expose Hillary's role in the frauds that have been admitted by her treasurer in the December 19, 2005 FEC settlement.see www.hillcap.org documents page for all the corroboration.

Cybertrend 09:51, 8 August, 2006 (EST)

The simple fact is the case against Hillary was dismissed. Lawyer gibberish trying to diminish that simple fact is unnecessary here. You also try to dimininish the simple fact that David Rosen was acquited, by burying it in some stupid "While ..." clause. Your lawyer spin tricks are stupid and embarrasing. Anyone who reads this and knows that Peter F Paul or his lawyer wrote it will know why Peter F Paul is broke and reduced to hopeless lawsuits.Really Powerful people do not need to make their case on Wikipedia, which no one believes or trusts anyway!24.120.168.55 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I have time, and a few reputable wikipedia editors working with me, I'm glad to try to get this article back to something reasonable. I think it should be about a paragraph long -- Peter F. Paul was convicted of drug dealing, did some business deals when he got out of jail, was convicted again of securities fraud in connection with Stan Lee Media, and then got involved in the Hilary Clinton scandal. Uucp 12:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What "Hillary Clinton scandal"?? Her director was tried but acquitted. A civil suit against her was dismissed for lack of evidence. Her campgain was fined $35K, small potatoes. Qwhat what?24.120.168.55 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough of a story to get its own page, or much discussion on Hilary Clinton's page, but in the context of the life of Peter Paul, it's the only reason he's been in the papers since his Stan Lee Media crimes, and deserves mention. We can worry about what precisely gets said, and how it is phrased, when we tackle the rewrite. Uucp 13:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have absolutely no business rewriting anything connected with Paul. Your refusal to respond to other editors' corrections of your POV defacings of the Disambiguity page, and your bias in all adits disqualify you from any further editing of this page. You refuse to respond to logical, reasoned explanations regarding Paul's career history, prefering to parrot your mantra comparing Paul to a serial killer. You are destroying the integrity of wikipedia by your persistent bad faith actions. Cybertrend 09:19, 16 August 2006 (EST)
What the...some people actually respect this career white collar criminal? Dude, you have to be connected to Paul in some capacity. It's certainly not POV to present the facts against him, and his notable "accomplishments" are almost exclusively negative. It's his own fault, not people editing his wikipedia page. --68.149.181.145 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scuzzler and Cybertrend are the same person[edit]

and probably the same person as "Franklyn2". Not only did they both appear, pushing identical ideologies, the minute Franklyn2 and his sock puppets disappeared, with similar spelling errors, but Cybertrend just left a message on my talk page and signed it "Scuzzler"! Uucp 13:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self (and anybody else who happens to read this absurd page): reviewing the change logs, Cybertrend seems to == Scuzzler == Franklyn2 ==Whistleblower == 24.196.167.62 == 24.196.167.104, and some other anonymous IPs as well. Uucp 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Peter F. Paul/Comments.[edit]

The /Comments page is meant to be a place to give a very brief assessment of the article and how it can be improved. The comments get transcluded - just look here and see how a novella sized comment breaks things!. --kingboyk 16:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

The integrity of wikipedia's ability to ensure a fair and accurate biography of a living person is at stake in this article. There has been an ongoing battle between a Clinton acolyte, username uucup, and people interested in fairly describing the biography of Peter F. Paul, a controversial figure with a diverse life history. It is patently clear that it is uucp's agenda to portray Peter F Paul in the worst possible light in an apparent effort to attack his message of Hillary Clinton's misconduct in her dealings with Paul and the FEC. Uucp seems intent on denigrating all of Paul's life accomplishments in favor of uniquely focusing on his anti-Castro legal problems in the late 1970's and a recent guilty plea to an SEC violation which occurred in connection with his efforts to save his company from its collapse during the dot com meltdown of 2000. The facts surrounding legal issues relating to Paul are complex, and if uucp is allowed to characterize them from a layperson's perspective out of context, then it will unduly distort the story of Paul's life. uucp's comments and edits are unquestionably biased and intended to distort the facts about Paul. Unless wkipedia intervenes and prohibits uucp from defacing this article, then wikipedia will be aiding and abetting a libel intended to accomplish a political objective of the Clintons. What is uncontraverted is that Hillary Clinton induced paul to become her biggest contributor during her 2000 Senate campaign. The FBI and the Justice Department, and the FEC general counsel have corroborated that fact. Hillary Clinton vowed in the Washington Post that she would accept no money from Paul, after she accepted more than $1 million and before she demanded another $100,000. Those facts are uncontraverted as well. In the trial of her finance director, the jury found that he could not have done what he was charged with unless hifgher ups were involved. His acquittal was not an exonneration- but an indictment of his superiors. Seven months after Rosen's acquittal, Rosen's boss, Andrew Grossman, admitted in a settlement with the FEC that he knowingly filed the false FEC reports charged against Rosen which hid more than $720,000 in contributions mnade by Paul through two holding companies he owned- just as Paul alleged. It is not fair or accurate to allow uucp's explanation of these facts, which can be ascertained by consulting the FEC general counsel reports linked to www.hillcap.org, to be distorted. Paul's landmark civil fraud suit against the Clinton's was upheld by the California Supreme Court and Hillary's subsequent dismissal as a defendant- leaving Bill and his agents to go to trial in March, 2007, is under appeal and relates to her special treatment as a candidate under a California first amendment law that limits liability of candidates in their fundraising activities. What is critical to the integrity of wikipedia is that it is not hijacked by political operatives like uucp who destroy the life story of a contributing member of society for a political purpose. Paul's transgressions were and are noted, his accomplishments can not be denied. He has been referred to as a civic leader before the age of 30 in Miami where he was president of the World Trade Center and developer of a landmark building that he had reknown archited I.M.Pei design for him (while Pei's son worked for him in the project). Paul was an international lawyer representing political leaders and governments in South America before his invol;vement in anti-Castro activities, including possessing cocaine- not dealing them- ended his career.

WPBiography assessment[edit]

I was torn between assessing this at "Start" class or "Stub". If there was a class "Start over", I would've picked that.

Despite the volume of detail, or perhaps because of it and the lack of organization, this article is effectively unreadable. This may in part be due to the edit warring and ongoing NPOV dispute(s). The article and comments appear to violate a number of Wikipedia policies, among them: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:GF, WP:NPA and possibly WP:V. The guideline WP:RS also needs to be taken into account.

Areas of improvement[edit]

Text: reorganized and trimmed[edit]

The corpus of the text needs to be reorganized and in many areas trimmed substantially. Remember that Wikipedia is NOT a vehicle to convince the world of the truth. A substantial number of factual assertions in the text appear to be present for the purpose of making a POV argument. While a Wikipedia article may contain one or more POVs, from properly referenced verifiable materials, it is not a forum for convincing the reader of the correctness of a POV. Facts included for such "convincing" are better left out of the article.

While there is a lot of inter-relationship between subtopics in the text, the material needs to be teased a part as much as possible, so that each sub-topic is as fully presented as possible in as few textual units as possible. For example, the "Early career" section naturally breaks up into 5 (or maybe 6) paragraphs:

  1. Miami business activities
  2. the coffee fraud plan
  3. the cocaine arrest
  4. the legal aftermath of the fraud and arrest
  5. prison, parole violation

Although inter-reference between the paragraphs may be needed (such as, "While investigating X, Y was discovered"), there should not substantial facts on one sub-topic in the paragraph of another.

Repetitive references in all paragraphs to Paul's felony conviction[edit]

Clearly no one is paying attention to the last line of this paragraph-"there should not (be)substantial facts on one sub-topic in the paragraph of another.- becaue if they were there would not be multiple references to the same felony convictions.

more trimming[edit]

There's quite a bit of apparently irrelevant material in the article. For example, unless Paul worked with the architect I.M.Pei, or chose him for the project, there's no reason to drop his name into the article (especially since the CenTrust Tower project apparently began in 1980 and Paul's initial legal troubles appear to have occured before that.

dates[edit]

A number of significant events lack dates; the Castro/cofee plot appears to date to the late 70s but that's a guess from context.

==This comment is typical of the lazy, biased review of facts in the life of Peter Paul. The Cuban Coffee Caper was reported in Time Magazine in February, 1979. It was footnote 5 to the story.( "The Cuban coffee caper", TIME Magazine, February 12, 1979.) Like all other dates, it is not hard to find if the Clinton acolyte who keeps editing the article pursuant to his POV continues making nonsensical observations. After being advised by a neutral arbiter that the disambiguity page was not to be used to characterize the subject of the biography, only to identify him, Uucp went back and reverted that reference to a clearly prejudicial one having no relationship to the information that distinguishes one peter paul from another.

Just like when he said that there was no article in the Washington Post that was quoted in the article- which turned out to be either a negligent statement or just another effort to sabotage the truth from being presented in this complex web of biographical stories.

headings[edit]

  1. the text of headings are too long. Headings aren't the place for information, they're merely navigation markers. For example, "Founding, with Spider Man Creator Stan Lee, Stan Lee Media" should simple be "Stan Lee Media".
  2. sub-heads. Some of the material under a heading ought to broken up with sub-heads.

Wikify[edit]

There's a lot of appropriate wikilinks that ought to be in this material that are not present.

In closing[edit]

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work that's going to be used by different people for different purposes; very many people who will look at this article will only be interested in a portion of the material and won't want to wade through the whole thing to find what they neeed. For example, a Stan Lee fan might only want to read a few paragraphs releveant to Stan Lee Media. the work needs to be organized so that such material is findable, and such that such partial readers are not left with part of the story. studerby 23:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 21, 2006 cleanup[edit]

Now that we have confirmation of the sock-puppet status of Scuzzler, Cybertrend, Whistleblower, Franklyn2, etc., I have gone back and cleaned out the mess they had made of this article. I cut the length to about 1/3 of what it had been, removing all the editorialization and material from nonsense sources. I also removed material that had been inserted before real sources, but which did not really come from those sources. I updated the lawsuits section to reflect developments in 2006. I think it is probably still too long, but it's fair anyway, and as accurate as I can make it given the sources in the Nexis and ABI/Inform database.Uucp 19:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disbarred?[edit]

I was wondering if he has been disbarred. He is a convicted felon, so I'd assume he would have been in most jurisdictions, but I'm not American so I don't know. The article states that "his license to practice law was revoked" so I'm guessing he was? Just asking because he should be added to the list of disbarred lawyers if he indeed was. --68.149.181.145 17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect his license was suspended and never reinstated. Whether or not that equates to a disbarment probably depends on the laws in the states in which he was licensed. It may be a matter of semantics -- the suspension or revocation of a license is a matter of official record, while "disbarment" may be a colloquialism inadequate to capture this subtlety. Uucp 17:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UUCP and the felon comment[edit]

UUCP, I understand you are a politically motivated, and if you want to include information about Paul's felony in the article go right ahead... but please put it in the correct place. Should you continue editing this page and including the line about Paul being a felon in the '''opening line'''... I will report you for vandalism. I hope you can be upstanding about this.

The following wikipedia articles are about famous people with criminal records: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Avary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Rhys_Meyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_O'Neal

Notice, none of them mention their criminal activities in the opening line. Should you continue to follow your political inclination and vandalize this article I will be reporting you and requesting a WP:AIV and page protection.

First, your claim that I am politically motivated is wrong and insulting. Second, I am not even slightly scared by your threat to "report me for vandalism." Third, the people you listed there are primarily known for their non-criminal activities. Check out the pages for Frank Abagnale, Susanna Mildred Hill, Carroll Hubbard, Frederick Emerson Peters, John Peter Galanis, or Martin Frankel for more appropriate examples. It is perfectly appropriate on wikipedia to describe a man who has been convicted of committing felonies four times as a criminal.
I do not know why you feel the need to insult me for my honest description of this man's criminal career.
I welcome inviting in a moderator if you disagree. Uucp (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a good idea. I will approach one tomorrow to moderate this dispute. I am not even American, and care not who ::wins, but I do understand propaganda when I see it. Will to my best to make sure this is resolved through normal wikipedia channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W1z4rd (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MEDCAB[edit]

MEDCAB case underway[edit]

I have accepted the MEDCAB case regarding Peter F. Paul for mediation. Please go to the case page at this link and note your acceptance of mediation and your acceptance of me as the MEDCAB mediator. -JodyB talk 14:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Peter F. Paul/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A detailed review of the article is at Talk:Peter_F._Paul#Moved_from_Talk:Peter_F._Paul.2FComments.. There are apparently some major NPOV/edit warring issues. --kingboyk 16:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Just got confirmation that the other side of the edit war (cybertrend/scuzzler/whistleblower/franklyn2/etc.) were sockpuppets, as suspected. I have edited the article back to something less heinous. Would appreciate impartial review before Paul unleashes his next round of sock puppets.Uucp 19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 02:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Peter F. Paul. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_F._Paul&oldid=1208891840"