# Talk:Charles Keating

The fact that Keating was an Olympic-class swimmer in his youth should be mentioned somewher in all of this.  [15:22, August 19, 2004 Rlquall]

Agreed. Ellsworth [15:20, September 13, 2004]
Done. AxelBoldt 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I dropped this from the article:

News Release by the U.S. Department of Justice on Keating's guilty plea
This link is broken. Ellsworth 15:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please do not remove broken links. Most everything is still available from the Internet Archive. AxelBoldt 22:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: the linke removed by Ellsworth and re-instated by you gets you a "404 Page Not Found" error when you click on it.
I've been using the WWW since it's public debut in 1994 (I also have one of the oldest, continuous Yahoo! Webmail accounts) and I've never heard of the "Internet Archive."
I'm glad someone's doing this, but I question as to whether US (and other nation's) copyright laws do not limit what this "Internet Archive" can, in fact, store.
After all, I just saw Rush the week before last, I can't take the pictures my friend took with his camera phone and post them on a website or publish them in a book or magazine without Rush's permission.
I didn't see an exemption in Federal law--or an international convention--to allow the "Internet Archive" to do its work, though I admit I didn't have time to read the entire article.
PainMan 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed this comment from the main text:
":Add the civil suits and judgements against him." 69.22.126.20 12:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just curious, but was Keating ever disbarred? Given his convictions it wouldn't surprise me if he was, but the article never says it so I'm not sure.  If he was disbarred, even temporarilly, he should be added to Category:Disbarred American lawyers (that cat includes lawyers who were disbarred but later reinstated). Dugwiki 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Conviction of a felony is automatic grounds for disbarment in every state (though, of course, there maybe exceptions; after all Utah allows convicts to vote in prison!).  My guess would be that Keating probably either surrendered his law license voluntarily or didn't fight the disbarment procedures.
I'm not sure of the relevance of this because his legal troubles didn't stem from his work as a lawyer, it stemmed from schnookering old people into diverting their savings from insured-accounts to uninsured investments.
One thing I've never understood is why none of the tellers or salespeople, those who did the actual, face-to-face defrauding, were ever prosecuted.  After all, drug mules are prosecuted just as the so-called "kingpins" are.  (And far more often, in fact!  Especially in New York under it's draconian "Rockefeller" laws that hand-down savage sentence for possessing relatively small amounts of dope.  But I digress...).
PainMan 17:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything on this.  But since he left law practice in 1972, and left Ohio (the state where he was eligible to practice) in 1976, he might have been deemed inactive as a lawyer and thus not worth disbarring, or something like that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This article, imo, is a poster child for bad wikipedia articles.
It uses no in-text citations, in fact, no references at all.  There is only a list of a few web-links at the end of the article.  
I submit that this article is not up to wikipedia standards and needs a massive rewrite.  
The key problem, to reiterate, is the total lack of both citations and sourcing.
However, the article is also unbalanced.
The introductory sentence:

Charles Humphrey Keating Jr. (born 4 December 1923 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is an American felon convicted of fraud in the savings and loan scandal of 1989.
is hardly neutral.
It should read something more like this: 
164-69-505::Charles Keating Jr....is an American lawyer, politician and financier.  He was at the center of one of the largest Savings_and_loan failures in American history.
The editor writes that:
Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage.
However, the editors does not explain how Keating took advantage of deregulation nor even what it was.  He (the editor, that is) also fails to link to any source (whether another wikipedia article or outside) that would give readers further information on this.  Non-Americans and those too-young to remember the S&L problems are left uninformed.

 "But by the early 1980s, the lending industry used its political clout to push back against government regulation. In 1980, Congress adopted the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest-rate caps and made sub-prime lending more feasible for lenders. The S&Ls balked at constraints on their ability to compete with conventional banks engaged in commercial lending. They got Congress -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- to change the rules, allowing S&Ls to begin a decade-long orgy of real estate speculation, mismanagement, and fraud. The poster child for this era was Charles Keating, who used his political connections and donations to turn a small Arizona S&L into a major real estate speculator, snaring five Senators (the so-called "Keating Five," including John McCain) into his web of corruption."
The editor also fails to inform that the vast majority of S&L failures resulted from outright theft--which ran the gamut of everything from company officers literally transfering money from depositors to their own accounts to other, more sophisticated schemes involving shell corporations.
Also, by calling Sen. John McCain his "good friend" without any citation suggests that the editor's goal is more to smear Sen. McCain than anything.
The statement that the so-called "Keating Five" took $300,000" from Keating fails to mention that these were political contributions, either directly to the politicians in question or to their PACs.
The mention of Alan Greenspan is irrelevant in the way it is presented in the article.  This article is about Charles Keating and not about the Savings_and_loan debacle in general. Greenspan has never been charged with any crime let alone one relating to Lincoln Savings.  To my knowledge he has never been named as a defendant in any of the civil litigation surrounding Lincoln's collapse.

You're mentioned Hillary Clinton as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in Whitewater. Greenspan's role, judged by your criterion, is extremely relevant. 
Greenspan had a remarkable pre-history in the mid-1980s as a de-facto lobbyist for Charles Keating, the crooked financier responsible for the biggest fraud in the history of the S & L industry. Greenspan was then a consultant and in that capacity helped enlist the so-called Keating Five – the five top politicians most heavily implicated in helping the Keating scam (they were all senators – Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain and Donald W. Riegle, Jr.).
There is also an error of fact.  Many of the depositors who lost their money did so because Keating had his employees convince them to buy investments rather than open Federally-insured (FDIC) savings/checking accounts.  This is why he was charged with, and ultimately pled guilty to, fraud.
There is no mention of the shakiness of the government's case as evidences by the decision of California prosecutors not to retry Keating on state charges and Federal prosecutor's agreeing to a plea deal with Keating in order to avoid a retrial they might have lost.  US Attorneys are not noted for quailing before defendants especially a target as juicy as Keating (nailing a guy like Keating could easily help a US Attorney get elected to Congress or the Senate or even governor of a state).
The section head:

Lincoln Savings, Keating Five
Is misleading.  The article is about Keating, not the five Senators who made up the so-called "Keating Five."
The editor also leaves out the fact that congresspersons meet with regulators (i.e. Executive branch officials) on behalf of constituents as a matter of routine.  It maybe to help a large business or to help an individual with an issue with Social Security or one of the other federal behemoths.
The issue in question with regard to the so-called "Keating Five" was whether Keating's campaign/PAC donations unduly influenced said Senators.  None of them was ever charged with a crime, sued civilly or named as an unindicted co-conspiracy (as Hillary Clinton was during the White Water trials).
---In short: this article is a complete mess and I believe that the original editors needs to completely rewrite it or it should be removed.
PainMan 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right: references should be added; I pieced most of this together from various newspaper articles at a time when detailed in-line references were not yet fashionable in Wikipedia. As to the criticisms above:

Details about causes of S&L failings are complex and best explained in its own article.
Keating Five were never charged with a crime or sued, this is correct. The article does not claim they were; however it correctly points out that they were reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee. The Keating Five are clearly relevant in an article about Keating.
Greenspan was never charged with a crime, this is correct; the article doesn't claim he was. However he was hired by Keating and delivered a favorable report about his S&L; this is relevant.
Article correctly states that state prosecutors dropped the case rather than push for a retrial and that federal prosecutors agreed to the plea bargain rather than go for the retrial.
The article correctly states what he was charged with: duping his customers into buying worthless American Corp junk bonds.
Keating plead guilty to bankruptcy fraud, not to defrauding his customers.
AxelBoldt 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The article states that the reason that the state did not go for retrial on Keating is the reluctance of the witnesses to come forward after accepting their own sentences.  I don't think they'res any proof of that.  Without some documentation to that effect, I don't think anyone can conjecture as to what the outcome of a fair trial would have been.  That is, the courts ruled that he didn't get a fair trial on the most egregious charges.  The article  states that Keating duped his customers into buying junk bonds.  He was not convicted of that.  He pled guilty to wire and bankruptcy fraud.

   Securities Fraud convicted of 17 counts 4-Dec-1991, overturned 3-Apr-1996
   Conspiracy convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned
   Fraud convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned 2-Dec-1996
   Racketeering convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned
   Transporting Stolen Property convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned
   Wire Fraud pled guilty 6-Apr-1999
   Fraud (bankruptcy fraud) pled guilty 6-Apr-1999

The article states that Keatings convictions were overturned on technicalities.  I don't think that's an impartial judgement either.  The "technicality" in all the cases was that he didn't get a fair trial.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.209.198 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 

He pleaded guilty to federal convictions, see http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/1360195 November 5, 1998, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, CHARLES H. KEATING, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, v. ROBERT HOOD; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. "the activities of Charles Keating, whose corporations, American Continental Corporation and Lincoln Savings & Loan, bilked elderly individuals out of millions of dollars of savings by selling them worthless savings bonds. Keating was prosecuted in both federal and state court, and sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment, to be served concurrently. He ultimately spent five years in prison. His federal and state trials were both marred, however, by errors which led our court to reverse his federal conviction and a federal district court to grant his state habeas petition. Following these actions, Keating was released from prison prior to the completion of his prison sentences. At the time, only six months remained before he would have become eligible for parole on his state sentence. Keating subsequently pleaded guilty to the federal charges and, pursuant to a plea agreement, was sentenced to time served."
He doesn't sound like an honest businessman to me, indeed it's mildly embarrassing that I share the surname and might easily be a distant relation. I don't think you need to infer conspiracy on the basis of some unfavourable comments. 
I agree that the article could use some improvements, especially references. Go for it! Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Today 6 Oct 2008 I received an email from David Plouffe, chairman of the Obama campaign advising that they had set up a site www.keatingeconomics.com,part of which reads 
"During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion. 
Sound familiar? 
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain."
This is political campaigning, so fo course it is biased towards their viewpoint.
However, when I came to Wikipedia to check on Charles Keating, I found that over thae past week numerous edits had been made by three ip addresses, under the titles of "Legal Consequences" and "Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later".
I highly suspect that these entries are vandalism by people supportive of the Obama campaign, and that it is quite possible that this is a coordinated effort by members of the Obama campaign, to have Wikipedia's record "support" keatingeconomics.com
Brian Cartwright    [16:05, October 6, 2008 Blcartwright]

Unsourced material has been removed per WP:BLP rules. Collect (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


#### Verification information for RTC Properties Purchased by the Keating descendants
Brian,
In response to your suspicious nature which has lead you to consider vandalism of the Wiki I submit that the information posted regarding the manner in which the Keating children and at least one grandchild profited from purchasing RTC owned real property IS VERIFIABLE through the process of having a title search performed in Maricopa County Arizona for the property addresses listed in my original revisions between October 1st and October 3rd 2008.  Those two property addresses (5124 North 31st Place no. 525 AND 5122 North 31st Way no. 231 - Phoenix Arizona 85016 ) are at least 2 properties purchased by Dr & Mrs Hall and Mr.Gary Hall Jr. who at the time was aged 18.  
For simplification of your verification search, the Maricopa County Tax Assessor number of the condo purchased from the RTC by Gary Hall Jr. is 164-69-485 and the Maricopa County Tax Assessor number of the condo purchased from the RTC by Dr. Gary Hall & his wife Mary Hall is 164-69-505. 
<ref>http://maricopa.gov/Assessor/</ref> for these public records.
Sincerely,
Arizona Biltmore (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I appreciate that...I came to Wikipedia for background information, and became suspicious that in the days leading up to the release of the campaign email edits had been made which made Keating and his family look "worse". I did not wish to undo anything, but rather call attention to it so that I can have my confidence restored.  [03:56, October 10, 2008 12.165.223.10]

As there is already a substantial article on Keating Five which duplicates way too much stuff here, it is proper to present a summary of that article here. Mich of the material is, in fact, not related o the biography of Charles Keating, which is what this article is for. Collect (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's fair to go into some detail about the subject here, since by and large it's the only thing Charles Keating is known for. Proper context in the lead is also substantiated and shouldn't be removed either. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you stalking my every edit? If so, please stop. Where an entire article is written on a subject, it is against WP policy to copy it entirely in another article. You are dead wrong. Collect (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You'll notice I was working on this article long before you got here. Removing information to conform to your political viewpoint violates WP:NPOV and it will not be tolerated. If you violate WP:3RR on this article you will be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually I have no POV in this -- I just like to have all statements referenced, and avoiding having material not relevant to an article being in it when another article exists. Simple. I think we could get along a lot better if you just accept this as how I view all those pages of stuff I read before doing editing. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
CC has now reverted a GRAMMATICAL fix to boot. Amazing. I had no idea grammar was POV.  Next time you assert {OV, write the detailed reasoning here. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
OK -- I removed the double use of "financial" in para 1. I removed 2em dashes which are against style manual. I removed "Cindy McCain" reference whichis not in the cite you give. I re-added the fact that others also bought property, as you seem to think the Keating family is somehow wrong to have done so. All of this is NPOV. And readding Cindy McCain would go against the requirements that your cites correspond with your claims. Find another cite and put it anywhere but in your list of the Keating Five as she does not belong in that list. Thanks! Collect (talk) 04:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend that you suspend edits to this article and seek a third opinion. Alternatively, you can begin the dispute resolution process. If you make another revert to this article you will be blocked from editing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My sole aim is to make a good article. Try AGF.  As for the NYT cite -- try finding Cindy McCain in it. It still isn;t.  As for saying you woill block me -- blocking a person for grammar corrections is what? Thank! Collect (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There was a "main article" link to Keating Five in the "Failure of Saving & Loan, the Keating Five" section.  As the main editor on the Keating Five article, I can say that article does not include a lot of detail on Keating's role in the failure of Lincolns Savings or ACC, or on his subsequent legal consequences, but instead focuses on the relationships between Keating and the five senators and the subsequent Senate Ethics Committee findings.  Thus this "main" link was inappropriate, and I've removed it.  Wasted Time R (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to remove any unsourced material here. The article had been in bad shape for a while. Collect (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing people need to realize is that the story of Keating, the growth and failure of Lincoln, ACC, and Keating as an emblem of the savings and loan scandal is much bigger than the story of the Keating Five.  If you read Binstein and Bowden's Trust Me: Charles Keating and the Missing Billions, for example, you'll see that the Keating Five episode takes up only a few pages.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. But somehow "Cindy McCain" kept getting inserted in here ... Collect (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sentences which have the same phrase repeated within them are grammatically poorly constructed. Collect (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can show any illegality in his family's transactions, then make a solid case. Else, admit that the family did nothing improper, and acted just like other purchasers of property. Frankly, I suspect none of the bit about his family belongs here.  Collect (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually with absoolutely no cite given, the section goes. You need solid cites to insert stuff in a WP article. Collect (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Keating relatives are important to the over-all topic-subject.  Who is this guy named Charles Keating & who are his heirs & associates?  Financial Terrorists?  I would venture a guess that those who lost their entire retirement savings due to Keatings' activities would likely call him that & his associates and relatives are relevant information.  
I dont need to show "illegality" or even "legality" of the subjects activities & associations to state clear & relevant information as I have in posting section 4.2 titled:   Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate .  The facts are verifiable and public, so instead of whitewashing this entry - go do a title search in Maricopa County, Phoenix Arizona for the addresses posted and Assessor Parcel Numbers - you'll find the information there recorded officially by the municipal authorities.  I'm not editorializing upon the merits of the Keating Family be them sketchy or pious, so dont expect me to characterize who OTHERWISE made profits but only those of the Keating family.  
Your suspicions are doubtful.
Arizona Biltmore (talk)  [01:50, October 16, 2008]
So far, AB, you have no REFERENCES -- which means that the section CAN NOT remain under WP standards. Thanks. Collect (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
AGAIN no real reference for the whole Keating Family stuff. Find them, and it can stay. In a BLP, unsourced stuff does not belong. Thank you. Collect (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Arizona Biltmore, the "Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later" section that you were repeatedly trying to add, is not permitted by WP rules.  It relies on your interpretation of a primary source (Maricopa County Recorders' Office documents) and constitutes your original research.  If the Arizona Republic looks at the same documents and writes a story to the same effect as what you wrote, then we can use it.  That may be frustrating, but that's how it works.  See WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Blogs are not considered WP:RS.  2. He is not directly connected to Keating, nor to any subtopic related to Keating. As such WP:COATRACK also applies.  3. This section is entirely not relevant to the life of Charles Keating.  Collect (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree.  If it is reliably sourced that Joe the Plumber is related to Charles Keating, that's eminently suitable for inclusion here, as it's highly significant.  A blog source isn't reliable, but if a mainstream media source is found I would support inclusion. ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
So far, no reliable source.  Lots of blogs including the usual predictable sites (the ones who pushes Trig as Palin's grandson <g>).  Collect (talk)
I think it's been established that Robert Wurzelbacher and Samuel Joseph "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher are no relation, but I can't find a definitive source.  Talk:Joe the Plumber already has four archives (!) and I'm not going to wade through all of them.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Apparently one of the original "sources" for this notion was the "Martin Eisenstadt" hoax.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has no information on Mr. Keating's current occupation or location.  I don't know them either, but if anyone does they would be useful additions to the article.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, he is retired.  At 85, I think this is a non-brainer.  Collect (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-brainer, eh?  My late maternal grandfather worked a forty-hour week until he was 86 and lost his sight due to macular degeneration.  I remind you of WP:CIVIL, as it's a legitimate question.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As of early 2006, he was still active per the Cincinnati Enquirer article: "He's developing real estate again in Phoenix. Quietly. Successfully."  I haven't seen anything since then to say otherwise, although I could have missed it.  I've added this to the article and taken 'retired' out of the lead.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added further text and cites that show him still active as of this year.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Current campaign contributions by people who are not linked directly to Charles Keating are irrelevant to this BLP. That are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as presented. If you want to make statements directly connected to CK, that is one thing. Statements which are not directly connected do not belong here as a BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they work for a firm where he is still a named partner makes it relevant, and having read OR and SYNTH, I dispute your application of them to the edit I made.  I note that in the past you've been accused of pro-Republican POV bias.  I don't know you well enough to have an firm opinion in that regard, but reversions such as this lean toward making the allegation credible.  -- Davidkevin (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
He is retired. The people there have absolutely no connection with him. As for his name being on a business, it is like saying Ford Motor Company is anti-semitic because Henry Ford was. Sorry -- it does not relate to a BLP. The connection of the contributors is specifically OR and SYNTH. Collect (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Collect on this one.  The OpenSecrets story says that Keating appears to be uninvolved in the firm, and that only $1K of the $50K comes from a Keating relative.  The rest is just from a bunch of law partners and their families in politically conservative Cincinnati-area Ohio, and they were supporting Romney originally, not McCain.  If the Keating, Muething, and Klekamp article survives, this item would be relevant for it, but it's not right for the Keating bio.  Indeed, Keating and McCain's friendship ended in a bad falling out in March 1987, in the midst of the FHLBB investigation of Keating, and as of 2002 at least they hadn't seen or spoken to one another since.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also note this from a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter:  Keating hasn't been connected to KMK for a very long time, and the OpenSecrets/Center for Responsive Politics person who first posted the story did so because it was "interesting political trivia."  Finally, regarding Keating, Muething, and Klekamp, since you (Davidkevin) created it, you should know that besides being wrong about where it's located (Cincinnati, not Arizona), you need to do a lot more with the article if you want it to survive.  Look at Rose Law Firm or Bracewell & Giuliani as possible examples.  I added an infobox just so people would get some idea of who they were, but I haven't looked into it enough to know whether they satisfy the WP grounds for law firm notability.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up ... I have now substantially expanded the Keating Muething & Klekamp article.  I have included the McCain campaign contributions in it, within the context of that law firm's strong connections with establishment Republican Party figures.  Charles Keating left KMK in 1972, so whatever they are doing now belong there in that article, not here in this article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If Charles KEating is not involved, then it does not belong in a BLP. Simple. Collect (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Any source for a claim that he used corporation money for city council contributions?  The Chicago Tribune does not make the claim, nor did I find it substantiated in any quick look around.  Use of corporation money is illegal in many places -- it is illegal in Arizona? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[copied here from user talk space]
[...] I think a few more of the Binstein cites need replacing as well (looked like the article was relying almost entirely on one source). Collect (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If the equivalent information can be found elsewhere, okay.  I've done so for the athletic section, for example.  But the Binstein/Bowden book is the most detailed look at the whole life of Keating, and is reasonably even-handed, so I don't mind relying on it when it's the best choice.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Where good other cites can be found, I would suggest the apparent reliance on one book can be reduced -- that does not mean removing material, only improving cites.  Collect (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

From User:71.114.29.228:

In 1973, Keating donated $75,000 for the AAU Outdoor Nationals to have an electronic timing system. At the end of these Nationals, he authorized this timing system to be transferred to Royer Pool at Indiana University where his son, breaststroker Charles III, was enrolled as a Freshman in the School of Business.
Might be true but was uncited, something to do research on.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems actually to verge on SYN at best even if citable as to donation of a timing system. It woukld also require a cite for the normal procedures of the AAU about equipment no longer needed by it.  Collect (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I've done some web searching but haven't found anything about this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Collect, just because a newspaper story isn't free online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source (think of all the books, for example, that are used as sources).  For your benefit, here is the relevant section of the LAT story:

Politics comes naturally for Keating, who ran his brother's congressional election campaigns. He has helped bankroll a range of politicians, from Texas' now-bankrupt former Gov. John B. Connally when he ran for President to Phoenix city council members whose votes are crucial to American Continental's development plans.
There have been heavy contributions for senators like DeConcini, who shares Keating's social values. "If he sees somebody working hard for America and the Judeo-Christian ethic, he tends to support the guy," Robert Maynes, DeConcini's press secretary, said. "And his means of support is financial."
Keating caused quite a stir here in 1983, when his companies contributed unusually large amounts to local city council races-much to the disgust of people like Ed Korrick, a former councilman who has just retired. "The guy is someone who likes to buy power, and he's willing to spread his money around," said Korrick, a stockbroker in suburban Scottsdale.
This, combined with the Chicago Trib story that is free online, supports the text I added in the article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer a more available source for the claim -- it is currently a felony in AZ to use corporate money for elections, hence this might be construed improperly. Note the LATimes seems not to ascribe the contributions to Keating personally -- only his companies. I would prefer we not add this bit of minutia which adds very little to the BLP at all. LATimes also does not directly connect the city council to approving anything -- which means the Trib's reference to zoning laws is probably apt. "Keating's companies, according to the LA Times, made 'unuusually large' campaign contibutions to local city council members in 1983. The Chicago Tribune stated that these council members were in charge of zoning laws." appears supportable. Combining the two hits WP:SYN, alas, and we must avopid any implication of a criminal act without a strong basis in a BLP. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was meant to imply a criminal act here and I will revise the text to clarify that.  The campaign financing laws were all very different then, both with respect to bundling donations from companies and with respect to how they were given to candidates.  As for available sources, WP:V says "the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."  The highest-ranked of these are frequently not available free online.  Look at, say, FA article Tourette syndrome, almost all of the sources are books or journal articles that are not freely available.  As for importance, this relates to how Keating interacted with politicians, and is a precursor to the Keating Five material to come.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
As a follow-up re company contributions, see the Chicago Trib article for how it worked: "In their turn, the employees were expected to be generous with their salaries and contribute to Keating's causes. Politicians would "visit," and the next day a stack of checks would be forwarded. The Los Angeles Times found that Sen. McCain of Arizona received 51 donations from Keating family members and employees all on the same day."  This was legal then.  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
"Trust Me" may not be a totally reliable source as far as reasoning for the contributions is concerned as it is specificaly a rather anti-Keating work.  I think the fact of the contributions is fact, while imputing any reasoning is likely to be a BLP issue -- especially with the addition of implying that water rules were part of the reason for the contirbutions. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree strongly that Trust Me is an "anti-Keating" work.  It's a "Keating" work, in the sense that it tries to explore all aspects of Keating's life, work, and character, and to get inside his mind and figure out what makes him tick.  Readers will have different reactions to Keating, based on how they view what Keating was doing, but Binstein and Bowden don't force such views on the readers.  Hell, Keating is one of the people the book is dedicated to: "For Charlie Keating. He played by the rules as he knew them. And he played damned hard."  Regarding the contributions, you're trying to deny a linkage that Keating himself readily acknowledged.  He was always upfront that his contributions were intended to get him influence, witness his famous "I certainly hope so" quote about the Keating Five.  Which is true of every business, union, and other organization that donates to politicians; they're all hoping their money gets them results.  It's the way things work in America.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
All donations are for "influence" - the question is whether the link specifically to water is within proper BLP limits since it is clearly not a "fact" but rather an "implication."   I am not asking that the facts about the contributions be removed, just that the implication that it was ted to a specific issue be removed since there is no reliable source linking it directly as the reason.  This is a BLP and we should be careful about doing such. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The text in Trust Me is: "What Charlie Keating wants is water for his developments, which he is convinced will work only if built around lakes. In water-short Arizona, this is a red flag to many local citizens (and to other developers), and Keating is constantly fighting to stave off city council votes that might outlaw his ponds. Charlie Keating is not one to take a chance when he can protect himself by making a friend."  That seems like a direct link to me.  But it's important to understand that this text in the article is not intended as an implication of wrongdoing, but as a juxtaposition of interest that three different reliable sources (Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Binstein and Bowden) all make.  It is standard in writing about politics to say what interests a big political contributor has with the part of government their contributee is in or is trying to get elected to.  Again, there's no implication that Keating did anything illegal (he didn't) or unethical (the text doesn't get into what the city council actually did following the contributions, which from my reading gets into a complicated story that's too long a digression for this article to deal with, so the article takes no position on the ethics of the city council).  What's important is that Keating didn't wait around for government officials to do something to him, he tried to take action to get the result he favored, and he did that action in a bigger way than anyone had done before in that area.  That's part of Keating's character and thus should be part of the portrayal of him in this biography.  Maybe you should quote me the part of WP:BLP that you think this material conflicts with, because I'm honestly not seeing it.   Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
And that text makes clear that it is an inference only - making use of it as a fact iffy in a BLP which must deal with facts and not inferences drawn by an author of a biography.  And it is only the inference which is not directly connected to a fact which I feel ought be removed.   If you have a paper saying "He made the contributions in order to influence water decisions" please give it ... so far I have not found one.   Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
These are two facts which three reliable sources found important and meaningful to associate together and which, following them, we can too, not saying anything more than the sources do.  You still need to quote me the part of WP:BLP that says we cannot reproduce the associations that reliable sources make.  I can, however, quote part of WP:BLP: "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."  That's all we're doing here, documenting what these sources say.  Furthermore, Keating would not dislike this text!  He was very upfront about how the political world works.    Wasted Time R (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) The sole source furnished for the "water" bit is "Trust Me" which does not make the direct charge.  If you can find the direct link in the Trib or the like, please post it, but the "Trust Me" cite as you reported it does not support the current wording.   Or report it as an allegation sourced as an opinion of the author.  Or give the quote as made in the source. But AFAICT, the source you proffer does not exactly support the claim - which is a legit BLP matter. "In water-short Arizona, this is a red flag to many local citizens (and to other developers), and Keating is constantly fighting to stave off city council votes that might outlaw his ponds. Charlie Keating is not one to take a chance when he can protect himself by making a friend" is substantively different from "In 1983, Keating and his companies made legal but unusually large campaign donations in races for the Phoenix City Council, who were responsible for approving his building projects[14][8] including water usage for residential developments built around artificial ponds."  Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The text in this article is:

"In 1983, Keating and his companies made legal but unusually large campaign donations in races for the Phoenix City Council, who were responsible for approving his building projects[14][8] including water usage for residential developments built around artificial ponds.[57] The scale of donations represented a change from past practice in local Phoenix politics; some council figures opposed the trend, while others readily asked for the funds.[14][8]"
[14] says:

Another favorite Keating charity was politicians. He passed out money nationally and to the members of the Phoenix City Council, the same ones who would vote on zoning laws that would affect his housing projects and shopping centers. "We didn't have large contributions prior to Charlie," says Edward Korrick, a former Phoenix city councilman. "Contributions were relatively small and council people didn't spend very much on elections. He raised the ante. It was a way of making himself important. But the contributions had a kicker to them." "Did Charlie just pass out money?" asks ACC executive Terry Wilson. "No, they asked for it. Every one of them."
[8] says (elided parts not applicable to Phoenix can be seen above in first time I reproduced this):

Politics comes naturally for Keating ... He has helped bankroll a range of politicians ... to Phoenix city council members whose votes are crucial to American Continental's development plans. ... Keating caused quite a stir here in 1983, when his companies contributed unusually large amounts to local city council races-much to the disgust of people like Ed Korrick, a former councilman who has just retired. "The guy is someone who likes to buy power, and he's willing to spread his money around," said Korrick, a stockbroker in suburban Scottsdale.
[57] says (I'll add some more to what I gave previously): 

"In 1983, he [Keating] and his associates pump $80,000 into the Phoenix city council races and the election for mayor. This infusion dwarfs all the other contributions, and when the local newspapers question him on tossing so much money into the campaigns, he expresses amazement at the very question and says he is puzzled that other people don't make investments of the same size in the local democracy. What Charlie Keating wants is water for his developments, which he is convinced will work only if built around lakes. In water-short Arizona, this is a red flag to many local citizens (and to other developers), and Keating is constantly fighting to stave off city council votes that might outlaw his ponds. Charlie Keating is not one to take a chance when he can protect himself by making a friend. In the state's attorney general race he gives $50,000 to one candidate, even though the man is running unopposed and raises total contributions from all sources (including Charlie Keating) of $53,000.[Footnote here, which says:] In 1988, Keating, in an interview with Bowden, said his oversize contribution in the state's attorney general race was an honest mistake because he did not realize just how cheaply one could buy Arizona politicians. He explained that back in Ohio you had to kick in fifty grand for a county sheriff.[end footnote]"
If I were really interested in making Keating look bad, I would have included that bit in the footnote.  I didn't.  But what I have written, is fully supported by these sources.  In particular, the [57] source fully supports the whole sentence it is attached to, not just the clause it is attached to, which I think may have been your objection.   Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the last one links to the water claim. And it reads like a person with an editorial opinion is being quoted.   And feel free to add it in as a quote of a person -- just not as "fact."   Opinions should always be cited as opinions IMHO. Collect (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
There's no requirement to double-cite everything in a BLP.  Indeed, when articles like this go to GAN or FAC, they are sometimes criticized for being too heavily footnoted.  The local debate over water usage is presented in this source as a plain fact, not as an opinion.  And it shouldn't come as a surprise, since water usage debates are quite common in the Southwest.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
If it is common, then it is not notable for a BLP. Otherwise, you should stick to the precise claims made by your single source (the other sources do not make the explicit connection asserted).   No "double cite" is proffered, nor does the single cite actually back the claim. Collect (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I had a whole response to this, which I've scratched.  This discussion has become hopelessly dysfunctional, so in the spirit of WP:NODRAMA let's give it a rest for a few days.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles Keating/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
I made various copy-edits for style, clarification and grammar.
Marriage and family, early legal and business career: In 1960, Lindner and Keating created American Financial Corporation, a holding company of these disparate businesses that create further subsidiaries and financial instruments, all doing business with each other To which companies is the phrase these disparate businesses referring?
Now clarified to indicate that these were Lindner's existing businesses.
Anti-pornography crusading: n 1956, Keating joined a priest leading a group of Catholic men in Cincinnati  ... Do we have a name for the priest?
From what I remember, the source doesn't give a name; it wasn't anyone of particular note.
American Financial Corporation: While formally an outside lawyer, ... Plesae rephrase in clear English.
Modified, see next response.
Keating left his law practice in 1972 and explicitly joined American Financial Corporation,  ...' explicitly?
Keating went from being a lawyer for an outside law firm but with a very tight relationship with AFC, to actually working for AFC.  I've tweaked the wording to try and make this clearer.
Lincoln Savings and the Keating Five: In 1984, American Continental Corporation bought Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Orphan sentence.
Merged into the next paragraph.
... and getting President Ronald Reagan to make a recess appointment of a Keating ally to the FHLBB. Do we have a name for the ally, it seems mysterious to not mention the name.
Name has now been added.
... the new head was more sympathetic to Keating and took no near-term action. Can you explain "near-term action"?
I've modified this text, and added text to the following section, to give a much more specific description of what happened on the regulatory front after the FHLBB person in charge change.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All check out here
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Can we find no PD or CC licensed photos, eg prison mug shot?  Not essential for GA, just a comment?
I've looked several times, have never found a usable image.  Keating was camera-shy, and most of the photos on the web of him are wire service ones from his early 1990s trials that WP can't use.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just a few items above to be addressed. On hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with the improvements that have been made, thanks for your hard work.  I am passing this as a good article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review.  Responses are above.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

[1] is used as a source in this BLP.  The source is editorial in nature, specifically  about A rejected genre: Those kitschy and cautionary starchy industrial and educational films provide an illuminating peek at the past 75 years of American culture.
It is not a RS source for biographical claims about a living person - it is only a reliable source for the opinions of the author about films.   

A short film like "Perversion for Profit" is a case in point. Made in 1961 with the financial help of Charles Keating (the same man convicted in the savings-and-loan scandals of the 1980s), this shrill and sometimes comical diatribe about the perils of obscene magazines works at several levels for today's viewer. At first, the cornball gravitas of a bespectacled newsman shouting alarmist narration creates a kind of ironic distance. The cynical viewer can easily titter at lines such as, "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit." But as the parade of girlie magazine covers, men's physique pictorials and campy S&M leaflets continues, the film betrays a kind of prurience the filmmakers could hardly have intended. What results is a remarkable visual record of midcentury underground literature and sexual appetites, and a gloss on the values of the society that condemned them. 
Is quite clearly opinion expressed as opinion, and is not suitable for being quoted or cited as "fact" in a BLP.  The only facts in the column are quotes from the person who collected the films - but the claims about the specific film are clearly simple opinion and must be treated as such. Collect (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First, Keating is no longer an L.  Second, that "This moral decay weakens our resistance to the onslaught of the Communist masters of deceit" is a line from the film is a fact, as sourced by this article.  Third, you are saying that the articles about biographical subjects can include no critical opinions about works they produced?  That articles about film producers, directors, actors, musicians, etc. cannot include opinions that reviewers and analysts have made about their works?  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And instead of constantly reverting, what would really be helpful is if you could find some critical opinion about the film at the time (good bad or indifferent), so we aren't dependent upon one source.  I went through some online newspaper archives this evening, and found a couple of notice-type items that it would be shown at libraries or meetings, but nothing more.  Maybe some books capture its reception.  It's the second-most viewed movie of all those on the Internet Archive, so it's definitely worth a bit of coverage here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And note that BLP applies to those recently deceased -- the claim that since he is dead no policy governs is quite absurd.   Keating is not the author nor speaker of those words, thus they are irrelevant to a biography.  We do not assign film quotes to producers as a rule - the quotes are spoken by the actor and written by the screenwriter.   I would hazard a guess that very few producers have quotes ascribed to them from films in their biographies unless the quote achieved major notability on its own.   BTW, kindly note that I started this section, and you did not appear to feel the need to discuss your bold edit.   If you wish to write an article about the film do so -- but the quote does not belong in a biography of the producer.  My edit retains the film, but removes the bit which implies that it was written by Keating.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I kind of agree with you that the quote could be confused as being something he said.  And it also covers the same territory as what he did say in Congressional hearings the previous decade and that we already quote.  I disagree with you that this article cannot go into further depth about a documentary film that he funded and produced.  In particular, I thought it a good critical observation from the Chronicle piece that despite its dated style, the film made the same arguments against the societal effects of pornography that people are still making four decades later.  I thought that was something positive about Keating, L or D, and am puzzled why you threw that out.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP says "contentious" and does not say that we should specifically use or not use "positive" or "negative" material, only that we should try to use specifically fact-based reliable secondary sources for claims of fact, and that we should never make implications not directly stated by the sources cited.  And I note again that Keating is still under BLP - we do not have "open season" on people who just dies.  WRT commentary about films in a producer's biography: The article at Blake Edwardsdoes not include commentary on the implication of incest and underage sex, and the use of comedic portrayal of Asians in Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) etc. And Edwards has a lot of films  none of which are covered in the style desired for this biography of a person not primarily notable as a producer.  Ditto any other producer I found on Wikipedia.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The apparent UNDUE edit to add the same material in is clearly violative of Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- if material is not valid in the first place, then using a back door does not then give it validity.   His position on porn was already properly covered in the biography -- we do not need an editorial sledgehammer here. Collect (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, look more carefully at the history of this article. I wrote almost everything that's in it now, in a series of additions made in 2008 and 2009, and got it to GA status.  The Strub book was not published until 2010 and so I could not have used it then.  I did not become aware of it until doing some searches yesterday.  It's a scholarly work that is a better source than some of the ones that I used at the time.  In particular, it gives a more balanced view of Keating's attitudes towards pornography and Communism, and it sheds more light on how Keating organized CDL.  This is not a "back door" anything, this is simply the major contributor to an article continuing to revise it over time as events occur or as new sources become available.  I do this with all of the other articles that I've been the main contributor to.  What on earth is wrong with this?   Wasted Time R (talk) 11:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I look at WP:BLP as absolute policy.  The weight you seek to give on his porn opinions is UNDUE and if you wish it to be included at length, then discuss it at BLP/N.  Until then, I suggest that policy requires you to actually get WP:CONSENSUS for such additions to what appeared to be a reasonable biography.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, being the Main Contributor is not found in any Wikipedia policy page as making you any different from any other editor -- can you show me where Wikipedia gives that person any special authority over any article?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I raise my role in this article not to claim special authority but only in an attempt to have you deal with me in better faith.  As for weighting, Keating was quite well-known at the time for his anti-pornography activism, and had it not been for the S & L scandal and the Keating Five, it would be that activism that he is remembered for today more than being a developer or financier.  As for BLP, the current article implies that Keating held an absolutist view that pornography was part of a Communist conspiracy.  Frankly, this makes Keating look like a nut job.  A better source now available shows that while Keating thought there was some linkage between Communism and pornography, he was careful to state that most pornography was commercially motivated and that Communism was not to blame for the problems of pornography in America.  This makes Keating look more reasonable and deserves to be in the article.  Yet you threw it out.  Go figure.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is our task to provide reasonable weight to notable material about a person.  If you feel excess weight is given on a position, then reduce the weight given that position - the concept of adding hundreds of words in a belief that NPOV is better satisfied by adding weight on a topic, then I demur.   If the current wording is not really borne out by sources, then change the misleading wording.  At this point,though, I find the addition adds undue weight to the "porn" part of the bio which is not what he is primarily noted for.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
As I told MastCell, I won't be making any further edits to this article, so any further improvements to this will be up to you.  As I also told him, I think this is a good article that treats a complex and controversial subject in a thorough and fair way, and I'm glad WP had it available when Keating died.  In particular, I think this article covers the non-scandal parts of his life better than any of the newspaper obits I saw. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
rs is very broad in what is acceptable.  But we are also supposed to use the best sources, and there must be better sources for Keating's anti-pornography activism.  Also, extensive quotes that are not explained in secondary sources are not encyclopedic.  I find the disputed text to be tendentiously written.  Much better just to report the facts and let readers decide.  TFD (talk) 07:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is possible that the article relies excessively on one book - Trust Me which might be seen by some as not a dispassionate biographical source.  The reliance thereon should be reduced. Collect (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You raised this question several years ago, in the "Reliance on one source" section above.  This kind of reliance tends to happen when there's only one full-length book on a subject, and it's a valid concern.
But part of this appearance is simply a visual distortion due to the way book cites are spread out with different footnotes for separate pages while news and magazine cites just have one footnote that gets reused over and over.  If you count actual cite instances (the little letters), for example, there are 23 for the 1990 Chicago Tribune piece, 15 for the 1998 Los Angeles Times story, 14 for the 1989 Cincinnati Magazine piece, 10 for a 1989 New York Times story, 9 for the Day S & L Hell book, 8 for the Messing-Sugarman book, 8 for a 2006 Cincinnati Enquirer story, 7 for two McCain biographies combined, and so on for dozens of lesser-used sources.  The total number of Binstein-Bowden cite instances is by my count 52.  That still makes it the most used source, but not nearly as dominant overall as first appears.
In terms of using Binstein-Bowden, I kept that question in mind the whole time I was working on this.  It's not dispassionate, that's quite true, and its tone and approach are idiosyncratic in places.  But it's the best source for significant portions of Keating's life, and in the end I felt that it was accurate and even-handed.  It does not portray Keating as a one- or even two-dimensional villain, but rather as a complicated, three-dimensional figure.  And other sources support the same picture of him: I was just reading back the section about what it was like to work for or with him at American Continental, i.e. the company culture he built, and I was expected to see Binstein-Bowden as the cites; but instead it came from three of the newspaper/magazine cites.  In other words, I think the portrayal of him is pretty consistent across the board of all these sources.
In terms of other sources that you could use, at the time I hit a couple of libraries for books on the S & L crisis, and whatever I found is already in, but of course there could be ones I missed.  I'm sure there are newspaper and magazine articles I missed, since I didn't have any access to Highbeam, Questia, etc.  You could also try JSTOR and the like for academic papers, which might have good quality assessments of Keating's actions vis a vis regulators, that whole issue.  Offhand I didn't see anything in the obits that was new (other than for the last few years), but I could have missed some things that a closer look would reveal.  And while I didn't read all of it, I honestly believe that Strub book from 2010 has a lot to offer in terms of a deeper and more nuanced account of Keating's anti-pornography work.
There are also some odds and ends of cite formatting that you could get to.  The cite dates should be converted from iso to mdy, since that's the trend lately.  The Messing-Sugarman book is used a lot and should be pulled out into the Bibliography.  I've come to believe that the "(fee required)" notices on newspaper cites are completely pointless; articles drift in and out of paywalls too often for us to keep track of.  The same with deadlinks, I've come to believe it's usually futile chasing those down too.  My attitude is, the cite was good then and is still good now, it's just harder to find than before.
Anyway, those are my thoughts on sourcing.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The one book is apparently used for nearly fifty claims in the biography - and it is quite possibly not a book written in a dispassionate manner, making it al too possible that whatever bias might be inherent in the book (read its description) may unfortunately then be transmitted to a biography which over-relies on that single source.  (Blurb: Profiles the mastermind behind an extraordinary financial fraud, a self-made man who gave millions to Mother Teresa and stole millions from the loyal customers of the Lincoln Savings Bank)   Collect (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this book is more reliable for some claims than other claims.  Is there a particular sentence of text in this Wikipedia article for which you think this source skews toward being unreliable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This quote has been removed: "Homosexuals should be prosecuted and put in jail."  If he said it, it certainly seems noteworthy.  Is there uncertainty about whether he said it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I could not verify the quote, and since I had found problems in other quotes presented in the article, I felt that BLP supported removal.  If a strong reliable source is found for the quote - fine, but one of the sources clearly did not have it, and the other was not searchable.  In addition, I think the article excessively relies on an "expose style" book, where some items might be seen as sensationalized by neutral observers.  That is the problem with such sources, always.  Sort if like using Kitty Kelley as the main source on a Sinatra bio here.  Collect (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)   (Online searches fimd lots of uses - but all seem to trace directly back to Wikipedia of all things.  He may well have disliked gays, but the colourful quote seems elusive from any strong source about him) Collect (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I researched and rewrote/expanded and brought this article to GA several years ago, but I left it a year ago because I couldn't stand dealing with Collect anymore.  He has recently been topic-banned from US politics, which I guess indicates that others couldn't stand it either.  And I presume this article is including in that ban, since Keating's life intersects politics in major ways (presidential pornography commission, battle against federal banking regulators, Keating Five).  So one thing that he did was remove any mention of Keating's antipathy towards gays, on the objection that the sourcing for that relied on the Binstein-Bowden book that he never liked (I doubt he ever read it, but whatever).  However there are multiple other sources that touch on this, and I have now added some material back into the article to reflect this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

This evening the news is rife with stories about the death of Charles Keating IV, grandson of this one, a Navy SEAL killed in combat against ISIS forces in Iraq. Perhaps this ought to be mentioned somehow in the grandfather's article? Google News results --Haruo (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.  It should.  Perhaps you can take care of it.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I would say no, mainly because of WP:BIOFAMILY. Bahooka (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Keating. 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/20060209044334/http://www.newsmeat.com:80/ceo_political_donations/Charles_Keating.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Charles_Keating.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

O
M
G.
There is no such thing as The Naval Air Corps and apparently never has been although the phrase is ignorantly adopted on occasion.  the proper term is U.S. Naval Aviation.  For reasons I still do not understand, I'm unable to correct Wiki texts most of the time, but would some samaritan please make the correction regarding keating's WW II service?

B. Tillman

7 August 2017  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2180:1A9:65D9:A9F1:B5DE:9BFD (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC) 
"Navy Air Corps" appears to have been used in counterpoint to "Army Air Corps".  The term was in common usage. It was definitely in use through the period of the Korean War at least. It is certainly correct in this article. https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E02E3D6173AE33BBC4A53DFB366838A659EDE   ad nauseam.  Collect (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Keating. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://gobearcats.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/c-swim_timeline.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929193741/http://gobearcats.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/archive/071106aaa.html to http://gobearcats.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/archive/071106aaa.html
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)