Talk:Charles Keating

message: 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)
thread_title: Swimming should be mentioned

message: 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)
thread_title: In-article comment removed

message: 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.
*http://prospect.org/article/conservative-origins-sub-prime-mortgage-crisis-0, American Prospect, John Atlas, December 17, 2007. Retrieved 29 June 2014 "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. "Alan Greenspan's Epic Incompetence", Forbes, June 6, 2014.
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)
thread_title: A Complete Mess

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Response to impartiality

message: 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)
thread_title: Obama supporters distorting article to support keatingeconomics claims?

message: 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. 
http://maricopa.gov/Assessor/ for these public records.'''
Sincerely,
Arizona Biltmore (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification information for RTC Properties Purchased by the Keating descendants

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: Sentences which have the same phrase repeated within them are grammatically poorly constructed. Collect (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "financial contributions" TWICE in one sentence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: family important?

message: 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)
replies: text: AFAIK, he is retired.  At 85, I think this is a non-brainer.  Collect (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Keating Today

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If Charles KEating is not involved, then it does not belong in a BLP. Simple. Collect (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions

message: [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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reliance on one souce

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've done some web searching but haven't found anything about this.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition needing sourcing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  SFGate as a source for factual claims in a BLP 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removed quotation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes 

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Naval Air Corps

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified