Talk:Jack Abramoff/Archive 2

message: This article and it's sister screed are embarrassments to wikipedia.  They're essentially the same and both reflect the authors politocal hatred and zeal.  Both also have severe irredemable copyright problems and are and embarrasment to wikipedia.  They need to be deleted immediately.  --John Henry 03:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted some things you took out (outside the Tyco section), like in the "Early years" section and in the intro about DeLay. That material is not copyright infringement because it is properly sourced when directly quoted. --Howrealisreal 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The speech from Tom DeLay is a direct quote (it's in quotations) so of course it is taken word-for-word from the source. I'll tweak the setup to the quote a little better as per your request. Here's the primary source for the other thing. --Howrealisreal 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The "forced abortions" part was originally reported by Brian Ross at ABC News for 20/20 on March 13, 1998. It also appears in Al Franken's book The Truth (with jokes) in the "Tom DeLay Saipan Sex Tour and Jack Abramoff Casino Getaway" chapter. Since we've agreed that primary sources are key, i've change the attribution in the article. --Howrealisreal 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: COPYVIO

message: Almost the whole tyco section is a blatent rip from the WAPO article.  I've removed  part of it, as it needs to be re-written.--B.ellis 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted some things you took out (outside the Tyco section), like in the "Early years" section and in the intro about DeLay. That material is not copyright infringement because it is properly sourced when directly quoted. --Howrealisreal 19:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The speech from Tom DeLay is a direct quote (it's in quotations) so of course it is taken word-for-word from the source. I'll tweak the setup to the quote a little better as per your request. Here's the primary source for the other thing. --Howrealisreal 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The "forced abortions" part was originally reported by Brian Ross at ABC News for 20/20 on March 13, 1998. It also appears in Al Franken's book The Truth (with jokes) in the "Tom DeLay Saipan Sex Tour and Jack Abramoff Casino Getaway" chapter. Since we've agreed that primary sources are key, i've change the attribution in the article. --Howrealisreal 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyco 

message: --Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Indian tribes scandal 

message: This section does not appear to say very much that is already said. It should probably go.--Gorgonzilla 23:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The email trail 

message: RALSTON IS ROVE’S RIGHT-HAND: ABC News reported on August 2, 2005 that Susan Ralston, Karl Rove’s long-time right-hand, testified before the grand jury. The National Journal reported, “If Karl Rove is Bush’s main man, then it’s Ralston who makes this White House go — because she’s indispensable to Rove.” According to Newsweek, Ralston was suggested to Rove by ethically-troubled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, for whom she previously served as a top aide. [ABC The Note, 8/2/05; Newsweek, 4/20/05; National Journal, 6/18/05] 
Israel Hernandez 
Personal assistant to President Bush (2001-2005)
See the SunCruz scandal. Police state that Abramoff is a person of interest in that investigation. At the moment too busy reorging the Abramoff-Reed thing. --Gorgonzilla 00:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn't abramoff conected to the murder of a florida man too? 

message: I updated the story from the piece in the Post . However this will need ongoing revision, there are clearly details that have not been given. The prosecutors clearly are investigating a link to SunCruz. Although the target is almost certainly Kidan rather than Abramoff this cannot look good for either of them. --Gorgonzilla 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The murder indictment 

message: I have removed the speedy delation tag placed on this article by John Henry. Tag read . This is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Speedy deletion. The contested image has been removed pending confirmation of source.  BD2412 talk 03:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion.  Please read WP:CSD.  Thanks.  Guettarda 04:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of speedy deletion tag. 

message: The most significant fact about Abramoff at this point is the fact that he is under indictment for his involvement in a $30 million fraud. The murder of Boulis and the payments made by the company controlled by Abramoff and his partner to the three alleged killers is absolutely relevant.
Trying to delete these relevant facts is clearly an attempt at POV spin. 
The same invididual then tried to delete all mention of the casinos article altogether. This despite the fact that it is one of the most significant political scandals in Washington today.
This looks to me like an attempt to eliminate this scandal from Wikipedia.--Gorgonzilla 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to delete important facts 

message: Can someone explain what aspects of the article are of disputed neutrality.  Thanks.  Guettarda 04:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again - if the  is going to remain on the article you need to outline the NPOV problems here, so that they can be discussed and sorted out.  Thanks.  Guettarda 19:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree that this is not just a republican thing, but are you sure those numbers are correct? I think they are probably higher on both sides, as per this  Capital Eye report from the same group. The Contribution Summary sets the Democrat figure at $1,541,673 received, vs $2,912,088 for Republicans. --Howrealisreal 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Removed fraudster criminal category until conviction. This is consistent with other Wikipedia articles about people with indictments.--FloNight 02:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Other than a very few exceptions, we do not have "accused criminal" categories, and merely accused persons should not be convicted by our categories. -Willmcw 09:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he pled guilty today, the "Fraudster" cat has been restored.--RattBoy 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rightly so - he's now quite thoroughly an admitted criminal (if not yet a "convict"). bd2412 T 02:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove fraudster cat

message: http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/05/06/abramoff-inside.jpg
grazon 23:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we use this? 

message: This could use a bit of elaboration, methinks. What's he being treated for? --Eric 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental health treatments?

message: to those of you working on this article, here is a Yahoo! search of *.gov for Jack Abramoff. Maybe these links will be of use to you as you work on this article. Kingturtle 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  useful links 

message: The following paragraphs appear midway through the article. I'm concerned about its verifiability.
"In 1995 Abramoff worked for the Global Council of Islamic Banks, whose chairman, Saleh Abdullah Kamel, was under investigation for allegedly funding terrorism and terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. 
"Prior to the events of September 11th, 2001 chief hijacker Mohamed Atta and several of the other 9/11 hijackers were reported to have made multiple visits to the SunCruz casino cruise ship off the Gulf coast in Florida.  This has led some to speculate that Mohamed Atta was using the casino to launder money for al-Qaeda and that possibly Atta was involved in a scheme with Abramoff and the mob to smuggle heroin.  To date none of these allegations has been confirmed or investigated."
The former paragraph has the ring of truth, though I'd be happier if it were sourced to something more mainstream than "TPMCafe." The latter paragraph sounds like wild a conspiracy theory, citing Casino Watch and Mad Cow Morning News.
I suggest removing, at least, the latter paragraph—unless someone can come up with better citations.
(Sorry, forgot to sign the above.)--RattBoy 01:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osama Bin Laden, Mohamed Atta, and Abramoff 

message: I reworked the first sentence in light of the second guilty plea today, but the restitution and other information now needs reworking, too. UncleFester 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs Revision in Light of 1/04/06 Guilty Plea

message: Apparently, Abramoff was a former lobbyist for Channel One News. Should this be included in the article somewhere? --D-Day 21:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lobbyist works 

message: In the Indian tribes grand jury investigations section, the role of Senator Dorgan was listed first—with citations to the National Republican Senatorial Committee! This smacks of POV spin. Considering that Dorgan hotly disputes charges of "tit-for-tat" favors given to Abramoff, I moved his paragraph to the end, following those who certainly did receive donations from Abramoff. I also added some context and a reference to Dorgan's response.--172.131.44.81 12:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byron Dorgan 

message: The intro must be re-written. A paragraph or two that deals with abramof's life from zero to now.
This is the second (and last) time i have reverted edits such as , keep an eye for it.- 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good to note the current, succinct intro excludes the section that I previously had to edit out.Phase1 15:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro removal by Phase1 

message: OK, I'm new at this, so somebody help me out please?  It seems to me that the entries for Jack Abramoff, and for the Abramoff Scandal, are almost completely overlapping.  E.g., the above re-write is almost all the scandal part, right?
So, we're either reinventing a wheel over here, or over there they need to reinvent a wheel.
Somebody help me out here?  What should we do?  Sholom 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'abridged' version of the rewrite would be about Abramoff's life. The individual scandals can be broken out into their own (linked) articles. The idea is to eliminate the overlap, eventually. The reader can go to Jack Abramoff for a capsule biography of him, including a summary of the scandal, and then click to the scandal article to get the full meat and potatoes.-Kwh 05:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like a good idea.  I'm not sure how it works, practically, with an open-document situation like this, but your idea, if it can work, is sound (imho).  Furthermore, are we to have one, or more than one, scandal articles?  E.g., I've already written the SunCruz Casinos article, which is the longest treatment of it in Wikipedia.  And here (above) we now have the summary.  So, then, what goes into the generic Abramoff scandal article?  (Note: Suncruz has nothing to do with lobbying, it was just -- for the most part -- an ordinary fraud case.  But, even aside from that question: where do we go from here?  Users are already simulateously working on this article and the Abramoff article and Abramoff scandal article -- in an uncoordinated independant fashion.  So, where do we go from here?  (Please note: two separate questions: (a) conceptually, how do we connect Abramoff article, Abramoff scandal article, and SunCruz Casinos article; and (b) how do we get a better handle on coordinating the Abramoff and Abramoff scandal articles?).  (Also, I just learned that case matters!  Note the difference between Abramoff scandal and Abramoff Scandal and SunCruz Casinos and Suncruz Casinos. Is there anyway to fix that?  Sholom 14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rewrite -- Reinventing a Wheel anywhere? 

message: The latest in this category is from 69.116.90.247, who deleted the word, "Republican," from the Intro. I restored it. I feel we've reached something approaching a consensus on this aspect of the Jack story. If they delete the info without any discussion on the Talk Page, I'll have to revert it.--RattBoy 11:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexplained deletion of Party Affiliation 

message: The antecedents section says "whom many believe to be Bob Ney" and the indian tribes section says "but who is confirmed to be Bob Ney"  Which one is it?32.97.110.142 14:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been confirmed by Ney's lawyer. I've changed the Antecedents section to reflect that fact.--RattBoy 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representative #1 ? 

message: Sometimes the opening sentence says he "pled" guilty; sometimes it says he "pleaded." Should editors be rv'ing this back and forth?
Dictionary.com gives "pleaded" as more common. However, I think "pled" is more elegant. I'm not bigtime invested in this, but it seems that editors oughta decide on one, and then spend their time on more substantive edits.
What do you-all think? "Pleaded" or "pled?"--RattBoy 00:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be the case (google news results for "abramoff pled" are less than 100 while "abramoff pleaded" results are in the thousands). In that case, I guess pleaded should be used unless any specific guidelines are posted in the WP style guide.--216.165.33.63 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'pled' sounds better. This sounds like a hung/hanged arguement to me. --Stolencdz 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'pled' sounds better, too, but have been going with 'pleaded' b/c that's how all the news media seem to be reporting it.Sholom 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pleaded" vs. "Pled" 

message: I've been working on a rewrite here. Normally it's not good form to do a rewrite/re-org on a temporary page, but it's taken me a few days to get this far. Feel free to be bold and help me finish it. My method is start with the outline as a 'new view', then take some of the existing sentences from this and the scandal article to fill in the outline, and write my own stuff to fill in the blanks and make it into a story. You may notice that this article is getting very long; my method is to write out everything, then cut pieces out to go to other 'breakout' articles in a way that makes structural sense.
One thing you'll notice is that Abramoff's life, like Wikipedia, is extremely interlinked.
You'll also notice a link there to a Wikisource text where I am transcribing the contents of Abramoff's emails, memos, and checks (which are available from the Senate Indian Affairs Committee only as a bunch of poorly scanned print pages). The text of these documents will eventually be very useful to citation, so if you have any skill with OCR software, or can just type, please help out with transcription. Eventually I plan to upload the individual TIF images to Wikisource and link them to the individual pages shown there.
-Kwh 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the rewrite out of user space to make clear that this is not intended to be a POV Fork. Jack Abramoff/AbramoffRefactor. -Kwh 05:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite! 

message: Get the facts in and lock this thing. We've got people trying to spin it as hard as they can to the left, and others, notably John Henry, trying their absolute hardest to downplay the things. Just get the essential facts in there, like what he's charged with and who he's connected to and lock the article-otherwise, there's going to be fighting over this for weeks, and it's going to be vicious.-72.21
Same guy-a rewrite is pointless, this is extremely charged politically, and no version of events is going to be acceptable to everyone. The Republicans would like this article outright deleted, while the Democrats would like to paint this guy as the Devil Himself and George Bush's best friend. Just get it as objection as possible, and protect it.-72.210/UmlautBob
:Comment moved to end-of-page. Also, I'd like to note that a rewrite is required to make the article readable and better organised, currently it is a mish mash of sections, w/ almost no hierarchy. I agree the article should steer away for political finger pointing and just present facts. This user has left wikipedia 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to lock 

message: From the article: Senator Byron Dorgan, the senior Democrat on the Senate committee investigating Abramoff, advocated for programs pushed by Abramoff's clients around the time he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from associates and clients of Abramoff (though not directly from Abramoff). According to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Dorgan received at least $79,300 from Indian tribe clients and lobbying associates of Abramoff.  Dorgan strongly denies any connection, saying that he never met Abramoff and that he had long supported funding for Indian tribes. Despite this, Dorgan announced in December 2005 that he would return donations totaling $67,000, in order to remove any remote possibility of a connection to the felonious lobbyist.
Um... as the New York Times reported last week, donations to Dorgan were made by indian tribes BEFORE those clients were represented by Abramoff.  Where's the connection?  130.126.220.138 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: www.crp.org revised their numbers to remove cash contributed by tribes prior to Abramoff representation. According to the revised numbers, Dorgan did in fact receive $28,000 from (at the time) clients of Abramoff. I can't quite understand why he returned so much more, but I guess you'd have to call Dorgan's office and ask why they returned $67,000. -Kwh 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ummmmmmm..... FACT CHECK 

message: Believe it or not, Abramoff did have a hand in the make of the film as a producer, so stop calling me a vandal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.233.29.75 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 24 January 2006.
:Do you have a reference which verifies your claim? Or should we simply take your word for it?--RattBoy 11:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Secret of NIMH 

message: I guess everyone (nearly everyone) would have wanted to blank most of this discussion page, as StuffOfInterest has just done. But maybe it should have simply been archived?Phase1 19:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other editors had originally blanked the content earlier as it contained more unsigned, personal attacks than anything.  I just reverted back to where things stood before 62.0.181.94 stuck it back in.  If you would like to recover the material from history and put it in an archive I have no objection at all.  However, some of the editors who were targets of the personal attacks may have an issue. --StuffOfInterest 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is interesting, I just checked and it looks like most of what I re-removed was already in an archive which even has a link just below the TOC above. --StuffOfInterest 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just for ready reference, the edit Phase1 is talking about is this one and the content was added in through this series of edits. --StuffOfInterest 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean out massive anon mess 

message: Someone began adding the Jew-hate again. -62.0.170.46 23:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again with the Jewish & Israel remarks 

message: After recieving many complaints about Antisemitism, we began monitoring the ABRAMOFF page and are more than ONE person watching the JEW-HATRED here.
This is our main concern. And interestingly enough a big concern of Jimmy Wales who concured with our view on the matter along with the WIK BOARD.
If YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US, I SUGGEST THAT YOU TAKE IT UP WITH THEM.
We are compiling a fact list for them of the various writers, editors and contributors who seem to be using this page and the WIK as a forum to convey their hate toward Jews and Israel.
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.170.46 (talk • contribs) .
How is it anti-semitic to mention someone is Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.239.58.32 (talk • contribs) .
When your username is Sigheil it is anti-semitic -- Gorgonzilla 03:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watching the Jew-Hatred on the Abramoff page 

message: The Principality of Sealand
(Sorry, forgot to sign my post again).
NiftyDude 16:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Insensitive clod, it's National Offshore Refinery Heritage Month!  You no-good barnicle sympathizer.--Paraphelion 19:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should put aside our differences and unite against our real enemy... 

message: In a hundred years from now this will look much better on an encyclopedia page:
Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a high school friend of Abramoff's  for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment. US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles." 
Of course you are are welcome to change it back. Thats the wonderful thing about the WIK.
You get to read it the way you want to read it and we get to read it the way we want to read it. We read it about every five minutes and will continue to do so until kingdom come. (I know thats a loaded one). For students reading this it'll kind of become a "CATCHERS CATCH CAN", "WHO'S VERSION ARE WE GONNA GET TO READ THIS MINUTE?!" - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .
:Actually neither of you are. You arre both breaking the 3RR and both of you are likely to be blocked if you continue. Also the page is likely to be blocked. You are both introducing distortion into the article. --Gorgonzilla 13:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A change 

message: I would like to mention about the supplies he bought for training people in Israel.  This is fair and it needs to be done to tell Abramoff's story regardless of the consequences of how it will be percieved.  The paragraph is 
:"Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a high school friend of Abramoff's for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment.[51] US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles.""
I would like to change it to
:"Federal investigators believe more than $140,000 of Capital Athletic Foundation funds were diverted to a Jewish settler in the Israeli West Bank for "purchases of camouflage suits, sniper scopes, night-vision binoculars, a thermal imager and other material described in foundation records as 'security' equipment.  It is believed that the equipment was for the town of Beitar Illit, to be used to defend against the Palestinian Intifada[51] US Senate Indian Affairs Committee hearings reveal that the Capital Athletic Foundation "also paid a monthly stipend and Jeep payments to a high-school friend of Abramoff. The 'high-school friend' is, apparently, an old friend he knew from Los Angeles.""
Does anyone have any objections or corrections to this before I make the edit?
* Yes we object to this. It is CONJECTURE. The story has not been confirmed in the slightest. sAYING "FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS " is being nice (to or for you) because the FBI has nothing on it. I called them. For all we know it could be ficticous altogether and just a money laundering scheme. They have never found the friend or the equipment. Nothings been proven at all on this subject. - Brad —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.250.193.168 (talk • contribs) .
:Which part do you object to?  Would you be satisfied if evidence or more articles backed up the claims?  If you won't be satisfied then I don't think your objections can carry any water, an encyclopedia entry is not going to satisfy every single reader.  From reading the various evidence that has been compiled on the topic, I think the consensus is that it is worthy of noting.--M4bwav 13:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found email records to back up, a edit to the paragraph, so if anyone else objects they can change it back, but it would good if you had some kind of counter proof.--M4bwav 03:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel connection to (sniper?) training school