Talk:Dan Peña

Deletion

I have submitted this article for deletion. It has gone through a long history of NPOV and BLP issues. Other reasons are questionable notability and citations. The subject of the article is constantly being attacked. It would be better for the wiki community to have this deleted rather than cause confusion and show bias which does not uphold the principles of good faith of the community. Please comment here first before you think about removing the submission. Cablespy (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

As advised by Dreaded Walrus, I would like to contest the said deletion of this article. Im new to wikipedia and not sure how can I proceed on making this article acceptable to the policies and guidelines that is currently imposed. I just wanted to create an article in order to feature Mr Daniels S. Peña's Biography and to be able to share to the world about his success from being a simple person and became a successful businessman and entrepreneur through the help of a mentor.

If you can help me improved this article, many thanks to you.

Izonetech-ph (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to be very careful here

Previously, this article was written in a style mostly praising Mr. Pena. Now it is turning into a character assassination full of innuendo. These are both equally unacceptable. The pdf scan being used as a source right now is worthless, as most of the article is not visible so we don't really know what it is about. WP:BLP is very clear that controversial information about living persons must be verified or it should be removed immediately. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have listed this article at WP:BLPN in the hopes of getting input from previously uninvolved users. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you regarding the pdf scan (and also the removal of unverifiable BLP info and other stuff obviously, but more specifically with the PDF thing). It is the kind of article that would probably be considered a reliable source ([[The Times of India], but without having access to the full article it is useless as a cite. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• guys, I have replaced the link to the pdf with one linking to the actual article in the Times of India. If one looks closely at the praise of the original article, the facts that are now presented clearly tell a different story. At least the facts I have added refer to court documents, newspapers and news agencies. As I said before, I could not verify any of the praise, which is why originally I nominated the article for deletion, which I still believe is right, see discussion. Here the link: --Esinclair52 (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree with you entirely, having had this article on my watchlist when it has been recreated and deleted numerous times in the past. This article should not be a puff piece, and it should not be an attack piece. The best way to do this is to make sure that as many facts as possible are well-referenced. Your new link helps massively with that. I must say that originally I was considering agreeing with Beeblebrox that there was no proof that the "Dan Pena" mentioned in your first post (approx) to the AfD was the same one (a Google search for "Daniel Pena", for example, brings up some singer above a website for the subject of this article). But I think the "Daniel S Pena" narrows it down enough, along with the other information included in the article. As an aside, it is obvious that the creator of the article (who also created all previous versions of the article if I remember correctly) has a conflict of interest. Considering you seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, do you have any outside interest in the subject? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• no, I don't have any outside interest other than I have discovered facts that are totally different from what the guy claims to be. My interest is not having WP publish potentially untrue claims, which serve as a leverage for one's sales pitch; also see below. --Esinclair52 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
• Good question, and I believe I know the answer. Esinclair has stated at the AfD that he is a reporter working on a story on Mr. Pena, and from the tone of his remarks, I think that has put him in a coi situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• as I said, the truth and the picture the guy puts up are different, which I proved with adding the sources. None of you ever proved any of the claims the guy made in the original article... I never hid that I had to do research around the guy and there is no wrong intention around sharing what I encountered. A praise story would have been better for me, as with these questionable facts having appeared, the editors will most likely not want to waste space in the paper for that. --Esinclair52 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see the comments in question. I did look at them when first posted, but I was quite tired at the time and did not follow them well. Of course, we don't actually forbid editors from editing if they have a COI, so long as they are able to do so in line with our policies. Esinclair, perhaps the best thing to do would be to gather more citations for the content you have added so far, and when you have information you think should be added in future, do so by gathering sources and then bringing it up on talk page for consideration by (relatively) uninvolved editors. In addition, it might be worth waiting until after the conclusion of the AfD, so that your efforts don't go to waste if the article is ultimately deleted. If you need any help with any of this, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• someone with the ip-address 117.96.109.231 is now filling in unrelated spam into the article; the ip is located in the asia pacific area (India, Philippines, etc.), which is where the guy is now active --Esinclair52 (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The user Esinclair52 has been made more than 10 revisions within 24 hours which violate the three revert rule. Administrators please look into this. The revisions may be violating NPOV. Onital77 (talk)

This Esinclair52 looks like an e-assasin hired to defame Dan Pena. I strongly doubt his edits are neutral in nature. I hope the mods can do something about this.Cablespy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

The above comment is from a (so far) single purpose account. Interesting. Peridon (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

research 101: (1) enter "User:Cablespy" into google.com and you find "Caleb Serna (cablespy) on Twitter" (http://www.twitter.com/cablespy) - (2) on his profile page you find his website http://designpinoy.com - a "web guy" based on the Phillipines, like Pena's latest venture... (3) you continue to danpena.com and look into the source code and find on line 860 "designpinoy Caleb Serna" ---> My guess: Cablespy is Pena's latest "business partner", speaking of hired for a purpose, COI or other such BS he brought up.--Esinclair52 (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

New link

A new link has been added (not by me). It's to an apparently irrelevant single sentence and you have to pay to read the full article. Am I going to pay? What do you think? The addition is from what appears to be (so far) an SPA. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to shell out $3.95 for 465 words, but you might want to ask at the WikiProject Resource Exchange if anyone has a subscription and can check out the article. Or, of course, you could ask the editor who added the link whether it verifies any of the article content or contains material that could be added to the article. I note that the article is 465 words long, so I doubt if it is responsible for the author's Pulitzer Prize, and that it's on page one of the Orange County section, not "the title page of the Los Angeles Times". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Guys, when you'll have finished school one day and participate in the real world, you might change your judgemental and onesided points of views. Pena may be controversial, but he deserves as much neutral coverage as anybody else here. With you guys not even being able or willing checking out cheap resources, you should maybe stop trying to play the kings of wp or wannabe-editors, when these games have implications in real life. --Bbrute (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Response: I ran small businesses from the age of 10 all through school.... (And left school many years ago, too.) We are trying to maintain neutral coverage. I take part in quite a few AfD discussions, and may !vote keep or delete or simply comment, depending on the circumstances. I don't see why I should give of my money when I already give of my 'spare' time. Are there no freely available independent references? As to 'wannabe-editors', no, we aren't. We are editors. As can anyone be. I have used Wikipedia for years, and am trying to pay back the benefit I have derived from it by helping to keep it running as a reliable source of information. I don't know Mr Peña either personally or through business, and probably never will. To me, this is just another article. Peridon (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Most medium & large libraries, even public libraries, have a database that is likely to include the articles in this very well known paper--nobpdy should need to pay for access. In any case the title alone is sufficient to show he's notable enough--especially given the other references. I do not see that it is being used to source specific facts.

'More important, is the way the controversy sections have been worded; at present they constitute a BLP violation, regardless of the acceptible sourcing, for the cherry-picked quotes are presented in a non-objective manner. Peridon is right that they need rewriting. DGG (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion

Pena is using WP as a platform for selling his seminars and products and none of the claims he makes is possible to prove. After all he doesn't seem at all like the business guru he claims to be but someone who is cleverly arranging different aspects for his advantage. What if the only money he ever made, was from the lawsuit against his employer, bought the castle with huge debts and really lives from that show he is pulling off with the help of WP? Is that then a noteworthy person? It seems clear that some really shady dealings have been happening in the recent past, thus the lawsuits - all positive aspects he claims is no proof available... !? --Esinclair52 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

User above has made more than 3 reverts within 24 hours indicative of edit warring behavior. Very biased and making ridiculous comments like "It's unclear whether he owned or owns the castle" and ", more often being sued than actually using litigation himself." If you think it's being used as a platform to sell then lets just have this deleted. Cablespy (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits where you deleted perfectly sourced facts. That is no edit war. If there are any positive facts with sources to report on, why don't you put them? Your boss would have told you already, if there was anything that could be sourced. --Esinclair52 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on now, let's assume good faith. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

i note that the scotland and london lawsuit references were deleted, is there a consensus that that was trivia? Pohick2 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Canada controversies

This article has been raised at the BLP noticeboard here , I started looking at the Canadian story, it was to the average reader meaningless, excessive legal detail, with issues about other people coatracked onto the story, also there were a couple of primary citations that I removed and then the whole thing wasn't very well cited, in the end there was nothing left, perhaps with better citations the story could be re-added as a couple of lines, I also moved the India comment and then removed the controversy section. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

instead of deleting negative information, why not edit it. it is verifiable. Pohick2 (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with negative information. When I took the primary sources out that should not be used there was nothing left to support, as I said feel free to write something decent, a couple of lines with a decent citation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

that is simply not true. All sources pointing to controversial material have been taken out now so that the guy looks like he has achieved something he hasn't. That's not what WP is about. You simply deleted everything controversial, despite being properly sourced. --Esinclair52 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, please show me these reliable citations that were removed. Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

there have been at least 4 major controversies:

1. being sued in Alabama with Damion Lupo and others, sourced with a court document: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-alndce/case_no-2:2008cv01844/case_id-124507 2. being sued as the owner of Saphie Number One Limited in Montreal, where the court states that "some fraud charges against Peña and Hall have been committed in Montreal", sourced with links to company register https://www.jerseyfsc.org/registry/documentsearch/NameDetail.aspx?id=116451, court documents http://www.canlii.org/en/qc/qccs/doc/2008/2008qccs2233/2008qccs2233.html and http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccs/doc/2009/2009qccs4531/2009qccs4531.html, even a newspaper article of The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/23/newmedia.technology) connecting the dots about what they were doing. 3. being subject of a criminal investigation, sourced with newspaper articles, e.g. http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=pastissues2&BaseHref=TOIBG/2007/05/05&PageLabel=3&EntityId=Ar00102&DataChunk=Ar00303&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T, an explanation of what they were doing http://www.cybercellmumbai.com/write-ups/cyber-criminals-zero-in-on-airlines, another newspaper article http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_three-foreigners-swindle-thousands-from-b-lore_1094863 and then "cleared" because the police couldn't find certain data on the computers confiscated and Mr. Srinivas Mahesh, who filed the complaint, disappeared - very strange for a $400 million dollar man, don't you think? 4. being sued by his own lawyers for not paying their bills in Scotland; 70,000 GBP, quite some money, and sourced with a Times article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article845691.ece

There is more, e.g. his first company, when he was CEO, was sued, together with him, for an alledged securities fraud, sourced by court document, very interesting read: http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/896/896.F2d.170.88-7004.html

There is more stuff about details of his story that just don't make sense. He never made hundreds of millions of dollars.

Also, if you look at his "Works"-section on WP: a web-article on an unknown website and his self-published books are his only mentionable works? For the man he says he is, there is astonishingly little to show, nothing positive to prove or source. --Esinclair52 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to write a few lines, imo it should not be to petty or dramatic, and the court primary sources are not recommended for use. Off2riorob (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The india story is still in, I moved that, these citations are ok, but what content is in them. [1] [2] Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Though verifiable, wikipedia is not the place to première such proof. Once proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, it may be referenced. Court dockets and legal documents are open for misuse and misinterpretation specially in non-english languages. Bobwikwiki (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User Cablespy working for Pena

research 101: (1) enter "User:Cablespy" into google.com and you find "Caleb Serna (cablespy) on Twitter" (http://www.twitter.com/cablespy) - (2) on his profile page you find his website http://designpinoy.com - a "web guy" based on the Phillipines, like Pena's latest venture... (3) you continue to danpena.com and look into the source code and find on line 860 "designpinoy Caleb Serna" ---> My guess: Cablespy is Pena's latest "business partner", speaking of hired for a purpose, COI or other such BS he brought up.--Esinclair52 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well. I was looking at your contributions here and thought that you might have a COI from the other side? Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Me, I don't care either way, the article should be well cited and informative of all iimportant points in his life, content should be well written and a fair representation of the available cites, that is my position. Off2riorob (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

mmm...[3] Off2riorob (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to SELL him or his products or tell a story that isn't true, I just happened to encounter facts that show clearly that this story isn't true and nothing of the positives can be sourced. Why not tell? That's not a COI. What would be the conflicting interest? --Esinclair52 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't really mind anyway..COI and single purpose accounts, if they edit in a even way then I don't really see a problem. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I have not even touched the article after AFD. Multiple editors have revised this in a way they see fit for wiki policy. In good faith let other more experienced neutral parties edit this article. Cablespy (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

User Esinclair52 COI

Esinclair52 has admitted to being a reporter working on a story on Pena in a previous AFD. From the tone of his remarks, this puts him in a COI position. Cablespy (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a reporter and I disclosed that from the very beginning.

I think you should learn what a conflict of interest (COI) really is, if you use the phrase that often. I have no COI because I have no interest in the matter like you or others who are in economic relations with Mr. Pena.

As a reporter I started a research about a person that claimed to have achieved ABC and it turned out that none of it was really true (to be polite) but a lot of stuff came up that point into a totally different direction. When I saw all those lies published on WP, I decided to correct that because I knew better. Where is the COI? A better question would be: why does somebody claim to be member of this and that club when he really isn't or claim that he did this and that, when he really didn't? Exactly, to build up an image for a purpose, here to sell his products and services.

From publishing those facts on Wikipedia, I did not have advantages and there is no other motivation than showing that the original puff-piece you and other guys from the Philippines put in, has no substance.

A conflict of interest is indeed, if YOU are being paid by Pena for work you are doing (for his website e.g.) - or, are you? ;-) - and thus are dependent from him and at the same time edit a piece on WP for him. Of course you will do whatever, also say knowingly the untruth, for the hand that feeds you.

I agree, let's do it here as neutral as possible but let's not constantly disappear all the negative stuff. It's part of the person and his story. Bring proof and sources for what he claims and cite it properly. So far none of you have, you only deleted and confused properly sourced content because you didn't like what it said.

After all, I have gotten notice yesterday, that my editor approved the new angle for our story and we have new inside information from a person who has lived many years with him and another source who has worked years with him. That will be properly researched and published soon and then will simply become another source on WP.

Again, knowledge or the finding of controversial facts is no COI.

I'm totally open to work this out with you, bring positive, verifiable stuff and let's edit the piece again, I'll even help you edit it properly and don't want compensation for it. But I'm against displaying the untruth or make things look good only him selling more of his products or tell a tale of his life that is far from the truth. --Esinclair52 (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick aside (I don't want to derail any further responses from the main points you've made, particularly about wanting to reach consensus with other editors, which is always a positive step), if you're doing a journalistic piece on the subject of an article you're editing, that would probably count as a conflict of interest. Granted, not as much of one as if you were working for the subject (or, indeed, if you were working for a rival (business, political e.t.c.) of the subject), but it's still a COI nonetheless, and like you say you have been open about this pretty much from the start. Anyone (including Cablespy) should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this but I don't think that Cablespy has been open from the start about his COI, as shown in the section above this one. And finally, it should be pointed out once more that users with conflicts of interest aren't forbidden from editing articles, so long as they can do so in a completely neutral manner. I think that's the key here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite on April 18, 2018

I came across this page yesterday and noted that most of the sources were either missing or extremely biased (operated by Peña or someone with direct business interests in Peña). I rewrote most of the article from a neutral perspective and removed unsourced content, poorly-sourced content, and content with obvious bias. The article was also very long and included quite a lot of material that appeared to lack notability. Please feel free to re-add any removed content that you can provide new references for.

In regards to specific content and why I opted to remove it:

• "Produced $50 billion in equity [...] from two individuals, including Rick Scott [...] and another for $29 billion": I can't find any evidence that Rick Scott's wealth has anything to do with Peña, and the other person doesn't appear to actually be mentioned anywhere.

• "He is the author of several books, including 'Your First Hundred Million'": All of his books appear to be out of print, non-existent, or non-notable.

• Most of the content in the "Career" section: Content appears to be unsourced, sourced directly from Peña, or written with a pro-Peña bias.

• Philanthropy: One donation for an undisclosed amount 30 years ago doesn't qualify as "philanthropy."

• Awards: John Regan Award is uncited and AIREEC appears to not exist (and the only source I can find about the convention indicates that it was operated by Peña or one of his business associates). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axcviii (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the edits by Ejsmanalo: please disclose your COI here, and let us know what information you want to get out, and other contributors will help to write it in a neutral way. If the Philippines court dropped the case against Pena, Smith, and Hall, then the Wikipedia article should absolutely reflect that, but the Times of India article isn't a reliable source for multiple reasons, and there are other sources that seem to suggest the opposite. The Times of India article seems to be talking about a civil case, whereas http://cybercellmumbai.gov.in/html/write-ups/cyber-criminals-zero-in-on-airlines.html, for example, is obviously a criminal case, and I can't find any sources that indicate it was dropped.

Hi, thanks for reaching out. My appologies, I would not have put that back in if I had seen the points you raise. Ok will think about what you said and respond.... warmly, Sethie (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All good, I appreciate having someone else's input (this page seems plagued by COIs on all sides). For whatever it's worth, I'm stating for the record I have no COI and found this page purely by chance and decided to spend a few minutes on it. Axcviii (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC-7)

hi, this is user ejsmanalo sorry it took a while for me to respond as check and now received the notification regarding this talk section in which i can communicate with the community. Am currently working for him as a marketing guy. I read that this might be a problem as a matter of COI. I have read as well in that even though i have COI with the person in the page it can still be possible for me to post here in the talk page for everyone to review my content and see if it can neutrally be added to this page. let me know what I need to do so can add here content and we can discuss if the content i write would be feasible for his page. thanks and apologize again for any problems i inflicted to the wikipedia community.Ejsmanalo (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for posting here! Are you able to clarify the issue we're talking about below, regarding the fraud case? If he/his company has been cleared by the Philippines police, we want the article to reflect that, but it'd be great if we had a better source. Also, you can still definitely edit the main article if you have a COI, but your edits need to be as neutral as possible. If you're not sure if the information is pertinent or written neutrally, please post it here first and we'll help you rewrite it. One thing to note is that this isn't a social media site, so anything published needs to 1) be something the public should know (i.e. not clearly promotional/advertising), and 2) supported by third party sources (i.e. not published by Pena or associates). Axcviii (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC-7)

I have checked the SEC here in the Philippines it is indeed that their is a company registered before as izone technologies philippines corporation. let me dig further as I have check any local news archives or online reference regarding this fraud claims coming from india. Nothing seems to be attached to it based on the company they registered in the philippines with the same name. Also much appreciate regards to clarifying my position on how I can add content to his page. most probably i will post it in the talk page for everyone to review and check so it would be as neutral as possible. Thanks again! Ejsmanalo (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I requested for additional documents from them like news paper articles that I can use to be able to add some history to pena. Currently he is a business coach but i also plan to add the fact about him being the Founder and Former COE and Chairman of GWRI. I tried looking for online resource to back it up but the establishment of the company and it's history is pre-internet era. Crrently asking pena's staff if they can provide to me news articles they have stored away so I can scan so I can create digital reference.Ejsmanalo (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: iZone - are you saying that these are two different companies (i.e. iZone Technologies Philippines vs. iZone Technologies Bengalore)? They may be two different legal entities, but it seems like there is consensus amongst the published sources that Pena ran both of them, unless I'm misunderstanding? RE: GWRI, this would certainly help establish credibility for some of the claims; online information about GWRI is extremely scarce. Axcviii (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

added some additional facts under "media section" pertaining to notable interviews by known persona on him. Hopefully the content are within the neutral point of view and is within wiki standards. thanks!Ejsmanalo (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Criminal allegations

(I have copied our statements from about down here) the Times of India article isn't a reliable source for multiple reasons, and there are other sources that seem to suggest the opposite. The Times of India article seems to be talking about a civil case, whereas http://cybercellmumbai.gov.in/html/write-ups/cyber-criminals-zero-in-on-airlines.html, for example, is obviously a criminal case, and I can't find any sources that indicate it was dropped.

Ok- can you say more about why you don't see Times of India as a reliable source?

Also if you have another source which says the opposite, please put it in the article! Sethie (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Some reasons I don't think the Times of India link is reliable (for WP's standards):

• This is the only article that I can find that claims this. WP references should be verifiable; this is not.
• It says a "B report was filed with the I ACMM Court" - IACMM is not a court, and neither is ACMM. An ACMM appears to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (of the Philippines), which means that there should be some evidence of this in the legal system. I've been unable to find that evidence, and this appears to be the *only* article that asserts that the case was dropped.
• The article claims that the Indian engineer dropped his case and asked the court to treat it as a "mistake of facts." If the engineer has the power to do this, it means that it's a civil trial. All of the other articles discuss criminal charges, and I can find no other sources that allege that the charges were dropped.
• The article is unsigned/essentially anonymous (it's signed "TNN" with no contact information) and lists no sources or method of going about verifying/getting more information.

The source is The Times of India. A reliable source under Wikipedia usage. Dated and everything. Collect (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually found that gov.in article after I had done my edits to the page, and I then felt that the paragraph should be rewritten to talk about the larger criminal case, rather than the apparent civil case. Several articles about the criminal case refer to the defendants as having "fled the country to avoid prosecution", so this is a pretty serious charge that I wanted someone else's input on before publishing (especially since I'm unsure if it was resolved or not). Axcviii (talk) 10:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC-7)

• Additional note: iZone Technologies appears to be the call center that was set up in Bangalore to field calls about the scam. The article (in "Career") only talks about what iZone-iHub was supposedly founded for and doesn't mention the scam. The overwhelming consensus from news articles seems to indicate that it was set up purely to distract people from making legitimate complaints. Should this be mentioned? Axcviii (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC-7)

Hi.

Hmmmmm

A couple of things... we can expand the section to deal with both criminal and civil case, if you have sources, go for it.

1)* This is the only article that I can find that claims this. WP references should be verifiable; this is not. 2)* It says a "B report was filed with the I ACMM Court" - IACMM is not a court, and neither is ACMM. An ACMM appears to be an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (of the Philippines), which means that there should be some evidence of this in the legal system. I've been unable to find that evidence, and this appears to be the *only* article that asserts that the case was dropped. 3)* The article claims that the Indian engineer dropped his case and asked the court to treat it as a "mistake of facts." If the engineer has the power to do this, it means that it's a civil trial. All of the other articles discuss criminal charges, and I can find no other sources that allege that the charges were dropped. 4)* The article is unsigned/essentially anonymous (it's signed "TNN" with no contact information) and lists no sources or method of going about verifying/getting more information.

My basic response to all of this is that I don't see it as my job as a wiki editor to evaluate what the experts say, it is to report what the experts say.... with that in mind... I think #4 is the most intriguing... not so much the not verifying, the lack of authorship. Sethie (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it was sort of a combination of things that struck me (plus the Times article seems to not even get the story right). I honestly don't know whether he was cleared of the charges or not, so I'm hesitant to include it. However, it looks like Pena's marketing person (Ejsmanalo) is now here, so let's see what his input is. Axcviii (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC-7)

Am currently at this time conducting my own investigation regarding this matter, as i am requesting for documents to check if the company they had in india is the same as the one established in the philippines. As i mentioned above, their were no news, articles, etc in the philippines archive even searching online that connects this two entities and also criminal or civil charges mentioned. It is possible that izone technologies (company) is a separate entity versus the one they had in india. Am asking them to provide any legal documents that can help shed some light regards to this cases. I will share it here once i have those documents available.

Also another to note, I ACMM is not related to any government or judiciary entities in the Philippines. I believe that refers to a judiciary entity in India. refer to the link I added coming from wiki with regards to I ACMM which stands for India's Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and what it handles. It actually handles criminal charges not just civil cases. One thing we need to get information about is facts pertaining to FBI and FTC, if they actually have warrants or a case regards to pena. base on the government article posted on this talk page, the two entities are specifically looking for bill smith and not pena. but again without a liable source and just basing it on the that article is not within the WP standards of fact checks. Ejsmanalo (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your research! Please keep us posted as to the results of your investigation; I sent out an email to the Times asking for clarification, but haven't heard back yet. Hopefully one of us will run across something that helps makes sense of this. Axcviii (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Go team go! Sethie (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Haven't heard back from Ejsmanalo, but there's substantial evidence *still online* that the claims of credit card theft are true. I sent an abuse report 5 days ago to the hosting company of the following websites, which resolved to the same IP block that theguthriegroup.com and guthriecastle.co.uk were hosted on.

• http://www.helpmedownload.com/index3.asp - 184.170.142.135
• http://www.officiallegalforms.org/billing.php - 184.170.142.135
• http://www.freedownloadzone.com - 184.170.142.150

I say "were" instead of "are" because checking again today, it appears that Pena's legitimate sites have been moved to a new hosting provider (which indicates that Pena, et al. saw the abuse report and opted to move their legitimate sites instead of simply taking down the obviously fraudulent ones). Now, this isn't citable proof for WP because it's original research, and my goal is not to denigrate Pena, but hopefully this will be enough to bring it to his attention and get these websites taken down, since my abuse report was never responded to or acted upon. Axcviii (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

sorry took a while for me to respond. I had to get in touch with pena's legal person. At this point I requested for legal document related to this so we can have concrete proof and evidence on what really happened regards to the allegation instead of replying on old news from the site sources we have. It might take a week or two as the people am communicating with are from the UK. thanks!Ejsmanalo (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries, let us know - those sites I mentioned are still up as of today though. Also, a heads up - I added a mention of the University of Florida controversy that surfaced over the last few days. Almost immediately after that, the Women in Finance Committee of Bristol canceled Pena's upcoming speaking gig. They say they are not at liberty to discuss the reason, but it seems fairly clear that it's because of the University of Florida event. I did not add that bit to the article because it's conjecture at this point. Axcviii (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

the bristol talk as i confirmed from the point person on pena's side says the cancellation was not really connected to the florida video. it was for the reason that the organizing body was not able to accommodate the demands requested by pena to have a bigger room for the event. Not sure if an email trail from the conversation could suffice as reference for it but alas i think not putting the content is better as it does not have any significant online source to really tell the story for both side. Axcviii, if it was not for you i would not have been able to see the 2nd video uploaded. thanks! just to keep you updated on the progress, the document I requested are now being accommodated by pena's staff and they will give me an update soon on when they can provide me copies of docs. also I did check and the site you have mentioned looks like it has been taken down. Ejsmanalo (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned that the dialogue going on here is in violation of WP:BLP, which includes talk pages as well [[4]]. Some of the above text may need to be deleted or removed. I am all for including any well sourced material that documents any things this person has done wrong and against any speculation or anything that can put wikipedia at legal risk. I would ask both of you to not use this page to discuss specualtion... and to keep the focus on what allegations are well sourced and can be included in this article. Tone can be hard to read via the internet, so to be clear I'm not angry or anything, just concerned. Sethie (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Sethie, noted and for the record me and Axcviii are cool! Am still in progres of getting the needed facts on the other topic at hands. thanks! Ejsmanalo (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this article definitely got a visit from the Delete-It-All Brigade, but I think the article is all the better for it. Yeah, it misses a lot of relevant stuff, but it's definitely a more neutral statement of facts now. Axcviii (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I take that (partially) back, regarding the very last edit: WP:BLPCRIME applies to non-public figures. Axcviii (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The case was an absolute acquittal. The police called the entire affair a "mistake" and the fact is that this is not remotely proper in any BLP but if we have it, we have to accurately reflect the case. The section title should thus include the acquittal especially since zero evidence was ever given by the police at all. Which is what the original edit should have noted. And no source backs up adding FBI stuff into this, by the way, other than an en passant claim that they asked questions. Collect (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"Investigations into the case, first reported by The Times of India on Wednesday, revealed that he is wanted by the FBI and National White Collar Crime Centre of the USA. He is also wanted by the Federal Trade Commission, USA; Anti Credit Card Fraud Agency; Internet Merchant Banks and several international banks worldwide." It seems pretty clearly relevant, but I leave it up to you guys. Axcviii (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you give a current reliable source making that claim after the acquittal? Collect (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Why after the acquittal? What does Bangalore dismissing the case have to do with international agencies pursuing him? The source that quote is from is directly below this text, and there are several other reliable news and gov sites that state something to the same effect. Also, if you'll read above on this Talk page, I outlined several reasons why I don't think the page with the acquittal is a reliable source (no publisher, gets info wrong, no way to get in touch with them, etc.), but I think it probably should not be removed because that would tiptoe the libel issue. Axcviii (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The case was closed as an absolute acquittal. The source claiming the FBI was involved has no supporting articles from reliable sources. The opinion piece you wish to use has been negated by the absolute dismissal of all charges as a "mistake." I rather think this is sufficient. Collect (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

[5] is Aug 9, 2009 The Times of India website. "The cyber crime police have given a clean chit to DFX Customer Connect Consulting Pvt Ltd chairman Daniel S Pena and director William Smith in a case." Seems pretty clear, and is a Reliable Source. "Later, however, the cyber crime police filed a B report with the I ACMM court, saying it couldn't find any evidence and asked the court to treat it as mistake of facts." Also seems clear. Collect (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying the acquittal source is unclear, I'm saying that it's a bad source (no publisher, no references, and there's not a single other corroborating source). Other articles that mention international police interest include cybercellmumbai.gov.in and Times of India (with an actual author). I'm also not sure why you think the dnaindia article is an "opinion piece"; I see no evidence of that. Axcviii (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: edit ID 840083728, this has now been covered by multiple reliable news sources. What part is contentious that needs discussion before adding? http://www.gainesville.com/news/20180412/video-self-proclaimed-billionaire-threatens-uf-student Axcviii (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

not encyclopedic

moved this here. this is not encyclopedic. perhaps these refs can be used to generate something of encyclopedic interest.

Media

From October 2012 to January 2015, Peña ran a series of podcasts on Podbean and iTunes, "The Quantum Leap Advantage", which featured his QLA Seminars and other free content.

In April 2014, John Lee Dumas hosted him on his podcast: Entrepreneur On Fire. Brian Rose, the host of London Real TV, invited Peña to his show in a discussion titled "Your First Hundred Million". Rose attended the QLA seminar October 2014 and conducted a second interview at Peña's estate. They collaborated for the first London Real event, "Blitz at the Ritz." Dave Asprey, an American "biohacker" also featured Peña on his podcast. Jordan Harbinger, former host of The Art of Charm did an interview on him on the same year.

In May of 2016, the Opportunity Charter School in Harlem, New York, rescinded an offer for Peña to speak at the school, due to his excessive use of profanity. Peña disputes this and claims that the offer was rescinded due to his support of Donald Trump.

Peña was interviewed by comedians Christina Pazsitzky and Tom Segura for their podcast show "Your Mom's House Podcast". In March of 2017, Peña was a guest of Joe Rogan's podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. He was also interviewed by Joe Desena on his Spartan Up! podcast.

Peña was featured on London Real's third feature-length documentary film, entitled "Dan Pena - The 50 Billion Dollar Man".

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Global warming prospective should be mentioned in Controversy

I don't find any reason why Dan Pena's page does not have any information regarding his views against global warming despite there are videos available in youtube that Pena is swearing against global warming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjlC02NsIt0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:104E:CF81:7B18:90EE:CBAD:A411 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Time for another rewrite

The article looked far too close to the poor shape it was in before the last rewrite, so I reverted to a version that appeared to have a good level of review before the massive expansion by WP:SPA editors that looks like WP:UPE. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding to the above comment, I'd urge editors to be extra careful about claims of net worth, business worth, etc. A lot of references used in the past were low quality PR-type material, and likely exaggerated. There may be something salvageable in regards to a previously published book that is currently out of print. Not sure any of the media appearances are noteworthy (possibly except the Joe Rogan podcast, but that doesn't seem noteworthy in isolation though). --Btcgeek (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted again, for the same reasons as above, and have added it to my watchlist. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I represent the Person on this page Mr. Daniel Steven S. Peña. he has requested personally to have his Wikipedia page removed. Can we open a request for such action? Ejsmanalo (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ejsmanalo: Please read WP:AUTOPROB. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer: I have seen the link. Do I need to submit proof regarding authorization from Mr. Peña as proof of this request? Ejsmanalo (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here can tell him updates regarding the request for the removal/deletion of a page? The subject now has spoken to his lawyer and will pursue legal means if the request cannot be honored.Ejsmanalo (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ejsmanalo: The subject needs to send the email as directed at WP:AUTOPROB. Whoever mails the Volunteer Response Team will be vetted to determine that they are the subject or represent the subject for handling the request further. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry it has come to this. As already mentioned, your best bet is to contact the WMF directly at info-en-qwikimedia.org Another email is legalwikimedia.org. That's the one I'd use. This Is the WMF's contact page. Hope this helps. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 17:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial on this article and the article meets WP:BLP & WP:NOTABILITY requirements. This article should not be deleted. Probably the subject seeks to whitewash his involvement with an controversial organization, and that is not something that we whitewash. I am sure Harvey Weinstein isn't happy about his article either! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Unjustified Reverts and False Accusations of Paid Advocacy

Hello, nice to meet you all.

When I first saw this article I was surprised at what bad shape the page was in and, having scanned briefly through the historic edits I can see that there have been (and probably still are) people intentionally trying to worsen the quality of / vandalize the article. For example, I had removed some unreferenced information because it was not mentioned at all in the reference provided, and made other changes in good faith to generally improve the article.

So, today I see that a number of my edits are reverted... fair enough, that's part of the BRD cycle. But then I see I have Hipal (talk) posting a baseless accusation of undisclosed paid advocacy onto my talk page, notably without providing evidence. I was hoping for a more collaborative feeling among editors on this article, honestly, and I'm disappointed that Hipal seems to be using cancel culture tactics to discourage me from editing.

Not a big deal - I know the rules of Wikipedia and if I have a financial interest I will disclose it, just as I hope you would, Hipal. None of my changes were destructive or non-referenced.

I will continue as an editor of this article, as is my right - but please if you have evidence of me being paid to edit this page then you can present it. :)

Ifdc (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I've not accused you of anything. I am very concerned that you're following in the footsteps of the large number of editors (15 are listed at the top of this page) who have edited this article with a conflict of interest.

You say you're not here with a conflict of interest of any kind, paid or otherwise? If that's the case, fine.

Can we now WP:FOC? As I've indicated on your talk page, working on articles like this requires strict adherence to Wikipedia's content policy. Simple verification is not sufficient for inclusion in any article, and biographical articles have exceptionally high standards for quality of sources. --Hipal (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes happy to focus on content, Hipal - please cease edit warring. Ifdc (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hipal has violated 3 revert rule - edit war template placed on their talk page and administrators informed on noticeboard. Request other editors to join discussion on talk page. Ifdc (talk) 05:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hipal please stop editing the name of this section I was the one who created it and it was my complaint against you so I think it's fair that the name I gave it should stay and you are breaking http links to the section by renaming it. Ifdc (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Evidence you need to be blocked or banned. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you so hostile?? Ifdc (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the first of the discussions by subsequently blocked editor, Ifdc. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Use of article for promotion

The relevant policies are WP:BLP, WP:NOT, and WP:POV. There's some WP:OR as well, but those seem minor and easily addressed. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. While I agree that in the past, having looked at some of the edit history, there were some of these issues, I don't believe the article suffers from it currently. Could you please provide some specific examples? Ifdc (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the six sections below are enough examples to work from. I hope there aren't more with the same level of severity. --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

They've each been responded to. Ifdc (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is necessary for inclusion. There's none for any of them. --Hipal (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Justification, quotes, and references have all been provided - it's your turn to explain why, in your view, the justifications provided are insufficient, beyond simply refusing to agree. Ifdc (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yet there is no consensus to include any of it. Please stop making demands of others. Please redact beyond simply refusing to agree. --Hipal (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is the most desirable outcome I agree - though you can hardly call my asking what you disagree with that is preventing consensus "making demands of others" - that is expected and you should know that given you've been doing this a lot longer than me. We are on this talk page now as part of a discussion / debate process where the strength of our arguments is measured and that determines what will become the consensus. So far you have only vaguely said elements of this article (which ones specifically?) violate one or more policy sets (which ones, which parts?). You have referred to breaches in all of the following policy sets: WP:BLP, WP:NOT, WP:POV, and WP:OR - can you please create a new section listing out each of what you see to be offenses in each category so we can discuss them one by one. Thank you Ifdc (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is required. There's none for inclusion. I'm not repeating this again. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of what? Which part of the article are you referring to? Thanks Ifdc (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

[6] --Hipal (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the work on this article, especially for Curb Safe Charmer's work. However, I've restored the advert tag. There are still poor and promotional sources, even in the lede, supporting promotional content, as identified in the six sections immediately below. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose following BLP and changing the article to this version, as there's no consensus for the changes. See my edit summaries for each portion. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. You cannot veto all changes by withholding your consent in the face of sensible justifications. Ifdc (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Again ([7][8][9]), you have it backwards. If you don't understand policy at this point, I'm afraid you never will. Please leave this article alone, or at least keep your involvement to this talk page. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Businessman

The change from "businessman" to business magnate seems to be over the top puffery. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint, but he is referred to as "Tycoon" in the reference and Tycoon is a synonym of of business magnate, it even redirects there on wikipedia. Ifdc (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please FOC.

Please identify the ref(s). --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference calls Pena "American Tycoon" - "Solid Gold Malt" - The San Francisco Examiner (San Francisco, California) · 20 Sep 1987, Sun · Page 62 Ifdc (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't have access to it. Could you please summarize the ref and quote the relevant sections? --Hipal (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure - it's currently reference number 4 in the article, "Solid Gold Malt". San Francisco Examiner. 20 September 1987. Retrieved 9 June 2020. - here is the full text:

SOLID GOLD MALT: A breathtaking price for a bottle of Scotch was set in Scotland when an American tycoon paid $9,020 for a 60-year old Macallan. It was more than four times the previous highest price of $2,074 which had already put the brand in the Guinness Book of Records. Daniel Pena, 41, president of Gulf Western Resources, bought the standard-sized bottle at an auction held in the distillery in the village of Craigellachie. A distillery official said afterward: "The price offered was so staggering that we could hardly believe it." Pena is described as being "absolutely crazy about Scotland and everything Scottish." Four years ago he bought Guthrie Castle, a turreted beauty spot from where he runs his international oil company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifdc (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that then entire article? --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome - The article is longer and mentions other people but that is the entire section relevant to Dan Pena. You can click through to the newspapers site and read it yourself for free. Ifdc (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the entire article as far as I can tell. It's a pr piece covering a publicity stunt. It is not reliable for identifying Peña as a "tycoon" and demonstrates no weight nor encyclopedic value on the subject. I'm not sure if even the briefest mention of the stunt is noteworthy, but I'm not familiar with the general consensus dealing with Guinness records. --Hipal (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Definition of Business Magnate: "A business magnate is someone who has achieved great success and enormous wealth through the ownership of multiple lines of enterprise." This applies to Pena. Ifdc (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That is your OR. --Hipal (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well no, it's on record that Pena has achieved great wealth and success, he owned his own businesses, was well-known, was even featured in the Pulitzer Prize-winning series by the Los Angeles times as an example of Latino-American business success. The definition of magnate provided came from tycoon, so it is fair to describe him as a business magnate. Ifdc (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That's OR too. We seem to be done here. --Hipal (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the San Francisco examiner article referred to him as a Tycoon. That is a reliable third party source. Thanks Ifdc (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We disagree. You'll not find consensus this way. The Examiner piece is a pr piece as described. Am I correct there's no author or date? --Hipal (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Author seems to be staff writers of the San Francisco Examiner - date is September 20th 1987. Ifdc (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no byline. It appears to be a blurb from a news service, rather than written by SFExaminer staff, and likely from a pr service given the content. It's a poor, promotional source unfit for a BLP.--Hipal (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree- this piece does not specifically refer to him as a tycoon, nor does it provide any encyclopedic information- the fact that he bought an expensive bottle of alcohol is not really importnat. Neither is the fact that he is crazy for Scotland. The article does say that he runs an international oil company- so at best you could use this souce to say he ran an international business. You cannot add / change anything that they say- they don't call him a tycoon, so you cannot use this source to call him a tycoon. I also agree- its a PR fluff piece and unworthy of being included at all. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I take your thoughtful guidance - we cannot use the SFE article to justify calling him a tycoon. The question then becomes do any of the other references support using this or a similar term? Ifdc (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there is consensus here- I'm going to go ahead and make the change back to businessman. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Media personality

This seems grossly undue as well as promotional. --Hipal (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Are you using an objective measurement? Ifdc (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

BLP, POV, NOT. --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please create new section with what you see to be violations in each category and we can go through them one by one. Ifdc (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We appear to be done here. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I asked you to please communicate your objections clearly. Which part(s) of the article are you referring to, and which policies have been violated, in your view? Ifdc (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:DTS. --Hipal (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That was in poor taste. You are being evasive. Ifdc (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ifdc: Please note that Hipal is a volunteer. They're not being paid to argue with you, whereas your own status is dubious to put it mildly. Please read and consider WP:PAYTALK: "No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. ... Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline." Bishonen | tålk 11:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC).

"They're not being paid to argue with you" I've told you before, the five minutes is up. If you want to argue more, you'll have to pay for another five minutes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I am also a volunteer, my 'status' is not 'dubious'. As I told you on my (talk) page, this is my only account and I'm not a paid advocate. You are basically harassing me at this point so please lay off. Ifdc (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Per policy- removing this contested edit. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wedding business

I believe the refs cover the wedding business well enough to mention directly. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

He also ran QLA and his oil company from the castle, both mentioned inside the newspaper clippings. So "several" or "multiple" works, otherwise we would need to list them all out individually. Ifdc (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's OR if the sources don't properly verify the information, which seems to be the case here.

It's a POV violation to remove information that's been well-covered in reliable references. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No - with respect, there is no violation. The reference at https://www.newspapers.com/image/461570481/?terms="daniel%2Bpena"%2B"guthrie%2Bcastle" says verbatim "Four years ago he bought Guthrie Castle, a turreted beauty spot from where he runs his international oil company." So if he had a weddings business (please show me which of the references you are pulling from) and the oil company both being run from the same place, then me changing it to "multiple businesses" is not a violation in any way, and accurately represents the truth. Ifdc (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The BBC ref "Castle owner forgives £130,000 wedding fraudster".

And that international oil business is no more, correct? What more do we know about it? --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure currently - but the way its written is past tense so saying "from which he has operated several businesses" is a safe way to say it. Ifdc (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the policy here, POV. We agree that the wedding business received some rather strong attention, correct? --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Here's how I see it - if you want to mention the events/'weddings' business specifically, we would also need to mention the others. Otherwise, we can just say 'multiple businesses'. Which do you prefer? Ifdc (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm now at the point of just repeating myself.

I believe we agree that the wedding business should be mentioned in this article. Do we agree? --Hipal (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I really don't mind including the events business, in fact it's already there on the page. Okay, what about if we say "from which he operated multiple businesses, including an events business and international oil company." That way if there are more businesses that we don't know about yet it won't appear as if we are trying to provide an exhaustive list. What do you think? Ifdc (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you refusing to answer the question? --Hipal (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Your behavior is becoming disruptive. Ifdc (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We're done here if you cannot answer a simple question, asked twice about our apparent agreement on a key application of policy. --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I already told you I don't mind it being in the article in fact it is already in the article are you pretending not to have read it? The events business is the weddings business, see post above at 20:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC). Ifdc (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Then we agree. Thanks. There are problems with how it's now presented, but I'd rather wait to see if we can wrap up anything else before going into those subsequent changes. --Hipal (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like you to please articulate what you see as the "problems with how it's now presented". Ifdc (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I will do so later, as I've indicated. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes but you reverted the content so you need to justify why otherwise it stays. If you agree we can both stop editing for a while and let other editors come in? Ifdc (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I said "later". --Hipal (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Saying later is a bit rude.. However- IFDC as the person trying to get new information in the article- the burden to prove its worth is on you, not the person who objects to it being added. The problem I believe that they see about how it is presented is you are guilty of WP:SYNTH by combing information from different sources into one sentence that says something that neither of the other two sources say- meaning- I don't see where it is stated that the wedding business was run out of his castle.... nor do I see why that is relevant in any way anyhow. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The 'events / weddings business being run out of the his castle' was in the article before I started editing... I just changed it to 'multiple businesses' because the Shadow of Fraud over Lilley Firm article specifically mentioned he ran the oil company out of the castle. I didn't know much about the weddings business until another editor added a reference from BBC I think. Ifdc (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Has operated several businesses

This is OR, SOAP, and a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The wedding business is certainly covered in multiple, independent news sources, especially the £130,000 fraud (and subsequent employee termination and arrest - do a Google News search for "Guthrie Castle"). If this article is to be kept, that has to stay in to give due weight to sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference "Solid Gold Malt". San Francisco Examiner. 20 September 1987. Retrieved 9 June 2020. says he ran his oil company out of the castle as well, which is why I stated multiple businesses. Ifdc (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not a reliable source as pointed out in the "Businessman" section. --Hipal (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Ifdc (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote, but we've been over this.

We might be able to skirt the problems by just identifying the noteworthy businesses backed by references we agree are reliable. --Hipal (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you ok with "from which he has operated several businesses, including an events business and international oil company."? Ifdc (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Why "events business"? I thought we agreed to specifically mention "wedding".

There are weight and clarity issues here too that identify the oil company by name may solve. At least we're making progress. --Hipal (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Coaching

Blatant SOAP and BLP violation. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand you have a sensitivity to this type of issue given your past experience, but stating that he is the founder of Trillion Dollar Man is simply stating a fact relevant to his identity and business success. Ifdc (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please FOC.

The references do not support the content per policy.--Hipal (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but you aren't really justifying it with any reference to policy you are just saying it's a violation. Which part of the policy exactly is being violated, in your view? Ifdc (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You have it backwards. If it cannot be demonstrated that the content is not clearly supported by policy, then it needs to be removed. This is a BLP article. If you don't understand what that means, especially by now, then you should step away from the article. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You are being hostile, please stop. You've accused me of being paid, you've reverted 4+ times without any reason to do so and you are now saying there is a violation of the policy but you can't tell us which part of the policy is violated. You've been editing this page for a while and it feels like you are trying to defend your turf and have become too attached to this particular article. There is no reason why we shouldn't collaborate in a more friendly and less ad-hominem manner. Ifdc (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:REDACT your response.

The policies and their enforcement are what they are. The burden is on the editors who add or restore content to justify it. --Hipal (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, justification for adding content is that it improves the article in accordance with all the rules. If you think that isn't true please present your case. Ifdc (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you assert that you like it. That's not going to gain any consensus in any article, let alone a BLP. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth or make baseless accusations. My edits are in good faith. Ifdc (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't more clear. Simply saying that policy has been met doesn't make it so. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree. And simply saying that policy has been violated does not make it so. You'd need to refer to a specific part of the policy that has allegedly been violated so that we can determine if it's the case. Ifdc (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. We're not going to ignore this. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You still have not provided a single concrete example of any violation. Any content I added was referenced. Ifdc (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how continuing this discussion will change consensus as is necessary. --Hipal (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

A Pulitzer Prize-winning

Grossly undue and promotional. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's that important to mention, why doesn't the Los Angeles Times source in question not mention the name of the programme? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It is definitely noteworthy to be one of three Latino-American success stories featured in a Los Angeles Times series which won a Pulitzer Prize. Ifdc (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If we knew the name of it, and multiple independent sources frequently described it as such, then it could go in the body, but not in the lead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times is a reliable source, and on their page at https://www.latimes.com/california/latinos is literally says: "The Times’ 1983 Pulitzer Prize-winning series" Ifdc (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a verification problem. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

So what is the problem? Please tell us. If you are interested in actually reaching consensus you will need to present your justification in a less terse and more informative manner. Ifdc (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The burden is on those who add or restore the information. If you don't understand how the identified policies apply, please ask questions that at least demonstrate you understand the basics that I identified on your talk page [10]. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually no, as part of the BOLD > REVERT > DISCUSS process I am meant to make changes in good faith, which I've done. Now that you have made your disagreement known you will need to justify the revert, otherwise the revert does not stand. Ifdc (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Please re-read the lede of BLP. It ends, The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. --Hipal (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

And everything I've added has been well-referenced. If you disagree please show me where that is not the case. Thank you. Ifdc (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not well referenced. None of it is. --Hipal (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not fair to say that "none of it" is. Yes, it can improve, and we will hopefully improve it over time, but let's not be extreme about it. Ifdc (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

None of it. BLP is rather extreme, which may not seem fair. --Hipal (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Since there is consensus this is undue I am removing per policy. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree, we did not achieve consensus - I wasn't posting because some others were reporting/threatening me with being blocked.. Actually the fact that the LA Times article won a Pulitzer is material, important information and serves to demonstrate both the stature of the subjects as well as informing the reader of the wiki article what level Pena reached in the public eye. Ifdc (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference that did not support the statement that preceded it

Hello Ifdc. The reason I added the 'failed verification' tag at that location in the career section is that the reference in the San Francisco Examiner was directly after (and therefore presumably intended to support) the statement that 'In a move backed by shareholders, Peña was ousted as president of the company in 1992 and subsequently awarded $3.3 million by an American jury, for suing the company over his dismissal'. Neither the excerpt given in the reference, nor the SFE article it was extracted from, mention him being ousted, a court case or a payout. That reference is about him buying whiskey. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey sorry Curb Safe Charmer I think it's just a misunderstanding, the part where it mentions being ousted and sueing for 3.3 million is in the Fraud Shadow over Lilley Firm article. I appreciate your edits, thank you. Ifdc (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nationality

Hi User:Curb Safe Charmer - really appreciate your edits. I noticed the edit changing nationality from American to Mexican-American and before reverting it I thought maybe we'd discuss. Is Mexican-American a nationality? Or is it just American? Mexican-Americans don't hold Mexican-American passports, for example, but I'm open to see your point of view.

Thanks for your contributions Ifdc (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Mexican American is as much a descriptor of a person's heritage as Italian- American or any other combination.... However- there needs to be a source that labels him as such- and I've only seen sources referring to him as Latino or as American. Do you have one that specifically says Mexican American? Per policy- I am going to revert until a source is found. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle and Ifdc: It was 30 minutes into his interview with London Real, currently ref #2. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Pena is referred to as Mexican American inside the Los Angeles Times article as well. My point being is that "Mexican-American" is not a nationality. The nationality is only American. There is no such thing as a Mexican-American passport, for example. There is no country called Mexico-America Ifdc (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

well I withdraw my opposition then. I support adding this. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ifdc- my point is calling someone by the country they, or their parents recently came from as well as America ie- Italian-American, Japanese-American, Indian-America - is a common practice in America so protesting it here is silly. Especially if the sources support it. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not protesting, I'm only expressing a logical position - I feel that nationality should just be "American" and in the first paragraph you can refer to him as Mexican-American. That way it makes sense. Thanks for your input and edits nightenbelle Ifdc (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the last of the discussions by subsequently blocked editor, Ifdc. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Article in The Age

@Farrtj: On 9 June 2020 one of your edits to this article was to add this reference: Peña served in the military during the [[Vietnam War]], but never saw combat.<ref name="theage1">{{cite news |last1=Betley |first1=John |title=The Land of Frasers and castles revisited |url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/461570481/?terms=%22daniel%2Bpena%22%2B%22guthrie%2Bcastle%22 |accessdate=9 June 2020 |work=The Age |date=18 March 1989}}</ref> however the URL does not correspond to that publication and I can't find an article of that title on newspapers.com. I know it is a while back, but do you know where you found it? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing sourced statement with RS?

@Hipal: what was your reasoning behind this edit? It seems reliably sourced? The only oddity was Jr rather than Sr. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in my edit summary, it's unclear if any mention is due. That they got their facts wrong shows what a poor source it is. It's just a listing. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Asteuartw: given that there's been a lot of promotional editing of the article by editors with a conflict of interest, editors watching the article are treating additions with suspicion. Have you any additional independent reliable sources that show that the Order of St John was indeed awarded to the subject of this article and not his son as indicated in The London Gazette which one would hope would not report Jr if they meant Sr? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

"It's just a listing". I'd like a source that demonstrates clear due weight and encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the listing is false? There is no reason to suppose The Gazette is incorrect. It is a formal record of appointments. I personally have no axe to grind, I have no connection to the subject. I added the Order of St John because it appears that it is true and is supported by evidence. --- Asteuartw (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

BS vs BSc

@Schenkstroop: Pena's own university calls bachelor of science degrees BS - see this for example, and the Bachelor of Science article makes clear that either are valid, so your change of BS to BSc is not necessary. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, good to know Schenkstroop (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Advertisement template

@Lovelife11111: I'm curious why you added an "advert" template to this article. Which sentences of the article gave you the impression that it is written like an advertisement? Schenkstroop (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. I'll remove it if there's no response.

What I'm seeing at a glance:

• We might want to reduce the use and prominence of the poorer references.
• "for suing the company over his dismissal" should be reworded to be clearer.

Those are minor cleanup issues, though, not justification for the template. --Hipal (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please nominate for deletion

This article does not provide any encyclopedic value, and does not offer any information demonstrating that the subject possesses any notable qualities or accomplishments. 98.33.150.133 (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The references clearly indicate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that multiple editors, most (all?) of them now blocked, have argued for deletion, mostly after failing to change this article to suit their personal preferences, usually driven by a conflict of interest. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nationality (again)

The infobox states his nationality is American. Does he hold dual Mexican citizenship, as the introductory paragraph previously asserted? —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was enough to explain why "Mexican American" is proper. Mexican Americans is about heritage, not nationality. The LATimes article makes it due. Perhaps it could be presented in another way, and not so prominently? --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Your change looks fine. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It's locked; why the discussion to delete?

The article has been locked, which implies control and scrutiny of future edits, keeping them within the bounds of a proper WP article. With that in mind, the (old) talk of deletion seems overboard. Further, the trimming that has been done to the article also seems somewhat overboard, and there could/should be more information added, without crossing the line where it becomes a publicity ad for Mr. Pena. Just my 2 cents. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:6530:D2AE:B9ED:1484 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Updates

@Hipal Please see the single edit I've just made on his childhood and parents. Will let you review this given the page history before adding more info. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the quotes and tightened it up a bit. The second sentence about his father still seems overly long.

I think we need to be especially careful about using quotes or the like from him given what a showman he is, as documented in the new LATimes ref. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)