Talk:Vincent DeSimone

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Non-Techie Opinion[edit]

A large part of DeSimone's involvement in the Ruben Carter trial (Lafayette Grill Murders) was the interview with an alleged witness which occurred on Oct 16, 1966. The transcripts of the interview which occurred between police (including DeSimone) and Al Bello ('witness')can be found at: http://graphicwitness.com/carter/bello1066.html I found it an interesting piece, though the link came from Cal Deal's website. 131.252.253.135 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Average Joe[reply]

Copyediting[edit]

I don't understand this sentence: "that character is in fact a dramatised amalgam of several people some of the incidents in relation to whom have been fictionalized." "dramatised amalgam of several people", ok. But what's the meaning of this: "some of the incidents in relation to whom have been fictionalized"? I'm german, but is this correct english? It should be possible for foreign visitors to undrstand the wiki articles. If the author doesn't rephrase this, I'm gonna do that next week. Gray62 22:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine English. (Authorities differ on whether to put commas in such sentences. I tend to follow Follett. I'll add some non-Follett commas.) Please leave it alone. Uncle G 23:40:06, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
Hi! If you say that's correct english, I won't dispute that. But the fact remains that many foreign readers (and some natives, too) will have difficulties with this monster sentence. Could you please say it in another way? Like "that character is in fact a dramatised amalgam of several people. Some of the incidents in relation to those people have been fictionalized."

How about that? Gray62 00:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious reference[edit]

An additional reference to an article on Rubin Carter was added "for neutrality". It was not stated what "neutrality" it was attempting to attain, but the reference didn't mention the subject of this article once. I've removed it. Uncle G 01:55:33, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It was obvious. There is an external link to a story called 'The hurricane hoax'. This site is very strongly anti-Carter. I posted that link to 'lawbuzz' to provide a more neutral approach. Do you want to tell us the 'hoax' link is neutral? Gray62 03:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was not, and still is not, obvious. The reference made no mention of the subject of this article whatever. It has no bearing upon this article at all. Please stop putting it in, and please stop removing citations of things that are used as references for this article. Uncle G 04:26:12, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Undisputed fact: VDS was the lead detective in the case. My link provides evidence that the federal court critizised the handling of eyewitness Bello by the detectives. Q.E.D.

Your link makes no mention of DeSimone whatever. I looked for a mention, and didn't find one. Uncle G 05:04:40, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

And I want to know why you are constantly intervening in the work I try to do here, instead of supporting me. Gray62 04:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because you aren't making the article better. You're making it worse. You're removing citations of the sources that were actually used to construct the article, which is entirely contrary to the Wikipedia idea of citing sources. You're adding sources that don't even mention the article's subject. And you're raising a spurious neutrality dispute that seems to hinge on the neutrality of the sources (which you should be taking up with the sources directly) and not the neutrality of the article itself at all. There's no contentious area for this article to be non-neutral on. No-one disputes that DeSimone died in 1979, or had a facial injury, or resigned, or was a lead detective. There's no non-neutrality here, because there aren't any sides to take. (I find it most ironic that you start a neutrality dispute with the word "undisputed".) If the article went into the area of whether or not DeSimone actually was a racist, there would be sides to take. But it makes no statement on that subject at all. Uncle G 05:04:40, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Uncle G, btw, I checked your link #4 and it doesn't lead to the movie disclaimer. In fact, it doesn't lead to any primary source at all, but to an opinion piece by Cal Deal, who has been known as an Anti-Carter activist for some years. There is no quote similar to your 'monster-sentence', only this fragmentary 'Carter is now backpedaling on this character. He now says it is a "composite" designed to represent the racist system.'. Well, essentially this is a one word quote of Carter, that may or may not be taken totally out of context. Now, I don't want to play the word weighing game, but do you think it's correct to establish your statement about the movie disclaimer on one word by Carter, who has been at best an indirect member of the movie crew? Are you using double standards here? Gray62 10:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We won't get anywhere this way. I provided another link to a letter of VDS' son citing the disclaimer. It doesn't explicitly mention Della Pesca being a "composed" character, but it has to do. I will see to the movie and some of the books to get some hard facts here in a few days. Gray62 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to take the blame for any inacuraccy here again, so I have to inform you that I checked more than 200 google hits in the last 24 hours (many of them simple references to Cal Deal), and not one of them offered any proof that VDS didn't meet Carter before the murder. VDS became police officer in 47 (obituary), so it would have been possible. Well, to be honest, how do you prove that two guys never met before? Impossible. I'm thinking about another statement that can be proven.Gray62 20:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view disputed[edit]

User 'Uncle G' is posting here several links to Anti-Carter websites under the alleged intent to provide evidence for this article. Since this article is linked to the Carter case, this is directly affecting the neutral point of view. At the same time, he is prohibiting my reasonable attempt to provide facts about the controversy about the eyewitness Bello. Imho this doesn't result in a neutral point of view. Gray62 04:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing "alleged" about it. Those were the sources used to construct the article. We cite sources here. It's that simple. That the web sites strongly disparage Carter has no bearing upon the fact that they were the sources of the information about the differences between the character in the movie and the real detective, and no bearing upon the neutrality of the actual article. The idea that this affects the neutral point of view is nonsense. Uncle G 05:10:24, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
And no, you aren't "providing facts about the controversy about the eyewitness Bello". You're providing unsourced statements. You're basing the text "His handling of eyewitness Alfred Bello was critizised by supporters of the accused" on a source that doesn't actually mention DeSimone at all. Please cite your actual source for this. Uncle G 05:22:26, 2005-09-12 (UTC)
You are playing word games here and engage in an edit war. I'm fresh here at Wiki but I know that this isn't according to the rules. And the obituary clearly states that the supporters 'accused the chief of detectives in 1975 of bribing witnesses to testify against carter'. And by reading several Anti-Carter sites, I'm well aware that it is an undisputed fact that the allegations were about Bello. What lvl of evidence do you try to introduce here?

And imho it is of no substance that the Anti-Carter sources were used to construct the article. To obtain NPOV, pro Carter sources have to be used, too, or else all readers checking the links will receive a one-sided impression. For example, it should be able to find sources showing the destortions of the movie that don't discuss the whole case (and discuss it by providing only the negative evidence).Gray62 06:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Wikipedia:Cite sources again: "Just because a statement is referenced does not mean that it is appropriate or conveys an accurate impression. As implicitly described in the official NPOV policy, even if a citation is from a reputable source, it should provide the reader the gist of the research on a certain subject and not merely carefully selected or out-of-context quotes to support a certain point of view." And that's what I'm saying here.Gray62 06:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White cop gets off[edit]

Why wasn't the cop or detective easnt arrested for setting Robin up with his forgery lies to the court that what's wrong wothe world white cops think thru can get away with everything and in this situation shows they can 74.214.51.85 (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The shister cop who should have been convicted and spent time in jail unfortunately or fortunately died in 1979. Rubin Carter wasn't released until 1985. 2601:600:8281:2CF0:6D54:BE1A:27E5:77E0 (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]