Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Noelia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Noelia State: Closed Requested By: Thief12 (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Other Parties: Thief12, Laverdadinfo Mediated By: User:JeremyMcCracken Comments: Solution reached

Contents 1 Request details 1.1 Who are the involved parties? 1.2 What's going on? 1.3 What would you like to change about that? 2 Mediator notes 3 Administrative notes 4 Discussion

[edit] Request details

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

1. Thief12 (talk · contribs)
2. Laverdadinfo (talk · contribs)

[edit] What's going on?

Laverdadinfo insists on deleting appropriately referenced information from the article. He/she seems obsessed in pushing a certain POV and deletes information that threatens it. Although it has happened with other facts previously, currently he/she insists on deleting the fact that the artist in question (Noelia) filed a lawsuit against her stepfather for sexually abusing her. He/she claims that there's no such lawsuit but I have provided at least two references that say there is. I believe that a Spanish speaking mediator should be in order since most of the references are in Spanish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thief12 (talk • contribs)

I deleted the information because is not true and is not appropiate reference information because I provide many sources that contradicts those statements.

In those 2 references Thief posted, you can find below sources that contradicts Noelia and her husband and manager, Jorge Reynoso's claims that the lawsuit exists. Reynoso said that Ricardo Montaner was called to testify in the lawsuit. Ricardo Montaner contradicts this. Montaner said he has never been called for any lawsuit which contradicts Reynoso claims. (You can find the source below)

There is no lawsuit on file in Mexico, that is just something Reynoso said (after he was sued in Puerto Rico for defamation). Months have gone by and the stepfather and exmanager, Topy, or/and his lawyers haven't received any lawsuit. (source below) There is no proof of any lawsuit anywhere. You can't find the lawsuit online. A tv show in mexico called Ventaneando went to the authorities to investigate and were told that no lawsuit was ever filed. The source Thief provided stated that Reynoso said that Montaner was going to testify. Montaner dismiss that, contradicting Reynoso and the source. (source below) Montaner told the media that he was never giving anything about being a witness in any lawsuit and that he supports Topy because he knows Topy is telling the truth. (source below) Ricardo Montaner also said he has had problems with Noelia in the past because she falsely accussed someone in his family of a wrong doing too. Noelia a few years ago accussed Ricardo Montaner's oldest son, Alejandro Montaner, of rape.(source below) There are rumors Montaner was referring to that. Along with accusing Alejandro Montaner of rape, Noelia has also acussed Guillermo Santiso, president of her ex record label) of rape.(source below).

You can find online (and below) the actual lawsuit filed AGAINST Noelia and Reynoso for difamation why Thief doesn't want that lawsuit to be mention in the article? Also, recently there has been another really big scandal with Noelia and Reynoso when his lawyer quit the case pending against them. You can find online (and below) the petion from the lawyer to withdraw from the case and Noelia's and Reynoso's reaction to it. This has been all over the media and should be mention. The sources are below.

The only lawsuit (which you can find below) is AGAINST Noelia and Reynoso for difamation. There is no proof that Noelia filed any lawsuit. Below are all the appropiate sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laverdadinfo (talk • contribs)

Sources:

http://www.peopleenespanol.com/pespanol/articles/0,22490,1670744,00.html (G) (Y)

This source is about the alleged evidence Mamery presented to accuse Reynoso of distributing Noelia's sex video. It doesn't say anything about the issue we're discussing (Noelia's lawsuit against Mamery) because your article predates the date when Noelia allegedly presented her lawsuit.

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Escenario&n=101490

This source is just a follow-up on the above issue of Mamery's evidence against Reynoso. Again, it doesn't say anything about Noelia's lawsuit against Mamery.

http://www.peopleenespanol.com/pespanol/articles/0,22490,1675318,00.html (G) (Y)

This source is about Mamery's lawsuit against Noelia and Reynoso. Again, it says nothing about the other lawsuit because the article predates the date of Noelia's lawsuit.

http://www.primerahora.com/XStatic/primerahora/docs/espanol/demandatopy.pdf

This is the copy of Mamery's lawsuit against Noelia and Reynoso.

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Locales&n=105554

This source just follows up on Noelia and Reynoso's reaction to Mamery's lawsuit.

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Escenario&n=104891

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Escenario&n=104933

This source talks about Ricardo Montaner's reaction to the lawsuit you say doesn't exist. However, the article itself makes reference to that lawsuit being filed in Mexico.

ADMIN NOTE: Two links above contain the same text. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Escenario&n=104805

This article just mentions Mamery's allegations that he hasn't received the lawsuit. But the article itself makes reference to the lawsuit being filed in Mexico on December 7. The rest is just Mamery gossiping about Noelia, which doesn't necessarily make it true. And if it wasn't, it doesn't invalidate the issue that there might or might not be a lawsuit.

http://buscador.elnuevodia.com/resultados.aspx (G) (Y)

This "source" says nothing. Check it out and post the right one again.

http://www.webdelatele.com/noticias/noelia-y-jorge-reynoso-sin-abogado.html (G) (Y)

http://www.primerahora.com/XStatic/primerahora/docs/espanol/copy_of_renuncia-abogadonoelia.pdf

http://www.vocero.com/noticias.asp?s=Locales&n=108662

These sources just inform of Noelia and Reynoso's lawyer asking to be taken out of the case, which doesn't have anything to do with the validity of Mamery's case. And again, it doesn't have anything to do with Noelia's lawsuit.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aCU0uVQKi38&feature=related http://youtube.com/watch?v=2YQT9l5F5x8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=TyYmJ4KqVyM&feature=related http://www.bollywoodsargam.com/video_todayfeaturedvideo.php?blockbustermovieclip=D83LhjPZRE4---latest-Noelia_La_Reina_featured_hollywood_blockbuster_video.html

These are just clips of gossip and news programs that are not necessarily reliable sources and consist mostly of Mamery being interviewed.

For clarity: Laverdadinfo posted the links in a list; Thief12 then made the annotations. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I think the information is relevant to the article, and I don't see why the other party insists on deleting it, without offering any reasonable argument.—Preceding unsigned comment added by thief12 (talk • contribs)

I provide a very reasonable argument which I posted with all the sources to back it up.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laverdadinfo (talk • contribs)

[edit] Mediator notes

I'll mediate this one. A request for the users posting here, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) to make them easier to differentiate. Thanks, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not speak Spanish; to try and make things a bit clearer, I've added translate links to some of the URLs above. G=Google translator; Y=Babelfish at Yahoo (same technology as AltaVista Babelfish, but that doesn't previde a link that can be embedded). Unfortunately, the links from vocero.com would not translate (Yahoo gave me a translated home page, while Google gave me a blank), but these can be translated by pasting the text into a translator, should the need arise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done so with three of the links above (two were the same article). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes

Copy + paste translations will be removed upon closing to remove copyright concerns. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The thing is that you didn't mention all this when you first deleted the information. You just screamed "It's not true! It's not true!" and offered little to no explanation about it. Now, at least, you're making something that might resemble a valid argument.

Now, I don't have any problems with the lawsuit against Noelia being in the article. I've never deleted that information because I know it to be true. I'm not promoting any POV and I don't have an agenda, but your edits to the article seem to be always bent on pushing a negative POV towards the artist.

I'll check out those sources you just posted, but that doesn't necessarily mean that your sources invalidate mine. Thief12 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is the edit in question the change shown in this diff? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's the information he/she keeps deleting. I just posted above how the sources presented have nothing to do with that edit. Thief12 (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. This information is cited, so that would indicate that the source is disputed. Obviously, Thief12 feels the source to be a valid one; Laverdadinfo, do you believe there is a problem with this source, or is your objection to its inclusion simply a contradiction by other sources? JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FTR, here's yet another source about Noelia presenting the lawsuit against Mamery [1] Thief12 (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The 2 sources(which are the same)that Thief has provided are extracted from the Same article where Noelia's husband, Jorge Reynoso, said that there was a lawsuit filed in Mexico but there is no proof of any lawsuit just statements from Noelia and Reynoso of a supposed lawsuit which no one has seen and where it is said that Ricardo Montaner was called to be a witness and Ricardo Montaner himself says that it is not true that he has never been called to be a witness for any lawsuit. Also, the suppose lawsuit Reynoso said it was filed in december but the defandant hasn't being given any lawsuit either. Reynoso says there is a lawsuit but hasn't given any proof and Ricardo Montaner (the suppose witness) himself contradicted the existance of the lawsuit. All is documented in the sources I provided.

Also, Thief prefers (even if his own sources says of it existance) to omit the lawsuit that Mamery filed against Noelia and Jorge Reynoso for defamation and libel. Which seems Thief is trying to push a negative POV toward Mamery.

He wants to put the supposed lawsuit, Noelia and Reynoso said they filed, in the article even if no one can provide the lawsuit and when many facts (and sources) contradicts the existance of the lawsuit, as it is documented in the sources I provided. (Laverdadinfo (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

The sources I provided are articles that mention the lawsuit being filed. The ones you provided are statements about Mamery saying he hasn't received it. Read them. And I haven't omitted the lawsuit against Noelia. I haven't even written about it, and it is there. Have I deleted it? My reason to put the lawsuit from Noelia/Reynoso against Mamery is because it was in the news, and it's related to the current situation of the family. I provided sources, and that's all. Thief12 (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To aid in my own understanding, G-translation of article source:[2] and of the second source provided here: [3]. Okay, Laverdadinfo, I see where your concern lies- that the news reports are based upon rumors. At this early stage, may I suggest a compromise- something to the tune of "Noelia has accused her stepfather of sexual abuse and claims to have filed a lawsuit in December, 2007(citation in article), though Mamery says he never received it.[4]" Just a suggestion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Thief12 (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But my point is that not only the stepfather says he has never received the lawsuit which can't be found anywhere but there are other sources as well that contradicts the existence of the lawsuit that Noelia said she filed 5 years after the suppose incident happen. For example, the suppose witness (Montaner) says he has never been called for any lawsuit as Reynoso (Noelia's husband and manager) stated. I get that maybe explaining Montaner's part is long and complicated.

I suggest "Noelia recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse and claims to have filed a lawsuit in Mexico in December, 2007 of an incident she claims happened 5 years ago (citation in article), though Mamery says he has never received any lawsuit[5] and other sources contradicts the existence of the lawsuit[6]Laverdadinfo (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one helluva run-on sentence. Anyway, when you say "other sources contradict the existence of the lawsuit" you're referring only to Ricardo Montaner, so don't make it sound as if it was a bunch of people or a bulk of sources contradicting it. The thing is that the sources you provided about Mamery doesn't have a date, and the ones about Montaner are from just a week after the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Maybe he has already received it, maybe not. The thing is that that same article makes reference to it being filed a week before.

I suggest "Noelia recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse for an incident she alleges happened in Mexico in 2003. Supposedly a lawsuit against Mamery was filed on December 7, 2007 in Mexico, but Mamery claims he hasn't received it yet." Thief12 (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been 5 months and you say, Yet??? You make it seem as if Mamery is waiting to recevied it. Mamery claims it doesn't exist. Noelia and Reynoso claim to have filed a lawsuit and that Ricardo Montaner was called to be a witness. Ricardo Montaner dismissal of receiving anything for that suppose lawsuit and deniying the incident Noelia and Reynoso claim, should be noted. Also, it has been 5 month and no one has any proof of anything relating to that suppose lawsuit. But the other lawsuit, the one against Noelia and Reynoso for difamation and libel is all over the internet and the media. The name of the judge, the lawyers, the date of the trial all is available online. But nothing from the lawsuit Noelia claims to have filed is found. So, when I say that other sources contradict the existance of the lawsuit is all that. It is documented. The suppose witness that Noelia and Reynoso said was called to testify contradicts Noelia and Reynoso's claims and says he hasn't received any lawsuit. Also, in the videos in youtube I provided, you could see that many journalists from Puerto Rico said they have documentations of the contradictions in Noelia's claims. That is fundamental and it is why I say that other sources contradicts Noelia's claims.

I suggest "Noelia recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse for an incident she alleges happened in 2003. She claims to have filed a lawsuit in December, 2007 in Mexico ((citation in article), but Mamery says he hasn't received any lawsuit[7]. Other sources contradicts Noelia's claims of the lawsuit.[8] (Laverdadinfo (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

Post a link about the witness you say that contradicts Noelia and Reynoso. Thief12 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple points that might help with this discussion:

1. The witness appears to contradict the alleged assault, but that doesn't mean the lawsuit hasn't been filed. There's always the possibility of a lawsuit on false pretenses.
2. The fact that the parties in question haven't received notice also doesn't mean that no suit was filed- the complaining party is typically in charge of delivering the paperwork; they could file without giving the proper notification to the other parties.
3. A difficulty in finding information on one lawsuit, while relative ease in finding information on another, doesn't indicate that one doesn't exist. There are a great many factors that could affect how much publicity a news story receives.
4. Contradicting statements from Noelia make it seem as though the story isn't true, but it's not an indicator of whether she filed the lawsuit. Like the first point, she could have filed a false lawsuit, but nonetheless, she filed it.

JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no no. My first language is spanish so I think Im not explaining things clearly. Im sorry. The witness and other facts contradicts Noelia's claims but that is not my point because Im not making a point if her claims are true or not. That is not the most important part of the witness statement to the point Im trying to make. My point is that there is no lawsuit filed. The witness, most importantly, contradicts Noelia's claims that he was called to be a witness. He says he has never been called to be a witness in that suppose lawsuit which makes Noelia's claims of filying a lawsuit and that he was already called to be a witness, false. I personally saw a mexican tv show saying that they went to the mexican authorities and that no lawsuit was filed. Also, the accusation should be filed in the Public Department and presented before the Agency Specialized in Sexual Crimes inside the 24 hours following the sexual aggression. Noelia claims to have filed it 5 years after the suppose sexual aggression happened. And the other thing you said, that difficulty on finding any information of the suppose lawsuit but finding all the information of the difamation lawsuit, that one of the factors might be that one receives more publicity than the other. I get what you are saying but in this case it is not true. It is more scandalous and good for ratings a rape lawsuit than a difamation lawsuit. The rape lawsuit will get a lot more publicity in the media and even more since in this suppose lawsuit you have a suppose witness that is a bigger and more famous star, Ricardo Montaner. So it makes no sence that you can find everything else about these people but anything on this suppose lawsuit. These are four famous people and maybe the most talked about people in the last year in the hispanic media. Everthing they do, every information and everything about any of these people involved is found, search and talked about in the press. Everything. You can find everything about the difamation lawsuit against Noelia (the actual lawsuit, name of the judge, date of trial, names of the lawyers, official document of Noelia's laywer quitting the case, everything) but nothing in the other suppose lawsuit, just one article with Noelia's claims of filing it. My point is that there is no evidence at all (just Noelia's claims) of the suppose lawsuit but one can find many contradiction to her claims that she filed a lawsuit.

Thief I know I didn't mention all this when I first deleted the information and just said that it was not true without explanation as you just mention. You have a point and I should have done it before. (Laverdadinfo (talk) 12:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

Okay, I see what you mean. In my opinion, Noelia probably said she filed the lawsuit but didn't actually do that, but we can't know that. How about this sentence as a compromise; basically yours from above but a little clearer: "Noelia has accused her step-father of sexually assaulting her in 2003; she claimed to have filed a lawsuit, calling Montaner as a witness (citation). However, Mamery says he has not received any lawsuit (citation), and Montaner says he has never been called to testify (citation)." This way, we're including the sources of both sides of the dispute. If there are reliable sources saying two different things, you're best figuring out a way to say "sources differ". JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I see what you mean too. Im okay with that. I just added in your sentence the word recently "Noelia recently accused her step-father of sexually assaulting her in 2003" because Noelia's accussations toward Mamery are recent ones. Before, she talked wonders about Mamery. It is not like she has made this accusations since 2003 it is just since the past year. I added the citations in the sentence. Noelia recently accused her step-father of sexually assaulting her in 2003; she claimed to have filed a lawsuit, calling Montaner as a witness (citation). However, Mamery says he has not received any lawsuit [9], and Montaner says he has never been called to testify [10]." (Laverdadinfo (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

I'd advise replacing "recently" with the approximate date of all of this, since it's likely to remain for a while. I'm assuming early 2008; I can't find any dates on the articles. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This source about Noelia accusing Mamery is from August 2007 [11] Thief12 (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There we go; how about this short paragraph: In August of 2007, Noelia accused her step-father of sexually assaulting her back in 2003; she claimed to have filed a lawsuit, calling Montaner as a witness (citation). However, Mamery says he has not received any lawsuit (citation), and Montaner says he has never been called to testify (citation)." JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Im okay with that. Thank you for helping us reach a resolution. (Laverdadinfo (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm okay with that as well. Sorry for my delay to reply. Thief12 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Laverdadinfo already added the sentence discussed; I made an edit of my own for a few things- 1)Laverdadinfo's edit changed a line about her gold album; I changed it back as it sounded confusing; 2)the citation from before the dispute (where Novelia claimed to have filed the lawsuit) was left out, so I added it; 3)converted Laverdadinfo's citations into footnotes; 4)they added the same links to the EL section; I removed them, as there's no use in duplicating them; and 5) fixed another one of the existing ELs. Everybody seems happy, so I'll go ahead and close this case. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)