Talk:John Alite

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

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

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: FBI Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject FBI (assessed as Low-importance).

Source in the current article

John Alite Facts? In a WP:BLP? Really? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

"The Official Website of John Alite" is not that good either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss large deletes and restorations here

Given the revert warnings, makes sense that you three discuss this here, No? David notMD (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Given the nature of the fued between Alite and the Gotti's it's very important to make sure that the additions here are Reliable sourcing. I largely support the removal until such time those sources can be found. Less can be more when it is cited the right way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

See Alite interview seemingly implying he's edited this article at 1:14:36. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the last sentence of the Early Life section John Alite's surname is misspelled. Should be Alite not Atile. Bucksweatful (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Melmann 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite protection?

I requested indefinite protection at RFPP following the page's recent bout of vandalism since the previous year-long protection expired in July. User:Ohnoitsjamie initially indef protected it but changed it shortly after to another year-long protection, stating he was hesitant to go indef "without a broader consensus". Given the serious nature of the vandalism, BLP violations, and given that vandalism occurs almost immediately after page protection expires, (even after the year-long one expired!) I think indefinite protection for this article is warranted. I'll start by pinging the editors who have contributed to this talk page: User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, User:David notMD, User:Unbroken Chain. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support indefinite as nom. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Support indefinite The person or persons uses a rather wide array of IP addresses, and displays consistent persistence, and I think the article is mature enough that it doesn't require much additional development. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support indefinite. The pattern of vandalism shows no signs of abating and, as OhNoItsJamie said, the article seems to be past the need for regular additional development. Indefinite protection seems the way to go. -- Ex Parte ^talk 16:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Support, battleground page for and against subject. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi in the first section where says ", is an American former Gambino crime family associate, and later informant against the crime family and John A. "Junior" Gotti." Should be edited to : , is an American former Gambino crime family associate, and later testify in court against the crime family and John A. "Junior" Gotti. Waterking00 (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

John Alite according to sources is the "star government witness" not an "informant"

According to this NY Daily News source, John Alite is clearly referred to as "star government witness" not an "informant". Other sources also stated that. But I prefer the NY Daily News to others since it's 3rd party and more of a reliable source according WP:RS. So, I have replaced "informant" with "Star government witness" as seen in the source above. That's a good-faith edit. ThanksEstarosmārṭ (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

And it also says he's an informant. Besides this is a WP:Euphemism, something we do not use here. Establish consensus before changing the wording. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee, reverting my edit on this page is wrong. I noticed, you've been monitoring the page and reverting edits. You may have your good reasons. The source I cited clearly stated that John Alite is a "star government witness". There's no place he was mentioned as an "informant". The source is a clear 3rd party one that suits WP:RS. For goodness sake, this kind of reversions editors do on English Wikipedia is putting the platform in a bad light. Remember that the subject is a human person. People are watching what we do here. We should trade with caution.

I wouldn't argue an inch if the source stated "informant" or if there are other WP:RS sources that stated same. I checked in Google, most of the sources clearly state he is a "Star government witness" or just "government witness". There's no consensus to arrive when this is clearly stated. English wikipedia pages are written based on sources facts not on opinion. Let's play by the rules.

Please, I am a editor like you. Don't revert a well sourced update. You know this is against the rule. I am going to re-add my edit again. Let's be civil here. English wikipedia is an open source. What we do here can break people's heart. Go online, a lot of people are now saying all sorts of bad things about English wikipedia all because of what we editors do.

User:Vaselineeeeeeee, I am speaking to you as a fellow editor. I don't mean to be harsh. I want you to see reasons in my submission. Let's edit English wikipedia according to rules. Let's not take this further. Thanks.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Estarosmārṭ: I appreciate your response. But you full well know that we stick to the WP:STATUSQUO unless a consensus is reached otherwise. Government witness and informant are basically interchangeable terms and a euphemism of the other. Government witness also redirects to informant. Also, check your source again, it refers to him as both a government witness and as an informant. There looks to be sources that refer to him as both, therefore there is no convincing evidence in my opinion to change the wording to its euphemism when it has remained the status quo to this point. This is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 16:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee, Thanks for responding but I am not happy you reverted my sourced edit. Please note: The word "informant" and "Star witness" are never synonymous. There's no Euphemism in both. They are two different stuff. I read my English properly.

Here's the definition of both according to Google dictionary

Informant - An informant (also called an informer) is a person who provides privileged information about a person or organization to an agency

Star witness - The principal or most important witness in a trial.

You can see, the different is clear. Like I said before, This source on Ny News Daily clearly stated that John Alite is a "star goverment witness". It never referred to him as an "informant". Please read it yourself.

Furthermore, John Alite from what I read on this talk page has requested for similar change. He created User:Johnaliteofficially, verified it officially just for this purpose. He stated this i never was informant for Fbi , i only did testify in 2008 after been betrayed. He gave sources to backup the claim. Yet, we didn't pay attention to him. This is very sad.

I am not here to fight for John. I don't know him. I am only concerned with Wikipedia policy and stand on issues like this. The WP:RS I cited above clearly stated, he was a "star government witness" and not an "informant". I am only concerned with this.

For the last time, I appeal to you to desist from reverting my well sourced edit. It's against the rules. If you revert it again, you've violated the rules of The three-revert rule WP:3RR and I'll definitely take it up at WP:AN/3. I hate doing such. Let's end the issue here.

Please, for decency sake, let's edit with caution. We are not here to victimize anybody. From what I read on this talk page, John Alite is saddened over this.

Finally, [[User talk:Vaselineeeeeeee if there are WP:RS that clearly called John Alite an "Informant", bring it up. If I see that, I'll give up on this. I am not here to favor anybody. I stand for justice on this platform. I am re-adding the edit for the last time ThanksEstarosmārṭ (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Estarosmārṭ: You need WP:CONSENSUS to against WP:STATUSQUO periods. Any alterations of that per WP:BRD is clearly the violation. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Key government witness appears to be both accurate and inoffensive to the subject., What's wrong with using that, exactly? You know that in his culture the word informant is a pejorative, so I honestly don't see a problem with using a less emphatic term. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

So potential offensiveness takes precedent over fact on Wikipedia now? That is frankly laughable basing arbitrary offensiveness over our policies. I would argue “rat” is the pejorative as informant is used by the FBI and the like. Should we move the informant page to government witness even though they clearly goes against WP:COMMONAME and WP:EUPHEMISM, hence its use in virtually all informant biographies. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Vaselineeeeeeee, no, because the two terms are not contradictory. A witness may also be called an informant, and vice-versa. But in this context, specifically, the word informant has a pejorative overtone (cf. stool pigeon), so there's no factual issue and the question of BLP and WP:LABELling takes precedence, in my view. Reasonable people may differ. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I've gone through every ref (fixing a few issues). Sixteen of the sources in the article address Alite testifying against the crime family. Only three use a variation of informant ("star government informant", "a federal informer", "professional informant"). Thirteen use variations of witness ("star witness", "chief witness", "central character in a federal case", "government witness", "prosecution witness") or avoid labels altogether ("collaborated with", "testified against"). It seems like a reasonable lead that is supported by the preponderance of the sources would be "...is an American former Gambino crime family associate who later testified against the crime family and John A. "Junior" Gotti." edit to add: The three that use a form of "informant" are the New York Daily News, Tampa Bay Times, and The Hollywood Reporter. Schazjmd (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Witness: Wikipedia should use the term most used by reliable sources, per MOS:IDENTITY. It seems clear that reliable sources use variations on both "witness" and "informer" but more frequently use "witness" instead of "informant", per Schazjmd's comment above. WP:COMMONAME would suggest as well that the most common term should be used, which is "witness". WP:EUPHEMISM doesn't apply here, since "witness" is both neutral and not presumptuous. Given this, using the term "witness" seems appropriate. In addition, MOS:IDENTITY says that If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses, which would be "witness." Finally, WP:BLP states that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, which would suggest that using "witness" is the appropriate choice here, since it is what the subject prefers as the safer choice. This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Gbear605 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Schazjmd and Gbear605. "Government witness" doesn't come under WP:EUPHEMISM. If anything, "informer" would be the euphemism of the two. If there is an issue with using the former then Schazjmd's compromise seems more than fair; ...is an American former Gambino crime family associate who later testified against the crime family and John A. "Junior" Gotti. – ².O.^Boxing 00:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Witness: So potential offensiveness takes precedent over fact on Wikipedia now? BLP concerns are on pretty equal footing. There is nothing fictitious about the term witness. Plenty of RS that prefer to use "witness", eg The Times, The New York Times, NBC and Reuters. Far more high quality sources than the ones linked. Since we have high quality reliable sources using witness, it makes it an editorial decision on which term we use. Thus, WP:BLP factors in, and the potential of harm to the subject, which the subject has expressly said is affecting their life and causing concern to them. Our editorial decision here must clearly lean towards witness, or some variant thereof. I'll admit I'm slightly confused that the subject believes 'informant' is the bigger issue for them, rather than the conviction of murder, but hey. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not buy for a second that the BLP the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment applies here in that this word "harms" the subject. Alite is an egotistical person, which you can get from his countless interviews (I linked one in the first talk page thread here). That is why this person is not concerned about his murder charges, ProcrastinatingReader. He's more concerned about being a "rat" in the beloved eyes of the mob than being a murderer. With regards to editorial discretion, ~~"informant" vs "witness" are virtually synonyms~~ and one is not more "offensive" than the other in normal circumstances. I would argue since there are also many sources that use "informant", which is the stable WP:Status quo, that should be used.

Informant: Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, NY Daily sources mentioned above, NJ.com, Rolling Stone, The Guardian, Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If they are virtually synonyms, we should have no issue using 'witness'? None of the sources you've listed are better than the four I have - The Guardian perhaps comes close. A couple are explicitly problematic: Rolling Stone, for example, should only be used to cite controversial statements about BLPs with attribution, according to consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a huge issue with the change, I just think that it being the version that has been reverted back to by several editors over the years because of Mr. Alite, coupled with it being in most of the sources I see, seemed to be the right choice. However, there was some good insight at the BLP noticeboard which may have changed my mind a bit. It seems like the consensus is tipping towards using "witness", and if it stays like that, I'm more than happy to go with that. I just didn't want it to be Alite, who seems to have malicious intent based on his rivalry with Gotti Jr, to override consensus. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I am relieved! I really thank you dear friends, User:ProcrastinatingReader, User:JoelleJay, User:Vaselineeeeeeee and others for this insight and help. Please, User:Vaselineeeeeeee, forgive me for rantings against you. I don't really understand how changes and edits are done on wikipedia. I was only feeling bad because sincerely, I never was an informant for FBI or Police, I did become a government witness and testify against my ex-friend. Thanks for the change.

But it seems another editor by name User:Cullen328 has re-added the word 'Informant" again. Please this is threatening to me. They use this against me. I though, a consensus have been reached to use only "government witness". Please help address this again. Thanks Johnaliteofficially (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I did add back the word "informant" because it is used to describe you by many reliable sources such the Tampa Bay Times, the Philadelpia Enquirer, Newsday, USA Today and The Guardian all of which use the word "informant". I do not see any consensus to exclude that word. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There does indeed appear to be consensus to use one over the other. Several editors are in favour of using government witness while it appears three are in favour of informant. If, like you stated at BLPN, "A criminal informant is a participant in ongoing criminal activity who decides to provide detailed information to law enforcement agencies and sometimes to the courts.", is reasoning for which one to use then by looking at the article, that's another argument against informant; he fled the US in 2006, was extradited back in 2008, then began testifying the following year. He wasn't ...a participant in ongoing criminal activity..., he was testifying to past crimes that he hadn't participated in for at the very least three years. – ².O.^Boxing 09:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, to me, informant implies that he informed before he was arrested, and cooperating witness means one who cooperates after arrest. Did he feed information to the cops while criming, or only after he was nabbed? Guy (help! - typo?) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

He only started giving information because he was arrested. Why would mobsters give information before they are arrested? Informants inform to justice after they have been arrested as a means to get a reduced sentence or another form of reward. If this was not the case, there would be no reason to inform—there has to be a risk-reward scenario in order for them to flip, they won't just do it on their own (although I can think of one rare case).

Something that seems more clear cut to me as an "informant" is if a mobster was still criming on the street, but only after being released by the FBI to do so after being arrested in order to record conversations with other criminals, etc. Then that guy who has been flipped who is still on the streets would be clearly "informing" justice about criminal activities while being an unsuspected "rat" in the family. Then you have a witness who could just be used in trials and attests to things that happened. That's kind of where I see the slight difference (not synonyms as I wrongly said before). I do not think sources show that Alite did the former. I'm sort of neutral on the wording though still because I think there is a case for both sides, which is why I do not mind if both are listed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source in the current article

Discuss large deletes and restorations here

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2020

Indefinite protection?

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

John Alite according to sources is the "star government witness" not an "informant"

Noticeboard thread

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

John is also a fairly active youtuber

update for 2025 appointment and later life

Related Articles