Talk:Tony Silva

The POV in this article has been dealt with several times, but evidently it is being watched closely by Sldiscus and IP 17.XXX (e.g. 173.123.208.231; all from a single ISP & locality), who only ever edit this article. The name Sldiscus and Tony Silva are associated (as a google search reveals), and when combined with the edits by this user it is difficult to come to any other result than WP:AUTOBIO. Regardless, a few issues: He was sentenced in a US court. Unless this is reversed, calling it "allerged" is POV. Otherwise every single article dealing with someone sentenced should only have the crimed referred to as "allerged". The only sources that supports it as being questionable are the page by Raymond Hoser, a highly controversial figure (i.e. arguably WP:V#Questionable_sources), which for a large part simply are copies of emails by Tony Silva (i.e. WP:V#SELF), and a reference called "Franklin, J., 1997, On Wings, 3(2):44", where I, despite spending quite some time googling, have been unable to find anything confirming its existence (i.e. problematic WP:V). If this article actually exists, it should at least have a name. Another reference used from the The Miami Herald is simply attributed to "Anon". I presume this is short for "anonymous", again clearly questionable as a reference for a WP:BLP. Consequently, I have now removed the following from the article:

This legal case was given considerable attention from the mainstream media. Much of the information promulgated was inaccurate or contradicted the facts. ^[1] As an example, one article read:” According to the Prosecutor, Silva imported more than 100 parrots listed as endangered and with the value of $10,000.00 each. Apparently he did this with the help of the daughter of the ex-president of Paraguay, Alfredo Stroessner, in his private plane” ^[2]. There was never any evidence presented in the court of this alleged association, nor of a plane owned by Stroessner ever landing in the US ^[3].

[new section]

Whether Silva was guilty or not has been the subject of much speculation. ^[4][5].

[references]

There are still problematic references and wording within the article (e.g. for sentence The government’s case was based almost in total on hearsay or ‘purchased’ testimony - "Response to Government’s Response to Court", i.e. response by person representing T. Silva), but I'll leave that for now. Likewise, the overall balance is still strongly skewed towards his claimed innocence, despite the court ending up with the direct opposite result. The only high quality references by sources that are not directly involved are WWF and NY Times, and neither suggest any uncertainty about the guilt. 212.10.69.135 (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Judy Franklin was the editor of the print publication, On Wings: A Monthly Publication Serving the Avicultural Community, from April 1995 to July 2001. She covered the Silva trial during her tenure as editor and attended some of Silva's public hearings. The case was political in nature and was indeed a travesty of our justice system.Clearinghouse (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Some references to Judy Franklin and On Wings on the web: http://www.silvio-co.com/cps/articles/1997/index.htm Papers & Articles 1997 In the near future, these archived Canadian Parrot Symposium articles will be available to read online. Please visit this page again to view additions. If there is a title that especially interests you, please contact our webmaster for priority article posting. For permission and information about reprinting articles, please e-mail your request. Papers Presented: Aviculture Under Fire by Judy Franklin

theaviary.com/mag.shtml On Wings Publication primarily concerned with current avian legislation. Dept. AV PO Box 8309 Northfield, IL 60093 1 yr - $18.99

http://www.nationalpetpress.com/Meet-Press-ProFiles/Meet.The.Press.htm Sue Beaulieu, NPP Aviculture Editor, is a freelance with a paralegal degree. A pet bird owner, she is VP of Legislative Affairs for the Organization of Professional Aviculturists and served as Delegate to the American Federation of Aviculture. She was newsletter editor and Vice President for a local bird club, and contributing editor for On Wings, an aviculture publication.68.103.126.100 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

TO THE EDITOR OF THIS PAGE - PLEASE CONTACT ME DIRECTLY FOR MORE INFORMATION. THANK YOU 68.103.126.100 (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Psittazen (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• There is a small piece on this person on the Parrot article, which may need to be checked for accuracy or removed. I do not known much about this topic, but I think I would be inclined to remove reference to this person on the Parrot article. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is interested in accurate information, if anyone would like to receuve copies of the official court documents on Tony Silva please email sldiscus@gmail.com and they will be provided. These documents from a government source should clarify any questions that an individual may have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.70.8.194 (talk) 14:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As of Nov 2010, this page is mostly unsourced, and most of the unsourced statements were made by someone suspected to be personally involved (probably autobio). If citations aren't given and pov isn't made neutral, most of this page needs to be deleted, as per the guidelines for biographies of living persons. I'm noting it here first because I'm sure the editors who spend so much time on this page want to know what they can do to not lose their work. Aljo (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish to edit the "need citation" notes under Mr. Silva's references. The citation for his book, a Monograph of Macaws and Conures is plainly listed in the section above. The ISBN for this book is 1895270014.

The citations for all of his legal documents are correct. These legal references are cited properly.

For more information about this case - See: tonysilvafiles.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psittazen (talk • contribs) 12:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had to remove all of that section based on the court documents. Court documents are not considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia's guidelines. (From Qwyrxian)

Psittazen: This is unfortunate and should be changed.

This is because they haven't actually been "checked for factual accuracy". We generally don't even allow court transcripts as sources, except for articles about cases themselves. (From Qwyrxian)

Psittazen: I can verify that Tony's cited cases are indeed accurate. I have read and seen them.

Since all of that info is based upon unreliable sources, the best choice is to remove until reliable sources can be found. Basically, Silva cannot "re-try" the case on Wikipedia, or "vindicate" what I assume he considers to be an unfair conviction. Our job is just to report on the facts as available in reliable sources.

Psittazen: Read the entries on resourceclearinghouse.blogspot.com and you will find information and facts that can be verified.

Psittazen: Please see the Wikipedia link regarding legal citations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_citation. Website to the Court that was referenced. http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/

This link also has a PACER - Public Access to Court Electronic Records - http://www.pacer.gov/link Chicago Office (Northern District contact office)

OR the court clerk can be contacted for the records Mr. Silva cited

Psittazen (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did remove the cite needed tag on the bird book, as that didn't really make any sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, please do not insert your comments into the middle of mine; it makes it almost impossible to understand who said what. I reformatted the spacing as well--when you want to indent, use a colon (:), with more colons for more indents. Finally, never put contact information on Wikipedia, especially if it's not your own.

Now, regarding the details--the fact that you have read them still doesn't prove they are accurate. Even the fact that the court clerk has them doesn't mean they are accurate. Anyone can submit any information as court documents, but that doesn't prove they are accurate. I'm not disputing that what was written in the article is what was written in the court documents--I'm disputing that the court documents meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources. While you can read the details there, in general, a reliable source is one which has been "vetted" or "fact checked" by an independent authority. That is, a newspaper editor, a journal editor, a trustworthy publishing company, etc. The court documents submitted are the claims of one person in the suit. No one ever exerted editorial authority to verify that the documents, in fact, reflect reality. That's why evidence from a court case can't be used as a reliable source. So, in order to include that information, you're going to need to produce a newspaper article, a tv news program...something like that, that verifies the claims. If such a source exists, we can then evaluate how to use it (i.e., to put it in terms like, "Silva states that..." or just "It was determined that...").

As for the blog, I have no intention of reading it, as even if I were to believe what it said, I could not use that belief here on Wikipedia because, again, all information must be verified by reliable sources. A blog can almost never qualify as a reliable source, and definitely wouldn't in this case.

So, again, in summary, if you (or anyone else) can produce sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, then we can add the info. If not, then it can't be in Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

His appeals can be found here: Bueller 007 (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

After carefully reading the article in its current state, made a modification giving clarity to the Court's decision to deny the appeal and change of plea. Please verify Neutrality Daniellis89 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two long standing and possibly obsolete tage on this article. The main problem as it stands today, Nov. 2012, isn't "neutrality" or "unbalanced viewpoint", but paucity of any substantive information. It might be that this man isn't notable enough to write more about, but there certainly is more to write about, if we wished to be comprehensive, i.e. when (dates) was he curator at Loro Parque? He was involved with the recovery of Spixs Macaw - what did he do there? There's some info on that in the Juniper Spix's Macaw book.

The text implies, but doesn't say, that he was convicted. As a matter of English composition, it should say that explicitly; he was convicted of two counts: smuggling and tax evasion. That's pretty neutrally factual. Someone might also want to know, when his illegal activities occurred, since arrest and trial (as in this case) may be years afterward. The court record contains facts including the dates of activities he was convicted of, which he admitted to as part of his plea - I think we can accept these as verified.

I think the "Unbalanced" tag should be removed, or someone state what "viewpoint" is missing, and I'll stick it in (just facts - we're not going to go into the whole "allegedly" thing again). Sbalfour (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Why can't I find "hundreds" of articles by this man? If they were research articles published in scholarly journals, there'd be references to them by other later researchers - I can find none. Anyway, a scholarly paper takes months to years to research, and he hadn't lived long enough before his 1996 arrest to publish "hundreds" (he was 34). Maybe the phrase should say "dozens", or maybe "various" instead? I want to see at least a dozen journals he published in to support that "hundreds" phrase. Anybody? Sbalfour (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "hundreds" part, since it was unsourced and, as you say, dubious. I've also removed the tags at the beginning since neutrality tags should generally only stay when there's a discussion about them; I don't see anything in particular in the text that's unbalanced, nor that is autobiographical. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

We're not paying attention. This article, after a period of relative stability before Dec. 2013, essentially became a new edit war during 2014. We've been through this before - see history before 2012. The article as it exists Jan. 2014 is now approximately back to where it was during the period of stability. It's factual and sourced. The Wiki heavily disfavors deletion of sourced material - in fact, it may be considered vandalism. In particular, the Smuggling section should be left as is - we don't need to know anything more about that. This man was a world-renown ornithologist for over 13 years - what did he do? If you have a contribution to make, make it there. Make sourced contributions, not deletions, and avoid the smuggling topic.Sbalfour (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's what we need:

• where was he born (city, other political subdivision), and what month and day? What were his parent's names?
• where did he go to high school/college? What degree (if any) does he have? Or the article should note that he doesn't have a diploma or degree... if not.
• what circumstances in his childhood predisposed him to studying birds?
• when did he immigrate to the U.S.?
• As an aviculturist, what birds did he breed? When?
• He is evidently married, possibly twice - when? What is his wife's maiden name? Does he have any kids?
• Where (besides Loro Parque) has he been employed? What did he do at Loro Parque? Where does he work today?
• Where has he lived (Chicago previously; where else?), Florida today - what city?
• As an ornithologist, what papers has he gotten published in peer-reviewed professional journals?
• Presumably, as a threatened bird expert, he spent some time in Central/South American jungles birdwatching. When and where were these field trips, and what did he discover during them?
• What professional organizations is/was he a member of?
• Does he have any awards, titles, or honors of note? We presume a world-renown professional earned at least *some*.

It may be that only Mr. Silva himself (or family members) has much of this info. But some is probably available in newspaper articles, genealogies, and Cuban public records. Editors should focus on obtaining this useful additional info instead of pointlessly shuffling the existing article text around.Sbalfour (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll talk to Tony about this list to see what he's comfortable sharing here. Thanks. MKC (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tony has declined to provide much of the extensive personal information in the preceding list. He's been the target of animal rights activists for many years, and I agree with his concerns about safety. I'll continue to talk with Tony about his avian research, publishing, and other topics that could inform this page. Thanks for your efforts to improve this page. MKC (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of this information is readily available in media articles published about or by Silva. I have added it. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I see we've gotten some decent content, albeit with much threshing. This article needs to be semi-protected permanently, due to revival of edit-warring. A concern here is scholarly tone - parts of the text are essay-like, wordy, rather than having that pithy dry scholarly conciseness. It's more like a magazine article than encyclopedia article. I'm not going to rework it and invite yet more unwanted attention. It's better than it was; I'd say better than it ever has been. Too bad Tony declines to help out here. He could do it anonymously, as long as it doesn't result in reversions and warring. In addition, it looks like those who know anything about him or his work choose to keep it to themselves. We can't escape that he's a lightning rod for controversy; he's plenty notable enough to maintain a comprehensive scholarly article. Sbalfour (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)