This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Keating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Charles Keating has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Charles Keating be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The fact that Keating was an Olympic-class swimmer in his youth should be mentioned somewher in all of this. [15:22, August 19, 2004 Rlquall]
I dropped this from the article:
This link is broken. Ellsworth 15:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I removed this comment from the main text:
":Add the civil suits and judgements against him." 69.22.126.20 12:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just curious, but was Keating ever disbarred? Given his convictions it wouldn't surprise me if he was, but the article never says it so I'm not sure. If he was disbarred, even temporarilly, he should be added to Category:Disbarred American lawyers (that cat includes lawyers who were disbarred but later reinstated). Dugwiki 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This article, imo, is a poster child for bad wikipedia articles.
It uses no in-text citations, in fact, no references at all. There is only a list of a few web-links at the end of the article.
I submit that this article is not up to wikipedia standards and needs a massive rewrite.
The key problem, to reiterate, is the total lack of both citations and sourcing.
However, the article is also unbalanced.
The introductory sentence:
is hardly neutral.
It should read something more like this: 164-69-505::Charles Keating Jr....is an American lawyer, politician and financier. He was at the center of one of the largest Savings_and_loan failures in American history.
The editor writes that: Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage.
However, the editors does not explain how Keating took advantage of deregulation nor even what it was. He (the editor, that is) also fails to link to any source (whether another wikipedia article or outside) that would give readers further information on this. Non-Americans and those too-young to remember the S&L problems are left uninformed.
The editor also fails to inform that the vast majority of S&L failures resulted from outright theft--which ran the gamut of everything from company officers literally transfering money from depositors to their own accounts to other, more sophisticated schemes involving shell corporations.
Also, by calling Sen. John McCain his "good friend" without any citation suggests that the editor's goal is more to smear Sen. McCain than anything.
The statement that the so-called "Keating Five" took $300,000" from Keating fails to mention that these were political contributions, either directly to the politicians in question or to their PACs.
The mention of Alan Greenspan is irrelevant in the way it is presented in the article. This article is about Charles Keating and not about the Savings_and_loan debacle in general. Greenspan has never been charged with any crime let alone one relating to Lincoln Savings. To my knowledge he has never been named as a defendant in any of the civil litigation surrounding Lincoln's collapse.
Greenspan had a remarkable pre-history in the mid-1980s as a de-facto lobbyist for Charles Keating, the crooked financier responsible for the biggest fraud in the history of the S & L industry. Greenspan was then a consultant and in that capacity helped enlist the so-called Keating Five – the five top politicians most heavily implicated in helping the Keating scam (they were all senators – Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain and Donald W. Riegle, Jr.).
There is also an error of fact. Many of the depositors who lost their money did so because Keating had his employees convince them to buy investments rather than open Federally-insured ( FDIC) savings/checking accounts. This is why he was charged with, and ultimately pled guilty to, fraud.
There is no mention of the shakiness of the government's case as evidences by the decision of California prosecutors not to retry Keating on state charges and Federal prosecutor's agreeing to a plea deal with Keating in order to avoid a retrial they might have lost. US Attorneys are not noted for quailing before defendants especially a target as juicy as Keating (nailing a guy like Keating could easily help a US Attorney get elected to Congress or the Senate or even governor of a state).
The section head:
Is misleading. The article is about Keating, not the five Senators who made up the so-called "Keating Five."
The editor also leaves out the fact that congresspersons meet with regulators (i.e. Executive branch officials) on behalf of constituents as a matter of routine. It maybe to help a large business or to help an individual with an issue with Social Security or one of the other federal behemoths.
The issue in question with regard to the so-called "Keating Five" was whether Keating's campaign/PAC donations unduly influenced said Senators. None of them was ever charged with a crime, sued civilly or named as an unindicted co-conspiracy (as Hillary Clinton was during the White Water trials).
---In short: this article is a complete mess and I believe that the original editors needs to completely rewrite it or it should be removed.
PainMan 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right: references should be added; I pieced most of this together from various newspaper articles at a time when detailed in-line references were not yet fashionable in Wikipedia. As to the criticisms above:
AxelBoldt 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
References
The article states that the reason that the state did not go for retrial on Keating is the reluctance of the witnesses to come forward after accepting their own sentences. I don't think they'res any proof of that. Without some documentation to that effect, I don't think anyone can conjecture as to what the outcome of a fair trial would have been. That is, the courts ruled that he didn't get a fair trial on the most egregious charges. The article states that Keating duped his customers into buying junk bonds. He was not convicted of that. He pled guilty to wire and bankruptcy fraud.
Securities Fraud convicted of 17 counts 4-Dec-1991, overturned 3-Apr-1996 Conspiracy convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned Fraud convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned 2-Dec-1996 Racketeering convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned Transporting Stolen Property convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned Wire Fraud pled guilty 6-Apr-1999 Fraud (bankruptcy fraud) pled guilty 6-Apr-1999
The article states that Keatings convictions were overturned on technicalities. I don't think that's an impartial judgement either. The "technicality" in all the cases was that he didn't get a fair trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.209.198 ( talk) 11:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't sound like an honest businessman to me, indeed it's mildly embarrassing that I share the surname and might easily be a distant relation. I don't think you need to infer conspiracy on the basis of some unfavourable comments. I agree that the article could use some improvements, especially references. Go for it! Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Today 6 Oct 2008 I received an email from David Plouffe, chairman of the Obama campaign advising that they had set up a site www.keatingeconomics.com,part of which reads
"During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain."
This is political campaigning, so fo course it is biased towards their viewpoint.
However, when I came to Wikipedia to check on Charles Keating, I found that over thae past week numerous edits had been made by three ip addresses, under the titles of "Legal Consequences" and "Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later".
I highly suspect that these entries are vandalism by people supportive of the Obama campaign, and that it is quite possible that this is a coordinated effort by members of the Obama campaign, to have Wikipedia's record "support" keatingeconomics.com
Brian Cartwright [16:05, October 6, 2008 Blcartwright]
Brian, In response to your suspicious nature which has lead you to consider vandalism of the Wiki I submit that the information posted regarding the manner in which the Keating children and at least one grandchild profited from purchasing RTC owned real property IS VERIFIABLE through the process of having a title search performed in Maricopa County Arizona for the property addresses listed in my original revisions between October 1st and October 3rd 2008. Those two property addresses (5124 North 31st Place no. 525 AND 5122 North 31st Way no. 231 - Phoenix Arizona 85016 ) are at least 2 properties purchased by Dr & Mrs Hall and Mr.Gary Hall Jr. who at the time was aged 18.
For simplification of your verification search, the Maricopa County Tax Assessor number of the condo purchased from the RTC by Gary Hall Jr. is 164-69-485 and the Maricopa County Tax Assessor number of the condo purchased from the RTC by Dr. Gary Hall & his wife Mary Hall is 164-69-505. <ref>http://maricopa.gov/Assessor/</ref> for these public records. Sincerely, Arizona Biltmore ( talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I appreciate that...I came to Wikipedia for background information, and became suspicious that in the days leading up to the release of the campaign email edits had been made which made Keating and his family look "worse". I did not wish to undo anything, but rather call attention to it so that I can have my confidence restored. [03:56, October 10, 2008 12.165.223.10]
As there is already a substantial article on Keating Five which duplicates way too much stuff here, it is proper to present a summary of that article here. Mich of the material is, in fact, not related o the biography of Charles Keating, which is what this article is for. Collect ( talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There was a "main article" link to Keating Five in the "Failure of Saving & Loan, the Keating Five" section. As the main editor on the Keating Five article, I can say that article does not include a lot of detail on Keating's role in the failure of Lincolns Savings or ACC, or on his subsequent legal consequences, but instead focuses on the relationships between Keating and the five senators and the subsequent Senate Ethics Committee findings. Thus this "main" link was inappropriate, and I've removed it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing people need to realize is that the story of Keating, the growth and failure of Lincoln, ACC, and Keating as an emblem of the savings and loan scandal is much bigger than the story of the Keating Five. If you read Binstein and Bowden's Trust Me: Charles Keating and the Missing Billions, for example, you'll see that the Keating Five episode takes up only a few pages. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sentences which have the same phrase repeated within them are grammatically poorly constructed. Collect ( talk) 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can show any illegality in his family's transactions, then make a solid case. Else, admit that the family did nothing improper, and acted just like other purchasers of property. Frankly, I suspect none of the bit about his family belongs here. Collect ( talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually with absoolutely no cite given, the section goes. You need solid cites to insert stuff in a WP article. Collect ( talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Keating relatives are important to the over-all topic-subject. Who is this guy named Charles Keating & who are his heirs & associates? Financial Terrorists? I would venture a guess that those who lost their entire retirement savings due to Keatings' activities would likely call him that & his associates and relatives are relevant information. I dont need to show "illegality" or even "legality" of the subjects activities & associations to state clear & relevant information as I have in posting section 4.2 titled: Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate . The facts are verifiable and public, so instead of whitewashing this entry - go do a title search in Maricopa County, Phoenix Arizona for the addresses posted and Assessor Parcel Numbers - you'll find the information there recorded officially by the municipal authorities. I'm not editorializing upon the merits of the Keating Family be them sketchy or pious, so dont expect me to characterize who OTHERWISE made profits but only those of the Keating family. Your suspicions are doubtful.
Arizona Biltmore ( talk) [01:50, October 16, 2008]
So far, AB, you have no REFERENCES -- which means that the section CAN NOT remain under WP standards. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 09:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
AGAIN no real reference for the whole Keating Family stuff. Find them, and it can stay. In a BLP, unsourced stuff does not belong. Thank you. Collect ( talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Blogs are not considered WP:RS. 2. He is not directly connected to Keating, nor to any subtopic related to Keating. As such WP:COATRACK also applies. 3. This section is entirely not relevant to the life of Charles Keating. Collect ( talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has no information on Mr. Keating's current occupation or location. I don't know them either, but if anyone does they would be useful additions to the article. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As of early 2006, he was still active per the Cincinnati Enquirer article: "He's developing real estate again in Phoenix. Quietly. Successfully." I haven't seen anything since then to say otherwise, although I could have missed it. I've added this to the article and taken 'retired' out of the lead. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added further text and cites that show him still active as of this year. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Current campaign contributions by people who are not linked directly to Charles Keating are irrelevant to this BLP. That are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as presented. If you want to make statements directly connected to CK, that is one thing. Statements which are not directly connected do not belong here as a BLP. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Collect on this one. The OpenSecrets story says that Keating appears to be uninvolved in the firm, and that only $1K of the $50K comes from a Keating relative. The rest is just from a bunch of law partners and their families in politically conservative Cincinnati-area Ohio, and they were supporting Romney originally, not McCain. If the Keating, Muething, and Klekamp article survives, this item would be relevant for it, but it's not right for the Keating bio. Indeed, Keating and McCain's friendship ended in a bad falling out in March 1987, in the midst of the FHLBB investigation of Keating, and as of 2002 at least they hadn't seen or spoken to one another since. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also note this from a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter: Keating hasn't been connected to KMK for a very long time, and the OpenSecrets/Center for Responsive Politics person who first posted the story did so because it was "interesting political trivia." Finally, regarding Keating, Muething, and Klekamp, since you (Davidkevin) created it, you should know that besides being wrong about where it's located (Cincinnati, not Arizona), you need to do a lot more with the article if you want it to survive. Look at Rose Law Firm or Bracewell & Giuliani as possible examples. I added an infobox just so people would get some idea of who they were, but I haven't looked into it enough to know whether they satisfy the WP grounds for law firm notability. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Any source for a claim that he used corporation money for city council contributions? The Chicago Tribune does not make the claim, nor did I find it substantiated in any quick look around. Use of corporation money is illegal in many places -- it is illegal in Arizona? Thanks!
Collect (
talk)
15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[copied here from user talk space]
[...] I think a few more of the Binstein cites need replacing as well (looked like the article was relying almost entirely on one source).
Collect (
talk)
17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
From User:71.114.29.228:
Might be true but was uncited, something to do research on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Collect, just because a newspaper story isn't free online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source (think of all the books, for example, that are used as sources). For your benefit, here is the relevant section of the LAT story:
This, combined with the Chicago Trib story that is free online, supports the text I added in the article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) The sole source furnished for the "water" bit is "Trust Me" which does not make the direct charge. If you can find the direct link in the Trib or the like, please post it, but the "Trust Me" cite as you reported it does not support the current wording. Or report it as an allegation sourced as an opinion of the author. Or give the quote as made in the source. But AFAICT, the source you proffer does not exactly support the claim - which is a legit BLP matter. "In water-short Arizona, this is a red flag to many local citizens (and to other developers), and Keating is constantly fighting to stave off city council votes that might outlaw his ponds. Charlie Keating is not one to take a chance when he can protect himself by making a friend" is substantively different from "In 1983, Keating and his companies made legal but unusually large campaign donations in races for the Phoenix City Council, who were responsible for approving his building projects[14][8] including water usage for residential developments built around artificial ponds." Thanks. Collect ( talk) 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The text in this article is:
[14] says:
[8] says (elided parts not applicable to Phoenix can be seen above in first time I reproduced this):
[57] says (I'll add some more to what I gave previously):
If I were really interested in making Keating look bad, I would have included that bit in the footnote. I didn't. But what I have written, is fully supported by these sources. In particular, the [57] source fully supports the whole sentence it is attached to, not just the clause it is attached to, which I think may have been your objection. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Just a few items above to be addressed. On hold.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
[1] is used as a source in this BLP. The source is editorial in nature, specifically about A rejected genre: Those kitschy and cautionary starchy industrial and educational films provide an illuminating peek at the past 75 years of American culture.
It is not a RS source for biographical claims about a living person - it is only a reliable source for the opinions of the author about films.
Is quite clearly opinion expressed as opinion, and is not suitable for being quoted or cited as "fact" in a BLP. The only facts in the column are quotes from the person who collected the films - but the claims about the specific film are clearly simple opinion and must be treated as such. Collect ( talk) 02:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The apparent UNDUE edit to add the same material in is clearly violative of Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- if material is not valid in the first place, then using a back door does not then give it validity. His position on porn was already properly covered in the biography -- we do not need an editorial sledgehammer here.
Collect (
talk)
11:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is possible that the article relies excessively on one book - Trust Me which might be seen by some as not a dispassionate biographical source. The reliance thereon should be reduced. Collect ( talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This quote has been removed: "Homosexuals should be prosecuted and put in jail." If he said it, it certainly seems noteworthy. Is there uncertainty about whether he said it? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I researched and rewrote/expanded and brought this article to GA several years ago, but I left it a year ago because I couldn't stand dealing with Collect anymore. He has recently been topic-banned from US politics, which I guess indicates that others couldn't stand it either. And I presume this article is including in that ban, since Keating's life intersects politics in major ways (presidential pornography commission, battle against federal banking regulators, Keating Five). So one thing that he did was remove any mention of Keating's antipathy towards gays, on the objection that the sourcing for that relied on the Binstein-Bowden book that he never liked (I doubt he ever read it, but whatever). However there are multiple other sources that touch on this, and I have now added some material back into the article to reflect this. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This evening the news is rife with stories about the death of Charles Keating IV, grandson of this one, a Navy SEAL killed in combat against ISIS forces in Iraq. Perhaps this ought to be mentioned somehow in the grandfather's article? Google News results -- Haruo ( talk) 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Keating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
O M G. There is no such thing as The Naval Air Corps and apparently never has been although the phrase is ignorantly adopted on occasion. the proper term is U.S. Naval Aviation. For reasons I still do not understand, I'm unable to correct Wiki texts most of the time, but would some samaritan please make the correction regarding keating's WW II service?
B. Tillman
7 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2180:1A9:65D9:A9F1:B5DE:9BFD ( talk) 20:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Navy Air Corps" appears to have been used in counterpoint to "Army Air Corps". The term was in common usage. It was definitely in use through the period of the Korean War at least. It is certainly correct in this article. https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E02E3D6173AE33BBC4A53DFB366838A659EDE ad nauseam. Collect ( talk) 21:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Keating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gobearcats.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/c-swim_timeline.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Charles Keating article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Charles Keating has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of Charles Keating be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
The fact that Keating was an Olympic-class swimmer in his youth should be mentioned somewher in all of this. [15:22, August 19, 2004 Rlquall]
I dropped this from the article:
This link is broken. Ellsworth 15:20, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I removed this comment from the main text:
":Add the civil suits and judgements against him." 69.22.126.20 12:16, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Just curious, but was Keating ever disbarred? Given his convictions it wouldn't surprise me if he was, but the article never says it so I'm not sure. If he was disbarred, even temporarilly, he should be added to Category:Disbarred American lawyers (that cat includes lawyers who were disbarred but later reinstated). Dugwiki 17:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This article, imo, is a poster child for bad wikipedia articles.
It uses no in-text citations, in fact, no references at all. There is only a list of a few web-links at the end of the article.
I submit that this article is not up to wikipedia standards and needs a massive rewrite.
The key problem, to reiterate, is the total lack of both citations and sourcing.
However, the article is also unbalanced.
The introductory sentence:
is hardly neutral.
It should read something more like this: 164-69-505::Charles Keating Jr....is an American lawyer, politician and financier. He was at the center of one of the largest Savings_and_loan failures in American history.
The editor writes that: Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage.
However, the editors does not explain how Keating took advantage of deregulation nor even what it was. He (the editor, that is) also fails to link to any source (whether another wikipedia article or outside) that would give readers further information on this. Non-Americans and those too-young to remember the S&L problems are left uninformed.
The editor also fails to inform that the vast majority of S&L failures resulted from outright theft--which ran the gamut of everything from company officers literally transfering money from depositors to their own accounts to other, more sophisticated schemes involving shell corporations.
Also, by calling Sen. John McCain his "good friend" without any citation suggests that the editor's goal is more to smear Sen. McCain than anything.
The statement that the so-called "Keating Five" took $300,000" from Keating fails to mention that these were political contributions, either directly to the politicians in question or to their PACs.
The mention of Alan Greenspan is irrelevant in the way it is presented in the article. This article is about Charles Keating and not about the Savings_and_loan debacle in general. Greenspan has never been charged with any crime let alone one relating to Lincoln Savings. To my knowledge he has never been named as a defendant in any of the civil litigation surrounding Lincoln's collapse.
Greenspan had a remarkable pre-history in the mid-1980s as a de-facto lobbyist for Charles Keating, the crooked financier responsible for the biggest fraud in the history of the S & L industry. Greenspan was then a consultant and in that capacity helped enlist the so-called Keating Five – the five top politicians most heavily implicated in helping the Keating scam (they were all senators – Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, John McCain and Donald W. Riegle, Jr.).
There is also an error of fact. Many of the depositors who lost their money did so because Keating had his employees convince them to buy investments rather than open Federally-insured ( FDIC) savings/checking accounts. This is why he was charged with, and ultimately pled guilty to, fraud.
There is no mention of the shakiness of the government's case as evidences by the decision of California prosecutors not to retry Keating on state charges and Federal prosecutor's agreeing to a plea deal with Keating in order to avoid a retrial they might have lost. US Attorneys are not noted for quailing before defendants especially a target as juicy as Keating (nailing a guy like Keating could easily help a US Attorney get elected to Congress or the Senate or even governor of a state).
The section head:
Is misleading. The article is about Keating, not the five Senators who made up the so-called "Keating Five."
The editor also leaves out the fact that congresspersons meet with regulators (i.e. Executive branch officials) on behalf of constituents as a matter of routine. It maybe to help a large business or to help an individual with an issue with Social Security or one of the other federal behemoths.
The issue in question with regard to the so-called "Keating Five" was whether Keating's campaign/PAC donations unduly influenced said Senators. None of them was ever charged with a crime, sued civilly or named as an unindicted co-conspiracy (as Hillary Clinton was during the White Water trials).
---In short: this article is a complete mess and I believe that the original editors needs to completely rewrite it or it should be removed.
PainMan 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right: references should be added; I pieced most of this together from various newspaper articles at a time when detailed in-line references were not yet fashionable in Wikipedia. As to the criticisms above:
AxelBoldt 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
References
The article states that the reason that the state did not go for retrial on Keating is the reluctance of the witnesses to come forward after accepting their own sentences. I don't think they'res any proof of that. Without some documentation to that effect, I don't think anyone can conjecture as to what the outcome of a fair trial would have been. That is, the courts ruled that he didn't get a fair trial on the most egregious charges. The article states that Keating duped his customers into buying junk bonds. He was not convicted of that. He pled guilty to wire and bankruptcy fraud.
Securities Fraud convicted of 17 counts 4-Dec-1991, overturned 3-Apr-1996 Conspiracy convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned Fraud convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned 2-Dec-1996 Racketeering convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned Transporting Stolen Property convicted 6-Jan-1993, overturned Wire Fraud pled guilty 6-Apr-1999 Fraud (bankruptcy fraud) pled guilty 6-Apr-1999
The article states that Keatings convictions were overturned on technicalities. I don't think that's an impartial judgement either. The "technicality" in all the cases was that he didn't get a fair trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.117.209.198 ( talk) 11:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't sound like an honest businessman to me, indeed it's mildly embarrassing that I share the surname and might easily be a distant relation. I don't think you need to infer conspiracy on the basis of some unfavourable comments. I agree that the article could use some improvements, especially references. Go for it! Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Today 6 Oct 2008 I received an email from David Plouffe, chairman of the Obama campaign advising that they had set up a site www.keatingeconomics.com,part of which reads
"During the savings and loan crisis of the late '80s and early '90s, McCain's political favors and aggressive support for deregulation put him at the center of the fall of Lincoln Savings and Loan, one of the largest in the country. More than 23,000 investors lost their savings. Overall, the savings and loan crisis required the federal government to bail out the savings of hundreds of thousands of families and ultimately cost American taxpayers $124 billion.
Sound familiar?
In that crisis, John McCain and his political patron, Charles Keating, played central roles that ultimately landed Keating in jail for fraud and McCain in front of the Senate Ethics Committee. The McCain campaign has tried to avoid talking about the scandal, but with so many parallels to the current crisis, McCain's Keating history is relevant and voters deserve to know the facts -- and see for themselves the pattern of poor judgment by John McCain."
This is political campaigning, so fo course it is biased towards their viewpoint.
However, when I came to Wikipedia to check on Charles Keating, I found that over thae past week numerous edits had been made by three ip addresses, under the titles of "Legal Consequences" and "Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate In 1995 & later".
I highly suspect that these entries are vandalism by people supportive of the Obama campaign, and that it is quite possible that this is a coordinated effort by members of the Obama campaign, to have Wikipedia's record "support" keatingeconomics.com
Brian Cartwright [16:05, October 6, 2008 Blcartwright]
Brian, In response to your suspicious nature which has lead you to consider vandalism of the Wiki I submit that the information posted regarding the manner in which the Keating children and at least one grandchild profited from purchasing RTC owned real property IS VERIFIABLE through the process of having a title search performed in Maricopa County Arizona for the property addresses listed in my original revisions between October 1st and October 3rd 2008. Those two property addresses (5124 North 31st Place no. 525 AND 5122 North 31st Way no. 231 - Phoenix Arizona 85016 ) are at least 2 properties purchased by Dr & Mrs Hall and Mr.Gary Hall Jr. who at the time was aged 18.
For simplification of your verification search, the Maricopa County Tax Assessor number of the condo purchased from the RTC by Gary Hall Jr. is 164-69-485 and the Maricopa County Tax Assessor number of the condo purchased from the RTC by Dr. Gary Hall & his wife Mary Hall is 164-69-505. <ref>http://maricopa.gov/Assessor/</ref> for these public records. Sincerely, Arizona Biltmore ( talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I appreciate that...I came to Wikipedia for background information, and became suspicious that in the days leading up to the release of the campaign email edits had been made which made Keating and his family look "worse". I did not wish to undo anything, but rather call attention to it so that I can have my confidence restored. [03:56, October 10, 2008 12.165.223.10]
As there is already a substantial article on Keating Five which duplicates way too much stuff here, it is proper to present a summary of that article here. Mich of the material is, in fact, not related o the biography of Charles Keating, which is what this article is for. Collect ( talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There was a "main article" link to Keating Five in the "Failure of Saving & Loan, the Keating Five" section. As the main editor on the Keating Five article, I can say that article does not include a lot of detail on Keating's role in the failure of Lincolns Savings or ACC, or on his subsequent legal consequences, but instead focuses on the relationships between Keating and the five senators and the subsequent Senate Ethics Committee findings. Thus this "main" link was inappropriate, and I've removed it. Wasted Time R ( talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
One thing people need to realize is that the story of Keating, the growth and failure of Lincoln, ACC, and Keating as an emblem of the savings and loan scandal is much bigger than the story of the Keating Five. If you read Binstein and Bowden's Trust Me: Charles Keating and the Missing Billions, for example, you'll see that the Keating Five episode takes up only a few pages. Wasted Time R ( talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Sentences which have the same phrase repeated within them are grammatically poorly constructed. Collect ( talk) 15:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
If you can show any illegality in his family's transactions, then make a solid case. Else, admit that the family did nothing improper, and acted just like other purchasers of property. Frankly, I suspect none of the bit about his family belongs here. Collect ( talk) 15:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually with absoolutely no cite given, the section goes. You need solid cites to insert stuff in a WP article. Collect ( talk) 15:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course the Keating relatives are important to the over-all topic-subject. Who is this guy named Charles Keating & who are his heirs & associates? Financial Terrorists? I would venture a guess that those who lost their entire retirement savings due to Keatings' activities would likely call him that & his associates and relatives are relevant information. I dont need to show "illegality" or even "legality" of the subjects activities & associations to state clear & relevant information as I have in posting section 4.2 titled: Keating Family Profited from the RTC Disposition of Real Estate . The facts are verifiable and public, so instead of whitewashing this entry - go do a title search in Maricopa County, Phoenix Arizona for the addresses posted and Assessor Parcel Numbers - you'll find the information there recorded officially by the municipal authorities. I'm not editorializing upon the merits of the Keating Family be them sketchy or pious, so dont expect me to characterize who OTHERWISE made profits but only those of the Keating family. Your suspicions are doubtful.
Arizona Biltmore ( talk) [01:50, October 16, 2008]
So far, AB, you have no REFERENCES -- which means that the section CAN NOT remain under WP standards. Thanks. Collect ( talk) 09:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
AGAIN no real reference for the whole Keating Family stuff. Find them, and it can stay. In a BLP, unsourced stuff does not belong. Thank you. Collect ( talk) 23:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Blogs are not considered WP:RS. 2. He is not directly connected to Keating, nor to any subtopic related to Keating. As such WP:COATRACK also applies. 3. This section is entirely not relevant to the life of Charles Keating. Collect ( talk) 20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has no information on Mr. Keating's current occupation or location. I don't know them either, but if anyone does they would be useful additions to the article. -- Davidkevin ( talk) 01:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
As of early 2006, he was still active per the Cincinnati Enquirer article: "He's developing real estate again in Phoenix. Quietly. Successfully." I haven't seen anything since then to say otherwise, although I could have missed it. I've added this to the article and taken 'retired' out of the lead. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added further text and cites that show him still active as of this year. Wasted Time R ( talk) 01:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Current campaign contributions by people who are not linked directly to Charles Keating are irrelevant to this BLP. That are also WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as presented. If you want to make statements directly connected to CK, that is one thing. Statements which are not directly connected do not belong here as a BLP. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 19:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Collect on this one. The OpenSecrets story says that Keating appears to be uninvolved in the firm, and that only $1K of the $50K comes from a Keating relative. The rest is just from a bunch of law partners and their families in politically conservative Cincinnati-area Ohio, and they were supporting Romney originally, not McCain. If the Keating, Muething, and Klekamp article survives, this item would be relevant for it, but it's not right for the Keating bio. Indeed, Keating and McCain's friendship ended in a bad falling out in March 1987, in the midst of the FHLBB investigation of Keating, and as of 2002 at least they hadn't seen or spoken to one another since. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Also note this from a Cleveland Plain Dealer reporter: Keating hasn't been connected to KMK for a very long time, and the OpenSecrets/Center for Responsive Politics person who first posted the story did so because it was "interesting political trivia." Finally, regarding Keating, Muething, and Klekamp, since you (Davidkevin) created it, you should know that besides being wrong about where it's located (Cincinnati, not Arizona), you need to do a lot more with the article if you want it to survive. Look at Rose Law Firm or Bracewell & Giuliani as possible examples. I added an infobox just so people would get some idea of who they were, but I haven't looked into it enough to know whether they satisfy the WP grounds for law firm notability. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Any source for a claim that he used corporation money for city council contributions? The Chicago Tribune does not make the claim, nor did I find it substantiated in any quick look around. Use of corporation money is illegal in many places -- it is illegal in Arizona? Thanks!
Collect (
talk)
15:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
[copied here from user talk space]
[...] I think a few more of the Binstein cites need replacing as well (looked like the article was relying almost entirely on one source).
Collect (
talk)
17:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
From User:71.114.29.228:
Might be true but was uncited, something to do research on. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Collect, just because a newspaper story isn't free online doesn't mean it can't be used as a source (think of all the books, for example, that are used as sources). For your benefit, here is the relevant section of the LAT story:
This, combined with the Chicago Trib story that is free online, supports the text I added in the article. Wasted Time R ( talk) 15:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
(out) The sole source furnished for the "water" bit is "Trust Me" which does not make the direct charge. If you can find the direct link in the Trib or the like, please post it, but the "Trust Me" cite as you reported it does not support the current wording. Or report it as an allegation sourced as an opinion of the author. Or give the quote as made in the source. But AFAICT, the source you proffer does not exactly support the claim - which is a legit BLP matter. "In water-short Arizona, this is a red flag to many local citizens (and to other developers), and Keating is constantly fighting to stave off city council votes that might outlaw his ponds. Charlie Keating is not one to take a chance when he can protect himself by making a friend" is substantively different from "In 1983, Keating and his companies made legal but unusually large campaign donations in races for the Phoenix City Council, who were responsible for approving his building projects[14][8] including water usage for residential developments built around artificial ponds." Thanks. Collect ( talk) 02:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The text in this article is:
[14] says:
[8] says (elided parts not applicable to Phoenix can be seen above in first time I reproduced this):
[57] says (I'll add some more to what I gave previously):
If I were really interested in making Keating look bad, I would have included that bit in the footnote. I didn't. But what I have written, is fully supported by these sources. In particular, the [57] source fully supports the whole sentence it is attached to, not just the clause it is attached to, which I think may have been your objection. Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.
Just a few items above to be addressed. On hold.
Jezhotwells (
talk)
21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
[1] is used as a source in this BLP. The source is editorial in nature, specifically about A rejected genre: Those kitschy and cautionary starchy industrial and educational films provide an illuminating peek at the past 75 years of American culture.
It is not a RS source for biographical claims about a living person - it is only a reliable source for the opinions of the author about films.
Is quite clearly opinion expressed as opinion, and is not suitable for being quoted or cited as "fact" in a BLP. The only facts in the column are quotes from the person who collected the films - but the claims about the specific film are clearly simple opinion and must be treated as such. Collect ( talk) 02:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The apparent UNDUE edit to add the same material in is clearly violative of Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- if material is not valid in the first place, then using a back door does not then give it validity. His position on porn was already properly covered in the biography -- we do not need an editorial sledgehammer here.
Collect (
talk)
11:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It is possible that the article relies excessively on one book - Trust Me which might be seen by some as not a dispassionate biographical source. The reliance thereon should be reduced. Collect ( talk) 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This quote has been removed: "Homosexuals should be prosecuted and put in jail." If he said it, it certainly seems noteworthy. Is there uncertainty about whether he said it? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I researched and rewrote/expanded and brought this article to GA several years ago, but I left it a year ago because I couldn't stand dealing with Collect anymore. He has recently been topic-banned from US politics, which I guess indicates that others couldn't stand it either. And I presume this article is including in that ban, since Keating's life intersects politics in major ways (presidential pornography commission, battle against federal banking regulators, Keating Five). So one thing that he did was remove any mention of Keating's antipathy towards gays, on the objection that the sourcing for that relied on the Binstein-Bowden book that he never liked (I doubt he ever read it, but whatever). However there are multiple other sources that touch on this, and I have now added some material back into the article to reflect this. Wasted Time R ( talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
This evening the news is rife with stories about the death of Charles Keating IV, grandson of this one, a Navy SEAL killed in combat against ISIS forces in Iraq. Perhaps this ought to be mentioned somehow in the grandfather's article? Google News results -- Haruo ( talk) 07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Keating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
O M G. There is no such thing as The Naval Air Corps and apparently never has been although the phrase is ignorantly adopted on occasion. the proper term is U.S. Naval Aviation. For reasons I still do not understand, I'm unable to correct Wiki texts most of the time, but would some samaritan please make the correction regarding keating's WW II service?
B. Tillman
7 August 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2180:1A9:65D9:A9F1:B5DE:9BFD ( talk) 20:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"Navy Air Corps" appears to have been used in counterpoint to "Army Air Corps". The term was in common usage. It was definitely in use through the period of the Korean War at least. It is certainly correct in this article. https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E02E3D6173AE33BBC4A53DFB366838A659EDE ad nauseam. Collect ( talk) 21:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles Keating. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://gobearcats.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/c-swim_timeline.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)