This article was nominated for deletion on April 27, 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Presidential elections / Texas Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

After a quick check I found that it may violate a BLP policy because many sources are doubtful and at best represent original research. The sources on the page are problematic for the following reasons: 1) Ref-bombing with a lot of primary sources. 2) Extensive use of "claims" and "not fully verified information" in biography that led to a very poorly written article. 3) From 32 sources I examined, many sources are self-published, redundant, promotional, or repeating the same news (redundant). Also, extreme overuse of the primary sources that lead to specific opinions and original research (at best). 4) The page appeared shortly after the person became known in the media for filing the lawsuit against the former U.S. President Donald Trump 5) The article represents "original research" at best.

Here is a more detailed analysis for additional review and verification:

[1] [2] Self-published and promotional source. (Ref#1)

[3] Irrelevant source (ref#2) – no mention of the person.

[4] (Ref#3): Obituary of the aunt. Not sure if it qualifies because it only mentions Anthony Castro and we don’t have a double verification here for such a dubious source.

[5] (Ref#4) Self-published and potentially promotional source created for a political campaign in Laredo city. Also, a primary source

[6] (Ref#6) – the source used twice but it was not possible to verify it as the editors didn’t make any archive version of it. I wasn’t able to verify the information and it looks like it is "PayWall". While it is not a violation, the problem is I wasn’t able to verify the information here.

[7] (Ref#9) Ineligible blog

[8] (Ref#11) – Primary source (court records)

[9] (Ref#12). Primary source (Texas Controller of Public Accounts) – also non-verifiable.

[10] (Ref#13). Blog

[11] (Ref#14) (PDF file about the lawsuit). Primary source

[12] (Ref#15). Primary source on the lawsuit from the Taxnotes.com

[13] (Ref#16). Primary source PDF file

[14] (Ref#17). Primary source

[15] (Ref#18) Primary source. Also, potentially confidential information of the uploaded letter. It is not clear if this source can be used even as a primary one.

[16] [17] (Ref#19) Not a word about Castro. (Ref#20) (Primary source statistics) – might be relevant and eligible but not from the main governmental website but from a vague PDF document.

[18] (Ref#21) The source is primary but might qualify as it is from Texas Tribune

[19] [20] (Ref#23) A short mention of Castro’s lawsuit among other things – only one very short paragraph

[21] (Ref#25) Self-published and potentially promotional source from the political campaign of Mr. Castro.

[22] (Ref#26) (Self-published source from Castro’s personal website)

[23] An opinion letter written by Castro

[24] (Ref#28) An opinion letter written by Castro

[25] (Ref#31) A short paragraph about Castro among other candidates. Can be eligible for basic information but doesn’t contribute to any notability.

[26] (Ref#32) Twitter message – social media

[27] (Ref#33). I have no opinion or knowledge about this particular source. It is also primary and needs verification.

[28] (Ref#34)

Wordpress blog from an organization with its own opinion about the case. Definitely not an independent source.

[29]

Might be eligible for basic information but I’m not sure it is an official governmental source (Ref#35)

[30] (Ref#36) MartinPict ( talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I hope to get Chetsford opinion, too. MartinPict ( talk) 18:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I can verify that #6 supports the content where it is cited. Also, content published by Castro (such as #1) can be used in specific cases per WP:ABOUTSELF. Schazjmd  (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I can verify #6 supports the content where it is cited, as well. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, we can use self-published sources provided the content is only about the author and is not presented in WP's voice, which this is not with the qualifiers "according to Castro" and "Castro claims". TaxProf Blog is unambiguously WP:RS for matters about U.S. tax law and policy; it has a physical presence by which it can be held liable for what it publishes, it has a gatekeeping process, and it is written by authors who are unambiguous subject matter experts of the highest levels. Ballot Access news is unambiguously RS; it is regularly and widely cited by mainstream media as an expert source [31]. The objections to primary sources seems to be based on the misunderstanding WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD; preclusions don't apply to these uses. Etc., etc., etc. for all the rest. No objection to removing #4 (the obit) and the content used to support it). Chetsford ( talk) 23:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC) reply

With due respect for your authority and experience, this page predominantly relies on mentions and primary sources. The issue is not the use of primary sources but rather their excessive quantity. Only around 6-7 sources provide in-depth coverage of the topic, and more than half of them primarily discuss 1-2 lawsuits, often repeating the same information across different sources. Upon closer examination, it appears that the information was either selected very selectively or with a significant amount of original research. One doesn't need to be a Wikipedia expert to recognize multiple violations of Wikipedia's rules on neutral and unbiased writing on this page.

I never claimed that the subject is entirely unknown, but their notability largely revolves around filing a lawsuit against Donald Trump, which doesn't automatically make someone notable. An unsuccessful campaign in which the subject was a minor and secondary candidate does not contribute to their notability as a politician. Therefore, it is surprising to see so many details and tables about unpopular and non-notable campaigns, accompanied by an excessive use of primary sources. I would agree that this page could remain if it were cleaned up by 80%-90%, with a focus on in-depth articles (if available). MartinPict ( talk) 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Why don't you start removing contentious material that are poorly sourced per the WP:BLP requirements? This does not require a discussion until an editor disputes a specific change. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I presumed that Chetsford, the editor who also serves as a Wikipedia administrator, possesses significant expertise and influence, and I anticipated their reply. MartinPict ( talk) 23:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Once notability for a subject is established, an article need not be limited to only those aspects of the subject that made it notable in the first place.
"Only around 6-7 sources provide in-depth coverage of the topic" I think you'll have a hard time making a case that the subject is not notable with "only" 6-7 pieces of in-depth coverage.
"their notability largely revolves around filing a lawsuit against Donald Trump" Incorrect. Notability for this subject is a nexus between (a) the Trump lawsuit, (b) the subject's resume fabrications (which predate the lawsuit by five years and were covered in entire stories dedicated to that one topic alone, each of which stretch on for paragraphs, in the ABA Journal, law.com, Law360, TaxProf Blog and many others). This nexus of significant coverage around two independent topics causes the BLP1E threshold to be crested.
MartinPict - I noticed that, in your short WP career, 90% (by byte-size) of the edits to article Talk pages you've made have been to this one Talk page, involving an exceptionally detailed request for removal of content. Please don't take this the wrong way but this editing pattern is so wildly atypical for 400 edit count users who began substantively using WP in the last month that it puts me in the awkward position in which I'm required to ask: can you indicate the usernames of other accounts you operate, or have operated in the past, if applicable? (If there are valid reasons you'd rather not tell me, that's completely fine, but I'd be derelict if I didn't inquire at this point.) Chetsford ( talk) 05:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I reviewed this article because of MartinPict posting on the BLP noticeboard, and I removed several assertions because they were improper under WP:BLP. I do not consider Taxprof Blog to be a reliable source for a BLP even for opinions as it is self-published. Further, using his self-serving writings ( WP:ABOUTSELF) to supplement or explain the Georgetown dispute is synthesis . Please do not reinsert them without gaining consensus. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 09:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Morbidthoughts - TaxProf Blog has already been discussed at RSN. There wasn't a clear consensus due to limited participation, but those editors who did opine agreed it was RS for tax policy and related matters. I'll be happy to drag it back there again, if you think that's helpful.
I think you'reyour reading of synthesis is extremely suspect, but it's no hurry, we can knock each of these content blankings out one at a time over the next few weeks. I'll start with TPB. Chetsford ( talk) 19:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC); edited 20:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

TaxBlog Prof may be fine to support assertions about tax policies, but not assertions about living people per WP:RS/SPS: "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about other living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". Further, even if you disagree that it is synthesis, how do you reconcile including WP:ABOUTSELF material that is self-serving (prohibited under criteria 1)? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not a SPS due to the presence of a gatekeeping process and editorial controls. As I said, I'm deferring on addressing the spurious synthesis assertion right now but will circle back to that in a few weeks. Chetsford ( talk) 20:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Noting opening of thread at RSN [32] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Chetsford! I'm happy to address your inquiry. Indeed, I've been on Wikipedia for just 5 and a half months and have made over 400 edits. I appreciate your recognition of my new status and your warm, friendly demeanor towards newcomers. Allow me to clarify my recent actions. Upon editing various pages, I came across this particular one and noticed it seemed to violate numerous Wikipedia guidelines. Intrigued by the possibility that an experienced editor might mistakenly use Twitter links in a Wikipedia article, I decided to investigate further.

Regarding your question about my atypical behavior, is it simply because I now have more time to contribute to Wikipedia? You also courteously suggested that I might be violating Wikipedia policy by using sockpuppet accounts - did I understand you correctly? Rest assured, this is my sole account, and I'm still learning from the experienced users here.

In your message you already highlighted that "I made a short Wikipedia career" and asked if I have sockpuppet accounts. Well, I have no "career" on Wikipedia - I'm a volunteer. While I started a constructive dialogue to improve this page, it looks like you are turning it into a personal attack against a new editor. This is really classic.

Since we're discussing personal matters, may I inquire if you have any conflicts of interest in creating this page? The number of primary and eligible sources I discovered here is quite "atypical" for a Wikipedia article about a relatively unknown politician. If you take issue with my editing, I'd be more than willing to move our conversation to another Noticeboard to discuss any atypical behavior on both our parts. And since you've already checked the history of my edits, I hope you wouldn't mind if I do the same thing - after all Wikipedia is a very transparent database of records. MartinPict ( talk) 11:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

"And since you've already checked the history of my edits, I hope you wouldn't mind if I do the same thing - after all Wikipedia is a very transparent database of records." Knock yourself out. Chetsford ( talk) 16:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:No personal attacks, please. MartinPict ( talk) 16:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

knock oneself out - (idiomatic, informal) To go ahead; to do as one pleases. [33] Chetsford ( talk) 16:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Really, you'd think all these pseudo-lawyers would know stuff like that. E Eng 22:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Separate question of notability

This thread mixes up questions about BLP sourcing with the separate issue of whether the subject is WP:N or this is a case of BLP1E with respect to his lawsuit against Donald Trump. The subject is not BLP1E (known for one event) as the subject has been extensively covered for two different things:

• The subject's resume issues were covered in entire stories dedicated to that one topic alone, each of which stretch on for paragraphs, in 2018 by the ABA Journal, law.com, Law360, TaxProf Blog and many others (links to references in article). Each of these stories appears to have been independently enterprised and not the result of syndication.
• The subject's historic lawsuit against Donald Trump received less-than-incidental coverage (1-2 paragraphs in each of several articles) in 2023 in The Independent, Politico, Gwinnett Daily Post, (links to references in article) etc.

He's also, of course, received a potpourri of other mentions that are more than incidental or passing, though on isolated topics. These aren't necessary to crest the BLP1E threshold, as that's achieved above, but it's going to be difficult to make an N case with these piled on top of it.

• The subject has received one-off coverage for his activities in daily newspapers including the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and Sidney Daily News (links in article).

There's no universe in which the subject of this article is an unknown individual trying to quietly eat his cereal. Chetsford ( talk) 00:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Between not being an unknown individual trying to quietly eat his cereal and being notable there's a lot of middle ground. I'm dubious. E Eng 01:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Many sources cite "U.S. military base in Landstuhl, Germany" as place of birth; but it might be unclear which base, as there were several bases (medical, air). -- ProloSozz ( talk) 14:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Then your addition of Landstuhl should cite one of those many sources. Also, the current wording is a direct quote, so you would need to change the formatting so as not to be a direct quote. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Sites that cite the place of birth as "U.S. military base in Landstuhl, Germany": ballodpedia.org, medium.com, thegatewaypundit.com, idcrawl.com, patriots.win, needtoknow.news, survivalmagazine.org -- ProloSozz ( talk) 14:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

@ ProloSozz: Ballotpedia is of questionable reliability so should not be used for a BLP. Medium is not a reliable source. TheGatewayPundit is deprecated and should not be used. Idcrawl is not a reliable source. Needtoknow.news is not a reliable source. Patriots.win is not a reliable source. The Survival Magazine article is using Ballotpedia.

Please learn more about reliable sourcing and sourcing requirements for BLPs before editing any more biographies of living people. Also, User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners can help you learn how to create references. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

"the U.S. military base in Germany" is obviously not a clear place and visibly not useful to designate a place of birth as there is not only one U.S. military base in Germany. If "Landstuhl" would be wrong he would not tolerate it and force the pages to correct it. Btw: in the article the year of U.S. bases in Germany is mentioned for the year of 2022 – but it should be number of the year of his birth. -- ProloSozz ( talk) 15:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

That's why it's attributed: "According to Castro". As for the year of bases in Germany, find a source for 1986 and update the note. Schazjmd  (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Should the three past elections contested by this current U.S. presidential candidate be presented in the form of Election Results tables using Template:Election box (e.g. [34]), or, should they be removed and replaced with this sentence: "Castro contested several elections, but didn't succeed." Chetsford ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Election Results tables provide the reader with greater information, clarity, context and retain a more thorough index of information. They can be accurately introduced to this article using WP:RS and are a usual and customary feature of articles on political candidates. There is no good reason that this article, uniquely, should require the reader leave Wikipedia to learn about this aspect of the subject on their own when we can just put it straight in the article. Chetsford ( talk) 14:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

User:Chetsford has said it. No reason why not. Lukewarmbeer ( talk) 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep election results: He ran in these races and the results are verifiable and in reliable sources. It would be a miss use of Wp:UNDUE to remove the results because he lost and played a small role in the races. Inclusion of election results is standard, regardless of if the individual was a major or serious candidate. Including mentions of people's campaigns and results in their biography is good and part of what the encyclopedia is for. Strong keep and I vehemently oppose an interpretation of WP:UNDUE that would remove election results from minor candidates biographies.

TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 19:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you, User:Chetsford, for your receptiveness to input from other involved editors. From my perspective, John Anthony Castro does not yet appear to qualify as a significant politician, a sentiment reflected in the election results tables you meticulously compiled. Yet, in the lead section, Castro is mentioned only as an "American tax consultant who has unsuccessfully run for several political offices."

So, how should we define John Castro? Is he a successful tax advisor and entrepreneur, which seems apparent? Or is he an aspiring politician, though seemingly so minor that he doesn't warrant mention? Could he be both? Do you understand my point here? Could you clarify your perspective on how you view Castro's noteworthiness, which I have serious doubts about?

I would appreciate other opinions here. With only primary sources at hand, and considering Castro's minuscule role in these local elections, this information would likely be deemed spam on 99% of other Wikipedia pages. As I stated in my other edit summaries, I have acknowledged that the individual (be it politician or entrepreneur) participated in those elections, primarily out of fairness to your contributions. However, with the sources you've supplied about this seemingly inconsequential "politician," I could have my dog participate in elections with more impressive results.

My central question is: If Castro is primarily a tax advisor, does he qualify as notable? If much is written about his political aspirations, why did you refrain from identifying him as a politician, despite detailing his electoral history in various tables? MartinPict ( talk) 15:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

MartinPict - I realize you're very new here, but could you please indent your comments? They become very difficult to follow otherwise. Thanks.
"If Castro is primarily a tax advisor, does he qualify as notable?" The way to deal with a not notable article is to nominate it for deletion, not blank various sections. "Do you understand my point here?" Not in the slightest. Chetsford ( talk) 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I have a hard time imagining that a reader is going to be coming to this article looking for detailed candidate-by-candidate totals for these primary elections. At most the reader is likely to be interested in a single line of the table. By the same token, editors who are drawn to the topic of this article over time are unlikely to be particularly interested in making sure that all the totals, names, etc. are fully accurate. That creates a maintenance issue. And while the elections and campaigns themselves don't have to be notable to be encyclopedic, it seems telling that we don't even have an article on the Webb County Court of Commissioners, or AFAIK any (other) coverage at all of the 2004 primary election for it. On the whole I have hard time seeing what value these tables provide to a reader interested in the article subject that wouldn't be much more suitably and concisely provided by saying "Subject came in xth in the primary with y% (z votes)" and linking out to the article on the election if we have one. -- Visviva ( talk) 19:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Question: "... unlikely to be particularly interested in making sure that all the totals, names, etc. are fully accurate. That creates a maintenance issue." Are the vote totals and candidates from the 2020 U.S. Senate election likely to change over time? Chetsford ( talk) 22:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  I mean, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. The past is changing all the time. Maybe the numbers we have will turn out to have been miscopied, or based on a nonfinal or incorrect tabulation. But what I'd be more concerned about is the reverse -- that someone will slip in a numerical change with a plausible edit summary and no one will check it closely for 5 or 15 years. (There's a surprisingly numerous kind of vandal that thinks that sort of thing is absolutely hilarious; of course good-faith editors can also introduce bad information inadvertently.) That's the price of an open wiki, and it's well worth paying when the information is on-topic and helpful to users. But the cost-benefit on that kind of maintenance is not so satisfactory if the information's benefit to the user is zero. This is of course just one of the reasons why we generally want to limit articles to on-topic information, but it is a reason. -- Visviva ( talk) 03:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I say this with greatest appreciation; the potential that someone might retroactively run as a candidate in the 2020 Senate election in 2023 or later is, for uniqueness of position, only surpassed by the idea we would intentionally omit verifiable information from WP because someone might vandalize it. Kudos to you! Chetsford ( talk) 06:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep election results. The vote totals are final, so I don't see any reason that this would create any maintenance issues going forward (tables are a stable and standard MediaWiki feature). They're also verifiable and help to provide the reader with additional context about the elections in which the article subject has run. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Just to get ahead of the curve, a few days ago a magistrate in the Northern District of Texas recommended dismissal of Castro's lawsuit against the Government in Castro v. USA (which involved Castro's contention that the IRS improperly informed potential witnesses that he was or is the target of a widening federal criminal probe). The opinion has been printed in Tax Notes [35], but I'm inclined to believe this episode should not be included in the article until or unless it's covered by a secondary source with at least some narrative or comment. I'm sure this is coming down the pike in the next couple weeks but, out of a preponderance of caution for this BLP, we should hold off, IMO. Chetsford ( talk) 07:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Dear Wikipedia editors,

I am reaching out as a new user of Wikipedia, representing my client, Mr. John Anthony Castro. I have already declared my conflict of interest (COI) on my user's profile, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. Admittedly, I'm still acclimating to Wikipedia's comprehensive rules and regulations.

We would like to bring attention to a significant concern regarding a document—reference #6 under the title "Letter to John Anthony Castro. Florida State Bar"—which was uploaded onto the Wikipedia page of Mr. Castro. We believe it was unlawfully obtained and uploaded by Wikipedia Administrator Chetsford. The cited reference is as follows:

Coaxum, Ghunise (July 18, 2016). "
Practice of Law Investigation of John Anthony Castro". Letter to John Anthony Castro. Florida State Bar. Retrieved March 21, 2023.

Here is a summary of our concerns:

This document was reportedly accessed from a court filing when Mr. Castro initiated a $247 Million lawsuit against Moodys Gartner. Case details can be found here: [36]. Moodys Gartner subsequently included this document in their affidavit, prompting Mr. Castro's legal team to issue a warning of potential sanctions due to its illegitimacy. The document was withdrawn and the case was dismissed. It's pertinent to note that Mr. Castro has since settled the case out of court. This document appears to be created by Roy Berg, a tax attorney who has been targeting Mr. Castro by filing baseless complaints against him for several years. The document was likely sourced from PACER ( [37]), a restricted access court database. We surmise that an unauthorized user downloaded it and uploaded it to a PDF hosting website. Despite its dubious nature and lack of court admissibility, it is being cited as authoritative. We suspect that this document was concocted by Mr. Berg to fortify his campaign against Mr. Castro in 2018. This sequence of events signifies a blatant abuse of power and violation of "good faith" editing. It is distressing to witness such behavior from a Wikipedia Administrator. Consequently, we have submitted a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team, providing them with the necessary information for source removal and requesting a review of Chetsford's potential COI in editing Mr. Castro's Wikipedia page.

However, due to my declared COI, I am unable to remove the contentious source. Therefore, we kindly request assistance from seasoned editors to rectify this issue. Furthermore, we urge the Wikipedia community to deliberate on this incident, particularly focusing on the alleged COI and unethical conduct of Administrator Chetsford.

We welcome all editors to investigate the validity of Mr. Castro's claims and appreciate any assistance offered in this regard. We firmly believe that by standing together, we can ensure the integrity of the platform we all respect and admire.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Ikvas ( talk) 15:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Removed the line until someone can find a WP:RS to restore the line, WP:BLPPRIMARY aren't allowed, even worse when legitimacy of the document is in question. WikiVirus C ^(talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, Ikvas. Thank you for this information and for declaring your conflict of interest on your user's profile. This is a very serious accusation and you shared a lot of information to process. I will make sure to verify your claim via an appropriate NoticeBoard as it deserves some attention. As to the removal of the PDF document, I'll leave it to other editors. MartinPict ( talk) 19:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

As a note, I have passed this along to the Oversight email, as per the edit notice on WP:AN. -- Visviva ( talk) 23:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The acronym " PACER" stands for "Public Access to Court Electronic Records" and contains matters of public record. This same document is available on CourtListener as well: [38]. It's certainly reasonable to question whether it ought to be used as an authoritative source (it shouldn't), as it's simply a court filing and not a judgment by the court, but it is a little extreme to describe it as "unlawfully obtained and uploaded". Also pinging Chetsford here, since they're being accused of... well, something. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 23:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The document clearly cannot be used as a source at all. Not just because WP:BLPPRIMARY forbids it, but because the mere submission of something as evidence to a court in no shape or form establishes its authenticity. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

We're in agreement there; I'm just responding to the allegations that Chetsford has somehow done something criminal here as far as obtaining the document. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 00:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I remember looking at this months ago in excising multiple BLPPRIMARY sources but left this one alone because the letter is explicitly quoted and cited in the footnotes of a RS, Tax Notes Federal. (now reference 9 in the wikipedia article) [39] which would seem to satisfy the second half of BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Seconding GorillaWarfare and adding a few points Re Ikvas:

1. The public has access to PACER documents absent a court order sealing or restricting the documents (or case, as it were). (And there is a strong presumption in favor of public access.) When a document is sealed or restricted, the public cannot access that document on PACER—the document will be restricted to accounts associated with the court and the attorneys associated with the action. Yet the letter in question can be accessed by public accounts; it is not under seal or restricted. Case number: 3:18-cv-00573; docket entry 15 exhibit 3. (The case in question was a complaint filed by Castro against Berg, not the other way around.)
2. While its use as a source here is a question separate and apart from this issue, I do want to note that I'm, personally, highly skeptical of your claim that Berg concocted the letter. If you actually mean to say that Berg forged a document that he presented to the court as legitimate, it would be fairly shocking for that to have gone unmentioned in either the response brief or a Rule 11 motion. And yet, ... it wasn't brought up at all.

Now, as to whether the document can be used as a source here ... I do think the answer is no. It's too risky to rely on primary documents uploaded by attorneys to a court case.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 00:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree on all points: there's nothing confidential about the letter; AND there's no immediate reason to doubt it's authenticity per se; BUT it's absolutely inadmissible as a source in the article. E Eng 01:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Two things:

1. I'm struggling to comprehend how one could claim that accessing a public record through a public database is in any meaningful way illegal, especially in light of Van Buren v. United States (2021). Before making claims alleging illegal behavior or making legal threats, please make sure to get the facts right.
2. The document is on the letterhead of the Florida Bar, and appears to have been created by the Florida Bar. I will note that Florida's bar does publish a publicly searchable database of its members, and the only person that shows up with a first name "John" and a last name "Castro" is John S. Castro, who is not the subject of this article. The document from the Florida Bar looks legitimate; the only reason that this ought be removed would be the claim that it is referenced solely to a primary source in a biograph of a living person—not because of a(n apparently false) belief that Castro is licensed to practice law in Florida. And, it just so happens that we have a secondary source that describes this dispute ( Page 913 of this Tax Notes piece indeed states that the IRS says that Castro was (and is) not, in fact, a licensed attorney). It is true that one does not need to be a licensed attorney to do tax preparation (indeed, that is what accountants do all the time), but that point is not relevant to the question of the letter's authenticitiy.

Chetsford made a judgement call, and it's frankly one that could go either way—I cannot fault the user for including apparently true information that is also referred to by a secondary source. But labeling this as somehow the result of some unlawful plot and consequently an abuse of power rests on really weak evidence and borders on casting aspersions. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 01:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I would just like to point something out that hasn't been addressed yet: We welcome all editors to investigate the validity of Mr. Castro's claims—it is not in the authority of Wikipedia editors to investigate the validity of anything, and it is in fact forbidden by Wikipedia policy. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, we must adhere to what is given in reliable sources. Because court documents are a primary source, it seems as though the consensus here is to remove it from the article anyway, but I see that the document was mentioned in a secondary source, so I would imagine that information about it will remain in the article. WPscatter ^t/ _c 03:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

But the source [40] (note 42) only references the Bar letter for the fact that Castro's not an attorney; it says nothing about any admonishment, so that bit needs to stay out of the article. E Eng 09:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

No real objections from me to its removal, or that of the supporting sentence. The article has been rewritten substantially and I was under the impression that there were two secondary sources for the statement ( Tax Notes Federal [41] and another) and the primary source was not being used as the sole reference but a supporting reference to two secondary sources provided merely for reader convenience and accessibility as opposed to content corroboration. I'll look through my edits and try to find the other secondary source but — in the meantime — I don't really have objections to removal of the sentence based on its sourcing to only one secondary source and the primary source. (And, to be honest, for all I know maybe there is no second, secondary source and I mixed up two different sentences.) Chetsford ( talk) 04:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

In addition to the above, I would like to extend my apologies to Mr. Castro for any expense and inconvenience incurred retaining, from Texas, a pseudonymous, UK-based solicitor to leave a Talk page comment on Wikipedia. Ikvas, please tell your client that I would certainly be happy to assist him with any concerns he may have in the future with this or any Wikipedia entry and he need not go to the expense of traveling the globe to secure representation to do so. He should always feel free to leave a message here or on my Talk page. Chetsford ( talk) 04:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Wait. You don't mean to suggest that someone who's not an attorney would DARE represent themselves as such, are you? No! E Eng 08:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

No. This is a high-caliber legal team. In fact, they've already criminally prosecuted me for illegally watching a video Mr. Castro uploaded to his TikTok. I was executed yesterday. Chetsford ( talk) 08:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Just curious... What method of execution, and did it hurt? E Eng 08:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I was sued to death. Chetsford ( talk) 08:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Death of a thousand paper cuts. E Eng 08:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Note - The editor purporting to be Castro's lawyer has been indefinitely blocked at SPI. I've stricken their comments per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Chetsford ( talk) 14:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply