Talk:Alex van der Zwaan

Other people and law firms

Coincidentally, he worked at same law firm as Pauly Manfort's daughter, Andrea Manafort Shand. Realizing the risk of POV and conjecturing as to the meaning of my use of "coincidentally"; any imputation is unintended and only stated as a matter of fact. https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrea-shand-75760835/ --Wikipietime (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This probably isn't a coincidence, but that doesn't mean it should be included in the article.Zekelayla (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

With a little digging, your will discover this community to be small and close-knit. You will find the names, starting with spouses. The article is not about them; they are irrelevant to the story, so they should be left out. Rhadow (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Skadden Arps has everything to do with this story. It WAY overbilled for van der Swaan's work. See reference. Rhadow (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Name

I'm seeing his name be capitalized differently in the media outlets. What is the correct form of his name?

NBC News article says it's 'Alex van der Zwaan': https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/mueller-files-new-charge-russia-probe-against-lawyer-accused-lying-n849566

USA Today article says it's 'Alex Van Der Zwaan': https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/20/attorney-charged-lying-russia-special-counsel-probe/354221002/

Washington Post article says it's 'Alex Van der Zwaan': https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/mueller-probe-london-based-son-of-russian-businessman-to-plead-guilty-to-false-statements/2018/02/20/142f4d2e-164b-11e8-b681-2d4d462a1921_story.html

FunksBrother (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In Dutch and in the Chicago MOS (8.10) the standard is lower case vee when the particle is used in a full name, i.e Alex van der Zwaan. AP and Chicago MOS say capitalize it only at the beginning of a sentence. Rhadow (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It is "Alex van der Zwaan" or "Van der Zwaan" per Dutch name#Surnames. – Editør (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

We should follow the English conventions for Dutch surnames (e.g. AP, Chicago MOS), not a Dutch convention that is obscure to English speakers. So it should always be "van der Zwaan" unless at the beginning of a sentence. Zekelayla (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I would accept whatever is Wikipedia style for Dutch surnames mentioned within a sentence, or if there is no Wikipedia style guide for that, whatever the consensus is. I would like to comment however that I find capitalizing the surname within sentences makes the sentences much easier to read and comprehend. GreyGoose (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Name of the law firm

The surname appears to be van der Zwaan, or Van der Zwaan at the beginning of a sentence. I am also wondering about the common name of the law firm. We have been calling it Skadden Arps. But if you look at our article Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, it mostly calls the firm simply Skadden. Sources mostly do the same. I think we should do the same. --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

MelanieN, the sources for this article all say Skadden Arps, which is also what it is called in New York. Law firms are commonly called by the first two name-partners' names (not just one), regardless of how many name partners there are. Referring to a law firm by the two first name-partners's names also helps distinguish the word from merely referring to a person (in this case, Skadden, the firm's founder). Also note that the first sentence of the Wikipedia article gives "Skadden Arps" as the first shortened name. The body text of that Wikipedia article has been sorely neglected and should probably be re-written. GreyGoose (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware that it is common for law firms to be referred to by the names of the first two partners. But that doesn’t seem to be what is commonly done with this firm. You are simply wrong saying that “all the sources” do it that way. If you actually look at the sources in the article, many of them, including the most respected and reliable - Washington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg, NBC News - call it “Skadden”. Some - Chicago Sun-Times, Star Tribune, NBC New York, Politico - do call it “Skadden Arps” (no comma) or CNBC Skadden, Arps (with a comma). Some - BBC, - do not use a short form for the law firm’s name. There is clearly no consensus usage by sources here. But if you look at the firm’s own usage, their logo says simply “Skadden” and their website is at www.skadden.com. That is apparently the firm’s own preference and that ought to settle it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There are 13 English-language news venues cited in this article; of those that use a truncated form of the firm's name anywhere in an article, the majority use "Skadden Arps" (1) Chicago Sun-Times [1] (2) San Francisco Chronicle [2] (3) WNBC [3] (4) Star-Tribune [4] (5) Politico [5] (6) Radio Free Europe [6] (7) CNBC: [7], and (8) the WSJ is careful to say "the Skadden firm" and "the Skadden law firm" instead of "Skadden" [8]. That's 8 out of 13 English-language news venues. The reason that's it's important to follow law-firm naming conventions is because to do otherwise is very confusing for the reader (as I mentioned before), and it is the reader we should always be in mind of. So I would disagree with you, and my vote is to retain Skadden Arps. GreyGoose (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Seven out of 13 is not exactly overwhelming. The Washington Post and the NYT use "Skadden". And how do you respond to the fact that the firm itself calls itself "Skadden"?MelanieN alt (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And it's not just the logo and the webpage that say "Skadden". The firm calls itself "Skadden" consistently. overview, News and Rankings, Diversity and Inclusion, pro bono, Professionals, Latest from Skadden, etc. If we insist on calling this firm Skadden Arps because that's what most law firms do, that will be WP:original research, imposing our own idea over the firm's actual usage. --MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

And by the way, three four of the articles you listed are the same article. The Sun Times, the SF Chronicle, and the Star News are all actually an AP article reprinted by the source. So is WNBC; it doesn't say AP but the authors are the same. So bottom line, four articles (AP, Politico, RFE, and CNBC) say Skadden Arps, and four (New York Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, and NBC News) say Skadden. Not to mention that the firm itself uses Skadden. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@GreyGoose: Have I provided enough evidence to convince you that we ought to use Skadden as the short name for the firm? --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My preference would still be to use the double name, per convention and for clarity's sake, since as I've mentioned before, using only one name is too easily confused with referring to a person. Many of the articles that use the single word are addressed to a niche or cognoscenti audience, whereas those using the two-word standard are addressed to a broad readership (such as this CNN article I ran into recently when researching [9]). I'm much more concerned about the reader than I am about what the firm likes to call itself; using the most, or at least a, common referent in cited articles on the subject of Alex van der Zwaan would not be original research in my mind. GreyGoose (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

So your attitude is: forget WP:COMMONNAME, forget WP:Reliable source usage (BTW the New York Times and the Washington Post are not addressed to a "niche or cognoscenti audience"), let's just do it the way you would do it if it were your law firm? --MelanieN (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

My preference is to use the common usage in reliable sources that is clearest and most easily understood by the reader (and which, as it stands, also follows standard law-firm-naming conventions). GreyGoose (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, let’s ask the other people that have been recently active on this talk page. @BullRangifer, BeenAroundAWhile, Editør, Rhadow, and FunksBrother: After reviewing the discussion here, do you have an opinion whether we should refer to the law firm as "Skadden" or "Skadden Arps"? --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Call the firm by its full name once. After that, refer to it a Skadden Arps in every other mention. That's the standard way to refer to a law firm. Rhadow (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree with @Rhadow, call the firm by its full name at the first mention and then refer it by its condensed name in the following mentions of the article. I did that for another lawyer's article, John M. Dowd. FunksBrother (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

FunksBrother, the question is, should the condensed name be "Skadden" or "Skadden Arps"? --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Their logo on their article is "Skadden". Just go with Skadden. FunksBrother (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Let's be sure to use neutral, unbiased sources. I had to remove some stuff because the info came from sites that were not neutral. Thanks, everybody! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There is NO policy which forbids using biased sources. On the contrary, NPOV very specifically allows it.

Keep in mind that NPOV primarily refers to editorial conduct, not content and sources. Read more at my essay here: WP:NEUTRALEDITOR. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a comment that van der Zwan has Russian "roots". The original source is tatler.ru (https://www.tatler.ru/geroi/sem-glavnyh-svadeb-leta-2017-po-versii-tatler}. If we use this as a reliable source Wikipedia will lose its staus as an encylopedia.Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous Dutch sources that state that he is born to a Dutch father and Russian mother, the articles include the names of both his parents and and some also state when his mother left the Soviet Union. Some-people-call-me-maurice (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Does van der Zwann's conviction and prison sentence prevent him from entering the United States once he is released???

Does anybody know if van der Zwann's conviction and prison sentence prevent him from entering the United States once he is released??? For that matter, will he automatically be deported once he has served his sentence? Thanks in advance to anybody who knows or has links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.42.133 (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this has anything to do with the maintenance of this article, per WP:NOTFORUM. If you have a question about possible sentencing, please ask WP:RD/H. (I should note, however, that Mr. van der Zwaan did indeed commit a felony, and per the plea agreement he signed, he is eligible to be deported.) Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I heard on CNN he would be deported and excluded - someone said that was the harshest part - that is currently not in the article but should be sourced and added. Legacypac (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's perfectly in line with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which provides for deportation for felons like Mr. van der Zwaan. However, I haven't been able to find a source for that comment, @Legacypac:, though I have noted the possibility of deportation before. At most, I can find this: and . If you could find a source... — Javert2113 (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, you wrote, "Someone said that was the harshest part" - yes, that's why I asked the question (sorry, I forgot to log-in when I asked the question/put in the new section). When I read all the news articles, I remember thinking, "Whoa, baby!", that just signing on to a felony not only wrecks this guy's legal career, but probably puts a huge crimp/barrier in his future business deals/world travels, because for someone like him (4 languages, lawyer with a firm like Skadden Arps, etc), it would be normal to travel between the States and Europe probably several times a year. That's all over. And not just for a couple of years, but for the rest of his life. Now I've got another question (maybe this can all be incorporated in the article with links once we have it fleshed out): Does this also prevent him from travelling to other countries such as Canada? If you're banned from entering the States because of a felony conviction, does Canada also recognise that??? I mean, I assume that if you were convicted of, say, rape in America, that Canada would ban you. What about felonies in general? For that matter, if that is the case, he might be banned from a whole host of other countries (Western Hemisphere???) if other countries honour American bans/convictions. I would think that there would be some sort of reciprocity between friendly countries, but I don't know. Maybe this guy is in future stuck just being able to travel within the EU and perhaps his in-laws' countries (Russia, Ukraine). I mean, if it was rape, surely he would be stuck just travelling within the EU. Those 30 days at Allenwood are probably going to affect him the rest of his life.Betathetapi545 (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"But that timing (going to London) is uncertain because it's not clear he can voluntarily self-deport after serving the prison term or whether he will enter the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement first." Says NPR source. Pretty clear he will be deported or allowed to self deport. Presumably deported felons can't just hop on a plane back to the USA a week later after being deported. I don't know the exclusion time period. Legacypac (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right; that works, though it's contingent on ICE, I suppose. — Javert2113 (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I clarified my post a little. Legacypac (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

List of people deported or removed from the United States has better coverage than Deportation and removal from the United States but neither answer the question of how long it someone is excluded or what the procedure is. Legacypac (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know, either. Best to ask WP:RD/H. — Javert2113 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the sources reporting on the sentencing there is no doubt he will be removed (the correct term for what used to be Deported) from the US. The only question is will ICE allow him to self deport or will ICE do the deed themselves. It seems that was outside the judge's control, maybe an ICE admin decision. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• The judge is specifically allowing him to self-deport. Please see the citations I have added to the article. GreyGoose (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC

The citations I added say otherwise. You should not be reverting my cited additions. He can only self deport with ICE permission so it is still an IFE removal, only the exact mechanics change. He apparently can't leave without ICE approval. Legacypac (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The NPR citation you're using and that's quoted above is by its own admission uncertain and is making speculations, so it should not be used. I've now changed the wording to exactly what the judge said, from a source that is certain and that has all the facts. GreyGoose (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Loss of license to practice law

You are unable to work as a lawyer once you have pleaded guilty to a criminal charge. Should say he’s an ex lawyer 101.183.21.131 (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

He appears to have practiced law in several jurisdictions. The criminal charges were in the US. We would need a RS to say he was disbarred somewhere. Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Date style in body text: American or British?

The date style in the body text of this wiki article was consistently American from the beginning, but someone just changed it to British style. Could we get a consensus on this? Although the subject is European and resides in Britain, his only notability is in American political events. Therefore in my opinion the article should return to American date styles. What does everyone else think? GreyGoose (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Since no one seems to object to a return to the original date style, and new additions to the article are currently being added in American date style, I have changed it back. GreyGoose (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

BLP, charges, and convictions

Mr. van der Zwaan, a person noteworthy for one criminally false statement in a particularly high-profile investigation, is a private person. Details leading up to his conviction are statements about the prosecutor, perhaps, but are not appropriate in a BLP about a private person. Similarly, punishment the prosecutor recommended to a court is not appropriate in a BLP. Details of charges must be treated with skepticism, and reverters User:BullRangifer or User:Drmies are obligated to examine whether the subject was indeed convicted of these accusations, and must find new sources confirming the accusations were indeed proven. Especially after a conviction, the minutiae of charges, especially those not substantiated by the conviction, are not appropriate in a BLP, especially one of a person noted for a sole event. I'm also skeptical that his employment status belongs in a BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This individual is noteable for one event, arguably one utterance. It's not clear to me why they have their own page. Its defenders might need to clean it up substantially, as it does not present a full and balanced biography. I agree the criminal act and details around it should appear in coverage of criminal acts associated with the Mueller investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Pseudo-biographies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This is building down to an contradiction fallacy by User:BullRangifer: "Even if notable for one event, once an article is created, we fill it with nearly everything covered in RS. We create as full a biography as possible. We don't keep it to the one event." No. If a person is notable for one event, we stop pretending they're generally notable, and fold the germane details of their role in history into the non-individual topic where that's documented. You think you've found a sort of loophole in the BLP principles, but you haven't. And you can't interact with me. If I'm going to learn BLP inside-and-out, I need to stop you and assure mentions of this total stranger on Wikipedia comply with BLP principles and guidelines. So much work to do. Please cease your belligerence and enter into dialog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 02:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event

Let's do the work, User:BullRangifer and not pretend we don't see his notability bar failure!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017–present)

That's the main place where this person, noteworthy for one event, should be covered. This page focused on this person should not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 06:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)