Talk:Bernie Madoff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

$50 billion is the number

This is the number being currently mentioned in the press, so it would seem sensible to use this number until further details emerge. This is a different topic from the Jewish issue raised above.
Dean Armond (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

List of losers - amount of losses

Please add amounts lost so we can keep the significant losers. Large investors with little exposure should not be listed. The way it's now, the list will soon become very long. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we can keep track of the amounts claimed. For one thing there may be double or triple counting - e.g. somebody invested in a hedge fund which invested in Madoff - somebody claims a loss, their family foundation says they have a loss, and the hedge fund claims the same loss. Just having different papers make the statement allows this type of counting, without any bad faith involved - so ultimately the numbers become meaningless. Let reliable sources come up with any totals, or make any comparisons. Smallbones (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My reason is not to produce some form of accounting here, but to offer a fair report on who got affected. Look a couple of sections above why this is needed (bias). Xasodfuih (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is always going to be some double and triple counting - for instance, let's say Joe Blow in Europe got sold on Madoff by one of the Swiss banks mentioned - and he puts up a million dollars - but those Swiss banks were marketing Madoff's fund as being so reliable that they were offering you low-interest loans so you could DOUBLE your investment in Madoff's fund - so you put up a million, and the Swiss bank loaned you a million, so the total invested is now 2 million. Then the whole things goes up in a puff of smoke. The Swiss bank is going to still try to make Joe Blow pay the million dollar loan back, but it probably recognises that it might not be able to succeed, so it reserves for the loss. But Joe Blow is still being hounded by the bank - so Joe says his losses are two million (and he'll probably claim the full 2 million loss on his tax return). The Swiss bank will also say it was a victim and has lost a million. But Joe Blow may in fact turn around and sue the Swiss bank for the whole thing, wanting his entire money back, stating that the Swiss bank failed in it's fiduciary capacity when it recommended the investment. So the Swiss bank is potentially on the hook for the full 2 million. So, both Joe and the Swiss bank could say they are losers for the same 2 million. There are lots of other ways to end up with double and triple counting. I say, just put in this Wiki bio the amounts reported by the media - not our job to sort out those numbers!Betathetapi545 (talk) 07:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Bernie please???

There have been several photos of Bernie in various online newspapers, i.e. The Times of London, etc. Are these publicly available? I don't know the in's and out's of this (I don't even know how to put a photo up), but can somebody put a photo of Bernie up at the top of this entry? One with him with a nice big smile on his face, I would think. Or maybe TWO photos - a "before" photo when he hadn't been caught yet, and a second "perp walk" photo with his head down and no smile on his face - that is what I would like to see, would think would be appropriate here. Thanks in advance.Betathetapi545 (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one? I'm not sure if it could be used, but it's low-res, and I haven't seen it anywhere other then TPM. But there is no public license that I know of, and I'm unsure if one exists or could be found. I'm also unsure if the situation and low-resolution would qualify here as fair use. (Image found here) Mikco (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good "before" photo - he's got a big smile on his face. Hilarious. I don't know how to put it up.Betathetapi545 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it it could be put up though. First we need to decide if it's allowed based on the circumstances (licensing, resolution, fair-use). Mikco (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Bernie"

A number of media/newspapers have now quoted investors that know Madoff as referring to him as "Bernie", so, can anybody who knows how to do it, insert up at the top into the guy's name, changing it from Bernard Leon Madoff to Bernard Leon "Bernie" Madoff??? I don't know how to do this (I could try, but would probably botch it). Thanks in advance.Betathetapi545 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Modus operandi" vs. "Operations"

I see somebody has changed "Modus operandi" to "Operations". In the brokerage industry, "Operations" has a specific meaning, and I would expect to read about how his back office worked under such a title. But we're not talking back office here, we're talking front office. The solicitation of clients is front office, not back office. And this guy had a very particular method of soliciting clients - mostly he targeted Jews - if you look at the list, most of his victims are jews - The New York Post even printed that Madoff, "worked the so-called 'Jewish circuit' of well-heeled Jews he met at country clubs on Long Island and in Palm Beach, and through his position on the boards of directors of several prominent Jewish institutions, he was entrusted with entire family fortunes." That is a very particular front office technique, a very particular modus operandi, and that has nothing to do with his firm's back office operations. "Operations" is wholly out of place here as a section title.Betathetapi545 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See modus operandi. There's an editor here, User:Mikco, who's trying to make the article more WP:NPOV, but who is introducing a number of factual inaccuracies. Xasodfuih (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as?
And what does that have to do with "Modus operandi" vs. "Operations"? Mikco (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It was you who changed MO to "operations" and removed other sourced statements in that paragraph and elsewhere. It's good that you try to follow WP:NPOV, but please be more careful not to alter what the sources say. For instance 'Jewish circuit' is not meant to be derogatory towards Jews, but conveniently names the segment of Jewish Americans that fell victim to Madoff. The Daily Telegraph also uses the term [1] Xasodfuih (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was User:Smallbones in this revision that switched MO. The 1800 fact originally had no clear source, and was inaccurately stated (even with a source). The only reason I called out bias in the first place was because the article seemed to be making the fact that Madoff was Jewish the main subject. The article was also spliced in an unfair manner. Other insignificant facts were also pointed out -- some untrue, and some true but unnecessary for the purpose of the article. ATM, the article now is very much changed from the way I first saw it. Mikco (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But the article is still being heavily edited, so I think it would be better to keep the tag in for now until others agree that it can be declared neutral at a reasonable time. Mikco (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you removed 'Jewish circuit' here. Not every appearance of the word Jewish is against WP:NPOV. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are two important issues here that cannot be ignored concerning ethnic heritage: first, Madoff apparently targeted his own community; second, there were members of his own community that seem to have decided that he is their own crook, so they used him. The whole episode is akin to that of Robert Maxwell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the matter at hand. I believe the term "Modus operandi" in its criminal application has a stipulation of guilt - for which none has yet been proven in law. And besides the literal application, also seems like an inaccurate term to cover the section regarding fraud - Which on a separate matter I sectioned to stop a bio turning into a article solely about the fraud. The section covers those effected, the media coverage, and other matters; not solely the Mode of Operation. Perhaps the title "Alleged fraud" would be better? Nigholith (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mikco has kindly re-titled the section to Operations, accusations, and case, which, while seeming untidey, solves my second ststed problem. Now if we could only come to a resolution on "Modus operandi"... Nigholith (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've altered the title to reflect the "Modus operandi" problem of guilt in this case; untill disagreed upon. Changed to "Operations" per this debate Nigholith (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Biased template

User:Mikco added the template with the summary "His religion and ethnicity really has little or nothing to do with either his fraud or his firm. Stuff like that belongs under 'Personal Life' or 'Philanthropy'". This article (current version) is about Madoff's entire life, so I don't see how mentioning that Madoff was a leading Jewish philanthropist in the lede (source: NYT and WaPo) makes this article biased. The only the other reference to Madoff ethnicity is in the 'Personal history' section, and the source is The Daily Telegraph. User:Mikco seems overly sensitive to ethnicity issues. That doesn't make the article biased. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The collapse of Madoff's firm affected a number of Jewish philanthropic efforts, one of which had to close. This issue has been the focus of several mainstream newspaper articles, so the "bias" simply reflects what the sources say. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, the article on Seung-Hui Cho is far more "biased" stating that he was South Korean in the first sentence of the lede! Xasodfuih (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Besides the preference of mentioning Jewish philanthropy, editors appear to pick and choose how the article is arranged. It is understood that many Jewish charities were affected, and that should definitely be stated in the article, but why does something like Jewish charity (in the arrangement of the article) take precedence over the fraud case and those in the financial industry who were affected? See 'victims' - it mentions Jewish charities while arranging the affected clients footnote-style. And while sources may be cited, this article focuses on the current scandal, and should detail the scandal. Madoff's philanthropy should be edited to appear more biographical. While it's true that many Jewish charities were affected by the collapse of the firm, it should be noted that the Madoff Foundation did not focus solely on Jewish issues. Even in todays NYTimes, there were two featured articles. The article on the main front page focused mainly on the fraud case, while the article featured in Business Day detailed charity work, but not just that of Jewish organizations. This article goes out of its way to list specific Jewish organizations from a bunch of different sources while not mentioning other points of the foundation's agenda. Even if and when other charities are added, this article should still be arranged in a less-biased manner. Mikco (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jewish charities were amongst the most heavily affected. For instance the WaPo article has this subtitle:

Bernard Madoff was a Wall Street whiz with a golden reputation. Investors, including Jewish charities, entrusted him with billions. It's gone.

So, it's normal to put that emphasis in the lede, unless you think Binyamin Appelbaum, David S. Hilzenrath and Amit R. Paley have an anti-semite agenda or something like that...

I'm not sure I understand your point about "in the arrangement of the article". If you refer to the last section, it's a work in progress to rewrite from a dry list to text. Feel free to reorder. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just reviewed Wikipedia's bias policy.

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

The way points from outside sources are arranged is not at all in a neutral manner. Mikco (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Please propose an outline of the article that would satisfy you. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the edits made since that post (many by you) have gone in the right direction. Nonetheless, more emphasis still should be put on the issue at hand rather than his religion and ethnicity. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be mentioned when they should, just care should be taken to keep the viewpoint neutral. The discussion below and the cherrypicked-ethnicity template will hopefully encourage further work to be done in specific sections. Mikco (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK for the tag to be removed now. It was removed before and then put back, but further edits have been made. If anyone thinks otherwise just reply here. Mikco (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unregistered users have begun to vandalize "Modus operandi" with the quote that was agreed should be made neutral. The tag was added to that section. Please wait till the vandalism stops to remove it. Mikco (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the fact that he's a Jew and, also, many of his victims are Jewish is not a valid reason for continual mentioning of religion here. The only relevant mention of his religion is in a biographical context. Even the fact that he was a major giver to Jewish charities does not make it relevant to mention his religion all over the place. Now I believe that his fraud caused the closing of a charity to which he was a major donor. But the fact that the charity was a Jewish one is not relevant. And the fact that he's a Jew is not relevant to that particular fact either. The only relevant thing there is that he gave to the charity and the charity was also his victim. The relgious affiliation of the charity is not relevant to the issue. It's a tangential piece of information.

What's also tangential is the fact that he is Jewish and some of his victims are Jewish. This is a conincidental link, even given the fact that he gave Jewish charities. After all, many of his victims were Christian and Muslim too. And many of his victims came from England. And many came from France. And many came from India. Who cares? None of this is germane to the subject. It's all irrelevant. When a Christian commits a crime, do you often see reference to the fact that his/her victims were Christian as well? Of course not. That would be ridiculous, unless there was a legitimate reason to do so. The bottom line is that many of these mentions of religion are irrelevant and outside of a biographical context. ask123 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Blodgett column

I see a number of you have repeatedly deleted the Henry Blodgett info where he states that a number of Madoff's clients invested with him PRECISELY because they thought Madoff was up to something crooked. Some of you have said, "It is a blog" - it is not a blog - he has written it for The New York Post - in any event, Blodgett is a major-league financial reporter, and quoting his blog is no different from quoting, say, Ariana Huffington's website. If you don't know who Henry Blodgett is, don't touch the entry. Find out who he is before you delete.Betathetapi545 (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Blodgett has contradicted himself. He states that, "Presumably advisors wouldn't want to invest their clients' money to someone who was front-running, either, so this was yet another reason to give Madoff a proctology exam)." Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/146403/How-to-Get-Money-Back-from-Bernie-Madoff-Sue-Tremont-Others;_ylt=Alf.D9PeOK_VPU2GR9UhzZZk7ot4?tickers=^dji,^gspc,^ixic

Furthermore, many investors invested in Madoff through a third-party firm and were not aware that their money was with Madoff. Since many investors did not know that their money was with Madoff, it cannot be said that many investors had placed their money with Madoff because they thought he was cheating.

In the News

This article is linked to the front page "In the News" column. I'll ask everybody to please be on your best behavior. There is no room for ethnic insults. Obviously we have to say (and have said) that he is Jewish, but repeating this ad naseum adds nothing to the article. Smallbones (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "Jewish T-bill", which you just deleted (and was sourced from NYT [2]), then I agree it's a bit iffy NPOV-wise, but do you claim that NYT made an ethnic insult? Xasodfuih (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

But is that quote necessary? And does it provide contributive information that would improve this Wiki article? Mikco (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The nickname shows how trusted Madoff was certain circles using one (or two) word(s). Xasodfuih (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But the 'Jewish circuit' quote is unnecessary. It makes it sound as if almost all of his clients were Jews. There has to be a more appropriate way of stating how he got his clients. How about the quote from the NYTimes in which a woman said she begged to sign up with the firm. Mikco (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's been up there for a while actually. There's also a notice at the top of the discussion. Mikco (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I just edited out about 4 or 5 of the "Jewish this-Jewish that" type of edits which I think have been fairly complained about. It's a question of weight - not whether the individual quotes are justified, but whether the whole fairly represents the situation. Maybe if I'm half-way in between you guys, it's more-or-less ok? Smallbones (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thyssen

Seeing the Thyssen name there makes one smile, because Thyssen always crops up where something untoward is happening. The then Thyssen head was a chief financier of the Hitler Party and without Thyssen, WWII might have well not happened. When Germany was about to lose and was kaputt, Thyssen fled to Switzerland and he obviously got out alright, while so many people lost their lives or property.

Then, for German reunification, Thyssen was involved in another sting, that resulted in the elf Aquitaine/Minol landgrab, depriving little people like myself of their assetts. One would hope, that the Thyssen family lost a lot of money through Madoff, A LOT, that is. 121.209.49.123 (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Add to List of trading losses

I'm not familiar enough with Madoff's situation to add to him to List of trading losses, but he surely belongs there. Anyone more familiar with the details of this case that wants to add him? --172.130.183.92 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Over-citing"

One does not need to cite five+ sources for a single piece of information. That is "over citing." Just one to three will do. Over-citing distracts readers from the article. It's like over-linking. All of that blue text also distracts from the article and is, therefore, discouraged. Perhaps, someone who's invested in this article can cut down on the over-citing in this article. ask123 (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

semi-protected

I've semi-protected the article for a week owing to IP vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This IP user removed a whole lot of sourced information - someone should go put it back in. --172.168.41.169 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplicated Line - edit requested by established member

I'm not sure if I can edit because it is semi-protected and I have few edits so let me put this out here. There is a repeated line in the Criminal and Civil Charges section "Independent hedge fund research firm Aksia told its clients in December of 2006 not to invest with Madoff’s firm after learning the identity of the New City, New York-based auditor, according to Jake Walthour, of Aksia. The auditor, Friehling & Horowitz included one partner in his late 70s who lives in Florida, a secretary, and one active accountant, Aksia said.[42]" appears more correctly in an above section about related reports Halcyonforever (talk)

• So it looks like I am able to edit it. Wow... I feel important. Halcyonforever (talk)

You've been auto-confirmed for over a year. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Again!

User:Betathetapi545 keeps reposting the Henry Blodget clip, and is threatening other users with bans[3] when they remove it based on the discussions here. They also keep adding a French term instead of just saying 'The Madoff Affair'. Mikco (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

They are also continuously re-inserting a questionable New York Post quote. The way the piece was modified makes the same points without mentioning the word "Jew," and is more neutral then otherwise. Mikco (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Three more revisions, as well as threatening to have me banned[4] if quote is reverted without discussion. Meanwhile, User:Betathetapi545 isn't even discussing themselves! Mikco (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If y'all don't stop edit warring over this I'm going to lock the page and may block some editors. Please stop now and rather, settle this on the talk page. Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for anything I may be involved with, but discussing is what I'm trying to do. There has already been discussion on these subjects which are being ignored, and the user is rejecting any further discussion. Mikco (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see anything wrong with that quote, it seems to be what Madoff (allegedly) did! Just looking at the individual victims they seem to be mostly Jewish and wealthy, and explaining how he met his victims seems important. Now I agree that before there were references to his Jewishness in the lead which didn't seem neccessary, but at the moment there is little reference to the Jewishness of his former clients. Ticklemygrits (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It could be inaccurate because it makes it seem as if he specifically targeted Jews for clients. The modified presentation keeps and represents all relevant points in a more neutral manner. The Blodget bit, on the otherhand, seems completely irrelevant and unreliably sourced. Mikco (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Betathetapi545, watch out for Jayjg and his posse. Israel didn't "anonymously" "donate" hundreds of thousands of dollars to Wikipedia for nothing. Notika (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is against wikipedia policy to attack other users.Notmyrealname (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, User:Betathetapi545 is ignoring discussion and provoking an edit war. The points being put up serve no productive purpose, and undermine the neutrality of this article. Why cant this matter at least be discussed? Mikco (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for reference several (not all) of User:Betathetapi545's reverts over the last 12 hours include:

[5] [6] [7]

[8] [9] [10]

Many of these have threats attached.

I will delete the reference to Henry Blodget's blog, as discussed above and at WP:RSN, the blog is simply not a reliable source. I'll leave in the reference to the New York Post co;umn but it must be said that this is an opinion, not a fact (that the victims were actually trying to be crooks). It has BLP problems but I'll let others delete the whole thing if they think it appropriate.

If User:Betathetapi545 reverts anything again in the next 12 hours, I will report this directly to WP:3RR. Smallbones (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually somebody else removed the whole Blodget paragraph while I was typing the above. Smallbones (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Seriously now, I've heard various pronunciations from newscasters. Those who say "made-off" are sometimes punning, but at other times seem to treat that straight, as the name. At other times, it is more like "Mad - ov," like some slavic sort of insanity. Anyone know the real deal here? --Christofurio (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Image

I have deleted Image:Bernie_Madoff.png. Images of Bernie Madoff are readily available on the internet, see http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=3&q=%22Bernie+Madoff%22&btnG=Search+images but nothing that we can use yet. It is possible we could eventually get a mugshot, or since he will be appearing in court in New York, someone could take a picture. Fred Talk 22:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Was there a discussion? Did you look at the rationale? Mikco (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Investment strategy, OR, primary sources

The section on investment strategy is pretty good, but fairly technical. I removed the following

"Though Madoff was reluctant to divulge the details of his investment process, offering memorandums for feeder funds investing with Madoff described an option based strategy commonly called a split-strike conversion or collar. "

because it is WP:OR (perhaps good OR, but still not allowed) and uses primary sources. Smallbones (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Without comment on the above as to content, primary sources are allowed so long as they are not used to draw original conclusions. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Distinction between Jew as Hebrew Religion and Jew as Ethnic or Political identity

There is no monolithic Jew.

That's actually an invention from the political fantasy of the Zionist political Jew, which is stuck in a 19th century vision of hegemony.

The Rabbinical Hebrew Jew is loyal to the law of the Torah and Rabbis. They practice separatism and live by strict laws of purity and prayer in order to fulfill the prophecy.

The ethnic Jew is at ease with themselves and builds genuine relationships in their spiritual, community and business lives. This segment of Judaism is more harassed by the Zionist and Hebrew Jews than by the secular population. Integration with the general society would mean the end of Judaism.

We should find out more about the personal life of Bernard Madoff. Who were his parents? What was their work and social activity? What schools did he attend? Who were his mentors, teachers, friends?

Jewish mafia criminals is as common as Italian mafia criminals. Investigation should not reference all Jews any more than it should reference all Italians.

Any reference to a assumed monlithic Jewish identity, feeling, belief or opinion should be dissallowed as an intellectual or reasonable consideration. A sense of monolithic agreement is an emotional or juvinile enthusiasm; or deliberate disassociation from the important issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraraji (talk • contribs) 04:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So what is the point here: denying Madoff the right to be called jewish, or trying to idealize the jewish "non-monolithic" community by distancing it from an alleged criminal? Either way it's pointless and it's distortion of facts. Crnorizec (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Ferraraji. Do you want to go through each and every biographical article whose subject is Jewish and determine if s/he is a relgious Jew or a cultural/ethnic Jew? Who are you (or me, for that matter) to determine who is and isn't a religious Jew? Furthermore, did it occur to you that these categories may be blurred, i.e. not strictly separated? In any event, it is not up to you or the writers of this article to assign Bernard Madoff or any other subject an identity as a religious Jew vs. a cultural/ethnic Jew. ask123 (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is Jews as a class are no different than Catholics. They are in every country and all walks of life. There is no monolithic Jewishness. Secondly, a criminal is a criminal, if identity (jewish, catholic, black, white, asian, etc.) is embarrasing to a larger group that is the criminal's doing not the writer for including it as a detail.

Making a big deal over religious or ethnic identification is 17th century thinking. Of course lines are blurred. That's what makes a story interesting. And, it is important to fully identify a criminals associations and loyalties. Is it friendship and loyalty betrayed or collusion?

Let biographical articles speak for themselves. Is one's ambition for social progress, criminal enterprise, political power or spiritual service? These are qualities to be investigated and shared.

What is ridiculous is anyone projecting the identification of a criminal's ethnic, religious, political, social association as an assault on the entire class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferraraji (talk • contribs) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ferraraji, yes I agree with you. Where is the contention? All of the sane-minded people on this page believe that Madoff being Jewish is a biographical fact, and that's all it is. That's why it's mentioned once in the section on personal info. That's why we don't go into it further. We are not trying to deduce the "type" of Jew that Madoff was. That's not appropriate for this article. In any event, we couldn't do that! Only Madoff can tell us that detail. So, since we seem to agree, what exactly are you arguing?

Also, on another topic entirely, of course, articles must be written truthfully and speak for themselves. But, keep in mind, that an honest article is supposed to have no passion. It's supposed to be dispassionate, so to speak. That means that the things you find "interesting" (your words) in a story -- like "friendships and loyalty betrayed or collusion" (your words again) have little place here. Those things are for Donnie Brasco or another crime movie or Inside Edition. We're not interested in "expository writing." We're trying to write accurate, unbiased encyclopedia entries. And, unfortuantely, that can be boring. We're just not here to entertain. ask123 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

List of losers - list or prose???

I see someone has suggested that the list of victims be converted to prose and inserted a "tag". And I see this has been reverted, then put in again, then reverted, then put in again - so it makes more sense to discuss it here. I for one hope that the list is not converted to prose. Visually, it is easy on the eye to look up and down an alphabetical list, whereas to try to find the various names in prose is a chore. Surely this is agreed by all??? As for the list getting long, my understanding is that his client list wasn't all that large - but, in any event, a lot of victims are not going to admit to losses in public, and the media are only going to mention the large ones/more well-known names, and since the list is compiled from media sources, I don't think this list will get very long. But PLEASE - keep the list in list format and not prose. I mean, when you read a list of, say, donors to a charity, it is done in list format, never prose. And when you go to a class reunion, the names are listed in list form, not prose. I can't understand why anybody would suggest it be in prose form (who knows - maybe Wikipedia has rules suggesting prose, but if so, I think it is counter-productive in this instance). Alphabetically, split between institutions and individuals seem the easiest/best. JMO.Betathetapi545 (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:EMBED, which is liked from the tag, for rationale. Why have an alphabetical list? Do investors need to look themselves up in it? With prose you can give details as to amount of losses, and what were the consequences for some of the investors. This is what all the sources cited did. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, investors do not need to look themselves up in the list - the list is for the rest of us - the public - to easily browse it and see who the victims are. As for the consequences for all these hapless victims, yes, that is a story unto itself - and worthy of a separate entry by itself, but I would prefer (and I think most readers would as well) a simple list here - perhaps have a link to a separate more comprehensive Wikipedia page on the victims and consequences. I know that is done for, say, "notable alumni" for universities written up on Wikipedia. I think all readers want is a summary list here on this page, and then a more comprehensive page elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere where? And does it have to be elsewhere? Xasodfuih (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't HAVE to be elsewhere - but that is what, for example, entries for universities such as Harvard have, i.e. a separate Wikipedia page for "notable alumni" (go look and see). I wouldn't mind it if it were kept on the current page, however - as long as the current list stays at the top. The list is easy on the eyes, efficient (i.e., I don't want to have to wade through prose to peruse the list). Maybe put further detail, investor-by-investor below the current list. I don't know - all I know is that the list is visually appealling - easy to peruse.Betathetapi545 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Decorum is an issue here. Believe it or not, it's a factor in the creation of an encyclopedia. One doesn't want to supress the facts but, still, must present them in a tasteful, appropriate way. I would say that the appropriate way is to name the notable victims in prose. I would only use a list if the number of notable victims is unwieldy, which it may very well be.

Also, non-notable victims should not be named. If the person or organization is not worthy of his/her/its own article on Wikipedia, than s/he/it shouldn't be noted here as a victim. ask123 (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Uberjew

The word jew appears 15 times in the article, might be a little to much? The german wiki uses the j-word 2 times, the french wiki not at all (which is not enough). --217.83.29.135 (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's major WP:UNDUE problem with this article. It looks like some editors with dubious POV's are having their day with the article. I plan on going through the article once the dust settles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that some people are getting carried away, just look at the last 3 sections here. A)We don't need a picture to humiliate Madoff, but a good picture would be nice. B)"Bernie" is not needed; it's a nickname or short form, sort of like calling somebody "Skippy" just not needed. C) Some of the POVs are indeed dubious. Also "Modus Operandi" as a section name - looks like we are prejudging guilt. The organization of the article should be improved. And with so many references, it's more important to fully refernce - i.e. include the name of the sources, date, etc. - than if there were just a couple that would be easier to keep track of.

We've gotten rid of the obvious anti-semitism, but there's a delicate balance here and we need to be very careful that this doesn't come off as "Look what this greedy Jewish guy did." Smallbones (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

True that. Besides that, unnecessary facts and quotes that would normally be insignificant on Wikipedia appear to be abundant in this article. Many said quotes are picked-and-chosen to be those that mention 'Jew'. Take a look at the article. Besides unnecessary statements, all outside article quotes mention 'Jew'. 173.52.133.81 (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If he is Jewish and has connections to Jewish organisations and we have sources for that, why it shouldn't be mentioned? --Pudeo⺮ 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Wiki's neutrality policy:

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Even if there are sources, lots of facts currently in the article are still unnecessary. Mikco (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with the word "jew" appearing 15 times in the article, you probably need to take it up with Bernie - ask him why he is jewish, why he largely solicited jewish clients, why he did it at jewish country clubs, etc. And then go ask his clients why they used the "j-word" and called him "the Jewish treasury bond" or "the Jewish bond", and then you need to go ask The New York Post why they quoted somebody who said that he worked "the jewish circuit", and then . . . . - it just goes on and on. Actually, the person that I think is the biggest anti-semite in this is Henry Blodgett - it's not just in his blog anymore - he's gone and written a column for The New York Post - what he has said is that Madoff's clients KNEW he was crooked . . . . but assumed it was front-running (Madoff would, sotto voce, tell clients and prospective clients that he was "a marketmaker, and I don't want to be known as running money (managing money)" - he gave the impression that he was doing something crooked - front-running - and Blodgett says that that is what his clients liked about the whole setup - that they thought they were making guaranteed money because Madoff was a crook and was front-running. Of course, since so many of Madoff's clients were jewish - and Blodgett knows this - he is basically saying that the jewish clients wanted to be part of a crooked rigged game - he's implying people at the top of Jewish society are crooked. Yet Blodgett never once mentions the word "jew" in his New York Post column or blog. But people will put two and two together here: (1) Madoff's clients were jews, and (2) Blodgett says Madoff's clients were crooks themselves because they wanted in on what they thought was a crooked scheme, and they will conclude that "Jews are crooked". Blodgett must therefore be an anti-semite. But how is that possible since he doesn't use the word "jew" in his column??? Maybe . . . . maybe . . . maybe the mentioning, or not mentioning of the word "jew" has nothing to do with an entry being anti-semitic or not??? NO!!! Tell me it isn't true!

Jews are high among the victims of this crook, he betrayed his people. If anything the article should emphasize the effect on the charities more. Chedorlaomer (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

If the term Jew or Jewish is not germane then it has no reason to be mentioned.

As I wrote before, his being Jewish is only relevant in a biographical context. The fact that a charity to which he gave was also one of his victims is relevant. The fact that it's a Jewish charity is not relevant. The fact that he's a Jew is relevant and OK to mention in a biographical context. The fact that many of his victims were Jewish, however, is a coincental link and, therefore, irrelevant and not worth inclusion. Furthermore, as a piece of information, this coincidental link is useless -- it tells us nothing of substance. When a Christian commits a crime and some of his/her victims are Christian as well, does an article on the subject note that the criminal "betrayed his own people" (to quote User:Chedorlaomer)?! Of course not! That would be assuming he knew or cared about the religious component. That kind of a link is only relevant when the crime is committed for religious reasons. And this crime was not.

Also, to clear things up: the mentioning of religion is (mostly) not anti-Semitic here. But, still, it's of no relevance and therefore should be deleted when not being used in a biographical context.

Also, the term uberjew is totally out of line. It's an off-color statement and, thus, biased. ask123 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article about Albert Einstein explicitly refers to his religion 15 times. This article mentions it twice and only in reference to associated organizations, not his own beliefs/upbringing. It makes me wonder if the editors are at all interested in neutral consistency. If not, the integrity of the Wikipedia Project itself has been compromised; which, in the end, is all I am interested in maintaining. It is also important to note, that it is not the number of times it is used, but rather HOW it is used. Check the "life and career" section of any famous, influential or otherwise historic Jew. Let me know if you find one person in which their religion is not mentioned in the first or second sentence. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this and in no way is this a conspiracy or any other right wing nonsense. This is purely a matter of consistency. Ask yourself this, "Are we, the editors of the Wikipedia Project, being consistent in the reporting of life, career and family background?" Comments welcome. No racist or hate speech. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.70.215 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But I bet you haven't seen what the article was like previously. Before bias in this article was disputed, the work 'Jew' appeared everywhere. Every quote in the article had the word 'Jew', and most mentions and quotes were unnecessary. The article seemed written to point out the crimes made by a Jew rather than the fraud case against Bernie Madoff. There were small editing battles going on, amongst some pushing a biased agenda and others following neutrality guidelines. There should be no problem with the word 'Jew' appearing in appropriate context, but it is wrong for it to be mentioned when it serves no purpose other than devilishly pushing somebody's biased opinion. Mikco (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I did not get a chance to review how it use to look, but if it was anything like how you described, there is no place for that sort of agenda driven editing. After reviewing the article as it stands now, with it mentioned in the life section and in passing elsewhere, it seems to be consistent with the other articles. I am glad we have reached a middle ground. Now, let's see if the same support is directed toward the Einstein article and to limiting of the egregious use of the word there... After all, isn't it about the man and his achievements and not his religion? (answer in the Einstein discussion section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.70.215 (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence that bugs me is that Madoff was "born to a Jewish family". Let's see, in the article on Charles Ponzi (probably the most directly comparable), there's no "Ponzi was born to a Roman Catholic family". I see nothing in Adolf Hitler's bio paragraph that he was "born to a Roman Catholic family". I see nothing on Saddam Hussein's bio paragraph that he was "born to a (Sunni?) Muslim family", etc. So, give it a rest, Vexong. While the word Jewish is fine in the lede, most of the rest is pure politicking, as if somehow his Jewishness is why he is a criminal. (And yes, I am an Orthodox Jew) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.22 (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Mikco, you put it well. IP 65.78.70.215, the mentions of "Jew" or "Jewish" or "Judaism in the Albert Einstein is entirely irrelevant to this article. Einstein's religion was a major theme in his life and effected his scientific views. One cannot thoroughly discuss Einstein without mentioning his religion. (Mind you, that the fact that his religion was Jewish is only relevant in a biographical context. The strength of his religious convictions though -- regardless of the particular denomination -- is the part that's so relevant to his life and work.) As I mentioned before, the fact that he is Jewish is only relevant to his life in a biographical sense -- and that's in relation to his charitable giving. That's it! It has nothing to do with his crime or the discussion of his crime.

IP 162.129.251.22, as for the prose mentioning of his religion, many users interested in Jewish history and Judaism in general mention in the prose text of a biographical article that the subject is/was Jewish. These people are simply interested in Jewish history and Jewish lineage, that's all. (In fact, many of them are Jewish themselves.) I see no problem with this. If users were as interested in Roman Catholic history and lineage or Sunni history and lineage, they might do the same for Roman Catholic and Sunni Muslim subjects. Therefore, I don't see this as an anti-Semitic point. ask123 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein was not a religious Jew, quote: "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." 129.215.37.23 (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Saddam Hussein bio says right there in the info box "Religion: Sunni Islam". However, he doesn't seem to have been very religious, given his secular views and the fact that he abolished the Sharia courts. Adolf Hitler includes the text "Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents". Albert Einstein includes the quote "Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family", Sergey Brin includes "Sergey Mikhailovich Brin was born in Moscow, in the Soviet Union to a Jewish family", Steve Balmer includes "Steve Ballmer was born March 24, 1956, to a Swiss father and a Jewish-American mother". Not all use of the word Jew (or Muslim, or Christian) is part of a derogatory conspiracy. 129.215.37.167 (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

JEZ! NO ONE IS SAYING THAT MENTIONING HE'S A JEW IS ALWAYS DEROGATORY! Sorry, but I'm just getting sick of repeating myself all over this page. Yes, mention it in the prose for biogrpahical purposes. That's fine. But, as far as the userbox is concerned, unless all biographical articles do that for their subjects, don't do it here. I've seen that done for subjects who are Jewish or a particular denomination of Islam, but it's not consistent and is almost never done for Christian subjects. Following that, why do it here? Isn't a prose mention enough? This is a marginal fact -- his being Jewish. Articles on Presidents of the United States, on the other hand, always mention the religion of the subject in the infobox. But, there, it's not a marginal fact. It's extremely relevant to Presidential history and its evolution. Here it has little relevance, outside of a biographical context. So, yes, mention it in the prose. Do it once or twice as necessary, but don't sprinkle it everywhere because there's no reason to do so (at least, no reason outside of narrow-minded ones). As far as the infobox is concerned, if you feel very strongly about mentioning his religion there too, then take the mission of adding religion to the policies and guidelines for all subjects under WikiProject Biography. Then all biographical subjects will have religion in the userbox. But, for now, it's not required, and, frankly, I don't see any reason to change that. ask123 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Some deletions

I removed this and this as obvious examples of anti-Jewish bias. The first one seemed to be attempting to link his religion with his business dealings and method of theft, while the other one was entirely irrelevant, and appeared to be a rip on a Jewish charity. Wikilost (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the 1st quotation overuses Jew/Jewish (see my comments in the sections above). I templated the section because it overused Jew/Jewish. But 'Jewish circuit' is not derogatory and describes an important segment of clients affected by Madoff firm's collapse.

As for the second deletion: those words described the perfectly noble goals and actions of the Lapin foundation, which Madoff's actions forced to close. Those sentences were well sourced to Haaretz and WaPo. Are accusing these venues of anti-Jewish bias? Xasodfuih (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the "circuit" deletion. I do disagree about the assimilation and intermarriage deletion. If this is the language used by the Lapin foundation, it belongs here, especially if it is used by Haaretz -- I am with Xaso on that score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If it has two reputable sources then add it in an appropriate place with citations. But, be wary, I've seen a lot of so-called valid, cited postings that are nothing more than hate-talk. If it's not a verified fact, it's gone. ask123 (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

List of affected clients

He had a huge number of clients. More names are going to become known. Is it suggested that it is necessary to list them all alphabetically? Clearly inappropriate. A comprehensive list might belong in a separate article about the case. But not in this article about the person. See the articles on Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky. I propose that we list clients who are very prominent or who have lost the most substantial sums - but not all of them on this page. Davidpatrick (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's why it is organized as "Notable affected institutional investors" and "Notable affected individuals." But yeah, the list should be further reduced. Mikco (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a handy list with dollar amounts of losses.Notmyrealname (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

About $18 billion, totaling his numbers. I'm still waiting to see where the other $32 billion is. Still skeptical. Maybe Madoff said "$15 billion" and the SEC heard "$50 billion." Any journalists reading this ought to ask somebody - did he really say $50 billion? That's just a lot of money to be hiding (as is $18 billion). Smallbones (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Smallbones, he's not HIDING the money - he LOST it. Betathetapi545 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

$18 Billion sounds more reasonable; otherwise I can't find out where this supposed $50 Billion's vanished. I can't find any organisation, family, or person involved with the case that's spent that kind of money; including Mr Madoff. It seems either tied up in some unknown location, spent but in areas not yet published in the popular media, or wildly exaggerated by the press. Time will tell, I hope. Nigholith (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can see where $50 billion could have vanished - he didn't have to have clients with that much money - the extra money could have simply been trading losses on borrowed securities. See my earlier explanation above (do a search for the word "stocklending" on this page). Betathetapi545 (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah; I see. That would tie up all the loose funds nicely. Perhaps (Somehow) we could add this information into the article, for investing novice readers such as myself. Providing we can find valid sources to that effect. Nigholith (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a real rationale for listing victims? I do not recall lists of murder victims for murderers, etc. Is there a precedent on WP for listing financial victims? Collect (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere on this page, decorum is an issue here. It is a factor in the creation of an encyclopedia. One doesn't want to supress the facts but, still, must present them in a tasteful and appropriate way. I would say that the appropriate way is to name the notable victims in prose. I would only use a list if the number of notable victims is unwieldy, which it may very well be.

Also, non-notable victims should not be named. If the person or organization is not worthy of his/her/its own article on Wikipedia, than s/he/it shouldn't be noted here as a victim. ask123 (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As with the writer below, it is clear that the Banco Santander should be mentioned. A Swiss bank is cited as having been the biggest European investor, having invested some 700m of clients' funds, but in fact the Santander is reported as having invested 2,330,000,000 of clients money! I think somebody should write this up.

Banco Santander needs a citation surely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.203 (talk) 16:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Henry Blodget's blog is not a reliable source

Blogget has signed a consent order from the SEC paying a fine of $2 million and agreeing to stay out of the securities business (as I understand it) essentially for lying to investors. He is not a reliable source - certainly his blog is not. If the NY Post wants to publish his comments - I'd consider whether the Post is a reliable source, but I guess it can go in. But not his blog. Smallbones (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on Blodget's speculations has been reinserted as a "report." Speculation is the right word - he is reading minds on this. I'll remove the whole paragraph and put a notice on WP:RSN to get some guidance on how we can use Blodget. Smallbones (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Guidance so far from WP:RSN. NY Post only as a source, and we must decide whether Blodget's opinion is relevant.

I'll say no for relevance, even though he may very well be correct, there's no way to verify what investors were thinking, and his opinions out of thousands of (honest) Wall Streeters doesn't mean much. But I'm certainly open on the question of relevance. Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The bit with Blodget keeps being added back in. Even if it's all true, what is the significance to the article? Mikco (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Blodget piece is that he is reporting something that many Wikipedia busybodies don't want reported. Blodget's reporting is uncomfortable. We have to get rid of it. Preferably, we will smother this man. Blodget is trash. Blodget is human garbage. We all have to pull together here and bury him. DO NOT LET ANYBODY HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's just like when Jim Cramer did his "foment" rant. A massive campaign was launched to erase all traces of the video. TPaineTX (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Occupation: Businessman

Shouldn't that be Criminal? after all this is the biggest case of fraud ever!

Is he convicted already? (Igny (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

Opportunity for a pun, Madoff made off with money

At least I think it would be punderful if we can use wordplay with Madoff's surname. It would not be anti-semitic or anti-finacial or mogul-mashing. His name just happens to be spelt very close to the crime he is accused of, he "made-off" with investors money. Ha ha Ha... It is like the name of the state of Connecticut is an internal oxymoron. Connect, I cut. Get it. There is a funny. Hammer of the year (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly, Hammer, you aren't the first person to have noticed that pun. Headline writers were making use of it all weekend. But it doesn't really seem like encyclopedia material to me. BTW: the most common mispronunciation is also rather funny. "Mad-ov," sounds like a slavic form of insanity. --Christofurio (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Leon or Lawrence?

[11] Enegrea (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to Lawyer

Brad Friedman (attorney) is the lead lawyer on this case. He's been quoted on TV all over the place recently. He personally, and his firm generally (Milberg) are one of the biggest shops into class action suits (Enron, Smoking etc). I started a Page on him and linked it from his firm, but can't seem to do that from here. Think he may get significantly more media play over the next few months/years as this case develops, and wanted to put that somewhere. Sorry of this isn't the correct way to request that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MattinMA (talk • contribs) 13:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Split article?

Should this article be split, one for Bernie Madoff's biography and another regarding the scandal. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Um -- he had no article at all until the scandal broke. It is still a short article by WP standards. Collect (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is still early, but it is very possible that this whole scandal develops a life of its own. I've seen explanations of "split strike collar trades", which are not so biographical. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Split strike trade loss/gain cap

Quoting from the article: ""A simple split-strike or collar trade involves buying a stock at price X, selling a call option with a price Y which is above X, and purchasing a put option with a strike price Z which is below X. If the price of the stock is above Y at expiration, the stock will be called away and the investor receives Y for the stock. If the price is below Z at expiration, the put can be exercised and Z received in cash. This effectively caps the maximum gain (till the options expire) at the Z minus X, and the maximum loss at the X minus Y.""

I'm not an expert, but shouldn't Y and Z in the last sentence be the other way around? Like: ""This effectively caps the maximum gain (till the options expire) at the Y minus X, and the maximum loss at the X minus Z."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.155.184.26 (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Looks like a simple erratum. I'll fix it. --Christofurio (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Should the article just be named Bernard Maddoff, rather than Bernard L. Madoff per WP:COMMONNAME. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Once we go down that road, we might have to move it to Bernie. But I agree, in any case, the initial should go. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally named the article, so perhaps I should explain my thinking. Mainly it was that the first articles out there (WSJ and Bloomberg) used "Bernard L. Madoff" for both the individual and his company. The second reason is because it has a criminal aspect (which works both for and against the L.) For: there is almost surely somebody else out there named Bernard Madoff (perhaps Bernard P. Madoff), so to distinguish and avoid harming anybody, the L. makes sense. Against - because of the previous, criminals are often identified with initials or middle names (ever notice that it is always "Lee Harvey Oswald" and never "Lee Oswald"). An initial might to some people suggest that he is guilty of something, which is not something Wikipedia should do. Given the pro/con of the 2nd consideration, and that middle initials are quite common on Wikipedia, I just went with the 1st consideration, how he's identified in the press. It seems to me that this is compatible with WP:COMMONNAME. Smallbones (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

He has reached the level of infamy where any sort of confusion between him and another person with the same name is highly unlikely. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

naming conventions has more examples on best practices. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

... and his name with the "L" gets far less GoogleNews hits than without the "L". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The name isn't so important to me. What's important is that all of these variations link here. The correct name will come out over time. For now Bernard Madoff seems to be good. But let's see what the public latches onto. ask123 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

pointless picture

I don't see that the engraving of a perpetual motion machine really adds anything to this article, not even in connection to a Ponzi scheme's supposed complicated-ness. This pic especially stands out amid the complete lack of other photos, such as of the subject of the article. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I deleted it. Long time, no see PHD. Smallbones (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

White Collar Crime

--Glasszone33 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Can thid fraud be considered as a white collar crime.

Absolutely. It is a white collar crime. ask123 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Auditor

Does anyone know who audited the books? What type of opinion did they give? Are the auditors under investigation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.89.240 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg, Dec 15 seems to be the only statement about the auditing firm (below). - Art Unbound (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No subjunctive, please (unless appropriate)

This event took place in the past, so please use past tense, folks. No subjunctive, unless whatever you're writing about is in the process of happening. Think about text before saving changes. Many thanks. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"Personal information" seciton is pretty lousy

The "Personal information" section is pretty lousy. It amounts to a laundry list of the homes he owns. Furthermore, the valuation of his home in Manhattan is suspect. Anyone can find out what he paid for it -- if it's condo, it's in the public record and, if it's a co-op, one can deduce the cost from his taxes (that is, if those figures are honest!). But, as for its current valuation, who knows? That fact needs a valid citation or to be deleted. I'm giving it 24 hours before taking action. So, please, speak up if you can verify this fact. ask123 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With things getting added and deleted footnotes get spread out and moved around. However this one was just a half sentence away. The WSJ used both your methods and got $5 million and $9 million as the valuations, so "at least $5 million" looks correct. The personal info is pretty lousy, or better put, "thin." Deleting won't solve the thinness problem. Smallbones (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No deletion won't solve the problem, but it doesn't change the fact that an uncited fact is iffy. I'm glad that a citation has been given. I await the fattening of this section. Unfortunately, the value of Madoff's homes seems to be on the mind of journalists. I read more about his Florida home and it gave me great info that I added. But, alas, the info was about his home and its value. Hopefully, more details of his life will arise. Because the personal info section shouldn't be about the value of his homes alone. ask123 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another problem with the list of victims

Most of them have reliable sources, but the sources in lots of cases aren't saying forsure that this person has lost money. They're saying "its been reported", "sources say", etc. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that a couple of days ago, gathering the various names from various sources was worthwhile, but now it looks chaotic at best. There's double and triple counting (as noted above). $2 million losses get mixed in with $2 billion losses. Perhaps we should focus on a good compilation (where one organization tries to sort out the double counting) such as Reuters. Perhaps we can focus on $billion losers, or eliminate all the individuals (or put them all in a one paragraph "bullpen").

It's funny but, we should all get over having our own "find" put in with the name put in exactly like we wanted it, in exactly the right spot (like Brew L. Crewer showed me). Instead we should concentrate on getting the big picture of the victims over to the readers. Sign me Small L. Bones.

(obviously not my day - apologies)Smallbones (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From my point of view, there is almost no point in trying to give a list of victims. Collect (talk) 02:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I don't disagree. It is kinda weird. There's no WP-precedent for this type of list. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly see a value in listing victims, but given the scope of this thing, the wisest path would seem to be a separate page (with each entry having proper sourcing). Some of the victims are major financial institutions, and their losses may have a ripple effect in the broader economy. Others are very high profile names and institutions, and their losses will be of interest to many readers. Perhaps we could leave the $billion-plus folks/institutions here though (or some other standard of notability).Notmyrealname (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WSJ (Madoff's Victims 12/16/08) has a pretty good list now. 9 institutional investors with $1 billion in losses or higher. 11 other investors over $100 million. About 22 others over $1 million. I'll suggest listing the 9 seperately with losses in table or similar format; give the next 11 in prose with just a general description. What to do with the rest?

More important angle is Cox on teh failures of the SEC on this. DECEMBER 17, 2008SEC to Probe Its Ties to Madoffs Smallbones (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the double counting, some of the banks' exposures will be to the leverage used by hedge funds and investors. I don't now if anyones interested in this, probably unusable for the article, but there's a half hour video of Bernie discussing regulation, the SEC and various aspects of his business on youtube. [12] Ticklemygrits (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is to arrive at a total amount for the fraud. If that means listing everyone,then so be it. I think the focus should be on amounts rather than names. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember this VERSION

I deleted the chaotic investors list, but all of you who want to go back and see your favorite names, please go back to this version [13]

Smallbones (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The other list should be split to an article on affected clients -- pretty relevant to the current case. 173.52.191.33 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Key: Hedge Fund Vs. Investment Advisor/Manager

12/16/2008

As an accounting professional in the hedge fund industry I would like to point out that many people are mistaken as to Madoff's operations. Madoff was not running a hedge fund he was running and investment management service which is essential to note to understand why he was able to get away undetected. The typical hedge fund (simplified terms) is a partnership structure which has administrators handling the books and records (primarily allocating monthly/quarterly/yearly profit and loss to each investor) and a prime brokerage clearing trades. On a monthly basis all trading activity would have produced gains and losses which are allocated to each partner. At years end an accounting firm would come in and audit these records, provide tax adjustments, then issue audited financial statements and Schedule K-1's(IRS forms which detail clients book and tax activity for the year). If Madoff had been running a hedge fund he would of been required to register with the SEC because of the scope of the money and the type of investors. KEY TO THE SCAM:Madoff was running an investment advisory/management operation which basically held itself out to manage each account individually. At the end of the year each investor received a statement showing which securities were sold producing what gains (Madoff claimed to never hold anything at year end, for more go to www.guidestar.org and look up a tax exempt charity involved in the scams filed form 990 and they should have attached their statements from Madoff(requires creating a login)). So with this structure money is not pooled as it is in a hedge fund instead money should be in separate accounts for each investor. We now know that this is not true and that the money was in fact pooled and paid out as redemptions came in.

Why was the jig up? Great way to understand this is to imagine that there is a pool of $100 million which investors have contributed. Yearly it is said to be growing at 10-12% (meanwhile its actually losing money). Now imagine after two years investors believe they are up 20%, so the imaginary pool is now $120 million. In reality assume the fund is down 20% so it is at $80 million. Even if after two years half the investors pull their money out (which is highly unlikely because of how good and consistent they believed their returns to be from Madoff) 120/2 = 60 million. There would still be $20 million dollars to keep the scheme going. Now combine this with the fact that in those two years more people are investing because they hear from friends how good Madoff is doing, now you the scheme can really survive. The critical times are when money is being withdrawn from the fund at a faster rate than it is coming in. So because of investors losing money elsewhere in the market place due to the recession they began to pull money out (I have read about hedge funds which fully redeemed their investment in April 2008) of Madoff and once it got down to 200-300 million dollars left in Madoffs account, the story goes that he told his sons he wanted to pay employee bonuses two months earlier than ever before and give back some money to friends and family. Which is then when he sons turned him in (on a bias note, this guy was smart and covered himself and family, so of course he takes the fall he is 70 years old and his sons turn him in so it looks good like they had no idea this was all a scam. If you obtain a form 990 of one of the charities invested in Madoff and you find the profit and loss reports he provided you will logically see that he could not have created all these statements alone for all these clients, it would have taken much to much time. Additionally he is 70 years old, many of the 50+ yrs workers at my job can't use excel so it makes you wonder if he could have created all these documents alone.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyrab18 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Change to lede (re: the words, "American" and "investment")

Someone changed the lede in a positive way, but one that makes it difficult to mention that Madoff is American. Thus I deleted that piece of information entirely. It's too tough, stylistically, to put it back in there. If anyone finds a good way to do so, then be bold. But, frankly, I don't think it's necessary to have that piece of info in the first paragraph. It's fine in the personal section. And the lede reads better as a result. ask123 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Hello, I was trying to insert a reference that I found while working at the Dutch counterpart, but the reference system looks a little bit too difficult to me. So I'll put it here. In the "Career" section, there's a short notice on the Pay for order flow practice. The SEC (Website U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) offers the following study from Princeton University: "The regulation of publicly traded securities", Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Jan. 2005, p. 60. It states there: "The controversy became prominent in 1993, when Madoff Investments mysteriously garnered 10% of NYSE-listed volume through a legal "kickback" scheme that permitted brokers to increase personal revenues without obtaining the consent of their clients."

The study continues by saying: "Under the current regulatory scheme, rules specifically governing payment for order flow schemes are both lax and inconsistent". Smallbones seems to be a prominent writer here, would you be so kind to insert the above text as a reference? (If it's too specific, just leave it). Thank you. - Art Unbound (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added it but am not satisfied with everything yet. Feel free to add your own text. Please realize that these are undergrads writing this. Smallbones (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your amendments, and think they're a good addition to the paragraph. I have read about your other insertions as well. The undergraduates wrote their study well before the scam, and the text is included in the SEC list. If it's adding POV information on the Pay for Order Flow subject we should be cautious, but I think it's not. The study stresses that the method is legal. Thanks for editing. - Art Unbound (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-semitism does not have a place here

It's clear that both Madoff and many of his victims are Jewish, and I've argued (see above) that this has a place in this article. However, it's clear that some editors are using this article for anti-semetic propaganda (I can provide diffs if you want). In particular, use of the star of David symbol (✡) is completely out of place here. I've refered the matter to the BLP notice board. Smallbones (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion here: Wikipedia:BLP/N#Bernard_L._Madoff. Xasodfuih (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Talking about the first edits after the story broke and comparing the diffs...you guys started it. You cannot manipulate religious associations when you deem appropriate and call the rest simply anti-semites! No pun intended!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_L._Madoff&diff=258105320&oldid=258104932 (Echopapa (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I feel like a broken record! Echopapa, religion had nothing to do with Madoff's scam. This is not a "manipulat[ion]" of "religious associations." If you can prove that religion had something to do with Madoff's crimes then we'll add it. But that wasn't the case. So you're the one who's seeking to manipulate things. We're not going to write some crap about a religious scam that never took place! Yes, some of his victims were Jewish. But some were also Christian and Muslim and Hindi. The religion has nothing to do with it. Yes, some of his clients came from a Jewish coutry club. But many also came from elsewhere. In fact, most of the victims were not Jewish and did not come from that country club. So give this Jewish stuff a rest. It had nothing to do with the crime. ask123 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you such bad apples exist in any club, religion etc., but I didn't start this so-called "crap" (in your words) i.e., association and disassociation. they did it themselves (and are doing it now). They put it there proudly and emphatically before, they are removing it quietly and still emphatically now and still are accusing others of antisemitism! Accept the bad apples the same way as you accept and somehow advertise the strong Jewish contribution in science, music, literature, etc. (Echopapa (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Echopapa, I don't know who started it, and I don't care. I'm just not concerned with that or if people are being hypocrites or not. All I'm doing is responding to what I see in the here and now. Also, no one's accussing anyone of anti-Semitism. With many of the editors here (not necessarily you), it's a matter of mistaken impressions. People get mistaken ideas about a lot of minorities -- people make connections between the minority person's religion/race/ethnicity/etc. and something the minority person did in his/her life when in fact no connection exists. As of now, there is no connection between Madoff's religion and his crime. The only relevance religion has to his crime is in terms of a census of his victims -- and, in that way, all religions are relevant since he also had Christian and Muslim clients, among those of other religions. ask123 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As I posted above--It seems like you all are getting ethnicity confused with religion. To point out someone as being Christian specifically labels their religous tendency but does not label their ethnicity. However, being Jewish could mean you practice Judaism OR that you are of Jewish ethnic descent. I think whatever you put in this article needs to be specific as to whether you're referring to his religion or ethnicity. His religion apparently is not relevant--at least yet--but his ethnicity compared to that of his victims certainly might be. jrn0074 15:09, 17 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrn0074 (talk • contribs)

Jrn0074, no I'm not getting ethnicity/heritage and religion confused. You are right that there is a difference between an ethnic/cultural Jew (by heritage) and a religious Jew. A person can be one or the other or can be both. In this case, we know he's an ethic Jew. As for his religious sentiments, I don't know and it's irrelevant outside of a biographical context. As far as your suggestion that his being an ethnic Jew might be germane to this article outside of a biographical context, I don't see how. As I've written numerous times on this talk page, he didn't seduce clients with his religion. And clients weren't drawn to him because of his religion. They were drawn to him because of his success in the securities business and his reputation (which, at the time, was pretty damn good). So I don't see how his being a religious or an ethnic Jew is relevant to his crime. I know, at this point, his being an ethnic Jew is not relevant to this article outside of being a biographical fact. And I doubt his religious heritage or religious beliefs will ever be relevant to his crime. At least as of now, there's no connection. ask123 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a wasted word nowadays. It's just acover for AIPAC and Zionism to disqualify opponents or even slightly critical opinions. I'd say that apology of Zionism is what should haveno room in Wikipedia if anything. --85.84.224.110 (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's your position? Well, of course, there are extreme people among the Jewish population (just like there are in every group of people) who might lead you to believe that. But, like most groups of people, most are not extreme and would say that anti-Semitism is, unfortunately, not "a cover" but, rather, something that's all too common. Just read up and down this page and you will see plenty of narrow-mindedness -- not out-and-out racism, but plenty of prejudice. And, if you can't see it, maybe you need to re-examine the way you think. In my personal life, I've certainly had to re-examine the way I think about certain people and things. And it usually highlights resentfulness and other irrational thinking that I wasn't able to come to terms with before. ask123 (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP Privacy of Personal Information

"Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted."

I'm not sure this is an absolute prohibition, and much of this info is available in public sources, so I don't think that Wikipedia is causing any immediate harm by publishing his addresses, but it could very well add to harassment in the long-run. I'll stick to a conservative interpretation of WP:BLP and remove the addresses and coords. Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ordinarily I would agree with you but these are main stream newspapers that are publishing (the London Times and East Hampton Star). When somebody absconds with $50 billion, there's a lot of interest in personal assets. For the record the addresses were deleted in this edit. Americasroof (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We're agreed - it falls right on the fine line. I don't think it really helps the article though (the lawyers know where to find the real assets), and WP:BLP is supposed to be interpreted conservatively. Smallbones (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In this case it's like turning back the tide. Somebody else added it back. This guy's assets are definitely part of the story. Both his coop and the Montauk ocean front house that I identified by address are relatively modest considering the scam he pulled off. Americasroof (talk) 19:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked this question at WP:BLPN- let's let them decide. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So far it looks like general neighborhood ok, specific address not ok. Smallbones (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not enough info on the crime/scam/etc

Whether or not he is actually guilty, there should be a clearer explanation of what illicit acts Madoff may have committed. Basically the article mentions allusions to a "Ponzi Scheme", but nothing is really presented about how this might have worked. That is, what was he (allegedly) doing that other brokers DON'T do; what was the crime?

An important previously exisiting information is hidden/missing-yesterday it was written under madoff article

"Madoff had set up The Madoff Family Foundation which he managed along with his wife[2]. The institution mostly contributed funds backed by Madoff securities to various organizations The foundation contributed to many Jewish causes. Some stated goals of the 16-year-old charity had been "reversing the trend of assimilation and intermarriage", funding trips for about 1,800[2] teens to Israel, and enrichment programs for Jewish educators.[11]"

I do not understand in the wake of such important scandal why should such information be hidden or deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tayfun1964 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"reversing the trend of assimilation and intermarriage". Isn't that a soft kind of racial segregation? A benevolent, Enegrea (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Since that would be no more than speculation at present, it would actually be a breach of wikipedia's policies if it was included. Abberley2 (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, here is the report made in 2005 by Harry Markopolos, about his allegation about Madoff ponzi scheme. The article: [14] The slide show of the report (also included in article): [15] The SEC conclusion after its investigation (also included in article) [16] Hope this will help you guys (read the report, its absolutely incredible how the SEC did miss such a thing...) posted 19 december 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.76.10 (talk) 09:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Religious beliefs in template

I know this territory has been covered a couple of times but after reviewing the entire category of "American fraudsters" I didn't see one single instance where religious affiliation was listed in an infobox at the top of the articles for people of any religion and I don't see any reason why there is such a strong push to put it here. Compare to: Jeffrey Skilling, Bernard Ebbers, Charles Keating, Kenneth Lay, Ivan Boesky, Lyndon LaRouche, Frank Abagnale (from Catch me if you Can) or even Miss Cleo. Normally this doesn't bother me but (i) either this item should come out of the infobox or (ii) every item in the infobox should be filled up (compare: George W. Bush, Barack Obama). |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it keeps on getting snuck in. One must wonder....--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree - and think your justification was the right one in the edit summary. I also expanded the infobox so if it sneaks back in, it will at least be in a more detailed context instead of the one of three items mentioned about the guy. Thanks|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is the label. According to the Infobox Person documentation, the label should be "Religion" -- not "Religious beliefs" as is displaying now. I've posted to the Infobox Person Talk page and asked about this. Anybody here know why it isn't displaying the standard label? Sam* (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral as to whether it should be displayed at all. I do think it is better when there are more fields displayed with it. The fact that such a core base of the people he defrauded are from his own "group" in which he was a leader and major philanthropist is indeed I think an important part of the story that doesn't necessarily cross NPOV. Sam* (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

religious belief clarification needed

I added a Fact tag to the Religious belief part of the infobox with this reason: Jewish religion needs actual mention and cite in the article and/or directly here - Jewish origin is present but not any explicit religious beliefs. Maybe a clarifyme tag would have been better. I searched the article again for a specific reference to beliefs. I could not find any reference to Madoff saying he believes in anything. Maybe the problem is with the infobox itself, in that it does not really define what is meant in a verifiable way in by religion or religious belief. This means that when an editor checks an article's statements for verifiablility, how is it done for this field? I think a similar problem occured with nationality. Maybe this has been discussed on the talk page (Distinction between Jew as Hebrew Religion and Jew as Ethnic or Political identity which ends with "As for his religious sentiments, I don't know and it's irrelevant outside of a biographical context." and several other places) but I cannot see any definite conclusion. Maybe put a

Resolved

 – The infobox shall have X Y and Z...

next to where the consensus was decided? Thanks. 84user (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This should come out of the infobox per the multiple discussions above and left in the article where context and referencing is more appropriate|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem starts with the infobox itself. The tag "religion" gets displayed as "religious beliefs." "Belief" is a decidedly Christian paradigm vis-a-vis religion. "Religion" is much broader and therefore in the context of Wikipedia's NPOV approach, I think that the infobox should display the label "Religion" in the infobox instead of "Religious beliefs." Does anyone know where the battle of how infobox tags get displayed should be battled? Sam* (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How long before...?

How long before Bernard Madoff goes the Kenneth Lay route? Will he be dead and cremated within the month. I image him down in South America somewhere on a beach with Kenneth Lay and Bin Laden. Why is this man loose? Why weren't his assets frozen? Up in his $50 million dollar apartment eating caviar doesn't sound like punishment to me. Is it the case that if you get enough money, you can cheat or murder anyone with impunity. This country has become an open sewer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.109.195.126 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think this is something new, read about the robber barons from the 1880s. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know ...

Does anyone posting on this talk page know why google does not list this article when you type in Bernard Madoff or even Bernard Madoff biography? oldcitycat (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved to bottom of page

I really have no idea. I'd thought maybe that all the other news coverage was just crowding it out, but googled "Blagojevich" as a comparison and wikipedia turned right up on top. Perhaps it has to do with the bias notice in the middle of the article. BTW, I think with a bit of review that can be deleted. The main area of concern was the sales methods subsection. Smallbones (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It may simply be low in PR, cf. http://stats.grok.se/en/200812/Bernard_L._Madoff 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous language

This sentence in the opener seems dangerous: "Madoff's fraud is alleged to involve up to $50 billion in cash and securities." Notice that the fraud is not "alleged," only the amount is. The statement makes it sound as if the fraud is proven, and only the amount is in dispute. Also, the following sentence makes no sense: "the Lappin Foundation – had to close as a consequence of his actions." It's pretty obvious the Lappin Foundation could only exist as a RESULT of his actions. It was the action of the justice system to freeze his assets that caused the closure of the Foundation. The moral status of the situation is not the point. Come on folks, be more careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.247.175 (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, because his admission of, in his own words, "running a giant Ponzi scheme" make the situation more than just simple allegation. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to reflect the unresolved nature af the investigation and the draconian Australian defamation laws. As for attributing blame to the investigators or the subject of the investigation that's neither here nor there.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticklemygrits (talk • contribs) 11:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP and associated discussions about consideration of foreign laws. The position seems to be that WP is subject only to the laws of the US and Florida, respectively. The issue, for example, of dealing with sub judice proceedings is extensive, to be sure, as was the discussion about material on a current Scots case, and (in archive20) a discussion about "limited public figures." Collect (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is quite important to presume innocence, until guilt is proven in court. Thus it is an alleged confession." After all, there is some chance that the FBI is lying about it - they do have a history of scandels. Smallbones (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus, there are many instances of people confessing to crimes they did not commit.Notmyrealname (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the fraud is alleged. In this country, you're innocent until proven guilty. Once he's been declared guilty by a jury, we can remove the "alleged." ask123 (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That was Notmyrealname's point too. (Igny (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Ask123, small correction: here we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in the court system. It's a fine point, but Madoff does not have to be innocent to be presumed innocent. He can be found not guilty in a court of law, but still have done the deed. For instance, Kenneth Lay's conviction was vacated because he died before the appeals process could run its course. Mattnad (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mattnad, yes that's true, but I don't think it changes the point here. Yes, he's presumed innocent. Is he really innocent? We don't know. But we presume that he is until a jury finds otherwise. Therefore, this article should say "alleged fraud" until the trial has been completed. ask123 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fraud or not, the default is real. We could say something like this: "Madoff's default is estimated to effect up to $50 billion in cash and securities." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of last name

In all the news and NPR talk programs in the last three days, i.e. Diane Rheam, On Point etc have pronounced his name as rhymes with "Laid Off" LaidOff (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's right, the name is eastern european, presumably russian in origin, and the second syllable is "doff" (presumably anglicised from 'dov') not "off". 72.228.150.44 (talk) 09:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Global Ponzi Scheme

Today's NYT spread on the scheme highlighted how it was the biggest and first ever global financial scheme of it's nature. They stated how Madoff began with close friends investing, then connections, then country clubs connections, then how when he needed new cash and wanted to diversify, he recruited in Europe, the Mid-East, and Asia, and basically all over the world.

Another article I read mentioned how some investors actually profited from the scheme... Interesting stuff.

Odd that stuff like this isn't in the article... Perhaps it should be included? I'll try and dig up some online links in a few. 173.52.127.35 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is too PC when it comes to Jews

Just about every famous Jew's biography mentions his/her Jewishness, why shouldn't those of (infamous) Jewish criminals mention it as well? It is all the more remarkable considering that such consideration is not shown for criminals of other ethnicities (Chinese or Arab or Mexican). It is beyond dispute that he is a Jewish criminal, so why shouldn't this fact be included in the text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.95.109 (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article does mention he's Jewish in the personal Info section. Or do you mean the categories? There's plenty of Categories for Jewish Film makers, American Jews, Jewish Philanthropists, Jewish Composers, etc,etc. So there's no reason why there shouldn't be a Jewish Criminal Category. Start one. 84.67.27.231 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that this religious affiliation was omitted immediately after the scandal accusation and there are concentrated efforts supporting this disassociation. Raised my eyebrows!! look at

Some are now portraying Jews as victims of this Mr. Robinhood-go-bad, which is also true but we are not supposed to cherry pick the facts, right?! (Echopapa (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

As I have mentioned in numerous places on this page, simply mentioning in the prose that he's Jewish is fine. It a fact that's often added by those interested in Jewish history and lineage. However, continual mention of his religion when there's no reason to is another story. That cannot happen here. (And I would say the same thing about a subject of any religion. This isn't a "Jewish thing," IP 71.98.95.109, no matter how much you want it to be.)

As for the infobox, that's a matter of consistency. If subjects of other biographical articles have their religions mentioned in the infoboxes, then do it here too. But I don't think articles on Christian subjects name the religion in the infobox. I've never seen this (with perhaps the exception of Presidents of the United States). Therefore, I don't think it should be in this infobox either. Mentioning it in the prose, for biographical purposes, is fine. (E.g. mention it in the section on his childhood. He was raised Jewish. Mention that and then leave it alone.)

As for being a "Jewish criminal." Yes, he is. But what exactly are you asking, IP 71.98.95.109? Do you want to create a "Jewish Criminals" category? If so, go ahead. And also create a "Catholic Criminals" category too while you're at it. And also a "Hindi Criminals" category. etc. etc. etc. Do as you please there. But I think it would be easier to just deal with your own personal feelings re: Jews. That or see a psychiatrist. ask123 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask, you forgot to add to this anti-Semite's complaint the fact that most of the victims here appear to be Jewish as well. Just a little logic point: If there was some sort of Jewish conspiracy, why did people such as Norman Braman, Leonard Feinstein, Stephen Fine, Jerome Fisher, Avram Goldberg, the Helfmans, Saul Katz, Irwin Kellner, Susan Leavitt, the Loebs, J. E. Merkin, Ira Rennert, Ira Roth, Carl Shapiro, Robert Jaffe, Richard Spring, Mort Zuckerman, Stephen Spielberg, Yeshiva University, the Wilpons all get hoodwinked? Could it be that Madoff was just a criminal and religion had nothing to do with it? The only category here for criminals would be "Ponzi Schemists"-unless you want to count the millions of other criminals around the globe by religion, including hundreds of thousands of Christians if not millions and Muslims and Hindus and atheists...And if you're a Nazi comparing it to a category that I'm not sure exists and calling the Jews a race (German War Criminals?) then I would say that is an acute reference to those who committed atrocities during WWII and Nuremberg in particular. It does NOT apply to German War Criminals outside of the Nazi regime, such as some Teutonic Knights; as such these Germans are not classified by race, or even country of birth (Austrians are considered German war criminals simply because they willingly took part in the Nazi regime and willingly took apart Austria-which is German, anyway-to join Germany).71.247.102.31 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did find it interesting to read the double page spread in The Times about the scam, which carried no mention at all of his being Jewish. --Dweller (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should start a Category: Black Criminals while we're at it. These debates on this person truly disturb me; I would have thought Humanity would have gotten over these archaic feelings back in the 80s. Yes, he was Jewish, bravo; the fact that a single Jew commits fraud clearly validates alot of peoples feelings that all Jews are criminals. It's clearly worthy of note in his personal data; but as stated before to mention his religion every other line out of some delusion that emphasis on the fact and link with the crime will convince people that Jews = Criminals; is nothing short of of a violation of NPOV, rather than Wikipedia being over PC. Nigholith (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to calm down a little and stop being so paranoid. If people are going to have nasty thoughts about Jews because of Madoff they're going to do it regardless of what Wikipedia says about him. I still think it's important in explaining who his victims are and how he gained their trust, and I like the "sales methods" section. As for the category he hasn't even been convicted of anything yet.Ticklemygrits (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How many times are adjectives like "black" or "African-American" employed in the context of the article on, say, O.J. Simpson? Rather less often than "Jew" is used here, I assure you [check it out if you doubt this]! How many times are adjectives like "white" or "Caucasian" of "gentile" employed in the article on, oh, Daniel M'Naghten? "Scottish" is used exactly once by my count. As far as the "sales method," any pertinence there is accomplished in a single reference, not the sort of bludgeoning of the term we've seen. Nor do we need an article on, say, "the success of black men in American football," or "Scotsmen as innovative criminal defendants" or "the success of Jews in finance." --Christofurio (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ticklemygrits, yes it's important to explain who the victims are and how he gained their trust. But I think you're mistaking how he gained their trust. It's not like he got a bunch of his friends from the country club in a room and seduced them with talk about Judaism. He seduced them with his reputation, success and wealth. That's all he needed. Like most money managers, he solicited new clients from those around him -- friends, acquaintances, business associates, those he comes across on his travels in this world, and, yes, in this case, friends at a country club. He became friends with people at the club and took on some of them as clients. But forget this delusion that he gained their trust through a shared religion. Religion had nothing to do with it! These people gave him money for two reasons: he was successful and they knew him. That's the exact same reason almost all of his clients gave him money. If you have money to invest and you know a wildly successful investor, you might just give him your funds to manage. I assure you, Ticklemygrits, this is a lot less interesting than you would like it to believe. Madoff did not go around targeting Jews with nefarious intent. He did not take advantage of Jews' trust via a shared religion. When it comes to the money of high net worth individuals and organizations, religion has nothing to do with the decision of with whom to invest. ask123 (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask123, he got his trust through being on the board of charities, having his own charity, through word of mouth in the community and country clubs and being a respected member of the community. You're mistaken in thinking that he solicited clients, there are numerous sources stating that he was solicited by clients at country clubs etc., sometimes rejecting clients. I don't know why you're linking it to religion, I'm not talking about religion I'm talking about the Jewish community. Now as far as I'm aware there is a mention to Madoff being Jewish in his bio and a mention of the majority of his individual clients being from the Jewish community. Can you tell me what the problem is with that, apart from it not interesting you, and what you suppose should be done with those references?Ticklemygrits (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ticklemygrits, whether he solicited them or they solicited him, it doesn't matter. Being Jewish had nothing to do with the ultimate decision to give the money over. I don't see the importance of him being Jewish and some of his clients being Jewish. What is the significance? In your previous comment, you suggested that it was important to point out how he gained the trust of his victims and you seemed to indicate that the shared religion played a part in that. I don't see that as true. He had their trust for a number of other reasons that had nothing to do with religion (many of which you mentioned in your last post). You're the one who wrote "sales methods." And, regarding sales methods, I don't think they had anything to do with Judaism. His clients came to him from his life, if you will. That is to say, some sought him out and becamse clients. Others, he met in the course of his life, and they became clients too. That includes some poeple from this country club and from the Jewish community, as well people from thousands of other venues. ask123 (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, if this has to do with "targetting" people, I don't think that happened. The group he targetted was the human population. Some happened to be in the Jewish community and others were not. Again, what's the significance? ask123 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think his Jewishness has been brought up as part of the article since many Jewish charities decided to invest with his fund. There's a parallel story that's being covered around why some investors trusted him so much, despite his abnormally good year-to-year returns. Clearly we need to be careful with how his Jewishness is attached to the article, but there's evidence that it was part of the reason so many Jewish charities were duped.Mattnad (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mattnad, I've seen those articles on his unusually good returns (or, rather, the unusual consistency of his good returns) and why clients didn't take notice. But, again, this has nothing to do with his being Jewish. When these Jewish charities looked for a manager, they weren't drawn to Madoff because he was Jewish. They were drawn to him because of his reputation on Wall Street and because he was so successful. Some of these charities were investing tens (if not hundreds) of million of dollars. Religion was not a criterion in their decision. These charities invested with him for the same reasons his Christian clients invested with him: his success in business and reputation (which, at the time, was stellar). I've heard the religion rationale quite a bit. People have brought it up all over this talk page. But it just isn't true. (And, if you think about it, it doesn't make much rational sense either. Have you ever considered investing money with someone simply because they shared your religion?) ask123 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a theory that's credible, but it's not the only one. People often make business decisions based on social and religious affinity. For instance, have you ever heard of the the old boy's network? You've drawn a hard line on something that's more complex than simply that they were in it for the money. Perhaps unwittingly, you're arguing that they were only motivated by greed (which has its own issues).Mattnad (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article not categorised under American Jews? Most American (but non-religious) Jews on Wikipedia fall under this category....

It's pretty clear if you read any of the in-depth accounts of Madoff's ponzi scheme that the Jewish connection was very important to his success. The fact that he was a Jew simply enabled him to get into social circles that would otherwise be barred to him. Indeed, even the International Herald Tribune comments that "Some of the most prominent figures in the world of Jewish entrepreneurship began to court Bernie Madoff - and, through them, he reached a new orbit of wealth." And it's clear if you read their whole article, his Jewishness is vital to how he operated, i.e. it is part of his essential modus operandi.[17] But I have no desire to argue with all you people. As usual, for the best account of this man, I will stick with my IHT and other reputable sources. Wikipedia, with its peculiarly crippled editing culture, is hardly a place to look for examples of fine writing. --C S (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff on Youtube

I inserted this video in External Links as it shows Bernard Madoff in person. The title is not mine, it is the tile on Youtube, so I personally cannot be held responsible for bias, and I can see no evidence of bias anyway in the title. Before this is removed again, I would like other independent editors to offer their opinion on this matter. The video can be viewed at: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pxpYJeN7npIIvankinsman (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, this new youtube video http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7792284.stm was deleted from the external links. I have again re-inserted it. Could whoever deleted it please own up to their action so that this can be taken to dispute if needs be.

No one needs to "own up to their action," since the identity of the editor who removed the link is readily discoverable from the page history. Whoever did remove it, though, did the right thing: the video is unencyclopedic, it's not useful as a source, adds nothing to the article and doesn't really demonstrate anything at all, except that Bernie Madoff evidently doesn't sit upright in a chair and occasionally scratches his nose. The implication that his body language somehow reveals something about his psychological state is pure OR. "Show[ing] somebody in person" is not a sufficient reason for including a YouTube EL, which are to be used sparingly and with a compelling rationale. I've removed the link.

If you want to use the BBC story as a reference for the part of the article having to do with the bilking of Jewish charities, go right ahead. That's already covered, though, by the cite from the NYT article, so it seems redundant to me. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to "own up". I removed the BBC link not realizing that the intention of its insertion was its video clip. A video of Madoff, is not a problem as long as it's informative and neutral, i.e. it don't present him in either a flattering or unflattering fashion. That being said, the first youtube video would be okay. But the second BBC video is not needed. Besides for the fact that one video is already sufficient, the second one just shows him for a few seconds trying to get past some photographers. It's not terribly beneficial--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you bothered to look at the entire video ref. the Jewish charities, you will see that some very pertinent comments are made about what Madoff did. Also, seeing a video is sometimes alot more interesting than reading the same information - it also adds to the Philanthropy section of the article which is rather sparse. As such, I have re-inserted this. If you want to delete this, then this needs to be taken through the dispute resolution process. You cannot simply remove something inserted by another contritubutor based upon your own individual subjective opinion. Other contributors also need to give their feedback. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC video doesn't really add anything content-wise. We don't just any video of a subject to his bio to make things more "interesting". And "subjective opinions" are what we do around here at talk pages. It's your subjective opinion that the video should be included into the article and it's the subjective opinion of other editors not to have the video links. This can be taken to dispute resolution, but I doubt it's important enough. Furthermore, if you don't want to abide by any consensus, I'm not sure of DR's benefit. Rrburke doesn't want any video links and you want all "interesting" video links. A most reasonable compromise is to limit the videos to the one Youtube link. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

House of Cards

Michael Chiklis, an apparent victim of Madoff, is producing a TV series inspired by his experiences with Madoff's scheme.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i213af1e960abb3d8de7eb6c944521172?imw=Y
http://www.tvguide.com/News/Shields-Michael-Chiklis-1001080.aspx
I thought it might be useful to incorporate it into the article somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to put it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.8.21 (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

add a IW link please

[[wuu:马多符]]

大西洋鲑 (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Any article on religious trends in financial fraud?

Speaking of the religion of this alleged fraud: Is there any article in Wikipedia that discusses the prevelance of Jews in the financial world? I dont mean in a disparaging way, or "jews control the worlds finances", but more like "Jews are very successful in the financial sector, and tho only 1% of the worlds population, hold 20% of leadership roles in financial institutions" ... that sort of thing?

It seems that a large proportion of financial crimes in the US are committed by jews (25% ?), but that is nothing more of a reflection of the fact that jews are so successful in the financial sector, and occupy many leading roles (e.g. Secty of Treasury, Fedl reserve, Wall Street firms, Investment Banking, etc).

I understand that that sort of data could be construed as anti-semitic, but it is an amazing fact, and really shouldn't be obscured. Though it does have a negative aspect, it also has a very positive aspect: The Sikh religion is well-represented the Indian military, LDS in the FBI, and so on. Jews are very successful in lots of fields, like classical music, law, physics, finance.

Yet it appears to be taboo in Wikipedia to mention that. Or am I missing the web pages that discuss that? -Noleander (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning that he's Jewish if fine. But before edits, this article seemed to make the fact that Madoff is Jewish the main topic (see above discussions). I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single quote on the page was cherrypicked to have the word 'Jew'. The arrangement of the article downplayed the fraud case and exemplified crimes committed by 'that Jew'. However, other ongoing neutrality arguments are not all regarding those issues. Mikco (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. But my question still remains: Is there any article in Wikipedia that discusses the outstanding Jewish representation in certain fields (classical music, law, finance)? It just seems odd that there is no article on the topic. A deafening silence. Such prevelance deserves some mention in Wikipedia, in spite of the fact that there may be many anti-semitic extemists that would take the material in the wrong direction. This is an encyclopedia, after all. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes. See "List of Jews" and "List of Jewish American businesspeople." Those lists were previously much larger, but some crusaders decided to remove citations and all entries without citations (instead of discussing or even requesting citations). That was a while back. Funny thing is, most of the people on that list had Wikipedia pages mentioning that they were Jewish (citations and all). But is that what you're asking? Or are you requesting a list of Jewish criminals? Mikco (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are serious, Usury and History_of_antisemitism#Restriction to marginal occupations mentions that Jews were forbidden by local rulers from engaging in the traditional trades, so they were forced in to the "socially inferior" money lending business, History of antisemitism in the United_States#Jewish_role_in_banking_system mentions how Jewish banking was an issue in the U.S. Presidential elections, History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#Toward the Holocaust mentions that in pre-WWII Hungary 90% of the finance industry were Jewish despite being only 5% of the population (oddly, this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main Holocaust article though the quote from Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung mentions Jewish dominance of certain job sectors), The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a historical fraud text that exploited the perceptions of banking dominance.

I don't see why there should be a single article linking these things any more than there should be an article about Muslims in banking, or Christians in banking; it is a historical curiosity, and the cause of a lot of grief for the Jewish people, but I'm not sure it is notable by itself. On the other hand, the arguments over this article seem a little ridiculous - as a poster above pointed out, the Albert Einstein article includes the fact that he was Jewish 15 times, but he is notable because he was a physics genius, not a Jew. Likewise, Madoff is notable because of his financial dealings, not because he is a Jew. 129.215.37.148 (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Einstein was involved with the Zionist movement so it's no surprise that his article mentions he was Jewish. I do find it's a bit strange that Wiki articles mention people's jewishness far more than any other religion. I still think it's relevant to Madoof's (alleged) victims, apparently some of his clients call his'fund' the "Jewish bond"60.240.34.143 (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. The promience of Jews in notable positions in the financial industry is widely-known and widely commented upon. Of course it is notable. Im just asking why there seems to be no article in Wikipedia noting this accomplishment? It is not at all parallel to the topics of "muslims in finance" since the proportions are so outsanding. That is, the participation of christians or muslims in finance is roughly proportional to their numbers in the general population, but Jews have achieved far, far greater representation in leading roles in the financial industry. I suppose the same could be said for their success in Hollywood. Is it taboo to mention in Wikipedia that 50% (a guess) of all Hollywood producers are Jewish, when they comprise only 3% of the general population? Im not trying to generate controversy, Im just trying to understand why such obviously significant facts are missing from Wikipedia (or, if they are here, trying to find them). --Noleander (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is there no article on the white male dominance of the corporate boardrooms of the United States? White men represent less than 40% of the U.S. population, but over 85% of the S&P500 corporate board seats.[18] Isn't this fact notable? Should there be an article on it? Should there be an article on the white dominance of the architecture industry?[19] Not all facts are notable... also, this is a zero-sum game - if white people are over-represented, then blacks are under-represented. So do we also need a new article discussing the black under-representation in architecture and the board room? Are these scholarly, encyclopedic topics? If you can find any reliable sources (published books, academic papers) that discuss the specific topic at hand, then it probably is notable. If not, then no. 129.215.37.167 (talk)

FOR HOPEFULLY THE LAST TIME, Madoff's religion is a tangential fact here. Religion had nothing to do with his crime(s). Why not other trends? How about hair color and weight and color of skin. Mention his religion once or twice in the prose of this article and only in a biographical context. Other than that, leave the religion thing alone, people! ask123 (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

All things considered, I think it would be valuable to have a section on the fact that Madoff reportedly targeted people who were Jewish and Jewish institutions specifically. There's been quite a lot of discussion of this aspect of the (alleged) swindle from reliable sources about this. This should be kept in context and not given undue weight, however, given that the largest victims in the fraud were banks and other financial institutions. Just my two cents.Notmyrealname (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Notmyrealname, I've mentioned this a number of times on this page, but here it is again. Madoff didn't target the Jewish community and Jewish institutions. There's a big difference between having a number of Jewish clients and "targetting" Jewish clients. Many of these Jewish clients came to him, not the other way around. And he was equal opportunity when it came to clients -- he had clients of all backgrounds. He didn't target any group besides the human race. He had clients from all different races, religions and backgrounds. There is no "weight" to be given to this topic because it's speculation. Madoff was a Jew. He belonged to a Jewish country club. Many of his friends were Jewish. He "ran in Jewish circles." Therefore, given that many of the people in his life were Jewish, it's natural to deduce that many of his clients were Jewish too. It's a matter of proximity. The only reason you're hearing a lot about the country club in FL is it happens to be a bulk of people who were victim to his scheme. But there was no religious component to their becoming clients of his. The only relevant component was that they were figures in his life. That's how and why he solicited them or they came to him for his services -- proximity (and the fact that he was wildly succesful). I hope this clears this up (for the last time). ask123 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Noleander, the fact that he is Jewish is notable as a biographical fact. But that's where it ends. For every bio entry on Wikipedia whose subject is Jewish are we to vear off topic and start discussing how disproportionate Jews are in a particular business? No, because that's off-topic. It's for another article. Yes, Jews have achieved disproportionate success in certain businesses, but that doesn't mean it's a fact worth weight in every article about a Jew.

Also, you mentioned that 50% of movie producers are Jewish. That's actually not true. I know this because I worked in the movie business for seven years. The percentage is actually much, much lower. Are Jews overrepresented in the movie business? Absolutely. There are many prominent Jews in Hollywood -- far greater than their percentage of the total population? Certainly. But you've way overstated it.

You'll probably find this interesting and surprising: most of the Jews in Hollywood are not in ownership/top-of-ladder positions. The vast majority of media companies are owned and/or run by Christians. Of course, there are some notable exceptions (e.g. Sumner Redsone at Viacom, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. at The New York Times and director/producer Steven Spielberg). And, yes, there still is over-representation for Jews in this industry. But most of the ownership, still, is in the hands of Christians.

Along the same lines, most of the people in ownership positions on Wall Street are also not Jewish. Yes, Jews are over-represented on Wall Street, but they are far, far from running the industry (a claim I've heard many times). Jews' numbers are so small to begin with, it's almost impossible to conceive of their having a majority of ownership. Also, the overall dominance of Christians on Wall Street is why all of the major U.S. stock exchanges are closed for Christain holidays but not Jewish ones. Food for thought.

Cheers, ask123 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the piece in the NY Post concerning Madoff's very deliberate targeting of his community should resolve the discussion about the overall relevance of including that information in the piece. Enjoy, http://www.nypost.com/seven/12212008/news/regionalnews/manhattan/synagogue_of_ufferers_145221.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.141.20 (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Reported losses real or fictional?

Do the reported losses include the fictional income victims "earned" over the years of the scheme's run, or just the initial real investment? These two figures could differ significantly and that could be the reason for the discrepancy between $24B and $50B. (Igny (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC))

Question difficile, par ce que plusieurs des hommes d'affaire ont emprunte avec ces investissement comme natissements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.64.44 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with the above if I could understand it. My take is that it includes fictional earnings, but who would know if the SIPC says it'll take 6 months to go thru the books? The newspaper articles I've read don't distinguish (how could they?) so we can't say in the article Smallbones (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Sequence of events

It is not clear whether the demand for the repayment of the $7 billion was made before or after the report to the authorities made by the sons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.70.167 (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Its prety clear (IMHO) here that it was before, also in source. Smallbones (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Suicide of French Investor Should be Added to the Article

It's definitely relevant to the story and should be added.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Guinness World Records

If this is indeed the largest "Ponzi" ever, will the Guinness World Records issue a cert? Proxy User (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jew, Jew, Jew Some More!

From "Others Involved" --

Bernie Madoff's accountant was David Friehling, the only active accountant at Friehling & Horowitz according to the AICPA. The auditing firm has been telling the AICPA for 15 years that it doesn't conduct audits. David Friehling is a member of board of directors of Jewish Community Center of Rockland; President Elect of Rockland Chapter of New York State Society of CPAs. [60]

Some leaders in the Jewish community, particularly within Modern Orthodox institutions, are expressing shock and anger at the role played by J. Ezra Merkin, a prominent investment guru and philanthropist who appears to have misled at least some investors. Merkin informed investors in his $1.8 billion Ascot Partners fund on Dec. 11 that he was among those who suffered substantial personal losses when it crashed, since all of its dollars were invested with Madoff. But while he has portrayed himself as a victim, Merkin is being criticized as having misled institutional and personal investors, including those wary of Madoff's secretive and suspiciously successful earnings streak. Several people said that while they were reluctant to invest with Madoff, they trusted Merkin completely, not knowing that he in turn was taking their investment in his Ascot Partners and putting it into Madoff's fund.[61]

Seriously... The Biased tag was just removed.

Tell me, how are the constant 'Jew' mentions relevant at all to the article or the case? Perhaps a tag should be placed back, but just right above this mentioned snippet of text. 173.52.191.33 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - 3 "Jews" in your section name complaint, but only 2 "Jews" in the supposedly offending paragraph. Why don't you just edit it down a bit yourself - while keeping the content?

Do please identify any other offending passages, but do please also understand that there is a lot of material hear about the Jewish community that does belong. Smallbones (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I just did a count : 6 "Jews" in the main body text, 2 in Categories. I suggest others decide if this is too much, and remember Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everybody gets to edit. Smallbones (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not the problem entirely. The problem is that the mentions of their religion have nothing to do with the article, let alone the points being made in that same paragraph. If they were relevant, then fine. But they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.191.33 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They are. It'jews and jewish institutions all over. Not a detail: no USA-(New York)- company invested. European banks dit. So which New York associatees did invest= Ah, jewish clubs. Please don´t talk jews out of this. -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As explained in this IHT article, "...big Ponzi schemes usually exploit the trust of a tightly knit social network. Madoff is accused of victimizing wealthy Jews. The Foundation for New Era Philanthropy, a Philadelphia-area scheme that collapsed in 1995, preyed largely on Christian religious organizations." So you see, just like this other Ponzi scheme relied on ripping off Christian groups, Madoff relied on ripping off Jews. How can we avoid mention of the word "Jew" when that is an essential part of his modus operandi? For more details on how Madoff used his access to Jewish social circles to get his Ponzi scheme going, see my edit above.

However, I do agree that these isolated mentions of "Jew" in the Wikipedia article could appear to be off-topic. That's because there is no overview sentences explaining that Madoff relied particularly on ripping off Jews. And there should be. All the in-depth newspaper accounts do so. But ironically, the reason there seems to be no such overview to give the context for the "Jew" mentions is because of accusations of "bias" have led them to be removed. --C S (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding here probably. I'm not talking about the whole of the article-- I'm talking about the text in the clip above. Yes, he's Jewish. Yes, Jews are involved as criminals and victims... But take a look at the snippet above. Why on earth does Judaism need to be so glorified there? Seriously... It isn't relevant to the paragraphs it is mentioned it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.127.35 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not since Julius Rosenberg spied for the Soviet Union has one person so damaged the image and the self-respect of American Jews." -- Rabbi Marc Gellman, in Newsweek [20]. --John Nagle (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Current event?

I flagged this article as a current event. Someone has deleted the flag. Is it or isn't it? PeterClarke 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, but not all current events merit the tag; most don't. Those that do might have the tag applied for a day or two around the time the story breaks, when the article is being edited very frequently and by a large number of editors. The {{currentevent}} tag is typically reserved for rapidly-changing events: its purpose and usage guidelines are set out here. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep it on the article for a while. More information is being uncovered daily. The receiver of Madoff's company and a team of auditors are going through Madoff's books trying to figure out what really happened. They've already found out that the basic records of the firm have no relation to reality, which means they'll have to reconstruct every transaction going back decades from bank records and other parties. As they find out more, we'll undoubtedly have more info for the article. This is going to be in the news for weeks. --John Nagle (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)