Talk:Hillary Clinton cattle futures controversy

Image

Is there any reason to have "Regardless of the controversy's explanation, cattle themselves usually do not have much future." under a picture of a cow? I would just remove it, but apparently its been removed and restored before. What place does a joke/sarcastic comment have in this article? --Yesukai 22:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is neither joke nor sarcasm, but a simple statement of perspective. It's also one of the few ways to illustrate the article — there don't seem to be any free images of Hillary Rodham from the late 1970s. Wasted Time R 12:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this page really need a picture of a cow? Really? I think most people interested in this issue would know what cattle look like. --BlackTerror (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is generally under-illustrated to begin with, so every bit helps. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it needs illustrations why not commission some graphic artistry ? There mus be plenty of cowtoonists willing to do jokes and even video animation. maybe we could have some impressions of tthe free market cost and profit accounts direct to farmers?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Straddle mechanisms

Under "Likelihood of Results" I have been attempting to explain what I feel are likely method for achieving option 4 described in the preceding paragraph. My observation is based on experience as a professional commodities trader in the 1970's, as well as author of numerous articles at the time, two of which were published in Commodities magazine. Since few people understand the mechanics of futures contracts or straddles, I believe this explanation would demonstrate, hypothetically of course, how a broker who desires to favor one client over another, can do so, while assuming little or no economic risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardinvest (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article on straddles, so no need to explain them here, just wlink to that. I've thus boiled down your description, and also eliminated this bit: "That Mrs. Clinton was unaware of any unusual arrangement stretches credulity in the opinion of many observers." You gave no cite for this, and it contradicts your assertion above that "few people understand the mechanics of futures contracts or straddles." Wasted Time R (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A Profit and Loss account for the region's beef farmers would cover such a meme. Why not get an FOI-request on it from the first ex-lady herself?

Something with lot's of playful coloured graphics perhaps?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Journal of Economics and statistics

Marshall Magazine article here: http://www-marshall2.usc.edu/main/magazine/98winter/hillary.html . The Marshall Magazine article is not an academic article, it is an unsigned rehash of the Washington Post. Can anyone provide a full cite or a link to the "Journal of Economics and Statistics" article, or is that reference made up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardl52 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The original source of the "Journal of Economics and Statistics" article finding is this mention in the Roger Morris Partners in Power book. The Morris book is about three-quarters reliable; things are fair at times, slanted at times, but usually not made up out of whole cloth. Nevertheless I haven't been able to find other evidence of this article, so I have some doubts. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the website for the journal, so it does exist, but alas they don't list their contents prior to 2004. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked fairly diligently for evidence of this article about Clinton's cattle futures. Until someone can supply the name of the article and the authors names (and perhaps a corrected name and date of the journal), I am not convinced that such an article exists. The Morris book does contain this information, more or less exactly as it appears in wikipedia, but the Morris book does not list the article in its references, nor are the authors named. If Morris has such an article he may have misrecorded its provenance. Howardl52 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't think the article exists, the proper course is to pull the material from the article text, not indicate doubt in the text. I sent an e-mail to SJES, we'll see if I get a response. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is generally accepted Wikipedia policy/practice, then I suppose I have to accept it. But in my opinion, it is better to explicitly recognize that the claim exists, and then to explicitly challenge it's authenticity. This is the approach, for example, that Snopes takes with urban legends. The legend is listed, so you know they have heard of it; but the autheniticity is "unknown" or some such. Removing it from Wikipedia simply invites new users (who never make it to this talk Page) to add it again, thinking that they have an important contribution to make. In addition, leaving it posted with a challenge or question invites readers who have the citation to provide it.

If you read WP:V and WP:BLP, you'll see that Wikipedia intentionally tilts towards removing questionable claims, especially when living people are involved. This Talk page is our Snopes, where the claim is mentioned. Future editors will see it commented out in the main text edit, and see this discussion here, so hopefully they won't blindly add it again. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't think that the Swiss JES is the only candidate. There is a German journal Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik (http://www.luciusverlag.com/shop/product_info.php/info/p9524_Jahrb-cher-f-r-National-konomie-und-Statistik.html) which is sometimes translated as Journal of Economics and Statistics. There is a Journal of Business Economics and Statistics. There is a Review of Economics and Statistics. There is an Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. So if there really is such an article and Morris simply mis-attributed it, it will be hard to find.Howardl52 (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The German journal is unlikely, since it doesn't seem to publish English-language articles and these are two American profs. SJES is at least possible, because it has always published some English articles and because some of the articles you can see from their 2000s volumes are similar in scope or nature to what the Hillary article would have been like. But I agree, even if this exists, it may be hard to find. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently ran across what must be the article referred to here. It is in the Journal of Economics and Finance (not economics and statistics), and was published in 1994, not 1995. The authors are from Auburn and North Florida, and the results are more or less as advertised. I've added a description quoting the abstract and a link to the journal (though the article for me is behind a paywall). [18:14, November 8, 2011‎ Howardl52 (talk | contribs)‎]

Thanks very much for finally tracking this down! A mystery resolved at last. The Morris book was pretty sloppy with respect to details – he got the journal wrong, the year wrong, and the odds wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue appears to be resolved, from the above exchange in 2011. So then, why was this passage deleted 5 years later? Is it a coincidence that this was deleted directly before the subject of this page is running for president? Why was I banned for adding it again? The fact that these trades had a 1 in 31 trillion chance of being made without inside information seems extremely relevant to the page. It also appears that the issue regarding he source was resolved - here is another link to the study: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02920493 If a Wikipedia moderator is deleting inconvenient facts due to political reasons, can this be addressed? Can someone with more Wikipedia skills delete the original deletion of this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.61.167 (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

2011 is a long time ago, and there's a much more recent discussion going on lower down on this page. And another one here. I'm sure the fact that we're talking about this now does have something to do with the election (how could it not?) but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate WP:BLP concerns here. Also, to clarify: you weren't "banned" from posting anything - the page is only semi-protected, if you create a wikipedia account and log in you can still edit it (although I would suggest not re-iserting the material until there's a clear consensus to restore it). Fyddlestix (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious this is being scrubbed right before the election. Who makes the end-all decision that even though her name is not in the article, the statistics are not relevant enough? Hyperduc (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH makes the decision.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Blatant synthesis

Re: [1] (by a brand new account created just to revert). Please show me where the article in the Journal of Economics and Finance mentions Clinton. It doesn't. The "note" is just a quick calculation, under certain assumptions about risk and return. Somebody - whoever put this in - who has no idea about finance but who really wanted to hate on Clinton and insinuate wrong doing, went and found this paper, and SYNTHESIZED a conclusion out of this.

(btw, it wasn't just synthesis but sloppy synthesis. What's the probability that a golf ball hit by a golfer will land on one, particular, blade of grass? It's one in a billion before the ball is hit, and 1 after. Same thing here. Whoever was doing this does not understand the difference between ex-ante and ex-post probabilities).

Please don't restore this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. This is horrible too. USA TODAY did not "do a study", that's just stupid seeing as how it's a freakin' newspaper not an academic journal. For the same reason the Washington Post did not do an "analysis". The sentence starting with "However," is clearly some guy's original research. Likewise The National Freakin' Review is NOT a reliable source, especially for this info, nor does it do "analysis". The Marshall Freakin' Magazine is a god damn ALUMNI ASSOCIATION MAGAZINE. It's the crap they send you if you graduated from Marshall when they ask you for money. It's. Not. Reliable. The stuff about Refco is of topic.

This is a BLP issue. Don't restore this material without better sourcing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

None of people/accounts who made these changes responded here so far... My very best wishes (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:This is not synthesis or sloppy synthesis. The article is self-evidently about Clinton, even if it does not specifically mention her in the abstract. "This paper investigates the odds of generating a 100-fold return in the cattle futures market. We employ cattle futures data for the period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979," http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02920493 It has three authors (not two) all professors of economics/management. I'm not going to pay 39.95$ to view it, but I'd be astonished if the authors did not mean "odds of \geq 100 fold return" rather than exactly 100 as you imply. Some of your edits on this page have been good, but there is no reason not to consider this paper a RS. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you've followed me here because of a dispute on a different page. You might want to be careful with that. Anyway. First, nobody's saying it's not an RS - take your strawman somewhere else. The issue is that the article is NOT about Clinton. Second, since it's not about Clinton, including it here is in fact synthesis. In fact, it's like the definition of synthesis. So, no, it doesn't belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As far as the analogy goes, you misunderstand it. But that's my fault. That "100$" is suppose to be just "1". As in 100% probability. Stupid tablet autocorrected it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Marek, I have been interested in this article and the underlying issue, though I have not edited it, years before today. Please assume good faith. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Right. Just like you've *always* believed that the attack material on Machado should've been in the article all along for the past 10 years, and its inclusion right after the presidential debate is just wacky koinkidink.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

""This paper investigates the odds of generating a 100-fold return in the cattle futures market. We employ cattle futures data for the period October 11, 1978, through July 31, 1979,". Both the return and the dates exactly match Clinton's trade. By that definition "President of USA elected in 2008"=Obama is SYNTH. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless it directly makes an accusation about Clinton, it's SYNTH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said I always believed that the attack material on Machado should be in the article. Never heard of her until Monday. Please stop being abusive. I am going to go to BLP noticeboard. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

[copyvio link redacted] "Speculation in cattle futures during the period October 1978 through July 1979 has been a topic of interest in the press. According to the April 11, 1994, Wall Street Journal, an investor invested $1,000 in the cattle futures market on October 11, 1978. The investor exited the market at the end of July I979 with a $99,541 profit (New York Times 1994)." They never explicitly say her name, but I can't believe we're having such a ridiculous dispute. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've redacted your link, it's a copyright violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Using NR as RS

WP:BLPSOURCES does not require magazines with identifiable political leanings to be removed. WP:BIASED "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Also one of the co-authors of the article is a former professor of finance at UC Berkeley, so expertise. This isn't highly contentious material, also, just a simple calculation; there is no reason not to include it and it is useful to illustrate the RS quote included "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later," 'says Mark Powers, editor of the journal of Futures Markets. "She took some extraordinary risks." NPalgan2 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: NPalgan2 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You invoke WP:BLPSOURCES but then quote from WP:BIASED. BLPSOURCES is the policy that matters here. Also, the problem with this particular source is not that it's biased, the problem is that it doesn't mention Clinton explicitly so there's synthesis going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

a) You're confusing two different additions I propose in different parts of the article. b) Vox mentions Clinton explicitly for the Springer study for the other dispute. c) BLPSOURCES does not define 'reliable source' so the question of whether NR is 'reliable' in this context should be decided by BIASED. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not "synthesis" it is relevant information. It gives CONTEXT. Of course the article does not explicitly mention Hillary, it was an independent study. Where is it spelled out this cannot be included? And why is this just now being removed right before the election (oh, in order to paint Hillary in a better light)? Hyperduc (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to read WP:SYNTH. Also drop the accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Marek, just as a reminder, we are discussing whether to quote Vox when they cite the Auburn study "Hillary began investing in cattle futures, and saw her initial $1,000 investment grow to nearly $100,000 in less than a year. That gain came in for considerable scrutiny during Bill's presidency; one analysis estimated that even under the most generous of assumptions, the odds of a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion." There is no longer any SYNTH issue. http://www.vox.com/2015/4/11/8383593/hillary-clinton-2016-campaign Also, you still are not responding about the NR quote that you removed on a separate question. Please respond to both issues. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I would not use Vox in a BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Why? May I remind you that earlier today you suggested using Rachel Maddow and Slate and The Nation in the Richard Spencer article? You repeatedly reinserted them into the article. And Vox is extremely sympathetic to Clitnon. Blatant double standards. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

e.g here you readded Slate and Rachel Maddow https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_B._Spencer&diff=742573902&oldid=742573253 NPalgan2 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

So what? Are we discussing Slate and Rachel Maddow? What's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree those are inconsistent standards (to put it mildly.) Really there's no issue using Vox here. It looks like the content sourced to NR may be independently verifiable: salary, net worth. Can we verify it? If so the only added information is simple math, which is non-partisan. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't need the records themselves in order to quote RSs about them like NYTimes saying she was down X$ on date Y. Similarly, we have an ex-Berkeley finance professor and a finance columnist making a simple calculation made with information we know was publicly available. There is nothing in BLP or BIASED that says we can't use National Review for a limited purpose like this. They were anti-Clinton but had editorial control, factchecking, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No, NR is not sufficient here. Now, if NR was one of a dozen sources saying this, it'd be one thing. But it's not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of Vox quote: "One analysis claimed to find that the odds of an investor being able to generate a return that large during the period in question are about one in 31 trillion." @Fyddlestix: felt that previous wording seemed to endorse the study's claimed assumptions and conclusions too strongly. This just reports its conclusions, basing its wording on a source that is very pro-Hillary. The NR quote wording is fine. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with this, but everyone knows that receiving certain gains from investments are impossible to predict. So, whatever these "predictions" are, they not reliable, to say the least. In addition, according to the source you use, "a later White House investigation into the trades found no evidence Hillary committed any trading violations.". So, I am not at all sure this should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

'receiving certain gains from investments are impossible to predict.' What you mean is that it is impossible to predict future price movements. But that just makes it the more remarkable that Rodham would be able to achieve a 100 fold return. We can look at the stock market records and estimate how nimbly you have to move to generate a 100 fold return (we know the stastistical distribution of price change of the csttle futures market). This paper just tries to estimate the likelihood of being able to do just that using a mathematical analysis. Moreover, it is a peer reviewed publication in an economics journal, and thus a RS. Vox is another RS and it quotes the study, giving it more credibility. Wikipedia doesn't make the RSs, it should just reflect them. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, no, that's not how it works at all. You know, I'm used to people pretending to be doctors on the internet, or people pretending to be lawyers on Wikipedia, but people pretending at expertise in finance on Wikipedia is a new one. Your statement, like much of the analysis simply confuses ex-ante and ex-post probabilities.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this looks to me as a classic error made by someone who does not understand probabilities. That was a matter of numerous jokes. As Stanisław Lem wrote in one of his fiction novels, "here is the proof that I do not exist". Consider the probability that my mother and father ever met (obviously, there was a very little chance). Then consider probability that their mothers and fathers ever met, and so on. Then calculate the probability that all these events had happen simultaneously. But of course Lem wrote this much better. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• No, you guys are the ones who are making the error.

I admit there is an ex-ante/ex-post issue to be considered. (But a wikipedia talk page is not the place to argue that the article authors and reviewers made an elementary mistake, which they didn’t.)

Yes, the odds of winning the state lottery are remote, but millions play and one must win. But there are not millions of governor’s relatives playing the futures market making it unsurprising that one would make abnormally large gains (though look at this interesting paper btw http://insidertrading.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001034 )

Yes, the odds of MVBW’s father meeting one particular woman are remote, but there are millions of women in whatever city it was and he is going to get married eventually to some woman, so the ex-ante improbability that (named man) marries (named woman) is not a proof that MVBW almost certainly does not exist. But that is not an error the paper makes.

This is more like if you walk into a casino and watch a woman playing black/red on roulette hundreds of times throughout the evening … and winning 80% of the time. The z-score is absurd. (Assuming the table is not hundreds of miles long with millions of people doing the same thing.)

Then, as the kicker, you ask and find that the woman is the governor’s wife, and the governor promised before the election to renew the casino operator’s license. Suspicious, no?

PS I have both TAed for and taught a biostats class on my own. I know that even Erdos got the Monty Hall problem wrong, but Marek, please try to be very slightly less rude. NPalgan2 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

New section

WSJ quote: Once again, Marek, you did not read the source supplied. It’s not an off-hand remark, he wrote the entire WSJ article giving his opinion of the likelihood of getting a 100x return on the basis of his expert opinion. I toned down what he said and left out his explanations about straddling (as just his speculation) and just gave his bald opinion about the likelihood.

NR quote: An ex-finance professor doing basic arithmetic in NR can be used as RS. BLP sources never says we can’t use an opinionated source (after due consideration of the contentiousness of the material, the expertise of the speaker, etc, etc): "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.” I’d be fine if you want we can cite the origin of the quote

JEF study: The JEF study has been published in a peer reviewed journal. It is quoted in Vox (a very Clinton friendly source) confirming that it is about Hillary. There is no SYNTH issue anymore, there is no issue that it is a RS that deserves weight. If you don’t like the article or its methodology, write up a formal comment and send it to JEF and get them to withdraw it.

BLPSOURCES:I could explain that BLPSOURCES and BIASED definitely do allow opinionated sources to be used (after due consideration) but I don’t have to. You have no problem, as I cite above and as a quick look through your edit history shows, with using highly opinionated sources about very contentious issues in BLPs. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I've restored the WSJ comment. Marek, do you have access to the article? As NPalgan2 says, Brandon's skepticism is the focus of the article, not (as you describe) merely an off-hand remark. I found a number of apparently good-quality and unused sources:

• A textbook which repeats the "31 trillion" odds referencing the JEF study: Futures and Options Markets: An Introduction -Colin A. Carter
• Hillary Clinton's Futures Trades Unusual, Experts Say - LA TImes
• Hillary Clinton Defied Odds With Hefty Futures Profit - Chicago Tribune
• A Commodities `Break' For Hillary Clinton - Chicago Tribune
• Hillary Clinton's big payoff - The Baltimore Sun

James J. Lambden (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Colin Carter source is def reliable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Refco

Refco went bust in 2005. This seems to be unconnected with the cattle trading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.21.214 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)