Talk:Jérôme Kerviel

One notable event

I thought that there was some policy that said people who are known for only one notable event are not notable enough to warrant inclusion, even if the event itself is? I'm not sure about this, by the way, but maybe someone knows what I'm talking about and, if it exists, why it doesn't apply here? —msikma (user, talk) 20:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nick Leeson has his own Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Leeson), and he held the previous record.

I think the reasoning behind that guideline is so that you don't end up with a biography page on every person who was involved in an event which warrants an article, similar to the idea that "notability is not inheritable". In this case (and Nick Leeson), the biography page itself is serving as the article on the notable event, so there's not a contradiction. —dgies^t_c 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

As it stands now, this is the most damaging rogue trader in history. To consider deleting this article because the person is known for "one notable event" would be like deleting the John Wilkes Booth article because he was known for "one notable event." Msikma, you can offer it up for AfD if you truly feel this doesn't meet notability standards.--Oakshade (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oakshade, you absolutely hit the nail on the head. This definitely deserves an article. This guy, through his alleged fraud, lost an amount of money almost equal to Societe Generale's 2006 net income. That is very significant and, as you said, it the largest amount in history. Clinevol98 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't undercut Booth, he was in fact quite a popular actor. But yes, BLP 1 Event is a precaution, not a policy.Joshdboz (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be AfD'ed. I was confused for a second because I thought that the rules stated that this article should not be included. Thanks for linking to the pertaining WP page. —msikma (user, talk) 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

references

There are three references to the same NYT article. I don't know how to get them all pointing to one entry in the references list. Can someone help?217.43.226.218 (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Look how the 3 instances of the 1st reference (the Alumni directory) are formatted. That's called a "named reference" and any time you repeat it with the same name you only get another backlink, not a duplicate listing. —dgies^t_c 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Potential libel problems

This article and other references to M. Kerviel on Wikipedia may present libel-related dangers.

M. Kerviel has not yet been charged with a crime. All of the accusations are coming from the company.

In U.S. libel law, it doesn't matter if a publication makes a libelous statement itself or if it simply reports a libelous statement that someone else made. It's still libel. If a newspaper writes, "Frank Johnson said Ian Palmer is a thief," it's no different from writing, "Ian Palmer is a thief."

The exception is if the statement is coming from an official source, like a police report or indictment. That's not the case yet.

That said, some media outlets clearly have been willing to take the risk and report the accusations the company is making against its trader.

If we must follow them, we can best reduce our libel danger by sticking exclusively to what's been written in the media. Absolutely everything must be attributed to The Wall Street Journal, Reuters or whatever.

Secondly, we've got to avoid phrases like "Kerviel is alleged to have engaged in fradulent trading." Phrases like "is alleged" offer no libel protection. We've got to say who is doing the alleging. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite your source for your assertion that repeating sourced libel constitutes libel.Wjhonson (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"Republication of a libel is no less actionable than its original publication in defamation law. American courts have traditionally refused to distinguish publishers from re-publishers of defamatory statements on the theory that "tale bearers are as bad as tale makers." -- Newspaper Research Journal, Winter 2006 ([1]). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the Village Pump about the libel issue, which can serve as a centralized place for discussion of the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating libel is legal so long as there is no malice, but anyone can sue anyone anyway. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can sue anyone for any reason anytime, anyway. I heard some dude sued God recently. Apparently God has been wilfully, knowingly, and negligently causing the deaths of thousands of people daily. Stuff happens :) -- Y not be working? 17:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about that. It was some sort of political protest that was thrown out of court. Montana? Politition? protesting that anyone can sue anyone? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is libel under US law, then every major American publication is going to be sued. There is such a thing as freedom of speech, and there is neither an intention of malice nor a knowledge of the falsity of the accusation on our part. Joshdboz (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we qualify statements with in-line citations, like "according to this paper or source" they "allege or believe that so-and-so committed this crime" et cetera? If we're citing sources with "ref" tags at the potentially offending lines, wouldn't that be sufficient? We're not reporting news - we're making legitimate documentation of the event for historical purposes. Whether it turns out that he did or didn't do it should have no effect on how we document the event as a whole other than reflecting what is officially decided later. It will still be historically relevant if the allegations were false, and that the media upscaled his involvement. TopherGZ (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) The example from the paper, repeating "I know this is a lie but I'm going to tell you anyway just to discredit my opponent", is so incredibly narrow to be almost pointless. I seriously doubt any such quote would be allowed to survive in-Wiki except perhaps in very obscure articles. Wjhonson (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"If found guilty he would face 5 to 15 years in prison."

If found guilty of what? Either specify or delete the sentence.217.43.226.218 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Le Figaro simply states that for this magnitude of fraud, he risks 5 to 15 years of jailtime. The ref's there, feel free to reword if you want. Joshdboz (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to three charges; presumably the part you refer to is referring back to those charges: "Une plainte au pénal pour «faux en écritures bancaires» et «intrusion informatique» a été déposée hier par la Société générale à Nanterre. Une deuxième plainte pour «escroquerie, abus de confiance et faux», a été déposée au nom d'un groupe d'actionnaires à Paris." So we need a translation of those three charges. I'm reluctant to attempt it.217.43.226.218 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)