Talk:Jérôme Kerviel

Mobile phone recording of Jerome's Kerviel's voice

The New York Times reported that several websites have put up recordings of Kerviel's voice recording from his mobile phone. Does anybody have a link to one of these that we can put up? I'd like to hear him. Thanks in advance.

'Unremarkable' Accusation

Part of the PR campaign in the media against Kerviel includes this repeated assertion that he was mediocre/undistinguished and not a real financial genius. These are 'weasel' terms. Even if you back up the claim that he was "undistinguished" with a quote from a former professor, could someone explain to me the difference between a fraudulent trader who is a genius and a fraudulent trader who is only mediocre or undistinguished?! His university grades have been cited as B+, which outside of grade inflation schools, suggests he was a good student. Also he started at the bank in a back office technical trading support function and then was promoted to a trading position. Is this an indication that he was mediocre? Objectively you would consider this a sign of his genius. I think we should remove the weasel quote from his former professor.

I think the fact that he earned a $1000 bonus last year tells us all we need to know about how remarkable he was. The average trader in his first year on a bank trading desk would earn about $50k as a bonus. Most traders would view a $1000 bonus as the equivalent to being asked to resign. 147.114.226.173 (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so true - bonuses within continental europe are far lower than London/New York levels. The mix of pay on the continent is far more heavily weighted towards salary and benefits, than annual bonuses.193.130.144.125 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest framing these unremarkable accusations as "After the accusations were made public, Kerviel's former colleagues and university professors attempted to discredit him in the media by leveling charges that he was unremarkable in his intellectual and professional abilities."--83.112.101.62 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The remark above is far less neutral than the wording in the article thus far. Media "hype" is one thing, and the article here shouldn't exacerbate any hype. But his "averageness" is part of what's noteworthy about him; it is leading financial experts to doubt he worked alone, and also adding to suspicions against the bank that maybe there was gross laxness in their audit controls that one average trader could be trading sums of that size under the radar. Tweaking is welcome, just not so far as to take the position the claims are part a "campaign to discredit" him unless there are published references making that association. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article say his bounus was 60000€ 2006 (his salary was 50k€) and his bonus 2007 would have been 300000€, its in german:

http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/wirtschaft/836511.html http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/wirtschaft/836511.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.247.151 (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

If somebody knows his religion, can they please put it in the Personal Life section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.164 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's relevant.

--69.107.95.124 (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in most biographies, the info in the personal section could be considered irrelevant. You're afraid he's going to turn out to be jewish, correct? I've noticed that the people that are deleting any comment regarding religion, when you go to their Wikipedia page where they describe themselves, one of their categories that they list is "Jewish Wikipedians". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.164 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeson's religion seems to strike you as less important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.174.243 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unless there is evidence trying his activities to his religion, no it's not relevant. Also, please don't delete comments just because they disagree with you. —dgies^t_c 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note - the edit warring in this section needs to stop. If there is any relevance in this article in terms of the religion question, or notable discussion of his particular religion in references, then cites must be furnished. With that, discussion is relevant, maybe. Absent this, there's no purpose served in thrashing with other editors in any of this. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's just one person, editing from the 86.129.x.x range, blocked once, and blocked again for evading. Next step is semi-protecting the talk page. -- Y not be working? 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Right, John Wilkes Booth would merit a Wikipedia article even had he never assissinated the President. He was the equivalent of the Tom Cruise or the Johnny Depp of his day—a popular and famous figure, a household name. Robert K S (talk) 07:24, 28 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)

• As it stands, I also believe that Kerviel may well still fall to be covered by WP:BLP1E. It is too early to tell for the subject: SG may be in some trouble, but has not crashed yet; Leeson caused the spectacular crash of Barings, he wrote Rogue Trader and was also the subject of a movie of the same name. Booth's role in history is also well documented, having been the first to cause the demise of a sitting US President. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 28 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)

Le Figaro only mentions two lawsuits (plainte), but the latribune.fr Friday article does mention a third lawsuit, claimed by APPAC (Association des petits porteurs actifs - an association for individual shareholders) but which as of Friday was not received according to Agence France-Presse. I also do not wish to attempt a definitive translation, but Le Figaro speculated that depending on the extent of the fraud (escroquerie in the second lawsuit from an individual shareholder), a person might attract a 5 to 15 year sentence. The first lawsuit is the bank's (forgery of bank documents and "computer intrusion" whatever that means), and the third from APPAC (see Latribune.fr) was for diffusion de fausses informations ou trompeuses ayant agi sur le cours de Bourse des titres - roughly, transmission of false or misleading information on the Stock exchange. Latribune mentions only three year sentences are possible for each of the charges. By the way the French news articles do not state the lawsuits are directed at Kerviel and indeed appear to be saying an investigation is required to determine true culpability (using my poor French comprehension). -Wikianon (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Former?

I may be splitting hairs, but are we sure that he's a 'former' trader? Yesterday's Telegraph article explicitly said that he hadn't been sacked. I'm sure it's only a matter of time until he is, but there are procedures to go through. I suspect that he's suspended from duty pending a tribunal or something. Does anyone know? --Heron (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

LA Times refers to him as "former" here [2] - Problem with very new news stories is that details coming out in the beginning are sketchy and inconsistent, and sometimes it's impossible to tell which is "more" correct. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If there's a reputable reference then I'll leave the 'former' in place for the time being. --Heron (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I queried this earlier, but the NYT article (ref 7) says "Société Générale said the trader is no longer working for the bank". There was a reference to that NYT article right after that sentence about 'former', but someone has removed it.217.43.226.218 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Cross-rates and removal of describing him as infamous

I did the later because it goes against WP:NPOV we should let the reader decide if he is infamous. I removed the conversions to the US dollar because it goes against WP:CSB and presents the article as US-Centric.

The POV words "infamous" and "famous" have no place in Wikipedia articles. A subject is either notable or it isn't, and articles about non-notable subjects go up for AfD. Robert K S (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Infamous" is a legal term; in some jurisdictions, certain types of crimes are called infamous crimes and carry additional punishment or disabilities. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored most of the US dollar notation because the majority of sources cited (which are in English by necessity) use the $ figure, because it's important to avoid jumping from one to another without conversions in the same article space, and because self-conversions just become more confused in the long haul with currency fluctuations. The subject is arguably "French centric", but this is the English encyclopedia, and the majority of English sources cited are written in terms of US currency. Just as many refs noted cite euro and dollar together as euro alone.Professor marginalia (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if the sources give two currencies, it's France so the Euro should be used unless the transactions he was doing was done in a different currency. Just because the sources don't present a worldwide view doesn't mean the article shouldn't I don't know what you mean by avoiding jumping from one to the other and self conversions become confusing but I'm sure that British readers would say the same thing of the article as is and want an exchange rate with the British pound. Last I checked, Britain is an English speaking country however the language of the encyclopedia is irrelevant to currencies. Also, when an article quotes an exchange rate they are quoting it at the time they are writing the article which is most likely a different exchange rate when the trader made his transaction which makes it even more irrelevant. I say we remove the conversions to US dollar and use Euro unless the transactions were done in a different currency. This is in order to present a worldwide view. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pocopocopocopoco.An encyclopedia lasts longer than a newspaper, and exchange rates fluctuate.217.43.226.218 (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)