Talk:Bernie Madoff

Ethnicity

This article is outrageous, prejudiced, and biased! In the (similar) case of Conrad Black, reference to his 'British' ancestry and 'Roman Catholic' religious background is foremost: "Conrad Moffat Black, Baron Black of Crossharbour, PC, OC, KCSG (born 25 August 1944, in Montreal, Quebec) is a Canadian-born British historian, columnist and publisher who was for a time the third biggest newspaper magnate in the world.[1] He is currently incarcerated at the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Florida,[2]." His categories are as follows: Categories: 1944 births | British biographers | British businesspeople | British conservatives | British criminals | British fraudsters | British historians | British mass media owners | British newspaper publishers (people) of the 20th century | British newspaper publishers (people) of the 21st century | British Roman Catholics | Canadian Business Hall of Fame | Carleton University alumni | Converts to Roman Catholicism | Corporate scandals | Historians of the United States | Jailed UK peers | Life peers | Living people | McGill University alumni | Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada | Officers of the Order of Canada | Ontario writers | People from Toronto | People from Montreal | Université Laval alumni | Upper Canada College alumni | White-collar criminals.

If this article is not edited to reflect Wikipedia's practice of INCLUDING the ethnicity of infamous British Christians, I will make a point of it in other media and to regulatory bodies including human rights. Academentia (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC) academentia

As of 12:42 June 29, 2009 his ethnicity // religion has been reflected as per status quo. Academentia (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit to include Madoff's Jewish ethnicity in the lead. I refer to WP:MOSBIO which states that referring to ethnicity in the lead should be avoided, except where relevant to the subject's notability. In this case the Jewish community has been directly affected by Madoff's actions, and his ethnicity is directly relevant to this.

See this article for an example - Madoff Wall Street fraud threatens Jewish philanthropy. "One charity already closed and insiders are worried that the ramifications of Madoff's financial demise may extend to the many organizations he supported and the wealthy Jews he advised"

I welcome some constructive debate on this matter.

Beganlocal (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If that was the case, why not say that he was a schemer whose victims were primarily Jewish? The user below said that Ponzi's Italian descent is marked all over the article, but it's not in the first sentence. The only Jew I've ever seen to have this is Albert Einstein. Although I don't completely think this is necessary, the reason it's relevant to him is that if he wasn't Jewish and fled Germany, he wouldn't have developed the atomic bomb for the US, and history would have been completely altered. Ponzi dealt with Italians, but their ethnicity didn't facilitate his actions, thus his ethnicity is kept out of the header. The same should be with Madoff.

BrandMan211 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you people trying to hide the fact that he's a Jew? Don't tell me you believe it's irrelevant or smth like that. Charles Ponzi's Italian descent is all over the place in his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.253.157 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comments above. Please refrain from speaking in a non-constructive fashion. Feketekave (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attempt to rationalize things the way you do isn't convincing. A lot of people will want to know some basic things about the man (either from the categories at the bottom or the factbox on the right) and ethnicity, occupation, place of birth are clearly relevant, just as they are for any other person of some importance. Removing him from the relevant categories is clearly an attempt to hide his ethnicity and your arguments are not going to convince me or a lot of other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.253.157 (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A classification by descent isn't a fact about him - it's a fact about you.

At the same time, his *acting* in an "ethnic" way - belonging to ethnically constituted clubs, being involved in ethnic matters - is relevant to his life and career, in that he managed to use that to con. I have made no attempt to hide that. Feketekave (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the same absurd accusation about "hiding" has been made by other people - whose motivations are possibly not the same as yours - when myself or others have opposed categorising individuals who are famous for their contributions, as opposed to damage caused. Feketekave (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think ethnicity helps define an individual, for better or worse. I would never oppose categorising Jews or any other people based on ethnicity who have positive merits. You're jumping to conclusions by assuming I'm an anti-semite. All I said was that it's relevant and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.253.157 (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it ethinicity or just poor greed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlkBeard (talk • contribs) 06:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Furtive admirer is repeatedly reverting the article by removing the mention of Madoff's Jewish origin in the "Personal" section despite most Jewish people being rightfully referred to as such in Wikipedia. Removal of factual information is in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV rules, even more so when arguments such as [1] and [2] are used. Here are a few similar Wikipedia articles about prominent people of Jewish origin with wording very similar to what is repeatedly removed in the Madoff article :

Albert Einstein : Youth and schooling Albert Einstein was born into a Jewish family in Ulm, in the Kingdom of Württemberg in the German Empire on March 14,

Sigmund Freud : Early life Sigmund Freud was born on 6 May 1856 to Galician Jewish[2] parents in P?íbor (German: Freiberg in Mähren), Moravia, Austrian Empire, now Czech Republic.

Milton Friedman : Early life Friedman was born on July 31, 1912, in Brooklyn, New York, to recent Jewish immigrants from Beregszász in Hungary

Alan Greenspan : biography Greenspan was born in 1926 to a Hungarian Jewish family in the Washington Heights area of New York City.[9]

Karl Marx : biography Karl Heinrich Marx was born in Trier, in the Kingdom of Prussia's Province of the Lower Rhine as the third of his parents' seven children. His father, Heinrich Marx (1777–1838), born Herschel Mordechai, the son of Levy Mordechai (1743-1804) and Eva Lwow (1753-1823), descended from a long line of rabbis but converted to Lutheran Christianity,

Levi Strauss : Levi Strauss, born Löb Strauß (February 26, 1829 – September 26, 1902) was a German-Jewish immigrant to the United States[1]

Why should the wording that's deemed appropriate for these people be considered inappropriate for Madoff ? This is particularly relevant, as his sale technique have been characterized as an affinity fraud. Belonging to the community that is defrauded is a key issue in any affinity fraud. 70.30.244.50 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this page a while, and basically Feketekave has made it a one man mission to erase any mention of race or ethnicity from the article. If you look through his talk page, s/he doesn't believe in categorizing anyone by race or ethnicity regardless of whether people agree a person is of a race or ethnicity. For example, Feketekave has lost in the dispute on Talk:Albert_Einstein, which is a page watched more closely by established users. In the end, it's just about who cares more about this, and some anon arguing with an established account isn't going to get very far. If you go through the talk page archives here, it's clear there's a lot of opposition against removal of ethnic info, but obviously we haven't made it our mission to include this info, so we're not going to spend our lives reverting people like Feketekave and Furtive Admirer. --C S (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you select these bios? Why not Muslims, Catholics, Wasps, Greek Orthodox, etc./ Your motives are tranparent. You are a vandalizer and a harasser. The Personal section remains clean. Go find another religion to write about. Furtive admirer (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Furtive Admirer, this is a personal attack and violates wikipedia policy. Please cease all such violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. That said,(talk) clearly demonstrates the point. This is a clearly established trend among biographies in wikipedia and follows WP:BOLP standards. As C S mentioned, please see Talk:Albert_Einstein . Bernard Madoff is Jewish. The New York Times confirms this and this meets WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SOURCES . See the article here . Further Jewish sources confirm this: Jewish Journal and Haaretz . Moreover, it is even more salient, as (talk) mentioned, due to the affinity fraud committed by Madoff. These articles clearly touch on the point of the effect his actions have had on the Jewish community. It seems that it was removed against consensus formed in the section Talk:Bernard_Madoff#Rabbi_wants_Madoff_excommunicated_for_bringing_shame_on_Jewish_people . I am fixing this now. Magemirlen (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The consenus in that section appears to refer to this version, where Madoff's Jewish background is mentioned in the 'personal' section, rather than in the intro. Albert Einstein and the other articles mentioned above as examples handle it the same way; none of them refer to the subject as Jewish in the lede. While there may be a consensus to include the information in the article, there isn't one to put it in the lede and it's contrary to the way such information is handled in other similar articles, so I'm reverting that change. -- Vary Talk 15:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

According to your logic, you should have added that information into the 'personal section' and not removed it wholesale. I will go ahead and take care of that now. Magemirlen (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You do that. What's with the attitude? -- Vary Talk 16:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see what "attitude" you are referring to. Please avoid from making personal attacks such as saying I have an "attitude" as this violates WP:NPA. You made a point about the information being in the wrong section, but instead of moving it, you just erased it. I agreed with your original statement and made the corrective changes. Thanks though for pointing out that the personal section was the more appropriate place for the information. Please feel free to take up the matter in my talk page if you feel the need to address this further. Magemirlen (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there's no 'should have' here. I'm under no obligation to move anything anywhere. I did nothing to prevent or discourage you from putting the information you wanted added to the article in the appropriate place. Phrases like 'according to your logic', 'just erased it' and 'removed it wholesale' seem to imply otherwise. That may not have been your intent, but the comment did come across as an accusation. -- Vary Talk 16:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Dona Branca's, Nicholas Cosmo's, or Allen Stanford's religion on their page at all? It seems inconsistent and unnecessary to include religion on con artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.193.222 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see above comments. 1) This has been explained ad nauseam and consensus has been formed (again, see above). 2) This is a standard on BLP pages. Even if it were not, it is specially relevant on this BLP page as numerous sources, that have been documented above and within the article, have commented on the effect the allegations have had on the Jewish community. This is seen as some as alleged affinity fraud. If you feel the need to go add to those pages you mentioned, feel free to do so. 3) You're comment "con artists" is a POV attack on the BLP in question. No allegation has been proven. This violates WP:BLP and has no bearing in this case. Magemirlen (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Has this issue been resolved? I haven't checked in for a while. It seems silly to me to remove any reference to his religion. Question is degree of emphasis and whether it should go into the box at the top of the page. You also need to put in about Eli Wiesel, which was in the news today. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You've all been arguing about whether the word Jew should be included in the article. Don't worry, from this discussion here, I already know it. LOL. Wikipedia, where common consensus rules supreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.17.91 (talk) 07:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

If all other's are mentioned along with their nationalities and religions attached to their demise than jews also must get their fair share. But we don't want to discriminate against jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.220.2 (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I've visited the page prior to this story blowing up, and it featured the man's ethnicity prominently. Now almost all mention of his background has been removed, as if there was some coordinated effort to conceal this fact. This is a DISTURBING development to say the least, the cabal that engages in this type of manipulative and selective editing should be identified and removed. Koalorka (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize that I am a newcomer to this article, but doesn't anyone think that the first paragraph of the Personal life section is a little redundant and blatant? Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 22:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I corrected some of the parts vandalized by 66.146.146.43 and his/her likes. His/her hate speech here in the talk page is the best argumentation I could ever give for my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulArctic (talk • contribs) 18:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a very heated topic, but in all honesty, his ethnicity played a tremendous factor in garnering the trust of his religious and ethnic community to coax many investors into the largest Ponzi scheme in history. I'd be terribly disappointed if all this fuss was simply about an ethnic group wanting to disassociate themselves from an infamous participant in their heritage. Every ethnicity and religion has characters which it would wish to forget, but it would be egregious to remove all ethnic ties simply because of negative views or stereotyping. This is history, and the facts should be clear. It would be no better to remove any reference to Hitler being Austrian or Ponzi being Italian. I encourage that his ethnicity be included and this page be locked from any further vandalism that attempts to remove this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.56.205 (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your point. There are two things:

(a) In general, there is a trend in Wikipedia towards classifying people by blood that I, for one, find simply disturbing. It is also completely out of line with all print encyclopaedias, except, of course, for self-proclaimed encyclopaedias whose aims are to glorify one particular group. "Ethnicity" is being used here not to mean some loose characterisation of a more or less ill-defined group of people who share a language or environment, but rather as a replacement for what before WWII would have erroneously been called a race.

It is especially disturbing to see tags and "Lists of X". Given how the policies of the Third Reich started - namely, by race laws - it is natural to have a particularly strong reaction when X=Jew (or X=Gypsy, I suppose); at the same time, the same case against these tags and lists can be made for any value of X, where X is apparently defined by blood rather than by an individual environment's or actions.

The same goes for what may be taken to be negative references or excessive references within the biography of an arguably contemptible man: they have more power to disturb, but what is wrong about them is probably wrong about uncalled-for positive references as well.

(b) At the same time, keeping only references to somebody's so-called ethnicity if somebody is a very nice man is arguably a case of systemic bias. This is particularly so if this tendency holds more for some values of X than others (say, again, X = Jew).

My personal view is that the trend in (a) should and will be reversed, but that will be a gradual process. In the meantime, perhaps we should use this opportunity to think critically about the matter.

The case of Madoff is actually almost too interesting to be a perfect test case. We are not talking simply about somebody whose parents happened to be of a particular religion (or whose great-grandparents presumably spoke a particular language or languages). Madoff was very active in Jewish communal organisations and belonged to clubs whose exclusiveness was in part a specifically Jewish exclusiveness (in that they were clubs for people who regarded each other as Jews) but not a particularly Jewish exclusiveness (other clubs and other old-boy networks are just as exclusive, and there are many more of them). Finally, Madoff presumably used religious and familiar ties not just to deceive others directly, but also to make people trust in him to the extent of becoming willing or unwitting accomplices in his plans. Thus, mentioning the entire ethnic thing only in the context of victimhood doesn't make sense.

For the while being, we could simply rewrite the first couple of sentences of Madoff's biography in such a way that he is no longer *defined* by his parentage; we can then make sure that his actions are still fully *described* whether or not they include a religious or "ethnic" component. Feketekave (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Feketekave, mentioning ethnicity in a family section/early life section ect. is pretty "standard" as far a bios go. Not sure what the problem is or why one would remove it and the category. Also, as a point of order, can we please keep this talk page limited to how to improve the article and not have it be a forum for wider ethnicity discussions ect. Anyways, what do others think? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First thing I noticed about this was the odd "Jewish" in front of "former businessman" in the first sentence. Aside from his name and birthday, his Jewishness is the FIRST THING COMMUNICATED. Jumped off the page at me. The personal section communicates his Jewish ethnicity perfectly fine. I removed the adjective.Biasedbulldog (talk) 04:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made an edit to include Madoff's Jewish ethnicity in the lead. I refer to WP:MOSBIO which states that referring to ethnicity in the lead should be avoided, except where relevant to the subject's notability. In this case the Jewish community has been directly affected by Madoff's actions, and his ethnicity is directly relevant to this.

See this article for an example - Madoff Wall Street fraud threatens Jewish philanthropy. "One charity already closed and insiders are worried that the ramifications of Madoff's financial demise may extend to the many organizations he supported and the wealthy Jews he advised"

I welcome some constructive debate on this matter.

Beganlocal (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, his nationality, American, is supposed to be stated. Second of all, the sentence "Bernie Madoff is a Jewish American etc." doesn't tell me why the ethnicity is notable. If you want, you should put a sentence summarizing some of the things you stated above somewhere in the lead. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit and comments. I think it is certainly notable that the Jewish community were directly affected by his fraud, however they are not the only victims. I will try to make the appropriate edits to the lead, and would be grateful for feedback. I am new at WP. Beganlocal (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like FurtiveAdmirer or a like-minded soul has been busy at work on this article again. All mention of Madoff's ethnicity has been removed. It is obvious that these people are not editors, but rather censors who will go to great lengths to prevent people from getting access to certain kinds of information.Shiresman (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's crazy how some of you people will do everything you can to make sure it's not known that he's Jewish... and with the silliest reasons ever! I've seen TONS of articles on wikipedia that say that a certain famous person is of Jewish ethnicity, whether it be successful mathematicians, scientists, etc. You know... positive things to be associated with. In this case, his ethnicity is directly related to the information since many of his cons were performed at Jewish clubs.99.255.196.199 (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's in the article. I agree there could be more indicating that there was much affinity fraud, if not in this one than in the article on his fraud.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what's in the article: "Madoff's family was of the Jewish faith." aka dancing around the truth. There's zero mention of affinity fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.196.199 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So add or suggest a section on affinity fraud. Bellyaching about the lack of a Jewish emphasis isn't constructive, because that has already been talked to death. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It will no doubt be removed. If one can't even mention directly that he is Jewish and how it relates to the fraud in the introduction, how can one devote an entire section on why his Jewishness is relevant? It's like asking someone to go to the moon when he isn't even allowed to fly. The most that seems to be allowed is that it's mentioned that he's Jewish in the madoff investment scandal article, which is a much more obscure article compared to this one, and it's not even listed on Google when you search for "madoff wiki", which is what most people would search for. I guess I'll accept this amount of censorship by the Jewish internet community.99.255.196.199 (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am against labelling Jews. I am against labelling blacks, hispanics, and Catholics. I do not see the need to categorise people in this way when it is not relevant to how they lived their life. However, this is one of the very few articles in which I believe it is relevant. The affinity fraud angle.

Unfortunately there appears to be a cabal of editors who are in favour of creating Jewish categories and adding "Jewish" descriptors in biography ledes for no other reason than to "claim" an individual who is perceived as successful. Sportspeople, musicians, chess players, scientists - all Jewish. Sometimes articles reach a consensus which is reasonable, others unreasonable. The same WP:CABAL appears to believe it is anti-semetic to apply "Jewish labelling" to criminals who are notable in part for their Jewishness while arguing in favour of removing the labelling where it is not notable, from the Jewish Astronauts etc.

One editor opined

I am sickened by the rankly anti-Semitic nature of this individual's edits. To recap: he worked long and hard to accentuate the uniquely Jewish nature of Madoff and other's criminal activities. But when that was soundly rebuffed by the community, he set about seeking to expunge from Wikipedia all categories related to positive contributions by Jews in various fields. Only Jews as criminals and con artists appears to satisfy his prejudices.

The prejudices of the other WP:CABAL appear only to be satisfied by Jews as entertainers, explorers, scientists, statesmen, etc but not as criminals or bankers. Interestingly we no longer have Category:Jewish Bankers but you dare not nominate Category:Jewish Sportspeople - you will be labelled a nazi if you do! We have all the other professions, but not banking, because that associates Jews with an ugly racial stereotype. I am against categorising Jewish bankers as I am against Jewish astronauts, but believe the rule should be applied across the board.

So it is mentioned in the lede where irrelevant, and censored when it is part of notability - the opposite of the guidelines. That appears to be the mentality here - typical of a "democracy". To be fair there is some progress on the more egregious examples, however you ought to just give up on Madoff - the powers that be have decided that Jewish fraudsters (and indeed Jewish bankers) do not exist. Beganlocal (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As you know, there are a lot of articles out there that have unnecessary ethnic labeling. In this one, the article has waffled between unnecessary labeling and ignoring totally the ethnic aspect of his crime. We tend to get caught up in side issues, like whether his ethnicity should be in the infobox, and in generalized discussions over whether the article is "Jewish" enough. The result is that we overlook really important issues like the affinity fraud character of much of his fraud, which has been widely reported. My suggestion is that we focus on that and not get involved in a fruitless discussion of whether editors are conspiring to keep this article Judenrein. It just will tee off people and result in nothing being done. I agree that the Jewish character of the fraud is underweighted, but it's just going to make it harder to improve the article if this kind of heated argument continues, especially when people use ethnic terminology that may be misconstrued.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I changed a sentence describing his family being of Jewish faith to one that was less vague: Madoff is Jewish-American. This change was immediately reverted by a user who cited ruined grammar and a bad source (ABC News is not a bad source- do we need scientific journals to prove that he is Jewish?). I will fight for this little change just out of principle. I do not want Wikipedia to be censored because of the hidden agendas of certain groups99.255.196.199 (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Smallbones' edit. We don't ordinarily say what people's religion happens to be in articles about criminals (try to find "Bernard Ebbers is a Protestant-American" in his article. Madoff's ethnicity has some relevancy because of the affinity fraud aspects of his crime, but instead of adding text on that neglected issue we keep getting involved in fruitless discussions on how strongly we want to definitively declare Madoff's ethnicity. It is indeed a sensitive subject and I think it is properly handled in the language Smallbones is utilizing, and which has been the settled wording for quite a while.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you read the revision history correctly then. Smallbones reverted my change from "Madoff is a Jewish-American" to "Madoff's family was of the Jewish faith." He did so with the comment "all you did was ruin the grammer and change the source from a good one to a not so good one". This was obviously not true so I re-entered my revision. He proceeded to revert it again, this time stating "ethnicity is a touchy issue, but has been very well discussed". This demonstrates dishonesty in his original reasoning for reverting my change. There was absolutely NOTHING wrong with my change. Tell me what rule I broke with the revision. The source he reverted back to isn't even linked properly! Ethnicity has not been well-discussed at all in the article. It has been well-discussed in the discussion section, but there is no mention of it in the main article except the reference to his "family being of Jewish faith", which is a vague statement if I've ever seen one. If you're going to allow a statement like that, why not have a more comprehensible, clear statement on his ethnicity/religion? Either disallow any reference to his ethnicity or allow the revision, because right now it looks like a clear attempt at unnecessary political correctness, and does not reflect well on Wikipedia. Also, judging from the discussion that you can view yourself, it's clear that the wording on his ethnicity has been changed and gradually erased from this article from a certain cadre of Wiki editors. That's why it has been the settled wording- because they've been hellbent on removing any references to his ethnicity in this article. I see no reason for you to agree on his attempts to mask ethnicity in the article.02:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.196.199 (talk)

Also, you don't think that we don't mention religion in articles about criminals? Well, I don't see how that's relevant because most of us are talking about ethnicity, and it's what people have been arguing about anyway. Check the articles for Unabomber, Frank Abagnale, Jack Abramoff, Miss Cleo (listed under American fraudsters and is described as "black"), Mary Butterworth, Lakireddy Reddy, etc. I could go on and on. You and I both know that the only reason that ethnicity is hardly allowed to be discussed in this article is because a certain cadre of Wiki editors refuse to allow it to be. Based on the many other unopposed examples on Wikipedia, it should be mentioned. Based on common sense, it should be mentioned. Based on relevance, it should be mentioned. But it has been reduced to a vague, 7-word sentence on this article because some people here just can't handle it being mentioned for their own odd reasons.99.255.196.199 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to mentioning the ethnicity of criminals unless relevant to their notability. In this case, his ethnicity certainly is notable because of the affinity fraud aspects of his crimes, which are neglected partly because we spend so much time in absurd semantic arguments like this. Ethnicity, particularly regarding Madoff, is indeed a sensitive subject and Smallbones' wording makes the point about Madoff's religion adequately. Nobody is going to come away from reading this article thinking he is anything but Jewish. We don't have to tattoo a Jewish star on his arm, for heaven's sake. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I'm glad we can settle on a minor affinity fraud section, with the main investment scandal article providing more detailed information. I'm not looking to emphasize ethnicity in criminal-related articles, but I also don't condone unnecessary censorship on Wikipedia.99.255.196.199 (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Convenience break

I don't like this topic - it just goes on and on with the same arguments hashed and rehashed. It's also clear to me that I can not always reply on this topic because I cannot assume the good faith of some participants (on both sides). BM's religion should be mentioned and it is. Should it be in the lead? I'm mixed (maybe way down in the lead, but it's not that important) but I will follow the consensus which has been "no." Nobody can get the impression after reading this article that BM is not Jewish. The major problem that has happened in the past is that Jewish gets mentioned 15 times. It's just not that important. I'll say that I've supported the inclusion of "Jewish" since about Dec. 12, 2008. And I've supported removing 13 of 15 "Jewish"'s as well. Now I'm just tired of people making silly changes to the consensus version and don't really want to talk about it (but have been asked to). Please just leave the consensus version alone.

As far as my provocative reversion, it's here [3]. What's the big deal? I don't like it when somebody eliminates a good source (Times of London) I put in (yes, I'll claim to be the first editor on this article to reference that BM is Jewish), for a fairly low class, uninformative source. Please compare the Times - Lavan, Rosie (2008-12-15). "Who is Bernard Madoff?". The Times. Retrieved 2009-06-29. - and the ABC stories - Peltz, Jennifer (2008-12-25). "Madoff Case Sparks Anti-Semitism Fears". ABCNews. Retrieved 2009-08-03. - which is more informative? which is more believable? As far as my comment about grammar - I may have misread it as "Bernard Madoff is a Jewish" because of the red lettering, or perhaps I was pondering whether "Jewish-American" is an adjective or a noun. I apologize for a very slight inaccuracy in my edit summary.

Now, why is all this upsetting to anybody? Is it worth cutting down reams of electrons? What is the problem? I don't plan to reply unless I see a calm, well thought out respnse. Smallbones (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

reference request and "Others possibly involved"

First, could people please use a template for references such as the following:

<ref name="">{{cite news 
  | last =
  | first =
  | coauthors =
  | title =
  | work =
  | pages =
  | language =
  | publisher =
  | date =
  | url =
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

It should make going through the footnotes easier and be a lot neater.

The Section "Others possibly involved" I promoted from a sub-section of Criminal charges. It should be kept separate (at least if they others are not charged). At first glance this is a pretty ballsy section - it might be interpreted as if we are saying that these guys are guilty of something. At a minimum, we need to be careful here. But I do agree that this section is needed. It explains a lot about what seems to have been going on. It is well documented, it is not us saying these things, it is major reliable sources, and we have just compliled that info.

My question is more prosaic. What order should these folks go in? Alphabetical? Any order implicitly says something, but I think our order just came in a haphazard manner. Yet there is some logic to it - it looks like the people closest to Madoff are mentioned first, and the big organizations (who may have had a bigger, if more distant effect) come later. If anybody can think of a more objective, logical order please put it in. Otherwise (but no rush at all), I'll say it should go in alphabetical order, which implicitly says - "We don't know any other logical order for this!"

Cheers,

I think this is an important section, and this writer is on the right track. I disagree with the current opening, which says something like "people think it is the largest fraud committed by a single investor." No one I know thinks Mr. Madoff did this alone. Everyone I know believes it is impossible to manage so many accounts of this size on one's own. Siggy65 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Song about him

The UK band the destroyer wrote a song about Bernard Madoff call Where has the Money Gone, is this worth adding to the article? You can listen to it at http://thedestroyers.co.uk/music/ (It is just called Money on that page). --87.127.117.246 (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia and "In popular culture" sections are generally discouraged. Somebody will suggest that you integrate it into the rest of the text, but that might be hard to do. I'll suggest leaving it out. Is that "The Destroyers" (plural)? If so I'll suggest that people listen to it. Smallbones (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegations the sons knew about the fraud

On 24 June 2009 user JohnnyB256, undeleted "was said to have" from the the previous version "He was said to have confessed to his sons first on December 10, 2008". His motivation is that " I think we need to qualify this, because of allegations the sons knew about the fraud (see latest Vanity Fair)". This does not appear logical and it seems that JohnnyB256 wishes to defend and protect the sons in Wikipedia, while the July 2009 article in Vanity Fair, as December 15 in N.Y.Times leave the question open. If an inquiry finds no signs family aided Madoff it does not mean that it found signs that it did not aid Madoff, disregarding what "aid" means. There are sins of omission and commission. Or, as the N.Y. Times states " The person cautioned that the investigation was in its earliest stages, and examiners could still unearth evidence that Mr. Madoff’s family knew about the fraud or even helped carry it out." This is also what the sentence conveyed before the deletion. I reinstate the original sentence in the corresponding place after the many intermediate revisions, undoing the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefanson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confused, maybe by the use of all the double negatives. No, you didn't "undo the delete." The previous version on June 24 said "He confessed to his sons." I changed[4] that to "was said to have confessed" because the Vanity Fair article implied that his sons did know. I added another sentence adding stuff from the Vanity Fair article, which was taken out. Your edit today actually replicated my edit on June 24. So not only is it an impermissible personal attack to question my motives like that, we actually seem to be on the same side on this issue.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Except for that the expression "was said to have confessed" already existed pior to this but was delete by somebody else and contributed to the misunderstanding. Sorry - not intended personal attack but assumed unjust change. I perceived inverted times of changes/revisions on June 24th after my failed trying to trace origin of deletion of text as I remembered reading it in early June. If you do not suggest a better way of repairing the misunderstanding in my statement I will try to find one, if possible and necessary. Stefanson (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your setting the record straight. You can strike out your comment if you wish, but not really necessary. By the way, as I said on your talk page, I think more can be done in this article to make it very clear that the "confession" to his sons was according to his lawyer Flumenbaum and is not established fact. Also I inserted a line on 6/24 providing more from the Vanity Fair article. That was removed but perhaps it should go back in. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

Now you all have gotten me confused. I may have been one of the persons to have removed "was said to have confessed" a couple of months ago, but I suspect others have removed it as well. There are at least 2 problems with the phrase: 1)it needs to be attributed who said this - well it was said all over by many newspapers, but I believe the first statement was in the FBI or SEC news release on about December 12. If so just state who said this. 2) the "was said" is a backhanded way of saying "but I don't think this is true," or "I don't know that this is true." If the first meaning - Wikipedia doesn't allow your personal opinion in here; if the second meaning - of course not, you weren't there - what we need are reliable secondary sources. It's actually more serious than that - it's a backhanded way of accusing the sons of breaking the law, saying that they are criminals. If somebody reliable has said that - please put it in, but the way it is now it's against WP:BLP. There is probably some WP:OR in here as well related to the addition of the word "first" before "confessed." This is real tricky: "confessions" usually aren't made in stages - part one day the part the next. And I don't recall seeing the word "first" in any reliable source.

I think we can sort this all out with careful wording, e.g. "Source A says he confessed to his sons on December xx, but source B says ..." Well, you can do better after checking the sources, but a backhanded accusation that the sons broke the law is definitely out. Smallbones (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I think the ambiguity and slight snarkiness of "said to have" can be simply dealt with by saying "according to his lawyer" which I think is correct. My problem with the current wording is that it establishes as fact that the confession happened, whereas it actually was relayed by a third party to the government. I think it needs to be attributed, given the doubts that have been raised over that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

At last I succeeded to identify the original change from "confessed" to "was said to have confessed" in revision by 213.67.77.96 on 7 April 2009 16:02. It is notable that I cannot find the undoing of this change among "Edit summaries" since that date and, if so, it was not fairly done. Smallbones (above) does not consider my earlier objection (also above) that if an inquiry finds no signs family aided Madoff it does not mean that it found signs that it did not aid Madoff, disregarding what "aid" means, and that there are errors of omission and commission. It is NOT the case that "was said to have confessed" is a backhanded way of accusing the sons of breaking the law, saying that they are criminals. It is rather a way of suspending judgment in lack of established facts while giving the benefit of doubt to earlier statements ("confessed first..."). Confessions, including "true" ones, ARE often made in stages, stages of conflicting versions or of increasing detail. The suggested identification and checking of "source A" and "source B" as well as investigation of further secondary sources is limited by available resources and access. The philosophical solution to limitation of facts and unknown premises is the dialectical method (since Plato), while Smallbones implicitly proposes a so called positivistic approach which traditionally presupposes unproblematic access to facts. I insist in keeping the present formulation "is said to have informed his sons first", also because it applies basic principles of logic and dialectics and is documented by the present challenging discussion. Stefanson (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let's keep in mind that "truth" is not what we're after, but rather verifiability. Also, of course it is correct that we must avoid implicating others by backhanded wording. I personally don't think that "is said to have confessed" implicates anyone, but I also agree we can probably word it better.

Having said all that, there is definitely wording about confessing in the Bloomberg article that's been sourced in this article for a while. It leads with Bernard Madoff confessed to two sons this week that his investment advisory business was "a giant Ponzi scheme", which is clear, direct wording from a reliable source. It goes on later to say that it is quoting from the FBI complaint and names the agent who wrote it. The bit about Flumenbaum being the source for some information is also in this article.

It is probably the case that we don't need to discuss the sons' potential involvement or knowledge at all in this article, as there doesn't appear to be anything to discuss. If there is - and I'm not at this point thinking there is - it's probably more appropriate in the Madoff investment scandal article.

There may well be additional sources, such as the aforementioned Vanity Fair article (which I haven't read), and surely there are additional points of view, but I don't think we have any problem with saying "confessed to his sons" when that's what the source says, and there are others to say it as well. We don't need to decipher what "confessed" means; it's a pretty standard word, and we should not worry that the implication is "first confessed" or "pretended to confess to his <innocent/guilty take-your-pick-of-relatives>" because none of that is contained in the phrase "confessed to his sons". We have no idea what order things happened in, and we certainly don't know who knew what when. What we do know is that the source says he confessed to his sons that week, and that source is certainly reliable enough to include it in this article. (Also, to muddy the waters a bit, that source mentions a "senior employee no. 3" in addition to 1 and 2, and only implies the identities of them anyway, so to draw any conclusions would be WP:OR in addition to a BLP issue.)

Finally, I would say that if we change it to was said to have confessed, it seems to me that we are calling into question the reliability of the Bloomberg article more than anything else.  Frank  |  talk  13:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can say "according to the criminal complaint"? It's in dispute in Vanity Fair and elsewhere. I'm just concerned about the unequivocal language.

Just a quick response to User:Stefanson above: it really isn't necessary to go back several weeks and track down who changed what text and when. Best to just work off the text as it is and not drag personalities into it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, my reason to try to track down changes was my eagerness in taking notice of other possible arguments and motivations, e.g. in edit summary, which could deserve my respectful consideration in ongoing and future discussions. The fact that such arguments cannot be found makes me still more pensative about the motivations "by default" of users who make or revert such changes. I will return later to Frank's (and your) insert. Stefanson (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE TO USER:FRANK I read from your reference to Bloomberg:

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg). ...Bernard Madoff confessed to two sons this week that his investment advisory business was “a giant Ponzi scheme” that cost clients $50 billion before two FBI agents showed up yesterday morning at his Manhattan apartment.... ...Madoff’s sons, Andrew and Mark, turned him in to U.S. authorities on the night of Dec. 10 after his confession, according to Martin Flumbenbaum, an attorney for the brothers.... ...After saying he had no “innocent explanation,” Madoff confessed “it was all his fault,” Cacioppi wrote.

I repeat: "BEFORE two FBI agents showed up yesterday morning at his Manhattan apartment." And "AFTER the confession...ACCORDING TO Martin Flumenbaum, an attorney FOR THE BROTHERS." And "confessed 'it was all his fault', [to FBI agent] Cacioppi..." (My emphasis.)

Consequently: I obviously agree that we don't need to discuss the sons' potential involvement or knowledge at all in this article, and I never questioned this. I also agree that WE have no idea what order things happened in, and we certainly don't know who knew what when. What we do know is what the source says. I only claimed that Wikipedia itself should not endorse what one source (Bloomberg's article) states to have been the case "according to Martin Flumenbaum, an attorney of the brothers." And that the event would have happened on exactly on December 10 "after his confession", also according to Martin Flumbenbaum. Because of all this, despite of not considering it an improvement of today's text I would not object to the following wordings, upon the express condition that they very clearly state the reference to the source(s). Such as (in the two relevant places of the article as of today, where the first was yet to be corrected, and I do it now):

• (1) According to the attorney for Madoff's sons (ref to Blomberg) he confessed to his sons on December 10, 2008, that the asset management arm of his firm...
• (2) According to the sons' attorney (ref to Blomberg) Madoff informed his sons on December 10, 2008 that he had decided... Stefanson (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I terminated my work on this article this evening by changing "is said to have confessed" to "has reportedly confessed", as it suddenly occurred to me to be a good idea, a solution while others may consider my last suggestions here (immediately above this text). With this I consider my modest contributions to edit and discussion of this article to be over. I think that other Wikipedia contributos should now take further action if necessary. Thank you for your discussions. Stefanson (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

FINAL COMMENT ON USER FRANK'S LATEST EDIT OF THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY, JULY 25TH FRANK changed the wording to reflect a source and refers to my previous change. The Edit symmary says: "No need to put "reportedly" and "is said to have" with every sentence; that is what citations are for." I do not understand the reason for this insistence upon endorsing in Wikipedia one party's version of events. One should be careful in citations to make clear who says and stands for what. The cited source (the news agency and the authors of the article) do NOT stand for that "He confessed" or "He informed" but only for that the sons' attorney reported that (and agents said, etc.). Therefore I think that my suggestions in the last discussion (above) uses the citation accurately and that Frank's use is inaccurate and outrightly wrong. Stefanson (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation says, very clearly, in the first sentence, which you copied above: " Bernard Madoff confessed to two sons this week that his investment advisory business was "a giant Ponzi scheme" ". The only thing being insisted upon here is adherence to WP:CITE and WP:V.  Frank  |  talk  08:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

CLARIFICATION TO USER FRANK: I am sorry for having to insist, but at least I refrain from playing around with further editings after my STOP. I wrote above, on July 25th: I only claimed that Wikipedia itself should not endorse what one source (Bloomberg's article) states to have been the case "according to Martin Flumenbaum, an attorney of the brothers." I think that this is what your latest editing has done, in DISREGARD of the following three excerpts from WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. See excerpts below. I think that the origin and core of your mistake is a misunderstaning of the concept of source. That the Bloomberg source contains a string of words like " Bernard Madoff confessed to two sons this week..." disregards the question of context, asserts the opinion of other sources (attorney) as fact, and does this by ignoring that the source cited (Bloomberg) does NOT support unambiguosly the information in the string, as I have already shown above. Compare below:

• From Qualifying sources

For statements about which reliable sources are in conflict or that are matters of differing opinion, the text should include sufficient context to qualify the statement or attribute its source. For example (from Super-recursive algorithm): Martin Davis has described some of Burgin's claims as "misleading". In a case like this, it is important for the text to attribute this opinion to its source, so it does not appear that Wikipedia is making this criticism of Burgin's claims. See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.

• From Neutral point of view

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular...Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves...

• From Burden of evidence

The source cited must unambiguously support the information as it is presented in the article. Stefanson (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate source that says he did not confess to his sons? If so, please provide a link to it and we can discuss that. Otherwise, I fail to see the problem with the current wording, which accurately reflects not only the cited source, but also articles in The Financial Post, Forbes, The Australian, Marketwatch, and over 1500 additional sources that we can see on Google News alone.  Frank  |  talk  18:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the moment I am thinking about earlier references in our discussion, to Vanity Fair July 2009 and N.Y.Times December 15th, 2008. You keep putting the question in the negative form. Why you do not ask whether any reference has proved that Madoff CONFESSED TO HIS SONS FIRST ON DECEMBER 10, as you want Wikipedia to endorse? I myself have not seen a single evidence from an "independent source" that this was the case except for what the sons' attorney, and certainly the sons themselves as well Bernard Madoff himself must have said. And from what was supposed and written - but not witnessed - by a few strangers to the family around and after December 11 follow necessarily the 1500 sources, and more around the world. I also saw a while ago an analog citation issue born today in this article's History, about "the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person": or "allegedly" by a single person. With a better logic that in our case user Beganlocal undid the "allegedly" introduced by user Siggy65. The citation was indeed originally right but not necessarily the truth-content of the citation. And this is the way possible untruths are diffused by other later 1500 sources who do not care about details and wordings. Stefanson (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank, do you have a problem with adding the words "according to the criminal complaint" before Madoff confessed etc. etc.? I know that it is common usage not to say that. I don't think that journalistic usage on this is controlling. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First, there is no wording in there that says "confessed to his sons first", and I don't support that wording. It says "he confessed to his sons" - nothing more. Since many reliable sources say that, I can't see what the problem is. Second, We're not talking about another user's edits about another part of the article; please open another thread if you find that to be a problem. Third, Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability - we must never lose sight of that fact. We do not - and may never - know the order of events. But we can certainly make a very good effort at writing about what others have pieced together and reported in reliable sources. Fourth, as for "according to the criminal complaint" - I wonder what we are trying to avoid by using that convoluted wording. It seems like we are saying there is some question that he confessed to his sons.

It is quite possible that the dénouement to this whole thing was completely orchestrated by Madoff, and that one or more persons were fully complicit along the way. The sands of time may shed more light on that. But to put "according to..." when a large majority of sources report it as if it happened a certain way puts an undue WP:FRINGE cast on the whole thing. It doesn't matter if the eventual story is shown to be substantially different than what we have written now; the point is that what we have is what the sources say - whether we think it is the full story or not. It's not for us to judge.

I do not know if he confessed to his sons first - and for that matter, I don't know that he "confessed" at all. There are any number of possible scenarios, and it is a sure bet that books on the subject have been written and are being researched right now. But the great thing about Wikipedia is that we do not need to know - because we are not about truth but rather about verifiability. If the information that the reliable sources are reporting changes, then so can the article. Right now, a staggeringly large number of sources have said - and continue to say - that "Madoff confessed to his sons", so that's what we have in the article, as it should be.

Finally, as for Vanity Fair and the NY Times, I'd like more information as to these sources, and if you are proposing alternate wording, please start a new thread and make a proposal.  Frank  |  talk  01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that "according to" places it in fringe category. What is your basis in policy for suggesting that we have to follow the exact wording of the media? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FIVE, WP:CITE, WP:V...you know, the basics. I'm not suggesting we have to follow exact wording, but there is definitely a long list (with lengthy discussion) of words to avoid...  Frank  |  talk  01:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those policies require that we use the exact wording in sources. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Just as none of them suggests that we qualify things when the sources themselves don't.  Frank  |  talk  02:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It is in inherent to the concept of confession that when one says "confessed to his sons on December 10" it is not intended that "confessed for the second or third time" the same stuff. How many times does one need to confess in order to have confessed? By stating "confessed" one states "confessed for the first time". The only reason I see for insisting in not allowing the word "first" is the unconscious reluctance to taking over an explicit disagreeable responsibility for the truth of this particular statement while emotionally wishing to endorse it irresponsibly.

Furthermore, JohnnyB256 objects to Frank: "None of those policies require that we use the exact wording in sources". (I showed above with excerpts from the policies that they indeed require the use of other words.) But Frank responds: " Just as none of them suggests that we qualify things when the sources themselves don't." To me this shows very clearly that Frank does not acknowledge what I explained above. Frank repeatedly puts things in their negative form, and my only explanation is that he has a bias for his choice of the positive form, that is the original statement. Why should we do X? But why should'nt we? With such kind of arguments, shifting the heavy burden of proof to others, X will be done in most cases. In our case THERE ARE reasons why we should qualify things when the sources themselves don't! And my whole argumentation up to now has shown why. But one sees how the bias works: Frank does not even consider my "because", and therefore I do not even know whether he has read, or understood it.

Further: Frank refers to "Fringe theories" and returns to a misunderstood "verifiability" divorced from (the quest for) truth, but does not consider convenient to emphasize (besides my earlier excerpts from WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:NPOV) what is stated there about Quotations:

• "While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for including only those quotes and perspectives which further the aim of creating a verifiable and neutral Wikipedia article. Quotes that are controversial or potentially misleading need to be properly contextualized to avoid unintentional endorsement or deprecation. What is more, just because a quote is accurate and verifiably attributed to a particular source does not mean that the quote must necessarily be included in an article..."

And this is what our discussion has been about: that Wikipedia should avoid unintentional endorsement of a potentially misleading quote under the pretext of spreading a "verifiable" secondary quote despite the fact that it does not rely on primary sources. What I want to avoid is Wikipedia becoming a loudspeaker for the world press, and in such case having to drop the additional connotation of free "encyclopedia". Or did "free" mean that it does not care about truth? I consider Frank's remarkable quotation: "But the great thing about Wikipedia is that we do not need to know - because we are not about truth but rather about verifiability. Great thing? I myself prefer Webster's Third New International Dictionary main definition: VERIFY - To prove to be true.

And finally, closing the circle to the beginning of our discussion, with reference to misreading Wikipedia's "Words to avoid" and the paradoxical avoidance of the word "say": "Said" and "stated" are standard journalistic words. When a statement is unproven or subjective, or when a factual assertion is made without contradiction, use a form of the word say or state. I conclude: avoidance of the word Say indicates an indirect claim that the statement is supposedly proven and objective. Do primary sources matter? Do our contradictions matter? Why such a desperate claim? Stefanson (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Stefanson on this. The source that's being used is Madoff's son's lawyer, someone who is being paid to protect their interests. It goes without saying that he won't be implicating the Madoffs Jnr in any illegal activity. I think it would be much better attribute the quote to their lawyer rather than just stating it as a fact. And there's plenty of speculation that his sons knew about the scheme, they are being sued by ex employees who are alleging just that. Ticklemygrits (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

Some important (and short) comments:

• The idea of a misunderstood "verifiability" divorced from (the quest for) truth shows a pretty glaring lack of understanding of one of Wikipedia's core policies: WP:V. If anyone here is editing this (or any) article with the idea of arriving at The Truth,&#0153; now would be a good time to re-read WP:V very thoroughly. In fact, if that situation applies, please do so before continuing through my additional points, because it is central to understanding what they are based on. If you are impatient, please read the first sentence of the policy, which is the core of it.
• This choice of wording is quite clear to me, and I'm failing to see a reason defined on this talk page that we should implicate any other person in this situation by using "is said to" or "are alleged to" or "according to their lawyer" or anything like that.
• A person may confess something as many times as he or she sees fit, and they may publicly claim to have confessed something when in fact they have not. Since truth is not currently knowable in this case, and since verifiability is always what we are after, and the sources say he confessed to his sons, that seems the perfectly appropriate thing to write in our article.
• The implication that I am (or anyone is) looking for negative wording is a mischaracterization of things. I am advocating the words (and concepts) that are in the sources - simply that "he confessed to his sons". To begin to implicate other individuals by changing this wording may very well be, in itself, a WP:BLP violation - not to Madoff himself, but to said other individuals. We must avoid that.
• As for the dictionary definition of "verify" - it is entirely appropriate, and we must apply it properly according to WP:V: we are verifying that what we are writing matches the sources. We are not verifying that the sources are correct or true.

To be clear, I am not saying "the current wording is fine; there's no reason to change it". What I am saying - and this is quite different - is "the proposed wordings violate our policies, and they make our article worse by doing so". I refer, in particular, to WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:WTA.  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're making a "policy issue" out of this where none exists. As you acknowledged yourself, policy is silent on whether we have to use the exact wording of sources. Adding a scoach more detail is not going to violate policy and actually makes the article more precise and informative. I don't understand what all the drama is about or why that would be so awful. This is an encyclopedia, not a news digest. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize that this is no longer a fair discussion by Frank. I leave it at that, after stating my final judgmente by inserting my edit today, based on the latest and unexpected information I got. Stefanson (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As support for others' future constructive discussion and improvement of the article, against the background of the discussion above, and to counter the risk of establishing practical censorship amid the complications of supposed Wikipedia:Dispute resolution please see the especially points 2 to 6 of "Examples" in Wikipedia:Gaming the system which are highly relevant for this case. Stefanson (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Globalism, Financial empirialism and modern Capitalism is the biggest Ponzi of all, (according to left-over leftists from the twentieth century who do not know how to spell 'imperialism')

Will someone please help me undersatnd how is it, that after a 50 billion $ fraud was declread (although some believe it to be less than 20), Mr. Madoff was ordered to pay more than 170 billion? I mean, has the AIG fraud no enough? Is the government paying himself, and refueling his other Ponzi schemes, using this potsi?

If he has more than 170b$, why not simply pay off eerybody and walk freely? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 03:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

He obviously can't pay off all that money. That was what the government said he stole. Not sure about the numbers you quote. More to the point, this talk space is for discussing improving the article, not for general discussion of the Madoff crime. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It is an important question that the news media (and even the prosecutors) seems to pass over. My rough take on the numbers is something like: Madoff took in about $20 billion from investors starting about 1990. Over time he falsely reported that the invested money grew to $65 billion in Dec. 2008. The $170 billion number come from the court finding, essentially doubling the $65 billion. Madoff will never come close to paying $175 billion, since the richest people in the USA (check the Forbes 400) are only worth about $50 billion each. Hope this helps. Smallbones (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is they're making an example of this guy. It's essentially legalese for 'You're so fucked, you'll get out of the hole faster by digging down.' HalfShadow 02:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Date of confession

I undid this edit, which is mis-applying WP:V and WP:CITE. There may well be a lawsuit, but the sentence in question is talking about what has been reported in reliable sources. If there is a lawsuit against his sons, and if it is appropriate to include in this article, it doesn't belong in the lede. Furthermore, the wording I undid concludes that the existence of a lawsuit alleging someone else knew in advance is the same as disputing the date he confessed to his sons, which is WP:SYNTH - against policy.

Sorry to be throwing all the alphabet soup policies out here, but they are really quite clear, and this most definitely is a high-profile, WP:BLP article. And, more to the point, the BLP issues apply to multiple people, not just the subject of this article.  Frank  |  talk  14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't quibble about where that should be in the article, and the language could have been a bit more neutral, but that should be somewhere in the article. As for invoking BLP, that's absolutely ridiculous. These are legal actions reported in reliable sources. Removing them completely from the article is not warranted. You should have fixed the wording and placed it elsewhere, if you felt it was not in the right place. I'll go back and look and see what can be done.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Stefanson edit again, I see that all that seems to be at issue is one word, "contested," and some text added to the reference. So it is really more of a mountain out of a molehill than I thought. The issue of the date being "contested," which it is, in lawsuits. While I think that could be handled differently, I think that needs to be clearer in the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I was alerted to this dispute on the BLP notice board. BLP requires care here. May I suggest an alternate wording for the disputed sentences that starts with what everyone agrees happened and neither endorses nor questions the sons' account: His sons contacted authorities on December 10, 2008, reporting that their father had just confessed that the asset management arm of his firm was a giant Ponzi scheme, quoting him as saying it was "one big lie." The following day, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested Madoff... (citations omitted, to be restored) The lawsuit against the sons can then be mentioned elsewhere. (Allegations in newly filed lawsuits deserve minimal notice as the initiating parties tend to include any charge they can think of.)--agr (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem with that wording. The fact that this account is contested is already in the article, and perhaps can be expanded a bit at that place in the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

agr seems to have it about right. Perhaps its worthwhile to say that Madoff's sons' lawyers contacted authorities, rather than the sons themselves. I'll just editorialize (on this page) that it's understandable that some folks want to get some scalps in the Madoff affair, but that is not something that Wikipedia can do, and ultimately it causes confusion and hides what actually happened. Smallbones (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a genuine concern about the way the confession is referred to. But it's been obscured by some newbie-type missteps, particularly an annoying tendency on the part of one new editor to question people's motives. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the edit I proposed with some minor tweeks. You're both invited to my place for a beer.--agr (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. You know, I really have to compliment you on coming up with this language. It may seem obvious, but nobody thought of it. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, -agr, you found a wise formulation. I feel it incorporates a full and obvious understanding of what I kept trying to explain all the time. I assume you checked against primary sources the details, who contacted the authorities, told he had confessed, quoted him, etc., that is, both sons, no attorney, etc., since i have not re-read the stuff. Stefanson (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Date of confession and Madoff's sons

Edited for consistency with ArnoldReinhold's edit July 27. Perceived erroneously error related to ref list. Now it seems to be OK. It is ref #12, Bloomberg News, which contains the remarkable statement: "The arrest complaint discusses Senior Employee Nos. 1 and 2, which refers to Madoff’s sons, said a person familiar with the matter". I do not know whether there is any official statement that the employees are the sons. Furthermore: the press did not discriminate between statements attributed to employee 1 and to employees 1 and 2. Employee 1 has been equated to both employees. This is a blatant example of why apparently reliable secondary sources (facile references to "verifiability") must be sometimes checked against primary sources. Stefanson (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an accurate depiction of what's in the SEC complaint, but this is a really early document and since then a lot has emerged on the public record. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your description of facile references to "verifiability" seems to indicate you do not take WP:V especially seriously. I hope that's not the case, but please do make sure to read it, and probably WP:PRIMARY would be helpful as well.  Frank  |  talk  19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And, I would like to point out that way up there on this page (at Arbitrary break), I made the comment that to draw any conclusions about the identities of Senior Employees 1, 2, or 3 would be WP:OR. There is no need to check any other source to see that the referenced source did not name them directly. It's among the points I've been making for several days: WP:V is key.  Frank  |  talk  19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bloomberg identified those senior employees in its spot news coverage, but I'd like to see more recent articles. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we need a better cite to say that the sons were those "senior employees". This source only implies it by using the vague said a person familiar with the matter.  Frank  |  talk  20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to JohnnyB256: Yes, the old reference to Bloomberg that still is in the article will no do. It should be substituted by a more recent one. Response to Frank: I had read and understood "verifiability" but I already addressed the question in my ignored quotation further above ""While proper attribution of a perspective to a source satisfies the minimal requirements of Wikipedia's neutral point of view, there is an additional editorial responsibility for..." Ignoring this responsibility is facile verifiability. I hoped this was understood by us all after ArnoldReinhold's edit. Consequently also your second remark appears to me irrelevant since it is not a question of "to draw any conclusions about the identities of Senior Employees 1, 2, or 3" but, rather, to make clear in the wording that according to the available and already referenced primary source (research results) it is unverified to infer what the secondary source (Bloomberg) affirmed, without verifiability (sons, both sons, said a person familiar with the matter (anonymously). It occurs to me that this your gratuitous, uncritical trust in a secondary sources, authoritatively declared reliable, is akin to the cause of the Madoff investment scandal itself, since the whole press, in the whole world, considered him a well documented "reliable source". Your latest insert shows a beginning insight in what I am aiming at. Stefanson (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My "latest insert" was no different than my "earliest". We cannot draw a conclusion as to who the "senior employees" were. We may infer, but that's not good enough to put in this article. Fortunately, however, there are many, many sources that do state that he confessed to his sons. There is nothing in any of this that says he didn't confess to multiple people, in multiple ways, at multiple times. That's why we rely on what's been reported, not primary sources and "persons familiar with the matter".  Frank  |  talk  20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's what I think the problem is. We're trying to come up with precise wording indicating that the two sons told the authorities that their father confessed to them on Dec. 10. However, we can't attribute that on the complaint alone, because it refers only to "senior employees." However, if you look at the Bloomberg article[5], you can see that the two http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/madoff200907?currentPage=3sons are identified as the senior employees by their lawyer Martin Flumenbaum. My suggestion is that we word it at the top of the investment scandal section something approximating the following: "The sons' lawyer, Martin Flumenbaum, told Bloomberg News that the sons first heard about the scam on Dec. 10" etc etc That's direct attribution from a reliable source. No need to use the primary source. There may be better sourcing out there, but this may be the best available.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, we don't talk about "senior employees" at all. Not necessary.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Disregard the above. Here's a better source: David Margolick's story in Vanity Fair. See page 3.[6]. Reliable source, tells the whole story, and clearly indicates that it was the "sons' version of events." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

JohnnyB256: without being able to dig myself into the new references at the present time, I think your approach solves the problem. I am happy that the problem with the wording has been clearly perceived, as by ArnoldReinhold ealier. I was seriously concerned that such problem was not perceived at all, by some. Thank you for your effort. I am not sufficiently informed and inspired to suggest a better wording right now, if necessary at all. Stefanson (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good. Let's see what other editors think.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More on sons

I have a problem with the sentence "Madoff's two sons, Mark, 45, and Andrew, 42, have been subject to questions over when they first learned about their father's fraud." The NY Times ref cited is entitled "Inquiry Finds No Signs Family Aided Madoff" and says the sons are cooperating fully and were told they are not targets of the investigation. Absent more recent information, what the Times reported should be mentioned.--agr (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've added that to the sentence you mention and also to another part of the article where it talks about the family involvement.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's hold off on the son issue for now. Now that DiPascali is talking, either they'll soon be implicated or they won't be. --John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

$14-21 billion excluding fabricated gains

I've just put this number in based on *DeStefano, Anthony (August 11, 2001). "Madoff's right-hand man pleads guilty". Newsday. Retrieved August 11, 2001.

which covers the Frank DiPascali plea. I'm shocked that this number first came out from prosecutors almost in passing in this short article. I don't think I'm reading it wrong however. Do watch for further developments based on DiPascali cooperating with the Feds. Note the judge denied bail even though the prosecutors had asked for it and some papers reported that he had already got it and had his passport seized (tight deadlines I guess). Smallbones (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did the claimed $14-$21 billion number come from? The text of the cited article says "Madoff is serving 150 years in a North Carolina prison after being convicted of the $65-billion scam." --John Nagle (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The article has been updated. The $14-$21 billion WAS in the text, NOW it is only in the picture caption:

"Top Madoff aide Frank DiPascali, center, stands before U.S. District Court Judge Richard Sullivan in Manhattan federal court. Others in the photo are, from right, DiPascali's lawyer Marc Mukasey and federal prosecutor Marc Litt. In foreground is Miriam Siegman, one of the victims of the $13 billion to $21 billion Ponzi scheme that DiPascali says he helped Madoff run."

Bizarre, but true. I'll put the number back as $13-21 billion, and please be careful with how you remove references, the format got SNAFUed. Smallbones (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

'Jewish' again

Here we go again. Can we please reach a consensus here on how to phrase, or whether to phrase, Madoff's Jewishness? It is an intensely sensitive question and I think it needs to be addressed. There has been sporadic edit warring on the subject and the phrasing has been changed several times.

My position is that his religion should be mentioned because of the affinity fraud character of much of his crimes. Beyond that, I'm not sure. I think that perhaps the best was of doing so is by saying, with proper sourcing, that his parents were Jewish, but doing so tastefully so that people won't get all bent out of shape. Maybe "his parents were of Jewish extraction," or perhaps describing that his grandparents were Jewish refugees from Europe. Just a few words and only one mention.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has to be mentioned directly at least once, maybe twice, but not in the lede. I think that is the consensus that is traditionally arrived at after 1,000's of lines of argument (and we've been through this at least a half-dozen times). Right now with "Jewish" at the top of the Personal section and affinity fraud way down near the bottom of the article, it seems pretty balanced.

One other possible way to handle this is from the new books coming out, e.g. Erin Arvedlund's "Too Good to be True." She's got 5-10 pages of stuff on his parents and grandparents that I could insert, but frankly, I don't think they had much to do with the Ponzi scheme!

I hope nobody gets mad at me for arguing both sides of the issue here (see above), but somebody has to try to strike a balance. Smallbones (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Actually I thought that was the consensus too, but then I saw some established editors removing any mention of his ethnicity entirely.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rot in jail phrase

I removed the bit about the victims recommending to the judge that Madoff "rot in jail". That phrase is not encyclopedic. Unless it is an actual quote by specific defendants (and a reference can be provided), I suggest writing "receive a life sentence" or words to that effect. Nojamus (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Cancer story

The NYPost cancer story has been denied completely by the Bureau of prisons Bloomberg, or at least

“While the N.Y. Post story is full of inaccuracies, and we can’t specifically address all of them, we can tell you that Bernie Madoff is not terminally ill, and has not been diagnosed with cancer,” Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci Billingsley said in a statement.

We might as well wait until something is confirmed somehow before putting anything from that story here. Smallbones (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Per BLP it any mention of his supposed fatal illness should be removed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

First line

Madoff "is a former Jewish American financier and convicted felon." This line leaves a really bad taste in my mouth. Madoff's Jewishness is certainly important enough to be in the lede-- it played a major part in his swindle-- but in the first line, like this? It comes off as almost anti-Semitic. Plus, it's a little ambiguous. Was he formerly Jewish, formerly American, or formerly a financier? And was he formerly a convicted felon?

The first thing mentioned should be what he's done, as that what he's best known for (and deserves to be remembered for). Nationality is OK. So I propose something like, "Bernie Madoff is an American financial criminal who operated a Ponzi scheme called the largest investor fraud...." etc., then add stuff about his having once been a respected financier and that he's Jewish, etc.

What do people think? Tyuia (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. This has been discussed repeatedly, and the consensus is that his religion should be mentioned but not in the lead. Certainly not in the first line. A determined IP editor seems to be the culprit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)