Talk:Danny Pang (financier)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article will definitely stay and may even make In the News. It is a major fraud of the order of magnitude (almost) of Bernard Madoff. I'll be out for 2 hours but this is all over the news. Please check WSJ, etc.

BTW, I started the Bernard Madoff article and got a similar notice at the start of that article. Smallbones (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dangle, dangle

So: "New York Magazine reports that some consider him to be an "epic liar, probably running a Ponzi scheme, who many strongly suspect of hiring an elegantly dressed assassin to kill his wife," based on articles published by the Wall Street Journal."

Here we go: based on articles published by the WSJ, a. NYMagazine reports etc.; b. some consider him to be a liar etc.; c. many strongly suspect him of hiring etc.? Grammatically it's probably option a., but that sounds really weird, as if the reporters from NYMagazine just sit around all day reading the WSJ. Or do the reporters from NYM publish their articles in the WSJ? This sentence needs help. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that sentence actually a quote from the sources or the author piecing together snippets from articles? If it is not verbatim, the accusations need to be split up, put in separate quotes, and individually sourced. Law_{type! snype?} 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the following?

New York Magazine, basing its statement on articles published by the Wall Street Journal, states that some consider Pang to be an "epic liar, probably running a Ponzi scheme, who many strongly suspect of hiring an elegantly dressed assassin to kill his wife."[4][5]

Please note that the quote is exact. It is precisely from the first paragraph of the New York Magazine article cited. It is not pieced together. Before questioning a quote, it is normal to check the source when it is given. The full first paragraph is: "You'd be forgiven for thinking that after The Wall Street Journal's front-page story indicating he was an epic liar, probably running a Ponzi scheme, who many strongly suspect of hiring an elegantly dressed assassin to kill his wife, Danny Pang would be one of two places: trying not to get shivved in a central facility or midway through an elaborate faux suicide. But no! In the two days since the story appeared, he has continued to preside over his $4 billion private-equity firm."

While you may disagree with their opinion, there should be no disagreement that they wrote it (the whole thing). Are there objections other than purely grammatical? Smallbones (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Why is it necessary to include what 'some' people have said? The opinion of others is irrelevant. The fact that something is published doesn't automatically mean it is mandatory to add it to every article. 'Some' people have said 'some' things about 'every' subject of every article we have. By insisting on this addition, you are essentially skating around NPOV by claiming "I didn't say it - someone else did." Law_{type! snype?} 00:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not me saying this, it is New York Magazine. They are drawing a conclusion so it is their opinion, but I think that it is relevant if a fairly major magazine is printing this, and it summarizes the main legal difficulties that Pang may face. In turn, to support their opinion, they are drawing on raw facts, as presented by the Wall Street Journal in a front page article that has been cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the WSJ's best. In my opinion (not in the article) the 1st 2 WSJ articles are of Pulitzer Prize winning quality, and this situation points out a severe problem at the SEC: even a hedge fund manager with the most glaring red flags can go completely unregulated in the U.S.. I think this type of material in Wikipedia is much more important than having another Moose A. Moose article. Smallbones (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have a problem with someone who is presumed innocent being referred to as an 'epic liar' on his article. Your defense it that it was printed. My point is that the fact that it is in print doesn't mean it's appropriate here. Law_{type! snype?} 03:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danny Pang (financier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Pai

Lou Pai is in Danny's See Also section and Danny is also in Lou's but I fail to see any connection or relevance.--LedgerTom (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]