Talk:Jordan Belfort/Archives/2014

Proofreading Needed

This article contains a number of grammatical errors. For example, "Reportedly sober since 1998, Belfort's two memoirs, The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street, have been published in approximately forty countries and translated into eighteen languages." grammatically means that Belfort's two memoirs have been reportedly sober since 1998. Since it's doubtful that his books had a drinking problem, some judicious editing is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.125.228 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability tag?

If nothing else, he published a significant new book by a major publisher. I wish these tag-leavers would be a bit more discriminating. I'll leave it for now but I believe it is unwarranted. Also he is notable as a financial crook. Anyway, I will flesh out the article in the coming days.--Mantanmoreland 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Second Book He has a new book called catching the wolf of wall street.

Not worthy of Wikipedia

I believe this article reads like a PR piece for Mr Belfort, and is also not biographical in the usual way. Not worthy of Wikipedia. I would amend it, except I know nothing about the man. Alpheus (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2009 (U== TC)

Vandalism Spam

A series of editors (Vinautomatic, 70.168.12.142 and now Reaction93) appear determined to turn this page into an advertisement for Jordan Belfort. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User: Reaction93, If you believe your edits are NOT spam, then please engage in a discussion of the issue rather than repeatedly reverting edits. Unsourced phrases such as "Typically motivational speakers focus on their successes, but Belfort also focuses on his failures and how he made those mistakes" are far from objective and are clearly closer to advertising than an encyclopaedia article. Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Added edit war warning to userpage talk for Reaction93 Splorksplorksplork (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to the edit war:

1) Please read the full article: "The Wolf of Wall Street Back on the Prowl," and you will see that the journalist was, in some ways, very negative towards Jordan Belfort. However, he was also very fair. Two of the passages you deleted, as spam, were taken directly from this article: (1) Belfort has built a new life as an author, father, entrepreneurship educator, motivator, life coach and philanthropist - he has been drug-free for 13 years; and (2) Belfort says four basic precepts were the foundation of his successful yet unethical business: the knowledge that by managing the state we're in, we can improve our performance; the understanding that we all have beliefs that at any time limit or improve our achievements, and that the former must be broken down and the latter boosted; the ability to impart to others the strategies to achieve success; and the ability to know that great standards of performance can always be made into exceptional standards. It's a smaller jump than from good to great."

The essence of those two passages should be added to this entry. I will rewrite them, to avoid copywrite issues.

2) Belfort's work with professional sports clubs, and the fact that the Melbourne Storm won the Premeiship shold be added. The link is: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26115995-2722,00.html

3) Warner Brothers is turning Belfort's life into a major motion picture, staring Leonardo Dicaprio and directed by Marty Scorsese, Filming is set to begin in 2010

These three editions are good for a start. Unless someone objects, I will add these to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaction93 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For #1 please propose some text so it can be checked for neutrality and relevance. #2 I don't think that is particularly notable, but if you want a brief mention that he has spoken to the Melbourne Storm that would be fine. #3 Will definitely need a source. --Leivick (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Splorksplorksplork here. I think it's probably worth adding also that Belfort ripped people off for $200 million. Be good to get some scope of the size of his crime here. That's from the first article referenced [1]

But the stuff about "the knowledge that by managing the state we're in, we can improve our performance" is pure fluff, whether it was part of a newspaper article or not. I do, however, think it would be fine to add a link to Belfort's own page. 118.209.151.209 (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Splorksplorksplork, you need to sign in when you edit. Otherwise it gets really confusing in regards to whose who. --Leivick (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I'm at home, can't remember my login details (use work computer mostly, after hours of course) and saw that developments were underway here. I could create a second login but that might be seen as deceptive - thoughts? I'm happy to leave things as is until tomorrow, just didn't want to be left out of any change discussion.118.209.151.209 (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First: Belfort is currently an author, a father, an educator of entrepreneurs, a motivational speaker, a life and business coach, and a philanthropist. He has been drug-free since 1997. Second: As a motivational speaker, Belfort says four basic elements were at the heart of his past success: 1) the ability to manage the state we're in, thereby, dramatically improving our performance (2) the fact that the beliefs we hold can either limit or improve our achievements, and that limiting beliefs must be replaced by empowering beliefs (3) the ability to model the best strategies (4) the ability to raise our standards to the highest level. Third: His life-story is currently being turned into a major motion picture by Warner Brothers, with Leonardo Dicaprio set to play Belfort and Martin Scorsese set to direct. Filming is to begin in 2010. Reference: Scorsese, Dicaprio Cry Wolf http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961782.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Reaction93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

In fact, I respectfully disagree with splorksplorsplork. Look at Anthony Robbin's wikipage, or any other motivational speaker's. They always cover the topics that they speak about and their philosophies. Why would you want this omitted? And why would you call this fluff? Also, I will need to correct the misstatement about what type of tour Belfort is on: i fcat, it a motivational speaking tour, in which he promotes the idea of successes and ethics not being mutually exclusive. There are many published references for this. I will provide a reference for this if needed.

Also, the number $200 million dollars: before splorksplorkspork publushes this, I would like to check language, to make sure that it is not sensationalized and inflammatory. Also, ro you directly splorsplorksplork: let's try to work togetehr in a friendly manner to make this article fair. I am not going away, and neither are you. Let's top the arguing and get this page into shape. Reaction93 (talk)

In fact, the more accurate, relevant info on a wikipage the better. I assume —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaction93 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You've given me an idea - how about we have some separate sections that cover Belfort's criminal history and his current career as a motivastional speaker? The two periods are, as you point out, 13 years apart and so may be better handled separately.118.209.151.209 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)(Splorksplorksplork)

Great idea. Let's both work on some stuff. Before I post anything, I will first run it by the talk page. I apologize about before. I had no idea ho wikipedia worked. And, I do agree that some of the earlier postings that you reversed were ridiculous. They were totally one-sided. Reaction93 (talk) 01:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Terrific. I've had a look at the Anthony Robbins stuff, and agree there is room to cover philosophy. I've got some things I need to take care of today but I'll check back in tomorrow and see if I can put together some stuff at my end. BTW, is there any chance you took a pic of Belfort any of the times you saw him? Might be worth adding too. 118.209.151.209 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)(Splorksplorksplork)

I'll hunt for a picture online. Also, check out the wiki-entry for Frank Abagnale. I think this is a perfect structure to use. I'll write an introduction along those lines, and post it here so you can gibe me your thoughts on it. Reaction93 (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesus! Now there's another editor! I';; post some ideas on the talk page when I get a lunch breakReaction93 (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Attention all: Using the Frank Abagnale wiki-entry as a model, I put this together for everyone's consideration. I think it's pretty balanced and comprehensive, covering the good, the bad, and the ugly. I encourage all comments, as well as any changes that will make it better. Going forward, I think splorlsplorlsplork's idea is a good one: to separate the bio into sections. This is exactly what the Abagnale entry does. Here is the proposed passage:

Jordan Ross Belfort (Born July 9, 1962) is an American author and motivational speaker who is best known for his history as a former stock market manipulator, money launderer, boiler room operator, and recreational drug abuser. He became notorious in the 1990s for founding the brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont, and also for his hard-partying lifestyle, which included a massive drug addiction and the frequent use of prostitutes. In the process, he employed over 1000 stockbrokers, raised over one billion dollars for small-cap public companies (including Steve Madden Shoes), smuggled millions of dollars to Switzerland, and sunk a 170’ motor yacht off the coast of Italy, while high on drugs, all while we he was still in his late twenties and early thirties. He was indicted in 1998 for securities fraud and money laundering. After cooperating with the FBI, he served twenty-two months in federal prison for a “Pump and Dump Scheme,” which resulted in investor losses of approximately $200 million.

Now sober for thirteen years, Belfort’s two bestselling memoirs, The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street, have been published in approximately forty countries and translated into eighteen languages. His life-story is currently being turned into a major motion picture by Warner Brothers, with Leonardo Dicaprio set to star and Martin Scorsese set to direct. Filming is set to begin in 2010. He is currently traveling the world on a motivational speaking tour, which focuses on how to achieve success without sacrificing integrity and ethics.Reaction93 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this ok. Parts of it are overly sensational, keep in mind, this is an encyclopedia, not a popular magazine. Here is my draft of your proposal with edits.

Jordan Ross Belfort (Born July 9, 1962) is an American author and motivational speaker who is best known for his history as a former stock market manipulator, money launderer, boiler room operator, and recreational drug abuser. He became notorious in the 1990s for founding the brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont, and also for his hard-partying lifestyle, which includeda massive drug addiction and the frequent use of prostitutes. In the process, he employed over 1000 stockbrokers, raised over one billion dollars for small-cap public companies (including Steve Madden Shoes), smuggled millions of dollars to Switzerland, and sunk a 170’ motor yacht off the coast of Italy, while high on drugs, all while we he was still in his late twenties and early thirties. He was indicted in 1998 for securities fraud and money laundering. After cooperating with the FBI, he served twenty-two months in federal prison for a “Pump and Dump Scheme,” which resulted in investor losses of approximately $200 million.

"Now claiming to be sober for thirteen years, Belfort’s two bestselling memoirs, The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street, have been published in approximately forty countries and translated into eighteen languages. His life-story is currently being turned into a major motion picture by Warner Brothers, with Leonardo Dicaprio set to star and Martin Scorsese set to direct. Filming is set to begin in 2010. He is currently traveling the world on a motivational speaking tour, which focuses on how to achieve success without sacrificing integrity and ethics.

Removed a couple of overly flowery and sensational bits. Keep in mind that most of the wild claims of hedonism can only be sourced to his own writings and are not encyclopedic facts and should not be included. Using the Abagnale article as a template is not the best, that article also suffers from an overly sensational tone and only mentions in passing that the veracity of many of Abagnale's stories have been questioned. Sourcing is also still an issue, I haven't seen any information regarding the film, but this is a good start. --Leivick (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel's edits, and yes, more sourcing needed, but I like the way we're heading. The sentence "He became notorious in the 1990s for founding the brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont," is a bit confusing tho - perhaps if it's pointed out that Stratton Oakmont was where the crimes took place, i.e. the "boiler room" in question.Splorksplorksplork (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the sourcing for the movie: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117961782.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 Reaction93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC).Reaction93 (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Also, as per Dan and Splork's comments, I streamlined the language, removing duplications, like mentioning money laundering twice, and clarified the Stratton was the boiler room. In addition, I removed the reference to prostitutes, which is sensational and can't be sourced. I changed Daniel's "claiming to be" yo "reportedly." because, indeed, it id widely reported from dozens of sources that Belfort is now sober, but I guess who really know for sure. However, "claiming" struck me as a bit too skeptical. It's a minor point. I hope you all agree. Here is the streamilined passage:

Jordan Belfort (Born July 9, 1962) is a bestselling American author and motivational speaker who is best known for his history as a former stock market manipulator and boiler room operator. He became notorious in the 1990s for founding the brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont (aka the boiler room), and also for his hard-partying lifestyle, which included a serious drug addiction. As the owner of Stratton Oakmont, he employed over 1000 stockbrokers and raised over one billion dollars for small-cap public companies, including Steve Madden Shoes. He was indicted in 1998 for securities fraud and money laundering. After cooperating with the FBI, he served twenty-two months in federal prison for a “Pump and Dump Scheme,” which resulted in investor losses of approximately $200 million.

Reportedly sober for thirteen years, Belfort’s two memoirs, The Wolf of Wall Street and Catching the Wolf of Wall Street, have been published in approximately forty countries and translated into eighteen languages. His life-story is currently being turned into a motion picture by Warner Brothers, with Leonardo Dicaprio set to star and Martin Scorsese set to direct. Filming is set to begin in 2010. He is currently traveling the world on a motivational speaking tour, which focuses on how to achieve success without sacrificing integrity and ethics.Reaction93 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. At this point I don't see any reason you shouldn't add/replace it to the article. Any changes that need to be made can be made to the article itself. Thanks for discussing and working cooperatively, especially after a difficult start. --Leivick (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. I just don't know how to add the little blue numbers for sourcing. Can you tell me how?Reaction93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

To add references, you need to add<ref>Insert Source Here</ref>. The source should be properly formatted per WP:CITE which also discusses formating. Let me know if you need any other help. --Leivick (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried but something went wrong. Can you see my mistake, and, if possible, correct it? It would be much appreciated. Reaction93 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys. There are couple of small edits that I have made to ensure the page reads smoothly. Firstly I have added "bestselling" in front of "American author". Virtually every publication is classed as bestselling so by me doing this it is neither inaccurate of biased. Secondly I have changed "best known" to "well known" in the following sentence "best known for his history as a former stock market manipulator and boiler room operator. I feel that "best known" is more a mater of opinion and it could be argued he is better know for the Scorsese Dicaprio deal. I hope no one finds these changes a problem and would appreciate some feedback. I would also like to have some role in the editing of the page. Thank you.

Those changes are fine with me, but I think you should remove "bestselling," from the last paragraph, so it doesn't say it twice. Indeed, most of he bestselling author wiki-entries do say it up top, so it makes sense. I won't make any changes, though, until others chime in.Reaction93 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Reaction93 I did intend to delete the second "bestselling" from the last paragraph but it totally slipped my mind when I did the other edits. Glad that you find what I have done to be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good articles don't use that kind of puff. His book's popularity is already well explained in the article. --Leivick (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Dan. I just read your exchange with Richard, so I went through a bunch of other wiki-entries of bestselling authors, and 90% of them do have "bestseling" up top, referring to them as "bestselling American authors." A you know, I wrote the text, trying to be as fair and balanced as possible, but now that I look at it, I think I did go a bit to the negative. "Bolier room operator" is a very negative way of describing the firm and not a legal phrase. I think, in truth, putting bestelling up top makes it more balanced. When you have time, take a look at some other author-entries. You'll see that even the ones who probably aren't bestellers still have it in there. And Belfort's status as a bestseller is undisputed and in dozens of articles. Of course, I will not make any changes until a consensus is reached; but I do believe that when you take a closer look, you'll agree. Regards! Reaction93 (talk) 10:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, bestseller has been completely omitted. I guess when you reversed Richard's changes you forget to add back bestselling at the bottom. Again, I think it is more balanced and wiki-like at the top! Reaction93 (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just went through the list of bestselling authors and couldn't find one that referred to the author as best selling in the lead. In any case other articles using a puff term like that doesn't mean we should here. I don't have a problem referring to the book in the second paragraph as best selling though, feel free to add it back in. --Leivick (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel I'm sorry but I disagree with what you're saying. The fact is that Jordan Belfort does have two best selling books so starting the wiki page with this is not "puffing", it is clearly stating the truth. You talk about discussing and working cooperatively but as far as I can see you still make the final decision. Both Reaction93 and I believe my changes were "fine" so surly they should be allowed to remain. I am interested to hear what you think about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that your changes are "fine," Richardb23. Belfort's books are about his career as a corporate criminal, and his public speaking focuses on lessons learnt from that experience. If Belfort isn't trying to hide from his past, I don't see why you should be trying to airbrush this profile to portray him as some sort of literary giant who just happened to have ripped off a few hundred million some time in the distant past.Splorksplorksplork (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the article is fine in its current state. I don't think that saying "so and so is a best selling author" is good encyclopedic language. Nor do I think the current state is a white wash. --Leivick (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys sorry about that, after reading Splorksplorksplorks reply I totally understand where you are coming from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage the last person who changed the bio without consensus to post his thoughts to the ta;lk page, lire the rest of usReaction93 (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So where are we going to go next with this? I am sure everyone will agree that the wiki page could be a lot better. I would like to see it broke down in to several sections like most wiki pages are. So I was thinking if to begin with we tried to agree on these sections we could go from there. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to write a couple of brief sections and add them to the article. If they don't work someone will revert and we can come here to discuss what needs to be changed. This is basically the WP:BRD bold, revert, discuss cycle. While not policy, I think it is an excellent way to improve articles and avoid unneeded drama. --Leivick (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel but I would be interested to hear what reaction93 and splorksplorksplork have to say before making any edits. I want to ensure the four of us are at least thinking along the same lines before I make any changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this calls for a new discussion section. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding New Sections

There has been a suggestion to expand the entry by adding new sections. The two obvious ones are Criminal Career and Post-Criminal Career as Motivational Speaker and Author. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for change of user name, guys - I didn't keep track of the password I used to create the original account and didn't associate an email with it for retrieval, so am now using this one, which I think you'll all agree has more zing. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think one quick easy and non controversial addition that would improve the article, would be an infobox, with a pertinent facts like DOB, career and maybe even a picture, if a free one can be found. --Leivick (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice new user name. How about using the picture that he has in his books. I like the sound of the infobox but I couldn't do that myself but i do think it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well the picture he has in his books is not free. We need a picture that someone has released their copyright status. --Leivick (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think other good ones would be "early years" "Steve Madden Shoes," which is extremely noteworthy, not just because of the success of Steve Madden but also because it resulted in Madden going to jail. Another section might be "Drug addiction." Other possibilities, based on other wiki-entries are "persona life," "seminars," "Career and ideas," "Celebrity Clients." These are jsut thoughts. I would appreciate some feedback. Also, I have contacted Belfort's manager in Australia, who has agreed to provide a picture. Who does he send it to?Reaction93 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He can post it to Wikipedia by using Upload file button on the left. Or he can send it to you and you can do it. If there are issues regarding copyright, he might need to contact Wikipedia using the button on the left as well and show that he is the owner of the image and that he is relinquishing any claims to owner ship of it. As for the sections, those are mostly fine if they can be sourced. The only one which I would skip would be celebrity clients as it is likely trivial. If a major celebrity has effected his career, it can be mentioned in the Seminars section or similar. Also the personal life section should be brief, mentioning only pertinent details and not going into great depth regarding family life as this is not something he is known for. --Leivick (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the new sections and I know I said before I was happy with the four sections suggested but on second thoughts I think Stratton Oakmont era and post Stratton Oakmont era would be better than "Criminal Career" and "Post Criminal Career". Within the Stratton Oakmont era section it would be made clear that this was when the law was broken so anyone reading it would know what happened. I also think that this would allow Reaction93s suggestion of Steve Madden shoes and Drug Addiction to be incorporated within them. What does everyone think?

Richardb23, please sign your post so we know who is saying what. You can do this by adding four tildes (the "~" key which is usually above the left tab). I'm happy to drop "Post Criminal Career" for something like "Public Speaking Career" but I do think "Criminal Career" or "Criminal Activities" is more representative and descriptive than simply the name of the firm. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Splorksplorksplorksplork I like the suggestion of using "Public Speaking Career" so if everyone else is happy I think we should use it. What do you think of using Early Career followed by Investment Scandal instead of "Criminal Career"? I had a look at Bernie Madoffs page and I think it reads pretty well. I know we're not aiming to just copy other pages but personally I think those two titles read better. Richardb23 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardb23 (talk • contribs)

"Investment Scandal" is fine. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"History as a former" is poor grammar

Reaction93, changing "known for his history as a stock market manipulator" to "known for his history as a former stock market manipulator" is to insert a redundant clause. The sentence doesn't need "former" to establish that the criminal behaviour is something that happened in the past and is no longer occurring. For example, compare "George W Bush was President of the US" with "George W Bush was a former President of the US". The second is clearly wrong. So with Belfort we can write either "known as a former stock market manipulator" or "known for his history as a stock market manipulator".Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who took control of this page, but they have serious grammar problems and have included unsubstantiated crap! The tenses are wrong! I am making changes and deleting things that were never put up for discussion.

Reaction93, PLEASE SIGN any additions you make here, otherwise it's very hard to follow the discussion.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hagiographic edits

Benpotter1985, your edits appear to be an attempt to turn the article into some sort of advert for Mr Belfort. While he may have reformed, his past crimes are a matter of record and adding phrases such as "he lives a simple life with his wife and children" add nothing of merit. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Insertion of "former"

Copycat2012, I can find no consensus suggesting "former criminal" was agreed, and nothing at all from anyone by your username. In fact, your account was created just a few months ago, and has been used to edit nothing except this page. Furthermore, admin Daniel J Leivick who mediated in the last discussion regarding this issue agreed that "former" was redundant. Please discuss any further edits here before making changes, and sign your posts.Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I originally achieved a consensus with you and Splork a few years ago, when I was using the screen name Reaction 93. The only reason I changed screen names was because my password wasn't working. The language: "former white collar criminal" had been their for over two years, and it was the end result of a heated debate between myself and Splork that ended up being resolved in a constructive way, with all parties agreeing on the aforementioned language -- former white criminal. That is why I found it very disturbing that Splork changed it back over three years later without putting on the talk page first Feel free to check the records: I am 100% accurate in my recollection. Moreover, without the word "former" it implies that Mr. Belfort is currently engaging in criminal acts, which is not the case -- according to all the recent articles published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copycat2012 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where there was consensus. When does somebody stop being a criminal? When they stop commiting crimes? Then somebody who commits a murder ceases being a murderer as soon as their most recent victim dies. He committed and was convicted of a crime, therefore he is a criminal. Furthermore, it would have been polite for you to mention your former username rather than claiming we had held some previous discussion without identifying who you were.

And SIGN YOUR POSTS. It is not difficult. Four tildes (these things ~ ) at the end of your edit. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, have a look at this edit from Leivick- (cur | prev) 02:34, 4 December 2012‎ Daniel J. Leivick (talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,944 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (former criminal is a bad construction, does "former murder" make sense? This is more neutral) (undo)

I agree with Leivick, an editor of some standing in the WP community. As you may recall, he mediated in the original discussion. If you were willing to accept his opinion then, why not now? Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have put the issue up on the edit war notification page. Link below. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Copycat2012_reported_by_User:Splorksplorksplorksplork_.28Result:_.29 Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Copycat2012, I note that under your previous username of Reaction93, you stated that Belfort was a white-collar criminal. Quote: "In fact, Jordan Belfort is not a corpoarte criminal. He owned his owned company and was not part of the generation of CEOs who defrauded corporate America. He is a white collar criminal." [2]//wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Reaction93 This point was conceded by other parties to the discussion at the time, and no mention was made of the word "former".

I also note that on the user talk page for Reaction93 you were requested several times to sign your posts and given instructions on how to do so, and even replied to one of these requests with thanks. Again, please sign your posts. Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Added data to infobox, didn't realise I wasn't logged in, apologies: (cur | prev) 00:11, 28 December 2012‎ 165.69.2.1 (talk)‎ . . (6,365 bytes) (+435)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Offenses/crimes

Changing reference to "offenses" to "crimes". Money laundering, which Belfort admitted, is a criminal act. Discussion with admin Bbb23 on the subject here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Bbb23#Offense_.2F_Offence Splorksplorksplorksplork (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect information - Citation 21

"Time Magazine reports that almost all of the apparently far-fetched escapades depicted in the movie were in fact true.[21]"

This article 'fact checks' many of the alleged incidents against his memoirs which are not fact. Some of the events have been legitimately fact checked (e.g. the sinking of the boat), but this statement is highly missleading and simply not true. It needs to be rephrased, perhaps to, "Time Magazine has reported that almost all of the apparently far-fetched escapades depicted in the movie are true to his memoirs." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:5100:490:7979:70AF:FDD7:22A1 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. The magazine article states: "TIME fact-checks the movie against Belfort’s books (he also wrote a sequel entitled Catching the Wolf of Wall Street) and a series of Forbes articles that have followed Belfort’s scheming." Thus, it's a blend, and I think it's reasonable to leave the current wording as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"TIME fact-checks the movie against Belfort’s books and a series of Forbes articles that have followed Belfort’s scheming" This is not fact-checking, this is simply verify of what is in the movie is consistent with what is in the book and these limited articles. This a blatant miss-use of the term 'fact-checking'. Just because he wrote something, does not make it a fact nor should it be treated as one. Very few of the things have actually been fact checked, e.g. the Forbes article, and that was embellished in the movie. Fact-checking checking for instance would be rather than saying, "Danny Porush (Donnie Azoff) was married to his cousin. Ruling: Fact; They’re now divorced." simply because it is written in his books, would be to check marriage records and such, which was not done in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:5100:490:B851:5F6:5131:21F0 (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Religion/ethnicity

FYI, there's a discussion about whether he's Jewish, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jordan_Belfort_and_WP:BLPCAT. Insertion of such info into the infobox was recently reverted.[3] The edit summary said it was unsourced, but the edit removed a footnote to a source that says: "[P]art of the Belfort mystery is how a nice Jewish boy like him could destroy himself with such gusto....'I do the prayer to Jesus. Even an old Jew. Jesus, please God, just get me home one last time'." The Wikipedia article has a category that says American Jews, and the text of the article says, "Jordan was raised in a Jewish home". Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that, so I stand corrected. It is not unsourced that he is (and remains) religiously Jewish, it is sourced that it is in fact not true. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jordan Belfort (25 September 2007). The Wolf of Wall Street. Random House Publishing Group. p. 47. ISBN 978-0-553-90424-6. "But, of course, I never bothered applying for membership, what with my status as a lowly Jew, who had the utter gall to invade WASP heaven." --Jordan Belfort — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is this even a big deal? Dude's Jewish. Period. Whether he practices or not does change the fact that he is Jewish.

Let's have the fact there and be done with it.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It matters whether he practices for the sake of the infobox, where we would be putting it in the "religion" field. There's no evidence anyone's brought forth for Judaism (or anything else, for that matter) being his religion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it relevant that Belfort is Jewish?

I would say so. Look at ‘The Wolf’ and the Jewish problem from The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. The issue is important per reliable sources, and thus should be discussed in the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees that the fact that he was raised by Jewish parents and/or considered himself Jewish is not important enough for inclusion in the article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing your sentence. Does it mean that you agree that it's important to mention that he considers himself Jewish?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with stating for a fact that "he considers himself Jewish", for a number of reasons, mainly because that statement in of itself remains unsourced. I think the absolute best approach, which is consistent with our policies, would be to provide his statement (referring to the statement quoted in the above thread) verbatim and let everyone reach their own conclusions. The one issue I have with all of this is the weirdly disproportionate amount of text that his Wikipedia biography would be dedicating to his "Jewishness." However this is nothing new for no-good Jews on Wikipepdia. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not making any sense to me. You think one sentence is weirdly disproportionate when he spends a great deal of space in his autobiography talking about how he's Jewish and secondary sources write whole articles about how the fact that he's Jewish relates to his life and the movie made about him? How is that weirdly disproportionate? Also, how can you claim seriously that "he considers himself Jewish" is unsourced when he says right in his own words that he's Jewish? I really don't understand. Why don't you propose a sentence, then?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by a great deal of space? Right now, his combined Early Life and Personal Life sections are eight sentences and one half of one sentence is about him being Jewish. This is sort of a healthy proportion, though I assume it is proportionately more than Jewishness is dedicated to in his book (that I agree I have not seen). I know that the news articles about him that we have linked to in these discussions do not dedicate "great deal of space" to this.

Again, the claim "that he considers himself Jewish" is not something that we know for a fact. It is our original research extrapolated from a statement from which it appears that others and probably himself considered him Jewish. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You haven't seen the book and you just assume this? Good Lord.

• "I never bothered applying for membership, what with my status as a lowly Jew" (p.47 part of a long discussion about being Jewish in relation to country clubs)
• "I was not a prejudiced man.l In fact, what Jew in their right mind could be? We were the most persecuted people on earth." (p. 266)
• "Besides, Westhampton was full of Jews, and I was sick and tired of Jews, despite being one."(p.419)
• "This was serious Mafia stuff, impossible for a Jew like me to fully grasp the nuances of."(p.332)

There are more. Also, there are more discussions in secondary sources than just that Jewish Journal article I cited above. There is no way that half a sentence out of 8 is disproportionate. I'd bet I could write an entire level 2 section on the relationship of his Jewishness to the coverage of the movie if I had a mind to do so, which I don't. I don't even understand your point here. Are you seriously claiming that saying he's Jewish based on his own statements that he's Jewish is original research? He says it over and over and over again.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Remember you are comparing a book to a small article. In the articles I have seen linked here (save for the Jewish Journal which is dedicated to Jewish subjects and is not about him per se) none spend more than 6.25% of their space dedicated to Jewishness (6.25% is 1/16th, the amount of Jewish related content in his personal life and early life sections of his Wikipedia article). His book is 522 pages long. Let's say half is the comparable personal life and early life. Half of 522 is 261. 6.25% of 261 is around 16. This means that a total of 16 pages in the book should be dedicated to him being Jewish if compared to this article. This is not possible. And you're even claiming that the current article is disproportionately less! I have not read the book but I've read the articles and seen the movie. The movie does not as I recall mention once that he is Jewish. If you can't appreciate the original research nature of "he himself Jewish" please ask yourself why this kind of verbiage if not found anywhere else on Wikipedia. Ask yourself why the bios of other Jews, Jews who were affected by their Jewish ethnicity like Belfort, are satisfied with stating that he was born Jewish without resorting to this silly self-labeling.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Jewish Journal article is specifically about how the movie didn't talk about how he's Jewish but that it should have done, so actually cuts against your position. This wikipedia article as it stands doesn't actually say that he was born Jewish. It says, in some weird circumlocution, that he was raised in a Jewish household. That certainly doesn't make him Jewish. Have you now given up on your claim that the claim that he considers himself Jewish? I'd just as soon say that he *is* Jewish. And your calculations are meaningless because they don't relate in any sensible way to Wikipedian editorial standards. And we're not talking about other articles, we're talking about this one. If you don't like the phraseology, why don't you propose a sentence? He is Jewish. He says he's Jewish. People write whole articles in reliable sources about the fact that he's Jewish. And yet you don't want this article to say he's Jewish. Why is that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll start from the end of your comment which had some personal insinuations. If I "don't want this article to say he's Jewish" it is as important to as it is important to you that the article say he is Jewish, for whatever reason. That being said, my edit did not remove the fact that he was "raised in a Jewish home." If you want to add that his parents were Jewish to be more specific you can do that. You can also add that he is Jewish for all I care. However I hope you are kidding when you claim that Wikipedia allows you dedicate as much space as you wish to the Jewish subject as long as it sourced irrespective of the space dedicated to other aspects of his biography in his Wikipedia article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously accusing me of making "personal insinuations" by saying "you don't want this article to say he's Jewish"? For God's sake. What do you suppose I am "insinuating"? I can't understand what you are arguing for or against here. You won't propose a sentence and you revert everyone who adds a sentence and you keep changing your reasons.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll spell it out for you to make it clear. I support the article stating one of (or perhaps 2) of the following:

• He is Jewish
• He has brought up Jewish
• He has Jewish parents

I oppose the article stating that:

• He considers himself Jewish
• Anything connected to him and Judaism the religion.

--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I prefer "He has brought up Jewish". Why don't we see if we can get consensus for that?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please present the sourcing that you feel would support the wording "He has brought up Jewish". Bus stop (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Brewcrewer suggested "He has brought up Jewish," so I assume he has the sourcing to support the sentence since otherwise why would he suggest it, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's just have "Judaism" in the infobox, too. Let's not kid ourselves here: the only reason there is any opposition is that some editors want to distance Judaism from the man. At the end of the day, he is Jewish, whether he practices or not.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

We seem to have reached a consensus to have it in the article but not the infobox. Maybe you could start a new section if you want to reopen the discussion for some reason?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Aus, Yes, cheers! Of course it is impossible to be true that the only reason why there is support is that some editors want to connect him to Judaism. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion. Per WP:BLP policy - specifically WP:BLPCAT - we cannot ascribe a religion to a living person unless said person has self-identified as a believer in said religion. As far as I'm aware, Belfort has not done so. Wikipedia BLP policy is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly so. He says over and over again that he's Jewish. He never mentions religion. Thus we say in the article that he's Jewish but we do not put in the infobox or anywhere else that his religion is Jewish, since there is no source for it. Why is this so very hard to understand? Also, Brewcrewer, it would be easier to discuss things with you if you'd write in actual English. What you say makes no sense whatsoever.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

What is all this 'raised Jewish' business? Is he adopted?

Strictly, the rule most branches of Judaism follow is that if your mother was Jewish, you are. You must specifically disclaim that, and adopt another faith for that to not be so ( such as Lew Lehrman). So, what was his birth mother?

Anyone can convert, of course, but that does not seem to apply here, as he has little interest in religion. If he is Jewish, it would be by default as above. 24.130.15.8 (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Now doing internet marketing

He has now joined the internet marketing community, selling a variety of products at different price points, including informational products such as DVD sets, for ~$2000. Cross-promoting with Frank Kern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.32.20 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

the sinking of the yacht nadine

I want to apologise in advance as I never made any comments/changes to entries on wiki, so please forgive me if I break any rules/etiquette. I believe the sinking of Nadine happened in June 1996 (probably the night between 22-23) and not in June 1997 as in the entry. This is because: 1. URL: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/1996/giugno/24/naufraghi_dello_yacht_miliardario_salvati_co_0_96062412095.shtml takes you to an article published it seems on 24/06/1996 in Corriere della Sera, an Italian national newspaper. The date is at the bottom left-hand corner. The article is in Italian, but I am sure google translate should help. 2. There is another article (published on the same day, 24/06/1996) in the online archive of La Repubblica, another Italian national newspaper. I cannot get the URL (the one I get is probably just a search result), but if you enter "A PICCO LO YACHT DA 20 MILIARDI" in google, you would get the link as the first result. Once again the article is in Italian and the date of 24/06/1996 is at the bottom, left-hand corner. 3. In the entry, reference #25 (Wooton, Kenny (May 1997). "The Longest Night". Yachting 181 (5): 54. ISSN 0043-9940) refers to an article by Kenny Wooton published on Yachting in May 1997, i.e. seemingly one month before the sinking happened. I could not read the actual article, but if you enter title of the article and author in google (The Longest Night Kenny Wooton) you get a result whose URL is http://www.readabstracts.com/Sports-and-fitness/The-longest-night-the-harrowing-final-hours-of-the-M-Y-Nadine.html The article abstract seems to talk about the sinking of the Nadine on 22/06/1996, tying it neatly with the two articles seemingly published on 24/06/1996 in the two Italian newspapers. M---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.191.66.227 (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. I put your first source in there as a reference, because it's the only one that directly reports on the date of the sinking, I think. Anyway, thanks for the source and the edit!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

$24,000 ?!?

<quote> and, between 2007 and October 2013, he earned US$24,000.[24] </quote>

I looked the source up because the amount (which appears twice in the article) makes no sense at all given that the article also points out a $30,000 per engagement speaking fee. I can find no reference to $24,000 in the cited article. That fact needs a viable source, or perhaps a more credible (and properly sourced) amount is available. LUxlii (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to De-PR

As others have commented, this reads like a PR piece.

I do know enough about him to fix it. I am doing so.

If its pr-ified again I'm going to revert it to de-pr'd and ask for the page to be locked.

Djcheburashka (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Getting rid of the PR

I attempted to edit this article today to (a) remove grandiose claims sourced only to Belfort's memoir; (b) remove obvious PR-promotional stuff; (c) remove future tense claims for things that have not come to pass (e.g., "In 2014 Belfort will...); and (d) add events, with citations to news articles, that occurred after the page was last significantly revised.

The edits were reverted in their entirety as containing original research.

Then, when I pointed out that they did not contain original research, but actually added citations to neutral sources and removed material that lacked acceptable sourcing, the edits were again reverted in their entirety, this time based on the claim that they weren't viewpoint-neutral.

So I'm putting this to the Talk page. My edits are available by looking at the revision history.

Let's discuss.

Unless there's a consensus against the changes, in a few days I'll restore the edits and if reverted again ask for the page to be locked.

Djcheburashka (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)djcheburashka

I don't have time to address the problems with your edits right now. I would just point out that my revert edit summaries were essentially the same both times. The first was "the edits by the previous editor were non-neutral and WP:OR" and the second was "Still non-neutral and partly unsourced".--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Belfort's cultural background

The question of whether to include within the article information about Belfort's cultural background was settled in the affirmative in late January of this year with alf laylah wa laylah writing: "We seem to have reached a consensus to have it in the article but not the infobox" on 26 January 2014. Indeed, at 19:28 on 25 January 2014, alf laylah wa laylah reverted the article to the last revision by Bbb23. The article, as it read then, included the seemingly innocuous, sourced statement: "Belfort is Jewish" and included the article in the category of "American Jews".

So, my question is why is this information now so problemmatic that Bbb23 has twice and without explanation reverted my edits restoring that information to the article? And why has Dougweller quite falsely characterized my efforts in this regard as "obvious pov editing and clear violation of WP:BLPCAT"? --67.40.215.84 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I do not have a static IP address but I am not a sock puppet and have never edited "Jordan Belfort" until yesterday. --67.40.215.84 (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened seven months ago, the version you link to then and the version you wanted now does not support that Belfort is Jewish. At most, it shows what it was like when he was growing up in a Jewish household and was discriminated against because of that. And BLPCAT is similar to putting Jewish in the infobox. You have to have a source in which Belfort identifies as an adult (not reminiscing about his childhood) as Jewish. If you can find that kind of source, that would help, although I still find the reference jarring.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The article version I referred to from seven months ago was an edit you made, Bbb23. You have also misread the source, i.e. Belfort's 2007 autobiography. It indicates that during his Oakmont Stratton days Belfort thought of himself as a Jew ("my lowly status as a Jew"). Also, during the Steve Madden IPO he refers to himself as a Jew ("I was sick and tired of Jews, despite being one.") There are several other passages where he indicates that he is a Jew and nothing in the book indicates that he sees himself as anything other than a Jew. So, in short, Belfort's autobiography is, in fact, "a source in which Belfort identifies as an adult (not reminiscing about his childhood) as Jewish".

Further, referring to the film adaptation of The Wolf of Wall Street, J. J. Goldberg, writing in the Jewish Daily Forward says:

Hollywood makes movies about all sorts of things, including Jewish gangsters and fools. But it hasn’t made movies about crooked Jewish financiers. ... Well, no longer. Now, suddenly, two of the year's most celebrated movies are about Jewish swindlers. ... What's more uncomfortable, they’re both about real people. "The Wolf of Wall Street" is based on a memoir by the very real Jordan Belfort, who recruited a small army, he wrote, of "the most savage young Jews anywhere on Long Island" to man his crooked brokerage.

Belfort's Jewishness is also the main subject of articles in the Jewish Journal and Ha'aretz. --JB18Aug2014 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, maybe I said obvious violation of WP:BLPCAT because it was? And why should his religion be in the article? We don't normally add religion to biographies. Only when it is somehow significant. And it isn't significant here. Dougweller (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I challenge you to support your assertion that there is any violation of WP:BLPCAT in my edit. BLPCAT says: "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." I cited Belfort's autobiography and he is a reliable source on the question of his own identity. You ask: "And why should his religion be in the article?" No one but you said anything about any religion. Ethnic/cultural background is routinely included in BLPs. For instance, there are 3,657 entries in "American Jews", the category I used (see e.g. Larry Baer). --JB18Aug2014 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I just noticed that last January you stated:

1. "My interpretation is it's well-sourced that Belfort has identified as a Jew ..."
2. "I wanted to get across that he [Belfort] was raised in a Jewish household and, as an adult, still considers himself Jewish."
3. "We know only that he identifies as Jewish."
4. "Based on the comments above, I would propose that we leave Jewish out of the infobox altogether (the status quo) and add the material and source back to the body that says he still considers himself Jewish ... The article already has one Jewish cat, so that part is fine."

So, why did you revert my edit on 18 August 2014, which is entirely consistent with the position you staked out last January? --JB18Aug2014 (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I already addressed this above before you created this account.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal life - marriages, children, etc

In the movie The Wolf of Wall Street, it shows him as being married with a kid (and cheating on his wife). In this bio, in the Personal section, it simply notes that he is currently engaged. Can somebody who knows please give the rundown on any previous marriages and why they broke up? And who filed for divorce from who. I think this is relevant if the whole mess broke up his marriage. His right-hand man's ex-wife has gone public and said that her husband's conduct changed because of Stratton Oakmont and that is what broke up her marriage. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows and can put that in the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree this should be done. According to this his second wife divorced him because he kicked her down a flight of stairs: http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/jordan-belfort-meet-real-wolf-3011694

Not including that, while referring to his engagement, reeks of someone trying to use the page for manipulation.

If no-one comments or objects, a week from now I'll go through and try to edit that section with whatever I can find from neutral sources.

Djcheburashka (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

False Claims Inserted to Promote Alabama Politician

At some point, someone added a paragraph asserting that an Alabama politician was responsible for catching Belfort:

"Alabama Securities Commissioner Joseph Borg formed a multi-state task force that led to the prosecution of Stratton Oakmont, after his office was inundated with complaints regarding the brokerage"

This is sourced to this article -- http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2010/03/joe_borg_alabama_securities_co.html -- a "puff-piece" about the politician, which appears to be relying only on the politician's own vague description of his role in the matter.

The same claim -- verbatim -- has been pasted into other pages about Stratton Oakmont.

It's absolute nonsense. The NASD had been pursuing Stratton Oakmont for nearly a decade before the Alabama politician even took office. See http://www.finra.org/Newsroom/NewsReleases/1996/p010592

The firm was shut down by the NASD in 1995, the year the politician took office, and the shutdown became permanent a year later.

Belfort was then prosecuted by United States Attorneys in New York. See http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/the-real-belfort-story-missing-from-wolf-movie/

I'm taking this out. If I see it inserted here again, I'll give the journalists who cover him a nice complete dossier on the Alabama politician's apparently 5-year-long history of making false claims about the case.

Try me.

Djcheburashka (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're way too aggressive in your edits and your comments. I've reverted your changes at Joseph Borg (regulator). For the moment, I'm leaving the changes you made to the Belfort article intact, although I don't think you've done a good justifying the removal. Much of it is WP:SYNTHESIS, as well as your own interpretation of events. The article that supported the removed material was not written by Borg but by someone else, and there's no reason to believe that it's unreliable. I wouldn't object to rewording the material so it doesn't appear that Borg was the only moving force behind the indictment, but the wholesale removal is not warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is all very clear. The NASD, according to the citation I provided, brought 12 actions against Stratton Oakmont and its principals, including Mr. Belfort, beginning no later than 1989 (the first seems to have been 1987). The SEC commenced actions against Belfort in 1992. See http://www.biography.com/people/jordan-belfort-21329985#the-wolf-of-wall-street as well as the other citations I offered, all of which are to neutral and generally contemporaneous sources. Mr. Borg did not even take office until 1995, well after the federal government proceedings had commenced, and indeed very shortly before they concluded. (It appears from the NASD releases, that when Mr. Borg took office Stratton Oakmont had already been shut-down pending resolution of the disciplinary action.) The claim that a multitude of complaints in 1995 and 1996 led him to form a multi-state task force that led to Belfort's prosecution, cannot be true, since it had already commenced before he took office.

Indeed, the federal prosecutors who were responsible for investigating and prosecuting Belfort have discussed the case extensively. See http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/the-real-belfort-story-missing-from-wolf-movie/ None of them mention Mr. Borg. If you do a search for public materials about the case, you'll discover that the only references to Mr. Borg having a role in the Stratton Oakmont matter are in profile pieces about Mr. Borg.

If you look at the other items in Mr. Borg's page (before my edits, which you have now reverted) you'll see a pattern emerge. In each case, Mr. Borg purports to have "led a task force" or "formed a multi-state group." All of the citations in wikipedia for that are to the single article in the Alabama business journal, which contains no factual description of any of Mr. Borg's supposed activities, and no references to any sources at all. If you google those cases and then google for Mr. Borg's and Alabama's involvement, you'll see that in *every* case there's no record of involvement by Mr. Borg or Alabama authorities until *after* federal prosecutors had already acted.

In one case, Mr. Borg claims to have acted after the SEC "declined to act", to have led an investigation, and to have shutdown the fraudsters -- without mentioning that the people involved had already indicted in federal criminal proceedings. Mr. Borg's sole role in that matters appears to have been that after the federal action began, federal prosecutors and representatives of several states including a different attorney for Alabama asked a federal judge to place the company in receivership; after the judge issued the order and appointed a receiver (who was not Mr. Borg), federal marshals traveled to the company headquarters and Mr. Borg borrowed an armored personnel carrier to drive alongside them. Again, if you google around for description of that fraud case, you'll see lots and lots of material -- but the only references to Mr. Borg or Alabama, are in profile pieces of Mr. Borg, or mention Mr. Borg's appearance with the APC as a theatrical aside to coverage of the receivership.

——————

I'm becoming concerned about your approach to these issues. In each case, someone (not me) edited the page to add material that was promotional for an individual (sometimes Mr. Belfort, now Mr. Borg). Those edits were made with no citations or with no neutral citations (i.e., one sourced only to Mr. Belfort's self-published memoir). The edits were made without discussion on the talk page, and without you or anyone else paying any attention.

In each case, when I found the edits, (a) I commenced talk discussions, and (b) offered correcting citations. In each case, I deleted non-neutral materials, sometimes offering very simple and flat corrections, and included neutral citations. And in most cases, you asserted that my correction was unfounded, and generally reverted to non-neutral material --- but you have never, not once, provided any citation disputing my corrections, nor any explanation of why you found the citations I provided inadequate, or why you believed the prior edits were correct or mine incorrect. You take the time to write your conclusions on the talk page, but never provide any explanation of them.

Indeed, in once case, you deleted corrections that were sourced to independent journalists -- and reverted to material sourced only to Mr. Belfort's self-published memoir or to articles describing claims in Mr. Belfort's promotional materials, which violated the prior consensus on this page and which never should have been there in the first place.

Something's not right here.

There is a rather fundamental issue going on with the Belfort and Stratton Oakmont pages, which is that they've been scourged in very PR way. For example, the page says Mr. Belfort claims to have been sober since the late 1990s. Google a bit, and you'll see that before he claimed to have been sober since the late 1990s Mr. Belfort claimed to have been sober since the mid-2000s. The page also repeats (although it doesn't endorse) Mr. Belfort's claim that 95% of Stratton Oakmont's operations were legal. But, SO's criminal activities are extensively documented in cases involving the people Mr. Belfort testified against, and as discussed by federal prosecutors in the link I provided above the firm had no legitimate operations at all. Similarly, the page has extensive discussion of Mr. Belfort's supposed "promotional speaker" activities, but no description of how his fraud operated, which again is a matter of public record.

I don't have the time to engage in what would undoubtedly be a weeks-long edit war to fix the article. Mr. Belfort is, after all, a convicted fraudster with an established record of using bogus libel claims to silence critics and cover-up fraud, who according to federal prosecutors and neutral journalists continues to deny the scope of (previously confessed) crimes to launch a "promotional speaker" career and may be hiding assets and perpetrating a new fraud on his former victims. But I can at least try to stop the article from getting worse, and try to fix things at the margins.

Djcheburashka (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears someone else took out the Joe Borg nonsense.

Djcheburashka (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Rothschild -- cannot be true

While editing the Stratton Oakmont page for some sources I found earlier, I realized something:

Belfort claims to have been (depending on the source) laid off or fired or whatever by LF Rothschild after Black Monday. Sometimes he says that Black Monday was actually his first day as a stockbroker following the Rothschild training program. Black Monday was October, 1987. Stratton Oakmont was already running under that name by April, 1987, according to the NASD -- which means Belfort already controlled it and had been operating it for some time. The NASD was already seeking to shut it down by 1989.

Is there any independent source for the LF Rothschild thing at all?

It looks like its turning out to just be a lie.

Unless someone offers a source or argument to the contrary, in a few days I will replace that section with something like this:

Belfort claims in his memoirs and to journalists that a family friend helped him find a job as a trainee stockbroker at the LF Rothstchild firm, from which he was laid-off after that firm experienced financial difficulties related to Black Monday. [source - slate, various news magazines; also http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/movies/martin-scorseses-approach-in-the-wolf-of-wall-street.html] This is depicted in the film. [source to Daily Beast summary of the scene, NY Times article] Belfort then worked briefly for various penny-stock brokers before founding or taking-over (sources vary) Stratton Oakmont. [sources] This story cannot be true, however, since Stratton Oakmont joined the NASD in April, 1987 [source to NASD website], some six months before the October, 1987, Black Monday market crash. Whether Jordan Belfort actually had any connection to LF Rothschild, or what that connection actually was, is not known at this time. The pervasiveness of the story of Belfort and Rothschild serves as an object lesson regarding the unique fact-checking and verification challenges that surround fraudsters.

Djcheburashka (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Classic WP:SYNTH. Find a WP:RS that supports both the facts and the conclusions from those facts. Ravensfire (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ravensfire Please see [[4]]. Note this sentence mid-way down the page: "Stratton Oakmont joined the NASD in April 1987..." Clearly the NASD release is WP:RS as to when SO joined the NASD. If SO joined the NASD in April, 1987, however, then it cannot have been formed at some point after the October, 1987 Black Monday market crash, which is the story told in Belfort's memoir, the movie, etc. What else is required?

This is actually not unimportant. The sequence in Belfort's memoir (and the movie) is crucial to the presentation of Belfort's story as a fall-from-grace followed by redemption: Belfort sets-up that he aimed to be a legitimate stock broker before having a rude awakening at Rothschild and then being forced into penny stocks after the market crashed, and he really was not different from the brokers at bona fide firms like Rothschild. If the Rothschild story is false, however, then there's no WP:RS that Belfort was ever legitimately employed as a stock broker or in any other role in connection with finance. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming to this strictly as a reader, having recently watched the film and thus become curious about the story behind it. As written now, we call this an "L.F. Rothschild controversy" but the following paragraph doesn't ever quite get around to telling us why. I agree with Ravensfire that the argument that he could not possibly have worked for Rothschild is WP:SYNTH unless we find a good source for it. Equally likely, given the rather mysterious history of Stratton Oakmont is that someone else founded it, perhaps as no more than a shelf filing or shell corporation, and then Belfort and partners bought it. My point is that it is not impossible for the company to have existed in a corporate filing long before Belfort had anything to do with it. (And equally likely that Belfort lied about coming up with the name or whatever.) At this point, unless there are good sources, I think we just don't know.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Update: Ok, after just a few minutes of googling I have confirmation that satisfies me personally that he did, in fact, work for L. F. Rothschild. First, this Slate article says "The L.F. Rothschild trader who takes Jordan to lunch and tells him that cocaine and masturbation are the keys to success as a stockbroker is based on a real person whose name is not changed in the movie or the book. Mark Hanna has told his own version of the story on YouTube, and he does not seem to dispute the substance of Belfort’s account." There is a link to the YouTube piece and Hanna says quite clearly that Belfort was hired by L. F. Rothschild. Djcheburashka, I think you are in error here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now, the section is titled L.F. Rothschild Controversy, but there's no controversy in the current text. Could somebody either replace the description of the controversy or else rename the section? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)