Talk:Bernie Madoff/Archive 3

Criminal
A quick explanation of why, despite the obvious, it's not okay to call him a "criminal" in the introductory sentence. Has he admitted to a crime? Yes. Is he a criminal? Yes, if he is telling the truth. Does this mean it's acceptable to introduce him as "a criminal"? Absolutely not. There are a lot of labels that may be applied accurately to a person: criminal, suspected criminal, Aqua fan, cross-dresser, couch potato, cabbage eater. For encyclopedic purposes, however, the question is not so much as to whether something is true as it is as to whether it is verifiable. Perhaps we can verify that Madoff has committed a crime, which would indeed make him a "criminal" by definition; but as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we need to be aiming for something more than definition. Do a considerable amount of reliable sources introduce Madoff as "a criminal"? Even hypothetically speaking, would a biographer be introducing you to "a criminal"? Maybe if he were writing about Jesse James, Bugs Moran, Osama bin Laden, or--if it's fraud he's interested in--Frank Abagnale. But in Madoff's case, he would probably be talking about a businessman and NASDAQ chairman who admitted to a crime. The difference may be subtle, but it is the difference between defining him and discussing him. Leave it to the dictionaries to define. The encyclopedic voice is considerably more nuanced. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, understand your logic, and agree with your edits (after previously insisting he be referred to as a "criminal") Newguy34 (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the infobox states: 'not yet sentenced', which implies that he WILL be found guilty. Maybe I haven't read the article well enough, but has he been convicted? Should the statement be swapped for 'if sentenced', or 'if found guilty'?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After a conviction for a criminal offense, "criminal" is appropriate. That happened today when Madoff pled guilty. He's now a prisoner at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. The press agrees.  Reuters called him a "criminal financier" .  Madoff himself said "As I engaged in my fraud, I knew what I was doing was wrong, indeed criminal." So we have solid sources for "criminal". The article should be adjusted accordingly. --John Nagle (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In both cases that you cite, "criminal" is being used as an adjective, not as the unqualified noun that had been in the introduction. Perhaps "convicted felon" would be more informative, but still less so than the rest of the paragraph, which seems to do a good enough job of showing the reader what he did (i.e., a crime) who he is without having had to tell the reader who he is (i.e., a criminal) this . Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I presume that I am not alone among us in despising white-collar crime, and I would be eager to insert all manner of epithets that would make "criminal" look like a compliment...if this were not an encyclopedia. I just think that the encyclopedic voice would strive to discuss sensational events--and especially, per WP:BLP, sensational individuals--in the least sensational way it could. While it may be true to call him a criminal or even a convicted felon, it just seems more tasteful to call him a businessman and NASDAQ chairman who was convicted of a felony--which is, conveniently enough, what the introductory paragraph already does. Also, for future reference, there was another, smaller problem with the way the word "criminal" was used before. The problem lay in the fact that it looked like this: criminal. Run your mouse over that and see where it leads. Now suppose that you didn't have a mouse, which would be the case if, say, you were reading the article on paper. You would lose more than a cross-reference to fraud; you would lose considerable meaning from this article, because only in the context of fraud would "criminal" make sense. This sort of surprise, or "Easter-egged," meaning is discouraged by the "intuitiveness" section of WP:EGG. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

In popular culture
In accordance with the Wikipedia rules regarding dispute resolution, I am writing here. I would like to start a section on Mr. Madoff's role in popular culture, for example in a Saturday Night Live skit, found here, but Newguy34 is preventing me from doing so. I think such a section would add important content to this article. Thank you for your attention. John Norrison (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it was, one of our automated bots that prevent inappropriate external links from being inserted that did most of the reverting of your edits. Remember to assume good faith. It appears Newguy was trying to be constructive.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, IPC sections aren't considered by many editors to be all that valuable to articles (in an encyclopedic way). More significantly, you shouldn't link to sites with copyright violations either. Now if you find a reliable source that you want to add as a footnote, we could have a discussion about that. Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I thought he linked to Hulu which is a partner with NBC and various other networks, not a copyvio. But I agree is is trivial especially without a secondary source. -- Kendrick7talk 21:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Popular culture" and "trivia" sections are somewhat frowned upon under current policy. We probably don't need one here. --John Nagle (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Markopolous
Why has Mr. Markopolous not been mentioned in this article? Was it not he who finally brought Bernie to justice? I think it is very fitting to mention how Madoff was eventually busted. 98.201.123.22 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He's widely discussed in the article on the investment scandal.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal that he is located at the Metropolitan Correctional Center
According to the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Search Database (See here), Bernard Madoff is not currently an inmate at any U.S. Bureau of Prisons facilities, therefore I'm removing the statement that he is at the MCC until his exact location of his incarceration can be determined. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have struck out my last comments and undoing my edit in the article because Madoff is now listed in the U.S. Bureau of Prisons Database as being incarcerated at the Metropolitan Correctional Center. Rosie, Queen of Corona (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

suggestion > more appropriate word
I suggest changing 'perpetuating' to 'perpetrating' in lead-paragraph, which I believe is a more accurate characterization/definition. Verb -to perpetrate (transitive) To be guilty of, or responsible for a crime etc; to commit. [added to suggestion] after reviewing the Wiktionary definitions for both words, perhaps 'perpetrating and perpetuating [...the largest investor fraud]' would be both accurate and all-encompassing!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexShalom (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC) AlexShalom (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Alexshalom —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexShalom (talk • contribs) 10:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC) --AlexShalom (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

BernieLMadoff.com
I came across this site today, it looks quite relevant. It might be a good addition to this entry.

http://www.bernielmadoff.com

Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonvbrad (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like a blog - it may be a high quality blog - but we can't use any info from there.
 * Comments on some of the material above. On this page we've been through the questions of how often to include material on his religion.  If you are looking for a fight, please at least look over the talk page archives first.  The gist:  his religion is relevant to parts of the scam, but there is no need to include it on every other line. 5-6 mentions in the article should be plenty.


 * There haven't been many comments yet on whether we can call him a criminal, convicted felon, etc. Of course we can mention this, but there is no need to overdo it.  What we have here gets the point across, it's pretty much the same as mentioning his religion - relevant facts should be included where needed, but if you get carried away, it just looks like you are name calling.  Smallbones (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the use of the term Businessman is misleading. The official (court) documents do not refer to him as a businessman anymore. I propose the use of a term more closely associated with the criminality of his actions.


 * I think that there are too many links already, and that pretty much all you need is in the very first link that I added from the Department of Justice. The press coverage has been so speculative and dreadful that we do Wiki users no service by adding still more rehash. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

$65 billion
It's not quite precise to say that Madoff pleaded guilty to a $65 billion fraud. He pleaded guilty to all charges and $65 billion is mentioned in the charging document as the amount customers were told was in their accounts, which is different from what they put in to those accounts. Maybe that makes it a $65 billion fraud, but I think that the charges need to say so explicitly. Rather than go beyond what is in the criminal charges, why don't we stick to what it says there? The charges are available online from a public website, along with the transcript of his plea session. Let's be precise.

I just parachuted back to this article after being away for a while. I'll go through and see if the link is there. If not I'll put it in. It is a website operated by the court. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

On the same subject, do we need to repeat the speculation of Harvey Pitt and others quoted in the link here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069457.html that the fraud was really below $50 billion? The feds have actually ratcheted up their estimate, and what we have from them is pure guesswork. It just doesn't seem right to give such prominent play to uninformed speculation in the media. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The language there seems to be designed to minimize the size of the scam. Normally, one calculates investment losses based on the purported current value of the investment, not the original amount invested.  Madoff's investors have been paying taxes on those fictitious gains, and can now apply for refunds from the IRS for those taxes.  --John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the expression "simply pleaded guilty," as that is editorializing. No newspaper article on this used the word "simply." Unless someone can justify that I think it needs to say something to the effect that "he pleaded guilty, and there was no plea deal." Comments? Thoughts?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Democratic donor
I've removed the following twice from the lede:
 * Madoff was a (prominent) "donor to the Democratic Party"

The first time it had "prominent" in it which was a complete mischaracterization of the source, a TIME magazine which had precisely 1 sentence on the topic "Madoff was a donor to the Democratic Party." It doesn't belong in the lede because BM is not known for his participation in the Democratic Party, nor is there any mention of it anywhere else in the article. BM is known for something other than his politics, please let's not make politics out of this.

I'll suggest that, rather than just reverting this, that we let other editors weigh in. Smallbones (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Is the claim that it is undue weight? 2. Is the issue that the statement is unsourced in RS? I would suggest that s single mention in the entire article even approaches WP:UNDUE thouggh I would gladly listen to why it is. As for WP:V the two references are sufficiently clear that arguing it is not sourced fails.  If, on the other hand, you would like LOTS of references to his donations, I think you might rethink that wish .  Collect (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear above. There are 2 major issues. 1) it doesn't belong in the lede, because it is not referred to elsewhere in the article. The lede is supposed to summarize the article. 2)his party affiliation is not relevant to his notability.  There is no suggestion in any reliable sources that I know of that his politics had anything to do with the investment scam.  He was not a major or prominent donor ($32,500 in 2008 according to your reference, which is small beer for many businessmen).  There's just no reason to make anything political about this.  As an analogy, it wouldn't be proper to mention in the Ted Bundy article that he was a Republican since he is known for other things.  Reliable sources is NOT a problem, relevance is.  I'll move the sentence to the personal life section, which should take care of issue 1), but really do think that making politics out of this situation is improper and the sentence should be removed entirely.  Smallbones (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually a lot of GOP donors with BLPs do have it mentioned in their articles. Madoff gave legal maximum contributions each year, which is not trivial. Madoff make a big deal out of his Washington influence, hence the matter is relevant.  etc. are RS on that matter. Collect (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated photo
Used the official U.S. Department of Justice mug shot, instead of the previous blurred photo from Flickr. --John Nagle (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done John!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect name in your article
editsemiprotected you have an incorrect name in your article, you state Shana Madoff married "Eric Campbell" but your footnote to an ABC news item shows the man's name is Eric Swanson. Seems like someone made an editing error entering your original article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.150.28 (talk • contribs)
 * Anon is correct. Checked NYT article, fixed name, and added cite to NYT. --John Nagle (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Relatives
Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Especially when it comes to living people and their relatives, we need to be very careful. If this was the WikiEnquirer, that would be one thing, but unless strong evidence comes out that said relatives or friends were key to the operation of the Ponzi scheme, incidental issues should be minimized or removed. -- Avi (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:BLP applies.  It's quite likely that others will be punished for the Madoff scandal; a press release from the U.S. Attorney's office says they expect more indictments, and Madoff's accountant has already been arrested.  But until we have more solid evidence, Wikipedia shouldn't drag them in. Incidentally, the all-uppercase rant placed on my talk page isn't helping. --John Nagle (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernie learned how to live from his parents. He saw them suffer and decided that would not happen to him. His parents were his mentors and his inspiration. They shaped his psyche. you are wrong and his parents should be give a great deal of "credit" for his "achievements". Why have the personal life and background section if you do not trace his family history? you opened the door by including the section. just delete the entire section if you do not want to explain how he came to be who he is today. any shrink would tell you that!! Furtive admirer (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

this was deleted. Furtive admirer (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course. It is your opinion of what a shrink would say. Even if true, it does not belong in this article for reasons including WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE. Please refrain from using wikipedia to publish original analysis of the Madoff family psyche. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage of notable aspects of Madoff's family life are entirely suitable for inclusion. If there are specific problems in the text then address them But wholesale removal of this bakground information is inappropriate and pulling out all these policies and saying they all apply is silliness. How is his Dad's being a plumber a BLP violation?  Puh-leeze. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the plumbing and thenickname without reference to the failed stock issues. CoM, either you do not read the ENTIRE text you restore or you are possibly accidentally misrepresenting your edits. Either way, it s not good wikipedia editing practice. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I think we're making real progress. I made some follow-up tweaks. If his father's business history is notable and has been covered extensively in reliable sources, I wonder where and how it should be included in Wikipedia? It doesn't seem right to just delete it all together. Sometimes sorting out wholesale changes is challenging. If you ever have questions on why I've reverted something and want clarification just let me know. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I rolled the article back to "21:27, 23 March 2009 Avraham". There seems to have been some edit warring, and the article went downhill over the last few hours.  Incidentally, when adding references, please use full "cite news" templates, don't link to Google Hosted News (those links are good for about a week) and check to see if the same source has already been cited.  We're accumulating too many junk footnotes, and the page looks awful.  I just did some cleanup over at Madoff investment scandal, and it took an hour just to clean up the first 63 of 200 footnotes. Thanks.  --John Nagle (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support Nagle's rollback - which has been rerolled backed (let's not get into an edit war here please). The lede is now way too long.  And people are getting very possesive of all the material they've inserted.  I think it's hard to get a BLP violation in an article about a convicted felon, but some folks might be headed in that direction.  There's no need to demonize Madoff, just reporting what he has done makes him look plenty bad.  But reporting on other people and demonizing them by association would be a BLP violation. I'll risk some personal criticism here, but please don't take this as a personal attack.  Furtive Admirerer is extremely enthusiastic about this article and has brought up a lot of interesting stuff, but the question is about its relevance and where the material fits in to the article, e.g. the quote about Dante in the Madoff investment scandal article.  I think we need some collective judgment on this, and will ask FA to try to work with others regarding relevance, placement, and BLP issues.  Sorry that I don't have more time to spend on this.  Smallbones (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is long past the time when Nagle and Smallbones contribute research rather than delete others' added facts. If you fellows don't like the grammar and syntax, then abridge and synthesize it. You are removing essential information which paints a picture of self-absorption, narcissism, and greed, not to mention addiction to material acquisitions, all of which is leading to the tragic demise and extinction of an extended family. It is very time consuming to research and verify facts, as you know, or you would be doing it also. I try to correct grammar and syntax as well as, redundancies, but I NEVER DELETE OTHERS' ESSENTIAL GOOD FAITH RESEARCH. I relocate it and find a better place for it. It is also best to keep this page exclusively about personal bio information including the family tree extensions. The linked scandal page is best to disclose evidence details which led to the crime and the results and consequences thereof.

A new page for Ralph Madoff was created to divert your complaining. There is really not enough available info, and it reads like an obituary. His parents' inspiration is essential for Bernie's upbringing and background and should be moved here, and if you think there is too much detail, then retain the facts and shorten the sentences. (MY SPECIALTY!)

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors are invited to edit as they see fit, provided they can work with others per the relevant policies and guidelines. See WP:BATTLE --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding the Ralph stock issues to the Bernie article. It is WP:UNDUE and a WP:SYNTH violation trying to imply that the current psyche of Madoff is related in some freudian fashion to his parents. That is a violation, regardless of how well sourced it is. There are plenty of free webhosts out there to post any psychological theories; Wikipedia, however, is NOT the appropriate place. -- Avi (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Parents
I created an article on Ralph Madoff. There seems to be enough news media coverage in reliable sources to make him notable. I don't know if it should maybe be about both parents or what, but feel free to edit it and improve it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What reason is there to discuss Ralph Madoff's finances in the Bernie Madoff article, if not to create some type of synthetic implication between the two. Put it in the above Ralph article, where it belongs. -- Avi (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I just sent the Ralph Madoff article to AfD. Ralph Madoff really doesn't make the cut on notability; all the news references are within Bernie Madoff articles. --John Nagle (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "synthetic implication"?? facts are facts.  Children learn as they live.  Bernie's first business exposure was his parents' successes and failures.  A person becomes who they are from nature  AND nurture!!  i am certain your inspiration is derived from your parents also.  leave it your way for now and as time goes on we'll see if it is appropriate to reinsert.  i think so. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * When there is substantial coverage of subject matter in reliable sources it belongs in the encyclopedia. Whether it should be merged here, or covered more fully in its own article is another issue. Clearly some of the background should be included here, and the wholesale deletions going on are improper. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This quote of Furtive's exactly represents what is forbidden:

That is classic WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH and cannot be allowed in the article under wikipedia policy and guideline. This is not even a WP:BLP issue. Furtive, I understand your perspective, but you must understand that your additions are expressly forbidden under wikipedia policy. Please review them carefully. I am certain you have much to add, but it must be within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. There are other websites that will be more than happy to publish original thought and hypotheses. Wikipedia is not that place. -- Avi (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Extent of scam
Now that Bernie has pleaded guilty and new facts are coming out every day about his operation in London and so forth, do we really need the passage quoting mainly from Harvey Pitt on how it may be less than estimated? It's pure speculation, and it's dated. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it is quite interesting to know how much Madoff took from investors. If you read this article and think the answer is $65 billion, you are wrong.  $65 billion is the number used by the prosecution which includes fabricated gains.  Since nobody in the government wishes to tell us how much he actually took, we might as well cite Harvey Pitt, former Chairman of the SEC and well-known NY securities lawyer.  Smallbones (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've shortened and moved, but feel free to revert (I don't feel that strongly about it). You're right that it's useful to know what the extent of investor losses are, but Pitt seems to just be guessing. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

And then there was a click
Nancy Franklin of The New Yorker, in inimitable New Yorker style, has the last word on the Madoff trial: ''As soon as Sorkin finished asking that Madoff’s bail be continued, Chin said curtly, “I don’t need to hear from the government. It is my intention to remand Mr. Madoff.” Immediate applause, quickly tamped down by the Judge. Moments later, two court officers approached Madoff, who stood silently and still, and then he moved his arms a little so that his hands were behind his back. And then there was a click.''. --John Nagle (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

philantropist != political donor
Why is this in the head section? 74.85.42.110 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone hates him, but
There is no such thing as a "former non-executive" of anything. Get it right folks. Scarmudgeon (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, from NPR "Madoff also served as the non-executive chairman of the Nasdaq stock market in 1990, 1991 and 1993. At that time, the Nasdaq board was an independent committee under the supervision of the National Association of Securities Dealers." I'll revert and cite. Actually there is some confusion about this: the SEC lists him as former Vice-Chairman of the NASD (which may also be true). The non-profit NASD merged and became Finra, NASDAQ was spun off by the NASD and became for-profit.  There are many non-executive chairman of companies and organizations - the "non-executive" indicating that the president or other officer actually runs the organization - after the non-executive chairman leaves the post he becomes former non-executive chairman.  Perhaps it's a clumsy phrase, but perfectly good English.


 * Also "pleaded" should not be substituted for "pled." Pleaded is a Britishism and sounds just terrible in an article about an American. I first put in the sentences about his pleadings.  The rules on Wikipedia about American vs. British English are approximately  1) use American English on American articles, British on British articles 2) stick with one form or the other, and 3) when in doubt, the form 1st used should stay.


 * Smallbones (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the identical obfuscations Madoff was so adept with using to perpetrate his fraud. I find the citations obscure and unreliable but I won't contest.

There is no such word as "pled", at best it's an Americanism rather than "pleaded" being a Britishism. Trivial, so I won't bother with it anymore. --Scarmudgeon (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Size of fraud
There's a story in the New York Times today about the trustee Irving Picard. The article gives the first concrete number of the size of the fraud when fictitious gains are erased: $10.1 billion. The article now has speculation about the size of the fraud minus gains, but we can now replace that with definitive numbers from Picard. Turns out to be at the low end of the estimates we now have. No need to include speculation if we have a hard number (amount put into the fraud minus withdrawals). --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this type of number, rather than the $65 billion inflated number is what needs to be looked at. I didn't read the NYTimes article to have this exact meaning however (I wasn't exactly sure of what it did mean), and will try to check other sources.  Just to explain to others what the fuss is about, I'll just quote the NYTimes article.  Smallbones (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "And many victims, like Ms. Chaitman, are fiercely disputing the formula Mr. Picard is using to measure claims. They say that losses should be based on the last account statement received by victims before the fraud collapsed, which totaled almost $65 billion.


 * But those final balances are the result of nonexistent investments and fictional profits. Mr. Picard and SIPC say they must therefore limit claims to the difference between the cash paid in and taken out of an account."


 * The $10.1 billion number in the NYT article has nothing to do with losses. It's about clawing back gains. "Seeking to recover more than $10.1 billion, Mr. Picard has sued several prominent Madoff victims, accusing them of being willing beneficiaries of the fraud." The Madoff trustee is going after people who made withdrawals of gains from the Madoff fund to force them to pay back their gains.


 * There's a distinction between the size of the fraud and what's covered by SIPC insurance coverage. SIPC coverage is not as comprehensive as FIDC coverage.. If you put money in an FDIC-insured bank, and the bank goes bust, the FDIC pays out the amount your bank statement says the bank owes you.  SIPC coverage is much weaker.  The money that Picard is paying out comes from the SIPC.. Also, the SIPC and the Madoff trustee don't pay claims of losses made by investors in the "feeder funds" that fed money into Madoff's scheme.  (The feeder fund investors are suing the feeder funds and their managers, of course. See J. Ezra Merkin. The courts will have to sort out whether Merkin was a sucker or an accomplice.) --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm not adverse to reverting it back for the moment. My reading of $10.1 billion in context is that this is the amount of investor losses he is seeking, not the clawback number. It would be very large for a clawback amount. Still, we want to be precise. The Times article could have been a lot clearer. I'd like to know if anyone else, reading that article, interpreted it as I did. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The clawback numbers are huge. "Hedge funds doing business with Madoff may have made at least $10 billion in profit in the final months of Madoff’s scam.".  So far, the trustee has gotten back $235 million from Banco Santander, they're going after $558 million withdrawn by J. Ezra Merkin, trying to get back $150 million from some offshore investor, and over 200 other Madoff clients have received letters demanding money back. On the other side, about 8000 Madoff clients have put in claims wanting money. --John Nagle (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree pretty much with John Nagle. The $10.1 billion (hoped for) clawback is not the number we want, but it might set a floor on the number we want. BTW I reverted the Harvey Pitt paragraph back in. It has been noted that this is an outsider speculating and it would be better if there were a better number. Of course, but since he is about the only person giving what looks like a reasonable number .... I'd also like to say to any media people or people from the Justice Department who are reading this - don't you think that it is a shame that the American people still have no idea how much Madoff stole. Are you folks at all serious about doing your job?!! Now that I have that out off my system, I'll just repeat that everybody knows that the $65 billion number is super inflated, and I'd just like to have some realistic number on how much Madoff actually stole to put in this article. Smallbones (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wall Street Journal has a list of known victims and losses. If you add those up, you get about $27.7 billion. That's a low limit. Many of the entries there have "N/A" after them. The victim doesn't have to disclose the loss amount publicly. The Madoff trustee announces what claims have been paid from SIPC funds, but hasn't given figures on pending claims.   The Trustee handles mostly the smaller claims, because there's a $500,000 limit on SIPC coverage. There are at least 120 lawsuits pending, separate from what the Madoff trustee is doing.  The big players each have their own lawsuit. Then there's the whole "feeder funds" issue.   I've seen a $50 billion number for total losses in several news reports.   --John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm also not against restoring the Pitt paragraph, since the murky Times story may well have been referring to the clawbacks. Yes, they are indeed tremendous. I agree with you, Smallbones, and I also think that when they write these stories they need to be clearer. John, that Wall Street Journal list may include phantom gains. Much murkiness around the whole thing. and the public has a right to more precise numbers. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * A definitive number is a ways off. The auditors working through Madoff's records have reported that much of what's there is phony and can't be trusted. There's an official list of Madoff clients.. But it doesn't have amounts.  Clients have to file claims with the trustee, or a separate lawsuit.  The closing date for filing claims hasn't even been reached yet. The trustee is announcing totals of claims as they're settled, Eventually there will be a detailed accounting at the end of the bankruptcy. --John Nagle (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More news: there's now litigation over this exact issue. The bankruptcy trustee wants to evaluate losses for SIPC insurance purposes based on the amount originally invested.  The New York Times reports that "The customers say that, by law, they should be given credit for the full value of the securities shown on the last account statements they received before Mr. Madoff’s arrest in mid-December, even though they were bogus and none of the trades were ever made. According to court filings, those account balances add up to more than $64 billion."   This case is unusual because it's a Ponzi scheme that went on for several decades.  Ordinarily, Ponzi schemes go bust in a year or so, and long-term gains aren't an issue. Here, many people had put their retirement savings into Madoff's fund, and were living off the "interest", thinking their principal was intact. That's why Madoff's fund was called "the Jewish T-Bill".   --John Nagle (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Convicted felon
I think the article should not call him a convicted felon. The article later says he deposited the money in the bank rather than invest it during an economic downturn. The bank supposedly buys and sells securities. This article says he did pretend his company was personally buying and selling the securities. Therefore, calling him a convicted felon seems to ignore his trying to protect his investors money during a recession.--Chuck Marean 00:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He is convicted. Felon generally refers to crimes where the prison term is over 1 year.  His sentence is 150 years.  Let's call a spade a spade.  That said, I think comparisons to the devil etc. hide more than they reveal about the crime.  Keeping this in the realm of reality is important.  Smallbones (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. convicted felon. And yes, it was a deliberate scam.  Read the entire article and some of the references if you have any doubts about this. --John Nagle (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If he is not a convicted felon, I don't know who is. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"Madoff will more than likely die in prison"
Why say that? 71+150 (with no parole) = 221. Or are we hedging bets about presidential pardons or breakouts?68.48.211.251 (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it to: "it was tantamount to a life sentence." That's more in keeping with what how the media describes any sentence of 12 years or more. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

'Current event' template
I've removed. Evidently it's used only for situations in which hundreds of editors are swarming over an article. See discussion on my talk page concerning another current event. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish ethinicity or ... religious confession
The claim that identifying oneself as "Jewish" is to an "ethnicity" is heavily biased. Stricto sensu the adjective "jewish" refers only to a religious confession, or denomination. This implies that "Jewish" cannot be equated with, nor used as, a nationality,a citizenship, e.g., "Mexican", nor  cannot refer to a people occupying a well-delimited territory, e.g."Basque", "Kazak", nor may hint any concept of "race" as used in official U.S. census terminology, e.g., "Hispanic", or "race",as referring to some alleged genetically traceable characteristic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.75.57.106 (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you for or against identifying him as Jewish? I think it's a settled issue that it should be mentioned.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is more relevant in this case than many others because he went out of his way to use his ties as a Jew to attract other Jews to his investments and because so many Jews and Jewish charities who have suffered because of that fact. So adding info from the many WP:RS articles that emphasize that fact would be appropriate. But you gotta do the work. I'm not sufficiently interested myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reading through the article again, the "affinity fraud" aspect of his fraud is underemphasized. It's practically an NPOV issue as we seem to be shying away from that. Only yesterday Joe Nocera had a column describing what Madoff did as an affinity fraud. On the other hand, I'm against overemphasizing Madoff's own personal ethnicity or religion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to throw in my two cents. The fact at the moment is that it is pointed out that he is Jewish as the first fact in the first sentence of both the lead and personal life section. The fact is certainly notable based on his clientele, etc. Looking at other articles with subjects of varying notability and integrity, this is unusual. I think it should either be stricken from the lead, or moved further down into the body of the lead. After all, he being a New York Wall Street financier is mentioned half way into the lead. Perhaps we should swap the word Jewish with Wall Street in the first sentence of the lead.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that his religion doesn't belong in the lead. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewish references in mainstream media
Daily Telegraph Article

First two paragraphs:

Mr Madoff, 70, was a Wall Street legend before his arrest on Thursday, when two FBI agents arrived at his $5 million (£3.3 million) apartment on New York's Upper East Side.

Born to a New York Jewish family in 1938...

Mr Madoff and his wife Ruth were fixtures on the so-called "Jewish circuit" in New York and Florida

They were renowned for their charitable work and gave away millions to arts and education groups and Jewish charities.

Aren't we to rely on our reliable primary sources when deciding how to phrase an article and what aspects to give prominence to? It is widely and prominently reported that Madoff is Jewish and is involved in the Jewish community and defrauded Jewish charities. Beganlocal (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not in dispute that he's Jewish and it is mentioned in the article. Perhaps there should be more on this being affinity fraud. I actually lean in that direction. What you're flaying away at is whether it should be mentioned in the lead. You're the only one in favor of that, you have made your point, and continually posting on that is becoming disruptive. Let's see what others have to say. JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Affinity Fraud
Madoff's fraud disproportionately affected the Jewish community. Should there be a section on this? Beganlocal (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There were over 15,000 claims filed in this case, and an unknown number of people failed to meet the deadline or chose not to (some, apparently, for fear they'd be required to give their gains back). Do you have a citation from a reliable source that states this? I'm not saying it isn't true; I'm asking if it is verifiable as a first step. If we can verify the statement, then we can have a discussion about whether or not it's meaningful. Lots of people lost lots of money; does it matter what "community" they (or he) belonged to? And, if it does, do we then need an analysis that results in use of the descriptive "disproportionately"? I'm not sure about that. It's one thing to say (as the Madoff investment scandal article already does) that he relied on contacts in the Jewish community; it's quite another to start drawing conclusions. Frank  |  talk  12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen a number of articles in the media on that point referring to his scam as "affinity fraud." I can't address the "disproportionate" point, and Frank's skepticism on that issue is well warranted. However, Madoff investment scandal may be a better place for a section on affinity fraud. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:03, 15 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)

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.' Half  Shadow  02:44, 27 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, 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.. 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)

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. 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 -  - and the ABC stories -  - 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)

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 *

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)

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)

'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)

Not right. One Jewish magazine I know of ran an article on the fraud titled "Is Madoff Jewish? Oy, is he Jewish." It then went on to deal with the affinity aspects of the fraud. That is part of the story, so must be mentioned. It became less important as the fraud spiraled - some of the really big institutions, like Banco Santander, are not Jewish - so there is no need to make more of it than it is.

(Except the obvious point that these activities do not stack up very well with some of the Ten Commandments. If Madoff is a Jew, he is apparently not a very good one.) 84.69.173.228 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

All, I have found that most of the biographies mention the religion or ancestry of a person as Jewish/Judaism, even if it is partial. Why is this aspect being deliberately hidden from this article. I have found that Allen Stanford's religious belief has been marked as Protestantism. Also, this article has been protected. Why are we trying hard to hide this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afroze.sahib  (talk • contribs)


 * The article does say "Madoff is Jewish and his Ponzi scheme preyed heavily on Jews..." That seems to cover it. It is an significant point, because he was so trusted by the Jewish communities in New York, Los Angeles, and Palm Beach. But Madoff himself wasn't that visibly religious. The front guys, J. Ezra Merkin in New York, and Stanley Chais in LA, were pillars of their local Jewish communities.  (They both claim to have been victims, but both made huge fees running feeder funds that did little but feed money to Madoff.  Both are being sued, investigated, and may yet go to jail.  But per WP:BLP, we have to limit what we say while the courts grind through the evidence.)  --John Nagle (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

New Madoff book
"TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE: The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff", By Erin Arvedlund, is now out. Arvedlund figured out that Madoff was a fraud in 2001 and published an article in Barrons about it, so she has a clue. Probably the best of the crop of Madoff books. Good source for hard info. User:Nagle


 * I've read this book and it has some very interesting stuff which we should include here. Including the opinion that the Ponzi scheme goes all the way back to the 1960s (Obviously this has to be an opinion since nobody can even say for sure what was happening with the fund in the late 1980s - but it is certainly an informed opinion, and one we can cite).  Similarly she gives an informed opinion about the size of the Ponzi scheme (without including the fantasy profits included in people's accounts) as somewhere between $10-$30 billion, but then comes back with something like "but of course this didn't matter to people who thought they had millions in their accounts"  (this is from memory).  Smallbones (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To properly cite please use:


 * More info on the size of the fraud is now coming in from the Madoff trustee. See Talk:Madoff_investment_scandal. They now have numbers for cash flow.  $36 billion went in, $18 billion came out, and $18 billion is missing.   --John Nagle (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean that total cash losses were only $18 billion. There were people who got out far more than they put in (the trustee is suing most of them), and that's included in the $18 billion that came out.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put most of this in - but it certainly needs a review from others. At this point, we can probably remove some of the material on "fine points," stress the major points more, include some more on the investment scandal, check references, and IMHO take the article to at least GA status. Smallbones (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is There Be a Better Photograph of Madoff
Please read Blp for why I deleted these photos. If you then have a question, I'm sure it can be answered at WP:BLPN. Smallbones (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there honestly no better picture out there (that's free), than the one provided by the U.S. Department of Justice photograph in 2008? I believe that WP:NPOV also applies to pictures.Smallman12q (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think the picture is appropriate. It's his booking photo which is even more appropriate considering the deeds he as confessed to.  It's also most likely one of the only pictures of him available since he confessed.  Are you suggesting we place a picture of him in happier times or a picture of him when he was younger?  If you have a picture to suggest, free of copyright restrictions or that you have permission to use, please post it here so we can look at it.  Also, I am assuming in good faith, that your comparison of pictures of Hitler and Madoff is not meant to imply that Madoff is like Hitler...  One editor appears to have concluded this.Mysteryquest (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I personally think we need a picture of him in/with his yamurkle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.217.131 (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing from blogs
Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources for verifying potentially controversial information. I would therefore recommend removing all information sourced only from blogs. In addition, it is not at all clear from this blog post that the roommate and the pizza cook are the same man. I know of no reliable description of Madoff's cellmate, so I am removing the sentence calling him a drug- and sex-offender. Cnilep (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected

 * Why is that? Who is vandalizing that it needs to be locked? LaRouxEMP (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

People might very well vandalize an article that deals with someone so widely hated. It might, for example, attract wiseacres eager to make puns on the name Madoff (he "made off" with people's money). Tom (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.16.173 (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
I think it would be relevant to include a section on stories in popular culture relating to Madoff. I can't count how many police procedurals I've seen where a character (who more often than not ends up shot by a disgruntled associate) assume responsibility for a Ponzi scheme, to which one of the detectives remarks that it is "just like Madoff." I believe Law & Order and Lie to Me are both guilty of this. Also, I'm not sure of the relevance to the potential section, but the TV series Monk released a tie-in novel called Mr. Monk is Miserable, the article for which mentions an ironic prophetic-ness to the Madoff Ponzi scheme, since the plot revolves around a similar premise, but was released five months before Madoff was exposed. Sheavsey33 (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Vague tie ins with Ponzi schemes wouldn't seem to me to be very relevant. Trivia sections are discouraged.  There's a lot of real meat to this story that should be told first.  Smallbones (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. But surely some mention of his impact on popular culture would be relevant? Sheavsey33 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Philanthropist
Does he really deserve to be called a 'philanthropist'? With Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey and others the word now seems to have the more specific meaning 'rich person who gives lots of money to charity', in which case he may qualify - whoever's money it may be. But Bernard Madoff obviously loses rather a few points in terms of the original meaning (one who works for the benefit of humanity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.243 (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point. Maybe he qualifies in one sense of the word, but certainly not in the other. It would be nice if some other Wikipedians chimed in on this question. I'm certainly not an expert on this kind of stuff. 24.10.181.254 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

HSBC
Picard is suing HSBC for £5.7 billion in the case of Madoff. See the London edition of the "Metro" newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.119 (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The "Mail" is saying the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.139.189.119 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The original source of Madoff's prison-yard fight is the New York Post, is that good enough?
All the references to Madoff's prison fight point to a New York Post article. The post is a tabloid level newspaper, which means they print wild accusations as fact. That article just quotes some unnamed inmates which makes me a little suspicious, it would be nice if there was some other independent source for this information.M4bwav (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit Options Not Available for Page?
The line, "Mark Madoff conspired with his father to hide 25 million in unknown Swiss accounts", is inaccurately presented as a factual statement without making clear it is, in truth, a surmise by Irving Picard and his chief counsel David Sheehan. It's an accusation, only, and is shown to be so in the context of the source, a 60 Minutes interview with Morley Safer discussed in the cited source. So it should be edited. Yet I find no [edit] links on the page. How do I make the edit?

RobertSegal (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is currently protected such that unregistered (IP) and new (such as yours) accounts cannot edit it. If you would like to propose specific wording here, someone can make the change or discuss it with you. Frank  &#124;  talk  21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Proposed edit for the paragraph:


 * Picard has sued Madoff's sons, Mark and Andrew, his brother Peter, and Peter's daughter, Shana, for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, for $198 million. The defendants had received over $80 million in compensation since 2001 and "used the bank account at BLMIS like a personal piggy bank." The trustee believes they knew about the fraud because of their personal investments in the scheme, the longevity of the fraud, and because of their work at the company including roles as corporate and compliance officers. Since 1995, Peter Madoff had invested only $32,146, but withdrew over $16 million. Mark and Andrew Madoff withdrew more than $35 million from a small original investment. Picard asserts Mark Madoff conspired with his father to hide 25 million in unknown Swiss accounts.[94][95]


 * Just add two words.


 * RobertSegal (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fair, and is likely the original addition. I'll insert "Picard asserts" and a dollar sign. Smallbones (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Final numbers on losses
The Madoff Trustee has released the final numbers on losses.. The total fictitious balances of clients were $57 billion (after certain claims were withdrawn), and the net investment clients paid into Madoff's funds was $17.3 billion. Money is gradually being paid out to claimants as it is clawed back from the participants who made money. The heirs of Jeffry Picower are resisting the clawback of $5 billion. --John Nagle (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's lots of info on that page - but with a quick skim I couldn't find those exact numbers. The news released dated May 4, 2011 comes closest.  Could you give the date of the news release?  Smallbones (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Found it (just search $57 billion). Both numbers look correct and are sourced.  Hopefully editors' interpretations will be consistent.  Smallbones (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Small penis to blame?
Sounds funny, but serious commentators have mentioned this (I also read something about it in the Sunday Times, but can't link to that). Worth mentioning as a motivating factor in his life? Madoff has been misunderstood for too long, surely :) Malick78 (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 67.165.93.102, 7 June 2011
The article says that Madoff's son Andrew went to "Wharton University". This is incorrect. It should be "The Wharton School of Business". The Wharton School is the business school of the University of Pennsylvania(UPENN).

67.165.93.102 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.- Happysailor  (Talk) 21:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a rather silly answer. If you look at the Wharton website this fact is clearly not disputed. Is this an example of lazy editing? So I will add the link myself: Wharton History and nomenclature. Or is the website of a notable institution no longer accepted as a reliable source of information? 77.167.212.162 (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no longer a mention of this in the article anymore anyways. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The main photo is a mugshot. Seriously?
Could somebody please fix that. 94.222.185.215 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No need to fix that. It is the only good quality freely-licensed photo available, and, unlike some mug shots, doesn't place him in an obviously derogatory light. Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible name change
It seems fitting to title the page Bernie Madoff, rather than Bernard Madoff, since this is the name he is best known by publicly. Flawlessfrogs (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)flawlessfrogs
 * We generally use a person's real name. To use his nick-name might be considered derogatory.  Check WP:NAME before doing anything like this.  Smallbones (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Without taking a position on this particular suggestion, I note that the first example in the Common names section of the linked article is Bill Clinton. Of course, Jimmy Carter could have been used just as easily. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support name change. I've never heard him in the news as Bernard. Small, a derogatory nickname would be Wacko Jacko, not a shortned form of his name like Bill for William or Jimmy for James. C T J F 8 3  13:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support name change, and obviously a redirect of Bernard Madoff would be set up. 'Bernie' is a common shortening of Bernard - it's no more a nickname, let alone a derogatory nickname, than is Tom for Thomas or Eddie for Edward. Colon el  Tom 05:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment A gnews search for Bernie Madoff yields twice as many hits as Bernard Madoff. So, clearly Bernie is the more commonly used name and what most people would search for if they look him up on WP.MakeSense64 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support as per proposer and common search term. (Note: This vote solicited by RFC bot. KP.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral The only google news searches that would be relevant are those that search on one name and exclude the other. If you do a google news search on "Bernard Madoff" excluding Bernie you get 5 million hits; Bernie minus Bernard yields 6 million, and a search on both yields only 1 million. So yes Bernie is a bit more common but Bernard is hardly unrecognizable. Redirect from Bernard to Bernie or vice versa is clearly essential, and with redirects in place there is little impact on searching for readers.  So it's a matter of personal preference - I'd probably go for Bernie, and I think concern about it being  derogatory are just laughable given who we're talking about, but let's not pretend that it's hard for readers to find him as either Bernie or Bernard. (I'm also here as a result of RFC bot request.) Tvoz / talk 16:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per FA examples like Magic Johnson, Frank McNamara (VC), Jerry Voorhis, etc., etc. Doc   talk  17:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think that in making these decisions we put on blinders and pretend infamy and fame are the same. Therefore I don't think we compare Madoff with Clinton or Carter as an above post suggests. I think that we trivialize the man when we opt for his nickname when that man is not an ex-president of the United States but rather a person incarcerated for life and who apparently has accomplished little. It is a contrivance to opt for the nickname when the reader can just as easily find the article using the proper name of the individual that the article is about. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - shall we then make John Henry Holliday, Edward Teach, and Clyde Barrow the main article pages for their subjects, with redirects to those pages instead of the reverse, as it is now?  Frank  &#124;  talk  16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * John Henry Holliday and Edward Teach are historical characters. They are no longer living and WP:BLP would not necessarily apply to them. Also, the passage of time endows them with a historical patina that is probably not ours to manipulate, unless a cogent argument can be made for doing so. The names of the individuals that are the subject of those articles are already cast solidly in the form that editors have chosen: Doc Holliday and Blackbeard. As for Clyde Barrow, he doesn't actually have an article of his own. Apparently the choice was made to present as a title the popularly reported duo of Bonnie and Clyde. Perhaps separately they are not notable; I don't know. Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I understand your logic. C T J F 8 3  17:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CTJF83—what I am saying is that I think that out of respectfulness we should stick to the proper name. There is no cause for resorting to names that imply familiarity. As an encyclopedia source I think we should instead be conveying respect and objectivity, and I think those qualities are better conveyed by our sticking to a name embodying more rather than less propriety. I don't think that we should be opting to refer to the subject as though we were on a familiar basis with him. Rather we should opt for the terminology that conveys that we maintain distance. Bus stop (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I, too, am not getting the logic here. Because Madoff is alive we shouldn't prefer a familiar name to reach his article? Were the others I linked alive today, would you also suggest we use their formal names? And I also don't see the distinction between fame and infamy in your comments; as others have pointed out, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are still alive but use the familiar name. Nevertheless, if I were to meet one of them, I would far more likely address them as "Mr. President" over either their formal name or their common nickname. Frank  &#124;  talk  19:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Frank—you say that "…if I were to meet one of them, I would far more likely address them as 'Mr. President' over either their formal name or their common nickname." This is a distinction predicated on fame verses infamy, or at least that in the context of ex-presidents of the United States. There are references conveying respect such as "Mr. President" but none comparable for prison convicts. All they have is their real name. What little dignity there is remaining in one's proper name should not be eroded further by reference to them by terms implying familiarity. Madoff is also an older person—one more reason not to speak of him in familiar terms. He is more than halfway through the expected lifespan of a human. There is freedom of behavior that is justified by proximity of relationship. We don't have the required proximity to Madoff to refer to him by the terminology that would imply we were on familiar terms with him. We are an encyclopedia. As such we should want to convey distance and objectivity, qualities better conveyed by proper name. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing it; famous or infamous doesn't seem to be relevant. I'd probably address Madoff as "Mr. Madoff" over either familiar or formal first name anyway, at least upon first meeting him. Just common courtesy; that's not related to whether one is a former president or a prison inmate. At any rate, the discussion is started; let's see where consensus lies. Frank  &#124;  talk  20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support move. "Bernie Madoff" is the best known name. Of course his legal name belongs within the article, just like they are now, as the very first words of the first line. Moving would not present a BLP concern. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to reflect more common usage (policy, as outlined in WP:NCP). UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In accordance with WP:NCP the name of the article should be as it is: Bernard Madoff. Number of Google hits only slightly exceed in one case rather than in the other. On the other hand, the far more good quality sources use the name "Bernard Madoff" in the title of the article, and in the first mention in the article—often the first sentence. What we are probably seeing in the slight outnumbering of hits for "Bernie" than "Bernard" are a proliferation of low quality mentions. The high quality instances include those of a biographical nature, and by such high quality sources as The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal. We are of course writing a biography—so this matters. I need a little time to compile some of these sources to present here. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Cough!) Doc   talk  12:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a few moments, Doc. Bus stop (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time! Incidentally, I just found something that could bust this thing wide open. I wonder if this is the real Bernie Madoff, or an imposter. I don't know much about the site (meaning its membership requirements/accuracy of information), but if it's a hoax account I would hope they would delete it. If it is the real Madoff, it shows two things: 1) that he calls himself Bernie vs. Bernard, and 2) he is one smug bastard. Doc   talk  15:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Some sources relevant to the name of this article

First of all, let us establish the difference in number of Google hits:

"Bernard Madoff", About 3,930,000 results

"Bernie Madoff", About 4,200,000 results

The above is fairly insignificant.

When speaking about the man in an overview kind of way, which is the approach a biography such as ours takes, we find the following:

"The Talented Mr. Madoff " "TO some, Bernard L. Madoff was an affable, charismatic man…" That is the title and the first sentence. The name "Bernie" also appears many times in that New York Times article. But at issue here is the title of our article. What we see is a high quality source using the proper name in the most prominent places—namely the title and the first sentence.

Here we see a reference in The Guardian to their "Top story". The name of that story seems to be "Bernard Madoff". There are two photos illustrating references to that Top story. One is called the "Editor's picks". Both photos have captions under them. In both captions the reference is to "Bernard Madoff". OK, now let us click on that "Top story" article. Here it is. Notice the title: it reads "Bernard Madoff". Now let us take note of the first sentence in that story: the reference in the dfirst sentence is to "Bernard Madoff". Let us now consider the "Editor's picks" story referenced a few sentences up in this paragraph. The Guardian has this story as their Editor's pick. Notice the title of that story: the reference is to "Bernard Madoff". The first sentence in that article does refer to him as "Bernie Madoff", but above the first sentence, an illustration (courtroom sketch) contains a caption referencing "Bernard Madoff".

Here we have a brief online biography of Madoff. The title and the first sentence refer to "Bernard Madoff".

The Wall Street Journal also provides a brief online biography of Madoff. Please see that here. (Click on "Show full description" to see full story.) The title is "Bernard Madoff". There is only one reference to "Bernie" to be found in that article: the first sentence reads: "Bernard "Bernie" Madoff's Wall Street career began in 1960…"

Bloomberg Business Week provides an overview story with a title: "The Rise and Fall of Bernard L. Madoff". The first sentence of that article refers to "Bernard L. Madoff". Both variations of the name—Bernie and Bernard—appear in the body of that story.

Finally, The Economist, not exactly a low quality source, has this article on the "Con of the century". The first sentence reads: "BERNARD MADOFF worked as a lifeguard to earn enough money to start his own securities firm." (The title of the article only refers to him as "Madoff".) The name "Bernie" is also mentioned in that article, but only several paragraphs down.

We should be thinking about what is befitting of the title of a biography. The Google numbers are not significantly different for the two variations in the name. But I think we can see that good quality reliable sources do not use the "Bernie" version in as prominent a place as the title of a article, especially an overview story, which is akin to a biography such as ours. Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I probably should have mentioned that brought up this discussion here, at the WP:BLPN. Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, per Canvassing, you're notification should be neutral, not your opinion. C T J F 8 3  18:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * CTJF83—I'm sorry. I should have known better. You are right. I should have made a more neutral statement in my posting at the WP:BLPN. I apologize. I stand corrected.


 * I want to point something else out. When one searches for one variation on the name to the exclusion of the other variation of the term, the results are even closer in number, although "Bernie" still slightly leads "Bernard". The results in the number of Google hits are even slimmer when you search for one of the names but exclude the other, thus:


 * "Bernard Madoff" -"Bernie Madoff" = About 11,100,000 results


 * "Bernie Madoff" -"Bernard Madoff" = About 12,600,000 results


 * But again the telling factor is the quality of the results. Consider these 13 sources:


 * 1. ) The Guardian, with no mention of the term "Bernie"


 * 2. ) CNBC, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 3. ) Bloomberg News, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 4. ) Bloomberg News (separate story), with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 5. ) infoplease.com/biography, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 6. ) Federal Bureau of Prisons, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 7. ) ESPN New York, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 8. ) CNN Justice, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 9. ) Reuters, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 10. ) The Times of India, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 11. ) Haaretz, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 12. ) The Wall Street Journal, with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * 13. ) The Wall Street Journal (separate story), with no mention of the term "Bernie".


 * I think that what this indicates is that the more important term for inclusion by high quality sources is the term "Bernard". In the instances in which one but not the other term is included, in good quality sources such as the above, it is more likely to be the term "Bernard". Therefore I don't think our article should break with the precedent indicated by reliable sources. There is no doubt some explanation for the slightly higher number of Google hits for "Bernie" than "Bernard" but I don't know what it is. Nevertheless we should be following the most prominent sources. Some of the sources posted above would qualify as being high quality and indicating that the name "Bernard Madoff" is marginally preferred by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue, that BLP noticeboard. Did you think this all the way through? I've responded there. Doc   talk  04:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc—if lower quality sources such as tabloids engage in sensationalism—which the name "Bernie" may lend itself to better than the name "Bernard", and we rely on the slightly elevated number of Google hits generated by the use of that informal term by tabloids—then we have made ourselves vulnerable to committing a slight BLP offense. I am not saying that this is major—but we are on safer ground all around when we use the proper name: Bernard Madoff. This is the name that the most respected sources use prominently. By the way I have responded to your post on the BLP noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If the Encyclopedia Britannica is considered a lower quality source, I will quit the project tonight. There will much rejoicing, I'd wager... ;> Doc   talk  05:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * About the difference in  Google hits : it is most probably due to people conversing online, in blogs or message forums, and referring to Madoff as "Bernie," rather than the more formal "Bernard." In such interactions, people will, more often than not, express themselves in casual, often colloquial, manner. And Google will count that. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I was alerted to this by the RfC bot. "Bernie" is a nickname, and while commonly used it is not preferable to this person's given name. "Bernie" is tabloid usage. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tell that to Magic Johnson and the creators of that FA article here. That his nickname is not "preferable" because it's not his given name. Doc   talk  05:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. - Does anyone know who, e.g., Paul Andrew Richter is? Anyone? Conan O'Brien would tell you he's a lap dog, probably. Doc   talk  05:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I am not aware of any rule against using nicknames and multiple articles use Nicknames. Are you suggesting that Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Billy Crystal, Larry King, Bobby Fischer, and Charlie Chaplin as well as multiple other articles are all wrongly placed or am I misreading your objection?--70.24.215.154 (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose - In many ways I think this is irrelevant: Bernie Madoff and Bernard Madoff go to the same page, readers will find the page whichever name is used.  Perhaps the only relevant question is what would we gain by calling him "Bernie" instead of "Bernard"?  I don't know of any good answer to that question.  Arguing the fine points of naming guidelines is one thing, but if you can't answer that question, I have to say we shouldn't rename.  The one unacceptable answer (to me) is that using the nickname would demean him. I tend to look down on those pseudo-news organizations that used to call him "Bernard", but now try to be cool by calling him "Bernie", as if they knew all along.

Perhaps this is irrelevant, but I also have to say that I originally named the article, an hour or two after he was arrested. The choice of a name seemed pretty clear then, and I don't see any reason to change it now. Smallbones (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name "Bernie" is, most surely, not how he was universally called in the media. The name "Bernard Madoff" is how he was most often referred to. -The Gnome (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

How much did Madoff take from the scheme?
In contrast to most articles on fraudsters, where the amount they actually made is listed very clearly, this one seems to lack any information about how much of the $20 billion in cash which passed through his accounts Madoff actually spent on himself and his family. I recall Markopolos estimating Madoff 'kept less than 1%' of the value of the fraud, but even that figure is nebulous (i.e. whether Markopolos means 1% of the $60 billion he claimed to have in AUM or 1% of the $20 billion which went through his hands).

At present the only information on what Madoff made is the statement that Jeffrey Picower appears to have been a bigger beneficiary of the scheme than Madoff since he withdrew $5 billion more than he deposited- I find it difficult to believe Madoff kept anything like that much given how long the fraud lasted.

I have looked around but there appears to be no clear estimates on how much Madoff himself kept, although a lot of journalists have made news of the spending of proprietary funds by his sons and his wife. Dudley25 (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you might be over optimistic about the numbers you see in other fraud cases. I'd guess most are analogous to the $65 billion often quoted here - that's still the most common number you hear quoted about Madoff.


 * Please go to the section on "Amount of Investors losses." If you can find your way through to the $10 billion number - the amount actually missing, I can give you some educated guesses from there.  That number is the amount actually taken in, minus the amount recovered from funds in Madoff's accounts and clawbacks of "excess returns" from favored investors.  Obviously an estimate, but the best we have.  There would also have been more "excess returns" that couldn't be clawed back, because they were older than the 10 year limit, or because they are too small (and legally expensive) to go after.  Pure guess - $2-5 billion in non-recoverable excess returns.  What happened to the other $5-8 billion?  My guess is it was just pissed away, either by Madoff and his family (the number you're looking for) or in the firm's operations - i.e. he was running a losing business and overpaying employees, suppliers, rent on fancy offices, etc.  It's anybody's guess at this point but mine is that the second type of thing (business "expenses") are very easy to do and seem "justified" at the time - so maybe these take up 80-90%.  That might leave $500 million -$2 billion that Madoff and family pissed away.  A lot of cash for sure, and a bit more than Markopolous's 1% (out of the $65 billion number, but I won't argue - same ballpark).  Hope this helps.  Feel free to leave your guesses here or to find some actual reliable source (i.e. not me!) to quote in the article. Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The United States government is officially listed as a terrorist organization by countries around the world.
Consider the source of the accusations. The United States government is officially listed as a terrorist organization by countries around the world. And the use of cheap cliches to set up and frame a Jew at a time when Jews are being persecuted around the world indicates that he was framed. Criminals didn´t like Jewish bankers because criminals wanted to steal their money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.216.255.237 (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2012
lua dao

Ibtmd82 (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. - no details for a proposed edit. Begoon &thinsp; talk 09:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2013
Someone should rewrite the following sentence; it's a fragment and makes no sense (from the second paragraph): "Peter's daughter Shana Madoff as the firm's rules and compliance officer and attorney, and his sons Andrew and Mark (Mark committed suicide by hanging exactly two years after his father's arrest)."

Mirrorful (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done I made a quick change to make the paragraph a bit clearer and more grammatical. I'm not convinced that what is now the last sentence (about subsequent actions) really belongs in the lead of Bernie's bio, and wouldn't be upset if another editor decided to remove it. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

SEC whistleblower complaint
''Why Didn't the SEC Catch Madoff? It Might Have Been Policy Not To'' by Matt Taibbi posted: May 31, 5:20 PM ET

Dgharmon (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2013
I checked the footnote to the statement "The amount missing from client accounts, including fabricated gains, was almost $65 billion." There is no reference to $65 billion in the Wall Street Journal article cited, i.e., Bray, Chad (March 12, 2009). "Madoff Pleads Guilty to Massive Fraud". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 12, 2009.) I am requesting that the information be deleted and replaced by a number that has valid footnote corroboration.  Thanks

Bbmdinc (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Thanks for pointing that out. It's true that it's not in the cited source. Various sources do mention the $65 billion figure, but I'm not quite clear on whether the reference simply needs to be replaced or the sentence also needs some work. For the moment, I'm tagging the ref, but I don't really see that it's supporting anything else in the sentence. Rivertorch (talk) 06:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll replace the ref with Madoff pleads guilty, is jailed for $65 billion fraud, Reuters. The $65 billion number, quoted for months and months, is simply the amount missing according to what Madoff said was in his client's accounts.  Of course Madoff was just lying to his clients.  The real amount missing was only about $12 billion. But that's how Ponzi schemes work - the organizers just lie.  The $65 billion number should be an embarrassment to the papers who quoted it, so it's likely that a few more will change their articles.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your edit addresses the concerns expressed in the edit request, so I'm closing the request. Bbmdinc should feel free to reopen it if I'm mistaken. Rivertorch (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Article vs. sidebar
The article states: Madoff was active in the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), a self-regulatory securities industry organization and has served as the Chairman of the Board of Directors and on the Board of Governors of the NASD.[44]

The personal sidebar says that he was Chaiman of NASDAQ

I would guess that the article is correct and the personal profile is wrong, but I'm not sure.

BobKberg 64.71.24.45 (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The second sentence of the article says he was chairman of NASDAQ. I've picked one of innumerable reliable sources and added a citation. Rivertorch (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Madoff's first feeder funds
Madoff's first feeder fund was Avellino and Bienes, formed by two employees who had worked with him at the accounting firm of Saul Alpern, Ruth Madoff's father. Avellino and Bienes, which claimed to make its money in same day buy sells, was closed by the SEC in 1992, after many many profitable years of steady returns and no losses,with Avellino and Bienes permitted, by the terms of the court and SEC approved settlement, to keep their profits because Madoff came up with funds over a weekend sufficient to pay all investors in full. Avellino and Bienes were represented in the court case by Ira Sorkin, a former SEC official in its New York office, who subsequently represented Madoff after his ponzi scheme collapsed in December, 2008.

In notifying their customers of their closing, Avellino and Bienes stated that it was due to technical paperwork transgressions and encouraged their former investors to invest with Madoff, without revealing that Madoff had been the broker supposedly executing their purported trades the entire time of their firm's existence. This was the pattern Madoff followed with subsequent feeder funds, always insisting that his involvement not be revealed to investors.

As Madoff had been chairman of NASDAQ the year previous, in 1991, and as the SEC continually assured inquiring Avellino and Bienes investors that Madoff was an honest broker, many Avellino and Bienes investors reinvested their recovered funds with Madoff at that time.66.108.204.23 (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Leah Larsen


 * Are you proposing any change to the article? Rivertorch (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

JP Morgan settlement
JP Morgan settled today for $1.7 BILLION - I'm not entirely clear on the details, e.g. there is a delayed prosecution part and an extra $543 million mentioned that I don't quite know whether it's on top or included in the $1.7 billion. The ref is the WSJ, which is a fine source except it will be closed off behind a paywall. Some quotes:

"J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. will pay $1.7 billion to the victims of Bernard L. Madoff's massive fraud as part of a record settlement with U.S. prosecutors that resolves allegations the bank failed to provide adequate warnings about the Ponzi schemer's activities. ... "The deal, described by federal officials as largest ever bank forfeiture, includes a deferred prosecution agreement with Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. Under the pact, criminal charges against the bank for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act will be delayed for two years pending the payments to victims and reforms of J.P. Morgan's anti-money-laundering policies. ... "The $1.7 billion payment is also the largest Justice Department penalty for a violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, according to the government." ... "J.P. Morgan also reached a settlement on Tuesday with a court appointed-bankruptcy trustee collecting funds for Madoff victims, agreeing to pay $543 million, according to a person briefed on the matter. The trustee, attorney Irving Picard, will distribute the funds to victims. Mr. Picard had recovered $9.5 billion, about $4.9 billion of which has been returned to investors to date."

There are also some loose ends on other things. In particular I'd like to find out about:

"According to the same lawsuit, New York Mets owners Fred Wilpon and Saul Katz and associated individuals and firms, received $300 million from the scheme. Wilpon and Katz "categorically reject" the charges. "

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Madoff suffers from untreated kidney disease and had a heart attack in December 2013
Accoring to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/madoff-suffered-heart-attack_n_4645561.html?ir=Business XOttawahitech (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken link
article is locked so someone else needs to change it I'm afraid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.48.10.143 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 116 is broken (under incarceration, about his prison beating).

article is locked so kindly change the link to ]
 * 1) 21 is broken (under Plea, sentencing, and prison life).

Pranab.bann (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Allegations
Some material was removed on the basis that it consisted of abandoned allegations. Query whether it may not be appropriate to retain such information, reported on by RSs, and flag it as allegations subsequently abandoned. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Why I took out certain allegations against third parties...
There were a bunch of things in here that referenced allegations made by the trustee, and some legal matters, in a rather misleading way. This is not the fault of the wiki editors, but rather because of a subtlety in the way these things have been described by the trustee and others.

In particular, there's a difference that lawyers draw between allegations of fact and characterizations. The article has been picking up characterizations and treating them as allegations of fact. Examples:


 * Whether the Madoff kids "withdrew" money from the scheme. The Madoff kids received money from their employer, which was their father's firm.  The monies were nominally compensation in connection with their jobs, which did not involve the fraud.  The trustee characterized these as "withdrawals" from the scheme because, on the trustee's theory, the firm was insolvent and only had cash because of the scheme.


 * The JP Morgan Settlement J.P. Morgan did not settle claims by the trustee for $1.7 billion, as the article related.  J.P. Morgan settled a civil forfeiture action and regulatory proceedings brought by the government.  The trustee, whose complaint against J.P. Morgan had already been dismissed, and certain class action plaintiffs, joined the settlement and were allocated a portion of the government's civil forfeiture recoveries.


 * The Wilpons and Katzes The article was repeating the claim by the trustee that the Wilpons and Katz's "received money from the scheme," which is sort-of true but when said like that is very misleading.  The Wilpon and Katz entities were victims of the schemes (this is universally agreed).  Some victims of Ponzi schemes receive more than they paid in.  Some accounts belonging to some Wilpon and Katz entities received more from the scheme than they paid in.  The trustee's allegation was that the Wilpon and Katz entities should have known that there was a fraud scheme.  The allegations were then settled unfavorably to the trustee.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/20/sports/baseball/mets-owners-pay-162-million-to-settle-madoff-suit.html?pagewanted=all


 * The size of the scheme The difference between the $65B and $12B numbers is the method for calculating damages that was ultimately adopted by the trustee, which was and continues to be a matter being litigated. In brief, typically the amount owed to a customer of a brokerage by the brokerage is the amount shown on the customer's account statements.  Certain victims asserted that this was the amount owed to them by the scheme under state law, and the proper measure of their losses.  The trustee and SIPC took the position that a victim's loss is measured by mechanically subtracting cash-out from cash-in, regardless of timing.


 * Every year, Madoff would pay the IRS in respect of bogus "gains" in the accounts, subtracting this sum from the sum he told victims was in their accounts. According to the trustee's method, these payments to the IRS counted as payments of cash to the victims for the purpose of calculating their losses.  Thus, a victim could have never personally received any cash from the scheme, but would still have been deemed by the trustee to have no losses, or even to have profited from the scheme.


 * In addition, the trustee's method excludes persons who invested through "feeder funds," which was the overwhelming majority of investors. Instead, the trustee would treat the entire fund as a single "investor," calculating the total cash paid in and taken out by the fund.


 * The trustee's method also excludes people who the trustee sued alleging that they should have known about the fraud, such as the Wilpons and Katzes.

Please be aware that these issues are a subject of very active, paid PR activity by the Madoff trustee.

Djcheburashka (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is all very interesting, and don't have any firm views on any of the specifics at this point. Some observations and questions.  First, I think it is worth discussion. Second, I think we should follow the RSs in this regard, and not make conclusions based on "I know the RS said x, but I know better." For example, as to the first point (and I do not know if this is the case), if the children in the unrelated entity received high compensation from the fraudulent entity, and it is alleged that this should all be bundled together and looked at as one enterprise, then the allegation if covered by RSs is worth reporting on. Further, if a court holds that, then that is also worth covering -- as a court's holding. If a court rejects it, and RSs cover that, it is also worth covering, as a rejected allegation. The same thinking relates to the other points.  Finally, your last note is interesting -- you must I imagine have RS diffs that state that. Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche -- This is necessarily going to be a long answer, because it touches on things that lawyers spend a great deal of time learning and dealing with. It ultimately though, I promise, does get to a simple point.  Bear with me...


 * I absolutely agree with you that we should follow the RS's. I think its important, when reading a source, to interpret it according to the kind of source it is. The sourcing for most of what I took out comes from the trustee's legal filings or reports quoting/paraphrasing those filings.  In legal filings, it is a very common writing strategy to blur the distinction between what are (a) actual facts alleged, and (b) inferences, conclusions, and characterizations that the author would like the reader to adopt based on interpretation of the actual facts.  The portion in b is not properly regarded as meeting WP:V, even if any of the complaint is.  B are the opposite of verified facts, they're conclusions that the litigant seeks to establish during the court process.  With respect to the children (I agree this is a good example to stick with), the underlying facts are:  (i) there was one entity with multiple divisions, (ii) the kids were employed by the division that is not alleged to have committed fraud and which continues to operate today, (iii) the kids had smallish deposits in the fraud scheme, (iv) payments were made to the kids which were nominally compensation for their work, not attempts to withdraw money from their scheme accounts, (v) Madoff had caused the entity to commit a widespread securities fraud, which had likely rendered it balance-sheet (but not cashflow) insolvent, and (vi) the trustee alleged that the kids "knew or should have known" about the fraud, meaning they were negligent.  Does that support the contention that "the kids withdrew money from the scheme"?  There is a sense in which that contention is true, but its expressed in a way so readers are likely to take an inference beyond what is supported by any verified underlying fact.


 * There is also a subtle distinction regarding something called "fraudulent conveyance." In very brief part, certain kinds of "fraudulent conveyance" are transfers from insolvent parties under certain circumstances.  Only some fraudulent conveyances are "frauds" in the sense that someone "committed fraud."  Receipt of a fraudulent conveyance, even an intentionally fraudulent conveyance, does not depend on or imply any kind of fraud or wrongdoing on the recipient's part. The trustee thus alleged that the kids received fraudulent conveyances.  And they well might have.  But that does not imply that the kids knew about the scheme or committed fraud. The classic example is a man who gives his grandmother $100 every year for Christmas, and continues to do so after he becomes insolvent.  The transfers to grandma are fraudulent conveyances, and grandma can get sued for that, even though neither of them have any bad intent.


 * Do courts reach holdings on this? Not in ways that would help us resolve WP:RS and WP:V issues.  In the Wilpon and Katz case there was a hearing, and the trustee's counsel was pressed extensively by Judge Rakoff on the point, but could not clarify what was alleged.  Judge Rakoff then said that to prove his case, the trustee would have to prove that Wilpon and Katz were willfully blind.  That is a different legal standard than "should have known."  ("Willful blindness" equals actual knowledge; "should have known" is negligence.)  But, Judge Rakoff did not scratch out those sentences in the complaint, because that's not how the legal procedure works.  Nor did he rule that Wilpon and Katz should not have known about the fraud -- he ruled that it didn't matter.


 * In terms of wiki-policies, I think way to interpret this, is that we need to keep in mind that the presence of an allegation in a legal complaint (or a description of that allegation in a news article about the complaint) does not mean that the allegation is WP:V. It only means someone made an accusation.


 * As for "RS diffs" on the last point -- which one are you calling the "last point"? Djcheburashka (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As to the RSs (no apostrophe; lawyers spend a great deal of time focusing on minor formatting of that sort ... :) ), I think if we follow and reflect them we are doing what WP asks of us. And I wholeheartedly agree that we have to be careful in distinguishing between allegations and facts. But, allegations are properly reported as allegations. On another issue -- if a court holds that the children received fraudulent conveyances (but does not hold that they themselves committed fraud), and an RS reports it as such, we should reflect it as such. And I'm dealing elsewhere with an editor who in talk page conversations insists that a litigant's allegation should be presented as true in a wp article, even when no court has found the allegation to be true ... so I feel your pain in wrestling with this issue here. The last point I refer to is your point that "these issues are a subject of very active, paid PR activity by the Madoff trustee." Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If a court were to hold that someone received a fraudulent conveyance from the Madoff scheme, then we would properly report it as such, I agree entirely. To my knowledge, now 6 years after the disclosure of the scheme, no-one has been found by a court to have received a fraudulent conveyance from the scheme, with the exception of co-conspirators who pleaded guilty.


 * The Madoff litigation is a mess. The JP Morgan settlement is an example.  The trustee had already lost his claim that JP Morgan aided-and-abetted Madoff; the trustee also didn't have standing to sue JP Morgan because of a doctrine called in pari delicto; the government didn't have authority to prosecute or claim money from JP beyond a (relatively small) few hundred million; but JP was subject to a number of suits by other parties, which also threatened to interfere with the trustee's preferred plan for distributing proceeds.  So JP, the government, and the trustee, entered into a settlement in which JP paid the government, a portion of that was broken-off for the trustee and the remainder routed through the government to the trustee -- and because it was the government and the trustee, even though neither the government's nor the trustee's claims were good to begin with, the settlement acts a legal bar against anyone else bringing claims against JP related to Madoff.


 * How in the heck is the wiki supposed to relate something like that?


 * Regarding the trustee's campaign, the flack is listed on linkedin, and I'm sure evidence of the campaign wouldn't be hard. To be clear, I'm not accusing him of hiring paid editors for the wiki -- if he had, the article would be more up-to-date.  He's effectively promoting his POV with the NYTimes and WSJ, why would he bother paying a wiki editor?


 * Let me know what the other page is you're referring to, I'd love to see that. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As to your request -- Sure ... I posted a link to that discussion in the wikiproject for law, here. That project may be of interest to you, in general.


 * Epeefleche (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2016
for the article on Bernard Madoff, under the heading 'IN THE MEDIA' there is a new addition to be made. IBM has a new tv ad, ( shown on CBS during NFL jan 24 broncos vs patriots ) where they are teaming up with ( an actor portraying ) Bernie Madoff, against Bank fraud, for their new acquisition of IRIS, He says oh that was a long time ago. so the addition is, portrayed in IBM bank fraud ad, Jan 2016

Roseeatsrice (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "In the media" sections can be a lot of mediocre stuff, but this article's section does an ok job of keeping the standards up. I think this ad, refed by a dead link to a blog, would lower those standards. BTW, I'm watching the game (not really the ads) and haven't noticed the ad.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bernard Madoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/madoff_HD9ShMJK26jjNYTFSO7LpJ/0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bernard Madoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/06/29/madoff-ponzi-fraud-sentence564.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bernard Madoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120610051821/http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1744655 to http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1744655
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121017230159/http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20090804_Fumo_s_future_in_agency_s_hands.html to http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20090804_Fumo_s_future_in_agency_s_hands.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruth Madoff
In Brian Ross's book, "The Madoff Chronicles", he talks about how "Little Rick" would go up to Spanish Harlem to score blow for the brokers/investment bankers and also marijuana for Ruth Madoff. My question: Did/does Ruth Madoff smoke cigarettes? She stayed remarkable trim all her life and is still quite trim (perhaps she is still smoking marijuana to deal with the mess), so it would make sense that she smokes. Does anybody know? I haven't read all the books yet, so perhaps it is in one of those, or somebody who worked at Madoff Securities would know. Thanks in advance.Betathetapi545 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Bernie himself - I think I read somewhere that he smoked cigars - did he smoke them very often? - in the office at all (like Jimmy Cayne did at Bears Stearns, breaking the non-smoking rules). Also, which brand did he smoke? I assume Cuban - perhaps Montecristo or something. Does anybody know? Thanks in advance.Betathetapi545 (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2016
This should not be under personal life:

In November 2011, former Madoff employee David Kugel pleaded guilty to charges that arose out of the scheme. He admitted having helped Madoff create a phony paper trail, the false account statements that were supplied to clients.[159]

MHFox (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bernard Madoff. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.financialpost.com/Madoff+found+dead+apparent+suicide/3963296/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615040356/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304648603&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304648603&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090321200231/http://www.vanityfair.com:80/politics/features/2009/04/madoff200904 to http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/madoff200904

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
I would like to edit this article because it has incorrect information. The article states that Bernie Madoff died on 3/28/17 by suicide when he is in fact still alive and in prison. The death in this article was confused with the suicide hedgefund executive who had connections to Madoff. DEB1016 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
I would like to edit this article because it has incorrect information. The article states that Bernie Madoff died on 3/28/17 by suicide when he is in fact still alive and in prison. The death in this article was confused with the suicide of a hedgefund executive who had connections to Madoff. DEB1016 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
DEB1016 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

, thank you. Article is fixed now. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2017
Misspelled word, "orrganizations", in Section 4.2, Affinity Fraud. Second sentence. 12.219.235.65 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  JTP (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bernard Madoff. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108002915/http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1003069/jpmorgan-federal-settlement-in-madoff-case.pdf to http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1003069/jpmorgan-federal-settlement-in-madoff-case.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304648603&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.madoff.com/dis/display.asp?id=203&mode=1&home=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514222940/http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=283836-1&showVid=true to http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=283836-1&showVid=true
 * Added tag to http://www.i4u.com/2013/09/bernard-madoff/chance-new-madoff-expose-claims-bank-missed-central-book
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/04/madoff200904
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216005215/http://www.nycitycenter.org/content/about/board.aspx to http://www.nycitycenter.org/content/about/board.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822055219/http://www.madoff.com/ to http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nys/madoff.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bernard Madoff. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120711083057/http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/the-education-of-bernie-madoff-far-rockaway-high-school to http://clusterstock.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/the-education-of-bernie-madoff-far-rockaway-high-school
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220090946/http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com/blogs/bongiorno-cruppi-women-of-the-house-of-madoff-26438-1.html to http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com/blogs/bongiorno-cruppi-women-of-the-house-of-madoff-26438-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081215011924/http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/2008/12/12/ponzi1212.html to http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/content/news/2008/12/12/ponzi1212.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)