Talk:Danny Pang (financier)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

While you may disagree with their opinion, there should be no disagreement that they wrote it (the whole thing). Are there objections other than purely grammatical? Smallbones (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Why is it necessary to include what 'some' people have said? The opinion of others is irrelevant. The fact that something is published doesn't automatically mean it is mandatory to add it to every article. 'Some' people have said 'some' things about 'every' subject of every article we have. By insisting on this addition, you are essentially skating around NPOV by claiming "I didn't say it - someone else did." Law type!  snype? 00:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not me saying this, it is New York Magazine. They are drawing a conclusion so it is their opinion, but I think that it is relevant if a fairly major magazine is printing this, and it summarizes the main legal difficulties that Pang may face.  In turn, to support their opinion, they are drawing on raw facts, as presented by the Wall Street Journal in a front page article that has been cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the WSJ's best.  In my opinion (not in the article) the 1st 2 WSJ articles are of Pulitzer Prize winning quality, and this situation points out a severe problem at the SEC:  even a hedge fund manager with the most glaring red flags can go completely unregulated in the U.S..  I think this type of material in Wikipedia is much more important than having another Moose A. Moose article.  Smallbones (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I have a problem with someone who is presumed innocent being referred to as an 'epic liar' on his article. Your defense it that it was printed. My point is that the fact that it is in print doesn't mean it's appropriate here. Law type!  snype? 03:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Danny Pang (financier). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090906051108/http://ocbiz.freedomblogging.com:80/2009/08/31/pang-trial-delayed/14335/ to http://ocbiz.freedomblogging.com/2009/08/31/pang-trial-delayed/14335/
 * Added tag to http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/08/PangReceiver20090506.pdf

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) 15:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

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