Talk:ImClone stock trading case/Archives/2015

Organization and Conduct During Investigation
This article is badly in need of some improved organization. I've added a few headers and made some minor changes. The timing still seems to jump around a bit.

Further, discussion of the investigation that led to her conviction receives very little coverage. There is very little about the conduct she WAS found guilty of (I added a bit from prior research about what she was NOT found guilty of). Much of this is summarized in the indictment and verdict form (which are now linked).

I may make additional edits from time to time. Any help with organization and sourced factual information will improve the article.

Civil litigation
There is a brief reference to civil litigation, but I could find no reference to its resolution.


 * As of 5/25/2006, the trial is still ongoing. See this article 12.47.208.34

NPOV Flag
Does anyone see a need to maitain the NPOV flag?


 * Update 6/22/06. As no one has objected, the NPOV flag is being removed.

Title capitalization
Shouldn't this be at Martha Stewart insider trading charges? 71.231.107.188 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've moved it. -- Saaga 13:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of entry into Canada
I have corrected some information with regards to Stewart's planned trip in Nova Scotia.

Stewart was never denied entry at any point, had she attempted to make the trip prior to obtaining proper authorization she would have potentially been denied.

She also was never issued a Work Permit (as they are called in Canada), she received a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) this is a document that is issued to persons who would normally be found inadmissible to Canada due to criminality or other reasons. As Stewart is a convicted felon a Minister's decision is required for issuance of the TRP. --Cwb27 00:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirected
The page has been redirected to Martha Stewart, on the basis of being an article about a living person which was completely unsourced. If editors want to restore the material, they will need to provide verifiable sources for all the material. Editors should also pay attention not to make this a POV fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I count about 17 sources in the last version. While some assertions are unsourced, the article looks pretty solid to me. I'd thought that WP preferred incidents like this be ahndled on their own rather than causing undue weight in biographies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Feel free to undo the redirect, removing unsourced material and changing the name of the article to something that is factually accurate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Title of Page
The name of this page should be different -- they were NOT insider trading charges. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, and Jossi makes some good points too. However, I do believe this article is salvageable. --Samiharris (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. See my comment to Will above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the most immediate and urgent need is to change the title, which presents a serious BLP issue. "Martha Stewart criminal case" would be accurate but doesn't quite seem sufficiently descriptive.--Samiharris (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * How about "Martha Stewart stock trading case"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That may work. The counts where "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements", but how do you put that on a title? I will undo the redirect and move the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made several edits to clean up and tag the article accordingly. It needs much more work, though.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a disgraceful article and should be removed on BLP grounds alone.Momento (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do you see the BLP issues? It strikes me as a straightforward account of a major corporate scandal, but perhaps I am missing something.--Samiharris (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't a major corporate scandal, it was one of hundreds of similar cases conducted every year and only became notable because MS was famous. No legal precedents were created, no records for most money scammed, nothing of any importance, other than it involved MS who is famous. So to create a separate article about this is to give it undue weight, it should be handled in her article along with the other important aspects of her life. You could create an article with Paul McCartney & drugs (he's been busted five times) or Nelson Mandela & Criminal activities but they're too admired and most editors would call it a "beat up" and they'd be right. This is a "beat-up" and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Momento is making a good point here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It was described by CNN as a subject of "intense publicity" and "the most closely watched of the recent corporate fraud cases." It was page one news around the country for weeks. Two CEOs of NYSE companies, one of whom (Stewart) was a household word and entertainment figure, went to prison. If this was not a notable corporate scandal I don't know what is.--Samiharris (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure it's notable but so is Britney Spears not wearing under pants, but is it worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. This case attracted "intense publicity" and was "the most closely watched of the recent corporate fraud cases" only because MS is famous. The case itself wouldn't have rated a mention if it wasn't for MS. The case is a non event and doesn't deserve an article. Where's the "Peter Bacanovic stock trading case" article? He was the other CEO convicted. It doesn't exist because he's not famous and therefore an unexciting gossip subject. Take "Martha Stewart" out of the title of this article and what have you got? Nothing. Tabloid newspapers and gossip magazines may trade on someone's name to attract readers but Wiki shouldn't. This case is adequately covered in the MS article, it doesn't need this one.Momento (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes there is no question that there is an article because Martha Stewart is famous. That is precisely the point. She was a major public figure and became embroiled in a major corporate scandal for which she was imprisoned. Yes it was major, as she was convicted of felonies, as was Mr. Waksal and her broker. Sorry, but I do not believe that her conviction can be likened to Britney Spears's underpants and was "nothing." She was convicted of serious crimes. You are correct that if she was not so well known there might not be a separate article, but that does not make the scandal less significant. Had she not been well known, the imprisonment of two CEOs would be highly notable.--Samiharris (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's be clear, the MS case wasn't a "major corporate scandal", MS avoided $45,000 loses. It was a "major celebrity gossip fest". And I didn't suggest "her conviction can be likened to Britney Spears's underpants and was "nothing.", I was making the point that both are "notable" but that isn't enough to warrant an article. And she wasn't convicted of serious crimes; "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements" are hardly serious. A whole Wiki article about "$45,000 conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements"? In 1963 Laura Bush was involved in a car accident when she ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing a friend and classmate. This incident  rates two sentences in LB's article. This article, by its existence, gives "undue weight" to an incident that is adequately covered in the MS article. Momento (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a "Criticism" section is in order that can detail the criticism that have been reported concerning this case in reliable sources. That might possible address some of your concerns and add balance to the article. I have a vague recollection of criticism in the Wall Street Journal editorial page, for example.--Samiharris (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note this article in the New York Times, discussing the controversy and noting a Wall Street Journal article comparing her offenses to a "speeding ticket." Note also that this Times article says that Stewart "became the most controversial white-collar defendant since Mr. Milken," which substantiates my point on the significance of this case. Significant as it is, I think that some balancing and nuance would be welcome and would make this a better article.--Samiharris (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This case is adequately covered in the main MS article. Simply having this article with this heading in any shape or form gives "undue weight" to this incident in her life.Momento (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Have taken the liberty of removing duplicate post.) I understand that is your position, and you should feel free to nominate it for deletion if that is your view. However, assuming there is an article, I think a criticism section would add value and balance. --Samiharris (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On further inquiry I see that the ImClone insider trading case was being investigated very publicly well-before the Martha Stewart's involvement became known. For that reason I think we should move the article to "ImClone stock trading case". That will also help address concerns that it is too-heavily focused on Martha Stewart. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
The lead paragraph of this article does not appear to be in the correct style. Shouldn't it summarize, briefly, what happened and mention the convictions?--Samiharris (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Added some summary text, you may want to expand on that of needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that does it.--Samiharris (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This lead demonstrates the extreme POV of this article. It says "In 2003, she was charged with making false statements (two counts); obstruction of justice; securities fraud; and conspiracy to obstruct justice, make false statements, and commit perjury. Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison, five months of home confinement, and two years probation." Where's the justice in this? Why doesn't it just come out and tell the truth - MS was convicted of "conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and two counts of making false statements".Momento (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So fix it... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Organization of the article (again)
I agree with the unsigned comment at the top of this page that the organization of the article leaves a lot to be desired. It is kind of choppy in its organization, with a lot of short sections that should be combined. Also the "repercussions" section seems out of place. I think the entire trial, including sentencing and appeal, should be dealt with in one large section with subsections. The aftermath and non-trial repercussions can be dealt with separately, and there should be a Criticisms section as noted above. How does that sound?--Samiharris (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that "criticism" sections are bad practice. There is no reason why all views can be presented in a consistent manner throughout the article. As for the re-organization proposed, I think it is a good idea. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, then maybe a section could separately address the controversy that arose concerning the prosecution. It could be deal with the pros and cons and the nuances not really appropriate elsewhere. There was a serious amount of concern that Stewart was being singled out because of her prominence, as noted in the Times article.--Samiharris (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And now she is being singled out by a Wiki article.Momento (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Momento. However, if we are to include this article, then perhaps the mentions in the Stewart bio can be pared down. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The best way to handle events is to arrange things as chornologivcally as possible. That's usually the most neutral treatment. That includes criticisms (or praise) when those can be logically incorporated into the flow of the article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The most neutral way to treat MS is to delete this article and treat this case in proportion to all her other activities in her life in her article.Momento (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there has been so much press coverage of this matter that proper coverage of the event would easily have too much weight in her biography. We do this with many biographies of people great and small. What's notable here is the incident, and so the topic is the incident. By comparison, we don't say that the OJ Simpson trial should be covered entirely in his biography, and that we should avoid giving it disproportionate weight there. Nor do we say that a writer's novels should be covered entirely in their biographies, or a general's battles, or a politician's campaigns. This is the best way of fully covering a famous criminal case without having it overwhelm the Stewart bio. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OJ's trial involved two murders, a videoed car chase and twelve month trial and an outrageous outcome. It cannot be compared to MS's case. And it isn't a "famous criminal case", it's a beat up. It should be treated in proportion to MS's career. Google MS and 4 out of 30 concern the case. Google OJ Simpson and crime takes 90% of the hits. The stock case takes up about 10% of the MS article and that's as it should be. This article should be deleted. Wiki is an encyclopedia not a gossip mag.Momento (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a famous criminal case? It certainly appears to be. A search of the Proquest newspaper archive gives 42067 for "martha Stewart", and 7986 for "martha stewart" plus "imclone". That's more than 10%, and is enough to merit an article of its own. The current MS bio is 2165 words long, of which about 315 words are devoted to the case. It's already more than 10% of that article and some folks want it to be even less. This article is 1370 words. You appear to be proposing that we delete over 3/4 of the article, even though the material is properly sourced and neutral. I suggest that such a change needs to go through AfD. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 10:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that O. J. Simpson murder case has a "reaction to trial" section. That may be the way to go. --Samiharris (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is properly sourced and it is neutral but the fact that it exists is, to me, undue weight. Have a look at the Michael Milken article. He was relatively unknown until the junk bond scandal which was a huge case involving enormous amounts of money and many implications for the finance industry. All his history is contained in the one article and in proportion to its prominence. He doesn't have a separate article. My concern is that a well known but law abiding person who makes a mistake can become a trophy case for prosecution. The crime itself is insignificant in its field but blown out of proportion because of the fame of the victim. Google Martha Stewart and you get nearly 8.5 million hits. Google Martha Stewart and ImClone and you get less than 100,000 or less than 2%. MS's fame makes it a source of tabloid fodder and generates far more publicity than it deserves. I think we have a responsibility to avoid the same mistake. This was a minor case that is only well known because of the fame of Martha Stewart. It is covered in her article and a separate article is undue weight. I rest my case, I'll leave the verdict of to you.Momento (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The undue weight argument doens't make sense. The topic of this article is the stock trading case. Within this article we don't devote undue weight to that topic, nor could we. You seem to be saying that there should be a fixed ratio of article lengths. If you look across Wikipedia you can see that there's no convention for saying that "Article A" may only be X number of words because "Article B" is only Y number of words. Each article stands on its own. If there is twice as much to say about "Hamlet" as there is about "Coriolanus" we don't say that undue weight is given one play over another, we allow the one article to be longer than the other. You mention the Milken article: it devotes at least 1482 words to his case out of an article that's 2500 words long. (Another 1500 words are devoted to the topic in the article on Drexel Burnham Lambert). How is that a good example of proper weight, but devoting 315 words in Stewart's bio to her conviction is undue weight? I suggest that we keep the mention of the case in the Stewart relatively short, to avoid undue weight there, but that this article should be as long as sources will bear. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·  —Preceding comment was added at 21:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

One way of getting around the policies of undue weight in a BLP is to set up article to address issues you wouldn't be allowed to in a BLP. For instance, if you dislike Martha Stewart, you could set up an article "Criticism of Martha Stewart" and then fill it with every negative piece of info you can find. No one can fault you for sources and the content is true to its title but is it fair. I believe the treatment of the case in the MS article is fair and appropriate. I don't believe the stock case warrants its own article. Milken is famous for the junk bond scandal, Martha Stewart was famous long before this case and this case is only notable because she's in it.Momento (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles that only contain one viewpoint are POV forks, and are not allowed. This article is not a POV fork. It is typical to break out lengthy topics from articles to give them full treatment on their own. So long as all significant points of view are included the split-off article fulfills the requirements of NPOV. The presence of such an article does not violate any Wikipedia principle. It doesn't really matter who is involved in this case - the fact is that it was widely covered at the time and resulted in a felony conviction. If you don't think that this topic deserves an article then nominate it for deletion. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hooray. I saw your edit summary (ImClone stock trading case) and thought "Yes. Will Beback has solved the problem". And you have. I'm not sure how to do it; can we just rename this article "ImClone stock trading case" and expand it? And link to it from MS and ImClone articles?Momento (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if there's no objection we can move the article and focus on the overall stock trading issue. In reviewing the news archives I see that the ImClone trading was investigated by the a House committee and was the subject of considerable controversy about FDA approval process, all before Stewart was even linked to the case. While she was the most famous participant, it had many players and we shouldn't focus on just one. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of renaming the article "ImClone stock trading case",(great work you guys on figuring out that solution! ) but please remove the redirects which mention Martha's name. It's not fair to her to have that.. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would also be more accurate. I'd suggest that someone who is good at such things rename this article right away.--Samiharris (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need or benefit from deleting the redirects that name Stewart. She was the most prominent participant in the case, and many people may associate it more with here than with any other name. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had to change the links on the ImClone, Waksal & Martha Stewart articles to "Imclone Stock trading case" to bring them here.Momento (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a go and give a quick edit but it will need more.Momento (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I've inserted a section from the ImClone article and called it "History" to get the article started. It then goes into the existing MS stock article. We would need to give Samuel D. Waksal John B. Landes & Ronald A. Martell more material to avoid giving undue weight to MS. Well done for persisting with the arguments until this great solution emerged.Momento (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The benefit from deleting the redirects that name stewart is that you would be removing inaccurate and unfair material on a living person. When people get to this article from the following link, they are being misinformed and Martha Stewart is being defamed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart_insider_trading_charges. I ask that they be removed on BLP grounds. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Where is "Martha_Stewart_insider_trading_charges"?Momento (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is now no lead paragraph. That has to be rectified.--Samiharris (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a lead paragraph and removed the italicized introductory matter, as it was duplicative and unecessary now that the article has been renamed and is being expanded. Also it is necessary to add sources to the new "history" section, which at present contains much inflammatory matter that must be sourced by appropriate citations.--Samiharris (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What about deleting the stewart "insider trading charges" redirect as discussed above? --Jkp212 (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the problem with the redirects? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The benefit from deleting the redirects that name stewart is that you would be removing inaccurate and unfair material on a living person. When people get to this article from the following link, they are being misinformed and Martha Stewart is being defamed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart_insider_trading_charges. I ask that they be removed on BLP grounds. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. No insider charges were brought or proven. How do you remove them?Momento (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with redirecting from the former title of this article. The redirect takes one directly to the article describing how she was convicted oft no less serious felonies.--Samiharris (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Martha Stewart did not receive Insider trading charges, so the title "Martha Stewart Insider Trading Charges" is inaccurate. The title of the article (even a redirect) shows high on google, so essentially WP will be committing defamation by allowing the redirects to stay. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, she was charged with insider trading by the SEC, as was noted in the article, and she settled those charges by agreeing to "an injunction, disgorgement of losses she avoided, and the maximum penalty of three times the losses she avoided, for a total of about $195,000 in monetary relief. Stewart also agrees to a five year bar from serving as a director of a public company and a five year limitation on the scope of her service as an officer or employee of a public company.". Given that, I think the redirect is perfectly appropriate beyond any doubt.--Samiharris (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the title "Martha Stewart Insider Trading Charges" implies criminal charges. Was she criminally charged with insider trading? --Jkp212 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it implies anything of the kind. She was charged with insider trading by the SEC and she paid a stiff penalty for that. The title of the redirect is therefore true, even though, as you can see from the article, she was not charged criminally with insider trading.--Samiharris (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was wrong, Samiharris is correct. The SEC filed a civil claim against MS for insider trading. It was settled but she "consented to the judgments without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint". Whether than means she is considered guilty, I don't know. It appears they aren't criminal charges. So the old title is correct.Momento (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SAmiharris is correct. The redirect is completely supported.John celona (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Bacanovic
I've commenced a discussion on the Peter Bacanovic talk page as to whether he is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article under WP:BLP1E.--Samiharris (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stewart Martha Sentancing.jpg
Image:Stewart Martha Sentancing.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)