Talk:Joseph Jett/Archive 1

Revert War
I have reported this page to Wikipedia under the 3revertrule. Deaththrow (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting these edits from user "deaththrow" as they simply pull long lines of text out of already sourced items which add nothing to the article. Also, the WSJ reference contains no link to confirm the data. Hammertime2005 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to quote at length from these articles. The main points are made, correctly, and quoting from them adds nothing to the entry. Also, you haven't actually quoted the articles (meaning, put parts in quotes or otherwise), you have just lifted large sections. The France 24, Bloomberg, and NASD ordering the return of your bonuses are all still there, just in much more concise fashion than awkwardly lifting large sections at length. I cannot locate the WSJ article you mention, if you provide a real reference the info can be included (again, as long as it attributes quotes properly and adds to the article). Hammertime2005 (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These issues have been addressed below. There is a clear need to quote at length from the articles. They add significantly to the entry they simply appear to say things that you don't want known. Again, it appears to be censorship over a technicality of quotes around the addition. With regard to the quote from the WSJ, are you saying that unless there is a webpage link there can be no proper citation. That would be madness, as clearly not all WSJ articles are available on the Web. I can't pull it up despite subscribing to the WSJ website. Go to your local library and you can find it on microfiche as did I. IPerhaps I should upload the article image to prevent further controversy.Deaththrow (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If, FisherQueen, you are establishing some hegemony over this article please address the fairness in a fair way. For example, I site this quotation from the previous NPOV dispute:

"As per this directive: Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

This article is libelous as it asserts in this statement without documentation or source: It is not clear if any such business is actually being done, as doing so would violate Jett's ban from the securities industry and would expose Jett to further criminal charges.

It is clear and beyond doubt that Jett never faced criminal charges of any nature. To call someone who has never been charged with a crime a criminal certainly is defamatory at the very least and clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia."

For months this page asserted that Jett was a criminal; that a business videoed on France24 simply did not exist. The facts are clearly otherwise. Yet anyone who points these clear errors of bias out is supposedly vilified by the logic: if you don't hate, joseph jett; you must be, joseph jett. I read his book. He spoke at my school. I admire him. We did not pay him $8000.

I made legitimate additions and deletions that have enhanced the public's understanding of the subject. I hope that I have quoted what should be quoted and met the criteria that you have set.

FisherQueen, a problem exists on allowing this page to be lorded over by a group with a clear bias. Someone needs to stand up and allow this article to be expanded so that it provides a unbiased view of the subject matter.

If Hammertime2005 is allowed to state comments such as: "It is not clear if any such business is actually being done, as doing so would violate Jett's ban from the securities industry and would expose Jett to further criminal charges." And then stand on a bully pulpit decrying the fact that a long quote from the Bloomberg article refutes his comments and is able to gain support for his censorship from you then this is a very sad day for Wikipedia.

This page is ascerbic, biased, and serves no good to the public if the falsehoods that I have sought to address remain. You have an obligation to the public to allow the pertinent facts of every story to be told and not prevent it to cater to the biased few as has been done here.

Deaththrow (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of attribution is resolved by quotation marks surrounding the material. As to whether it is neutrally phrased, how can this be stated given the pejorative nature of this entire page. Secondly, let us parse the quotations I added. The first states:

The French Television network, France24, televised Jett meeting with several of his clients and the commentator speaks of Jett meeting clients in an expensive Manhattan skyscraper. The commentator went on to say that there was significant evidence in her opinion that Jett had considerable wealth but wanted the world to believe otherwise.

It addresses the assertion that no business was done by Jett Capital and another assertion that it was run from "short-term rental space". Next, neutrally phrased? The commentator asserts Jett is hiding money. This is not favorable to Jett at all in my opinion. She clearly feels that Jett was misleading her and her audience; using them to put out a false image of poverty. How is this biased in favor of Jett as Hammertoes asserts?????

Lastly, the Bloomberg article:

"The Jett model seems to make for a solid rogue road map -- cause a disaster, blame it on the firm and walk away a free man.

Like British rogue trader, Nick Leeson, Jett has written two books, one of which was pulled from the shelves amid threats of litigation. He told the New York Times in 2004 that he gets between $4,000 and $8,000 a pop on the lecture circuit. With a career like this, what's not to like about getting in trouble with a little off-the-books trading?

A rogue with a future, of course, needs to have a little edge. Jett wouldn't be so interesting if he'd been let off the hook by everyone. He keeps his bad-boy image because the SEC hit him with a $200,000 fine, $8 million in restitution, and a lifetime bar from the securities industry.

He hasn't paid the SEC, and is running an investment business anyway. Jett didn't return telephone calls or e-mail seeking comment."

Neutrally phrased? Again, this is damning of Jett. It says he pulled off a fast one. For the first time on this page we find out that his first book was pulled from the shelves! This is pro Jett????? It states for the first time on this page the SEC fines against him in a far more succinct manner than the rambling nonsense further down the page which I found poorly worded and confusing. And, yes, it notes he hasn't paid the SEC, and yet, for some reason, is allowed to conduct what is clearly a securities business without raising the ire of the SEC. This is all relevant and unspoken information that certainly cannot be construed as one-sided for Jett or, in my opinion, to not be neutrally phrased.

Thank you for at least allowing an opposing opinion to be aired without being censored (I hope).

Deaththrow (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute
It is clear Joe Jett himself is editing this article under the name Ma'atMa'at. All the references to SEC opinions, etc, which contain detailed summaries of the Jett case continue to be removed and replaced with a couple articles from back in 1996 that defended him. All these articles were written before the facts of the case came out. The SEC summary and other items written well after all the facts saw the light of day are much more sound as sources - these should be kept in the article. Joe - please stop removing them.Numbacrunch (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As per this directive: Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

This article is libelous as it asserts in this statement without documentation or source: It is not clear if any such business is actually being done, as doing so would violate Jett's ban from the securities industry and would expose Jett to further criminal charges.

It is clear and beyond doubt that Jett never faced criminal charges of any nature. To call someone who has never been charged with a crime a criminal certainly is defamatory at the very least and clearly violates the spirit of Wikipedia.

Further, as 95% of the securities industry falls outside of the scope of the SEC, to assert globally that any business done by Jett is a violation of an SEC ban is likewise defamatory, libelous and represents tortuous interference - again well outside the spirit of Wikipedia.

I am focused on the Bernie Madoff case and the SEC's relation to the industry it regulates. The Jett matter appears a clear indication of how the SEC allowed Madoff to occur. I am surprised by the response by a few who seem afraid of the presentation of facts.Ma&#39;atMa&#39;at (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is deflection or defense of the alleged actions of Joseph Jett, while being very spartan on details. A "devistating and vitriolic" response from the various media, with no sources, as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stucco x (talk • contribs) 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed the article back to where it was before it was hacked apart Numbacrunch (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes were all unsourced and plagiarized from Jetts autobiography, so i removed them. Numbacrunch (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes made are intended to change this horribly biased account to reflect the truth of the events. The losses in the CMO market that caused the fall of Kidder were well documented and cited with references. The fact that they were removed shows the bias that hopefully Wikipedia will not allow to stand. In the fallout section, how can it be that no mention is made that there was an NASD arbitration that occurred after the SEC trial, after all of Jett's evidence was known to ex-SEC Chief Enforcement Officer, Gary Lynch. Oh I see, Jett won; therefore, not a fact worthy of mention. Ma&#39;atMa&#39;at (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This article was once a well-sourced entry on Jett from nytimes.com and other sources. It does look now, as another user says, that the subject of the article has hijacked it to tell his side of the story. Someone who has a good idea of what happened with the Jett case should put this back to what it was, or at least remove the self-promotional and unsourced items and refer to real references in major publications as it was before. Hammertime2005 (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes to the article appear to me to be well-roughened and better documented than what was here before. Linober (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This article I believe is being heavily edited by Jett himself
This seems to be a repeat of Jett's position on what happened, not an unbiased account based on publicly cited sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.208.148 (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

this wikipedia entry has gone completely bat-shit zany
A few months ago this had a good summmary of the Jett case. Now it has gone off the rails completely!!!! Hammertime2005 (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe Jett himself continues to use this page to air his discredited story, under a new wikipedia ID "deaththrow"
Jett had previously been editing this page under Ma'atMa'at, removing all well-sourced material and replacing it with his own version of events without citing any sources.

He has another login ID, deaththrow, created from the same IP address as Ma'atMa'at and is doing the same thing. I will continue to watch this page and undo these non-constructive edits. Hammertime2005 (talk) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Censorship on this page! Why is it allowed!
Hammer, there is clearly a problem when quotations from major newspaper articles are censored.

By what right are you doing so?

What do you have to fear from all sides of a controversial issue being aired?

You appear to be a stakeholder in some way. Why do you have so much animus about an event 15 years old?

Do you think people need your protection from Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and quotations from France 24 TV?

What exactly is your issue here?

Deaththrow (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

False assertions!
The necessity of including quotations from the articles is because you and your South African IP friends are citing the articles and then falsely describing their content.

The only way to assure honesty is to use quotations from the actual article rather than allowing your clearly biased interpretation.

Again, why do you fear a reader seeing what was in the actual article?

And I was being rhetorical.

You are attempting to rewrite history in this Wikipedia article and the only way that you can successfully pull it off is by preventing the real facts from being known.

These are Nazi tactics and we can only hope that Wikipedia administrators will take a long overdue look at your manipulations.

Deaththrow (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe, the Bloomberg and France24 links are still there. If you think that there is data in the article that are not supported by the source, remove that data and describe why in the edit summary. I have asked, please provide the supporting link to the WSJ article and we can include that too. But you cannot pull long pieces of text from articles without attribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammertime2005 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My name isn't Joe, wrong sex buddy. The Bloomberg article in particular was used by you and your South African buddies to suggest that a business did not exist in reality. That the issued was raised requires a verbose treatment of the Bloomberg article showing the actual text so no more of your falsehoods can stand as fact.

The France24 quotation from the announcer also shows that you are manipulating the facts to support your very clear bias.

Clearly, Jett must have hurt you badly as you are so personal in your attacks. Why don't you hunt him up maybe you can beat him in a fist fight or something but leave this Wikipedia for educational purposes.

The attributions are the citations. The WSJ article is from library microfiche. The Wall Street Journal, Friday, December 20, 1996. Page C23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deaththrow (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Deaththrow, I still don't even understand what factual statement you think is incorrect. The only thing you've said is that Jett Capital Management LLC exists, but the article does not say that it doesn't exist, and the edits you're making don't address that.  If you are not able to express clearly, in a way that people can understand, what you think is wrong with the article, then you will not be able to make useful changes to the article. Pretend we are entirely unfamiliar with Joseph Jett (I certainly am), assume that we all want the encyclopedia to be readable and accurate, (I do), and explain what is incorrect in this article in a way we can understand, without insulting anyone.  I can't agree with your position until you give me a hint about what it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The page seems to be much improved from the collective contributions of editors.

To Deaththrow - a few wikipedia tips: when you see a statement that you think is wrong on a wikipedia page, the solution is to remove it. Then there is no need to change the page to include information to refute the wrong statement. As an example, if you went to the "John Smith" page, and it said, "John Smith is a jerk," the way that you would remedy it is to simply remove the objectionable statement. You would not need to change the page to say "John Smith is NOT a jerk and here is why!!!". Does that make sense?

I am giving you this example since you are saying you need to include a bunch of information on the page to refute things that appeared on previous versions of the wikipedia page. But people that visit wikipedia for information ARE NOT SEEING those previous versions. So by simply removing what you think is incorrect, you have solved the problem for current wikipedia viewers. To include long, rambling lines of text that are meant to refute old statements -- which the current reader has not seen -- just reduces the quality of page and adds nothing to anyone's understanding.

Also, I wouldn't think that this would need saying, but you should also be able to execute the above strategy without calling people Nazis or saying that they should have fist fights with the subject of the article. But this isn't really a wikipedia standard - it is just part of being a grown-up.

Good luck with your editing and your business.

Hammertime2005 (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove Conflict of Interest Tag
I removed the COI tag since the article seems to be much more balanced now than it was several weeks ago. Hammertime2005 (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed introductory sentence
I don't think the fact that Jett was found to have committed securities fraud to be important enough to put in the introductory sentence, it is well highlighted later in the article. The fraud finding did not take place until 2004, a full ten years after the most interesting parts of the Jett story took place. Reverted this edit. Numbacrunch (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

jett's MBA
BayAreaSteve, the NY Times says Jett was not awarded an MBA although he attended. If you have a more accurate source that corrects this, please source it, otherwise I think the NY Times is a reputable source on this. Its clear the reported got this information straight from Harvard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.75.39 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)