Talk:Naked short selling/Archive 6

Isn't this starting to get a little silly?
The word is out in WR that anyone editing this article must fear repercussions. That may explain the following observation. Here is a link to tonight's Google search results on "naked short selling". It shows that in the last three weeks there have been nearly 2,000 articles on the subject of naked short selling, on the SEC's unprecedented emergency order to stop it in 19 financial institutions deemed "too big to fail", on the regulatory changes in the works, on the mad lobbying effort that is now underway in DC by hedge funds so that the loopholes through which NSS occurs get closed, etc. Yet this page still blithely depicts the issue as largely imaginary: "Regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US"; "when a stock appears on this list, it is like a red flag waving, stating 'something is wrong here!'"; "fails were 'more like an acceptable kludge, helping the market work better, than a cesspot of corruption liable to bring down the financial system"; "The SEC downplays naked shorting as a factor in declining stock prices"; "some commentators contend that naked short selling is not harmful and its prevalence has been exaggerated"; most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus"; and "Gary Weiss ...cites economic justifications for naked short selling and downplays its significance as a problem for the market."

Wikipedians, your beloved project is being used in a cover-up, and by your inaction you are going along with it. What superb commitment to intellectual integrity. Bravo. PatrickByrne (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno about bias in the rest of the article, but the "Media coverage" section looks a little absurd now. In the last several weeks, this went from being an esoteric subject (wherein the opinions of, say, Gary Weiss might have actually been a big chunk of the coverage), to a major story in the business section. This heading needs an overhaul. I don't have a lot of time, but I'll be watching it closely and hopefully updating it. Cool Hand Luke 04:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The word is out in WR that anyone editing this article must fear repercussions. Such as? Please substantiate this allegation, or withdraw it. Thank you.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Luke, you're right. An overhaul would be a good idea. But the overhaul would have to make the distinction I was just trying to explain to Pat, between what the usual crusaders have been saying and what the Cox order and Cox' defenses thereof actually represents. Between the Wall Street v. Main Street theory of the problem NSS supposedly represents and the Wall Street self-cannibalization theory. They could both be wrong or they could both be right, or one could be wrong and the other right, but they are surely two different subjects. --Christofurio (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC) And Jane's right too.


 * Jane wants justification for this claim: "'The word is out in WR that anyone editing this article must fear repercussions." See here: "I am afraid Relata refero is right; I've contacted a couple of editors who have done work in this general field, and they won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes. One said 'no thanks, I have a clean block record and I intend to keep it that way,' and the second said he had no doubt that any edits he made would be contested and railed at. Perhaps the arbitrators could put on their editing hats and demonstrate how it is done - or make personal requests of very knowledgeable and well respected editors to clean things up, under the protection of the committee. Risker (talk) 23:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)" When people are afraid of touching articles in a field even while "acknowledging that they are complete messes" for fear of being "contested and railed at", or insist "I have a clean block record and intend to keep it that way", and will proceeed only with air cover provided by "the committee".... I think that is safe to describe that as a  sense that "anyone editing this article must fear repercussions." Of course, who knows what counts as evidence on this board anymore, given that Christo argues that having Chairman Cox of the SEC denouncing naked short selling along precisely the same lines that I have, even at times even using the same words, is not "vindication", for some esoteric private ideological argument of his that is barely readable.  Given that, maybe it is worth debating whether "repercussions" means the same thing as fearing the loss of "a clean block record" and knowing "that any edits he made would be contested and railed at." Or whether a desire to edit only under the cover of a committee counts as "fear". Who knows? Maybe we need to debate what "editing" means.  Or, perhaps we can dispense with the pettifoggery.  You now have ample citations above showing you that the SEC is taking unprecedented emergency action to protect the institutions at the core of our capital market from naked short selling. Here is a Salt lake Tribune article "Wall Street War: a Win for Utahn" ("These days, when people talk of Byrne, the word 'vindication' comes up a lot. 'You can always tell who the pioneers are - they're the ones with all the arrows sticking out of their backs,' said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University. 'You really can't understate what Byrne has accomplished') showing how far awareness has come.  Here is Jim Cramer, one of my biggest opponents three years ago, now completely changing his tune by saying that if naked shorting does not get fixed, you should pull out of the stock market.  And so on and so forth. Yet your article continues to feature bromides like "most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus" and "downplays its significance as a problem for the market" (Weiss) and  "Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., has derided naked shorting allegations". In othe rwords, they are deriding, downplaying, and calling "bogus" an issue that the SEC now takes emergency action to stop against the core of our capital market. I'm not sure that this could get any sillier. I repeat my claim: Wikipedians are allowing these pages to be used in the obvious cover-up of a financial crime of epic proportions. PatrickByrne (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide the identities of editors who have been blocked for editing this article? Much time has elapsed since that remark was made (on Wikipedia six months ago, not WR or Wikipedia Review currently, as you stated). There appears to be substantial editing of the article, so I trust you can provide that information. Thank you.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At least two well-respected editors, (User:Mackan79 and User:Cla68) have been blocked for editing one or more of these 4 articles. In a rather infamous exchange User:G-Dett found you could get blocked/banned just by sounding like User:Wordbomb. So yes; it makes perfectly sense to stay away from these pages if you disagree with the Gary Weiss-people and want to keep your "block-list" clean. Myself, I just started editing on these pages (mostly the Byrne-article) after making it very, very clear that I am not a native English speaker, (but knows Swedish, Danish and Norwegian), hence I am clearly no Wordbomb-sock. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal experience is that disagrement with the Byrne-people has the identical effect. Perhaps there should be free expression of views, subject only to Wikipedia policies.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? You think that being asked a question on your user-page is "identical" to being blocked? And when did Risker become counted among the "Byrne-people"? I don´t see that he has edited these pages at all! I only know of Risker as an admin who tries to enforce some order in quite difficult areas of WP.  But yes: I totally agree with you: there should be free expression of views, and I certainly would not like to see this to become a "lets-block-him/her-because-they-sound-like-GW-year." Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Identical' was imprecise, but I thought that the tone of what appeared on my page was, perhaps unintentionally, intimiating. That is particularly so, given that my entirety of my contributions on this subject consist of contributions to this and another discussion page. I doubt that I would have received such a notice had I nodded in agreement.--Janeyryan (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here, Piperdown notes that everybody who edits any of the four protected articles will likely be checkusered (nobody wants this, given the history of false positives made by inexperienced checkusers...and the risk of wrongful blocking that might result). As noted above, here within Wikipedia is someone writing "I've contacted a couple of editors who have done work in this general field, and they won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes. One said 'no thanks, I have a clean block record and I intend to keep it that way,' and the second said he had no doubt that any edits he made would be contested and railed at." I can find no evidence that this sentiment has changed, and as additional evidence that it has not changed, cite the many examples I have given above. In the last four months the SEC went from proposing an anti-fraud naked short selling rule (see their release "SEC Proposes Naked Short Selling Anti-Fraud Rule") to, as our financial system appeared on the brink of imploding, passing an unprecedented emergency order "SEC Enhances Investor Protections Against Naked Short Selling". As SEC Chairman Cox described it therein, ""Today's Commission action aims to stop unlawful manipulation through 'naked' short selling that threatens the stability of financial institutions." Here are 2,000 Google search results for stories that have appeared in recent weeks about "naked short selling". And so on and so forth.  Yet this article remains frozen displaying three year old absurdities such as ""Regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US"; "Wall Street Journal columnist Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., has derided naked shorting allegations"; "New York Times financial columnist Joseph Nocera ... said that 'most people who understand the issue or have looked into it think it's pretty bogus'"; and "Gary Weiss ... downplays its significance as a problem for the market." In short, the page remains frozen insisting that "regulators downplay the extent of naked shorting in the US" when regulators have in fact passed an unprecedented emergency order to prevent it from taking down our financial system.  I cite this  as additional, compelling evidence that the attitude of "editors who have done work in this general field... won't even consider touching the articles, despite acknowledging they are complete messes"  remains unchanged. PatrickByrne (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree: the article as it is now is very tilted. I will try to start working on it in a day or two. However, I am not generally editing in the "economics" area. We very much need the "regular" economics-editors here. And frankly, I don´t think they will come in the near future, unless something substantial happens here on WP. Eg, if Wordbomb was unblocked; now that would give all economics-editors the sign that "block-on-sight" of certain views here on WP is no longer the case. But I´m not holding my breath. Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Byrne is the dominant voice on this page, so please let's not be silly about this.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Prove it. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's not be silly about this: look who has edited the page. Some of the edits there are strange, to say the least. This edit, eg, to "improve grammar, style and clarity" ....and which "just happened" to turn the meaning 180 degrees around.. .and info is not based in the ref. it uses.... Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am no expert on this subject, but I read that link and see no change in direction of this article whatever.--Janeyryan (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, perhaps you could then comment on talkpages where you are at least marginally familiar with the subject? -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mr. Byrne is the dominant voice on this page." More importantly, I have 0 voice on the page that matters (that is, the project page on Naked Short Selling), out of respect for the wishes of some who feel that would corrupt it. However, I respectfully suggest again that folks take a look at the [sandbox page] I created some months ago. On the one hand, it is months out of data. On the other hand, it has everything that is on the current project page, including the (in my view) bogus apologetics, but the material is organized differently. The early part is straightforward and factual, and is not salted with apologetics (as the current one is). Then it ends with the section on the controversy, with all the current apologetics in place, followed by a section that tells the other side. Again, it is months out of date and a tremendous amount has come out to expose this practice, but I cannot imagine a fair-minded person would not see this structure as more neutral, and preferable. And I do not see why the apologists for NSS could have any complaint, because their material is still [there], but just not unilaterally salted through the body of the article. PatrickByrne (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have 0 voice on the page that matters (that is, the project page on Naked Short Selling) said the gentlman prior to proposing an overhaul of the article.--Janeyryan (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickByrne (talk • contribs) 18:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC) PatrickByrne (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that all the controversial claims be combed out of the article and concentrated in a new section at the end. I have prepared a modest example that with is relatively current with new information, yet preserves all the apologetics that is current in the article (if it would not be too embarrassing for the apologists):

Hmmmmm
I'll make three quick observations about the above. First, "apologetics" is an activity, whereas "critics" are people. It would make sense to begin with "NSS criticism" and then go to "NSS apologetics." Or, in the alternative, begin with "critics" and proceed to "apologists." But don't mix them up.
 * FixedPatrickByrne (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Second, why is Drummond's affiliation specified in two successive paragraphs? Would someone after reading the first of those grafs immediately forget that Drummond is with Bloomberg Mag and need reminding so quickly? Just wondering.
 * Fixed PatrickByrne (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Third, as with the viscosity of crude oil, there is light, there is heavy, and there is intermediate. With traffic lights, there is red, there is green, there is yellow. We might want a name and a category for the yellow-light theorists. The West Texas Intermediates of NSS. I think that is now the position in which one can place Chris Cox and the official position of the SEC, which after all holds that NSS is a problem for Wall Street, but has declined to extend its order even to banking in general, much less to biopharms and so forth.
 * Chris - thanks for aknowledging that Chairman Cox believes "that NSS is a problem for wall street." But you err by continuing, he "has declined to extend its order even to banking in general, much less to bipharms and others." You seem to regrad this as proof that Cox does not believe that NSS is a problem for banking in general, much less biopharms and others. That claim is flatly false: Cox has on numerous occasions (many of which are cited above) directly asserted that NSS is a problem for other companies in the market, such as the ones you mention. The fault in your logic is that you have a hidden proposition, assumed without argument, that hidden and faulty assumption being, "if Chris Cox thought that nss was a problem for banking in general or bipharms and others, he would have extended his emergency order to them." Please provide citation to support that hidden assumption. PatrickByrne (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just my own respectful initial observations. --Christofurio (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine too.PatrickByrne (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And you may want to make room for such research as http://www.imd.ch/news/upload/Report.pdf --Christofurio (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[And, on an only slightly-related note, I was surprised to see that Mantanmoreland is writing Obama's speeches. Or is the old "lipstick on a pig" metaphor actually fairly common after all?]
 * "Lipstick on a pig" is an expression that has been around at least since 2000 or 2001. It appeared in a TV commercial for an online brokerage (E-Trade, I think). They were satirizing conventional brokerages by showing a Merrill Lynch-like organization where the stock brokers were getting a pep talk from their boss, who was revving them up about selling to their clients stock in a company they all knew to be junk. "Go put lipstick on this pig," he told them. The implication being, the research and advice one paid for with a full-service brokerage was really worthless anyway, and hence, one should use a bare-bones brokerage like E-Trade. PatrickByrne (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

New source- The Register
Here is some new information in a reliable source that should be considered for the article in relation to Byrne's and Weiss' battle over Naked Short Selling and how it relates to Wikipedia in particular. Perhaps a new section in the article?:
 * Metz, Cade, "Wikimadness XVII: The Return of Byrne", The Register, August 11, 2008. Covers Weiss' and Byrne's battle over Naked Short Selling and Byrne's allegations that Weiss was employing the User:Mantanmoreland account and its socks to try to control the subject in Wikipedia. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Cla; I´m not sure I agree with you completely here. I feel much more for User:Relata refero suggestion above, namely that this article suffers from a lack of academic sources, (and has too much dependence on financial journalism.). I have left a note on Relatas talk-page: . The sources Relata mentions above is one place to start. Also, the review he refers to is, I believe, here(?)
 * Actually, I think I would have moved up the "Studies" section, to go between the: 1 Description, and 2 Regulations in the United States. (That is: the "Studies" section would become the new section 2, while "Regulations in the United States" would become section 3). This just to indicate the importance of the "Studies" section. What do you think? Huldra (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I also think that possibly the SEC´s July 15 order is important enought to go into the lead? Huldra (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Register is not exactly the most reliable source. If there were interesting news, I suspect it would first appear in better places.  They seem to do a fair amount of rumor mongering at The Register, and not so much fact checking. Jehochman Talk 02:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the the conflict between Weiss and Byrne has also been noted in the NY Times, NY Post, and, I think Bloomberg, with the Times article mentioning that it may have spilled over into Wikipedia. The Register reporter notes that he believes the Wikipedia articles are slanted towards an anti-Byrne stance.  Judging by Huldra's comments above, if this is true, then it appears to be on its way to being corrected. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cla; you are right in that the Weiss/Byrne/Wikipedia conflict has been mentioned in quite a few sources, however, my concern is that this "local" conflict is at least 100 times bigger here on WP than out in the "real world". What I am trying to say is that I don´t want us to be "navel gazers" (Eh, do you have that expression in English?). There are far, far more important issues here. As one example; take the collapse of Bear Stearns: it is so enormously  more important than all our infights here, don´t you agree?  Therefore, I find the single fact that Bear Stearns CEO Alan Schwartz believes that NSS played a role in the collapse of Bear Stearns, far more important than the whole Weiss/Byrne/Wikipedia saga... For me it would be more important to get that across than all the socking by GW. For all its nastiness: it is simply not important enough *compared* with the other issues here. And, from what I understand: the demise of Bear Stearns was an important influence for the SEC´s July 15 order. (And I see that  CNN has a new headline about NSS . It is certainly no fringe subject anymore.)  Anyway, does everybody agree that the SEC July 15 order should - in some form or other - go into the lead? And can we move up the "Studies" section (even if we have not expanded it yet?)  Huldra (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about the Register and about the Byrne/Weiss kerfuffle. --Janeyryan (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note in response to User:Huldra's message on my talkpage. I certainly thought at the time that there was an under-representation of the academic literature, and will certainly get on it when I have time, and if I decide to return to full-time editing. I have, however, been following with interest the SEC's recent decision and the consequent press coverage, and cannot disagree with User:PatrickByrne when he says that the media coverage section is at worst pretty definitely POV now, and at best dangerously out-of-date. -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The media coverage section is quite POV, even more so given the recent shifts and coverage of this topic. However, as I said on Weiss' talk page, coverage on that living person should wait for a better source, if forthcoming. Everything else needs a new coat of paint, and Byrne's commentary in this Reg story might have a place in the article. Cool Hand Luke 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Reg article is about Wikipedia, not about the naked shorting issue except as it relates to Byrne's real or perceived grievances against NSS articles on Wikipedia. I think what's needed are articles that are from reliable sources, neutrally presented, describing media reaction. What I have seen in Google News has been straight reporting and duplicative. I agree that more needs to be done to present the great onslaught of coverage, straight and uninspiring as it may have been. Unfortunately we have been somewhat diverted by Mr. Byrne's quest for vindication, which I would suggest is tangential if not utterly irrelevant to the greater issue.--Janeyryan (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of us have not, actually. -- Relata refero (disp.) 03:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, most of you have not, Relato. "Unfortunately we have been somewhat diverted by Mr. Byrne's quest for vindication..." Readers should be aware that such misleading claims get thrown about as though they were fact, apparently in an attempt to confuse the suggestible. Whom has been diverted? Is she speaking of herself? etc. Incidentally, I'm on no quest for "vindication": I just want the article to tell the truth. It is stuck in Bizarro World: the apologists have the high ground, but at least on this Talk page enough people get it. I wonder, will the siege be a long one? Or will there be a sudden rushing of the gate? PatrickByrne (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Huldra. In response to one of your more incidental queries, "navel gazing" is an English-language idiom. http://vdict.com/navel-gazing,7,0,0.html --Christofurio (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you Christofurio. And eh, its ms. Huldra. ;-P Regards, Huldra (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reintroduce
I see that a lot of stuff is archived; ok. But I take the chance on reintroducing Relatas "sources"; I found them useful. Here they are:

A word.
So one can't move on this project these days without discovering that this article may or may not be a problem. I've come to have a look myself. It has problems. Here are the problems:
 * Far too much dependence on financial journalism. The "media coverage" thing dominates the end of the article, and is least encyclopaedic. It should be cut down drastically. Since there are several complaints about it, and a recommendation from the Business and Economics Working Group already on this page suggesting as much, it beggars belief that it has not been done as yet.
 * Nowhere near enough reliable academic sources covered in the "studies" section. I am not an expert, but have some small knowledge of theoretical financial economics, and the current section is clearly underweighted, outdated and unrepresentative. Here are a couple of relevant studies:
 * Finnerty, John D. (Fordham): Short Selling and Death Spirals, SSRN no 687282.
 * Boni, Leslie (Anderson SoM) :Strategic delivery failures in U.S. equity markets, JFinMar 9:1.
 * Angel, Christophe and Ferri (Georgetown and GMU): A Short look at Bear Raids.
 * Culp and Heaton, (Chicago GSB): Naked Shorting, SSRN no 982898.
 * Knepper, Zach (Berkeley): Future-Priced Convertible Securities & The Outlook For “Death-Spiral” Securities-Fraud Litigation, Berkeley Legal Press. This last has a decent survey of the litigation.
 * It also dramatically fails to provide a worldwide perspective; there are several other countries with much stiffer approaches to this than the US, including the PRC, Singapore and Spain (IIRC) and although there are academic studies of all those approaches, none are in here. I notice the content on the Indian regulation has been unjustifiably pruned back.

Relata refero (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

......re-introduced by Huldra (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)