Talk:Scott W. Rothstein

Removal of trivia
I removed some trivia from this article - a boring listing of bi-partisan political contributions, and I intend to work further on bringing this low quality article up to a readable standard. As I was reverted - and I reverted back - I'm opening a discussion here on the talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Addendum: It is worth noting that this was not well-sourced information - the only source given wasn't just a blog - it was just a blog comment. It is entirely possible that one could conduct original research by going to the FEC for the raw data, but Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources and specifically forbids original research. The reason this is important, in this case, is the likelihood of there being an intention of "guilt by association" - the suggestion that the politicians involved are somehow tainted by their association. But since this listing is of a wide variety of contributions in standard statutory amounts, i.e. routine legal political contributions, a mere listing of them is not sufficient to show that they are unusual or gave Mr. Rothstein any special level of access to the politicians in question. It's a BLP issue to list them as if they are important, and unless we can find a reliable third party source (not a blog comment) to illustrate their importance, it is reasonable to assume that they are not. (After all, none are mentioned in any reliable sources about the case, as far as I have seen.) Remember: just because something is sourceable, even to a reliable source, that doesn't mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia. And in this case, it is not even clear that this information would be sourceable to a reliable source. This is why I have removed it for a second time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the knee-jerk revert -I actually didn't check the source. If there is no RS for the information, better keeping it away, for sure. (This has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the information if a RS is found, in which case I'd be happy about keeping it) -- Cycl o pia talk  20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, but let's talk about. Even if there's a reliable source for something, that doesn't automatically imply that we should include it.  There are literally millions of sourceable statements that are not included in Wikipedia - on a regular basis - and quite uncontroversially.  It is clear that we need a good argument for inclusion - particularly to overcome the clear WP:BLP issues that I outlined above.  Can you give me some of your thinking on why we should do this?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if there's a reliable source for something, that doesn't automatically imply that we should include it.  - That's what I can't get. If there is a RS for something, it means we can decide what is the best place for it, and perhaps if such an appropriate place doesn't exist yet, we are not in a hurry to include it. Ok. But that we shouldn't include such information at all, why? About the BLP issues, I don't believe in the problem of "guilt by association". We shoudn't be responsible of what our readers could think by presenting in a neutral way well sourced information. We are responsible of course of striving for having a balanced and neutral article. But we shouldn't hide information only because readers could make implications that are actually not in the article. -- Cycl o pia talk  20:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've long supported the removal of trivia, so fine by me. I've never heard of this fellow, or even read the page, yet, but I', running RefLinks on it right now and see a huge heap of blog links that prolly should go. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jimbo's edit was technically correct in this case because the SEC filing was not sourced to the SEC but to a comment in discussions at a blog, and by rights a poorly sourced BLP fact can be quickly eliminated. However, I found a more reliable copy at.


 * Provided this source, verbatim transcripts of primary sources still may not belong in articles. Even though Wikipedia is not paper, diving through levels of sub-articles has a time cost for the reader.  The best level of detail to include in Wikipedia is probably the finest level of detail that actually means something.  If someone worries that this person's SEC filings will be lost to future generations or to the public domain, then they can be submitted to Wikisource.


 * That said, I think that the source for the list of campaign contributions belongs in the article, as it is certainly a question some people will bring up. There is also the issue of partisanship - although Jimbo described the contributions as "seemingly bipartisan", the donations to Democrats were mostly chump change offered to primary candidates, while the donations to Republicans included $70,000 and $37,000 for John McCain.  Because the source puts a (D) or an (R) next to each name, I think we can count up totals without fear of violating WP:OR and put one sentence to anchor the reference.  (This omits that an exception like Joseph Lieberman is no exception at all, but that's the sort of editorializing perhaps better left to the diligent reader) Wnt (talk)

Followup: in order that we can probe the details of the question, I've converted the NewsMeat list into a sortable Wikitable:

Now the raw totals (from NewsMeat) are $17,600 for Democrats and $162,300 for Republicans. But this can't avoid a few decisions. The Republican donations as summed by OpenOffice cancel out $2300 donation to Mel Martinez and $2200 to John McCain that were returned in 2008. This may be the wrong way to do it, because if the Republicans follow through and return all the money, then the amount could go to zero (or negative, because somehow this NewsMeat search doesn't get anywhere near $500,000!) The other issue is that $4200 to Arlen Specter in 2006 is listed as part of the Democratic donations, but he was a Republican at that time. Then again, one might argue, with little exaggeration, that as Specter was a pro-science Senator and not a complete drooling idiot, that a reasonable man should have been able to foresee that he would be ejected from the GOP. If the complete dataset is used, we can avoid any possible allegation of WP:OR and so on. But if we wish brevity, we need to make a few decisions. In this case I shall decide that returned donations still count toward a total, but that the NewsMeat designation of party is final. In this way I reach something like:

"Newsmeat tracked a list of SEC filings for a total of $166,800 to the Republican Party and candidates, including $109,800 to John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, and $17,600 to Democratic candidates.

Wnt (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've given testimony here that clearly indicates what's wrong with including any of this information at all, without a serious reliable source to suggest that it's necessary. It is very difficult to get from "as Specter was a pro-science Senator and not a complete drooling idiot, that a reasonable man should have been able to foresee that he would be ejected from the GOP" to a conclusion that a desire to link Republicans (presumably all either anti-Science or drooling idiots, or both?) with a convicted criminal is in any way neutral.  There is no evidence in reliable sources to suggest that any of these politicians are in any way implicated in this man's crimes.  If you can find a reliable source which offers evidence of a connection (did anyone intervene on his behalf with the authorities? did he have any special legislation passed which help hide is crimes?) then of course it becomes relevant.  If not, it's just a smear.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Leaving unanswered the question, "So what?" Your earlier comment was "That said, I think that the source for the list of campaign contributions belongs in the article, as it is certainly a question some people will bring up." When enough people bring it up, there should be reliable secondary sources to refer to concerning the relevance being attributed to the contributions, which would provide the basis for a text-form discussion of the issue. At this point, all we have from the two primary sources (the second is effectively a mirror of the first, not a true secondary source for this information) is a simple list which means nothing. The same information would be available by searching for the subject of any biographical article; should we modify all our biographies of living (and possibly recently deceased) Americans to include a list of political contributions they have made? Or would that only be appropriate for contributions which serve to make a point, like that criminals and "drooling idiots" support Republicans and "pro-science" non-criminals support Democrats? Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am obviously sympathetic to your point, but in the interest of compromise, I can say that it might be interesting to note where Mr. Rothstein's money was going, and of interest to know his political leanings. My objection is to a writeup which doesn't make clear that there is no evidence in reliable sources that this is in any way a political scandal, per se.  What I've done just now is move the paragraph up that explains that the Republicans pledged to donate his money to charity, and the Democrats (interestingly) pledged to give his donations back to him.
 * I do see a real problem here, one which suggests that our WP:OR here is a bad idea altogether - the Republicans are giving back $600,000, the Florida Democratic party is giving back $200,000... but WNT's original research suggests that he only gave a lot less than that. Thus the perils of original research.  This may suggest removing even the summary of the amounts.
 * Finally, let me express softly one last opinion. While I'm willing to compromise on having some information about his political donations in the article, as per my comments above, this actually is a compromise: that is to say, I think the article is weaker for having it, not stronger.  Unless there is some relevancy that hasn't been brought up right now, I would say this is an example of "data bias" - i.e. including something not because it makes for a better biography, but including it simply because we have data about it.
 * I can say that if anyone were to look up my own political contribution history, you'd be entirely unable to glean any correct political information from it at all, and including it in an entry on me would be an enormous disservice to the reader, who would naturally draw the wrong conclusion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Once we present information in a NPOV fashion, we are not responsible of what conclusion readers "naturally draw". If information is verifiable and sourced, presenting it is a service to the reader. I am astonished that someone can think that hiding things is a service to the reader. -- Cycl o pia talk  01:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I agree that there are perils in this process, but I think it is still better than the alternatives. Summarizing the contents of primary material soon shades into dubious original research, but this can be countered by suitable description of what is actually covered — for example, that NewsMeat indexed a certain amount of campaign contributions, rather than a flat statement that this is the total amount.  After all, I added my statement after the sentence "In June 2009, Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate majority leader received a contribution of $4,800.[39]", which is very misleading, as it was one of very few contributions to a "real" Democrat.  I'm tempted to think that there might have been political motives when that one little bit of information was added.


 * I believe that many (likely most) contributors to political articles have strong personal biases, though many aren't eager to admit them. Even so, I do want to see all the data that we can get our hands on.  I think that editors with different strong POVs can build a much better NPOV article by using their personal strengths to pull in and add references from different points of view, than they could by trying to negotiate deletions of relevant content until some sort of "balance" is struck.  This is especially true when an inclusionist spirit prevails and persuades editors to put in sources supporting either point of view, rather than rationing their efforts to the handful of facts they are willing to fight for.  By contrast I think that a "balance" of selected sources chosen by editors tends to very closely reflect the amount of edit warring that each side is willing to do, rather than the truth. Wnt (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from WilliamJacoby, 10 June 2010
Please change / update : "His sentencing is scheduled for June, 2010.[2] " to now reflect "received a 50-year prison sentence Wednesday after a hearing in federal court in Fort Lauderdale."

Cite: Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/09/1671305/ponzi-schemer-scott-rothstein.html#ixzz0qS2iorLo

WilliamJacoby (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Tim Pierce (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Information should also be added about his sentence reduction recently requested by federal prosecutors, I believe. I don't have access to edit that part it seems. Here is one article, but there are many others: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-06-08/news/fl-rothstein-ponzi-sentence-reduction20110608_1_ponzi-schemer-scott-rothstein-marc-nurik-fort-lauderdale-attorney  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffreyW75 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

¶ I realize that this is a complex topic. Some parts of the article (such as "Recent") shuffle events chronologically, mixing events that occurred after arrest among events that occurred before the fraud was discovered. The timeline ought to be made clearer. By the way, the cable TV show, American Greed, had devoted an hour to this case and has material in its website. Sussmanbern (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Boeing 727
/he did not own a boeing 727. Jeff Epstein did. Please re-read that footnote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.194.17 (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014
PEARSON Daniel (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Scott W. Rothstein. 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 https://web.archive.org/20091106080801/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/SB20001424052748703294004574511873010193690.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703294004574511873010193690.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 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Layout?
How about a more logical organization of this article? Such as: Background and career (regular bio) Law firm Scam-1 (with who,what,when,where,why,how,etc) Criminal actions victims Civil actions plaintiffs Scam-2 ... Also, I didn't believe "and David Boden, an unlicensed attorney". Turns out, not true, licensed in N.Y. but not Fla, a common practice for older or more specialized attorneys in a new state where they only provide expertise, not courtroom appearances.

Edit request
Replace "David Boden, an unlicensed attorney in Florida, was the firm's general counsel.[18][19]" with "David Boden, a New York attorney not licensed in Florida, was the firm's general counsel.[18][19]

Remove "unlicensed" two other places in referenence to Boden; those mentions were also POV violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.94.75 (talk) 01:05, April 7, 2016‎


 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've changed the text, but didn't change the references (because I'm tired). I did confirm that he was licensed in New York before editing, and will check back tomorrow to make sure the refs are done. Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. fredgandt 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarity of Writing
The writing is atrocious in this article. I cannot begin to say how painful it is to read. It is an interesting topic with some important information, but the writing is confused and perhaps done by someone with a passion but without any writing training (I would say ability). It is throughout, but an example would be the murder case--who was actually murdered is mentioned briefly in passing in the third paragraph, and is easily missed. It is painful writing, and a painful read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.5.225 (talk) 10:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Totally agree! And it's very outdated Beaglemix (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Way too long and detailed: .... in his December 12, 2011 deposition page 24 lines 15-23, Scott Rothstein himself said "It was intentionally ...

Etc. Zezen (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Scott W. Rothstein. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703294004574511873010193690.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://southflorida.blockshopper.com/property/504212130210/2307_castilla_isle/

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 11:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Unreadable
This article is unreadable. Anyone care to rewrite it, or shall I take on the project? Bgm1345 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein
Why is Jeffrey Epstein not mentioned a single time in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)