Talk:David P. Bloom

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (I will rewrite the contested bit now) --ThomasBi (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Just removing a few words from what was otherwise copied/pasted from copyright-protected content alleviate the concern. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I have rewritten it all, think it's good and no infringement. How to remove the speedy deletion tag or is that automatic? I know I cannot remove it. ThomasBi (talk) 17:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (I have made significant edits to remove the content) --ThomasBi (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

The article cites a website calling itself 'Observer' in several places, while suggesting that this website is that for British newspaper The Observer. This is self-evidently false, as should be self-evident to anyone with a modicum of common sense. Frankly, I doubt that this website meets WP:RS standards. The New York Post, also cited, certainly doesn't.

There are clearly other issues with sourcing too: notably the citation of court records and similar material, contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. And as far as I can tell from a quick check, it appears that the claim that Bloom was convicted of anything in 2000 (as opposed to being charged) lacks any policy-compliant source whatsoever.This is an unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Observer in this context was actually The New York Observer from the 1980s which was a reputable broadsheet back then. It was acquired by Observer Media in 2007 and my apologies for that mistake. It was a more reliable source back then vs. now, so could it meet WP:RS standards based on that? Also take the point about the New York Post. I will work on improving these sources in a hope to meet WP:RS standards. ThomasBi (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The article you cited from the 'observer' website cannot be used at all unless we have a reliable source for Bloom being convicted in relation to the 2000 charges. And it seems to be mostly gossip, hearsay or unverifiable allegations anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Could the article from The New York Observer from the 1980s when it was a reputable broadsheet, be used for a citation for the 1980s or another section such as an infobox? ThomasBi (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

'Ponzi scheme'

Do any of the sources cited in this article actually describe Bloom's activities as a 'Ponzi scheme'? Because if they don't, we shouldn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. JUSTIA has a direct mention of it. "Instead of investing these funds, however, Bloom engaged in a classic Ponzi scheme." https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/945/14/289957/ ThomasBi (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have my doubts as to whether we should be citing Justia, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but that is better than nothing, I suppose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that we really shouldn't rely on Justia. WP:BLPPRIMARY is pretty clear in its guidance: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the crimes he was convicted for match the description of Ponzi scheme. There is also a second source from the United States Government Accountability Office that refers to it as a Ponzi scheme from March 2012 which I can add instead of Justia if that's preferred? It's not a trial / court transcript nor a public document; instead it is a Report to Congress. ThomasBi (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Our personal opinions aren't WP:RS for anything. As for any other source, we can't assess it without seeing it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Having seen the source in question, [1] I have to suggest that citing a comment made in passing in a report referring to something else entirely is questionable at best. If this is the best source, I fail to see why it matters at all whether we describe it as a Ponzi scheme or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You raised the question to begin with, and there are at least two sources that can be cited that make the reference and it matches the definition of the word. So let's describe it as a Ponzi scheme then. ThomasBi (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I raised a question. One which hasn't been answered. Given that media reports on Bloom seem not to refer to the criminal activities as a 'Ponzi scheme', why should Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Because every media report's description of the crimes he was convicted for, match the description of the word Ponzi. Bit like the capital of France is Paris. ThomasBi (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia isn't asking for your opinion on whether Bloom's actions constituted a 'Ponzi scheme' - see WP:OR. Provide some evidence that third party sources actually discussing Bloom described it that way, or I will remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I've already removed it until we can get a source. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"Wall St. Whiz Kid" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wall St. Whiz Kid and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 12#Wall St. Whiz Kid until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

'CBS Cite undo'

Question for talk "If I see one more attempt to link Bloom with Madoff, I will report the matter." Your undo of the cite of the number 140 with a link to the CBS article from 2011 (I feel this is a little emotional comment btw). I am not trying to link them incorrectly, it is just a fact that the lawyer receiver appointed by the judges in both fraud cases were the same person and so there is reference to this specific lawyers earlier work on Bloom (1988) in his later work on Madoff (2011) and it cites the number of victims in this CBS article directly. Respectfully welcome your thoughts here, before reporting. ThomasBi (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same person. Irving Picard. Who's biography you also edited, directly asserting that there was a link between Bloom and the Madoff scandal. [2] A link for which you have provided precisely zero evidence. This was an unequivocal violation of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I did though but in your grumpy blindness and fixation with me making that link which, indeed, is a fact - as you referenced Picard yourself - and the CBS article making reference to this fact too, which is as is required a media cite, is what you're ignoring. I never asserted the scandals are linked beyond sharing the same receiver. But fine, maybe someone else sees this a different way. I'll look around more. ThomasBi (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit to the Picard biography asserts, in the section you added entitled 'Recovery of funds from Bloom scandal', that there was 'a link to the Madoff investment scandal'. For which you have still provided no evidence. Picard was involved in the legal processes concerning both, obviously, but that doesn't make them 'linked'. Why did you assert that they were? What, beyond Picard (the subject of that biography, and thus presumably 'linked' with everything detailed there) constitutes any 'link' between the two? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not really your place to decide to omit Picard from any possible answer to your question what links the two, especially when he is the link. He worked on the Bloom case and it was his first big case when he started his own business in the 1980s, which made him well placed later to be the receiver on the other case which shall remain unnamed, that was cited and that was mentioned in a reputable publication in 2011 (i.e. CBS). Madoff and Bloom are not linked and that's not being asserted, their criminal legal cases are by means of sharing the same receiver. ThomasBi (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If 'Madoff and Bloom are not linked', why did the sentence you added in the new section on Bloom start with "In a link to the Madoff investment scandal..." What does the word 'link' in that sentence refer to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Because it says "Madoff investment scandal" and not Lawrence Madoff and David Bloom. The legal cases or scandals surrounding those are linked as I've trying to explain to you... ThomasBi (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

How were the 'legal cases or scandals' linked? The only substantive thing the seem to have in common is that Picard was involved with both. Why was the Madoff scandal referred to at all in that section? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

They shared the same receiver appointed by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation: Picard who recovered approximately $13 million and $14 billion respectively in each case, both legal scandals also involved securities fraud which for the time were of significance, both were based in New York, both happened in the 1980s. But that's not what I asserted, I repeat it again, both scandals are linked by the receiver. You seem to go around in circles, with everyone. In answer to your second question, the imperative in that line was the receiver. ThomasBi (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If the only 'link' was the receiver, why was it necessary, in a biography of the receiver, to expressly assert that there was some sort of 'link' between Bloom and Madoff? Why was it necessary to mention Madoff at all in a section on Bloom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Overkill

I fear this article about a relatively obscure fraudster is getting bloated with every possible detail available and overloaded with repetitive citations. Can we trim this to only the necessary encyclopedic facts? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I saw references are combined which is a good solution, will learn how to do that. Some repetitions came from citation needed additions. I tried adding new sources that talk about the subject including old newspaper clippings that contain new information, to give additional detail and that adhere to the WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RS standards. I understand reference to the receiver in this case has been undone, which would have allowed a researcher to look into the break down of the assets for example, which is getting long. But since that's not possible I though expanding the detail here would help with what you call an obscure fraudster to have enough information that would help people understand some more and give the opportunity for new citations. Can you elaborate on what you understand to be necessary encyclopedic facts (edit: on this specific article)? Would adding a new section help, or renaming the current section title? Respectfully and thank you for your talk. ThomasBi (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an entry, in an online encyclopaedia (or something that aspires to be one) on an individual who's only claim to fame (or rather infamy) seems to be fraudulent behaviour engaged in during the 1980s. The sums involved were substantial, and the case attracted significant media attention, so by Wikipedia 'notability' standards the article is probably justified. That does not however mean that the article should be turned into some sort of exhaustive repository for entirely hypothetical 'researchers' to use as their sole source of information. I sincerely doubt that any such researcher would even consider Wikipedia an appropriate place to do so, if such 'research' (what for?) were taking place. We write articles for the common reader, not for imaginary 'researchers'. And I also doubt that the average reader of this article wants to be told in excruciating detail anything and everything the media suggested that Bloom might possibly have done with his ill-gotten gains. Particularly so when so much of the sourcing relates not to confirmed facts, but to allegations. He was tried. He was convicted. The article makes this clear, along with the overall sums involved. Encyclopaedias summarise things - they don't aspire to do more. If you want to write an exhaustive biography of everything that can be said about Bloom, you are of course free to do so - just not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have used the template that was used to do the a b references to combine the same references, will use it in the future to clean up. ThomasBi (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Whiz Kid

Should we add under the WP:CRIMEBIO info box for David P. Bloom the alias Whiz kid?

User:AndyTheGrump Undid revision 1065771677 by ThomasBi "don't be silly - this is just newspaper headline speak"

1. Sourced media citations are the basis of Wikipedia articles, especially for WP:WPBIO and there are many articles that reference to the term 2. The subject of the article referenced to himself as Whiz Kid

For additional guidance to support alias usage: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)

Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens

The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not the person's "real" name, and even if it appears to pass judgement on the person (as with Alfred the Great).

Can you also explain what you mean by "don't be silly"? WP:DNB

ThomasBi (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Any response User:AndyTheGrump? ThomasBi (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

My response is that if you can't understand why adding 'Whiz Kid' as an alias to the infobox is stupid, you lack the competence to edit biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify what we should use; "Wall Street Whiz Kid". That is acceptable under the WP:CRIMEBIO info box. Also, if you're calling me "stupid", that is grounds for reporting you. Which I admit isn't constructive but your tone and manner are inappropriate as per WP:DNB guidelines. ThomasBi (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Still stupid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as much as I hate to admit it for the sake of agreeing with AndyTheGrump, unlike Al Capone, Joseph Lester Gillis or even Ted Kaczynski, the term "Wall Street Whiz Kid" is not singularly synonymous with David P. Bloom. "Whiz Kid" is a term to describe a young person who is outstandingly skillful or successful at something. Usually prefaced by the specific expertise: i.e. "Spelling Bee 'Whiz Kid'". In this situation: Wall Street. Although these 3 reliable sources use the term for this specific BLP: NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, the headline: "Wall Street 'Whiz Kid' Gets 8-Year Term for Fraud" shows that the term is not synonymous with the subject since it is in quotes. Additionally, this source terms him as the "Ersatz Investment Whiz Kid". Considering there have been several Wall Street "Whiz Kids": Peter Grandich, I do not see any reason that the article could not reference the BLP being termed "Whiz Kid" in context of content; since several cited reference sources use the term. This seems the most logical inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent reemergence

He’s re-emerged in Southern California as noted on the podcast The Ryan Russillo Show. 2601:581:8100:8F0:AD0F:323F:969E:2DCD (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Not relevant for his biography here. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)