Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mantanmoreland (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 16 July 2007 (→External links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Short and distort" isn't a "neologism". Now I'm going to add some sources to this article. As it is, it's a summary of two dictionary-like entries on 2 sites. Now let's address the actual use of it, as reported in the press. Let's start with a 2002 Wired article. Piperdown 05:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is not whether there are short side abuses, but whether the term "short and distort" has come into general currency. If not, these abuses should be dealt with in the short-selling article or some other article on market manipulation. This appears to me to be a POV fork of short selling. None of the articles on Cramer that are cited in this article use the term "short and distort," but rather deal with Cramer's short side manipulations along with his other manipulations. They actually undercut your argument that this term has come under general use.--Samiharris 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The oldest usage of which I'm aware is the Wired article Piper mentions. The URL for it is: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2002/06/52785

I don't think this article should become just a re-hash of material covered elsewhere and more appropriately. If we're going to make it about the phrase "short and distort" let's keep the history to post-2002 stuff, or document an earlier use. Emulax involved a tactic that would later come to be known as short-and-distort, and that may next year be known by some other label. But nobody that I know of used that term at the time of the Emulax scandal in 2000, so we ought to delete that bit. --Christofurio 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some further editing to remove essay type material and OR, and remove non-RS website sources and links. I think care needs to be drawn in the pump and dump analogy, as pump and dumps involve valueless stocks while short and distort does not involve the equivalent undervalued stocks. --Samiharris 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the expression does involve, or at least could involve, undervalued stocks. As I understand the term, and it is used so little that one cannot say with absolute certainty, it involves spreading of false rumors about a stock. Thus the stocks involved can be either undervalued or overvalued, but are a subject of lies.--Mantanmoreland 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

If you take out the OR, you are left with material cribbed from the Wired article and not much else. It seems to have been used by a regulator once. I can't find a reference to it on the SEC website. I'd suggest merging this with short (finance).--Mantanmoreland 17:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. --Samiharris 15:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

External links

I've removed the links that were just added back in. The Investopedia and Fraud Guides entries are essays that cite no examples of "short and distort" schemes but simply talk about it without citing their sources. Thus they are unverifiable and expressly prohibited by WP:EL, which prohibits links that provide "unverifiable research."

The American Spectator essay is not about short and distort. It makes one brief reference to "so-called short and distort" in an article on an unrelated subject (providing of information to the SEC to influence share prices). This is therefore a meaningless link for an article on this subject and provides no useful content for the reader. Please don't inflate the "external links" section by adding links that simply mention the subject of the article and provide no information on it.--Mantanmoreland 15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Forbes link also essentially duplicates the Connecticut attorney general testimony link, as both quote the same person saying the same thing. --Samiharris 15:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

C'mon. It's an External Link. Forbes is a reputable company, not a blog. The link goes back, regardless of your confusion about reliable sources and external links. For that matter, it should be used as a reliable source, as it is a site run by one of the largest Financial magazines in the world, their subsidiary Investopedia has its own internal editorial staff, and I doubt that material on the site is any less "reliable" than what's in Wired. But that's all regardless of it being used as an WP:EL. The reasons above stated for this link violating WP:EL are not supported by WP:EL itself Piperdown 15:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is an external link, which means the WP:EL applies. Here, again, is the relevant portion of the policy, under "links normally to be avoided": "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research."

Here is the first paragraph of the article:

A less publicized and more sinister version of short selling can take place on Wall Street. It's called "short and distort". There is nothing inherently wrong with short selling, which is permissible under the regulations of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC). But the short-and-distort type of short seller uses misinformation and a bear market to manipulate stocks. Short and distort is as illegal as the pump and dump, but is mainly used in a bear market. It is important for investors to be aware of the dangers and to know how to protect themselves.

It goes on in that vein for two more paragraphs, before going into boilerplate "know before you invest" langauge. No sources, no references, no nothing. No examples. This article represents the personal views of somebody named Rick Wayman. Who the hell is Rick Wayman? He is not a recognized authority on short selling or Wall Street. This link is totally unverifiable and should not be in the article. The fact that Forbes Media bought Investopedia, and then issued a press release patting itself on the back, is of absolutely zero significance. News Corp. bought Facebook, but that does not make Facebook a reliable source, and News Corp. is a "reputable company" too. If this article was published in Forbes.com, a site with proper fact-checking, it would be a different matter.

The WLF link that you added, while from a libertarian legal foundation that holds a strict POV, is from a recognized authority.--Mantanmoreland 17:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)