Talk:Short and distort/Archives/2012

Poorly sourced passages

There is no possible way that the house organ of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce[1], "Free Enterprise" could be considered a reliable source. It is a self-published source, replicating the views of its CEO, Mr. Donohue. If Mr. Donohue were quoted in a reliable source on this subject, it would be a different matter. It does not even remotely satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. I don't see how you can seriously claim that it does.

The other passage is not supported by the source that you proffer, which is this[2]. That paragraph is pure original research. Both passages have been removed.

Here is the full text of the source I just linked. Please explain to me where in the following there is a mention of "short and distort":

Pump and Dump Schemes

"Pump and dump" schemes, also known as "hype and dump manipulation," involve the touting of a company's stock (typically microcap companies) through false and misleading statements to the marketplace. After pumping the stock, fraudsters make huge profits by selling their cheap stock into the market.

Pump and dump schemes often occur on the Internet where it is common to see messages posted that urge readers to buy a stock quickly or to sell before the price goes down, or a telemarketer will call using the same sort of pitch. Often the promoters will claim to have "inside" information about an impending development or to use an "infallible" combination of economic and stock market data to pick stocks. In reality, they may be company insiders or paid promoters who stand to gain by selling their shares after the stock price is "pumped" up by the buying frenzy they create. Once these fraudsters "dump" their shares and stop hyping the stock, the price typically falls, and investors lose their money.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.226.239 (talk • contribs)

• Please sign your posts on the talk page with ~~~~ - and please feel free to add constructive edits to help increase understanding of the topic. Be sure that you cite your sources as you'd expect others to do so. B.Wind (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Let's see about constructing the article. One more revert by either of us and we'd be violating WP:3RR. I'll keep looking for worthwhile sources. If I find another one and you don't like it, I'd suggest waiting a day or two before reverting. Of course, if you have something to replace it, that wouldn't violate 3RR. B.Wind (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There may not be much out there, and some of what is in this article is a stretch. For instance, Dodd did not use the expression "short and distort." I'm not clear that what he was discussing falls into that category. Instead, it seems to be more a case of supposed short side manipulation, while short and distort is, as you point out, more a microcap thing. I don't think you can take every accusation of short side manipulation and turn it into "short and distort," any more than you can call Enron, a longside manipulation, a "pump and dump." --70.23.226.239 (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wish you were around when we had a redirect discussion for this title - the term is located in no fewer than three articles; the discussion was closed only within the last 48 hours. Now I'm just putting it together as a stub article - and hope that it gets positive contributions from people who know much more about the subject than I do. Believe it or not, I really do welcome positive additions (note: most of the original citations come from the original articles from which I "borrowed" to get this going). The terms are widely used, and even cited in reliable sources; so having at least a stub article here is better than having nothing (or words simply stating nothing).B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)