Talk:Carlyle Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] NPOV?

Why are there only links to criticisms. This doesn't seem so NPOV to me.

this part looks like it was written or modified to refute all criticims, and sounds like it was written by an employee (i might be wrong!!). Kmanoj 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the Carlyle Group evidence of the, to me, unholy alliance between BIG business and BIG government? I am sincere with my question.Obbop 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC) To Obbop: Yes It is!!!!!!!!!

[edit] Stephen Norris

I noticed that there is no mention in the article of Stephen Norris, one of the 2 original progenators of Carlyle. I have trouble writing for this one, NPOV-wise, would anyone like to work on it? Cain 19:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Okay, I have addedd a mention of him, but alot of work is still needed on the early history of the group. The Great Eskimo Tax Scam, Caterair, Prince Alwaleed al Saud + Citigroup; all of these are in need of discussion. Cain 20:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Book mention

I removed this from the article :One of the few books written about Carlyle Group include The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group by Dan Briody. and stated that "one link to Briody's article is enough publicity for him, I think". Fuzheado added the link back with "putting book back in - it is still NPOV to mention a book exists". I wasn't removing the link on the basis that the book mention is not NPOV, I haven't read the book, but given that the only other reference article is written by the same author (Briody), I don't think it's appropriate to have ever external reference (aside from the group's page) be to the same author. If all of the external links are critical, then NPOV would also be an issue. I think the book mention should be removed, especially since his article seems to just be a summary of the book (the title is basically the same). Daniel Quinlan 02:50, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)


: The double external link was an error, and removing it was correct. However, we differ on the last point -- there's no reason why the book mentioned should be taken out simply becasue there is an external link by the same author. For this topic, it is an organization not very well known, which explains why there is no avalanche of information to choose from. I believe the Briody book is the only book out there on Carlyle, so to remove it would be dubious. - Fuzheado 03:03, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


:: I think two links to Dan Briody's writings about Carlyle is an error. Unless you're trying to push his perspective of Carlyle... you do seem to be fond of Bush administration conspiracy theories. Do you believe your edits are really intended to be neutral about the Bush administration? Anyway, I added a newspaper review of the Briody book, but I still think two links is being a bit too generous to Mr. Briody. Daniel Quinlan 05:56, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)


::: You're being a bit sensitive, about what I'm not sure -- mentioning the only book that exists about Carlyle Group hardly constitutes a conspiracy theory. And adding entries regarding PMCs, most of which thrived under Dems and Republicans alike, doesn't either. - Fuzheado 13:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


:::: The article doesn't constitute a conspiracy theory, but it does seem that Briody is pushing a conspiracy theory involving the Carlyle Group. I think the review of the book at least provides some balance. Daniel Quinlan 22:29, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Investments

The Carlyle web page had a lot of information about their private funds, so I added more information about their investments (region, areas, and industries).


I also found more information about the bin Laden family investment: that they left (as opposed to being kicked out) and that their investment was only $2 million dollars. I don't believe they qualify as major investors in when The Carlyle Group has nearly $16 billion under management (so they owned about 0.013% of the total portfolio) and the bin Laden family also has billions. Major compared to me, surely, but not major compared to George Soros and even small venture capitalists. Daniel Quinlan 05:56, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Bin Laden connection

: Not a tremendous amount, but the fact that the bin Laden family had any involvement at all in this organization of former politicians and military figures raises alarm in some. On the other hand, given how much the Saudis purchase from the US in military equipment, it isn't such a shock. - Fuzheado 13:34, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)


:: I think mentioning the bin Laden connection at all is a stretch, designed to raise alarm. It seems to be a claim mentioned solely by people with an axe to grind against the former or current Bush administrations; when it is mentioned, the relative size of their investment or that this practice (wealthy people from other countries investing in private funds) is not at all unusual. The article seems to be factual and approaches NPOV, but still feeds conspiracy theories by including a hand-picked set of political connections. The article should list every person with a similar position at Carlyle and every wealthy family with a million dollar investment if it really were NPOV. Daniel Quinlan 22:29, Aug 3, 2003 (UTC)


::: I think you have a point, bin Laden family investment is small. But you have to agree that the moment you hear the word bin Laden, its bound to raise a flag, even if it involve only two cents. For example, i came to know about it from this article. [1]


I disagree that every person and investment needs to be listed simply because the more suspicious connections are the subject of criticism. I find it HIGHLY relevant that the Bin Ladens, Bushes and Saudis are all financially connected. HIGHLY relevant. The criticism is what is relevant, not every financial deal, political connection, etc.Laikalynx 04:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe The Carlyle Group also owns Monsanto.

Until someone gets the info about all these other investors and posts it, doesn't it make sense to list the investors we do know of? Isn't Bin Laden worth mentioning? Let's not let the limited information on Carlyle's investors stop us from providing the info we do have because we're trying to maintain NPOV, particularly when the information is clearly compelling, relevant to understanding at least one view of Carlyle group, and possibly meaningful. The weasel words and the original research warnings are not necessary, at least for the Controversy section. And, I changed some of the weasel words in the Controversy section, although the meaning remains largely the same -- how else are we to provide the information, which is pertinent, about how an issue or thing is perceived by people?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How do we know that some Bin Laden-family members have kept in touch with Osama, if there are no sources cited. If there are no sources for this claim, it should be deleted. It could potentially be libellous.82.156.100.120 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perkin Elmer

I've been expanding our article on EG&G (help always welcome), and I'm surprised to find we don't have an article on Carlyle subsidiary Perkin Elmer (or should that be Perkin-Elmer?). I might get round to it, but a stub there would be nice, if anyone knows stuff about it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 8, 2005 17:06 (UTC)

[edit] Link cleanup

Instead of included all these pages as external links, for them to be appropriately included, they need to be used as sources for [namely] the "Criticism" section of the article. I'm moving them here if someone wishes to do so...—DMCer™ 10:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)