Talk:Sanford I. Weill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
This article has an unreasonable-looking number of dead links, and possibly too many links in general. (Wiki style suggests a link per line is a lot.) Please consider removing some of these links, if the appearance of a target article is not an imminent prospect. Alai 17:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wiki articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. No one is suggesting that whatever Sandy Weill did, or didn't do, doesn't deserve attention. It certainly does. To suggest that the Grubman matter was the direct cause of his retirement is an opinion. Moreover, we have a larger mandate to keep bios consistent within the Wiki universe. To keep this bio consistent with other Wiki bios, a matter such as this belongs in the body of the article, not the lead paragraph. An example of this would be Bill Clinton's bio. The Lewinsky episode and subsequent impeachment are certainly discussed, but not in the opening paragraph. The underlying facts and circumstances of that matter, much as those presently discussed here, are far to complicated, subject to interpretation and likely to raise people's passion. ButtonwoodTree 12:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no way we can keep the Sandy Weill/Jack Grubman scandal out of this entry. After all, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer took pro-active action and blocked his appointment as the NYSE's "Consumer Advocate/Representative". I don't know the exact name of the position, but that's close, and Spitzer shot it down. The guy's career ended in scandal, as part of the massive corrupt-research scandal that hit Wall Street in the late 1990's, early 2000's. We need to flesh this out and add more verbage. Perhaps the thing to do is simply to note at the top that he is a "disgraced former banker and financier" "due to his involvement in the Wall Street research scandal of the late 1990's (see below) and leave it at that. A lot of his "philanthropy" has come AFTER he was disgraced. And, before that time, some portion of it was (a) not even philanthropy at all, but bribery, and (b) not even his money (it was Citibank's money). This whole thing needs fleshing out, but there is no way this guy can have a positive entry - it would be like having positive entries for Michael Milken, Marty Siegel, Elan Reich, Dennis Levine, Jack Grubman, Henry Blodgett, et al. I mean, if Weill is such a straight arrow, then (1) why did Spitzer take action against him? (ANSWER: We already know that because Spitzer said why he was blocking the appointment, and (2) why did Grubman have to give back the $20 million? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.95.184 (talk)
I've removed a discriminatory remark left by user 80.43.74.144 Cartwarmark 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the description 'philanthropist' from the opening paragraph as the article makes no mention of any philanthropic activities and does not support such a description. More generally, the occasional donation or charitable work does not entitle someone to be described as such. It must form a substantial amount of the person's activities. I worked for Citigroup for 5 years and, frankly, regard a description of Weill as philanthropist as risible. maturin 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
With all do respect, Weill's philanthropic activities are fairly vast and certainly not limited to "occasional". Moreover, I disagree with your definition of philanthropist. Indeed, Webster's defines a philanthropist as one who "practices philanthropy". "Philanthropy" is defined as "active effort to promote human welfare" or "a philanthropic act or gift", therefore, even a single act or gift, would qualify as "philanthropic". Weill's regular support for, among other things, the Cornell University, Carnegie Hall, and the National Academy Foundation, which he founded, would seem to settle the issue, in my opinion. ButtonwoodTree 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that he used "philanthropy" (of Citibank's money, I might add) as a tool for bribery, I don't think he should be described as a "philanthoropist", so I'm removing that word from his description (although I'm sure he would like to be described that way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.164 (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
