User talk:ButtonwoodTree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Sources for Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc.

Hello, good work on Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc., and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc.? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 04:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Simon, got it. I added a total of three sources, one of which is Wikipedia itself. How will that be received, do you think?

[edit] Welcome

Hi there. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you like it here and stick around. If you want, you can drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing,

--Kmf164 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Thomas E. Dewey, Jr.

Can you please add sources for this article as well, and any other articles you create? Thanks. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-6 05:47


Brian, source is Dewey's bio, located at link provided, www.deweydk.com. ButtonwoodTree 05:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Strauss

Hi! I appreciate your desire to take this tiny article on a very important person and make it into a more complete thing, but you can't just cut and paste material from another website into here unless we have evidence that the author of that material has authorized it for release under the terms of the GFDL or has released it completely into the public domain. Otherwise it is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy and may in fact be copyright infringement, which we of course don't want. One way to get around this is for you to read over the other web page, take notes as to the main points, and then re-write the article yourself from the notes, with a link noting the page which was helpful to you in composing it. In effect, you'd be converting what was previously copyrighted material into material which was free for the world to use, because under U.S. law the ideas of a text cannot be copyrighted but the actual text itself can be. Anyway, I hope that makes sense to you, let me know if there are any questions that you have. See our page on Wikipedia:Copyrights if you have any confusion over our licensing policy. --Fastfission 04:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sandy Weill

ButtonwoodTree, you wrote, "I'm not sure what his religion has to do with it. J.P. Morgan isn't identified as a Protestant." ANSWER: Actually, it has a lot to do with it. For example, at the turn of the 19th/20th century, there was an unofficial ban on jews working in banking and the insurance industries because of the jews' history. Should this also not be talked about? Well, it should be talked about. And it should also be talked about that jews are not only allowed into banking and insurance today, but they run a lot of the largest institutions (Weill at Citicorp, Jamie Dimon at JP Morgan Chase). What's wrong with tracking this? It was acceptable to track that jews were NOT in banking a hundred years ago, so what's wrong with tracking who's running things now? Same goes for politics - I mean, just look at the jews in the White House - they are running the place - jews are crawling all over the White House - but this never gets mentioned in the press (just as the reasons for 9/11 are never discussed - other than that Mohammed Atta et al did it "because they envy our freedom" (that's what Bush said) and because "they envy the way we live" (that's what Cheney said). No mention is made of Israel or the role of jews in the U.S. promoting American support of Israel. In the White House, the Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, he's jewish. Dick Chaney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby (now departed because he got indicted) is jewish. Chaney himself isn't jewish . . . . but his resume states that he was on the Board of Advisors of the "Jewish Institute for National Defense" (gee, I wonder if he might be pro-jewish?). Bush himself became a born-again Christian/Christian zionist in order to control his alcoholism, so he's fervently pro-Israel. Forrmer Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz - the architect of the invasion of Iraq - he's Jewish (he's now President of the World Bank, where he replaced James Wolfensohn who is jewish). Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernancke - he's jewish - and of the 6 candidates that Bush considered for the job, 5 were jewish. And before Bernancke, we had Greenspan (who is jewish). And under Nixon we had Arthur Burns - who is jewish (basically, the job of Chairman of the Federal Reserve is now a jewish job). And with Paul Wolfowitz at the DOD, we had Douglas Feith (he's jewish). And Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, while a Christian Scientist, he made his money with Goldman Sachs, so one would expect him to be pro-jewish. And in the Clinton administration, the Treasury Secretary was Robert Rubin, is jewish (and he's now Vice-Chairman of Citicorp - fellow jew Sandy Weill brought him in). What's wrong with tracking who is jewish? When they were NOT in banking, they complained loudly that they were not in those industries. Are we not allowed to talk about them BEING IN those industries now? And that they are also running the White House, the Federal Reserve, and the World Bank (amongst other institutions). What? Are they embarassed to say that the are jews? Or do they not want it pointed out that they are running key parts of America these days? This is easily talked about and acceptable to point out in Europe, but over in America, it is not politically correct, apparently. That's why you Americans end up doing stupid things like that idiotic peace treaty that got signed under the "Camp David Accords" - you Americans got bamboozled into PAYING Israel $2.5 billion a year under that treaty - that's right, Israel wouldn't sign the peace treaty unless they got PAID. And who did the paying? Why, America of course. Why not Europe or, say, Japan? Because if that had ever been proposed, there would have been a huge outcry - we don't pay jews (or anybody else, for that matter) money to sign peace treaties. The Japanese would have laughed at you if you had asked them to pay money to Israel to sign a peace treaty. So you have to pay it. And there is no sunset provision on it - you have to pay them that money forever. WHA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! Suckers. That isn't to say that there isn't a jewish lobby over here in Europe - just look at Spain - the Spanish public overwhelmingly opposed participation in the Iraq invasion - but their gov't (with a jewish lobby pushing it) sent troops anyway against the public's wishes. So, what happens? The muslims blow up the Madrid train system and the Spanish public took to the streets in protest - NOT against the "terrorists", but against their own gov't for taking them into a war that they opposed from the get-go. Berlusconi has also recently cut the number of Italian troops in Iraq because it is causing him political problems due to the overwhelming opposition to it by the Italian public. Then why did Berlusconi do it in the first place if his country didn't want to get involved? Answer - the jewish lobby in Italy. Same thing here in Britain - we had the biggest mass demonstration since WWII against the invasion (82% of the public opposed it), but Blair went and did it anyway? Why? Look at his outside advisors - Lord Levy (jewish), tax lawyer Martin Paisner (jewish), etc. Over here in Europe, we know why they are doing it, because we know who is jewish. You Americans don't know that your country is being run by jews. Why? Because it is politically incorrect to identify people as jewish. Hell, you can't even identify Sandy Weill as being jewish on Wikipedia. But the jews will always remind you that they were excluded a 100 years ago. And they will tell you that there was a limit on the number of jews allowed into Ivy League schools in the 1920's - but they won't tell you that they are about 20% of the Ivy League student population these days, and that they are on the admissions committees and let each other in. Anyway, you Ameicans go right on ahead an spend another trillion dollars on a "war on terror" (in Europe, we consider it a "war on muslims", that there are no such things as "terrorists"). And you go on and do that without knowing why, without being told why you're in that war to begin with. You go ahead and continue to believe that Mohammed Atta did 9/11 because he "envied" you. Idiots, he hated you. Gee, I envy the Swiss and their neutrality - I guess I'm gonna consider flying an airplane into one of their buildings because of my envy. Suckers. You have got to be the biggest idiots to believe what your government has told you. The whole thing - 9/11, the "war on terror", the invasion of Iraq - the whole thing is jewish, and it's been directed by the jews. But you don't know that, because you don't even know who is jewish at the top of your country. You are not allowed to talk about it, or point it out. WHA-HA-HA-HA!!!!! Suckers.

Another reason why the protestant religion of JP Morgan is not a comparable situation - the history of the jews. The jews allegedly got thrown out of the Middle East because they controlled all the capital and lived off interest while everybody else worked. The protestants never had that history. Banking, and being bankers, is an integral part of the jews' history. But you don't want it pointed out that the top bankers are jewish again.

ButtonwoodTree, are you jewish?

[edit] Shocking, this troll should be banned

I am shocked at what the troll at 80.41.24.77 just wrote. Please spare other users your ad hominem attacks. I think this diatribe should be deleted.

[edit] Kuhn, Loeb links to other German-Jewish investment banks

Anyway, I wanted to continue a discussion that indirectly came up in Kuhn, Loeb. You say in that article "In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W Seligman, Speyer & Co., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms." You cited Stephen Birmingham's "Our Crowd."

I have now had a chance to read "Our Crowd" and have to say, it certainly filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge of investment banking history.

However, I continue to think that your statement about the links between Kuhn Loeb on the one hand, and Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs is misleading, or at least overstated. The former two banks cooperated closely in their early history, but for nearly all of the period covered by "Our Crowd", banks like Kuhn Loeb, J&W Seligman and the Warburgs clearly occupied one strata - as near equals to Morgan who financed railroads, nation-states and heavy industry - and Lehman and Goldman - as commercial paper dealers, bond dealers and financiers of merchants and retail - occupied another, much lower strata. There are numerous statements to this effect in Our Crowd.

The fact that all these banks were German Jewish houses meant that some marriages must have inevitably occurred between persons somehow affiliated with either side of this divide during this period, and perhaps in the post-War period which the book does not really cover. And it is also the case that since the 1970s, Goldman in particular has risen to the pinnacle of investment banking, and Lehman bought the faded Kuhn Loeb. But these late developments do not support the general implication of your statement that all German Jewish investment banks were in league with one another, or had material interrelationships through marriage. This is in distinction to the Warburgs and Kuhn Loeb, who were to some degree in league with one another through intermarriage at the highest levels of the bank.

It is ironic. One of the implications I thought you should avoid (because in this case it is inaccurate) was a suggestion that all Jewish banks were somehow in league with one another. And then I come here to your talk site and, lo-and-behold, I see some nut job with exactly that sentiment. I created a separate user talk page for 80.41.24.77 in case anyone has comments. I did.

In any event, thanks for your numerous valuable contributions in the area of investment banking history. They are useful for a student of the field such as me.

Cbmccarthy 18:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Weill Bibliowicz

A tag has been placed on Jessica Weill Bibliowicz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please write {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. •Elomis• 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Express NavBox on Lehman Brothers

Hi ButtonwoodTree. First, let me thank you for the your wikipedia contributions -- you're one of the few editors who is very active in improving financial services articles, an area that's pretty lacking on wikipedia. And your perseverance on the Sandy Weill page is impressive, I certainly wouldn't be able to keep it up, and it's helping to keep the article NPOV.

I see that you reverted my addition of the American Express NavBox on the bottom of the Lehman Brothers article. I have a feeling it may be a case of seeing it on your watchlist, clicking on the diff, seeing that an american express template has been added, and reverting it for being out of place, without getting a chance to look at the template itself.

If you take a look at the template, what I've done is add a section for companies that were once part of American Express: Ameriprise Financial, First Data Corp., Lehman Brothers, American Railway Express Agency, and RiverSource. The idea is that each company has a shared history with American Express, that for instance you can't talk about American Express without talking about Ameriprise, and you can't talk about Ameriprise without talking about American Express. While they are no longer the same company, they're interrelated, and I think it's clear from the way it's stated in the NavBox that they're no longer a part of american express. But if you think there's a way to make it clearer, please let me know.

With that in mind, would you reconsider your revert? For readers, I see no downside in having the box there, it can only aid them in exploring related topics. It's at the end of the article, after all of the text, so it doesn't get in the way of the article. Thanks!

-- Crocodile Punter 08:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lazard 1 BMP.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lazard 1 BMP.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Lazard 1 JPG.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Lazard 1 JPG.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jefferies.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jefferies.GIF. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:IMG 1035 edited.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 1035 edited.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City Bank-Farmers Trust Company Building

We do not allow "fair use" images of buildings that still exist since it would be posible to create a free alturnative. Aditionaly if you are haveing problems with your upload tags I can help with that.Geni 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that the picture is not under copyright.Geni 15:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What is the relivant law or statement from the new york authorities? Many matters of public record are subject to copyright.Geni 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:IMGP0617.JPG

I have restored Image:IMGP0617.JPG. Please go to Wikipedia:Image license tags#For image creators and select the license under which you want to release the photo, and tag the image description page accordingly. Thanks! —Angr 20:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:City Bank Farmers 2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:City Bank Farmers 2.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 11:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/t/User_talk%7EButtonwoodTree_e61b.html"