Talk:Goldman Sachs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.



Contents

[edit] Links to other GS information

Hi -- I thought this article might be a useful external link -- it discusses GS from more of an investor's perspective (how they compare to their competitors, how their business works and key issues impacting it, etc) rather than the cultural / encyclopedic one on Wikipedia. What do folks think -- worth adding a link at the end? Many users will undoubtably be looking for this kind of information. Parkerconrad 20:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a place to "discuss" as much as define I think. That site doesn't cite sources, and spends a lot of fluff on describing the terminology (Private Equity would be a good example) rather than commenting on Goldman's place in the sector. You're welcome to add whatever you want, but I think a better source can be found. Plus, your connection with the site (on your user page) worries me a little bit as well. Just my $.02 --Thesilence 16:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Goldman Sach's Growth Environment Score as part of the BRIC report

Does anyone know if this score is estimated on a regular basis. I found this score only for 2005. Are scores for 2006 and 2007 available? Does Goldman Sachs continue estimating this score? Ramil --81.30.149.109 (talk) 13:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The following IP addresses have been adding the same edits continuously: User:80.43.67.151, User:80.41.71.86, User:80.41.106.239, User:80.43.65.45, User:61.14.24.21. These edits are highly NPOV (referring to alumni as criminals and felons). I have removed all opinionated language in the areas that these edits are entered. I rewrote the summary before the alumni listing and have shifted David Brown and Robert Freeman into the Other category as Criminals is a highly biased entry name. I noticed that User:80.43.65.45 added an entry to David Brown as well even though there is no such article about a David Brown from Goldman Sachs. This really leads me to believe there is vandalism here. I'm giving you this chance to explain your views so we can resolve this conflict and ask that you write articles for both men that covers their biographies. Otherwise, there really isn't a reason to have them in here as they aren't explained anywhere else or have any articles to cite. Thesilence 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for their motivations, but the article could do with a *Criticism* section to make it more balanced. That would give people who want to add stuff like that a place to do it legitimately rather than messing around with other parts of the article. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of a Criticisms section if someone else has cited Criticisms they'd like to put up there. Really, the whole article could use a bit of a cleanup as the timeline format doesn't look that great.Thesilence 17:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Timelines are puerile. Featured Articles and Good Articles require an article be well-written. General consensus (from what I've observed) is that timelines should be turned into prose, or else the article reeks of amateurness. —ExplorerCDT 18:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to put the Criminals section back in, and move Freeman and Brown to it. Although you may not like it, they are convicted felons (both served time for the crimes that they committed while at Goldman). You say you have never heard of David Brown??? I find that hard to believe. Talk to any Goldman person - certainly any partner/MD - they know of him. In any event, it is inappropriate to try to hide them in an "Other" category. A convicted felon is a convicted felon. And they didn't get probation - they served time. It is a part of Goldman/Giuliani lore that Freeman was handcuffed in his office and was lead away in tears. What I would like to suggest - now that you have opened up this discussion - is to have a separate section devoted to the insider trading mess/convictions, and detail how the Freeman arrest and conviction stemmed from the arrest of Ivan Boesky, i.e. give a detailed discussion of how it went from Boesky to Siegal to "Bunny" Lasker and then finally the inside information went to Freeman, and that he traded on it, both for his own account and for Goldman's account. And how he and Goldman denied it for three years until he finally pleaded guilty in 1989. Perhaps it should also be noted that Freeman was Rubin's protege - his right hand man (Rubin turned the department over to him). Thanks for bringing all this up.

I am going to reinsert the full quote about the "Goldman-sponsored pyramid scheme" that you vandalized. I am putting in the link. It is to The New York Times, so I think that is good enough. After all, Goldman never sued The New York Times over this. Can I say something to you "Thesilence"? Take your personal opinions elsewhere!!! DO NOT VANDALIZE WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.1.9 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 January 2007

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, considering that you vandalized the heading of this article diff --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • First, I should state that I worked at Goldman Sachs briefly. In training, you learn about Freeman and Brown and are admonished to avoid their mistakes. Still, there's a lot of corrupt (or at least unethical) stuff going on there. But that's endemic throughout the entire industry and not solely a Goldman Sachs problem. HOWEVER, removing information that shows Goldman Sachs in a bad light renders this article into a mindless "Cheerleader piece", and that, I'll assert is a major POV violation. This article needs to include criticism of the subject in order to be neutral and somewhat balanced. Does the negative deserve equal coverage? Probably not since I doubt the bad apples equal the good. BUT, as long as information is referenced, it should never be removed unless justified by better referenced information. If cited information is removed just because it is a negative portrayal of the subject, that is vandalism. —ExplorerCDT 18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, I removed what looked like common vandalism. The information had been removed prior to my removal once and had been labeled as spam before being reinserted by another random IP address from the same ISP. In fact, I think the same person is continuing to undo any attempt to undo their edits. If you are, please get a login name so you can receive credit for your contribution. Now, I cleaned up the edits a bit and moved them around. You still don't have a reference for David Brown but have linked to an article with no reference about him and you have no reference for Robert Freeman either. Please either create the article for David Brown or remove the encyclopedia link. The New York Times article I cannot access (I refuse to get a login to the NYT) but looks like a book review. I can't verify it so if someone else wants to that's fine. No, this shouldn't be a "Puff Piece" about the company but nowhere do I see any of the other investment banks with this kind of text in their articles. Personally, I think the fault lies in the fact that it's a timeline and list of alumni that easily opens it up to criticism. The best thing to do is rewrite in Prose as suggested above and eliminate the lists altogether.Thesilence 22:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a logical fallacy to say "I don't see it there, so it doesn't belong here". It's in the same category of "if your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?" Your refusal to check the NYT article isn't grounds to dismiss a claim. Get the terminology right...it's not that you cannot access it. It's that you plain won't. This isn't a case of uncontrollable inability. It's a deliberate refusal. If you're afraid of cookies, Wikipedia probably has put more cookies on your computer. Your idea of "common vandalism" is disingenuous. From your reversions, I'd gander you wouldn't recognize common vandalism if it were starring you down and saying..."Hi, I'm common vandalism". Your first, and more appropriate response would have been to tag it {{citation needed}} or {{fact}} and waited to see if it was cited. If not, then away it goes. But your reversions are contributing to an unfortunate POV in the article...a whitewashing of problems this company has contributed to the ills of the financial world.—ExplorerCDT 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Careful, ExplorerCDT, you're coming close to violating WP:NPA. The fact is that Thesilence clearly stated his/her willingness to have a criticism section added to the article. I'm the one who originally deleted the link in question as spam since the same IP user posted ELEVEN links to that site to TEN articles in the space of 30 minutes. In no case did the poster add any content to the articles and in most cases he/she tried to hide the link as an inline citation in a completely unrelated section of the article. Looked, talked, and walked like spam, so I deleted everything he/she posted. As for this article, with the amount of time you've used to get angry here on the talk page, you could have written a well sourced criticism section to the article and given it the balance it really does need. I really don't know enough about the subject to do it myself. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I want it noted that I didn't say the link to the source wasn't good, just that I couldn't access it. I asked someone to look at it for me, which I think Yandman did as he reverted the edit. I haven't edited the article since I started this dispute in the talk page.Thesilence 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/112201/news.ivan.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.125.219 (talk • contribs)
Okay you have gone ahead and reverted the deletes that Yandman made. In fact, looking at his talk page, it looks like you're arguing with him as well. As this article is now the focus of a dispute, I'm going to ask that you observe the WP:DR policy and stop editing the page. I myself have stopped editing in observance of this rule. While this article does reference David Brown, I'd be more comfortable if the link pointed to a bit more Safe For Work source. The fact that it has blatant references to sexual content on its page bothers me a bit. If you want to build a quality article, you need good sources.Thesilence 21:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is amazing is that you people go around "editing" topics that you ADMIT that you don't even know anything about. It would be like me trying to edit a Wikipedia page on nuclear physics or some obscure form of Calculus. If you KNOW that you don't know the subject matter, DON'T GO MAKE ANY EDITS. The David Brown conviction is WELL known on Wall Street, and even more so at Goldman Sachs. One of you (Elipongo) was unable to even realise that that "petition" did not have to do with Brown's conviction. Anywhere, here is a link to CNN that mentions the conviction: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1986/12/22/68462/index.htm. And where TheSilence got off saying that other link had sex on it, I will never know. Must have been a banner ad or something. THINK before you edit. And don't even attempt to edit something that you ADMIT that you know nothing about. Nitwits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.39 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 January 2007
  • Okay, nitwits, now go see how many links I have have put up for Freeman's felony insider trading conviction, and his subsequent prison sentence (he was NOT just given parole). I know you like to think that this is pushing POV, but, I'm sorry, a felony is a felony. Serving time is serving time. I say, if a person is convicted of a felony, and they serve time, and the crime is in the course of their normal course of business, then that is what they should be listed as.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.39 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 14 January 2007
My friend, calling other editors childish names doesn't exactly advance your position very well, and it's a violation of WP:NPA. I would ask that instead of writing so much on the talk page here, you make the effort to write a well balanced criticism section for the article that adheres to WP:NPOV. The article really does need a well sourced criticism section because it's unbalanced right now. You seem like an intelligent enough person that if you try to, I'm sure that you can write a paragraph that reads like an encyclopedia entry rather than an activist's pamphlet. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 15:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Bottom line - a convicted felon is a convicted felon. I fully realise that Goldman alunmi do not want this pointed out. Fair enough. Understood. I dunno. I guess it is just a question of who out-lasts the other - You? Or me? The truth be told, this isn't that big an issue with me, so you will undoubtedly win. So, just go do it, and delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.53.39 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 15 January 2007
I'm no Goldman Alumnus, I'm a paramedic from Connecticut- visit my user page to learn all about me. All I was doing was deleting spam links from another anonymous user who was trying to boost his/her page's Google rankings by linking all all over Wikipedia. As for this debate here, it's not about "winning", it's about building a consensus. Other editors and myself have been telling you exactly what you have to do to "win" here- i.e. create a section entitled *Criticism* and write a paragraph or two in a properly encyclopedic, neutral tone. State the facts, not opinions or judgements; e.g. "Joe Blow was convicted in Federal court for securities fraud." is a statement of fact; "Joe blow is a criminal." is a judgement. And before you object to it, the term "criminal" is indeed a judgement- George Washington though a hero to the Americans, was a criminal as far as the British were concerned; he would have been hanged for treason if we hadn't won the war. On the other extreme, all of Adolf Hitler's actions during the Third Reich were conducted within the framework of German law. Please understand, we're not trying to protect Goldman Sachs or any other business from criticism, rather we are protecting Wikipedia from becoming something other than an encyclopedia. Please take my statements in the constructive spirit that I mean them. Thank you and have a great day. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 05:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Puff Piece

This article reads as a puff piece, omitting any criticism of Goldman, its role in the research and other scandals of the late 1990s. Recently, Goldman has come under considerable fire (particularly in Britain)for conflicts of interest surrounding its principal investments in private equity and the activities of its private equity funds. While Goldman seems to get away with a lot more of this sort of thing than its rivals, it does have quite a reputation for arrogance on Wall Street. Its archrival is Morgan Stanley--entertainingly enough, Goldman employees tend to refer to Morgan Stanley as 'the evil empire'--and vice versa12.111.30.89jsl

I titled this so it would be in-line with the rest of the discussion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. It really shouldn't attack or support its subjects. If you have sources and news articles related to Goldman's "scandals", then insert them into the article and cite them. If I recall correcty, Goldman was fined the least for problems with the analyst scandal and hasn't even been touched by the options backdating. As for the 'evil empire' - that's kind of irrelevant and pointless trivia IMO. Thesilence 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Puff Piece" is too kind

I have no personal ax to grind with them but I was shocked when I read this Wikipedia entry on Goldman Sachs! It reads like it was written in the GS Public Relations department. The "Criticism and controversy" section is a pathetic joke. Major criticisms of GS such as their incestuous relationship with the US Treasury Dept, among other serious things, are not even mentioned. I would very much like everyone with a current or former business relationship with GS to state that fact when editing the entry. I also think that it would be the ethical thing for an editor to admit that editing the entry is part of his employment. I myself have never had any relationship with them whatsoever. Also, it seems to me that "thesilence" has an inordinate influence on what the entry will look like while carrying an obvious bias in favor of Goldman Sachs. Sorry if that offends, but that's the way it looks to me. 75.164.153.79 (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)dwargo

[edit] Misleading analysis of telecommunications companies

Removed: <!-- What were the sentences? Did anyone go to prison? -->

[edit] External links=

Removed: <!-- I'm not picking on Goldman-Sachs particularly, I just happened to see an article in [[Private Eye]] about this. From the information I've found, it seems the others involved could do with their articles expanding, too. [[User:MrJones|Mr. Jones]] 13:27, 3 May 2004 (UTC) -->

[edit] Articles

Removed link to bizarre article which sanctions Joyti De-Laurey 4m theft. If it should go anywhere, and I don't believe it should, it should go in Joyti De-Laurey http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1200369,00.html An article criticising GS] and using this criticism to defend the criminal actions of Ms De-Laurey. Psychofox 23:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC) Removed link to mother jones, it seemed completely irrelevant, pretty npov, and it's a blog. revert at will --Dilaudid 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

Can anyone contribute a history of the company? Who was Goldman, and who was Sachs? 61.11.48.242 (Talk)

Goldman started out in the garment business. 199.66.11.253 (Talk)

Do you have a cite for that garment business? The company has a nice flash presentation here if anyone wants to read it and translate it to Wikipedia: http://www.gs.com/our_firm/corporate_information/our_story/index.html

[edit] Earnings vs. Revenues

In the investment banking section of the intro, it says that segment "accounts for around 15 percent of Goldman Sach's revenues". In the asset management section of the intro, it states that part "accounts for around 19 percent of Goldman Sach's earnings".

To evaluate the financial contribution of each segment, these should be parallel numbers, either earnings or revenues (or both)... but it should not alternate between the two. Uris♥ (Talk) 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Known as "The Firm" in some financial circles

I'm a bit curious about this: I've never heard Goldman referred to as "The Firm" (in caps) in any sense other than that of current Goldman employees talking about "the firm" (lower case) in the same way that any employees talk about their own firm as "the firm". Can we have a citation please? 87.74.103.131 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have been bold and made the change. I have also removed reference to Audrey McNiff and Abby Joseph Cohen as key people - not because, strictly speaking, they're not key - they're both senior partners of the firm - but because, institutionally, they are no more key than any of the other partners of the firm (of which there are hundreds). The remaining key people listed hold formal institutional roles which make them key "ex cathedra". 87.74.103.131 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I worked briefly for an outsourcing company that had a contract with Goldman Sachs. I was asked/directed to refer to GS as "the firm" in conversation, and to avoid discussing my work at GS (which was by no means anything very sensitive) as a general rule. I was told that this was to help avoid a lot of the social engineering problems that GS goes through with regards to employee poaching, client poaching, client privacy and other issues.

[edit] Light Spam?

The Goldman Sachs JBWere (Australia) link seems a little out of place, as other country-specific divisions don't have seperate links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcaplock (talk • contribs)

Gone. By the way, you can do it yourself by clicking the "edit" button. Don't forget to sign your name with ~~~~. Thanks for your help! yandman 10:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think there may be a justification for referring to Goldman Sachs JBWere as my understanding is that this is a joint-venture, and its ownership structure varies from that of the Goldman Sachs Group (in particular, the former shareholders of JBWere now hold shares in Goldman Sachs JBWere Pty Ltd alongside the Goldman Sachs Group, as per this link http://www2.goldmansachs.com/our_firm/media_center/articles/press_release_2003_article_030326180114.html). In any case, Goldman Sachs JBWere is the branding used by the company within Australasia, as opposed to the rest of the world were Goldman Sachs is used.

[edit] Advertising

I wonder if it's at all significant to put down here that goldman-sachs' advertising corporation is Ogilvy & Mather... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.118.198.115 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I would probably add it to Ogilvy & Mather's page instead. Do you have a link supporting that? The Ogilvy & Mather page definitely is a bit messy.Thesilence 14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

Per Yandman's prompting, I have rewriten the article and he has overwritten the old one. I tried as much as possible to keep as much of the timeline in place only in prose format as well as reference the more famous debacles, criticisms, and accomplishments in the firm's history using accurate sources. I'd like to see the article stay like this. A few notes about the rewrite:

  • Please edit grammatical and spelling errors as you catch them of course; I know there are a few.
  • Let's try and keep the alumni list short. There were a lot of dead links in the previous list and a lot of pointers to stubs as well. If the person is key to the firm's history, hasn't been mentioned in the article, or is extremely famous (Sascha Baron Cohen for example) then they should be added. People like CNBC anchors are a little more questionable I think.
  • I'm also a little hesitant about the Current Goldman Sachs holding list and I don't think it's very accurate - Goldman has extensive holdings in many public and private companies, as everyone in that industry does. The link seems to reference only holdings in Computer companies. I really think it should be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesilence (talk • contribs) 14:33, 17 January 2007
The article is much better for your efforts, I can actually read through it now without without my eyes crossing!

Thank you very much! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Alumni already mentioned in article

Per the recent edits of User:ExplorerCDT and User:Yandman, I'd like to head off an edit war and talk it out here. I hopefully have reverted to the most recent copy edited by Elipongo, and let's leave it at that until we've talked this through. I deleted all references to people who are mentioned in the article because if we mention everyone already mentioned, I think it's redundant. I also think it's pointless to include 7 references for one person in an article not about them. If you want to create a Robert Freeman article and link it there, go ahead. However, we already have a great reference (NY Magazine) regarding him and I think any more is unnecessary. I think that JPMorgan Chase is a good example of another article that does this as well. Note that Jamie Dimon, the CEO and biggest face of that company right now, is not referenced down in alumni, just like William B Harrison Jr.Thesilence 16:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Your reversions to delete referenced material appear (even if not deliberaly) that you're cherry picking information that omits or whitewashes the negative side of GoldmanSachs. Removing cited information is disingenuous, especially if it's negative material. There's no reason that this information shouldn't be included in "Notable Alumni" because often it gets lost in article text. From your recent edits, it is fair to say that you and Elipongo have gone on a consistent campaign to make this a warm-and-fuzzy, Goldman-is-great, We-love-Goldman article, and this POV cheerleading makes me wonder about possible conflicts of interest and POVs. The copyedit by Elipongo removes a lot of the teeth (and verifiable accuracy) from any criticism or controversy, and regarding Freeman, is sorely inaccurate (especially regarding the Boesky situation). —ExplorerCDT 17:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to let the rest of you know, I got a silly threat on my talk page from the anonymous editor whose IP starts with 81.41... Since I never deleted any of his edits, I'm not exactly sure why he singled me out, but whatever. Keep an eye on you own watchlists and userpgages. As to the accusation about a whitewash, the controversy section explains about that person far better than a single ungrammatical sentence, IMHO. I consider myself a good judge of this because I have no connection to investment banking beyond my 401k plan at work. Just being arrested and convicted doesn't by itself qualify a person for the *Notable people* section of an article, otherwise most articles on professions and activisms would be a mile long— could you just imagine what the United States Congress article would look like?! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the previous post before reading yours, ExplorerCDT. Could you please point out the specific edit of mine that you're referring to because I confess to not having a clue what you're talking about. I'm a paramedic in Connecticut and I don't really care what the article has to say about the company, so long as it's encyclopedic. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for an explanation of your assertion, ExplorerCDT. I have made exactly eleven edits to this article and none of them resemble what you're talking about. Making baseless accusations against myself, a neutral third party, does very little to advance your argument in my mind. --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 21:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've slightly modified the section header to emphasise the distinction referred to above. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! Thesilence 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Competitors section

Interesting addition. I'm wondering though if it might not work better as a navigation template? --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this person added it to all of the banks on that list, which makes sense. However, there is already an Investment Banks Category and this bank is a member of it (see bottom of the page). Wouldn't it be implied that all banks on that list are competitors? Just my $.02 --Thesilence 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That would indeed be implied. There is nothing wrong, however, with having inter-related articles linked together in addition to being in the same category. I just think that a navigation template would look better than the current listing. I'll put it on my "to do" list... if someone else doesn't beat me to it! --Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Citizenship

Goldman Sachs has been one of the most aggressive firms on Wall Street about taking action on climate change; the company sends its bankers home at night in hybrid limousines.

The way this is worded sounds like satire, very unwikipedian. --64.75.187.195 06:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't look like satire to me, but your edit reads just fine as well. I believe they were also cited by CNN/Money recently as one of the top 10 environmental firms in the US. --Thesilence 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LogoGS.gif

Resolved. Taken care of by Boothy443 (talk · contribs), thank you! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:LogoGS.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Recent criticism" Section

I have added in a "Recent Criticism" section on GS. I do not work/have never worked for the company so have no axe to grind. This is an objective look at their current investor policies and advice which seem to be very misleading. Ivankinsman 14:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that Michael Busch removed this insert from the main article page without ANY EXPLANATION ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE. I have since made improvements to this insert and have included appropriate references which he check to verify its contextual accuracy. Ivankinsman (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This section, added by Ivankinsman, consisted of largely of a copy of an email claimed to have been sent to the firm. Since emails are generally not reliable sources, I have removed it - also because WP:QUOTE recommends strongly against replication of primary sources. The section also included two sentences critical of Goldman-Sachs' actions in the sub-prime mortgage crisis and their recent actions on the gold market. However, the cited sources are not critical of the company, merely reporting on the activity as a successful strategy. I agree that a section on criticisms of the firm is a very good thing to have, but copies of emails and mis-cited newspaper articles are not acceptable sources. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again M Busch has removed relevant copy from this article. I do not accept his 'reasons' and would like an independent editor to adjudicate on this matter. Please do not remove this copy until this has taken place. Ivankinsman (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ivankinsman, I have explained that the sources you cited are either not suitable for Wikipedia or do not support those particular criticisms. I have removed the section again because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you can find reliable sources that support the section, you may add some of it back. However, a block quote of an anonymous email is never a reliable source and should not be copied back into the article. If you really insist on outside evaluation, wait a day or so and maybe file a WP:RFC. I would much prefer that you find suitable sources and re-write the section, however. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK MichaelBusch, as a good Wikipedian, I take your point here. I admit that I rather acted on the 'spur of the moment' and have now written a much more considered piece backed up by solid references/reliable sources that actually do criticise the company for first selling subprime loans and then shorting them. I would like to state here that I have no 'personal grudge' here against GS (why should I? Your viewpoint seems to be that criticising a company's investment policies = bearing a grudge (rather subjective I think). I simply want to state the facts regarding GS' role in the recent subprime crisis that has hit both the US and UK hard (as well as major banks in other countries). Ivankinsman (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(plus can you use : sign so we can rank this discussion properly)
I can indent posts, but if I did that sequentially, we'd run out of room on each line. I apologize for my error re. your bearing a grudge - I mistook the email for one you had written. I'm afraid I still don't see an explicit criticism of the company here - the articles describe how Goldman Sachs contrived to make money on both sides of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, without condemning this. From one perspective I see the criticism: they made money at the expense of other lenders. From another perspective, this can be considered a positive: while many other firms were greatly harmed by the crisis, they succeeded in making large profits for their shareholders. The material seems notable and should be included, but I just don't see how it is a criticism. It seems value-neutral. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this. I see Allan Sloane's Washington Post article as being critical, as well as The Daily Record and SFGate.com. The FinFacts article is value-neutral but still verifies the approach - outlined by these first two sources - as to how GS increased revenues from subprime. However, I have no problems with your new title for this insert. Ivankinsman (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the recent criticism section at all (Where is the recent accolades section? What true purpose does this section serve? Can this section lead to subjective opinions on the part of the readers? What constitutes recent? Again, why only criticism and no accolades?), I think that I will leave the decision for it to stay up to more practiced wikipedians. The insider trading scandal that was previously listed at the bottom does not deserve its own section, and has been annotated and moved into the criticism section. Finally, of most importance is the entire section devoted to the 2007 mortgage crisis that Goldman seems to have averted. Let's start from the top: most of the first paragraph is a word-for-word plagiarized version of the San Francisco Chronicle article that it loosely references. This section:

"As chief of Goldman Sachs, Paulson was involved, to degrees as yet unrevealed, in the mortgage securitization process during the halcyon days of mortgage fraud from 2004 to 2006. Paulson became the U.S. Treasury secretary on July 10, 2006, after the extent of the debacle was coming into focus for those in the know. Goldman Sachs achieved recent accolades in the markets for having bet heavily against the housing market, while Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch and others got hammered for failing to time the end of the credit bubble. Goldman Sachs is the only major investment bank in the United States that has emerged as yet unscathed from this debacle. The success of its strategy must have resulted from fairly substantial bets against housing, mortgage banking and related industries, which also means that Goldman Sachs saw this coming at the same time they were bundling and selling these loans."

should be in quotes, not just referencing the source that it was taken word-for-word from. Additionally, the Chronicle cannot be construed as a reputable source for these allegations, as it clearly states that, for instance, Paulson was involved to degrees yet unknown. Does this mean that the degree could have been 0? Yes, it does. This brings me back to my original statement: undue criticism, especially of the kind that is unquantifiable and unqualified is absolutely inappropriate for this, a knowledge-disseminating wiki (not an opinion-disseminating one). Can we really use the word 'halcyon days of mortgage fraud' and believe that this is objective reporting? I am removing all items in this section that are complete plagiarism, and hope to spark a discussion that would remove undue, subjective criticism from all financial institution wikis. --Yuu.david (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)