Talk:Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
WikiProject Dartmouth College This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dartmouth College, which collaborates on articles related to Dartmouth College.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
No This article is on a subject of no importance within WikiProject Dartmouth College.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Axe grinding

  • Whilst I've no objection to the second paragraph, the comments therein do seem a little strong and lacking in balance or context, as if the author has an axe to grind. This article could probably do with expanding. Andrewferrier 21:20, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems to lack NPOV: "Gerstner profited immensely during his reign in stark contrast to many loyal employees." –DeweyQ 17:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I decided to remove the offending sentence despite lack of feedback here. "Gerstner profited immensely during his reign in stark contrast to many loyal employees" does not define "immensely", nor does it specify what the long-time employees got in the way of severance pay and re-employment services. If, for example, someone received 5 weeks of pay for every year of service and was re-employed within five months, they very likely would show a "profit". The apparently obscene inequities inherent in most corporate executive compensation is perhaps a topic of a different article. –DeweyQ 02:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "Gerstner and his Australian henchman Robert Savage are credited with the selling off of the IBM Wangaratta facility and its employees to a venture capitalist which ultimately left many ex-employees deeply embittered." This sentence has been added by someone I suspect is the same anonymous contributor as the other POV statements. I would like feedback on this before I modify it, since I know nothing of the specifics. The language used is POV and inflammatory. –DeweyQ 15:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleansing LVG's image

Gerstner has attracted considerable negative comment over the years, not only from magazines such as 'Fortune' and 'The Economist', but also from many IT industry observers and, not least, former employees of IBM and RJR Nabisco. He returned IBM to profitability after a couple of years of losses, but the strategic criticisms of LVG constitute a much longer list: he was lousy at increasing revenues (under his watch, IBM had to rely on acquisitions for growth); he effectively withdrew IBM from the consumer space (which has since seen far higher growth than commercial IT); he left his successor with an IBM that was far less feared and far less significant in the IT industry than when he joined in 1993; and that he was no entrepreneur (Gerstner has never built a business).

However none of that is here today, although revisions added (and taken away) since I started watching the page, have referred to some or all of these aspects. The most recent cleansing is the removal of the sentence that The citation astonished many. referring to Blair's award of a knighthood to Gerstner. That removal is on the grounds that this is Personal opinion. It is not. It certainly reflects the views of several journalists who have watched the Blair-Gerstner relationship. (Many expect this relationship to return to public view on Blair's retirement later this year.)

What I don't understand is why astonishment is regarded as personal opinion, whereas a word such as remarkable (used to describe the claimed perception of IBM's turnaround) is presumably regarded as not opinion, given that this word remains in the article. Or is it simply the case that positive personal opinion is allowed, but negative opinion, even if expressed in many referenceable books and articles, is not? Thegn 06:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Subtitles

I've read the text and found no reason for the two subtitles that compose this article (Gerstner at American Express and Gerstner at IBM) not to be in chronological order. For that reason I took the liberty of reversing it. If that was wrong please reverse it back.

[edit] Copyedit

Hi, I'm copyediting this article and I have a few suggestions re the content of the article:

  • "In 1980 most department stores did not accept American Express cards - Gerstner acted on this and by 1985 retail sales were the second most common use of the card..." - How did Gerstner act on this - what did he do to achieve this result?
  • Make sure you source "In 1980 most department stores did not accept American Express cards - Gerstner acted on this and by 1985 retail sales were the second most common use of the card, following airline tickets". I have added a {{fact}} tag.
  • Please source your quotations - as per this guideline, you should always source your quotations: "I hear that and I can't accept that. A workaholic can't take vacations and I take four weeks a year" is not sourced.
  • When and how did Gerstner resign from American Express and how and when did he get a job at IBM?
  • Make sure you avoid weasel words. If you must say things like 'are widely seen as...', try to source the statements.
  • It might be a good idea to use footnotes when referencing this article.

Apart from that, well done on this article! I've finished my copy-edit. If you feel I have missed something, you can be bold and edit it, or remind me that I've missed it.

Thanks, Littleteddy (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)