Talk:Merrill Lynch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Merrill occupies ALL of the storeys at 4 WFC/250 Vesey Street. They go down below street level and up to the top.

Contents

[edit] Spam

It may be worth noting that Merrill Lynch officially condones its employees spamming forums such as Orkut and is unwilling to stop when notified that this action is inappropriate. --Yamla 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... really? Could you provide a reliable source please? --Ray 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MLPF&S

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Incorporated is the name of its broker-dealer/retail-brokerage. By no means is business "primarily" conducted at Merrill by this entity. Investment banking, for instance, is Merrill Lynch and Company, Inc.

Perhaps articles should be written by people who actually have a broad concept of what they are talking about. BulldogPete 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The wonder of the wiki is that if you see something wrong with the article, you can go in there and fix it yourself. I would recommend you have a citation from a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Attribution, but Wikipedia's about editors editing, so go ahead and be bold and edit! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 06:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing about Enron?

ML was involved so why not mention it in the article?--Svetovid 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No reason not to. The article doesn't have a *Criticism and controversy* section, but the *Major cases* could (and probably should) be re-worked into one. A mention of the organization's involvement in the scandal you mention could be included in such a section if you find proper attribution. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A qualified wiki editor needs to please put something in about ENRON and Merrill Lynch's involvement with the Nigerian barge deal. This is ridiculous that it's missing! 74.0.131.6 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) La-Tonia Denise Willis

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo ml.gif

Image:Logo ml.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 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 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep a Neutral POV

Phrases such as, "one of the most blatant and egregious", "despite tens if not hundreds of discrimination law suits filed against the company", and "that is an indication of the severity of civil rights violation and malice by Merrill Lynch", are in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and are de-facto peacock terms (in this case, to lambaste the company). These have all been done by the same anonymous IP, and I've reverted them each time. In addition, I've spelled out the subject's name (first initial is not informative), and added a more reputable source than a dubious blog. Please discuss disputes on this talk page, rather than blanket reverts.-DMCer (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Civil rights section

Did you read my last revision before you erased it all?! I guess not! All those statements that you are refering too were gone in last version. It's good that you replaced the initial by first name. I'd like to use links instaed of references. My experience shows that readers find it easier to click on the link rather than following the references.

I will revert back the text so the names of the organizations who have reacted to the company's conduct would be in main text. As I said the describtions of Reckless, Malice etc are in the text of US Government law suit. We are not going to sensor a US Goverment law suit text, are we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I looked at the wrong diff for the revisions. I've reverted back to your version. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, to the anonymous IP user: Please stop listing the claimant as "F. Zojaji"; his name is "Fariborz Zojaji" and should be written out in full. I've made some changes, but left the original version largely intact. First, I replaced the Wordpress blog citation (as it isn't an appropriate source in this case) with the authoritative sources that it links to (WSJ, etc.). I also removed the Dealbreaker blog source for the same reason, and replaced it with the publications that it cites (The International Herald Tribune), along with some additional sources. I added the following wikilinks: Iranian, NASD, arbitration, Islamic, and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, I reformatted the sources to footnotes so as to make the section consistent with the rest of the content. In reference to the statement "this was the first time the US EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the individual", I removed it because it was plain wrong. Instead of listing all the reasons why, please see this recent case [1]; there are many more here[2].-DMCer (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


(A relevant comment was made on my talk page, to which I responded. I'm copying the content below)--DMCer (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[Quote starts]There are delicate facts and subtlties concerning this post that you are not aware of and by editting my post you oevrride them. Just to give you a simple example, altough there are a couple of articles written by National Iranian American Council (NIAC), only one of them mentions the letter by Arab American anti discriminaion committee (ADC) to Merrill Lynch protesting their conduct. Now you replace one article of NIAC by another and you drop the ADC statement!! The last version of the post is very conservatively written avoiding any personal comments. The statments attributed to EEOC are in the text of their law suit. Malice, Reckless, and intentional are descriptions of EEOC of Merrill's conduct. Also I prefer Hyperlinks to references at the end of the page. They are easier to access.I appreciate if you aviod editting a subject you don't know much about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1) According to WP:IC The hyperlinking style you're using should be avoided: "...Few Feature Articles use this style; the common objection during the FAC process is 'remove external links from main body (referring to this inline citation style), transform into proper inline citation style'." There is no reason this section should have SIX embedded links when its other links are in the more proper footnote format. I have left the word "ordered" as an imbedded link to suit you.
2) I did not "replace on article of NIAC by [sic] another." As you can clearly see in the edit history, I had the exact same one you originally pasted.
3) The very problem with your approach to this issue becomes clear when you write, "The last version of the post is very conservatively written avoiding any personal comment." Exactly; Wikipedia is Not a place for personal comments. It is also uncalled for to add false statements in order to further your point of view, such as what you wrote regarding this being the "first time the EEOC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the individual, despite hundreds of previous lawsuits [filed against Merrill]"
4) You keep referring back to the words "reckless, intentional, and malice", yet I kept both "malice" and "reckless disregard" (the actual terms used) in the article and sourced them directly--unlike the first version.
5) Again, the purpose of article talk pages is to allow other users to participate in discussions. Please make future comments on the appropriate page as this should not be a personal issue. I'm copying this thread there as well.--DMCer (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Merrill Lynch violations of civil rights!

Wiki pages are full of hyperlinks and this one should be no exception. This is supposed to be a free public, user created source. I think you should limit your edits. The only valid issue you raised was the personal comments and neutrality that I addressed immediately. Rest is based on the user. Blogs are an official source of news and a valid media outsource. Welcome to 21st century and internet age!!! The personal blog relating to Dr. Borumand is essential to this story as he is the victim of this viciious discrimination by Merrill Lynch and it has to be present in the article. I suggest you start your own page and apply your own ideas! What I have presented here is a legal, factual, accurate account of a horrific act of bigotry by some in Merrill Lynch targetting Iranian-Americans. Again, I appreciate if you respect the integrity of the story.

DMCER, I have no other way but to question your motives in deleting my posts and removing the hyperlinks of this section. what you are saying is simply absurd. Just TAKE A LOOK AT FIRST PARAGRAPH ON MAIN PAGE. THERE ARE 16 WORDS, PHARASES HYPERLINKED in a paragraph that has 30 words!!!!!!!! I suggest you kindly leave my post alone and focus on other paragraphs!!!!

When I say "This is the first time EEOC files a law suit is more tahn 30 years against the company" I meant in case of Merrill Lynch not in general!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO check the facts and consult with me before acting on your wrong information!!!!Now you are wearing my patience thin. You have no clue about the facts of this case and just run around and delete everything. What is your affiliation? Who pays you to do this?! 66.168.31.212 (talk)

You are mistaking external "hyperlinks" with internal "wikilinks". There is also no evidence that this blog is by who you say it is, which is one of the many reasons blogs are not considered an appropriate source, in this case, for Wikipedia references. As I noted above, the documents the blog links to are the sources that should be used for footnotes here, as I have done. As you refuse to use the talk page before reverting, I'm asking a third party to intercede.-DMCer (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


The blog linked through "Dr. majid Borumand" simply includes a detailed list of documents and news reports concerning what is amount to an unprecedented act of bigotry in history of corporate America by Merrill Lynch company. No where in histroy of civil rights violations in this country a company has been punished twice within a month for its mistreatment of an ethnic minority group. This is as bad as it can get and it has to be documented and reflected on any document regarding Merrill Lynch history. So questioning the source of the blog is just a lame excuse! I am not sure what you mean by a third party interceding but I am confident your actions are provoked by those who have ample benefit from hiding this ugly truth from the public!!

Obviously DMCer is hell bent to apply his inconsistent and absurd rules on my post. Clearly ML PR keeps calling! In the spirit of holidays and to let Wikipedia which is an excellent idea to thrive I make a compromise and let the DMCer's style to stay mostly intact! One thing I can not compromise though and that is the blog regarding Dr. Borumand who is the victim of this hate crime and as such his voice must be heard. I hope DMCer and the third party appreciate my generosity.66.168.31.212 (talk)

Please stop being hysterical and accusing others of being part of some conspiracy. Regarding the blog: This is from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. If this section uses the official documents this blog links to, there is no reason to still link to the blog. There is also no reason to assume this blog belongs to this "Majid Borumand", as it doesn't claim that anywhere. New York Times and Wall Street Journal sources, which I have included, are always more appropriate than a questionable blog with just one post.--DMCer (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog is about Mr Borumand case and it does not have to be necessarily a creation of his. Do you think the wiki page written about "Charles Darwin" is actually written by him in 19th century anticipating that Wikipedia would come about a couple of centuries later?! The blog has pertinent information about this case and may contain updates of this case as legal case proceeds that is a good supplement to the wiki page.66.168.31.212 (talk)

No, I don't think Darwin wrote his own article, which has nothing to do with this issue. The blog is dubious and need not be included as long as the official documents are included here as sources. The section is fine as it is, and I would ask that you please stop debating this.-DMCer (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


Following managers Yonathan Epelbaum, James Gatheral and Kishor Laud are implicated in the law suit by Federal governmnet. Their identity is pertinent to the story. When US Government files a law suit against a public company public has the right to know the details of the case. That is why I think it should be mentioned within the text of that segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.84.206 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

—...it's there.—DMCer™ 12:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual harrasment and gender discrimination

Something like 900 women sued ML in the past and won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Some of those cases are still ongoing in the courts. That should also be added to to history of the firm. God bless the internet. Now no one can hope that their mess ups would be forgotten when the memories fade. There is a public place to keep the record. Thanks to Wikipedia now everyone has to watch their conduct! I'd say there is a high correlation between evolution of society and accessibility of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.135.154 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Section on " discrimination against minorities..."

The content of the new edition violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia! It is too favorable to a company that has a terrible track record when it comes to treating its minority employees! There is a EEOC law suit pending against the compnay for a violation of civil rights not seen since the "Jim Crow" law was abolished! It is outrageous for anyone on behalf of the company to claim everything is alright and great at Merrill Lynch! I think this section needs to be reveretd back to its previous format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.81.3 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merrill Lynch can not claim it has dealt with its bigot culture...

  .....While it's under prosecusion by US governemnt. Merrill Lynch has 
  one of the worst track records when it comes to treating its minority employees. 
  Instead of trying to erase the hate crime form public record it's perhaps 
  more fitting that management first admit the bigotry that has existed for 
  years among its ranks rather than trying to cover it up. 
  Next they can start by discipling the bigots, so others learn the lesson. 
  It takes a mighty aweful, flagrant and blatant case before EEOC gets 
  involved as a plaintiff. Merrill has lots of explaining to do and penalties
  to pay before they can declare everything is FINE at the company!!!
  NothingButTruth (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)