Jump to content

Talk:Julian Robertson: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
WPNZ tag
No edit summary
Line 5: Line 5:
|listas=Robertson, Julian
|listas=Robertson, Julian
}}
}}
{{WP NZ|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WPNZ}}


==Golf coure rating in article?==
==Golf coure rating in article?==

Revision as of 01:22, 16 March 2012

WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconNew Zealand Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Golf coure rating in article?

I see someone describes his golf course as "27th best in world in 2005". According to who? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykral (talk • contribs) 07:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not he locals, who hate him. He is seen as an overbearing Yank who uses his money to railroad and bully others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.43.24 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about the golf courts seemed more suited for a press release than a Wikipedia article, so I took it out. Also there was an opinionated paragraph which praised his invesment record even though he went belly up in 2000, saying what a great investor he was after he shed all his clients. I went to the footnoted source and it wasn't there. -- Camp Baker

Suggested addition about Robertson lawsuit

I've made a similar proposal on the talk page for Gary Weiss. I suggest the following be added to this article in the "Tiger Management" section:


(References)

  1. ^
    • Associated Press (November 4, 1997). "Digital, corner newsstands go head-to-head: Question of timing in magazine publishing goes to court". The Fresno Bee. p. D14.
    • Garigliano, Jeff (June 1, 1997). "Steep libel claims raise concerns". Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management. Cowles Business Media Inc. p. 19.
    • Kelly, Keith J. (December 18, 1997). "Money Aside, Manager Settles Suit". New York Daily News. p. 78.
    • New York Times (January 7, 1997). "Corrections".
    • Reilly, Patrick M. (April 4, 1997). "Investor files papers signaling intent to sue Business Week for $1 billion". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones.
    • Wall Street Journal (December 18, 1997). "Business Week Agrees to Settle Libel Suit Brought by Investor". (Dow Jones).
    • Pogrebin, Robin (November 3, 1997). "Publication Date Open to Dispute In Internet Age" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
    • Truell, Peter (December 18, 1997). "The Media Business; Investor Settles Libel Suit Against Business Week" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
    • Weiss, Gary (April 1, 1996). "Fall of the Wizard" (Magazine article). Business Week. McGraw-Hill. Retrieved November 11, 2009.

After the merge discussion at Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co. is completed, a "further details" template can be added with a link to either the lawsuit article or to Tiger Management. Actually, a link could be placed now since the the link would redirect if the merge takes place. Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is, proportionally speaking, even more ridiculous than adding to Weiss. The section on the 'Tiger funds' is three paragraphs. WP:UNDUE is policy, not a suggestion. Stetsonharry (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And if anything approaching what's been written is going to be added, something from the Business Week statement (from the pages of Business Week) needs to be appended for anything approaching journalistic fairness. (Has anyone here ever worked as a real-life reporter?) The Business Week statement says: "Business Week acknowledged that predictions regarding Tiger's investment performance included in its cover story of April 1, 1996, 'The Fall of the Wizard of Wall Street,' with the sub-headline 'Tiger: The Glory Days are Over,' have not been borne out by Tiger's subsequent investment performance, which included a 48% gain before fees (38.4% after fees) in 1996 and a 67.1% gain before fees (53.7% after fees) through December 11, 1997. These performances far exceed market averages and the performance of other leading hedge funds. In the article, Business Week described how, after many years of stellar returns, including an 80% gain before fees in 1993, Mr. Robertson's Tiger Management delivered below market average results in 1994 and 1995. While the article also noted that Tiger was beginning to do better in early 1996, Business Week said that the 'revival has all the makings of a bump on a downward slope.' Business Week acknowledged today that Tiger's 1996 and year-to-date 1997 results, under Mr. Robertson's management, were superior performances by any measures."[1] For those unfamiliar with real-life journalistic practices, this comes perilously close to a full-blown retraction. I suppose the points about Robertson's temper stand, but he's acknowledged that issue.MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Marmaduke, I added more to the last sentence above addressing your concern. Cla68 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That just makes it worse. Aside from lengthening the paragraph to make it even more disproportionate, you'd be adding more on the lawsuit and then the settlement then on the substance of the article. I think that, rather than rushing to push the reference to the lawsuit into this, Weiss and whatever else you're doing, let's wait to see what the ultimate fate is of the lawsuit article. It is up for merger at this time to Tiger Management, the aim of which is to sieve out the wheat from the chaff. We're mucking around in chaff here. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think those three sentences do capture the essence of the dispute. Weiss wrote and BusinessWeek published an article critical of Robertson. Robertson didn't like it and sued. The case was settled with two admissions by the magazine, but not money damages. Although there were other factors involved which were commented on by the media, those are well contained in the current article and will soon be repeated in the Tiger Management article whether or not the two articles get merged. All we need here is the bare essence of the incident with a link to the other article(s). Let's see what any other editors might come by and say over the next day or so since it's Sunday night in North America which usually means a low level of activity by Wikipedians from that continent. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A day or so? This is a BLP. The first rule is "do no harm." No reason for a rush. This warrants a thorough dicussion. This is a significant addition to a small article. Stetsonharry (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stetson asked me pff-line to take a look at this. A cover story in business week about this particular person, especially when even an inconclusive lawsuit followed, would seem to be worth a paragraph. The proposed addition does not seem disproportionate. FWIW, I neither know nor care about the merits of the case or the personalities involved. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robertson has had many cover stories written about him over the years. I remember a long one in Institutional Investor. Do we have a paragraph on each one? Otherwise it just seems like too much to single out this one. -AmishPete (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does II have the same circulation as BW? Was the story the same size? Better check with Stetson. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note to point out that another editor has supported mentioning the lawsuit in this article, but prefers that it simply be listed as a "See also" link. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that would be me. Just dropped by to say that if you can't reach consensus to include details about the case, it seems the best workaround would be to include it in the see also section. Then you don' have to worry about undue weight, while still linking to the article of which Robertson is the main subject. I did this but Stetsonharry kindly reverted it. This is further discussed in the page Cla68 linked to, btw.—DMCer™ 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both StetsonHarry and AmishPete have been blocked as sockpuppets of Mantanmoreland, a sockpuppeteer and bad faith editor who has been banned from Wikipedia. With those socks, thankfully, blocked there appears to be no opposition to adding the material. Cla68 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julian_Robertson&oldid=482123258"