Talk:D. E. Shaw & Co./Archives/2012

DE Shaw is NOT a "hedge fund."
This is wrong throughout the article. While the popular press may refer to Shaw as a hedge fund, the firm a financial services concern whose investment advisory affiliates sponsor (or advise) hedge funds. HedgeFundBob (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources which describe the company differently? See also Verifiability. --Elonka 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

apparent alteration of text
It looks like someone has garbled some text in the paragraph describing takeovers of bankrupt toy firms. The words "recruited teja" make no sense in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.209.211.153 (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fortune Magazine
Why is sourced information being excluded from the article per this embedded content below? On Wikipedia we represent all reliably sourced points of view. If Shaw is on the Fortune list of 400 wealthiest shouldn't it be included? If there is a reliable source that says that the Fortune Mag miscalculated then we can add that info also. What we shouldn't do though is exclude sourced content based on information from "those who are familiar with the way D.E. Shaw allocates its profits". Comments anyone?
 * Previous information about Shaw being one of the 400 wealthiest people in America deleted Although it is true that Fortune included Shaw on this list, it's clear to those who are familiar with the way D. E. Shaw allocates its profits that his actual net worth is highly unlikely to qualify him for this list (at least at this point). Although Shaw was actively involved in the firm's investment management activities between 1998 and 2001, the vast majority of its profits were earned since that time, when the firm had grown by a factor of about a thousand beyond its original size. Although Shaw still receives an (undisclosed) percentage of the firm's profits, those profits are now shared with the firm's 27 managing directors, who are now responsible for the management of the firm.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 17:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be no objection. I am removing the above embedded text from the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim is not that he has high levels of income, but that he has high levels of *wealth*. As he owns 100% of the management company, why wouldn't he qualify? Uucp (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If there is a reliable source that makes a clear connection between the subject of the article (the company) and his personal wealth, then we can include something about that I think.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 12:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion started with the Fortune article, which is a good source, making the credible claim that David Shaw has a high level of wealth. You objected, saying that you think his income isn't so high. I pointed out that income is irrelevant to wealth, and there is no reason to doubt the Fortune article. You respond saying, "OK, find a source." You already have a source -- Fortune Magazine. Uucp (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Uucp, thank you for your comments and participation in this thread. I think there is some mis-communication here. Initially I objected to embedded text in the article that indicated some content was being suppressed because some editor(s) felt the information was inaccurate. Since there was no objection after 3 days I removed the embedded text. I have no objection to including information about Shaw's wealth or income as long as there is a reliable source ( and Fortune is certainly reliable) that discusses Shaw's wealth in the context of D.E.Shaw & Co. which is the topic of this article. I have not seen the Fortune article so I don't know if it makes that connection or not. If it does not present Shaw's wealth in the context of the company than that info would be better off in his bio and not in this article.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 12:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at this Fortune article and didn't see anything about Shaw's personal wealth. Did I miss something? Is there another Fortune article? I think if we look at the source together, the discussion can get more specific and we can work this out. Thanks for your help. Cheers!-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 12:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Corporate Culture POV tag
I'm not sure the current text (see below) accurately represents the single source it cites. Some of the content on the web site is user submitted and therefore not a reliable source according to WP:RS. Comments, suggestions?
 * The recruitment policy at D.E. Shaw is known to be extremely tough, with a focus on hiring the "brightest minds in the industry". The culture at D. E. Shaw is "very informal" and "very open." Insiders call working for the firm a "wonderful experience" and say that there's "lots of freedom given to employees" with "a scope provided to develop one's interests." The informality extends to the firm's required dress, too, which is "casual" - there's "no specific dress code to adhere to." The firm offers "flexible hours so people can work during their productive best instead of trying to fit work into slots they don't find comfortable.""Vault.Com - About the Company"-- — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted the section. The Vault.com "survey" is not a reliable source. It appears to be a set of comments posted to a website.   Will Beback    talk    23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome New Editors
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Please be careful not to remove reliably sourced (cited) content you don't like and replace it with unsourced and generally non-compliant content that you like better. Please take a little time to read these policies before making any more changes to the article: WP:V. If you have any questions or need help feel free to contact me on my User talk page or on the talk page of the article. I look forward to working together. Cheers! --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 22:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Content Moved From Article
I'm moving the following content from the article to the talk page:


 * In August 1996, Fortune described the firm as "the most intriguing and mysterious force on Wall Street". HaroldErica (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * and its focus is the intersection of technology and finance. HaroldErica (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK with me, we can look for sources and put back in later.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Caution on Subsection Titles
Just a word of caution on creating too many subsection titles. It's starting to break up the article and hinder its readability. If you are planning to expand these subsections it may be OK but generally we don't create a special subsection just for one or two sentences. --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)