Talk:Morgan Stanley/Archives/2013

Notable alumni & serious bias
This article is seriously biased if in its notable alumni list it does not also include those who are notable for less than auspicious reasons. Why are no convicts included as several thousand people have been charged (I don't know offhand the number of convictions) for their work with Wall Street firms over the last several years. Why is there not one convict on this list? Has no one from Morgan Stanley who was famous for a financial criminal act ever been convicted? Is that the reason for the absence? This is hardly a scholarly attempt at a reasonable and fair presentation if it does not include those "alumni" as well... Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Jennings
The incident involving Jennings has vanished from "2012". This whole article is written by the paid public relations department of Morgan Stanley. This is against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.73.93 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Jennings was considerably drunk at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.73.93 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
This article is all over the place. three times it tries to list the Business units of the firm, the structure and headings are poor compared to to other US Corporate pages and the "recent disputes (2005)" section is a joke. It sets up the article for vandalism. I think we need to rewrite the whole page.

The whole tone of the "Recent (2005) disputes" section is pretty ridiculous; the passage contains numerous grammatical/punctuation errors, and makes personal judgements aplenty. "also very nice person", "The easy going but hard working Perella" are examples. Also included are biased claims such as "he cant stomach any more the endless Machiavellian intrigues of Purcell" and the entire last paragraph. The recent shake up is important and should be included in this article, but surely we can do better than this (sounds like it was ripped from a business blog somewhere). Will wait for some other input before reverting/revising. --WayneMokane 05:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the POV portions and tried to make it as NPOV as possible. --Kross 06:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed some more POV and fixed some grammer errors. --Kross 19:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed some spelling and grammar errors; I can't vouch for the factual accuracy of the article but this appears NPOV. Pjrich 23:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page, while not necessarily taking a particular POV, has become riddled with irrelevant and biased comments that often have nothing to do with the company it concerns. I'd recommend somebody we-write this page from scratch so as to provide a better balance for the whole article.

Particular points of concern:

(1) "Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority, decided not to intervene. Davies was also an employee of the bank". Davies may have been an employee, but this had no impact whatsoever on Morgan Stanley. It is therefore irrelevant to this article and should be removed.

"Some feel these larger damages... / and bad management not forseeing this result...". Who feels that these damages were caused by Morgan Stanley? What is good / bad management? These may be published opinions in newspapers but that does not necessarily make them fact. This paragraph should be removed also.

"This was claimed to be a huge mishandling of the case esp by the 'dissidents' (see Disputes section below) and they claim another proof of bad managment by CEO Purcell". This is appaling grammar and the entire paragraph needs to be amended / removed.

"Recent (2005) disputes" Is a relevant topic, but is eight paragraphs really necessary given it takes up around half the article? Perhaps if somebody could summarise the issue into one or two paragraphs it would balance the article as a whole. Also remember that there are arguments for AND against breaking the company up. To maintain balance the advantages and disadvantages of both could be briefly discussed.

Please also try to use subjective phrases rather than "company ended up falling from a strong position", "Discover Card... stagnated", "Key to the firm's future is Joe Perella", "critical investment banking dept", "which some say he "packed"", "heavy earner for Morgan Stanley" etc. Statements like this are fine if they are backed up with relevant facts - preferably from an annual report - otherwise they have no place here.

"Organization" "Concerned over lackluster performance, eight former senior Morgan Stanley executives, including S. Parker Gilbert, who had been chairman of Morgan Stanley before the merger, and Robert Scott, who had been CEO, sent a letter to the Board on March 3, 2005, requesting immediate replacement of Purcell as President. On March 31, they published a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal revealing their position." This paragraph has nothing to do with the internal structure of Morgan Stanley and should be removed.

The above points are a start, but as mentioned above I feel the article has become so biased towards particular opinions that it needs to be completely re-written to restore balance.

Untitled
This article is all over the place. three times it tries to list the Business units of the firm, the structure and headings are poor compared to to other US Corporate pages and the "recent disputes (2005)" section is a joke. It sets up the article for vandalism. I think we need to rewrite the whole page.

The whole tone of the "Recent (2005) disputes" section is pretty ridiculous; the passage contains numerous grammatical/punctuation errors, and makes personal judgements aplenty. "also very nice person", "The easy going but hard working Perella" are examples. Also included are biased claims such as "he cant stomach any more the endless Machiavellian intrigues of Purcell" and the entire last paragraph. The recent shake up is important and should be included in this article, but surely we can do better than this (sounds like it was ripped from a business blog somewhere). Will wait for some other input before reverting/revising. --WayneMokane 05:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the POV portions and tried to make it as NPOV as possible. --Kross 06:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed some more POV and fixed some grammer errors. --Kross 19:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed some spelling and grammar errors; I can't vouch for the factual accuracy of the article but this appears NPOV. Pjrich 23:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page, while not necessarily taking a particular POV, has become riddled with irrelevant and biased comments that often have nothing to do with the company it concerns. I'd recommend somebody we-write this page from scratch so as to provide a better balance for the whole article.

Particular points of concern:

(1) "Sir Howard Davies, chairman of the UK Financial Services Authority, decided not to intervene. Davies was also an employee of the bank". Davies may have been an employee, but this had no impact whatsoever on Morgan Stanley. It is therefore irrelevant to this article and should be removed.

"Some feel these larger damages... / and bad management not forseeing this result...". Who feels that these damages were caused by Morgan Stanley? What is good / bad management? These may be published opinions in newspapers but that does not necessarily make them fact. This paragraph should be removed also.

"This was claimed to be a huge mishandling of the case esp by the 'dissidents' (see Disputes section below) and they claim another proof of bad managment by CEO Purcell". This is appaling grammar and the entire paragraph needs to be amended / removed.

"Recent (2005) disputes" Is a relevant topic, but is eight paragraphs really necessary given it takes up around half the article? Perhaps if somebody could summarise the issue into one or two paragraphs it would balance the article as a whole. Also remember that there are arguments for AND against breaking the company up. To maintain balance the advantages and disadvantages of both could be briefly discussed.

Please also try to use subjective phrases rather than "company ended up falling from a strong position", "Discover Card... stagnated", "Key to the firm's future is Joe Perella", "critical investment banking dept", "which some say he "packed"", "heavy earner for Morgan Stanley" etc. Statements like this are fine if they are backed up with relevant facts - preferably from an annual report - otherwise they have no place here.

"Organization" "Concerned over lackluster performance, eight former senior Morgan Stanley executives, including S. Parker Gilbert, who had been chairman of Morgan Stanley before the merger, and Robert Scott, who had been CEO, sent a letter to the Board on March 3, 2005, requesting immediate replacement of Purcell as President. On March 31, they published a full-page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal revealing their position." This paragraph has nothing to do with the internal structure of Morgan Stanley and should be removed.

The above points are a start, but as mentioned above I feel the article has become so biased towards particular opinions that it needs to be completely re-written to restore balance.