Talk:Sanford I. Weill/Archives/2015

Section
In this fraternity Sandy met Josue Nolasco. Josue's financial and business savvy made a huge impact on the young Sandy Weill. Josue went on to become a multimillionaire, and a personal business advisor to Sandy Weill. It has not been confirmed but many believe Josue was always behind all of the big business ventures Sandy was part of. He was part of Sandy's master mind. Personal problems led to a delay in graduation, which with reductions in military spending squashed his goal to become a pilot.

This is from the article - I've removed it due to a lack of citations, poor grammar, and likely promotion of this otherwise non notable individual. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thanks, The  Fire  Tones  10:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropy
Hey folks! I've edited a paragraph in the philanthropy section which had mentioned how the Weill's "marital disharmony" and Adirondack-induced "marital bliss" had influenced the Weill library at Paul Smith college. It now merely states that Joan Weill gave the library. If you would like to discuss this, let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Better no article at all than this mush about such a controversial person!Slinkyskunk67 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has an unreasonable-looking number of dead links, and possibly too many links in general. (Wiki style suggests a link per line is a lot.) Please consider removing some of these links, if the appearance of a target article is not an imminent prospect. Alai 17:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wiki articles are supposed to have a neutral point of view. No one is suggesting that whatever Sandy Weill did, or didn't do, doesn't deserve attention. It certainly does. To suggest that the Grubman matter was the direct cause of his retirement is an opinion. Moreover, we have a larger mandate to keep bios consistent within the Wiki universe. To keep this bio consistent with other Wiki bios, a matter such as this belongs in the body of the article, not the lead paragraph. An example of this would be Bill Clinton's bio. The Lewinsky episode and subsequent impeachment are certainly discussed, but not in the opening paragraph. The underlying facts and circumstances of that matter, much as those presently discussed here, are far to complicated, subject to interpretation and likely to raise people's passion. ButtonwoodTree 12:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no way we can keep the Sandy Weill/Jack Grubman scandal out of this entry. After all, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer took pro-active action and blocked his appointment as the NYSE's "Consumer Advocate/Representative". I don't know the exact name of the position, but that's close, and Spitzer shot it down. The guy's career ended in scandal, as part of the massive corrupt-research scandal that hit Wall Street in the late 1990's, early 2000's. We need to flesh this out and add more verbage. Perhaps the thing to do is simply to note at the top that he is a "disgraced former banker and financier" "due to his involvement in the Wall Street research scandal of the late 1990's (see below) and leave it at that. A lot of his "philanthropy" has come AFTER he was disgraced.  And, before that time, some portion of it was (a) not even philanthropy at all, but bribery, and (b) not even his money (it was Citibank's money).  This whole thing needs fleshing out, but there is no way this guy can have a positive entry - it would be like having positive entries for Michael Milken, Marty Siegel, Elan Reich, Dennis Levine, Jack Grubman, Henry Blodgett, et al.  I mean, if Weill is such a straight arrow, then (1) why did Spitzer take action against him? (ANSWER:  We already know that because Spitzer said why he was blocking the appointment, and (2) why did Grubman have to give back the $20 million? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.43.95.184 (talk)

I've removed a discriminatory remark left by user 80.43.74.144 Cartwarmark 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I think it reads like someone's been cutting out criticism, such as hiring Robin Rubin as a director just days after the Clinton Administration approved repealing what was left of the Glass-Steagall act. Considering that MarketWatch list Rubin as the 8th most unethical person in business (and it's considered notatable to be mentioned), and that Weill did put a lot of effort into repealing a law that many have considered to be a contributing factor to the current financial crisis, I think they deserve some mention. --Eyclonus (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Also why is the Grubman scandal currently left out? --Eyclonus (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Philanthropist?
I've removed the description 'philanthropist' from the opening paragraph as the article makes no mention of any philanthropic activities and does not support such a description. More generally, the occasional donation or charitable work does not entitle someone to be described as such. It must form a substantial amount of the person's activities. I worked for Citigroup for 5 years and, frankly, regard a description of Weill as philanthropist as risible. maturin 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Weill's philanthropic activities are fairly vast and certainly not limited to "occasional". Moreover, I disagree with your definition of philanthropist.  Indeed, Webster's defines a philanthropist as one who "practices philanthropy".  "Philanthropy" is defined as "active effort to promote human welfare" or "a philanthropic act or gift", therefore, even a single act or gift, would qualify as "philanthropic".   Weill's regular support for, among other things, the Cornell University, Carnegie Hall, and the National Academy Foundation, which he founded, would seem to settle the issue, in my opinion. ButtonwoodTree 23:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that he used "philanthropy" (of Citibank's money, I might add) as a tool for bribery, I don't think he should be described as a "philanthoropist", so I'm removing that word from his description (although I'm sure he would like to be described that way). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.135.164 (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ButtonwoodTree, you keep reverting edits removing the description of Weill and a philanthropist. Why? The burden is upon you to substantiate this claim. --Cjs56 (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a silly discussion. That he may have reneged on a single contribution doesn't undo his status as a philanthropist.  The fact is that Weill has given away hundreds of millions of dollars, including over $600 million alone to Weill Cornell, in addition to substantial sums to Carnegie Hall, the National Academy Foundation, which he founded, and others.  In the spirit of a better, well sourced, Wikipedia, I am amending the article to include the word philanthropist and adding 8 sources, as follows:


 * Encyclopedia Brittanica. Per Wikipedia: "It (the encyclopedia) is written by about 100 full-time editors and more than 4,000 contributors, who have included 110 Nobel Prize winners and five American presidents."
 * Encyclopedia.com
 * The New York Times. Considered to be the paper of record in the United States
 * San Francisco Chronicle. Published by Hearst Corporation, this newspaper has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes
 * The San Francisco Sentinel
 * CNBC
 * Philanthropy Roundtable magazine. Per Wikipedia: "The Philanthropy Roundtable is a nonprofit U.S. membership organization that advises and serves the interests of philanthropists. Its stated mission is "to foster excellence in philanthropy, to protect philanthropic freedom, to assist donors in achieving their philanthropic intent, and to help donors advance liberty, opportunity, and personal responsibility in America and abroad.""
 * Inside Philanthropy magazine


 * Each of these sources refers to Weill as a philanthropist. It would seem rather clear to me that when a national newspaper such as the New York Times and a Pulitzer prize winning paper, the San Francisco Chronicle, a well respected print encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, a national news channel, CNBC and two separate magazines, one of which is a non-profit, refer to Weill as a philanthropist, the matter should be settled.  ButtonwoodTree (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I should hasten to add that in addition to the numerous characterizations of Weill as a philanthropist by demonstrably reliable sources, the article itself explains at length the man's charitable work. His motivation is not the point.  He doesn't need to be a humanitarian to be a philanthropist.  ButtonwoodTree (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're certainly welcome to your opinion. However, the facts of Weill's life do not support your label of "philanthropist." The record demonstrates that Weill's giving is motivated by self-aggrandizement, rather than any "active effort to promote human welfare." Examples supporting Weill's selfish motivations include naming the Cornell Medical School after himself, and withdrawing financial support for Paul Smith's College when they proved unable to legally name the school for his wife. Merely giving does not suffice for the label "philanthropist" to be accurate. Your assertion that even "a single act of gift would qualify as 'philanthropic'" is facially absurd. By your standard if Weill ever played a pick-up ball game he should be labeled as an "athlete." If he ever made a sandwich, he is a "gourmand." Furthermore, If a person gives money in exchange for a tangible benefit (such as a naming right) that is no charity, but rather a contractual exchange.The labels used to describe a person in the first lines of his/her biography should be the words that best describe the person's life.


 * You additionally point out the raw dollar amounts that Weill has given to certain organizations as supporting evidence of his "philanthropy." Compared to Weill's $1B+ net worth, these amounts are less than the percentages regularly given (as actual charity) by millions of average Americans. The evidence you cite supports a label of "misanthrope" rather than "philanthropist."


 * However you look at the facts of Weill's life, clearly, philanthropy does not define it.


 * Several other editors have removed this label in the past. I'm going to remove it again. You have yet to apologize for your uncalled for insinuations about my motivations and credibility as an editor. Rather, you've doubled-down by labeling this discussion as "silly." I suggest that you reexamine your own motivations and point of view as well as the demeanor you display to your fellow Wikipedians.
 * Cjs56 (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly interested in an edit war. The fact is, I have provided numerous, high quality sources which characterize the man as a philanthropist.  In addition, the article already describes his philanthropy.  Perhaps more importantly, the donation which you are crying about wasn't made and reneged on by Sandy Weill, but, instead, by his wife.  I assume you realize 1) they are different people and 2) that women are capable of acting independently of their husbands. They have intellect, free will and resources, just as men do.  They're not chattel.  Your continued edits demonstrate your obvious bias. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please substantiate your accusations of bias. --Cjs56 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, calling him a philanthropist is not "my" label. It is the label given to him by numerous independent third parties, including: Encyclopedia.com; Encyclopedia Brittanica; Fortune magazine; Inside Philanthropy magazine; The New York Times, Philanthropy Roundtable magazine; The San Francisco Chronicle and The San Francisco Sentinel. These reputable publications have all chosen to label him a philanthropist.  If you're dissatisfied with their journalistic or academic integrity, you can certainly take it up with them directly. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 December 2015
the following statement is grammatically incorrect: "a 380-bed Specialty Teaching Hospital that will open in 2014 in Qatar." It should be replaced by: "a 380-bed Specialty Teaching Hospital was scheduled to open in 2014 in Qatar." Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)