Talk:Citigroup/Archive 1

primerica

Please do not change the primerica thing, it is a very good description of what it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.124.242.129 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 8 June 2004.

Talk about a negative tone

"Illegal merger"? "During a two-to-five-year grace period allowed by law, Citigroup can conduct business in its merged form" ([1]). - Jerryseinfeld 22:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also: "Citigroup has a culture of corruption and has been involved with many scandals."???? "Culture of corruption" seems pretty opinionated to me. --Perlman10s 07:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Biased One "Citigroup has a culture of corruption and has been involved with many scandals." This lines is extremely biased one and clearly doubts neuatrality of the whole article --Ninad 18:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

citicorp

citicorp written on the first paragraph is linking to the article itself. Dionisiofranca 12:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The flow is a mess. The article dosn't make any sense from 'History' through to 'Post-merger history'. There is some semblance of a story about Weill, but then this is side-tracked by a discussion about mergers. This then eventually goes on about laws about mergers? I don't know anything about Citigroup but this article did not teach me anything.

"The merger took place in 1998. ..." The merger between who? What is Citicorp? Why is it introduced? What has it got to do with Primerica?

Then: "In order to convince Citicorp to merge, [with Primerica?] ..."

Also topics not arranged logically. 'Merger' and 'Post-merger history' are sub-sections of 'History' right? But they get their own big heading.

Most of the rest of the article looks good. The 'Scandals' bit is really nice. Well organised and clear.

This article just does not help in explaining what Citigroup is. 202.6.241.62 1 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

Language

"Weill was then convinced however to buy the company because he would get to use the companies private G-4 jet."? Is this a joke?--Jerryseinfeld 03:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, as described in "Tearing Down the Walls" a biography of Weill by a Wall St. Journal writer, Weill was disgusted with the Golden Parachutes, which were tricky and only found out about at the last minute. Robert Greenhill I believe, the investment banker on the deal, knew that Weill had long desired a corporate jet from his days at AMEX, but that the commercial credit board wouldn't go for one. They sent him a package with the picture of the jet in it and a note saying "this can be yours".

What I like about the "history" section is how it completely lacks years and numbers. It's perfect for the little ones who's just about to go to school.--Jerryseinfeld 05:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Look at the company family tree, this guy began building this company in 1960. He's put together companies from all over the market. It had 1 customer 1960, and 200 million today. Put some facts and figures in there, something that you will enjoy and learn something from. How do you choose your acquisitions? Would you have done anything differently? Put something of value in there, how did he evaluate the deals? How did he finance the deals? What kind of leverage did he use? What was the capital structure? What did he do with the management in the acquired company? What kind of restructurings did he make? How did he re-energize a neglected business? What were the visions he rallied the people around? How did he evaluate character? How did he differentiate? How did they work with the "human equation"? How did they remove somebody? How did they promote somebody? How did they build a winning team?--Jerryseinfeld 05:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone with a login name create and upload pictures for this article?

Here are some pictures to add to this article:

• 399 Park Ave. building
• maybe some pictures of executives

I'd love to if you tell me where the copyright-free pics are located! - Adrian Pingstone 16:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I was hoping someone in new york with a digital cam could just go on park avenue and take the pictures and upload them.

Also note that Sandy, up until the final celebratory dinner to celebrate the deal, bitterly objected to the golden parachutes- he actually burst out and yelled at Tsai right in front of everyone. And Tsai wasn't the type of guy you yell at.

Removals

Someone is removing stuff. Ask first.--Jerryseinfeld 04:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Removing what stuff??

Somebody removed the Forbes and Fortune categories for some reason.--Jerryseinfeld 05:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What we should remove

We should remove the analysts section. Why is that important? We should also remove the diversity section, thats just from some bot who wants to promote the = diversity group. And we should remove the indexes section and simply mention that in the article. I say we should do this because those are the wikipedia guidelines on how many sections there should be in an article. What do you guys think?

Please cleanup this biased article

The article is extremely biased and written with anti-citigroup mind. At wiki, we should always support neutral, factually correct articles. There is very strong emphasis towards anti-citigroup matters, scandals rather than providing factual information about the franchise. What you all think ? --Ninad 14:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree! who wants to hear rumors or accusations? I want to hear the truth. I want to hear known facts. I want to hear proven facts. I do not want to hear what so and so said, or what so and so thinks. written by, Turkybuttyoyo

From Peer Review

The following comments c/p-ed from Peer Review:

A few comments:

• Is somebody going to discuss the pornography scandal? please?
• Too many three-sentence paragraphs, resulting in less smooth reading.
• Related to that, too many (sub)sections, making the article look fragmented and uninviting. Try to join some subsections.
• Stock: currently this section only lists some links to stock-related Wikipedia article. I don't know anything about shares, but a featured article on Citigroup would certainly have to say something about the stock rates over the past years etc.
• Why put the scandals first and only after that the divisions, activities, and other basic information? I would do it the other way around.

— mark ✎ 14:00, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive

The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support this article with your vote.--Fenice 17:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge the BOD lists

Looks like we have two copies of the Board of Directors section. We need to merge those. Chadlupkes 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for highlighting. Have done the same also fixed up broken links in the BOD list --Ninad 09:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Citigroup named stadiums, art centers, etc.

How about a new section listing all the stadiums and art centers named for CitiGroup.

1) CitiField - the new Mets Baseball Team stadium to be located in New York, New York and open in 2009. 2) CitiCenter for the Performing Arts - the former Wang Center for Performing Arts located in Boston, Massachusetts.

Merger Travelers Group

A merger from Travelers Group has been proposed.

• Merge. The Travelers Group article is very short and unless expanded, stand to be deleted. The Citigroup article already includes the same content, so a "redirect-merged" tag should be the only thing we need to do. -- Emana 23:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So, I was watching TV last night, and saw a commercial for Travelers. Travelers is coming back full swing? May be we shouldn't merge because a major expansion of Travelers Group may be impending. -- Emana 17:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think the Travelers Group page should be merged with the Travelers Companies page instead, since the latter is the intuitively the "successor" to the former, even if that's not technically the case. -- Jlin 05:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If I don't hear any objections, I'm going to redirect Travelers Group to Travelers Companies. -- Jlin 07:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. -- Jlin 00:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I changed the redirect back here because the only connection between Travelers Group and Travelers Companies is one particular business (property-casualty insurance) and the Travelers name and logo. (Edit: All of those came from Citigroup. --RBBrittain 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)) Virtually all of Travelers Group's non-insurance assets, as well as Primerica, remain with Citigroup. I might agree with Jlin if the article was about Travelers Insurance (which included the property-casualty business now with Travelers Companies), but Travelers Group (the parent company) properly belongs here. --RBBrittain 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"Citi" naming?

There have been recent moves to name citigroup "Citi"... not sure how this fits into the article. This is related to travelers coming back on its own. +sj + 02:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's basically just a rebranding exercise. The company is still called Citigroup and all legal entities will maintain the name Citigroup, but logos will use Citibank's "Citi" with a red arc logo, but in silver rather than blue. Operationally, nothing changes. DJR (T) 00:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With some reluctance I just reverted an edit that was basically a mass-change from Citigroup to Citi. I am not sure the matter is as clear-cut as my reversion, but it does seem quite clear that the name change is a rebranding exercise. [2] DagnyB 21:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with reversion. The company is still called Citigroup - "Citi" has always been used as a short-form and that short-form has now been adopted as a brand. DJR (T) 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree ("Citigroup" is not only still the legal name but remains in common use in the markets), but I added "operating as 'Citi'" to the first paragraph. I also redesigned the disambig at the top to follow WP:D style and acknowledge that "Citi" is a redirect. --RBBrittain 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal from page

I removed this unsourced note from the business issues section: Humorously, the devious plan acted out by the Cititraders was called: "Dr-Evil," a play on the Austin Power's character. An investigation is pending. Please find a reference for it or leave it out. +sj +

Citigroup in Popular Culture

Can we pls start this section?

I have a suggestion for an initial entry:

The "city hall" in Futurama is called "Citihall" and bears the older-style Citibank logo.

Ref: http://www.futurama-madhouse.com.ar/scripts/1acv08.shtml

60.240.255.248 10:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Revenue Inacuracy

I am not sure where the US $146.56b in revenue came from. I looked at the press release that is cited as the reference as well as the fy2006 10-k and I do not see it. I see:

> "Record Full Year 2006 Revenues of $89.6 Billion, Up 7%" [3]

I am making the change in the article. If anyone objects lets discuss here Ajmccauley 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The revenue figure has been changed to 155.29b by 209.250.165.213 (talk · contribs · count) I am changing it back to 89.6b. If anyone feels that I am wrong please discuss here. Ajmccauley 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

CitiFinancial and Associates

The article mentions the legal issues arising after Citi's takeover of Associates, and says that CitiFinancial stopped selling single-premium credit insurance... Really? I work for CitiFinancial Canada, and we definitely still sell single-premium insurance. Perhaps in the USA, this is not the case, can anyone verify this? 209.105.207.181 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Salomon Smith Barney

Salomon Smith Barney, who apparently were the primary tenants at the 7 World Trade Center building destroyed on 9/11, redirects here, and yet there is next to no information on this group or how 9/11 affected them. --Tothebarricades 07:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe SSB should redirect to Smith Barney instead? SSB is mentioned briefly on that page. --Georgeryp 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)