Talk:David M. Cote

message: The Last line is incorrect. David Cote began working for GE while in school. He continued working for them post graduation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.111.121 (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last line of Article 

message: The David M. Cote bio is outdated.  I am disclosing my conflict of interest with this particular Wikipedia bio.  I will prepare a draft and put it in my sandbox.  The intent is to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  I look forward to your input and suggestions.
Presto808 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working on updating David M. Cote Bio 

message: The information presented in this biography is both outdated and needs additional citations. I am disclosing my conflict of interest in working on this page, and will present my Wikipedia-compliant draft in my sandbox. Please feel free to contact me with any relevant information or concerns. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't just substitute your draft (which I have seen) for the article so I would suggest that given the COI you start to suggest changes to the existing article here rather than work further on the draft. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Philafrenzy, thanks for your comment (and your edits to the article). I'm relatively new to the Wikipedia community, but even with my limited understanding of COI policy, I wouldn't ever try to outright replace an existing article with my own version. My hope in creating this draft was to present the community with a readable version of the research I'd done, so that other editors would be able to use or recycle the information I presented to publish in the actual article. That said, did you have any particular problems with my draft? When I posed the question, I really wanted to collaborate with the community on this article, especially since activity on this page had crawled to a near halt. I'm not sure what other avenues I should have pursued given that edits to the article were few and far between. Regardless, I'd appreciate any feedback you have for me regarding my draft, as I'd like to see some of the community-approved content added if possible. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I don't have time to study your draft in great detail. I didn't think you would try to replace the article with your draft, I was merely pointing out that working further on it may not be very productive from your point of view as it can never replace the existing article wholesale. My advice given the COI is to post on this page the changes that you would like to see in the article and try to obtain consensus for their inclusion in the article. I realise that sounds a bit of a slow process but that is the correct procedure and I don't think the current article is in urgent need of correction? Are you being paid (even indirectly) to work on this matter? Philafrenzy (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking the time to respond. I'll admit, I was initially put off by your comment and thought that you were just coming after me with no feedback for my draft, but I can see that's not the case. I am being paid to work on this article, and as such I don't mind if it takes a while if that's what it takes to follow protocol. It's more important to me to go through the proper channels than to publish quickly; I had grown frustrated seeing the low level of activity on the article. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

text: OK. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jojalozzo. Graft your draft into the article piecemeal. By adding facts and references incrementally, you make the edit history much easier to follow and question (and given your forthrightness, I expect most questions will be answered by your references). Xaxafrad (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the COI, I highly recommend proposing your changes here before edting the article. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why this flurry of comments? All of this has already been discussed on this page. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I haven't been communicating clearly enough. I have no intention of editing the article myself, given my COI. All I'm trying to do is gain some consensus about the content I've drafted so that I can submit it for an edit request. Next to none of the original article has been removed, and where it has was in service of improving the copy. I honestly didn't think I was asking much for someone to actually read it; there's maybe a page or two of total additions. I feel like I'm being dismissed for being new or having COI, but if I'm overstepping my bounds, I'm sorry. I'd be happy to break down my proposed edits section by section if that's what's going to get results, but I've been under the impression that what I've been asking for isn't that out of the ordinary. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to a diff with the proposed changes. I thought it would help with discussion. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @XaXaFrad: Why post a link to the diff if you agree that FacultiesIntact post incremental edits on the talk page? What's to discuss? Jojalozzo (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it shows starkly and simply the changes FaculitiesIntact is proposing. The changes are too complex and spread out to bring in wholesale, but just by examing the diff, I could imagine a series of proposed changes to transform the current article into the sandbox draft. Plus, after reading repeated references to these "changes", I wanted to see them for myself. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: @XaXafrad: Thank you for creating the diff so people can track the changes, as well as staying on topic for this RfC. Did you happen to read my draft, or just look at the diff? I'm proposing expansions to the "Early life", "Career", and "Public service" sections, as well as dividing "Career" into subsections for each of his major places of employment. My concern is that on a diff, reorganization seems like a much more drastic change even when text remains intact. I'd appreciate it if we could stay on topic, and instead of using all this time and energy debating the process, attempt to discuss this RfC. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

text: @Philafrenzy: I was invited here by a bot to comment on FacultiesIntact's RFC which does not appear to be constructive. I then responded to XaXaFrad's suggestion that FacultiesIntact post edits in the article rather than discuss them here first. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

text: *I'm fine with all of that, except you should leave the "total compensation". The much lower "base salary" number would be misleading. Edwardx (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Thank you  DGG for putting in the hard work to provide a robust and detailed response. For what it's worth, I agree with all of your proposed changes. PR "spin" has infected our culture and we must be vigilant against it here on Wikipedia. Edwardx (talk) 08:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

text: @DGG: Thanks for taking the time to review my work. I sincerely appreciate it. If I may address your points:
# I agree. I will list total compensation alongside base salary; however, I'm unclear what you mean about criticism in the article. Would you mind clarifying? As far as I'm aware, there is no criticism regarding his compensation, salary, children, or marriages.
# We agree.
# I see what you mean about the Alger approach (although I do find it hilarious that Cote won the Horatio Alger award). My intent was not to paint Cote as a rags-to-riches story, but rather to provide the context that he has been a hard worker from an early age. The Barron's article begins with a similar story about his work ethic. It also provides the detail about his father working long days, which I thought characterized Cote's childhood as being raised primarily by his mother. The Fortune article stated that Cote's "aptitude for numbers emerged early," but perhaps this would be better described as demonstrating his (financial?) responsibility at an early age. I will rewrite this and try to clear it up.
# Good suggestion on the TRW section. To point (a), I meant to explain just what Cote did in unifying company culture. The company was in complete disarray post-merger. Per the Fortune article "the feuding red, blue, and Pittway camps all bristled at taking direction from a new CEO. 'I held a town hall meeting in Brussels for the heads of the businesses in Europe,' says Cote, 'and about one-third of the people I’d invited didn’t show up.'" That said, do you think it should still be removed? I'm open to replacing it with the results, even with the added clarification. To point (b), the three pictures presented were already displayed in the article. The information about his attire was pulled from the Fortune article, but I am requesting a picture of him to publish with the article. Points (c) and (d) are simple copyedits that I can make. Regarding (e), I can look for more data. Currently I'm citing the rising stock price, but I'm curious to hear what others have to say. I agree with points (f) and (g) and can rewrite them more plainly. To point (h): I think I disagree with you here. What companies do in principle and in reality aren't always the same. I agree with you about point (i). I should have specified that he reduced the unpredicability of the expenses, not the expenses themselves.
# Will rename.
# Will rename.
# Will rename. However, I don't know how or why we would discriminate against which awards are worthy of mentioning. I found references for the Australian American Association Award and the TechAmerica Award.
# You're right about the past roles section. I can move past his GE roles and JPMorgan position into the “Career” section and his position on Business Council into the “Other Roles” section. Regarding the photo with Obama, I'm going to request more relevant photos to this BLP from Honeywell.
Again, thank you for your comments. I really am striving to learn how to do all of this properly, from the process to the actual writing of articles. Without the help of editors like yourself, it would be much much more difficult. FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I was invited here by Legobot to comment. When I read the sandbox draft, I see a version riddled with promotional anecdotes that seem designed to paint the subject in a favorable light. All that poor childhood stuff is really excessive. Quoting his mom? He supposedly dresses casually but the photos show him in a business suit. He's a Republican who is buddies with Obama. It is all too much for my taste, and doesn't seem neutral at all to me. Cullen328
I went ahead and made edits to my original draft in line with the suggestions made by Edwardx, DGG, and Cullen328. I also updated the compensation section with a table breaking down Cote's compensation structure for the last 5 years, as reported by Honeywell in their filings with the SEC, as there were conflicting reports between news outlets. Could any of you kind Wikipedians spare a minute and take a look at my changes? I'm still learning the ropes around here, but I'm hopeful that this is a clear step in the right direction. FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was requested to take another look, and clarified one sentence. I have one remaining suggestion: the 2nd photo adds nothing. (the third does;t add much, but it's a good idea to have an informal picture and well as a formal one)  DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating Cote's Biography 

message: A third opinion has been requested.  There appear to be multiple questions, which is somewhat beyond the usual scope of third opinion.  Is the third opinion being asked on one question, or on multiple questions?  If there are multiple issues, then it might be appropriate to request formal mediation.  If there is one question, please state it without asking other questions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I can see how the initial request was unclear. I was referring to the dispute outlined in point 1, as to whether the political donations of Honeywell can/should be attributed to Cote, as well as whether that information is more suited to his biography or Honeywell's history.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment dropping in here informally, a/ if used at all, the sentence should not start with "However" or an equivalent--it implies a direct relationship which is not proven. b/ regardless of whether or not the sentence goes in, the graph should not. Adding the visual is unnecessary emphasis for a point which is or borderline relevance in the first place. c/their amount went up--I would suppose other companies did also? this is necessary context, if used. d/ though the President of a company presumably has an influence in political contributions, he's not solely responsible. The ultimate responsibility for company policy is the board of directors, & I cannot imagine a major company doing such contributions without their involvement.   DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I was asked to look at it again. I have made the changes Iconsider necessart make the changes I consider necessary.   DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Can the Career section be updated to read as it does here? I've added more context throughout Cote's career and provided references. I also updated his compensation at Honeywell to be up to date, and removed the dead link.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as that is spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating career 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on David M. Cote. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://people.forbes.com/profile/david-m-cote/41423
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think the flow of the article could be greatly and easily improved by combining the three different appointments sections and nesting each one as a subsection under that header. Additionally, I think the the last line of the Government appointments and political donations section should be removed or migrated to Honeywell. It is misleading to suggest that these are his political donations when they are those of the company he leads. The company does not act as his personal bank.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I consolidated the sections and I just removed the line about political donations. It was completely irrelevant to this article and should have never been put here. I don't even think it belongs in the company article unless they can find a source that actually describes it as important, rather than just linking to OpenSecrets. Doing the latter makes it really feel like POV pushing. SilverserenC 18:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidating appointments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on David M. Cote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140325232009/http://management.fortune.cnn.com:80/2012/05/14/500-honeywell-cote/ to http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/14/500-honeywell-cote/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721074619/http://www.thebusinesscouncil.org/about/excommittee.aspx to http://www.thebusinesscouncil.org/about/excommittee.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After working with  and doing some more research, I made a few more edits in my sandbox, and I'm hoping to get some feedback on these proposed edits:
#I revised the lead to read more chronologically, as well as de-emphasize his position at Honeywell relative to the rest of his career. I included the success he's had with Honeywell to balance the shortcomings on the JPMorgan risk committee. I also edited the figure regarding JPM's losses during that period, as they were assessed to be closer to $6 billion, and not $2 billion. I also added references for all the material, as they're seemingly absent from the mainspace article.
#I found a link to his appearances on CNBC, which I think helps gives greater context to his role at Honeywell and his public positions on everything, both good and bad.
#The awards section holds only one entry, and so I tried to determine which awards were actually significant. I landed on the CEO magazine award (which is already on the article) and the Barron's 30 Best CEOs, as he has now been included for four years running, and the metric is based solely on shareholder returns, which I think is a fairly objective criterion. Additionally, he currently has only the one award in the section, and I think it would be worthwhile to list others.
Can anybody weigh in on these suggestions? I'm always open to feedback and further revision.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These look fine to me. If no one objects in the next couple of days, ping me and I'll make the updates.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been a week now with nothing. Would you be so kind?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I have updated the intro, awards, and external links sections.—CaroleHenson (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the lead, awards, and external links 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David M. Cote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706143028/http://newyorkfed.org/banking/circulars/12335.pdf to http://www.newyorkfed.org/banking/circulars/12335.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on David M. Cote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114182215/https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-press-secretary-us-india-ceo-forum to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/statement-press-secretary-us-india-ceo-forum
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I wanted to submit a separate edit request as this is a rather minor fix, and I don't want to disrupt the conversation above. Can we update the Banking subsection of the Appointments section? Cote has since stepped down from his position on the board of the NY Federal Reserve.
* Current text: The election papers did not mention Cote's role at JPMorgan Chase in his candidate C.V.[26]
* Proposed addition in bold: The election papers did not mention Cote's role at JPMorgan Chase in his candidate C.V.[26] Cote stepped down from the board of New York Federal Reserve in March 2018.
--FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is obvious enough  to do.  DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   22:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate, minor edit request 

message: I find the general approach of negotiating the contents of an  article like this increasingly unsatisfactory. The coi editor should make the requests, should give the references, and then leave the discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This COI editor is making too many requests, and then trying to negotiate every little detail. More billable hours for them, more wasted volunteer time and effort for us. If COI editors are unable and/or unwilling to make reasonable NPOV requests well-supported by reliable sources, they should not expect us to edit their proposed changes for them. The onus is on them to familiarise themselves with the relevant policies and propose sensible changes, not on us to explain our decisions. Edwardx (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Unfortunately, they never give up. The idea is to try, try and try again until they get what they want, forum shopping as necessary and never getting angry, always wearing a mask of constructive engagement. There was a request for dispute resolution from this user on my talk page just recently which I declined on the basis that I don't see how someone paid to achieve a pre-determined outcome can ever contribute in good faith or with a NPOV. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair, I have asked this COI editor a lot of questions regarding their edit requests, more so than they might be used to. If I'm unsure of whether something should be approved, questions usually help me to arrive at a decision, and I'd rather ask the COI editor first, who is getting paid for their time, rather than another experienced Wikipedian, who isn't, figuring that between their responses and the guidelines I read on my own that I'll eventually come to a good decision, at least that's my hope.   22:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comment

message: === Edit request 21-AUG-2018 ===
Some of the content in David_M._Cote#Government_and_political_donations implies a direct correlation between Cote's position as CEO of Honeywell and the increase in the company's political spending. These decisions are ultimately beholden to the company's board of directors, and as such, would be more appropriate to include on Honeywell, rather than on Cote's BLP.
* Move  and integrate into Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion
* Move "Since his tenure at Honeywell began in 2002, the company's donations via its Political Action Committee have risen from $212,112 in 2002 to $7,879,570 in 2014.2014 PAC Summary Data, Honeywell International. OpenSecrets.org. Retrieved 12 March 2015." and integrate into Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion
* Retitle David_M._Cote#Government_and_political_donations subsection as "Government"
* Current Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion text: Since 2002, Honeywell has made more than 80 acquisitions and 60 divestures, while adding $12 billion in new sales and increasing its labor force to 131,000 as a result of these acquisitions. Under his tenure, Honeywell's stock has nearly tripled from $35.23 in April 2002 to $99.39 as of January 2015.
* Proposed Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion text:  Since 2002, Honeywell has made more than 80 acquisitions and 60 divestures, while adding $12 billion in new sales and increasing its labor force to 131,000 as a result of these acquisitions. Under his tenure, Honeywell's donations via its Political Action Committee have risen from $212,112 in 2002 to $7,879,570 in 2014,2014 PAC Summary Data, Honeywell International. OpenSecrets.org. Retrieved 12 March 2015. and the company's stock has nearly tripled from $35.23 in April 2002 to $99.39 as of January 2015."
--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting and Merging proposal

message: Some of the content in David_M._Cote#Government_and_political_donations implies a direct correlation between Cote's position as CEO of Honeywell and the increase in the company's political spending. These decisions are ultimately beholden to the company's board of directors, and as such, would be more appropriate to include on Honeywell, rather than on Cote's BLP.
* Move  and integrate into Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion
* Move "Since his tenure at Honeywell began in 2002, the company's donations via its Political Action Committee have risen from $212,112 in 2002 to $7,879,570 in 2014.2014 PAC Summary Data, Honeywell International. OpenSecrets.org. Retrieved 12 March 2015." and integrate into Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion
* Retitle David_M._Cote#Government_and_political_donations subsection as "Government"
* Current Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion text: Since 2002, Honeywell has made more than 80 acquisitions and 60 divestures, while adding $12 billion in new sales and increasing its labor force to 131,000 as a result of these acquisitions. Under his tenure, Honeywell's stock has nearly tripled from $35.23 in April 2002 to $99.39 as of January 2015.
* Proposed Honeywell#2002–present:_Acquisitions_and_further_expansion text:  Since 2002, Honeywell has made more than 80 acquisitions and 60 divestures, while adding $12 billion in new sales and increasing its labor force to 131,000 as a result of these acquisitions. Under his tenure, Honeywell's donations via its Political Action Committee have risen from $212,112 in 2002 to $7,879,570 in 2014,2014 PAC Summary Data, Honeywell International. OpenSecrets.org. Retrieved 12 March 2015. and the company's stock has nearly tripled from $35.23 in April 2002 to $99.39 as of January 2015."
--FacultiesIntact (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 21-AUG-2018