Talk:Citigroup/Archive 1

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

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Language 

message: 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)
thread_title: Please cleanup this biased article

message: 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)
thread_title:  From Peer Review 

message: 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)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

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

message: ;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)
thread_title:  Merger [[Travelers Group]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.   DagnyB 21:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Citi" naming? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citigroup in Popular Culture 

message: 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%" 
 
I am making the change in the article.  If anyone objects lets discuss here Ajmccauley 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The revenue figure has been changed to 155.29b  by   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)
thread_title:  Revenue Inacuracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CitiFinancial and Associates 

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