Talk:Michael Corbat

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 June 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

College football Bottom‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

LowneyJen (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection. (declared here)

Choate or Shelton High School?

The article has a reference that he graduate Choate in 1979. Somebody said he graduated Shelton, Conneticut and a google shows that is possible. Can anybody clear that up? Thanks. Exit70 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section added without citations

Hi, my name is Jennifer and I work for Mike Corbat at Citi. We noticed edits to this article following our March 22, 2018 announcement of our new U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy, which contain editorialized language and therefore don’t adhere to a neutral point of view. The edits also are missing source citations. We suggest editing the first two sentences to remove the “gun control activist” designation and clarify that the policy is not an outright ban on firearms sales to those under the age of 21, but rather imposes restrictions on sales to those under 21. I’m including here the New York Times article that Mike is quoted in, along with a few other articles from Business Insider, Reuters and the original New York Times story that contain the facts about our announcement and policy. Can someone review these suggestions? LowneyJen (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you. The Gun Control section was removed completely per WP:BLP. It made multiple claims with no references to back it up. It's gone. ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 14:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see 'Corbat and Gun Control Activism' below Nuts240 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest

We see from the above that employees of Citigroup are watching this article. User:Exit70, who created it, also created several others about Citigroup executives and nothing much else; the promotional content has survived for some years now. Needs a complete overhaul by neutral editors. Deb (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags removed

As of this edit the article had 8 separate cleanup tags contained within the {{multiple issues}} template. I find all of these to be redundant or inaccurate, and I am removing them, but I am happy to start a discussion if others disagree. I am removing the following:

{{BLP sources}} - the template page states this is to be used for articles "in need of immediate attention," but this article has plenty of sources for its core claims. There ~~are~~ were two "citation needed" sentences that are sufficient for the particular claims in question, but the article overall has adequate sourcing. In fact, I'm just going to remove the Harvard social club sentence, meaning the only uncited sentence is the bit about TARP, for which the {{cn}} tag is enough.
{{original research}} - I see no concerns with unattributed synthesis other than the one uncited claim, for which the {{cn}} tag is sufficient, and doesn't require a warning at the top of the article.
{{COI}} & {{autobiography}} - these are redundant with the paid editing notice which I am leaving in place, even though at least some of the connection has been disclosed.
{{refimprove}} - this template shouldn't be used for BLP's anyway, {{BLP sources}} should be used instead, which I've removed per the first bullet.
{{peacock}} - I don't see any WP:PEACOCK terms here. Literally none of the words listed in WP:PEACOCK appear in the article, and I don't see any terms that fall in the same category
{{expert needed}} - I don't see any concerns here that require the technical expertise of a specialist, as opposed to just garden variety editing.
{{weasel}} - there are no weasel words in the article. No attributing statements to vague unnamed sources, or anything like it.

I really don't understand why most of these were added. I'm not saying the article can't be improved, but all these tags seem unnecessary. Frankly, the biggest problem seems to be that the article is fairly boring - not the sensationalism these tags seem to be implying.

Pinging Tyw7 who placed the tags, and Deb who has also been involved. Let me know if you disagree. MarginalCost (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually been considering removing the paid editing banner because any issues arising from that appeared to have been solved already. I don't think the other tags were there when I last looked at that page. Deb (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source tags because of the two citation needed tag. And the original research tag also because of the citation needed tags. Where have the information gotten from? Also as you can see above at least one editor have close contact with the subject and probably paid for the content. But I'm happy to concede to your call. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 08:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, I would be fine removing the paid editing notice. Perhaps LowneyJen can track down whether Exit70 was a Citigroup employee or a paid third-party editor for Citigroup? My understanding is that if we get a disclosure we can remove the template from the article page and move it over here to the talk page as a disclosed-COI. The sourcing is adequate and the claims are boring enough that I don't see a need to keep a warning on the article, but I'm happy to be overruled.

Tyw7 - the citation needed tags themselves are enough when it's just a stray sentence or two. Those templates are more for when an article is dominated by unsourced claims, original synthesis, and the like. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarginalCost, I was really only waiting to see how the deletion debate went. Deb (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Corbat and Gun Control Activism

A paragraph titled Gun Control Activism was deleted in 2018 with a notation Per WP:BLP You're going to need sources for this to remain in, especially because this has been challeneged. A single NYTimes citation may not be enough, and another notation questioing re NPOV is also to be evaluated. this is where one can view what was added/deleted. Nuts240 (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intention to remove hatnote

From the comments above, it seems that "undisclosed paid" no longer applies. Not only is it already disclosed, but the article has grown in size and focus, and the edit history shows that deletions have been made since the hatnote was added in 2018. Nuts240 (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]