Talk:Merrill (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merrill

Merrill occupies ALL of the storeys at 4 WFC/250 Vesey Street. They go down below street level and up to the top.

Bank of America Take Over

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142278543033525.html

9:30 (EST) Sept 14th

Spam

How is it material to the history of a long and storied company that some yahoo came into an office one time with a sack of coal? Why are there nothing but scandals in the history section? Why isn't there mention of Merrill's enormous charitable contributions, or their contribution to the growth and health of the financial markets our society relies on? Bias! Bias I say! BIAS! ~~JLW

It may be worth noting that Merrill Lynch officially condones its employees spamming forums such as Orkut and is unwilling to stop when notified that this action is inappropriate. --Yamla 13:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... really? Could you provide a reliable source please? --Ray 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

MLPF&S

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith Incorporated is the name of its broker-dealer/retail-brokerage. By no means is business "primarily" conducted at Merrill by this entity. Investment banking, for instance, is Merrill Lynch and Company, Inc.

Perhaps articles should be written by people who actually have a broad concept of what they are talking about. BulldogPete 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The wonder of the wiki is that if you see something wrong with the article, you can go in there and fix it yourself. I would recommend you have a citation from a reliable source, per Wikipedia:Attribution, but Wikipedia's about editors editing, so go ahead and be bold and edit! —Elipongo ^{(Talk|contribs)} 06:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Should that name be in the intro, seeing that it's officially (legally) used? The Bank of America home page says at the bottom that "Banc of America Online Investing, powered by Merrill Lynch, is the brand name for an online investing business offered through Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated", as well as mentioning the name several other times.[1] Jason McHuff (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about Enron?

ML was involved so why not mention it in the article?--Svetovid 11:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No reason not to. The article doesn't have a *Criticism and controversy* section, but the *Major cases* could (and probably should) be re-worked into one. A mention of the organization's involvement in the scandal you mention could be included in such a section if you find proper attribution. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 20:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A qualified wiki editor needs to please put something in about ENRON and Merrill Lynch's involvement with the Nigerian barge deal. This is ridiculous that it's missing! 74.0.131.6 (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC) La-Tonia Denise Willis

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo ml.gif

Image:Logo ml.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep a Neutral POV

Phrases such as, "one of the most blatant and egregious", "despite tens if not hundreds of discrimination law suits filed against the company", and "that is an indication of the severity of civil rights violation and malice by Merrill Lynch", are in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy and are de-facto peacock terms (in this case, to lambaste the company). These have all been done by the same anonymous IP, and I've reverted them each time. In addition, I've spelled out the subject's name (first initial is not informative), and added a more reputable source than a dubious blog. Please discuss disputes on this talk page, rather than blanket reverts.-DMCer (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, more than half the text in this topic is devoted to attacking Merrill Lynch, using a variety of sources (some might be reliable, but blogs aren't) Tedickey (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights section

Did you read my last revision before you erased it all?! I guess not! All those statements that you are refering too were gone in last version. It's good that you replaced the initial by first name. I'd like to use links instaed of references. My experience shows that readers find it easier to click on the link rather than following the references.

I will revert back the text so the names of the organizations who have reacted to the company's conduct would be in main text. As I said the describtions of Reckless, Malice etc are in the text of US Government law suit. We are not going to sensor a US Goverment law suit text, are we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I looked at the wrong diff for the revisions. I've reverted back to your version. GlobeGores (talk | contribs) 20:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, to the anonymous IP user: Please stop listing the claimant as "F. Zojaji"; his name is "Fariborz Zojaji" and should be written out in full. I've made some changes, but left the original version largely intact. First, I replaced the Wordpress blog citation (as it isn't an appropriate source in this case) with the authoritative sources that it links to (WSJ, etc.). I also removed the Dealbreaker blog source for the same reason, and replaced it with the publications that it cites (The International Herald Tribune), along with some additional sources. I added the following wikilinks: Iranian, NASD, arbitration, Islamic, and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, I reformatted the sources to footnotes so as to make the section consistent with the rest of the content. In reference to the statement "this was the first time the US EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of the individual", I removed it because it was plain wrong. Instead of listing all the reasons why, please see this recent case [2]; there are many more here[3].-DMCer (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

(A relevant comment was made on my talk page, to which I responded. I'm copying the content below)--DMCer (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[Quote starts]There are delicate facts and subtlties concerning this post that you are not aware of and by editting my post you oevrride them. Just to give you a simple example, altough there are a couple of articles written by National Iranian American Council (NIAC), only one of them mentions the letter by Arab American anti discriminaion committee (ADC) to Merrill Lynch protesting their conduct. Now you replace one article of NIAC by another and you drop the ADC statement!! The last version of the post is very conservatively written avoiding any personal comments. The statments attributed to EEOC are in the text of their law suit. Malice, Reckless, and intentional are descriptions of EEOC of Merrill's conduct. Also I prefer Hyperlinks to references at the end of the page. They are easier to access.I appreciate if you aviod editting a subject you don't know much about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.168.31.212 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

1) According to WP:IC The hyperlinking style you're using should be avoided: "...Few Feature Articles use this style; the common objection during the FAC process is 'remove external links from main body (referring to this inline citation style), transform into proper inline citation style'." There is no reason this section should have SIX embedded links when its other links are in the more proper footnote format. I have left the word "ordered" as an imbedded link to suit you.

2) I did not "replace on article of NIAC by [sic] another." As you can clearly see in the edit history, I had the exact same one you originally pasted.

3) The very problem with your approach to this issue becomes clear when you write, "The last version of the post is very conservatively written avoiding any personal comment." Exactly; Wikipedia is Not a place for personal comments. It is also uncalled for to add false statements in order to further your point of view, such as what you wrote regarding this being the "first time the EEOC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the individual, despite hundreds of previous lawsuits [filed against Merrill]"

4) You keep referring back to the words "reckless, intentional, and malice", yet I kept both "malice" and "reckless disregard" (the actual terms used) in the article and sourced them directly--unlike the first version.

5) Again, the purpose of article talk pages is to allow other users to participate in discussions. Please make future comments on the appropriate page as this should not be a personal issue. I'm copying this thread there as well.--DMCer (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

More on Merrill Lynch violations of civil rights!

Wiki pages are full of hyperlinks and this one should be no exception. This is supposed to be a free public, user created source. I think you should limit your edits. The only valid issue you raised was the personal comments and neutrality that I addressed immediately. Rest is based on the user. Blogs are an official source of news and a valid media outsource. Welcome to 21st century and internet age!!! The personal blog relating to Dr. Borumand is essential to this story as he is the victim of this viciious discrimination by Merrill Lynch and it has to be present in the article. I suggest you start your own page and apply your own ideas! What I have presented here is a legal, factual, accurate account of a horrific act of bigotry by some in Merrill Lynch targetting Iranian-Americans. Again, I appreciate if you respect the integrity of the story.

DMCER, I have no other way but to question your motives in deleting my posts and removing the hyperlinks of this section. what you are saying is simply absurd. Just TAKE A LOOK AT FIRST PARAGRAPH ON MAIN PAGE. THERE ARE 16 WORDS, PHARASES HYPERLINKED in a paragraph that has 30 words!!!!!!!! I suggest you kindly leave my post alone and focus on other paragraphs!!!!

When I say "This is the first time EEOC files a law suit is more tahn 30 years against the company" I meant in case of Merrill Lynch not in general!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO check the facts and consult with me before acting on your wrong information!!!!Now you are wearing my patience thin. You have no clue about the facts of this case and just run around and delete everything. What is your affiliation? Who pays you to do this?! 66.168.31.212 (talk)

You are mistaking external "hyperlinks" with internal "wikilinks". There is also no evidence that this blog is by who you say it is, which is one of the many reasons blogs are not considered an appropriate source, in this case, for Wikipedia references. As I noted above, the documents the blog links to are the sources that should be used for footnotes here, as I have done. As you refuse to use the talk page before reverting, I'm asking a third party to intercede.-DMCer (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog linked through "Dr. majid Borumand" simply includes a detailed list of documents and news reports concerning what is amount to an unprecedented act of bigotry in history of corporate America by Merrill Lynch company. No where in histroy of civil rights violations in this country a company has been punished twice within a month for its mistreatment of an ethnic minority group. This is as bad as it can get and it has to be documented and reflected on any document regarding Merrill Lynch history. So questioning the source of the blog is just a lame excuse! I am not sure what you mean by a third party interceding but I am confident your actions are provoked by those who have ample benefit from hiding this ugly truth from the public!!

Obviously DMCer is hell bent to apply his inconsistent and absurd rules on my post. Clearly ML PR keeps calling! In the spirit of holidays and to let Wikipedia which is an excellent idea to thrive I make a compromise and let the DMCer's style to stay mostly intact! One thing I can not compromise though and that is the blog regarding Dr. Borumand who is the victim of this hate crime and as such his voice must be heard. I hope DMCer and the third party appreciate my generosity.66.168.31.212 (talk)

Please stop being hysterical and accusing others of being part of some conspiracy. Regarding the blog: This is from Wikipedia's Manual of Style, Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. If this section uses the official documents this blog links to, there is no reason to still link to the blog. There is also no reason to assume this blog belongs to this "Majid Borumand", as it doesn't claim that anywhere. New York Times and Wall Street Journal sources, which I have included, are always more appropriate than a questionable blog with just one post.--DMCer (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog is about Mr Borumand case and it does not have to be necessarily a creation of his. Do you think the wiki page written about "Charles Darwin" is actually written by him in 19th century anticipating that Wikipedia would come about a couple of centuries later?! The blog has pertinent information about this case and may contain updates of this case as legal case proceeds that is a good supplement to the wiki page.66.168.31.212 (talk)

No, I don't think Darwin wrote his own article, which has nothing to do with this issue. The blog is dubious and need not be included as long as the official documents are included here as sources. The section is fine as it is, and I would ask that you please stop debating this.-DMCer (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Following managers Yonathan Epelbaum, James Gatheral and Kishor Laud are implicated in the law suit by Federal governmnet. Their identity is pertinent to the story. When US Government files a law suit against a public company public has the right to know the details of the case. That is why I think it should be mentioned within the text of that segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.84.206 (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

—...it's there.—DMCer™ 12:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sexual harrasment and gender discrimination

Something like 900 women sued ML in the past and won hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Some of those cases are still ongoing in the courts. That should also be added to to history of the firm. God bless the internet. Now no one can hope that their mess ups would be forgotten when the memories fade. There is a public place to keep the record. Thanks to Wikipedia now everyone has to watch their conduct! I'd say there is a high correlation between evolution of society and accessibility of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.135.154 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New Section on " discrimination against minorities..."

The content of the new edition violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia! It is too favorable to a company that has a terrible track record when it comes to treating its minority employees! There is a EEOC law suit pending against the compnay for a violation of civil rights not seen since the "Jim Crow" law was abolished! It is outrageous for anyone on behalf of the company to claim everything is alright and great at Merrill Lynch! I think this section needs to be reveretd back to its previous format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.81.3 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts disputed regarding LGBT employees

There have not been any signs of steps taken in improving the situation for lesbian, gay and transgender employees. The accuracy of the Diversity Magazine is also disputed as there has not been an investigation inside Merrill Lynch about the situation. The section should therefore be removed or changed as follows:

From: Since these allegations and lawsuits were made, Merrill Lynch has made several efforts to fight ethnic and gender bias.

To: Since these allegations and lawsuits were made, Merrill Lynch has, without neccessarily changing their culture or dealing with the problems, made several efforts to advertise themselves as a company that fight ethnic and gender bias.

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Everything you have written is pure POV bias with no references or third party evidence to back up your claims. Please provide documentation to support your argument. --24.9.20.149 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please register yourself prior altering articles or taking part in discussions in order to identify yourself. Regarding, "Merrill Lynch has made several efforts to address internal ethnic and gender bias": Please provide evidence that Merrill Lynch indeed has made such efforts from July 2007 as stated in the article or the line will be deleted. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no obligation of Wikipedia users to register themselves. It is a choice, but not a requirement. Tb (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Anons can most certainly edit articles and participate in content discussions and their opinions are held to the same weight as any other contributor. I highly suggest you read WP:BITE. Also, I have to express the identical concerns as he did. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

deletion

I deleted the line "Merrill Lynch has made several efforts to address internal ethnic and gender bias" as the claim has not been verified. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion 2

Awards are highly subjective and do not add to the description of the company; especially, for this class of awards where it is impossible to survey a population of LBGT employees. I will delete those awards as those do not make sense considering all the lawsuits from the LGBT community.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malin Tokyo (talk • contribs) 14:06, 24 September 2008

That they got the awards is a fact. Not listing the awards is a violation of WP:NPOV since it provides balance to the lawsuits you mention above. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

contribs) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Awards exists and is a fact, yes I agree! However, an award represent opinion(s) or statement(s) and

statements need evidences. If the award claims that the situation of LGBT persons has improved, there must be a proof about how many LGBT people were included in the sample, methods of sampling, etc, etc.

--Malin Randstrom (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The solution is obvious: we list the fact that the awards have been received, and express no opinion about whether conditions have improved. Tb (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The awards are factual and should be listed, but drawing a conclusion from the fact of them winning awards would be original research by synthesis. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Such awards are extremely subjective and do not add any information to the article. Worse, those distract the reader to believe that those awards reflect the opinion of Merrill Lynch employees and the present situation in the company. This is a case of "Questionable Sources" WP:QS as those awards are promotional in nature. The apparent intention of the awards is to promote Merrill Lynch as a LGBT friendly institution to offset the anti-LGBT image caused by a large number of lawsuits against the company. Statements, claims and rankings that promote a company or product w/o evidences are advertisements. This is also a case of “Exceptional Claim” WP:REDFLAG as it greatly contradicts general opinion, court rulings, and a large number of outstanding public claims. Morover, the award may be used to silence holders of such claims. Exceptional claims require high-quality sources such an academical institution, which is not the case here. Wikipedia articles could easily get polluted and infected with numerous unverified awards and claims that contradict one another and the number of awards out there on the net is huge. Awards are often sponsored by institution that merit from the award. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How are we to know that these are questionable sources or exceptional claims? You say so, but is there any reason beyond your say-so to tell us that you are right? Tb (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Those awards are opinions/claims of some very few persons who are unrelated to Merrill Lynch (company) and have no access to information regarding employees and the situation at the company as such information is classified. However, legal institutions of the US have exclusive access to information about the company and its employees and their verdicts make the above opinion contradictious exceptional and indeed sensational.

Anyone can create awards and put them out on the internet to advance their own opinion. If unverified opinions and claims masqueraded as awards are allowed to be appended after each accepted facts and findings from respected authorities, such as universities and legal institutions; articles will be heavily polluted with colorful contradictions awards that obscure facts and in the end confuse the reader. Worse, serious scientists and experts will not bother contributing to wiki at all. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my question: do you have any evidence to support what you say, or is it simply your unsubstantiated claim? It is not as if diversity inc was created purely for the sake of helping out Merrill Lynch. I'm not threatened by your prediction that wikipedia will collapse and fail if we don't do exactly what you say. I hope that you have more to substantiate what you say. Think of it this way: you're an employee of Merrill Lynch, who has attempted in the past to add yourself to the article, making unsubstantiated claims already. Having been invited several times to give some evidence beyond your mere assertion that Diversity is some sort of sham organization, you have not done so. Certainly if Diversity Edge is a sham, then we should not list the awards in the article. Your argument seems to be that Diversity Edge must be a sham, because their conclusions disagree with yours. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. What is here must be based on good secondary sources. If you want to help, we need you to help find good secondary sources and not just tell us that things are wrong, based purely on your own say-so as an employee of the company. Tb (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Telecphone

Will whoever found the 1915 New York Times ad please either correct the typo "Telecphone" or add [sic]? Art LaPella (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kittybrewster ☎ 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek, Bloomberg and Forbes put the sale price at $50 billion

Those 3 sources put the sale price at $50 billion. Unless the figure of $44 billion is justified or reinforced I feel that it is prudent to change the number.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/159010

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=abVpg8xJDMWk

http://www.forbes.com/equities/2008/09/15/bofa-merrill-deal-markets-equity-cx_er_0915markets2.html?partner=newsweek

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

changed.. the existing reference said 50billion so Im not sure where the 44 billion came from. -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Coal investments(POV)

The section appears to be spam by a single-focus editor, providing a link-farm which is largely off-topic. Tedickey (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

E. Stanley O'Neal

He has his own page. Perhaps it should be linked to? 18:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.213 (talk)

It's probably not a reliable source (being a blog). Tedickey (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Laurel Darline Lopez

Shouln't the case of Lopez be on the history section of the article? She was a Head Cashier of ML and was able to steal between 370.000$ and 565.000$ (depending on the source), although I still don't know if she gave the money back. I came to Wikipedia to learn about it but I didn't find anything at all, not even an article about her or her case. In this link there is some information about the what happened. Jasón (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Bank of America Merrill Lynch

I'm wondering if this article should now be moved to Bank of America Merrill Lynch (with a redirect from Merrill Lynch) following the completion of the integration of the investment banking activites of Bank of America and Merrill Lynch and the rebranding? Rangoon11 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

don regan

article shoudl probably mention Donald Regan. you know, for kids! Decora (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Merrill Lynch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080915114915/http://www.bankingtimes.co.uk:80/18082008-merrill-lynch-freezes-jobs-and-uk-tax-liability/ to http://www.bankingtimes.co.uk/18082008-merrill-lynch-freezes-jobs-and-uk-tax-liability/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080916074747/http://www.newsweek.com:80/id/159010 to http://www.newsweek.com/id/159010

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)