Talk:Dennis Kozlowski

Untitled

This is pretty much of a mess of a sentence, isn't it? "He also threw a party in Sardinia that Saturday Night Live made fun of Jimmy Buffett because he was paid to perform at Dennis's party in Italy." --Christofurio 17:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Wanted to say I added in a tiny bit for Jimmy Buffett 98.236.170.155 (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

unreferenced

Many of the facts in this article need sources, unref tag added.--FloNight 17:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This can't be true: "In a camcorder video, Dennis Kozlowski states that this party will bring out a Tyco core competency - the ability to party hard. Subsequently, this shareholder meeting / birthday party became known as the Tyco Roman Orgy."

Why the Boldface type?

Why the boldface type in this article? Is this vandalism? or a new Wiki-formatting procedure? Just curious. ProfessorPaul 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

dennis release, way early

Dennis Kozlowski was released and pictured in photos in NYC NY within past week or so... how could this happen, so way earlier than his sentence required ? , please add to article , see next Forbes article discussing Dennis' early release to a work program Dennis release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.56.245 (talk) 06:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Notes from a mere reader

I came to this article after reading a random news story mentioning the case. I remembered the case, but only vaguely, and I thought I'd come and brush up on the details.

Here's the problem, for a reader: we have claims in the article by the subject and by a journalist suggesting that his conviction may have been based on his absurdly high salary and how the jury felt about that, and suggesting that the issue turned on a rather murky point about whether his bonuses were "authorized" or not. Ok, I can easily see this going either way. Of course juries look askance at people taking outrageous bonuses, and of course he could have had authorization (verbal? what?) for the bonuses. And of course, juries do consider facts and will have looked at everything, and of course he might not have had authorization for the bonuses. (I generally tend to think that juries get these things right, after all.)

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide. It's up to us to give a comprehensive and comprehensible statement of the facts so that readers can decide for themselves.

What I was left wanting, as a reader, is a bit more of the argumentation from each side on that key point. He says his bonuses were authorized. Ok, what evidence did he adduce to try to illustrate that? The prosecution says his bonuses were not authorized, and the jury apparently agreed, so what evidence did they adduce to try to illustrate that? I am guessing (but Wikipedia doesn't tell me) that there were memos, board meeting minutes, testimony by board members, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

On that note, there is nothing referring to the new book by Catherine Neal, which suggests the conviction was not warranted.

Kozlowski's religion - Jewish?

Is Kozlowski Jewish? Or are his ancestors (particularly on his father's side) Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.91.39 (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)