Talk:Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:22, 11 June 2014

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 15, 2009 and September 15, 2010.

since the recent creation of this sub article, there is now quite a bit of duplicity between it and the main Lehman Brothers article as the story continues to unfold.

since i'm rather new at this wiki stuff, i am not in a position to have strong experience about what belongs in a "main" article and what belongs in a "sub" one. however, i believe some coordinated effort is needed between the 2 articles. as a reader, i don't expect to read a sub-article that primarily regurgitates what is covered in the main article.

thoughts?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, the best solution is to remove most details of the bankruptcy from the main article. I'll try to start this. Superm401 - Talk 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question inclusion of Damien Hirst auction paragraph ("Impact of bankruptcy" section)

"Among economic indicators prompted by the announcement, on the first day of a two-day auction, Sotheby's earned commission on USD $15 million above estimates in London when fine artist Damien Hirst bypassed his representatives, Gagosian Gallery and White Cube, which is located in the UK and was invited to participate in the auction. Some buyers received six months to pay.[29]""

To begin, I can't understand the lengthly sentence as a stand-alone thought. Who was invited to participate? Who are Mr. Hirst's representatives?

More importantly, I am unable to grasp notable relationship of the auction and the bankruptcy announcement by Lehman.

I recall seeing this paragraph in an much earlier draft of main Lehman wiki article and it was later excised. I am unable to access easily the source referenced (NYTimes) because the site requires (albeit free) registration (not an option for my situation).

Perhaps someone can elucidate?--68.173.2.68 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Bonds

Could someone please explain what mini-bonds are?

THANKS -- Michael Janich (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Should there be a separate wiki page about the LBIE administration currently going on in the UK. It seems like it is at quite an advanced stage. Thoughts welcome. 127rahmat (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Just to add that the (obvious fact) that the bankruptcy had wide reaching consequences; there is mention of Hong Kong but there were also long queues of people in Singapore hopeing for fund redemptions. The role of the UK is also only mentioned by way of an external link (a good one I have to say). Anyone else feel like a separate wiki page is warranted to shift away from a US focus?127rahmat (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC) Just to add that the (obvious fact) that the bankruptcy had wide reaching consequences; there is mention of Hong Kong but there were also long queues of people in Singapore hopeing for fund redemptions. The role of the UK is also only mentioned by way of an external link (a good one I have to say). Anyone else feel like a separate wiki page is warranted to shift away from a US focus?127rahmat (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undue US focus

This article (like many on Wikipedia) has undue focus on the US aspects of this story and ignores important aspects in other countries and regions. For example, there is significant controversy about the transactions between Lehman Brothers Inc and its UK/European subsidiary late on 12 September 2008 - the parent company ordered substantial cash transfers to occur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.218.209 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Should there be a separate wiki page about the LBIE administration currently going on in the UK. It seems like it is at quite an advanced stage. Thoughts welcome.127rahmat (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Influence on 2008 election?

Is there proof that the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy directly influenced the election by causing Obama to take the lead over McCain? Which poll? Did the poll demonstrate the connection between Obama's taking the lead and the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy? Did it prove voters were more likely to support Obama? I'm simply asking questions; we shouldn't draw conclusions based on an assumption. Foreignshore (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore[reply]

I think not; not only do I have no memory of such phenomena, but I doubt any reliable source for such speculation could be found. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the significance, this article is woefully inadequate.

Citation for inclusion

All Lehman Brothers current court documents are stored here: http://dm.epiq11.com/LBH/Project# Might be useful for additions for someone with the werewithal to go through and add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTech (talk • contribs) 04:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fed notes

Fed notes released in February 2014 may be helpful in explaining failure of the Federal Reserve to save Lehman. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 Is there proof that the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy directly influenced the election by causing Obama to take the lead over McCain?  Which poll?  Did the poll demonstrate the connection between Obama's taking the lead and the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy?  Did it prove voters were more likely to support Obama?  I'm simply asking questions; we shouldn't draw conclusions based on an assumption.  [[User:Foreignshore|Foreignshore]] ([[User talk:Foreignshore|talk]]) 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Foreignshore
 :I think not; not only do I have no memory of such phenomena, but I doubt any reliable source for such speculation could be found. [[User:Fred Bauder]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder|Talk]] 13:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
+Given the significance, this article is woefully inadequate.
 == Citation for inclusion ==