Jump to content

Talk:Brad Jacobs (businessman)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dbsseven (talk | contribs) at 21:58, 6 June 2018 (→tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

This is a cut-and-paste move of Bradley S Jacobs; perhaps someone feels like deleting it and moving the article here properly? Hairhorn (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable paragraphs in United Rentals section

I'm cutting my teeth on Wikipedia edits and came across this article. In the United Rentals section, there are two paragraphs that don't even mention the subject: 4 and 7. I'm not sure why they're even here, since they don't mention Jacobs at all, though they pertain to a company he was CEO of at the time. I checked the page for the company it's about (United Rentals) and the information here is even more thorough than what's over there. Should we move it over there and delete it here? (Just the paragraphs that don't mention Jacobs, I mean.)

Your feedback and expertise is welcome! Thanks!

Aussietommartin (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked over the XPO section, and it's even worse. I don't know if I should outright delete so much without getting more consensus from other editors, but the last eight paragraphs don't mention Jacobs at all. Do all these details about XPO really belong here? Shouldn't they be in the XPO Logistics article? Aussietommartin (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I went ahead and did some heavy cleanup and reorganization of the XPO Logistics section, along with a bit of research to clarify some of the details, and I think it's helped a lot. It's also given me some thoughts on how I could clean up the XPO Logistics article, which is in dire need of some TLC! Aussietommartin (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and deleted those two paragraphs in the United Rentals section, and moved appropriate data over to the United Rentals page. Be bold, indeed! Aussietommartin (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Acquisitions section

Hey folks. Just got off work and getting the chance to respond to the notifications I got about the IP address's changes made on Monday. Two thoughts:

1) I'm a little worried about going off the beaten path with XPO Logistics content on a Bradley Jacobs article, and so am a bit unsure about the whole "XPO is no longer acquiring things" line, but I'll do some digging tonight (for real! tonight!) and try to figure out how much of it was really Jacobs and how much was just XPO. If it really was Jacobs, then there should definitely be discussion of it! If not, we might need to relegate it to the XPO article.

2) I appreciate the updated figures on the $ amount that Jacobs has raised, but that chain of citations is just painful. If those are citations for individual dollar values, and they add up to this new $20B amount... is there a way to condense so many separate citations? Especially since they all seem to be coming from either SEC filings or XPO news?

Feedback is most welcome, if anyone is watching this Talk page!

Aussietommartin (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooookay. I always feel really nervous when I write fresh content for Wikipedia, because I feel like I'm back in college writing papers, especially with all the citation stuff. At any rate, to follow up on my note earlier this evening:
  • From what I could find, especially that keynote speech delivered by Jacobs at some JOC event, this whole consolidation thing really did seem to be his idea, which meant it makes sense to talk about here -- so, bravo, IP address! Since we have a whole subsection devoted to acquisitions, it made sense to me to put together a subsection about those acquisitions stopping, especially since that last one, the Con-way one, really didn't go well at first. Stock dropping 33%? That's an INSANE plunge, and something worth pointing out, as was the rebound in the year following.
  • I can't figure a way to make that citation chain (about the $20 billion being raised by Jacobs) any shorter. They're all distinct articles, and while there are guidelines on Wikipedia for sourcing from different pages of the same article, there's no easy way to consolidate multiple articles from the same publication. We could just delete some, but then the numbers won't add up to $20 billion. (They do, by the way. I did the freaking calculations. Sigh.) Do we just do that anyway? In this case, do aesthetics trump sourcing? I swear, I'd really dig feedback from someone on this.
I'm kinda done researching and writing for the night, so I'm calling it. If my prose is too college-y, someone fix it, would you? And if anyone has any ideas about that citation chain, I'm all ears!
Aussietommartin (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tags

Hello, I see Nouill has recently tagged this article with multiple tags for NPOV and COI. However, there is no discussion here of the issue, and so I am beginning one here. Regarding COI, I hope Nouill can explain the COI they observe and provide diffs per WP:AOBF's "avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs".

As for the the advert tags, I don't see the evidence of promotion directly. For the entire article, the subject is clearly notable and the article well cited, and don't see how it is promotional. For the sub-section I don't see the the facts of awards being promotional, though I prefer a prose summary of the awards rather than lists. But that is style, not substance. (pinging Aussietommartin as they appear to be active on this article.) Dbsseven (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how it is promotional ? The "Awards and recognition" section is promotional. The introduction is also promotional.
The article is created by Rmchater. A Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. This page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rmchater is a little clear about the problem. We can read for exemple "As an aside, I was informed that XPO Logistics and Bradley S Jacobs are/were both clients of QVerity (Romary is a partner in the firm). I have no way to substantiate these claims, but if this is true, Rmchater appears to be a connected editor (with a COI)."
Moreover Aussietommartin who is also a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and he put promotional content on this article and the company article, for me it's also a connected editor with the subject. --Nouill (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nouill: however the article began, the subject is notable. Isn't bringing COI based on an article creator who hasn't edited the article in 5 years (and WP in general in 4 years) a bit silly?! And a single-purpose account miss the is not automatically a COI under WP:SPA. Do you have diffs to support a COI? Dbsseven (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The silly thing is you don't accept that "Awards and recognition" section is purely promotional content.
I don't said that SPA is automatically a COI, but a SPA who edit the company article and also the CEO article, and put on both article promotional content is certainly a COI. --Nouill (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, an account that "edit (sic) the company article and also the CEO article" simply meets the definition of a SPA. COI is separate and would require a conclusion on the relationship of the editor and the article subject. (WP:COI) Presuming a COI also does not assume good faith. "Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith... repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack" from WP:AOBF. This is not the first time you have accused this editor of a COI, please take it to an appropriate forum or drop it. COI should be addressed elsewhere, not here. Dbsseven (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, you read that I have a obligation to have a bigger conclusionn that I already said, on the relationship of the editor and the article subject, before I can put a COI tag ?
I think the page discussion of a article is pretty pertinent place for speak about the connection between the editors and the subject of the article.
And on the introduction of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, I can read "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." : So IF YOU CAN STOP SAID THAT A DON'T ASSUME GOOD FAITH IT WILL BE GREAT ! It isn't the first time I ask you that... --Nouill (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't demonstrated any relationship/connection between an editor and the subject. In fact that editor has previously stated they do not have a COI. The only evidence available that the editor prefers to edit these articles. A (disputed) assertion of bias in the content is not evidence of a relationship. The content has nothing to do with COI. Dbsseven (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Jacobs_(businessman)&oldid=844747595"