Talk:Promontory Financial Group/Archives/2013

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Infobox Updates and First Paragraph

So here are my updates that I made and the rationale behind each. We can go one section at time as to not miss anything.

Regarding the 383 employees reference, the Washington Post article (on page two), says: “With 383 employees from Toronto to Tokyo, Promontory has worked on almost 1,600 projects.” The source is - http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-02/business/40985409_1_allied-irish-bank-deutsche-bank-eugene-ludwig And this source from August 2nd, 2013.

I think the misconception is that you are relying on the information from Wall Street Oasis. If you go to Promontory's homepage the firm is a regulatory compliance firm – the firm does not manage investments on behalf of clients. So the AUM doesn't even exist because they don't even do that. Just go to http://www.promontory.com/Firm/Overview/ -- which states that it is a consulting firm. That's why I removed AUM.

And for the intro paragraph I added cyber security. Here is the source from Promontory's site that verifies this addition - http://www.promontory.com/OurExpertise.aspx?id=2995&terms=cyber%20security --Monstermike99 (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok Monstermike99, good news, your reference was inserted. This lemma is about the whole financial group of Promontory, including the affiliates which redirect to it (→ Promontory Interfinancial Network). Therefore your statement is not the whole truth. Wiki does not make promotion for Promontory.

Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.

— WP:PROMOTION

Promontory offers CDARS, that is clearcut an investment service and it is a briliant idea I believe. And it is a patent and a registered trademark of them. If you have the opinion that the AUM is wrong then remove it. I think the revenue and all of the other financial data of this group is secret.

It is not usual in an encyclopædic article to cite extensively the homepage of the subject's lemma. The homepage is listed in the infobox. The intention of the information is to inform most objectively. The source of information cannot be the information which is given only by the subject. And we have already four references to the web page of this enterprise in the article. Hence, we should select the sources very carefully to offer well-balanced information. Importantly in connection with this company seems to me above all the dovetailing of the interests of finance supervision and the different interests of the private capital. On a continuing basis seen this leads to an avoidance of the obligations of private capital compared with the community and the whole economy of the world. Do you remember to the financial crisis of 2008?

If the company offers a competent security consultation for cyber space, this can be mentioned of course, it should be still supplied by an external source. We does not make here free advertisement for these people.

And one more request: Remove no evidence which is supplied by references, unless the information has changed or can be documented by additional references. Tri-l (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news, I removed the AUM as discussed. I understand the over use of a company website is not ideal, but if its used to support basic information that is not promotional or presented in a favorable manner, it can and should be used. If the company website cannot be used to state basic information or services, as it is deemed promotional and self-serving, you need to remove this entire section (see below) and the lead in sentence as you used their site for a reference - http://www.promontory.com/Firm/Affiliated_Companies/

Promontory Financial is interdependent with farther affiliated companies which have a similarly sounding name:

Promontory Forensics Solutions, LLC

Promontory Growth and Innovation

Promontory Human Capital Solutions

Promontory Interfinancial Network, LLC

Promontory Training Solutions

Is that promotional? I don't think so, you were just stating basic services and it should stay. So just as you listed them there (BTW, Training Solutons is not one of them if you read the source) we can also list cyber security in the intro in the same manner.

Also, what is more reputable and less self-serving/promotional, Wall Street Oasis or Washington Post? I contacted Wall Street Oasis and they said they scrape their info from company sites and are admittingly not up to date. I would say the 383 employee count is most accurate because the Washington Post is most reputable.--Monstermike99 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What is a reliable source? That is a fundamental question and most of the discussions here and on other places in the web revolve round such queries. You can be sure when I wrote about the subsidiaries, it still stood there that Training Solutions exists. Information changed sometimes but it is not so important, it can be removed. What the lemma offers is information about this enterprise for making money. Such informations must not in any case referenced. References show a way to the reliable sources.

We can expect from the reader that he also finds out independently more about the subject. In the article only the basic information should be given which enables the reader to check an approach to truth.

But it seems to me that you are not familiar with editing articles, you have no experience in this field. Sorry, I can give you here no private lessons for nothing. You have to inform yourself before you begin with editing articles, otherwise they would be undone. And that was one reason because I have undone your former edits. Sorry, but that must be said!

By the way, it is not quite right what you have maintained here, Promontory offers absolutely services for asset management. But they operate only with all kind of thick fishes. It was indistinct to me a little bit in my recollection when I had inserted the point for asset management, I had bumped into this site. This is just the disadvantage if the memory decreases and every trifle was not documented.

Promontory shows Asset Management on their webpage:

Types of clients served:

Investment Advisers and Investment Companies

Broker-Dealers

Asset Management Businesses within Integrated Financial Institutions

Hedge Funds and Private Equity Firms

Pension Funds and Endowments

Service Providers to the Asset Management Industry

— Promontory’s Asset Management

Here is a sevenshooter for beginners like you, please read it very carefully:

I must confess, because of the plenty of material, I have not still read everything what is available about this subject, but I try to learn and to remedy my mistakes as far as possible. I believe, this can be expected from everybody. Bye! Tri-l (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the change, I added cyber security also per your rationale. On to the next section my friend! I won't address your personal attacks but refer you to Wikipedia:Etiquette. --Monstermike99 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Accolades and Rankings

According to Vault's 2012 law firm rankings, Covington & Burling is the most prestigious law firm in Washington, D.C., the #11 most prestigious law firm in the United States, and the #6 most selective law firm in the United States.| Covington & Burling| Covington & Burling LLP }}

I think, Covington & Burling LLP is definitely a most prestigious law firm. And Ludwig represents the big boss of Promontory who was the main founder. One entreaty: Investigate your changes before the challenge to publish it here. Thank you very much!

Tri-l (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so we can keep prestige but I will restructure the sentence as suggested. It preserves all your hard work and even adds the dates of his tenure. OK?--Monstermike99 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why, Monstermike99? Is the sentence difficult to understand? Is it wrong? Do you don't like the idiom? Wasn't the dates of his majesty's tenure correct specified? This dates are in this context from lower importance. That's tough going! What do you have suggested? I cannot remember.

Do you know what is threading? Why did you not read the whole article which I had given to you in our last dialogue? I see, you don't know what it is. Do you know what is a discussion? Tri-l (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)