Talk:Ronald Perelman/Archives/2013

This is an archive of past discussions about Ronald Perelman. 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.

Religion

I believe this is the second time someone's removed the bit about him being Jewish from the introduction. He is an ethnic Jew of Russian descent(Not a notable fact), but he's also religiously Jewish. The introduction to an article is supposed to give a brief overview of the rest of the article and in my opinion, his Jewishness is a notable facet of his public persona. He's given a great deal of money to Jewish causes including creating a professorship of Judaic Studies at Princeton and millions in charity to the Jewish sect he belongs to (I forget it's name off-hand). His observance of Jewish tradition makes a notable impact on his personal life, e.g. He strictly keeps the Jewish Sabbath and a kosher household. I could throw out more examples: He's made two lists of 'Jewish people that control the media', both of which are still forwarded to this day, both of which cite his ownership of New World Communications as the source of his media power. That's hilarious because it stopped being true years ago.

In other words, once I write a section on 'Religion', I'm putting it back in the introduction. Chris Croy 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This material could go under family section or charity work ect. Just provide reliable sources for any addition, thanks!--Tom 13:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Many reliable sources were cited down in the sections on philanthropy and religion. I picked two sources and slapped them up in the lead.Chris Croy 05:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The reference in the lead paragraph is to a book review. This material doesn't seem appropriate for the lead section. Even the religion section seems a bit much. Is this man really that notable for being Jewish? Thanks, --Tom 15:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not sourced to a book review, it's sourced to the citation I provided. The Cite Book template has a field for an url. This field is usually used for a link to a related website, such as the authors or publishers website. I decided to link to Random House's webpage on the book, which is what you see when you click on it. The rest of the citation looks a little odd to me, but since I'm on an unfamiliar computer I'm not going to fuss with it.

As for Being Jewish: In most cases, a persons religion is worthy of one line in an article or infobox. Perelman is one of those uncommon individuals who has chosen to make their religion part of their public identity. If you wish, I can provide a number of examples of reliable sources(New York Times, Barron's, Wall Street Journal, etc) commenting on him being Jewish. Chris Croy 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I will have to look at the citation again, but when I opened it, all it had was a brief snippet about Perelman. Can you provide sources that say that he "has chosen to make their religion part of their public identity"? Thanks, --Tom 18:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this one last time: The link is not the citation. The link is a link to the publishers' website. The citation is for a book called 'Stars of David'. I own this book. This is why I used the Cite Book template. If I cited a website, I would use the Cite Web template. The statements relating to Perelman's religious observances are cited to reliable sources, like the Washington Post. If you object to any mention of the subjects religion in the article, take it up with the many reliable sources that also mention it. Chris Croy 20:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I only object if it isn't relevant. If it is, provide sources that say its relevant. In a full blown bio, it seems that mentioning ones ethnicity or religion is relevant and approriate. Anyways, no biggie guys. Thanks, --Tom 20:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Is it me or could this be improved? Does the criticism piece need to be so weighed in the lead? I also moved the material about his religion down in the article rather than removing it. --Tom 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The lack of nice things to say about him has been a running issue. Unless he gave them money, the nicest thing anyone ever says about him is "He's made lots of money without breaking the law". So I phrased that in the strongest terms possible. The S&L bit should probably remain in the lede. Other than Revlon, Marvel, and his marriages, that's what he's best known for. I also put religion back in the lede; my goal was to lightly touch on everything I have a section for. I haven't figured out a graceful way to put Morgan Stanley in the lede. Chris Croy 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this from the lead:"To Perelman's dismay,^[1] his actions in both the business and personal aspects of his life have attracted consistent criticism from the press. Marvel Comics slipped into bankruptcy on his watch,^[2] Revlon's proven itself a financial blackhole,^[3] greenmail accusations dogged him in the 80's, three of his four marriages ended in months of tabloid fodder,^[4][5] and he even had a brief role in the Lewinsky scandal.^[6] Like all who made money off the Savings & Loan crisis he's accused of profiting at the expense of other tax payers.^[7] Through it all Perelman has remained true to both himself—He continues to strictly observe observes the Jewish sabbath among other traditions of Orthodox Judaism—^[8]and the law—He's never been convicted of any crime." --Tom 14:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason you are utterly fixated on any mention of his Jewishness in the lede? Seriously, this is not an extremely subtle attempt to screw the Jew. Neither you nor I can move any of that down in the article because all of that material referred to there IS in the article. With one exception all of the cites are just reuses from later on. The entire point of the lede is to briefly summarize the entire article, so I would be remiss to not mention at least most of the controversy's he's been involved in. Chris Croy 16:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep using the word "lede"? :) Seriously, unless there is some notabilty to his ethnicity, WHY mention it in the lead? Do YOU have an agenda? My agenda is clearly stated on my user page :) Cheers! --Tom 18:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lede is an archaic English term dating back to when lead, the material, was used in the newspaper business. It means the same as 'lead', but today has the advantage that it'll never be confused with any of other meanings of 'lead' such as 'leading someone on' or 'lead paint'.

My general point is that it IS notable. Let's start with a few hilarious examples courtesy of Nazi's. Google for any phrases from those two document's and you'll find many copies of it. I've already pointed out the interview he gave Abigail Pogrebin for Stars of David, an interview that was just about Judaism. The first five pages of When Money Is King all contain the word 'Jew' or a variant on it in reference to Ronald. It doesn't continue at QUITE that clip, but I'm pretty sure there's a reference to his Judaism in every chapter. Comic Wars referred to his and others Judaism constantly(Almost everybody involved in the Marvel bankruptcy was Jewish which is probably why the author, a specialist in Israel-related topics, got involveD). I sincerely doubt anyone's ever written a biographical profile about him that didn't bring up the whole Jew thing; See for one example. Chris Croy 05:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Panavision

The article mentions him selling Panavision, but seems to make no mention of when or how he acquired it to begin with. Girolamo Savonarola 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The purchasing story goes like this: Perelman bought 72% of the shares at no premium and added $150 million of value to the company through debt recapitalization and some other, unstated methods. The End. I decided to keep the focus of the article on business deals that were in some way interesting or notable. If I just wrote about every business transaction he ever did that someone noticed, this article would be a 100-page multi-article behemoth that no-one would ever read, riddled with two and three-sentence paragraphs. The only interesting part about the Panavision deal was that he tried to sell it to himself and was foiled by investors, so that's all I wrote about. He still owns it.Chris Croy 15:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Legion of Honor

So, I read a corporate biography of him and it included the line "He is also a member of the French Legion of Honor". I added him to the legion of honor category, but I have no idea how to gracefully include the reference in the article. Maybe a subsection on "honors"? Chris Croy (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Rozanski

Occam,

I put the quote from Chuck back. Quoth Comic Wars: Marvel's Battle for Survival by Dan Raviv, page 320, in the notes and acknowledgements:

"The bankruptcy case was covered, with impressive clarity, on websites including www.milehighcomics.com. The report on McKelvie's court was posted on July 8, 1998."

The context was explaining why he used them as a source of page 238. Comic Wars is THE book on the Marvel trial. If Dan Raviv says Chuck's clear and reliable, we ought to take his word for it. Chris Croy (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's sufficient to link to a source. You don't have to write a paragraph telling the reader that such-and-such a source is very good, or from a reputable man; in fact, it is bad form to do so, because you would then have to include a source for your opinion on the source. That way madness lies. Wikipedia does not have editorial comments because it does not have an editorial voice. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Swap positions of "Business" and "Life" sections?

It seems to me that the "Life" section should come before the "Business" section, not after it. The "Business" section refers to people and events in his life as if the reader already knows about them. I was going to insert a bunch of Clarify tags, until I discovered that most of the information is in the article, just farther down than where I was.

In general, it makes better sense to tell who a person is first, and then go into detail about his career. That's how most Wikipedia biographical articles are arranged, for good reason: people are born before they start making business deals. I started to rearrange the article, but I figured that's a significant enough change to merit discussion first. If anybody can justify the current arrangement, please explain it to me.--Jim10701 (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I pulled the trigger and implemented your idea. Chris Croy (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

new source

1993 New York Magazine - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

God, what a mess of an article. I did some copyediting here and there, but someone really needs to clean up this mess, and get rid of the idiotic, informal narrative wording, the use of primary sources for material on Perelman's companies, etc.

In particular, one glaring problem is in the 'Monica Lewinsky section, in which the second and third sentences directly contradict one another:

In early 1998, Vernon Jordan recommended Monica Lewinsky to Perelman as a potential employee, pitching her as a very smart young woman. While Jordan was on the Revlon board of directors, Jordan rarely spoke to Perelman and had never recommended anyone to him.

So the first sentence says Jordan recommended Lewinsky to Perelman, and then the next one says that no, that didn't happen. Classic! It's not like the sentences are properly attributed to two disagreeing parties or anything. Someone please fix this article. I have too much on my plate already. Nightscream (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

POV

- looks like the entry paints wife faith in a negative light to me - she threatened, etc. - please rewrite without bias - thank you - Dec 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.21.13 (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a fix POV tag because this article has smoe issues, e.g.: Perelman consummated his first major business deal in 1961 during his Freshman year at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. After he was put on the scent of the Esslinger Brewery by his father, Ronald turned his attention to the details and found it an excellent deal. Weasel words, not quite NPOV.

Forstmann Little & Company swooped in at $56 a share, a brief public bidding war ensued, and Perelman triumphed with an offer of $58 a share.

Perelman jumped back into the savings & loan game in a big way

The deal left Golden State's shareholders the majority, but Perelman's camp still controlled the company.

Basically needs a thorough copy-edit to establish a NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone claiming to have an authorized bio showed up on editor request board and, since "official version" always makes me think of Communists not scholars, I became a bit interested. If you want to use colorful adjectives, and these are less of a concern than obvious puffery, it would be helpful to cite opinions from the people involved- his own quotes, diaries from personal associates, etc. Otherwise, it sounds as if you are just inserting plausible but maybe inaccurate details. Sure, I'm sure he thought it was an "excellent" deal or a super deal, but what does this really contribute and can it even be shown to be true or false? Maybe he was really unsure, do you know he thought it was excellent until it really worked out? If he had a catch phrase that was notable, or some specific criterion ( hypothetically, " he could buy it for 1/2 a DCF valuation he ran using PER(e)L scripts from which his name derives" ) that would be more helpful to the reader or just some detail he uncovered during research ( again hypothetically, "... when he found out prohibition would be repealed"). In short, I'm always tempted to add words to remove dryness from material but often it detracts from the merit of the article and stops you from looking for even more interesting factual details to add. If you knew what "scent" he was put onto ( the specific clue that got him started) that would be more helpful that just adding figures of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. This is a short Q&A-style interview. Gordinier, Jeff (2006). "Wiseguy: Ronald Perelman". Details. Retrieved 2007-01-22.
7. Barlett, Donald L; Steele, James B (2000-02-07). "How the little guy gets crunched". Time. 155 (5): 38–42. 0040781X.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)