Talk:Carlyle Group

Call For Discussion

Good to see you taking an interest in this article, Patrick. I note however that some of the material is lifted directly from the Carlyle Group website, and no mention is made of this fact. I don't assume their website is the unvarnished truth, so please exercise circumspection - companies can and do lie on their websites, and even more insidious are carefully crafted slants/omissions. Please use a citation when copying chunks of potentially contentious material. I find it's usually better to choose your own words, which I have no doubt are more trustworthy than those of the Carlyle Group's "professionals":). You will have noticed my preference for writing things from scratch, rather than importing large chunks. I find that this leads to clearer, more focused articles. I'll probably write some guidelines about importing text soon - please feel free to air your thoughts in the meanwhile, everyone, on this important topic. Robin (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2014 (IST)

Thanks Robin. Contrary to your assertion, no 'large chunks' were imported. Just the first two sentences of the article were 'lifted' from the Carlyle Group website:

The Carlyle Group is a global alternative asset manager with more than $203 billion in assets under management across 126 funds and 139 fund of funds vehicles. Founded in 1987 in Washington, DC, Carlyle has grown into one of the world’s largest and most successful investment firms, with more than 1,600 professionals operating in 40 offices in North America, South America, Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Japan, Asia and Australia.

However, I amended the Carlyle website description to read "The Carlyle Group is a private global investment firm" to correspond with the WS description.

I'm amazed that you had not previously articulated the Bush dynasty to the Carlyle Group. And that there was no mention of Carlyle's 31% stake in QinetiQ which generated a profit of more than £300 million, some of which must surely have trickled down to John Major and Pauline Neville-Jones!--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2014 (IST)

I have a personal preference for short lead paragraphs which give an overview without too many facts, since I tend to read by navigating using the table of contents, and I think many people do too. Much of the available material on Carlyle develops the 'iron triangle' angle but to my mind is too focused on the money, having little to say as regards the deep state. Hence phrases like "even some bin Laden family members", which seem to have missed the point of false flag terror and the strategy of tension. There is certainly work to be done in focusing this article, though it's coming on well. Robin (talk) 05:23, 12 August 2014 (IST)