Talk:Citadel LLC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hello, edit warriors

Discuss more, revert less, or get blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Latter part of Recent Development section reads like a press release

The part of this section that begins "Mr. Griffin has also recently said..." reads like a press release; the closing bullet list isn't in a format I'm accustomed to seeing on a Wikipedia page, and to my untrained ear the phrases in those bullets sound like they've been written or at least edited by a public relations expert, since they feature words like "unmatched" and "unparalleled." — Mikedelong (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that as well, and rewrote the offending areas, integrating previous verifiable information where possible.—DMCer™ 08:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Addition from Citadel

Hi, my name is Nick and I work for Citadel LLC. I’m new to Wikipedia, but understand and respect the rules of maintaining NPOV and making sure that items posted are verifiable and not original research. Additionally, I recognize that since I work for Citadel I have a clear conflict of interest and will utilize the talk pages to discuss comments regarding the page. My aim for participating is not to transform the page into a marketing tool or second company website, but to assist with any requests or address factual clarifications that might help evolve the page to provide a thorough overview of the company that reflects general consensus.

I have followed the evolution of the Citadel page and want to suggest a recommendation that might help the page continue to develop and reflect up-to-date facts verified by third-party sources. The following article from the New York Times http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/citadel-founder-offers-thanks-apology-on-anniversary/ provides first-hand background on the firm as well as the most recent updates on performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick wCitadel (talk • contribs) 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting updating of the summary stats

I wanted to address the summary box on this entry. Seems to me that the updated information is easily verifiable and quite objective. Would it be fine if I went ahead and updated this myself, or ask for volunteer help? Let me know.Nnemmers (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Updates/Reorganization/History

Hi editors, there are some inaccuracies on the current Citadel page that I would like to address. First, I will be updating the first section, "Citadel (Hedge Fund)", respectively because the figures in the first sentence does not match that of the infobox. Please feel free to revert my edit if there are any issues with this change. Second, I propose (and will be working in my sandbox) a change to the aforementioned section. It should be re-organized and possibly updated to "Business segments", which will make the page more readable than the current (and confusing) Citadel sections. I will propose this content and point to my sandbox for user approval. Last, the page does not contain a "History" section and it is difficult to see where that would go (possibly "Business activities", but I'm not sure yet). I propose a change to this section as well. Thanks for reading, I will return with material in my user sandbox for review. Rog-Brackey18 (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Updated heading per your request. Jppcap (talk) 12:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Founding year

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Citadel LLC, I'd like to revert the most recent edit, which changed the founding year in the info box from 1990 to “unknown.” As indicated in these articles, the firm was founded in 1990. [1][2] NinaSpezz (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Reply 27-JUN-2019

  Reverted to status quo ante    Spintendo  15:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Market maker

This section reads like an ad and should discuss the controversies over payment for order flow and high-frequency trading. For example, see:

https://www.ft.com/content/ee8d4ba0-d9a8-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

https://www.ft.com/content/4a439398-88ab-442a-9927-e743a3ff609b

Please update the article if so, however Reliable, verifiable, independent sources are required to support material added to articles. Please sign your talk page contributions with 4 tildes. Thanks. --Guiy de Montfort (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Citadel and Apex clearing linked to GME short squeeze

There should be some acknowledgement of this based on RS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-billion-into-melvin-capital-management-11611604340 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

nevermind, I see a short blurb since the page reset

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Robinhood owned by Citadel LLC 71.241.203.144 (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s not, Citadel is the main market maker for Robinhood --Devokewater (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Involvement in the Gamestop short squeeze of 2021

Nowhere does this article even mention the role Citadel played in what has become one of the largest news stories of the decade. This needs to be rectified ASAP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.234.105 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Page Lock

I highly recommend this page get locked for the next few months. This kind of vandalism will occur repeatedly until the situation surrounding GameStop ($GME) resolves. TranceaddicT (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wondering if there's not about to be a massive amount of vandalism coming in.

I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's rules on locking things.

but it's probably going to be prudent to lock the article from editing for the next while. Until what's going on with gamestop blows over. Just think it would save a lot of work, possibly preventing an absurd amount of vandalism, from both sides of the 'fight'. 75.168.21.203 (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)