Talk:BlackRock/Archives/2021
 | 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. |
Should provide the citation
Somebody really needs to provide the citation of total assets. I have the link, though. Ayush6568 (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/BLK/blackrock/total-assets
That is the link. Somebody please make the citation.
Ayush6568 (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1364742/000156459021001137/blk-ex991_6.htm
This is the link. Please any one can make the citation.
I am a learner GO CAT GO GREEN
User:GuillermoAlonsoMartínezEspinoza (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillermo Alonso Martínez Espinoza (talk • contribs)
Paid Editing
This article is rampant with suspicious edits, one calls it a "Dominator of Corporate America", they call the founders "Pioneers", discuss "Fink's Vision" and "That experience was the motivation to develop what he and the others considered to be excellent risk management and fiduciary practices." These were all in the first paragraph, and probably weren't all the occurrences their either. I honestly believe that the best solution is reverting it to the version before the edits were made, but it may have been too long. Are there and methods that are used to repair these articles? Thanks, JazzClam (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the pioneer claim, please note that it's referring to mortgage backed securities, which is a negative claim, as this asset starred in the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis. Regarding the "Domination of Corporate America", you can change the wording to something more neutral and fact based like "it's considered one of the big three asset managers, together holding almost half of the stock market", but it's still rather true.
I didn't find the origin of the pioneering claim, but I found an edit that fixed the promotional state of the article in 2014. Considering that this 2014 editor and me already reviewed the claims you brought up, I'm removing the template, but please feel free to reinstate it if you can point additional examples that might indicate recent paid editing. If you suspect the paid editing happened a long time ago, consider that they have already been reviewed, unless it's an obscure section, in which case please place the template at the appropriate section. Also consider adding the more generic npov template, which has a lighter burden of proof.--TZubiri (talk) 02:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)