Talk:Goldman Sachs/Archive 2

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Squid issue

Am working on the article and plan to include mention of the Taibbi story, which seems to have taken on a life of its own.
A google search of "vampire squid" "goldman sachs" (in quotes) yields About 82,600 results. (see also The Long Life of the Vampire Squid New York Times, December 13, 2011)
Demonstrators in Denmark used a banner of a vampire squid as their rallying point.
(Levring, Peter. "In Denmark, Goldman Sachs Deal Ignites Political Crisis". February 06, 2014. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 12 February 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) ... "the role of Goldman in the deal struck a nerve with the Danish public, which is still suffering from the aftereffects of the global financial crisis." Protesters in Copenhagen gathered around a banner "with a drawing of a vampire squid—the description of Goldman used by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone in 2009".)

Proposed mention:
In a widely publicized story,^[1] Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone characterized the firm as a "great vampire squid," which had "engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression ... from tech stocks to high gas prices"^[2]^[3]^[1]

Notes

^ ^a ^b Carney, John. "Matt Taibbi's "Vampire Squid" Takedown Of Goldman Sachs Is Finally Online". July 16, 2009. Retrieved 30 January 2014. What's fascinating to us is how the spirit of Taibbi's piece, if not its details, has really caught on. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal attacked Goldman Sachs as a heavily subsidized, implicitly guaranteed firm akin to Fannie Mae. They called it "Goldie Mac." The New York Times news report on the reaction to Goldman's earnings also didn't shy away from these sentiments. It said that Goldman's traders are known as the Bandits of Broad Street (which is clever, although we haven't heard that one before) and quoted an unnamed Wall Street who compared Goldman staff to "orcs" in the Lord of the Rings (which is even better).
^ Taibbi, Matt (July 9, 2009). "The Great American Bubble Machine". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 30 January 2014. From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again
^ Zamansky, Jake. "The Great Vampire Squid Keeps On Sucking". 8/08/2013. Forbes. Retrieved 30 January 2014.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Big fat rewrite

Made major additions and changes here.
I have tried to include a large number of cites and give names of the critics in the article text as opposed to simply saying "critics say", because of the sensitive nature of the story, and the quasi-BLP issue (Goldman is not a living person but a large company) --BoogaLouie (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Shareholder structure

Kennethchng seems to have tried to add a section called "Shareholder structure" but since there is no information there or anything else that seems even readable, I am taking the liberty of removing it. If Kennethchng would like to add some information about Shareholder structure, please be sure to put everything in the correct format, in the correct section of the article, and with a well structured sentence(s) and a reliable reference. Thanks so much!Mindfulrmatters (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

GS is one of the largest Wikimedia Benefactor, since 2012

Goldman Sachs is one of the largest donor to Wikimedia Foundation, since 2012.
( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors/2013-2014 ) and
( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors/2012-2013 )
Any Comment? 109.52.20.229 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I wrote it into the aricle, but it was removed in few hours by user
"2600:1006:b11c:f15e:5ad:4287:e314:1b02". Removed, not change position, removed.
Thank you 217.201.180.5 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're using a primary source. You need to provide secondary sources to show why this important enough to the subject to be in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It is neutral and factual remark, clear and well referenced, directly from where it is notable. It is an undubtable fact. Try you to find secondary source on the topic, if are you able. But if you don't find other source you must rely on this, I belive.

Somebody had removed, few minute later. Not repositioning in the article but removed it. I write it again, and somebody, again in few minute, removed it again (not repositioning), with the comment "Why is this notable?"

I think that it is important to spot this large contribution, made by large giant enterprise, like Goldman Sachs. Do you think it is relevant, to know it, for better awareness about the concept of indipendence and neutral orientation (on the subjectt itself) and defend it? Thank you for you attention and patience. I belive it is an hot subject.217.201.180.5 (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not true, even by the primary source you have given. The "Major Benefactors" listed there are the largest donors to Wikipedia. A contribution of less than $50,000 is not large, and not notable, never mind being WP:OR and cherry-picking. Softlavender (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter what you think is important, it matters what secondary sources think is important. We don't use primary sources to determine weight - simple as that. " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The "gift" is "to the Wikimedia Foundation". It is possible to argument with non-sense phrases but the fact it is notable and important to know it. It is written here ( https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors/2013-2014 ) in plain and clear english language. Very easy to read. And I think that is relevant to know it by the wikipedia and wikimedia users and community. And I think that is relevant put it in the article. I think you don't have to cancel it. Are you an Admin? Are any, near by? Thank you.217.201.180.5 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Admins do not determine content, generally. You are being advised by experienced editors, 217.201.180.5, please try to understand they are attempting to help you. Tiderolls 21:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There's not much else we can say if you choose not to listen to explanations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. These are not "non-sense phrases" but rather a set of rules we follow to determine appropriate article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dears, I think that chanting for rules to hide relevant fact, for the subject and for the place where we all are, it is not a good idea.

Instead, can you find the correct way to insert this relevant fact (for wikipedia itself and for the subject). Do we need to preserve its indipendence in the future? Do you know how large company act? So expert in wiki rules, so naive in real life? Thank you. 217.201.180.5 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another guideline for you: don't use Wikipedia articles as a soapbox. For the last time, the "correct" way to add this factoid is to find secondary sources discussing why the donation is important to Goldman Sachs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway... I am willing to make a donation of 300$ to contribuite for a Wikimedia "free" from Goldman Sachs donation. Are there other 99 persons who want the same?
(300$ x 100donation = 30.000$, about the GS donation). I think this is an imporant issue. Thanks.217.201.180.5 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're willing to essentially give Gold Mansacks $300? --NE2 23:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I am willing to make a donation to Wikimedia, of 300$, to contribuite for a Wikimedia free from Goldman Sachs donation. Are there other 99 persons who want to donate to wikipedia and let wikimedia say "no thank you" to Gold Mansacks for the next year?217.201.180.5 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that.

Of course, since the Goldman donation represents a matching gifts program based on employee donations, you need to have Wikimedia reject the base donations too; after all, they carry the same taint. So that's $600 for you and each of your imaginary partners. For one year.

But wait! Look at some of the other evil corporate giants on the list. Apple is in the same category as Goldman. So double your amount to $1,200. Then you have Microsoft and Google. They're both in the top tier of over $50,000. Be conservative; figure $60,000 each, again plus the original employees amounts. So each of you needs to kick in at least $3,600 to keep Wikimedia to your standards of "purity" for one year. Have fun running your fundraising campaign. 2600:1006:B11C:F15E:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM people. Please take your donations discussion elsewhere. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact, according to WP:Primary (which seems to have had a major edit be aware), but according to the current text which seems pretty much as it has been, primary sources may be used in Wikipedia so long as they meet standards,

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

That says that, the source in its proposed format (albeit there is a spelling error in donor/donors), is valid, except, it is that G/Sachs are a "patron"! Not a major contributor.

As for notability, household names do not need detailed notability. The connection between the subjects does, but the connection is obviously there. The fact that a subject has been published in multiple reliable sources is the exact evidence WP requires for their notability, and we don't really need to ask if WMF or WP has been published, because if we do not know that it has, we should.

It's a minor addition. I am going to go ahead and insist it is a case of WP:SNOWBALL to keep it off the article. If anyone has anything which shows doubt to what I have said, go ahead and revert me again and add to the discussion. If anyone is offended, I have not even read the discussion (edit: not read the whole discussion, of course I had a look through it before I decided I knew what it was about, sorry about that). It's definitely a valid item for a primary source. The subject is definitely notable. I found my way here from ANI. I have no issue of bias. Again, if you think I am in error, revert, go on with your discussion, cheers. ~ R.T.G 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@RTG: You have not read the discussion and yet you revert the content back in and claim WP:SNOWBALL? C'mon. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as undue weight. Wikimedia Foundation has many far larger donors. Goldman Sachs makes far larger donations to other charities. This is a cherry-picked factoid intended to make a point. A donation of $50,000 a year by a company with assets of almost a trillion dollars is insignificant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read anough of it to get the gist and further down said you were all going totally off topic, but I've read it all now. It is about primary and notability. The donation is 15th on the list. I believe that WP gets hundreds of thousands if not millions of donations. I was wondering if the reffed page was an editable wiki page which would preclude it from being a resource, but it's not. I don't see the point it is making except the point that they are a WP donator. In fact, according to the info we have at hand, that donation could be G/Sachs most significant charitable donation ever. I prefer inclusion of information so long as it doesn't get out of hand. Maybe if they get good press they'll donate more too.

Here's another idea though... because when I went to read it, I was looking through the article sure I'd find a suitable section and didn't, but couldn't it go in the see also section? See also list of WMF benefactors? That's all the ideas I've got anyway I'd say, ~ R.T.G 03:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. There's no reliable secondary source connecting the two, so it belongs nowhere in the article. Do a little googling before speculating that X is the most significant Y ever; "the info we have at hand" is not enough to base any judgment. Lagrange 613 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this New York Times article, Goldman Sachs has donated $1.6 billion to charity since 2008. Their $50,000 donations to the Wikimedia Foundation are chump change, and mentioning them gives undue weight to a triviality. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree with Cullen328 et al here. In the absence of secondary sourcing establishing this as significant to Goldman Sachs, it's clearly undue weight to mention it in this article. Even if we look at the primary sources, it doesn't sound like there's any significance to Goldman Sachs since it's a tiny donation compare to the amounts they donate every year. Remember, we should treat the WMF (and wikipedia) the same we do everything else of comparable significance in the world. Note also that this is the Goldman Sachs article, so any significance to the WMF shouldn't be discussed here. If you believe this is significant to the WMF, you should be discussing adding it to the article on the WMF. (I don't see why it would be significant, 15th may seem high, but actually adding 15 donors to a general article seems way too many. But again that's best discussed elsewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, 15-50:1.6M is not a significant ratio. On the side, if anyone is improving the article, the current reference to charity is a primary source and the word "charitable" used once is the only reference (maybe there is a whole article in it about their charitable division Goldman Sachs Gives, surely a good DYK could be had from that one) ~ R.T.G 14:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreement with Russia

That section had three sources quoting just one person, Gary Kasparov, a well-known Putin critic, stating his opinion. Not neutral, not substantiated, and of course WP:NOTNEWS. It doesn't look like there is any steady media interest in this. Removed as per NPOV and NOTNEWS. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Apostrophe: Sachs' vs. Sachs's

I changed every "Sachs'" to "Sachs's" for consistency. I don't really care either way, I just want it to be consistent.-Ich (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fabulous Fab

Fabrice Tourre used to be nicknamed Fabulous Fab. :-) --Pascal Boulerie (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070615181442/http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/instruments_of_the_money_market/instruments.pdf to http://www.richmondfed.org/publications/economic_research/instruments_of_the_money_market/instruments.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Goldman Sachs/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I moved the assessment up to B class, but there is still a fair amount of POV left over, mostly in the one pararaph says some nice stuff about the company ignoring the cited material from elsewhere kind of thing. The sing song where the criticism is mostly separated out probably isn't good for NPOV. Also a lot of the references are to blogs, and need to be replaced by reliable references. - Taxman ^Talk 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 16:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Infested by vice presidents

I was surprised to learn that 13,000 of GS's 35,000 employees are vice presidents.[1] If we had a Trivia section I'd put it in there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9142641/Top-Goldman-executive-quits-over-culture-of-toxic-greed.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/goldman-sachs-banker-quits-toxic-firm/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110204144/http://www.businessweek.com:80/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html to http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2009/03/german_and_fren.html#more

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Philanthropy

Should we add a subsection about their philanthropic engagements/contributions?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/669lz9cha?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbusiness.blogs.cnn.com%2F2012%2F03%2F14%2Fgoldman-sachs-banker-quits-toxic-firm%2F to http://business.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/14/goldman-sachs-banker-quits-toxic-firm/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goldman Sachs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

[carney-1] Carney, John. "Matt Taibbi's "Vampire Squid" Takedown Of Goldman Sachs Is Finally Online". July 16, 2009. Retrieved 30 January 2014. What's fascinating to us is how the spirit of Taibbi's piece, if not its details, has really caught on. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal attacked Goldman Sachs as a heavily subsidized, implicitly guaranteed firm akin to Fannie Mae. They called it "Goldie Mac." The New York Times news report on the reaction to Goldman's earnings also didn't shy away from these sentiments. It said that Goldman's traders are known as the Bandits of Broad Street (which is clever, although we haven't heard that one before) and quoted an unnamed Wall Street who compared Goldman staff to "orcs" in the Lord of the Rings (which is even better).

[Taibbi-2] Taibbi, Matt (July 9, 2009). "The Great American Bubble Machine". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 30 January 2014. From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again

[Zamansky-3] Zamansky, Jake. "The Great Vampire Squid Keeps On Sucking". 8/08/2013. Forbes. Retrieved 30 January 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]