Wikipedia

Talk:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts

Latest comment: 7 months ago by 172.56.200.144 in topic Evaluation of banned editor(s) edits and revisions
Learn more about this page
Former good articleKohlberg Kravis Roberts was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
April 4, 2018Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article is substantially out of date

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Has not been updated since 2009, since which major changes have occurred in the industry as a whole and with KKR specifically. For instance, KKR PEI no longer exists as a separate publicly-traded entity, having been acquired in its entirety in 2009 by KKR. 206.106.128.5 (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Notable former enmployees

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Michael Marks left KKR in Jan 2008 on his own accord to start his own private equity firm, Riverwood Capital, formerly Bigwood Capital. Ochyou 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

TYPO

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a typo under the heading "Deals". It is the last sentence in paragraph four. There is a typo that says "st". I assume it is meant to say "stock". Ochyou 22:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

RJR Nabisco deal details

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anybody have a complete picture of the Nabisco deal, was it completed in '88 or '89, was it worth $25 or $31 bn?--193.10.6.151 12:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

It was completed in 89 and was $31Bn

Bushes were involved, Reagan? then there's BCCI?

According the Cahill Gordon & Reindel's (the law firm who worked on the LBO) 2007 recruiting packet, the deal was completed in 1988 and worth $30.2bn.

According to Bloomberg it completed on 28th April 1989 for $30.062bn ($109 per share). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.140.194.147 (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone else think that the picture of the oreo cookie is totally irrelevant to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.55.104 (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

please remove NYSE category

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How is that on the page? I can't find it. Is it transcluded? It needs to be removed as KKR is a private equity firm, and therefore not on any stock market. --Rajah 07:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Major article cleanup

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On January 5, 2009, I completed a major cleanup of the KKR article. The article had become a dumping ground of various news bits, some of which were largely irrelevant. This practice should probably be discouraged. Among the changes: organizing the firm's major historical transactions into tables from bullet lists, revising the intro, adding the correct logo, bolstering the history section and cleaning up references. |► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA Reassessment

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kohlberg Kravis Roberts/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Hello! Per this conversation at the GAN talk page, I am going to begin an individual reassessment of this article's GA status. The reviewer who passed the article was perhaps a little hasty in their assessment, and there are a few things that need to be done before this article can be of GA status. You have been complemented (see the above discussion) as someone who can move mountains quickly to get an article up to par, so I am counting on that to make the article eligible for being kept as GA. I'll have my initial comments up in a few minutes. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • The lead needs to be expanded. It should be three good-sized paragraphs that summarize the entire article while introducing no new information.
    • As a quote from Geometry guy, "the prose is unencyclopedic, reading in places like a press release. The "Investment strategy" section is particularly weak, describing what the company "will" or "often" does." Please take a thorough run-through of the article to make sure jargon and press-release type language is combed out.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • This article is significantly under-referenced. There are some sections, such as "Investment strategy", that are completely unreferenced, while other sections, such as "RJR Nabisco and the Barbarians at the Gate", have numerous facts and dollar amounts that are unreferenced. In the "Founding and early history" section and others, sentences like "KKR closed out the 1970s completing the public-to-private buyout of Houdaille Industries in 1979, probably the largest take-private of a public company to that point." need a reference. Who says it was the largest?
    • References need to be formatted with publishers and access dates at the very least. The websites in the References section that are not attached to inline notes should be converted to inline notes or removed/moved to the external links section.
    • The first non-inline website in the references section (KKR's Latest Acquisition...) deadlinks.
    • Ref 33 (KKR, Texas Pacific-led group...) doesn't go to the article it says it does, it goes to the main page.
    • Authors and titles should not be given in all caps, even if they are that way in the original document.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    • See the above comments on press-release type language. Also, phrasing such as "KFN was an early victim of the subprime mortgage crisis" is suspect. Try to not use words like "victim" unless you have the word in quotes with the reference that said it placed immediately afterwards.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    These are my initial comments on the article. I haven't done a complete check of the prose, due to the above issues. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Reply


Revisions in process

edit

Please note that I have already gone through the article to make substantial edits and improvements per the suggestions above.

  • Revised lead to make more substantial
  • replaced the legacy / controversial / unceyclopedic "Investment Strategy" with a section entitled "The Firm" (I will give credit to User:Arsenikk who provided guidance on that) which is fully referenced and removes some of the objectionable text.
  • Referencing - I went back to reference the RJR Nabisco section with NYT articles. That section is now referenced (although slightly long) as are the remaining unreferenced paragraphs. Now referencing is prevalent in effectively all paragraphs. Also, I fixed many of the more minor referencing items mentioned

There are still some additional areas for further improvement:

  • Shortening RJR Nabisco section
  • 1990s historical section text

If you have any additional suggestions on how to get this article to GA status, I would be appreciative. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Additional suggestions

edit
  • Many of the refs still need publishers and access dates. Although access dates are sometimes left out for web links to major news agencies (NYT, etc), they are needed for all other weblinks.
  • I added fact tags in a few spots that really need references. I also left hidden comments in these areas, detailing what language made the areas need references.
  • With all of the other images and tables in the article, the Oreo pictures just seems like padding. It's up to you, but I would remove it.
  • The last two paragraphs of the 1990s - Thr aftermath of RJR Nabisco section could be placed into more chronological order.

Once these things are taken care of, I'll take another run through the article and then probably close the GAR. You've done a great job improving the article in a short period of time. The referencing was the major reason that I initiated this GAR, and you've done a nice job of improving that, although there are a still a few things that need to be taken care of. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • I think all of your issues have been addressed. I expect to continue to make improvements but would suggest you evaluate the article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
    • This article is much improved, so I am going to close the GAR. A couple things to consider in your futher editing are to 1) Keep an eye out for "press release" type wording and business jargon, and 2) The bullet pointed references at the end of the References section should either be turned into in-line citations, moved to the external links section, or removed. altogether. Other than that, the article looks good; you've done a lot of good work over the past few days. Dana boomer (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

potential resource

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Google, KKR invest in California solar project WSJ DECEMBER 20, 2011, 11:55 A.M. ET, excerpt ...

Online search and advertising giant Google is teaming with investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. to develop four solar energy farms serving the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in California. Google, Inc. said Tuesday on its Green Blog that it will spend $94 million on the projects and work with KKR and solar developer Recurrent Energy, a division of [[|Sharp Corporation|Sharp Corp.], on the projects. Construction on three of the projects will be complete early next year, and the fourth will come on line later in the year.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. 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 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

How can KKR be a L.P. company?

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

L.P. (Limited Partnership) implies that it is owned by a partnership but KKR has been a publicly traded company for quite a while so wouldn't make it either a Inc. or at least a LLC.? YborCityJohn (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kohlberg Kravis Roberts. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

BMG should be mentioned

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts helped BMG Rights Management with a joint venture to become the fourth-largest music publisher of the world in only three years. [1] In 2013, Bertelsmann acquired all shares from KKR. However, this still should be mentioned. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

shadow founder

edit

on Thomas J Healey wiki page , he says he founded 5 firms including KKR; you make no mention of him in this wiki as a founder ??? / /s veritas sr 19:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)~

Reads like a PR piece

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Reading this article you'd never know how many employees lost their jobs or how many communities lost local businesses as the result of KKR and other hedge-fund type acquisitions.67.185.225.118 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Although there is perhaps a less emotive way to put this I agree. Honestly I'm very surprised that a large company whose entire business model borders on predatory lacks any "criticism" or "controversy" section. Given the size of the article the lack of negative information looks like a case of WP:APPARENTCOI. Any third opinions? See sources below for various examples (not all reliable, just a quick search to give ideas).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/us-predator-stalks-littlewoods-kkr-seeks-littlewoods-arm-1271788.html https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-7981441/Infamous-predator-KKR-2bn-hospitals-raid.html https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/07/kentucky-stephen-schwarzman-private-equity https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegara/2019/05/06/kkr-private-equity-george-roberts-henry-kravis/?sh=20e5a0eae0f1 https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DLB-1785 https://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/09/corporate-kleptocracy-rjr-nabisco.asp https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/kkr-capstone-scam-picture-worth-10000-words.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by John wiki (talk • contribs) 10:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the late reply, but I'm working on a controversies section in my sandbox. ''Flux55'' (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 28 May 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move due to disagreement about it being the primary topic of KKR. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)Reply


Kohlberg Kravis Roberts → KKR – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Has traded under its acronym for many years rather than full name per https://www.kkr.com/. KKR currently redirects to this article. Fredshed (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Oppose. I've never really liked the current primary redirect of KKR; a look at the pageviews shows that Kolkata Knight Riders gets about the same number of pageviews, except during the aborted IPL season, when the views were considerably higher for Kolkata Knight Riders. I'll also note that the use of the initials to refer to the team is very common; much more so than in other sports. This leads me to believe that the investment company falls short of a primary topic. Support move to KKR & Co., with KKR (disambiguation) → KKR. 162 etc. (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. If you search for either use it show that they themselves go by KKR now.--Timothyplaya (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per 162 etc.: It shouldn't matter what the trading symbol is, and it shouldn't matter what the company itself uses. What should matter is whether the name is familiar to readers, used by independent reliable sources (especially outside of specialist literature), and sufficiently unambiguous. Per 162 etc., the proposal seems to fail on the question of being sufficiently unambiguous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
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.

Requested move 9 March 2022

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 14:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Kohlberg Kravis Roberts → KKR – Current name Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per last June's RM. "KKR" cannot be considered unambiguous, see Kolkata Knight Riders, KKR (disambiguation). Would instead support a move to KKR & Co.. 162 etc. (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment/questions: The article opens with "KKR & Co. Inc., formerly known as Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co." (emphasis added). But I did not find a description of a change of the company's official name or when that happened, if it actually happened at all. I see that the footer of the company's website says "© 2022 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P." and "Kohlberg Kravis Roberts", so they have not entirely stopped using the long-form name. The article also seems a bit confusing about whether KKR & Co. is the whole company or only part of it. The lead says that "In October 2009, KKR listed shares in the company through KKR & Co., an affiliate that holds 30% of the firm's ownership equity, with the remainder held by the firm's partners." Is that still true, that KKR & Co. is only 30% of the ownership? Also, the provided rationale does not address the question of whether "KKR" is too ambiguous. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Yes, sorry, did this in a hurry and when tired - I realise I should have checked the DAB and talk pages first. I found that KKR is a redirect to this article, after someone had changed the link in another article from the full (current article) name to KKK. I checked the website, which uses KKR as the common name almost everywhere, so usually this would apply per WP:COMMONNAME, surely? What about calling it KKR (company)? Either way, the redirect needs to be changed (possibly swapped with the KKR DAB page). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
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.

Takeover of Simon & Schuster

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In an effort to be properly encyclopedic, shouldn't we mention that, in August 2023, KKR took over the Simon & Schuster publishing company? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note that the sale isn't finalized yet. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Missing criticism/controversy section: bad fossil industry divestment track record

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/sep/14/private-equity-dirty-energy-carlyle-warburg-pincus-kkr-climate-risks-scorecard Sternenmeer (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Knowing that, this article is really influenced to be something like a PR piece... ''Flux55'' (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Missing discussion of surprise medical billing and its political attacks to defend surprise billing

edit

Consider adding discussion of KKR's role in attacking reforms to address surprise medical billing. This is the practice of being out of network for most insurance plans, not revealing this to patients, and treating patients, particularly in contexts where patients do not choose their provider. One example is anesthesiologists, who are chosen by the surgeon or hospital and have no interaction with the patient, who tend to be out of network. The New York Times and Bloomberg found that KKR was secretly funding attack ads misrepresenting the reforms and that it owned TeamHealth, acquired in 2016, which engages in surprise medical billing.

[1] [2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/upshot/surprise-billing-laws-ad-spending-doctor-patient-unity.html
  2. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-08/blackstone-kkr-hidden-hand-in-ad-blitz-unleashes-washington-fury

Undisclosed paid editing

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TardyMarmot for evidence. The article will need a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:KKR (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Evaluation of banned editor(s) edits and revisions

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've reviewed the edits from a list of banned accounts (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TardyMarmot) and made revisions to remove unverified content and potential COI edits. Here are a list of those edits, the ways I've addressed them, and my rationale. I will remove the undisclosed paid tag from October 2023.

16:09, 30 April 2021‎ TardyMarmot

  • Reverted minor vandalism. No change needed.

18:50, 15 April 2020‎ TardyMarmot

  • Minor grammatical correction. No change needed.

18:45, 15 April 2020 TardyMarmot

  • Minor correction to a date; verified accurate in WSJ source. No change needed.

03:12, 3 February 2020‎ DataSloth

  • Reverted vandalism. No change needed.

22:59, 28 February 2019‎ TardyMarmot

  • Removed information about a not-notable business deal added from a primary source (the subject’s website). No change needed.

16:44, 22 September 2018‎ TardyMarmot

  • Reverted vandalism. No change needed.

17:54, 11 June 2018‎ TardyMarmot

  • TardyMarmot removed the advert tag, which has since been re-added. No change needed.

17:48, 11 June 2018‎ TardyMarmot

  • This looks like a legit effort to remove some puffery from the article, though not a deep cut. The only other change here was an update to office and employee count, which I assume are outdated now, and employee count has since been updated.

22:28, 5 June 2018‎ TardyMarmot

  • Edit appears to have been removed by MarioGom, 07:47, 10 October 2023‎. No further change needed.

16:03, 31 October 2017‎ TardyMarmot

  • I couldn’t find a non-primary source detailing the subject’s business structure, so I removed the table added by TardyMarmot. I also replaced the primary source for the subject’s leadership change with CNBC.

23:48, 5 October 2017‎ TardyMarmot

  • This edit is obsolete. No change needed.

23:34, 5 October 2017‎ TardyMarmot

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kohlberg_Kravis_Roberts&oldid=1217798821"