Talk:Capital One/Archives/2014

Awards and Honors

This section has a lot of junk in it. As I am removing a good deal of material, I feel like I should explain. Many of the awards are outdated. I'm removing anything not current. Second, many of these awards are not really third party objective assessments. Take the "InformationWeek" award. It's an invitation only assessment for large companies that takes the form of an executive survey. Basically it's a self-congratulatory public relations award. This sort of stuff is not notable or reliable.Forbes72 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And I figured out why. It's copy pasted from Capital One's website. I've removed the material, will start an investigation.Forbes72 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you got it all, Forbes72, thank you! I don't see any other copyright-related problems, so I've removed the copyvio blanking accordingly. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.capitalone.com/about/corporate-information/awards/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Founding date?

It says in several places, such as Richard Fairbank's profile [1] or Capital One's site [2] that they were founded in 1988. However, there's no details I can find on this, and it appears to contradict other information from their site [3] that claims the date as 1995. As I can find sources about the spinoff in '94, it appears to me that the "idea" or "division" that would eventually become the company may have begun in 1988. I am changing the date to 1994, as this article is about the company, not the idea.Forbes72 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Eighth largest retail bank in terms of assets

I'm changing the ranking to number 8 as on the list even though it has capital one listed as number nine, using the term "retail bank" on that list provided in the source, Bank of New York Mellon, which is ahead of Capital One Bank, is not a "retail" financial institution. Bank of New York Mellon sold their retail banking to Chase Bank in the mid 2000's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.236.108 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the wording should be changed to simply "bank" or "bank holding company", and the rating moved to #9. This is the style used in other articles: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo, for example. Does this sound good to you anonymous?Forbes72 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you do want to use the term "retail bank", you need a much higher standard of sourcing. Doing routine arithmetic (9 minus 1 is 8) is fine, but we need sources that explicitly state the retail/investment status of the other banks on the list.(see WP:SYN) The wording without "retail" seems much easier to source and maintain, as that's what stated explicitly in the source. Thank you for drawing attention to the inaccuracy of the details here. I think the article is better for it.Forbes72 (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)