Talk:First National Bank of Omaha

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Nebraska Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nebraska portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Best way to add controversy section?

I see that a note's already in the history section about FNBO's severed relationship with the National Rifle Association. I feel this merits its own controversy section (like exist on many other companies' pages). I fall pretty strongly one one side of this argument, but want to make sure I don't step on toes too hard if I draw attention to this week's questionable decision. Clearly it's lit a fire on social media and mass media. Data8504 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we should list something based on a twitter trend. It don't seem historical to me at this point. Jadeslair (talk)

Please stop removing the advert tag and changing nothing.

The entire article reads like a press release for the bank. This is not the correct use of wikipedia. Sentences like these have no place here and are blatantly not Neutral Point of View -

"In 1953, under the visionary leadership of John Lauritzen, First National Bank became the first bank in the region and the fifth in the nation to issue its own credit card. It proved to be one of the most innovative and profitable moments in the bank's history."

"In January 1953, John Lauritzen focused his inventive attention on First National's consumer finance operation."

The POV is most apparent in the section regarding the Marquette supreme court decision. The main article it links gives a very different portrayal of First National Bank of Omaha. First National Bank of Omaha was intimately involved in a case which effectively destroyed state regulation of usury. This may be the only claim to "fame" for this bank and it is not made clear in this section, in my opinion.

Thank you for NOT signing your name. First of all, this information was directly from the book. If you read it, you will see it. Secondly, if you are going to place a tag on the page, there needs to be an explaination. If there is no reason for the placing of the tag, then it will be removed. Also, if you feel that the information is an 'advertisement', then you are more than welcome to put in your suggestions and make the change yourself. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any suggestions for changes or changes made to this page, so I have removed the advertisement template. Please discuss any possible changes on this page before making any drastic changes. --Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Extremely POV

Just because your info is copied from some fluff-piece self-congratulatory book about the bank published by the bank does not mean it needs to be in wikipedia. A book about GM written by GM would not be a good sole source of information for the wikipedia article about GM. A good wikipedia article looks at both sides of an issue and this article painfully does not do so. I'm not sure user Sweet-pea-1981 can be objective about this article. There appear to be ties between him/her and First National Bank of Omaha. SubtleGuest (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do a very good job at saying that this is completely one-sided, but you are not contributing. Everything in this article is from public sources. As stated previously, you are free to make changes. I do not have ties with this bank unless you call me living in the same city as being tied to the company. I have an interest in the history of companies, and I take the time to do the research. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Page

Due to charter consolidations and seperate banks now being considered as First National Bank of Omaha, I will be making changes to this page on my sandbox page. Once I find the template, I will place an under construction notice on the page. If you have any requested changes, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. swinquest (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Due to the previously stated consolidations, I would like to propose that First National Bank Colorado and First National Bank Kansas be merged into this article as they are now considered First National Bank of Omaha. swinquest (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Contributions) 22:34, 20 October 2013