Talk:NatWest/Archives/2012

Fair use rationale for Image:Natwestnewlogo.PNG

Image:Natwestnewlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision history

From 26/10/03 to 13/11/07 is at the NatWest redirect page. Chrisieboy 14:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Some minor things - leave a note on my talk page when you're done. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Actionline" is mentioned in the lead, but not again anywhere in the article. Generally the lead should summarise the article's content. Same with the NatWest series.  Done
• On that note, the lead doesn't really talk about history, and only a bit about structure, yet these are major sections in the article

"It was established in 1968 by the merger of National Provincial Bank (established 1833 as National Provincial Bank of England) and Westminster Bank (established 1834 as London County and Westminster Bank)."

• Remember to wikilink dates per WP:MOSDATE  Done
• "said either to symbolise circulation of money..." - the stuff in brackets here needs a source. Also the statement (in brackets) is a bit too long  Done
• "Duncan Stirling, chairman of Westminster Bank, became first chairman of the fifth largest bank in the world." - This is the first time you note that it's the 5th largest...

I think it's fair enough that early in the article and in the same para. as the merger is discussed? It is supported by the same ref. as the preceeding sentence.

• "Expansion" section could do with more sourcing  Done
• The "Controversy" should be split into a few paragraphs so it makes more sense  Done
• "n a friendly £10.7bn deal" - how is it friendly?

When a bidder makes an offer for another company, it will usually inform the board of the target beforehand. If the board feels that the offer is such that the shareholders will be best served by accepting, it will recommend the offer be accepted by the shareholders. A takeover would be considered hostile if (1) the board rejects the offer, but the bidder continues to pursue it, or (2) if the bidder makes the offer without informing the board beforehand.

• The image in the "Structure" section needs a better caption  Done

— Dihydrogen Monoxide 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How's progress on this? Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your first two points over the next couple of days. Is that okay? Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk)

Yep, that's fine. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Passed. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Chrisieboy (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Separate operations?

I think the following sentence:

"The District, National Provincial, and Westminster Bank were fully integrated in the new firm's structure, while Coutts & Co. private bankers (a 1920 National Provincial acquisition, established 1692), Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland (a 1917 Westminster acquisition, established 1836) and the Isle of Man Bank (a 1961 National Provincial acquisition, established 1865) continued as separate operations."

should be slightly amended:

"The District, National Provincial, and Westminster Bank were fully integrated in the new firm's structure, while Coutts & Co. private bankers (a 1920 National Provincial acquisition, established 1692), Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland (a 1917 Westminster acquisition, established 1836) and the Isle of Man Bank (a 1961 National Provincial acquisition, established 1865) continued with their own branch networks and branding."

The reason I propose this change is the article at present does not really represent the truth; the operations were only separate in the eye of the customer. Myredroom (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as it stands is correct. Coutts, Ulster and IOM banks are actually separate operations. Chrisieboy (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I think the following sentence (cut-and-paste from the BBC website by User:Veracitycounts) is unnecessary and makes the prose read like gibberish:

BBC News Channel - "Derek Wanless was ousted as chief executive of NatWest bank in October 1999, after the once-mighty bank fell prey to a number of hostile takeover attempts from much smaller firms."

Please let me know if there is any compelling reason why it should not be removed. There is (at the moment) no consensus for inclusion. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisieboy has an unhealthy preoccupation for this edit !

Chrisieboy states  : in relation to a factual edit 'is unnecessary and makes the prose read like gibberish' where I had incorporated a quote from the BBC's News archive. I am sorry, although my focus is predominantly substance before style. The NatWest page chapter in question, relates to the fatal weakening of NatWest's stock value in 1999, and the subsequent hostile predatory bids that were received. The CEO, Derek Wanless, was (and still is) widely reported to have brought NatWest to its knees in 1999, as a consequence of costly mismanaged mergers, and imprudent forays into investment banking. The Board of NatWest ousted Wanless in October 1999, as they considered this would strengthen the bank's value, and receive City support. The Derek Wanless ingredient was absolutely critical to the NatWest takeover scenario in 1999. For Chrisieboy to have to seek 'compelling evidence' for its inclusion shows a poor grasp of the machinations in the City. To those who have a broader understanding of NatWest's history, it is like asking for a compelling reason to include reference to Roger Bannister when giving an historical precis about the 4 minute mile. As for the 'prose being gibberish'. Well - I agree that the style is gauche, although that is not a reason to remove highly pertinent facts. Wikepedia is more about facts than style. If the prose is not sufficiently stylish, then please reformat it. I simply ask that the stylists do not alter the substance. (Veracitycounts (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC))

A Third opinion: I think the information is useful and should remain in the article but the quote's introduction should defiantly be changed to make the text flow better and as an alternative consider paraphrasing the report instead of quoting it. -- PBS (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned about remaining civil and avoiding the use of ad hominem arguments. Please do not try to suggest I am more interested in style over substance or that do not know what I am talking about. A cursory glance at the edit history or article milestones should tell you otherwise. Wikipedia is not a simple collection or list of facts and it is not a news site like the BBC; it is an online encyclopedia. This is an over simplistic analysis and is not written from a neutral point of view which is fundamental. The (rather more balanced) source, for example, goes on to state: "A few commentators spared [Wanless] from blame at the time of his ousting, pointing out that he had only been guilty of following what were then overwhelming trends in the industry." Chrisieboy (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisieboy you opened the door to the comment "I am sorry, although my focus is predominantly substance before style" when you said it makes the article sound like gibberish. If you had said initially pointed out "This is an over simplistic analysis and is not written from a neutral point of view ..." then you would have every right of complaining if Veracitycounts had written such a comment, but as it was you do not. However be warned both of you if I judge that either of you are uncivil to the other in this section I will take administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chrisieboy if this comment "Derek Wanless was ousted as chief executive of NatWest bank in October 1999, after the once-mighty bank fell prey to a number of hostile takeover attempts from much smaller firms." was put together by Veracitycounts then you would have grounds for arguing it was WP:SYN but it has been done in an article, it has been done by someone external in a reliable source not directly connected to the issue. This was not a minor also ran bank. Until the County Natwest fiasco this was the biggest bank in the UK. As the big swing dick Wanless is where the buck has to stop. If anything the sentence is not strong enough. Now I came here from WP:THIRD and I have given a third opinion. Chrisieboy you are now in a minority position. I suggest that the sentence is put back into the article and if you Chrisieboy do not agree with it, that you use the dispute resolution process and escalate it to voluntary mediation. -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that this statement makes sense in the context of the existing paragraph. Without seeking to apportion blame, the chairman — which is where the "buck" really stops — is already mentioned. Wanless, afterall, although "ousted" was retained as a consultant to help "see off the [...] bid by Bank of Scotland." Indeed, according to the Independent newspaper: "The split between Sir David [Rowland] and Mr Wanless stemmed in part from Wanless's reluctance to endorse a defence that would entail tearing up NatWest's existing no compulsory redundancy agreement with unions." In any case, the text, which I think we are agreed needs re-writing, has already been restored by Veracitycounts. However, given recent events, I am not sure whether there really is consensus for this change. Chrisieboy (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)