Talk:Riggs Bank

NPOV?

How much Bush-bashing is acceptable before something becomes non-NPOV? The usual standards used 'round here do not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling. Capnned (talk) 16:52 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I particularly found that the section entitled Saudi Money transfers is biased to imply that President Bush and or his family was somehow in cahoots with terrorist. Wikipedia is not the place to entertain conspiracy theories.71.255.211.184 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

DMG413's changes

DMG413 recently made some good changes, NPOVing and generally cleaning up. However he also removed a few sentences that I feel were worthwhile to keep (e.g. that Riggs was only controlled by the Albrittons since the 80s, or that Pinochet was invited to open an account by Riggs executives, or the statement by a Riggs regulator). I'm going to put those back in. Perhaps we could discuss it here? Quadell (talk) 13:54, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for all the contributions. I had it in mind that the Albrittons acquired ownership earlier - though Joe became chairman in 1981 - so upon checking, I'm not sure which is right. Some of the Pinochet info - not so much about the invitation, but the background stuff on the man - is already on the Augusto Pinochet page, I think, and need not be here. And as far as the last paragraph, the quote from the regulator is purely PR, and the proposed legislation seems related to Riggs in the sense of convenient timing more than anything else. --DMG413 03:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

May have come across it, but ... [1]

Canada bank

It looks like there was a time in the 70s when he was banking with Canadian bank. Would be really good if someone who know the name of the Canadian bank would include it somewhere in the front page. See this quote "Thompson describes an October 1994 trip that she and two other senior Riggs executives, Timothy Coughlin and Paul Cushman, took to Chile to thank that country's military for recently returning its "official" accounts to Riggs from a Canadian bank after more than 15 years. Thompson said the military had moved its money to Canada in the 1970s, "directly related to the assassination of Chilean Ambassador Letelier in 1976. In July 1994, the official accounts were brought back to Riggs."" I think a link to Carol Thompson under "see also" would be cool since she is central to the scandal [2]

Fair use rationale for File:Riggs logo.gif

File:Riggs logo.gif 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 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Riggs Bank page on Wikipedia is not Encyclopedic

The writer(s) of the Riggs Bank page on wikipedia are not at all conforming to the encyclopedic template/book of style. The style is more like tabloid, propoganda art, conspiracy theory style than encyclopedia. Imagine such a page in the R volume of Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Book Encyclopedia and you'll get my meaning. The page desperately needs a good informed writer to redo it and have it conform more to the encyclopedic mode without losing that wikipedia je ne sais quoi. And I take issue with the importance level. The RIGGS/PNC reality is ESSENTIAL to understanding Washington, DC right here right now and looking forward and backwards. (lwc)

privacy act allegations

Deleted this section as not notable. While the story ran in some newspapers at the time, the case was resolved in a non-disclosed settlement. This means that the public will not learn of who "won" the case. The bank may have simply said "sorry", or maybe the plaintiff failed to prove up the case as the bank allowed a settlement so plaintiff could save face. Or maybe the bank had a solid case and plaintiff begged to settle so that he would not be liable for attorney fees and court costs as the loosing party. IN ANY EVENT, this case had no notable repercussions beyond the short news articles that were published at the time. No other law suits were filed, no other plaintiffs came forward to complain, no laws were changed, no one got fired. This story is simply not notable other than adding to the unencyclopedic nature of the article as noted in the comment above.--S. Rich (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Settlements are admissions of guilt 2600:4040:490A:200:C818:2B0:AF4F:19C9 (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Removing the EG subheading

The info cited on Equatorial Guinea on this page does not contain a single citation. It is unsourced and so I'm removing it (again) as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratfinx (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

EG Edit Requires Citations

At least SOME citation is still needed for the Equatorial Guinean subheading on this page to be legitimately reposted to Wikipedia. Reposting the same stale, unsourced information doesn't make the edit any more legit. Where do you get your information for this? Esp. after detailed Wikileaks surrounding the scandal have failed to finger EG in any wrong doing in the matter.--Ratfinx (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've replaced this section. There are plenty of sources out there making it meet WP:V, even if they aren't actually used at the moment. As a likely paid editor working for qorvis who seems to be removing negative info about EG from articles, I don't think you should decide whether to include it or not. SmartSE (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)