Talk:Royal Bank of Scotland Group/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vandalism

Just undid vandalism by 203.166.144.146, would somebody who knows the system better than I do be able to report him to whoever deals with this kind of stuff? GoddersUK (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The procedure is to warn the editor, then only report them (to WP:AIV) if they continue past a final warning. I'd be inclined *not* to warn the editor on this occasion (as their edit, while very poor, was arguably a good faith edit. I'll keep an eye on their contributions, however, and won't hesitate to warn them if they do vandalise anything. Incidentally, I take the view that having been reverted once, if they repeat this edit they are being disruptive and I will warn them.

Part of my reasoning for this is that the editor made only two semi-recent changes, nearly two hours ago, and WP:AIV requires that editors are *currently* active. If, say, the editor's IP address was blocked it could affect a different editor, since many editors' IP addresses change frequently.

I doubt I've explained either procedure or my interpretation of it very well (not enough coffee) - feel free to follow up on my talk page if you want.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot :) GoddersUK (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

Could we not add some balance and remove the POV tone rather than simply deleting the entire section? Would this not be a more reasonable solution? Templetongore 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If appealing to "reasonableness", it might've been better to have considered the POV tone /before/ adding that in in the first instance, yourself. Adding such non-NPOV "controversy" to a deliberately "dry" page on a high-profile, top-importance article on a corporate entity (and with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Bank_of_Scotland) reads more as "personal agenda" and there are very good reasons for not encouraging thousands of such agenda-based "controversies" to be casually added all over Wikipedia on various entities' own pages using weasel-words as though those were unalloyed fact.

p.s. Thanks for adding in your signature belatedly, btw. (viz. "—Preceding unsigned comment added by Templetongore (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)") Harami2000 16:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that my tone was not very balanced, but I expected other editors to add balance, or to do it myself when I found time (I have done this in the past). But if you wish to block this verifiable and valid addition to the page, rather than correcting the mistakes within it, then I cannot stop you. I guess I am being punished as I should have, "considered the POV tone ... in the first instance". That's me told. Templetongore 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced, misleadingly cited, weasel-worded, non-neutral, unencyclopaedic and in breach of any number of WP guidelines. This section either needs some serious work or removed. Wikipedia is NOT the place to put across your point of view about the environment, politics or your personal ethics. It is not up for other editors to "add balance", it is up to you to provide a neutral, factual, encyclopaedic content, or have it removed. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well how about a bit of constructive criticism rather than simply throwing accusations. If the section breaches WP guidelines, then state which ones are breached and where; describe where exactly it is non-neutral and point out all the weasel words. I am happy to accept the section may need to be re-written and that my personal ethics should be removed if they are on show. But why not attempt to re-word it rather than simple being critical? The facts remain - the RBS group invest heavily in fossil fuel extraction and they invest in Burma via their collaboration with the Bank of China. This section can be worded any way you like, but those facts remain. Templetongore (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, again. To re-iterate, "Adding such non-NPOV "controversy" to a deliberately "dry" page on a high-profile, top-importance article on a corporate entity reads more as "personal agenda" and there are very good reasons for not encouraging thousands of such agenda-based "controversies" to be casually added all over Wikipedia on various entities' own pages using weasel-words as though those were unalloyed fact."

Would you really have Wikipedia slap a "Controversy" section on every corporate entity (which is meant to provide "neutral, factual, encyclopaedic content" information about that company, as Emoscopes states) so that as much NPOV "dirt" as possible can be thrown at each and every one under that section?

For an example, you are quoting "Through an 8.25% stake in the Bank of China the group collaborates with oil and gas firms run by the Burmese junta" as "fact" from a newspaper source whereas the source says no such thing. The word you deliberately choose to ignore is "allege" (in the context of "Campaigners allege the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)") without /any/ actual firm evidence for actual "collaboration" all the way down the chain. ("Danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales", indeed).

Regards, David.Harami2000 (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you not to throw accusations around. You have no basis to accuse me of deliberately ignoring the word 'allege'. In future, be more careful with your wording. I see that the section has now been rewritten in a way that I am happy with. As I have said in the past, I have no problem with people re-wording sections I have written, as I admit that I am not very skilled at writing in a neutral way. What is frustrating is when someone does not like your wording and responds by removing the section altogether. This is not constructive. As you said, this is an encyclopaedia, therefore it should contain all the facts, not just the ones - as in this case - that make a company look good. The RBS group invests in Burma, and so this information belongs on the RBS group page alongside everything else. Templetongore (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to object to the use of this entry for RBS Group as a site for parading Scottish pride, which is not only anatognistic to some, but also entirely inappropriate. Although the word Scotland does indeed appear in its name, and the branding and marketing works the Scottish emblems to death, RBS Group is actually an Anglo/Dutch group (NatWest and ABN AMRO). Those who've added this site to the Scottish Portal effort ought to do their homework a bit better... --—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahBrooke (talk • contribs) 10:42, 12 August 2008

Comments on the portal should be at Portal talk:Scotland. The group is not Anglo/Dutch in the way Royal Dutch Shell is (or the way AstraZeneca is Anglo/Swedish). For what it is worth, both the chair and the CEO are Scots, and company number SC045551 (the group holding company as far as I know) is registered in Scotland. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Bank or Group

There is currently an article on the Royal Bank of Scotland and one on the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. The later is a full sized article while the former is little more than a stub. I would suggest that much of the history sections and the banknote section should be moved to the Bank article. This seems like a more natural place for it. Leaving space to discuss the founding of the RBS Group more here. If nobody objects within the next couple of days I'll be bold and change it. Scroggie (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Far from object, I agree with you. Anything regarding the retail banking operations should be in with Royal Bank of Scotland and anything about the larger group in the other article. I think both articles also need to make it exactly clear of the difference between the two, as with the same branding and almost identical names, it can be confusing. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've taken all of the pre-20th century history and parts of the early 20th centruy that seemed fine. Though it is much more difficult without knowing exactly when the Group was founded. Does anybody know? I also removed the tiny section on banknotes from the Group page as it is much more at home on the RBS page and just left the single sentence in the intro. Obviously the History sections need work because at the moment we have the RBS existing up until 1985 and the Group from then on. We need some history specifically about the RBS (not about the Group as a whole) in recent years for that article and perhaps a small paragraph summing up the history of the RBS for the Group article. Scroggie (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by this, the "Group" probably starts somewhere in the early-mid 80s with the creation of Direct Line. But that's just a guess. Certainly that's the first point in that document that refers to "the Group". Emoscopes ^Talk 17:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The move ultimately came about because of hostility to placing the Gaelic name of the bank in the article. I.e. the official Gaelic name was for the retail bank not the group [it was argued], thus we got the current nonsensical legal fiction. Really rather silly. Of course this article should be at Royal Bank of Scotland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's very confusing. According to companies house, RBS Group was incorporated in 1968 and is registered SC045551 as a "holding companies and head offices" at 36 St Andrews Square. Again, from companies house, Royal Bank of Scotland was incorporated in 1969 as Royal Bank of Scotland PLC and is registered in Scotland as SC046419. It's legal status was changed to dormant in 1985 (same year as my earlier guess about Direct Line) and it is currently registered as THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (1727) LIMITED at 24/25 St Andrews Square (as an Edinburgh resident, I know that's an RBS property).

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC is registered in Scotland and authorised by the FSA. Likewise, National Westminster Bank PLC is separately registered with the FSA. Both describe themselves as members of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. You will notice that in the legal terms and conditions here, the distinction is made between "RBS" and the "RBS Group".

So for me, RBS and NatWest are both separately registered banks in the UK and are wholly owned subsidiaries of the RBS Group parent company and it makes perfect sence to have the on separate pages, so long as the distinction is clearly made (good luck! I'm still confused!) Emoscopes ^Talk 18:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal nicities aside, it's the same bank. I may be mad, but I think wiki should follow reality rather than legal fiction. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? "Legal Fiction" is "Legal fact" according to companies house... Emoscopes ^Talk 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And according to the FSA, RBS Group is not a registered authorised bank in the UK, whereas RBS and NatWest are. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A legal fiction is a legal fact that is fiction in the real world. Should we have an article named Meta-Royal Bank of Scotland to cover the actual institution, and use the current articles for the legal "fact"s? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll personally stick with the legal definition rather than your personal interpretation and decree on what is fact and what is fiction. One article covers a high street UK banking brand, one covers a global financial services institution. Emoscopes ^Talk 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was after; I wanted you all to follow my personal decree. Well, I'm curious, in such an intellectually moribund and vapidly naive framework, what article do you think Royal_Bank_of_Scotland#History should be in? Oh, which one, please tell me. How should the period before the time when the Royal Bank of Scotland Group came in and made the Royal Bank of Scotland Plc a subsidiary be treated? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

self published references??

I am not sure why there is a self referencing tag above the 'fossil fuel financing' section. Whilst only one reference is from a 3rd party, the other sources are legitimate in there context. e.g. "The NUS (who banks with Natwest) has also expressed concern over this issue." is referenced with a link the official, NUS run, blog of the National Treasurer of the NUS where this issue is discussed. I see absolutely wrong with this, the blog details the campaign and the NUS position on this, who better to explain the NUS position on there banking than its treasurer?

I understand why there can be a problem with self referencing: "RBS sucks" (ref: my own blog). But this is entirely different, that expresses opinion, the references being discussed here do not. The are many non 3rd part references on wikipedia but most are legitimate. For instance the first reference on this article is from the RBS website, I have no problem with this as it is not expressing opinion, i believe this is the same in the 'fossil fuel financing' section.

--Ehouk1 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The references seem ok, in a strict sense, as there is no significant dispute as to whether the student unions and campaign groups have passed those motions and conducted those protests. However, it does seem to me that the banner raises the question of whether those facts are encyclopedic. In other words, the student unions may have those positions, which you would definitely notice if you were in university right now, but is there really a clamour of criticism in the wider world? The self-published sources are not good enough to say that (that is a problem with any self-published source) but perhaps the Herald one is good enough, along with its citation of Friends of the Earth Scotland, and the RBS response.

So, I propose that the self-published banner be removed, as the facts aren't disputed. Instead, the importance of the facts be reviewed here on the Talk page.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this section, as with all of the ubiquitous "criticism" or "controversy" sections is threefold.

Firstly, as per WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. It doesn't matter how "true" the position may be, it is the verifiability which is key. Building upon that, the references upon which it is evidenced (barring the Herald article) are self published. The policy that covers this is WP:SELFPUB. The major "facts" are provided from the Carbonweb report, with backup from some students' assocations' websites and an NUS blog. These sources are self-published by pressure Groups - however respectable these groups may or may not be, it is self publishing to advance their position (that RBS contributes to climate change). From the forementioned policy;

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

It is my position that this source is contentious (advancing a partisan position), is self-serving (it seeks to justify its end), involves claims about third parties (namely, about RBS), involves claims not directly related to the subject and that this section is primarily based upon such sources.

As per WP:SOURCES, Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles... ...Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. What it comes down to is that anyone can form a charity, publish a report on the web, write a blog or pay to have a book published, make it look respectable, throw in some "facts" and used that as a vehicle to advance a position. These are not reliable sources, no matter how respectable the authors may be, unless they are from the reliable, third-party published sources. If Wikipedia were to be based upon such sources, it falls down as an encyclopaedia, and anyone could use it to advance their position. RBS could publish their own report rubbishing the carbonweb report and then we could reference that and argue the position back and forth, providing "evidence" and "counter-evidence" to substantiate our respective positions.

As per WP:NOR, Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. Is it an established position that RBS contributes to global warming? Probably no (We could argue about that all day and get nowhere, and I'm sure you gladly would) and certainly not with the evidence provided. I strongly believe that Wikipedia should stick to its encyclopaedic principles, and not have endless "controversy" sections saying "so and so says that this company is the root of all evil". Emoscopes ^Talk 17:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand why self published references should not be used for a statement like:

“RBS is “opening the oil and gas frontier” by funding oil and gas extraction in politically and environmentally sensitive regions and entrenching our dependence on oil and gas.”

But what is currently written in the article is:

“They [the pressure groups] further allege that RBS is “opening the oil and gas frontier” by funding oil and gas extraction in politically and environmentally sensitive regions and entrenching our dependence on oil and gas.”

The “self published” reference (the Oil and Gas Bank Report) is verifying that the pressure groups are alleging this; I see no problem with this. The other “self published” resources are:

- from student union websites: These follow a statement saying some student unions have threatened a boycott. They are statements, reports, or vote counts. I don’t know who is better to verify if a union is treating a boycott than the union, and that is what those references are verifying.

- NUS officeronline blog: This is the official blog of the NUS’ national treasurer, it is not his personal blog, but his blog as a NUS officer. This is putting forward the NUSs take on the issue and a letter sent to RBS from the national treasurer (in his official capacity)

The policy copied in the previous post applies to “sources in articles about themselves” so I don’t know if it applies. I don’t believe stating the position of these organisations is contensious.

“Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles...” I would argue pressure group and union webpages are reliable places to substantiate statements about if a campaign is been run against RBS and if unions are threatening to boycott.

“...Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article” The information is directly supported by the sources, the info says ‘some student unions are threatening to boycott’ and the source directly back this up by showing the union threatening to boycott.

I don’t think WP:NOR applies here as there is no original research.

Nowhere does it say “RBS is contributing to climate change”. It says that pressure groups claim that RBS is “one of the world's primary financiers of oil and gas extraction projects” and also allege “RBS is “opening the oil and gas frontier” by funding oil and gas extraction in politically and environmentally sensitive regions and entrenching our dependence on oil and gas.” No one is saying RBS is ‘the root of all evil’.

I take the point that this may not be notable enough for an encyclopaedia. I am believe the current section can be justified. I believe an encyclopaedia is about education and not just tell people stuff they already know or have noticed. I also do not believe it is overly long for the article. I am happy to take part in a discussion about the importance of this matter. However I believe the self published tag should be removed.

--Ehouk1 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the section itself that is the problem, if I had a problem with it I would have removed it or something - I've tried to maintain it as impartial and balanced as is possible. In essence the section says "pressure groups think RBS is bad and have protested", with evidence provided for it being self published by those same pressure groups saying "we think RBS is bad and we took action". The Sunday Herald is a good source as it is a national and notable newspaper of some standing, and is an independent 3rd party commentator. The "Oil and Gas Bank Report", the Students Associations websites and the NUS blog, no matter how "official" they are still self published sources. These groups are all free to say anything that they want, be as biased as they want and have no need to in any way publicly verify what they say. What's to stop someone setting up a website saying "RBS is brilliant, by the way", and us changing the article to include "pressure groups say RBS is brilliant" and linking to that website? Nothing. And that is the problem with these sources and it always will be. Emoscopes ^Talk 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The sources are reliable for what they referencing (“pressure groups claim…”). The bias which may exist in these references is not reflected in the articles because the statement is qualified. I don’t think the tag matches up to any problem in the article.

It is not quite the case that “These groups are all free to say anything that they want”. The Student Unions certainly are not, the Unions referenced had to pass a motion though AGM or referendum (which is open to all its members) for them to threaten a boycott. I would argue that this shows a notability.

Yes anyone could set up a website saying what ever they want to about RBS, what differs here is that these are established pressure groups i.e. Friends of the Earth and the new economics foundation.

I don’t believe that the tag is justified because the problem directly referred to in the tag (reliability) does not exist in the article. I have not removed the tag as I did not want to start an edit war. It would be good to resolve this situation however, do you have a suggestion how we could move forward with this?--Ehouk1 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who owns RBS?

Who gets the profit from RBS? Who is the principle / majority stakeholder in RBS/RBS group? The article doesnt say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.63.52 (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is quoted on the London Stock Exchange, and there is a wide share ownership. Astrotrain (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Major shareholders of RBS as at 28 February 2007 can be found here: http://www.rbs.com/microsites/gra2006/governance/report_of_the_directors.asp#majorshareholders.Darkieboy236 (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the "due to the failure of capitalism" part in the introduction... The failure has not been yet proven. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.245.145 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"a majority part-nationalised British banking and insurance holding company in which HM Treasury holds a 70% controlling shareholding"

Aren't 'majority', 'part-nationalised' and '70% controlling shareholding' tautological?

Surely "a British banking and insurance holding company in which the British government (taxpayer) holds a 70% shareholding" says the same thing. The circumstances of the 'part-nationalisation' can be shown later.

I don't want to edit the entry (yet) in case I've missed something Cannonmc (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Angel Trains

Hello. Message for whoever usually updates/cleans this page etc.

Angel Trains is no longer part of RBS group but still has a RBS template on it's page.. I don't know whether or not to remove it (not being involved in financial articles etc) - So I thought here would be a good place to mention it.. The sale was part of the cash raising process in 2008. Thanks for your time.Carrolljon (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it British or Scottish?

Before it was nationalised it was called Scottish, now that it has been it is called British, which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.180.192 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's now owned (largely) by the British government (or the British taxpayer) so "British" seems reasonable. You seem to answer your own question, by the way: "Before it was nationalised it was called Scottish, now that it has been it is called British"... TFOWR 11:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

RBS Mentor

This is the 2nd removal I have done of this business from the Corporate Markets section. The list states the subsiduaries of the division - not the businesses. "Subsiduary" implies a separate legal entity, the current list all hold separate legal entities. RBS Mentor does not. There are many end to end business within RBS that are part of a stated division it does not warrant their listings in this article as a subsiduary. If RBS Mentor is a separately reportable entity in the next published accounts I'll eat my metaphorical hat. If the anonymous worker in RBS wishes to add RBS Mentor in this article please re-write the lead in to ensure factual correctness. Boongie (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)