Talk:Barclays
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Whizz40 in topic Proposed merge of Barclays Investment Bank into Barclays
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barclays article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | A news item involving Barclays was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 June 2012. |  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bias?
editBig chunks of this article read like someone has a serious axe to grind with Barclays. I am not knowledgeable enough to make the edits, but it seems to me that a lot of this article needs a top-down review and a lot of the recent criticisms which are discussed can perhaps be consolidated and given context, rather than each having their own separate heading and given the same weight as the first 200 years of the bank's history. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- There are many articles on wikipedia with controversies sections. HSBC and Lloyds Bank have similar sections. I have read the Barclays section and it all looks well sourced. If there is bias then it is similar on all the banks. Please feel free to add counter-views: that would be very helpful if they are also well sourced. I personally do not find drive-by tagging helpful and believe the tags should be removed. Dormskirk (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, firstly, you may want to think about your tone. Secondly, the argument "other articles also have this problem" has never been a sensible argument against an otherwise proper editing suggestion. Thirdly, I don't have any problem with controversial sections, nor was I suggesting that they weren't reliably sourced. My sole point - just to repeat it - is that the article seems to have gotten hijacked by a series of very recent news headlines - some of them relating to fairly minor things. For nearly half the article to be dedicted to recent news headlines suggests a significant lack of balance, and I wanted that view to be recorded so that on an only fairly lightly edited article there would be a record. I am not proposed to do the edits myself because I don't have the inclination or the expertise. I don't think that makes me guilty of drive-by tagging as you put it, but you are also entitled to express your views. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry if you find my tone unacceptable: I was merely proposing a different view! The fact is that the UK clearing banks have got involved in some pretty controversial stuff much of which is well documented here and is not disputable. If you have specific proposals on how the article can be improved then please make them. Dormskirk (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- OK, firstly, you may want to think about your tone. Secondly, the argument "other articles also have this problem" has never been a sensible argument against an otherwise proper editing suggestion. Thirdly, I don't have any problem with controversial sections, nor was I suggesting that they weren't reliably sourced. My sole point - just to repeat it - is that the article seems to have gotten hijacked by a series of very recent news headlines - some of them relating to fairly minor things. For nearly half the article to be dedicted to recent news headlines suggests a significant lack of balance, and I wanted that view to be recorded so that on an only fairly lightly edited article there would be a record. I am not proposed to do the edits myself because I don't have the inclination or the expertise. I don't think that makes me guilty of drive-by tagging as you put it, but you are also entitled to express your views. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have undertaken quite a bit of pruning myself and removed material which is not current and / or relates to minor things. I do feel obliged to leave the material relating to major scandals. I have also reduced the prominance of the headings. I hope this helps and that we can now remove the tags but feel free to undertake more pruning yourself if you would like to. Dormskirk (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
.jpg){kind=link}
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
US$99.9 cents
edit"US$99.9 cents" makes no sense. No pun intended. Should this be "US$0.999" or "99.9 cents (US currency)", or "US$99.90"?
- It is not in the citation so I have removed it. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Main URL dead, new TLD?
editHello! I found the main web URL http://www.barclays.com/ (or barclays.com ) to be dead on Aug/30/2020 (from out of germany)
And instead I found this URL, note the TLD: https://www.barclays.com
(what still works is the german website https://www.barclays.de/ )
-- 87.78.31.119 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- From here in the UK, it does redirect, but I've updated the article. --Blurryman (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Barclays Investment Bank into Barclays
editPart of the same company Whizz40 (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support The article on Barclays Investment Bank imparts very little additional information. Dormskirk (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Whizz40 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)