Talk:Bulge bracket

Is Deutsche really a BB?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I Propose a voté on whether Deutsche should be included, on which I vote no. Atticusboi (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not a forum, go start a blog. Hatting conversation. One Factor (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving a talk page

I have set up a bot to archive this talk page. Generally, if a talk page includes repeated discussion, that's a good reason to consider not archiving them aggressively, since it's more likely that new editors will refer to previous discussion which haven't been archived. Additionally, for future reference, please do not alter archived talk pages without a very good reason, per WP:TPG and H:ARC. Per H:ARC, if this really does need to be explained repeatedly, a FAQ should be considered, but merely archiving every comment is basically asking for comments to be rehashed. Grayfell (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive sock puppetry

Regarding this massive revert, the majority of recent edits have been by a disruptive sockfarm, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DonSpencer1. It's difficult, and tedious, to go through these edits closely (which is one reason this kind of behavior is so disruptive) but they restored unreliable source and leaned very heavily on original research. There were also WP:DUE and WP:MOS issues (such as MOS:FLAGICON). These problems are consistent with other edits made by this sockfarm, so I have reverted to a much shorter previous version. Unfortunately there was likely positive contributions from good-faith editors which were also reverted, by looking at the article's history, not too many, so that's something at least. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion, again

Since this seems to be either a source of contention, or apparently an offsite meme from what some editors have indicated, I have removed the list of Bulge Bracket banks complete. Since it was unsourced and contested, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia until this is resolved. Find a reliable source] which specifically lists Bulge Bracket banks before adding this. Do not use blogs, and do not use first-hand knowledge about what should or should not be included. If Bloomberg or Reuters are sometimes used, explain who is sometimes using them, and cite a reliable source. Otherwise it's irrelevant. Use sources only, not WP:OR, and not WP:SYNTH. Grayfell (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have again removed a list from the lead. As before, the source doesn't appear reliable:

• Curtis, Patrick. "What Is A Bulge Bracket Investment Bank (BB)?". Retrieved 19 March 2020.

While this was properly attributed, it will not be clear to readers who Wall Street Oasis is, and so it will not be clear why they should accept this opinion as authoritative. If a reliable source can be found, by all means it should be cited, but I am not convinced this is one. Further, the source itself say s Some debate exists over which banks are part of the bulge bracket since there is no universally recognized criteria for membership in the group. That it then lists members without any particular explanation is odd. The article's author is Patrick Curtis, who is CEO and founder of Wall Street Oasis. This suggests a lack of editorial oversight. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation tag on list

If we're displaying a list as of March 2023, we need a citation to a March 2023 source that actually says what the article says. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)