Talk:Credit Suisse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Credit Suisse gold bullion

I know that Credit Suisse's hallmark appears on some bars of gold bullion. The article doesn't currently discuss Credit Suisse's role as a supplier of gold bullion. Anyone have some solid information? --FOo 06:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:CSFirstBoston 190-1-.png

The image File:CSFirstBoston 190-1-.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Credit Suisse writes down $2.85B" in the history for 2008 is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.168.240 (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

We should document the English pronunciation of 'Crédit Suisse' in this article. I believe the usual pronunciation is ['kredit 'swiːs], a compromise between the completely anglicized ['kredit 'swɪs] (like the English words Credit Swiss) and the French [kʁedi'sɥis]. Any dispute here? --Macrakis (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

their logo is a swastika

nuff said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.161.26 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a proposal to merge the content in the article Credit Suisse First Boston with this one. You can comment on the discussion here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup citation and clarification

this one phrase ("It is one of the few major international banks to weather the crisis without any direct government support.") is the only remainder of the citation and clarification issues, I could not find citations and I think it should be removed, so I shall remove it. I put it here for those who can find references and can make this a more clear statement. Msfwebdude (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have:

• Scrubbed substantial redundancy and puffery
• Made modest NPOV adjustments to the Controversy section and
• Begun transferring sources from Funding Universe to Wikipedia citation templates below.

If Funding Universe has found the sources helpful in writing a history on Credit Suisse, they are most likely some of the more useful citations for us as well.

I have also added an experimental new template for extant organizations that may go live soon to the Talk page up top. I do this both as a hint and a wink to Credit Suisse and to test whether doing so will raise objections before it goes live. User:Corporate Minion 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice clean up and expansion of the article!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Fairlamb, David (July 15, 2002). "On the Edge: Will a Radical New Strategy Save the Day for Credit Suisse's CEO?". Business Week. pp. 54-55.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• Gasparino, Charles (February 16, 1999). "Credit Suisse Agrees to Purchase Unit of Warburg Pincus for $650 Million". Wall Street Journal. p. B14.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• "Gnomes at Play". Economist. pp. 61-62. July 6, 1996.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• William, Hall (January 30, 2002). "Swiss Business Star Stumbles at the Top". Financial Times. pp. 13.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• Wicks, John (November/December 1990). "Building Up a Big Bank: Credit Suisse CEO Robert Jeker Looks for Dynamic Growth in Financial Services". swissBusiness. p. 6. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

• "Twin Peaks". Economist. p. 100. September 28, 2002.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• "Swiss Cure". Economist. p. 66. January 9, 1993.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• "A Swiss Giant Limbers Up". Economist. p. 88, 93-94. September 22, 1990.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• "A Swiss Role". Economist. pp. 100, 106. November 17, 1990.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• Studer, Margaret (August 18, 1997). "Credit Suisse Looks Ahead to Solving Antitrust Problems of Winterthur Deal". Wall Street Journal.

• Alison, Smith (January 20, 1997). "Rebranded Credit Suisse Thinks Global". Financial Times. p. 17.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

• Sellers, Patricia (September 1, 2003). "The Trials of Mack". Fortune. pp. 98+.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: location (link)

Feedback

Hi Corporate, at your request I have taken a very quick run through the article and overall it is nicely written which is something you don’t always see on WP. So kudos for that. Also the lead touches on all the major aspects of the article and seems OK, at least at first glance. A couple of small issues I do see though:

The company names are mixed up and created confusion for me. For example in the 1800’s section you have:

• The Swiss Credit Institution was modeled…..
• The Swiss bank bought equity in new companies…
• Suisse grew its overdraft business…..
• As a result, 1986 was the only year Credit Suisse reported losses for more than a century. (why a retrospective note in the 1800s section?)
• acting in the interest of the country as well as Suisse's shareholders.

I think you need to use the full name each time and avoid mentioning future incarnations of the company.

These need more clarification as they sound like the same thing:

• In 1978 Credit Suisse and First Boston started Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) to increase their combined share of the Eurobond market. First Boston managed North America and Australia, Credit Suisse owned operations in Switzerland and Credit Suisse First Boston operated European operations.
• In 1989 First Boston was merged with its holding company Financiere CFSB and was renamed to Credit Suisse First Boston.

Then this

• While Credit Suisse First Boston had been struggling, the Credit Suisse's overall profits had grown 20 percent over the prior year, reaching $664 million.[10]----(I thought they merged??)
  • Corporate Culture section needs expansion (obviously)
  • Controversies section could be merged with history as you have done with the case of CS allowing US citizens to evade taxes.

Over all its a very comprehensive, well researched and well written article. You've done some great work! This are my comments after a first pass. If you want more feedback I'll look deeper. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!! Working on it now. What do you mean about merging the controversies into the history? Since they are already covered in the Controversy section, do we just mention them in the History section? Corporate 17:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome.... WP prefers that criticism, controversies etc be incorporated into the main article rather than in a special section whenever possible as a special section can sometimes create undue emphasis by concentrating that info in one place and out of context. Since you have a comprehensive History section why not eliminate the Controversy section by moving the content to its various chronological places in the History section?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider it done. You're blowing my mind right now, because I always presumed a separate Controversy section was standard fare. I had another situation when I was talking to someone about a COI problem and it also shocked me when they said "that's not a controversy, just part of their history." Where I don't have a COI, I am always downplaying the controversies because I feel that an emphasis on them is part a systematic bias of our volunteer model.

Just for my edification, is that one of those things like WP:LEAD that are rarely followed? Because Suisse's controversies are mild, should I still include them in the lead? (I feel they are over-emphasized in the lead right now) Do we create a separate section when the controversies are more substantial? Corporate 17:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well as you know all of the policies and guidelines on WP are subject to debate and interpretation and are refined and changed from time to time too. So I am giving you my personal take on the guidelines and how I interpret them. I'm going by the essay WP:CRITICISM which says the ideal approach is to integrate the criticism into the article. Sometimes when a particular controversy is pervasive and takes place over a long time or is ongoing. Then a special section might be appropriate as it might interfere with a smooth History section. In my opinion there is a general tendency amongst many WP editors to emphasize criticism even though WP:NPOV requires a neutral, dispassionate style of writing and presentation. Regarding the lead. I'd have to look at the article as a whole after you've integrated the controversies to see whether any of it belongs in the lead or not. Generally my feeling is that unless the controversy is a very prominent part of the history or ID of the company, than it should not be mentioned in the lead. PS "downplaying the controversies" is not what we want (not sure you meant to say that) as that implies 'whitewashing'. At the same time neither do we want to 'black-wash'. Instead we strive for a dispassionate, matter of fact reporting of the facts as presented in the best quality sources, in the context of the whole article. At least that is what I strive to achieve on WP. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will keep in mind. Yah, I just meant downplay compared to where the article normally is before I start. I think a lot of articles are black-washed because controversies are just funner and more interesting to write, + lots of editors looking to score points against Corporate America. The media doesn't help - some news articles make Suisse look very poor with a sensational lead, but when you read the article in its entirety, you learn that regulations are complicated and these events took place on a political stage, etc. A lot of PR/marketing articles are constantly having spin and manipulation sections added with undue weight, because of the community sentiment.

I probably swing the other way a little too much, but within reason. In this case in particular I initially expected the article would show that Credit Suisse is a big bad bank. When I found out the opposite was true, I was more motivated to improve it, because I knew any other editor would go with big bad bank, which isn't a neutral article in this case. Anyways, I couldn't find more sources on culture, so I'm going to call that a wrap. Thanks for helping!! And for the education. Corporate 20:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

"Articles or sections dedicated to a controversy may be appropriate if the reliable sources on the topic discuss the controversies as an independent topic."

Seems like a tossup, but I think I'll leave it this way mostly as a matter of personal bias that - upon investigation - I don't really think any of these controversies deserve special attention. We would expect sourcing to be more prolific on controversies than boring historical details. Corporate 20:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. You've done some good work here. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:07, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Request edit

I asked Credit Suisse for image permissions and they pointed out a possible correction regarding this text:

which also resulted in a $1 billion settlement to avoid indictment.

They noted that the source uses words like "may" and is based on rumors and speculation, while a more recent Reuters article shows the negotiation with 11 Swiss banks is still ongoing.

We don't normally cover gossip; I request that if someone finds this depiction valid, they remove the half-sentence. Those familiar with my work here may understand why I am hesitant to make edits of this nature that are specifically requested by the article-subject. Corporate 16:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)  Done

The source only speculates on what CS might do. That's not good enough for an encyclopedia. The article says officials have been accused, that's enough. When future RS's report a resolution to the case, we can then add that to the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

General comments

Hi Corporate, Sorry its taken me so long to get over here :-( I have the following comments and suggestions for improvement:

• Photos
  • There is almost too many photos and it seems a bit crowded. I would suggest taking out the photo of the London building as its a wholly unremarkable photo and overlaps into the next section which is a no-no according to WP:MOS.
  • I would also suggest simplifying some of the captions. For example could you say? 1972 logo (Instead of "A Credit Suisse logo from 1972") It looks a bit odd having a long caption for such a small photo. And maybe the logos could be moved to the left side of the page as you did so nicely in the prior section. It looks good when photos alternate sides from time to time.
  • What is the difference between the two Swiss headquarters photos (one in Corporate section and one in the 2000s section)? Same building? different year? different angle?
• Content
  • There could be more on products and services, or banking philosophy if there are sources for it.
  • Generally (I'd have to dig around to find the MOS guideline) it's good to avoid separate sections for Awards/Rankings or Reception/Controversy. If there was a way to incorporate them into the History that might be better. Also if there was a way to have some sub-sections in the history it might make the article more interesting. I am always in favor of chronological order as its the most objective way to tell a story and the most reader friendly IMO..... but.....if there is a distinct phase such as the one you mentioned in the lead, about retail banking and personal savings accounts, then maybe that could be a section title (with dates) rather than going strictly by century, which is a bit dry.
  • I've copy edited the lead and the first section. I know everyone has their own writing style so let me know if that is helpful or just annoying to you and if I should continue or not. And feel free to change anything I've done if you find it counterproductive.

I am happy to help upgrade the article if you would like a hand. Just let me know what you'd like me to do. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I should change "Investment strategy" to a sub-section of "financial products" and expand more there.

You're certainly welcome to copy-edit; even better would be to edit and provide feedback on my writing style. I need to change some of my writing habits to adopt proper prose style.

I merged Controversy - no sense having a separate section for the one event - but I am somewhat attached to a reputation section. Even though specific awards/recognition take place on specific dates, reputation is a relatively timeless concept, except where that reputation undergoes drastic changes.

I made the other edits you mentioned as well. Do you think if I expand the products section it will be ready for GA review? Corporate 19:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yellowstone Club

Thoughts on the section starting "In a 2009 bankruptcy court ruling"

I think this might have some substantial undue, POV and sourcing issues, but I could see a couple neutral sentences on it. Corporate 02:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the sources:

"The $24 billion class action lawsuit was filed in January 2010 on behalf of more than 3,000 investors against the Swiss company Credit Suisse AG and its affiliated U.S. and Cayman Island companies. The lawsuit accuses the lender of lending money to Lake Las Vegas and the other resorts as part of a scheme to take over the developments when they had trouble repaying the loans. New York brokerage Cushman & Wakefield is also named in the lawsuit and is accused of helping Credit Suisse inflate appraisal values. Lake Las Vegas investor L.J. Gibson is named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, along with investors in Idaho's Tamarack Resort, Montana's Yellowstone Club and the Ginn sur Mer project in the Bahamas. March 7, 2011 [1]

"The couple took cash for their personal use from a $375 million loan arranged by Credit Suisse in that year"-- April 6, 2011 [2]

"Cushman & Wakefield Inc. and Credit Suisse Group AG were sued by developer Tim Blixseth, the founder of the luxury Yellowstone Club resort in Montana, who seeks $2 billion in damages that he says were caused by fraudulent property appraisals. Blixseth claims Credit Swiss made “predatory” loans based on inflated appraisals by Cushman Wakefield of the Yellowstone property so it could take over the resort when the debts couldn’t be repaid, according to a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Denver"...."The complaint includes claims for fraud, racketeering and negligence." --Feb 19, 2012 [3]

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The first source above gives a nice summary of all relevant info including Yellowstone and Blixseth. The 2nd and 3rd sources don't add anything of substance. So here's how I would summarize these sources:

In January 2010 a $24 billion class action lawsuit was filed against Credit Suisse AG and several affiliates on behalf of 3,000 investors. The lawsuit accuses Credit Swiss AG of "fraud, racketeering and negligence" and alleges that Credit Suisse AG loaned money to the Lake Las Vegas development project and several other resorts, including the Yellowstone Club of Montana, using inflated appraisal values with the intention of taking over the projects when the developers defaulted on their loans.

Comments? Suggestions? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I merged your content in with some tweeks. I did think it was important that it wasn't mere allegations, but at least with the first lawsuit it was successful and they did have some pretty disparaging findings about CS' lack of due diligence.

I did notice that the guy went bankrupt because he took $300+ million from the business and spent it on himself, then blamed Credit Suisse, won a lawsuit and got his son to sue too!? Oh my.

But if we want to cover it in greater depth and present both the details on both sides, then we would need an expanded controversy section for that. Corporate 17:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Did the above sources say some of the lawsuits were successful? If so I missed that. Let's keep in mind that Blixseth is off topic and we dont' care about him/son but if he had a successful suit against CS than that could be worth a brief mention. Just some thoughts.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Corporate 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I took a closer look and added some better sources. You're right; I haven't found out what the outcome was. Corporate 22:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article

Do you think it's ready for GA review? I think it's better than the article on UBS, which passed GA, but I get the sense the bar is very reliant on the reviewer. Corporate 18:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and nominate, but happy to make any more improvements while we wait for a reviewer. I also asked my mentor BusterD for any feedback and he may yet chime in as well. I'll go give in one more lookover while looking at the GA criteria as well. Corporate 19:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential Source

"Switzerland is in negotiations with U.S. authorities to find a deal that would end tax probes into at least ten Swiss banks suspected of helping clients dodge taxes, including Credit Suisse and Julius Baer."--Reuters: DOJ pledges to respect Swiss law in tax probe -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to add, but I would just figure it's better to wait until there is some final resolution, rather than covering each step in the process. CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Just wanted to store it here for possible future use :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

PS It looks like the GA review is going well so far. Let me know if you need help with something. cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I just earned my first GA with the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, so this will be my first large article. I also just nominated my first COI GA[4] though I'm not sure the article is large enough to qualify and plan on GA nominating this draft once posted in article-space. I'm going to be a GA machine!

Due to your drilling WP:UNDUE and WP:Criticism into my head each time I try to make a Controversy section, I've been eliminating such sections from all my articles ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done my friend. You are an excellent content creator and developer. Regarding the Controversy section, in certain situations it can be appropriate but it shouldn't be our standard operation procedure to create one. We should try to avoid it. Also when you do create a dedicated section, think of calling Reception or Characterizations or other such terms which are more neutral than Criticism or Controversy. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Credit Suisse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 18:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I will perform this review. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Excellent, and very informative. Set the tone for a great article.

Corporate Structure

This structure provides clarity to what would have ostensibly been an otherwise ambiguous section.

Early history

A great section, detailing the ground-laying of a financial institution. Great job.

Acquisitions, first growth, and First Boston

"In 2006 Credit Suisse acknowledged misconduct for helping Iran and other countries hide transactions from US authorities and paid a $536 million settlement." Comma after 2006 and, also, is there a specific case article on Wikipedia regarding the misconduct?
All else is good.

•  Done No article dedicated to the controversy CorporateM (Talk) 19:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-financial crash

Did any of the indicted employees receive sentences, or just corporate fines?
Everything else is fine.  Done

Financial products

I will get to this later. Excellent so far. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The diagram on the right edge of the page is a helpful touch, and the content in very informative. A certain pass here.

Reputation and rankings

"Credit Suisse has been recognized by the Asset Triple A Awards." Besides needing a reference for this line, everything is great.  Done

Work environment

A nice touch.

Conclusion

All in all, this is a very informative article, and I feel that upon the above proposed changes being made, I can and will pass this article. Congratulations! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

All done. Thanks so much! CorporateM (Talk) 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no section on controversies

This page seems like it was written by the bank's own employees. In fact, reading the feedback, it appears it was vetted by Credit Suisse.Arnold Winkelried (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Main page should be "Credit Suisse", redirect should be "Crédit suisse"

By their web site, "Credit Suisse", no accent on the e, appears to be the proper spelling and capitalization. Anyone have any reason why I should not go ahead and change it? --GrantBnet (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you idea is correct but wait to hear from CorporateM since he brought it to GA. He may have some insight to this.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised it made it to GA with such an obvious doh. (Unless it's somehow not a doh, of course.) --GrantBnet (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

We here at Credit Suisse would highly appreciate if the old status with the correct spelling could be re-established. I also tried to contact the originator of this change (see User talk:Keepsgames#Your Changes to Credit Suisse), but no reaction yet. Thank you. --Me at CS (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Argh, I'm working on it. "Credit Suisse Group AG" already redirects to here, so I need an admin to delete "Credit Suisse Group AG" so that I can move this to there and keep all the history intact. I've marked that redirect for speedy deletion so hopefully it won't take long. --GrantBnet (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi GrnatBnet and thanks for your attention on this. I have reverted your request for a page deletion as it is not the correct way to handle this change. Firstly, I think we should wait a few more days --at least --to see if there are comments from other editors who have worked on the page and in particular the originator of the article, Keepsgames. In addition, the page you requested for deletion, is needed, as readers will continue to search under that term. The solution is not to delete the current redirect page but to change the redirect to the new article name (without the accent) once there is clear consensus here on the talk page to do so. I can make all the changes myself, if you don't feel confident doing so. When I/we are done, all pages will redirect to the new spelling (no accent). It is not unusual for multiple versions of an article name (pages) to redirect one article page. Please be aware that I am in favor of the change and am not attempting to obstruct your good faith efforts, but, I do want to make sure the change is done properly. If you have any questions please feel free to discuss them here or on my talk page. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I did not intend to permanently delete "Credit Suisse Group AG" (which is what the company's proper name is), it's just that its existence is blocking my attempt to rename this page ("Crédit suisse") to that ("Credit Suisse Group AG"). Basically, I'm trying to swap "Crédit suisse" and "Credit Suisse Group AG", nothing more. (I'm actually quite comfortable with wiki markup and such due to my experience with Wikia; it's merely the policy things that I'm hazy on.) Make sense? --GrantBnet (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, sure. Because you only have 100 edits or so I assumed you had technical issues etc. Anyway, pages/articles cannot be renamed (unless they are deleted and recreated which is a waste). What needs to happen is this article needs to be copied and pasted into the existing page called Credit Suisse Group AG (removing the redirect in the process) and this blank page redirected to the Credit Suisse Group AG page. Then a note needs to left on the talk page of both 'articles/pages' explaining what was done. Now...... I was thinking that a new page would be created called Credit Suisse and that this article would be moved there. Isn't that what the parent company is called? Or is the official name CS Group AG and Credit Suise is just the short version they use in ads and web sites? Its good we take time to sort this all out first. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, how cumbersome. I thought a page move would be more elegant, as it'd preserve all the history and keep all the talk comments attached to the proper content, and there's no harm in deleting a contentless redirect. But if a full copy/paste is the accepted way, then I guess that's what we gotta do. As to the name, I think CSGAG is the proper full legal name (as seen at the bottom of their web site), and like you said, "Credit Suisse" is the common conversational/branding name. The latter is probably acceptable, as long as the initial bold text has the full name (as is currently done, so all good). We can agree, however, that the current name is flat wrong. --GrantBnet (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The description of the company form AG (see Aktiengesellschaft) is usually not used in the article name. Check Category:Banks of Switzerland and Template:Swiss Market Index companies for many other examples where this (AG) is not used. --Me at CS (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Guys, please don't try to move the page by copy/pasting it...this is very bad in terms of preserving the true article's edit history. Once it is decided what the name should be (and I would strongly suggest Credit Suisse per WP:COMMONNAME), please just leave a note on my talk page and I'll perform the move properly. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Would be great if this finally could be fixed. Please also note that the account which did this change has been blocked meanwhile. --Me at CS (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that :/ Since I just stumbled across this issue, I want to make sure there is consensus before I make the move, but I probably won't wait more than a day, since it does seem to already exist. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was opened on August 30, and not a single person has chimed in to oppose or suggest a better name than "Credit Suisse". Can we count lack-of-opposition as consensus? I say just do it. --GrantBnet (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad someone is backing me up. I *thought* that copy/paste sounded like a crunky way to do it. Is there a wiki policy page on this that I can note for the future? --GrantBnet (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy per se, but there's some help pages. See: Help:How to move a page for a brief outline, Wikipedia:Moving a page for a detailed guide, and Wikipedia:Requested moves for asking others for assistance with moving. All that said, I'll go ahead and make the move, since, as GrantBnet pointed out, there has been zero opposition indicated here. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead and make the move. I'll watch and improve my WP skills. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Not much to see...during the move attempt, Admins can automatically delete the redirect and move the article to the new name, thus preserving the article's history. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Where is information on Credit Suisse's role in abetting tax evasion

As I said, this article seems to have been sanitized by bank employees.Arnold Winkelried (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Arnold, I haven't compared closely, but is the tax evasion issue you added the same as the one already covered under the Post financial crisis section? Per WP:Criticism, we usually avoid dedicated sections for controversies. CorporateM (Talk) 20:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)