Talk:Fred Goodwin

RBS

Suggestion: most of the detail of the RBS period should be moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland Group article (which doesn't have much on this period), in seemain style, and have just a summary here. Rd232 ^talk 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

agreed. Expansion and Collapse belong in the RBS article leaky_caldron (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Goodwin was at the heart of the expansion, so should be detailed here as well. Peterlewis (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "detailed". The Goodwin article can describe his actions (plus any verifiable notable commentary on them), but shouldn't "detail" the whole RBS saga. By comparison, the "Watergate" section in the Richard Nixon article has limited scope, with the details being found in Watergate scandal, Watergate scandal, United States Senate Watergate Committee, Watergate tapes, Saturday Night Massacre etc. - Pointillist (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the Saga As A Whole should be in RBS, and here just a brief summary plus detail on any particular points of relevance to Goodwin (personal actions/criticism etc). Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Insolvency

Is there a reason we are not allowed to document that Fred Goodwin was trading whilst insolvent?

RD232 you seem intent on blocking the documentation of this fact. I suspect this to be the work of a PR ageny. As I cannot imagine a rational explanation for not wanting a true and accurate biograpy to be written.. Surely it is right and correct that his history is accurately documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. The version I put lots of work into editing last night had no mention of insolvency - I don't know why you're asking me. Several other editors have removed contributions from you like this [1], and rightly so as what you wrote does not fit WP criteria. Find someone in the media who has raised this issue, and then we can report that under "media criticism" with appropriate sourcing, which would be fine. Otherwise its just editorialising, which isn't. OK? Rd232 ^talk 13:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that you seem intent on stifiling a fair documentation of what this guy did.

He was the boss, the company was insolvent, as a biography of a director, I think it is a fair addition.

I will try and add again and see if pleases you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think what you need here is a verifiable statement from a reliable source that talks about "trading while insolvent" - then you can mention it in the article. It isn't "fair documentation" if you add an unsupported theory to an article, and you are being unfair to Rd232 in accusing him of being some sort of stooge for a PR company. Anyway, if you can find sources I assure you no one will try to stifle it. Try checking on Google for RBS "trading while insolvent" site:bbc.co.uk, substituting site:ft.com, site:guardian.co.uk, site:independent.co.uk, site:telegraph.co.uk, site:timesonline.co.uk in sequence. Well, actually I just tried all that, but if you check again every 12 hours or so you'll probably be first to catch any mention. - Pointillist (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a comment from Vince Cable which goes in this direction. It's of course not impossible that RBS did "trade while insolvent", but my understanding is the government stepped in before this could really become an issue. But come up with some relevant reliable sources and of course we can put something in the article. I carry no candle for RBS, I don't know how you can think that given my edits. I only refrain from echoing the general public opinion of Goodwin's behaviour [2] here because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and because my opinion isn't relevant for editing the article - only verifiable facts are. Rd232 ^talk 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if the government's lawyers are looking into "all possible avenues" for recovering the money, then Trading while insolvent would be one as it might make Goodwin personally liable for some of the losses. So we might hear more about this in future. Rd232 ^talk 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Greedy

An IP contributor added greedy to the opening description. I was in the process of reverting it (reluctantly) but another article contributor had already done so. However, there is little doubt that greed is being widely used (just try Google for 'Goodwin greed' and dozens of reputable news sources have used this description). Just because it's distasteful doesn't mean that it is not accurate and fair. Any thoughts? leaky_caldron (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I posted on my talk page in response to this.

We do not and never have used emotive language in articles - he's a banker, not a greedy banker or a useless banker etc etc - that's tabloid journalism, we're an encyclopedia. It's also vital we don't make such libellous statements on Wikipedia per our well known BLP policies. Nick (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Nick has removed it and I agree. I think this sort of statement can only be used as quoted speech using irrefutable sources—e.g. a direct statement saying "X is greedy" from a significant politician. I tried searching for an example on Google but gave up: the mentions that I was getting were either too indirect (such as "greed" in a different sentence, describing behaviour or attitude) or just reader feedback messages underneath the actual articles. Anyway, is the first paragraph really the right place for this sort of language? I don't think so—for example, the Robert Maxwell lead section doesn't call him names, and I imagine there are some wonderful quotes to be found. - Pointillist (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

However, I understand why Leaky caldron hesitated to revert 86.138.245.201's edit and I'm sure no-one is doubting Leaky caldron's good faith. - Pointillist (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from a quick look, the new "opprobrium" sentence and four references are fine: the mixture includes politicians, media commentators (the guardian one in particular) and members of the public. This reduces the risk of problematic edits by less experienced contributors. Congratulations to Leaky cauldron for responding so constructively. - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, the sentence is good but I'd prefer to avoid unnecessary refs in the intro - they should as far as possible be in the body (of which the intro is a summary). If necessary maybe add (some of) the refs I binned (I thought they were a bit duplicative anyway) into the body. Rd232 ^talk 01:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks. The idea of the refs. was to head off any removal on the grounds of not being substantiated. If it sticks without being reverted (the original "greedy" reference was regarded as vandalism) then there is no need for the refs. in the preview. He is by all accounts public enemy No1. in the UK, being subject to ridicule and vilification on almost every TV news channel and newspaper. This will be short lived of course. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The "opprobrium" sentence is a factual claim, and substantiated in the body. "Greedy" is opinion. Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pension saga

I think the section about his pension is starting to get out of hand. We need to focus more on the facts and less on what various people have to say. It's a big public scandal so lots of people have an opinion, and we can't usefully quote them all. Also I'm not sure if the para on Peter Cummings is useful context or a distraction which should be moved elsewhere (he doesn't seem to have his own article). Rd232 ^talk 13:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

agree about the Peter Cummings bit leaky_caldron (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

surely the comments made by notable people, especially those in Government, are vital in establishing/documenting the degree of unacceptability perceived in the country as a whole, in this almost unprecidented affair? As you quite rightly say, it's a public scandal and the politician's actions (or lack of) will be critical to any resolution. I recall a similar style being adopted in the Cash for Questions article. leaky_caldron (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear: it's a matter of degree. Some comments from key people or saying important relevant things, yes. Drift towards laundry list of every politician and journalist around sticking their oar in, no. (NB I feel the rather under-sourced and mediocrely-structured Cash-for-questions affair article isn't a great example.) Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So why not start a Cummins article? He seems to be the focus of a lot of attention in the media for his high pension?Peterlewis (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If Cummings is only notable for one event we should cover the event, not the person. Anyway, there's no guarantee that UKFI will find he's in the same position as Goodwin, so we must be careful not to speculate. Is there any evidence that his pension "pot" was increased massively when he left HBOS? Did Cummings choose his lending practices or were they HBOS's policy (after all, if you are "head of corporate banking", presumably your job description includes lending to corporates)? I'd exercise restraint until we have more verifiable facts to report. - Pointillist (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is about Goodwin so Cummings doesn't really belong here. If there is a general bankers pension issue then that becomes an article in it's own right doesn't it? Until it emerges that there is a wider pension subject I think that Cummings should, at best, remain as a brief mention with no further development, or be removed entirely (possibly to a Cummings article) leaky_caldron (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The HBOS Bad Loans section is the place to develop the lending policies side of the story. I found this report about Cummings in The Times (June 13, 2008), which says "while more cautious bankers switched off the lending hose, the HBOS corporate loans chief continued to squirt cash at people he believed in.... But the freefall in the value of listed housebuilders in the past few weeks has inevitably cast doubt on the wisdom of that approach." even though "last year his division contributed £2.3 billion to HBOS profits, more even than the personal banking side."

As for the pension side of the story, since The Times says "His pay soared to £2.6 million, overtaking his chief executive Andy Hornby." it isn't hard to imagine how he could have accumulated a c.£6m pension fund when times were good, so we must be careful not to imply anything that isn't supported by sources. - Pointillist (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

re the expunged Harriet Harman segment, it was, of all the political opinion on the subject, the most significant because it raised the possibility of the pension simply not being paid by senior government figure (as opposed to opposition MPs and ex-ministers like Prescott). She went further than the PM, it was broadcast on national TV and received considerable press coverage. It's her seniority and the directness of her quoted views on the matter that set her apart, even from the likes of Timms and Darling (who's department was responsible for letting the discretionary award through). It also created potential conflict with the PMs statements leaky_caldron (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Labour Deputy Leader and Party Chair Harriet Harman suggested that Goodwin should "not count" on keeping his full pension because "it is not going to happen". She described the settlement as "money for nothing", that the sum was unacceptable in "the court of public opinion," and that the government "would step in". leaky_caldron (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to march in the streets if you put it back in :). But I feel it says more about her (trying so hard to be populist, maybe in mad attempt to position for eventual leadership challenge, as to suggest abandoning the rule of law, which isn't about to happen) than about Goodwin or his pension. As to her seniority, pff, she doesn't decide anything. Her cited positions are in the Labour Party, not the govt. Rd232 ^talk 14:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• How about:

Harriet Harman QC, the Leader of the House of Commons and former Solicitor General, suggested that Goodwin should "not count" on keeping his full pension because "it is not going to happen". She described the settlement as "money for nothing", that the sum was unacceptable in "the court of public opinion," and that the government "would step in". - Pointillist (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Vince Cable put it well in the Commons (here) "Now—as the Leader of the House is a former Pensions Minister and law officer and I believe a trained solicitor—she's exceptionally well placed to understand pensions law.... " - Pointillist (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Disgraced

Somebody keeps reverting the word "disgraced" from the summary "...is a disgraced Scottish banker...".

This is a commonly accepted way to refer to Goodwin and I am not aware of any reasonable sources that could contend this. For example, the Daily Telegraph referred to him on the front page of today's (4th March 2009) Business supplement as "the disgraced banker".

In what sense is he not "disgraced" ? It does not violate NPOV - it is simply a fact - he is "disgraced".Garygateaux (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been added (usually be anonymous or less experienced contributors) and removed repeatedly. Wikipedia focuses on verifiable facts. "Disgraced" may be an opinion frequently voiced (Google News gives me 35 hits for Goodwin + "disgraced banker") but it's still opinion, and to have it in the article without quotes makes it appear that Wikipedia shares that opinion. The media commentary section contains plenty of details on this widely-held opinion and the final sentence of the intro summarises that, neutrally (cf WP:NPOV). Rd232 ^talk 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• BTW it wouldn't work in the lead section even if you had "disgraced" in quotes, and cited e.g. Sky News 27 Feb, Mail Online 27 Feb, Sunday Mirror 1 Mar and Telegraph.co.uk 4 Mar. That sort of description isn't used in Wikipedia articles. So even though Richard Nixon, Ted Haggard, Mark Oaten, Bill Clinton and Neil Hamilton are all called "disgraced" in lots of press stories, their articles here describe their scandals but don't use the word "disgraced". - Pointillist (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok but in that case I suggest we retitle the Pension section "Pension Controversy" or something like that. Just saying "Pension" does not convey the issue to the casual observer.Garygateaux (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

agreed. Scandal is very well documented leaky_caldron (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

good idea - Pointillist (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I see Ironman1104 has reverted the change. I've invited him to outline his thinking here, as he's made other constructive edits to this article in the past, - Pointillist (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC) e.g. this diff - Pointillist (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All of the requirements for a (good old) scandal are satisfied, namely "a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both."

A simple Google search reveals numerous reference from many sensible sources [3]. I have reinstated the heading until Ironman1104 responds leaky_caldron (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pension scandal" is the correct heading because it highlights that a major concern is addressed in the article, but doesn't go beyond the facts.

• It recognises that the public is "morally outraged", at least as represented by the red masthead tabloids.
• It doesn't point too specifically at Goodwin, because Goodwin didn't control the terms and size of his pension fund: his chairman and supervisory board were responsible for selecting him, deciding his original contract and supervising his strategy and execution. When he left they approved terms for his exit with the support of whatever government agencies were involved.
• It doesn't exclude the possibility of scandalous omissions by regulatory agencies and/or HM treasury who should have reviewed Sir Fred's strategy and contract before problems emerged, and is ambiguous whether recent allegedly "synthetic" statements by Government ministers and former law officers are part of the scandal.

For all these reasons I think "Pension scandal" is the correct heading. - Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My view was that calling it a "scandal" rather prejudges the reader's view of the facts, the facts and nothing but the facts. (Incidentally, I completely agree that, in the pub, it is a scandal, disgrace, outrage ... ). But Fred got the deal, which is either legally binding (probably, Yes) or not. He gave up some of his enormous remuneration to achieve it. If it is binding, then asserting that a legally unimpugnable deal is a 'scandal' is a value judgment which needs to be more closely analysed than it currently is, or could be, in this article. I don't think it should be labelled thus just because people shout about it. Ironman1104 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ironman1104. After much reflection, and re-reading the history related in http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/RBSJohnMcFall030309.pdf, I've changed my mind. "Scandal" might be acceptable in the RBS article but in this article "Controversy"—the term Garygateaux originally proposed—is better because it avoids any value judgement. I'll change the article accordingly. - Pointillist (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that scandal is perfectly valid. "Controversy" is arguably VERY weasel because there is virtually no one supporting the pension award from a moral or deserving point of view (hence the news stories of the last 4 weeks). Has anyone actually said he deserves it? The only tacit support has been on the "letter of the law" contractual aspect. Remember, it doesn't need to be actual wrongdoing on Goodwin's part - just seen as widely recieved as such. To quote "A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both." leaky_caldron (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think to say he is disgraced is pretty accurate. We're not saying if he's innocent or guilty, but I don't think you'll find many people who'd argue that the opening statement referring to him as a 'disgraced banker' is untrue. --Richardeast (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that in the sense that he is "in disgrace" (i.e. vilified) even if he is innocent? - Pointillist (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - someone could be classed as 'disgraced' regardless of whether they are innocent or guilty.... It's all to do with their reputation. I think Goodwin's reputation has been disgraced, even though, legally, he's probably done nothing wrong. --79.91.42.153 (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So if Goodwin has done nothing wrong (except wreck a large bank), what did he do right? To use the word "disgrace" seems highly appropriate. Peterlewis (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We record facts, we don't do right, wrong, shame or disgrace. We can say "x calls him disgraced" or "y said this was scandalous" we don't say either way fror ourselves. Scandal is the wrong word here, as it assumes that the pension was scandalous or someone was scandalised. (Actually, I think it is a scandal - but that's my POV and not for the article). Since "controversy" and "scandal" are proving problematic, I've put in "criticism". We are in search here for a neutral heading, so one which even some readers may see as partisan should be avoided. I doubt Sir Fred would see this as a scandal, whilst I suspect he'd agree that there has been widespread criticism and condemnation.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what Sir Fred's possible thoughts have to do with this - he's hardly impartial after all. My view is that both criticism and controversy are weasel words. Scandal should not be problematic since it's criteria seem fully satisified - "A scandal is a widely publicized incident that involves allegations of wrongdoing, disgrace, or moral outrage. A scandal may be based on reality, the product of false allegations, or a mixture of both."

It's widely publicised, there are clear allegations of wrongdoing (by the former RBS board), there is widespread moral outrage, he's been called a disgrace and it is based on reality (whether or not wrongdoing is eventually proved doesn't matter for it to be a scandal) leaky_caldron (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. How is "criticsm" not impartial. There has been criticism, certainly. Whether it is scandalous (a word that contains moral outrage) is clearly a matter of opinion, despite that definition you've found.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

.....it's the Wikipedia definition and provides links to hundreds of scandals which have not been disputed leaky_caldron (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, well, what do I say? Shite encyclopedia. I'll go with the OED: "A grossly discreditable circumstance, event, or condition of things".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is verifiable scandal and/or disgrace somewhere around the saga of RBS's corporate objectives, the salaries/bonuses/pensions they offered their executives, the risks the executives took and the extent (or lack) of supervision by government and shareholders. Right now, I'm just not comfortable linking the blame quite so specifically to this one individual via a section heading—it feels too much like The Charge of the Light Bridge excuse from Yes Minister (page 338). It would be a different matter if we moved some of the text to "RBS Disgraceful Strategy", "FSA Supervision Scandal" and/or "RBS Pension Moral Outrage" articles, because then we'd be covering the event rather than the person. After all, we have a Watergate scandal article, even though you won't find anything on Wikipedia saying that Richard Nixon is disgraced. - Pointillist (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A scandal doesn't need to involve any more people and the article is about him alone - there is no article on the general subject of RBS failures in corporate governance. Scandal is how it is generally percieved - it doesn't need to be verifiable to be a scandal - just widely accepted - so check this out for coverage[4] "National" scandal, "growing" scandal, "ongoing" scandal. Hundreds of articles. Okay, "criticsm" is accurate but wishy washy. "Controversy" is better than "criticsm" but I fail to see what is wrong with scandal given the level of media attention and public condemnationleaky_caldron (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that a number of people see it as loaded here, so readers will too. "Wishy washy" is sometimes good for an encyclopedia. Keep the headings weaker and let the facts inform the reader.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit uncomfortable with "scandal". "Controversy" seems less interpretable as taking a POV. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Disgraced – Censorship?

It's disappointing to see that Wikipedia is censoring references to Goodwin as "disgraced". Major newspapers such as The Times regularly refer to Goodwin as "disgraced"; however, it would appear that rich and powerful men such as Goodwin have apologists working for them who have the ability to censor Wikipedia. I'm sure he can afford to employ censors with his huge pension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylon93 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you feel strongly about this, but your suggestion that your fellow editors are paid apologists goes way over the line. Stooges from PR companies get unmasked pretty quickly (from the pattern of their edits across multiple articles), and I'm sure the editors here are unpaid volunteers trying to make a better free encyclopedia. That aside, you're welcome to argue your case for "disgraced" here and I hope lots of other editors will join in - Pointillist (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Babylon93, you have literally just started your account in the Wikipedia community. Please do take into account that you're only just getting your feet wet in how WP works. Policies you'll need to get to know include verifiability and neutral point of view; and possibly even more fundamental, be civil and assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. It is widely accepted that descriptions like "disgraced" are not put in articles as if it was the opinion of Wikipedia. Facts should be there which illustrate why the term is widely used in the media (if it is); Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we do not tell our readers what to think. Note also that this is a biography of a living person and particular caution applies to writing negative things. This is not censorship (or self-censorship), it is being responsible - WP is now one of the most prominent sites on the internet so potentially damaging material should only be added after discussion agrees. Rd232 ^talk 12:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Activities as a sub-heading of CEO of RBS

The "Other Activities" section 1.4 contains stuff not associated with his tenure as CEO of RBS. The separate "main" heading of CEO of RBS (2001 - 2008) suggests that everything else under it is a sub-section of it, rather than being a sub-section of the Biography and career section. Just the way I perceive it leaky_caldron (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

lose of knighthood

There's no political momentum for 'Sir' Fred to have his knighthood removed. Because of the importance of the people making this demand I believe it warrents inclusion in the article and I am going to update accordingly. Does anyone have any input? --Richardeast (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the issue is already there - end of third para of 'Media commentary and criticism' section. I don't think it implies momentum (if that was your concern) but try tweaking it if you like. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

£1000 a roll wallpaper + fruit flown in from paris

Should this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.212.140 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the Daily Mail, so it's not exactly a sterling reliable source. I suggest that if these sorts of stories are widely reported across the media, than yes; if it's just tabloid froth, then no. — Matt Crypto 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I always apply the ten-year test. If you read this in ten years time would you consider it relevant ? I would say no, but if you want to make a wider point about "Excessive Greed associated with bankers etc etc", then maybe it could be relevant. Kbdguy (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he a Banker ?

"Sir Frederick Anderson Goodwin is a Scottish banker and former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland"

In a very loose sense Fred Goodwin can claim to be a banker as he worked within the bank industry. However, in the tighter sense of the word - Fred Goodwin had no Banking Qualifications and hence is not really a Banker.

I suggest that the term Banking Executive is a more suitable term. I will make this change in 24 hours time. If you have a strong opinion please add it here and we can discuss. Thanks. Kbdguy (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't he now retired officially so thew term banker no longer applies? I suggest "retired banker" or "former banker". Peterlewis (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there is no requirement to have "Banking Qualifications" to be termed a "banker", and Goodwin is frequently dubbed the latter in the media. — Matt Crypto 15:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Many people have worked in a bank without qualifications. Experience and know-how are still preferred to bits of paper in many fields. He's a banker. That's his profession, and there is no indication he doesn't intend to return to it at some point.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to hold shares in any bank he wants to return to: after what has happened, what bank could possibly employ him? Peterlewis (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If he went on to manage SmithKlineBeecham would you refer to him as a Pharmacist ? If he went on to manage Scottish Provident would you refer to him as an Actuary ? If he went on to manage BUPA would you refer to him as a Doctor ?

You have to understand that managing a business does not make you a "professional" in the core business activities.

Actually, there are formal banking qualifications which are required for certain roles. Within the Banking Industry there are a large amount of jobs which require a formal qualification or membership of an association. For example each trading market requires you to have relevant qualifications which include written examination.

The select committee specifically asked him if he had banking qualifications to which he replied that he had not. They considered this noteworthy.

"He's a banker. That's his profession" (McDonald) No that's not true - he's a lawyer and that is his profession, as his career progressed he moved into management and eventually board level. Kbdguy (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Check this page for Regulatory Awards : http://www.ifslearning.ac.uk/qualifications/courses/ Kbdguy (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to see "former senior banking executive". This would embrace his current status, his then role and is far more meaningful than simply saying "banker" which has no precise meaning leaky_caldron (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Will update in 24 hours unless more unresolved issues appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Banker" is correct and more concise than "senior banking executive". (My dictionary's definition is, "a person who manages or owns a bank or group of banks".) — Matt Crypto 18:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

it is factually incorrect to describe him as a banker. It implies, indeed it defines, what he currently is. As far as I know his banking activities have come to an end. Unless you intend to argue "once a banker, always a banker" then the word former or retired is needed. The preceding discussion doesn't favour the use of banker, regardless of your dictionary definition I think the former description is accurate and unambiguous leaky_caldron (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

So George Bush is a "former politician"? Brigitte Bardot is a "former actress"?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

technically they are "former". Is Bobby Charlton a footballer? leaky_caldron (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Charlton is unlikely to play football again. Fred may well get another job as a banker.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Two separate issues: 1) "banker": it seems clear enough that "banker" is a correct word for Goodwin's RBS job by common definition and usage in the media. 2) "Former"; he is indeed no longer currently working as a banker, but plenty of professionals go temporarily out of work and are still reasonably described as professionals regardless. My inclination, per WP:CRYSTAL, would be to leave off "former" until he either gets a job in a different area, or enough time has passed for it to be clear he has definitively left the profession. — Matt Crypto 19:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Fred may well get another job as a banker", lol. More chance of Charlton playing for England again!!! leaky_caldron (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently not. I read a piece the other day (sorry I can't find it), which said that despite the witch-hunt of the hind-sighted, he was still well recognised as one of the sharpest minds in finance, and that he'd have plenty offers at least in consultancy when the fuss dies down. But, per Matt, we should avoid the crystalball.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the term "former" and replaced it with "retired". Someone removed that term. Is there now a dispute over whether he has taken early retirement ? Do I need to crawl through the newspapers for to find a reference to this ? May I humbly ask why the term "retired" needed to be removed ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 21:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

there seems to be a desire to retain the currently factually inaccurate term "banker" as if this somehow bestows some sort of importance or distinction on the man. Lumping him in with politicians and thespians (who never retire apparently?) appears highfaluting & pretentious. A banker he may have been (debatable - see above). He isn't now. If he gets back into banking, it can be changed. Surely the article needs to reflect the current reality? leaky_caldron (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - there seems to be some editing in-consistency.

Matt Crypto sited WP:CRYSTAL in order to justify removing the term 'former' - "Wiki is not here to predict the future", "My inclination, per WP:CRYSTAL, would be to leave off "former" until he either gets a job in a different area, or enough time has passed for it to be clear he has definitively left the profession.".

Matt Crypto then removed the term 'retired'. It's a matter of record that he has taken early retirement. Now of course - he may choose to work again in the future, but as WP:CRYSTAL suggests - we are not here to be a Crystal Ball. Therefore I would leave the term 'retired' in, until (and if) he decides to get another job.

If we are going to quote from guidelines, I would like to see those guidelines applied evenly. I would certainly expect that from an editor. Kbdguy (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It may be accurate to say he "retired early from RBS" - but that does not mean he should be marked as "retired". Retired indicates an intention not to work again - taking "early retirement" from one particular post is not evidence of that intent. He's a banker who took early retirement from RBS - we don't know any more than that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually - it is entirely accurate to say that he is retired, he has taken "early retirement" and that is entirely a prima facae case that he has retired. He might choose to work again, but that is in the future - atm he is retired and you do not know anymore than that.Kbdguy (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

we know that he is not currently engaged in banking. Therefore the article intro., as it currently stands, is incorrect and therefore misleading. Surely the guidelines are not intended to have that effect? leaky_caldron (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The article does not imply he is currently employed in banking. Just as saying "Colin Luther Powell is an American statesman" says nothing about his current employment.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

he's not a banker. As far as we know he has no current gainful occupation. Yet you insist he is a banker. Sorry, it's just plain wrong. You might get away with the arguement in relation to politicians and actors but it is just nonsense to describe someone known to be retired and not currently enagaged in the profession as being a banker. How is he a banker when he holds no current post with any financial institution? leaky_caldron (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument, I'm afraid. Someone can be unemployed and yet still be entirely reasonably described as a doctor, actor, politician, teacher, accountant, lawyer, and so on; you even seem to agree that this is so. Why then is it "nonsense" to describe Goodwin as a "banker"? — Matt Crypto 18:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(1) He has taken early retirement (2) It is a matter for the record that he has retired. (3) He may choose to work again in the future, but that is not for us to say - according to WP:CRYSTAL (thankyou for pointing this out Matt) we do not predict the future, therefore (4) His status is that he is retired until he makes an announcement to the contrary or gets some kind of employment.

On the other point of whether he is a banker - he does not have the professional qualifications associated with that profession. I can go and teach some kids maths - I can then claim to be a "teacher" - after all - I am teaching them - and according to the dictionary definition I am teaching and am a teacher. But in a professional sense - I do not have teaching qualifications. Do you follow this ? Fred Goodwin does not have professional Banking Qualifications, so the description of being a banker is a "man on the street definition", but not a definition I would use for people who are stict about their terminology.

I work for a large German Investment Bank. Am I a banker ? The difference in opinion here is probably split between those who work in a professional environment and those who do not. Kbdguy (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my last question was not about whether he should be termed a banker or not - frankly I don't care - but why an editor chose to quote a wiki guideline to make a change, and then in the same edit made a change which contradicted the very same guideline - I ofc talk about removing the term Retired.

If WP:CRYSTAL implies we cannot remove the term banking - then it also implies you do not remove the term retired - because it is prima facie that he is retired - and it is not for us to predict whether he might change his mind in the future. Kbdguy (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

News media typically describe him as a banker. This is a reasonable description, as the term isn't precisely defined (and it isn't about to be precisely defined on this talk page). Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Prima Facie case that he has retired.

(1) He has taken early retirement (2) It is a matter for the record that he has retired. (3) He may choose to work again in the future, but that is not for us to say - according to WP:CRYSTAL (thankyou for pointing this out Matt) we do not predict the future, therefore (4) His status is that he is retired until he makes an announcement to the contrary or gets some kind of employment.

If this action is reverted I plan to escalate this as far as recall if necessary.