This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles
Have not done much research, but a note on my U.S. Bank HSA account reads:
A note for HSA investors: effective December 31, 2010, Nuveen Investments acquired the non-money-market mutual
funds from First American Funds (FAF) Advisors, Inc. As a result, the affected First American Funds have been
renamed to reflect the Nuveen Family of Funds name. FAF Advisors, Inc. will continue to serve as the advisor
on the money market fund and retain the name of First American Prime Obligation Fund.
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.
Should the article retain the large section containing unsourced/poorly sourced negative statements as they stood prior to my deletion of them? - John Galt✉05:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No - as RFC initiator. The section was a full 3/4ths of the article, which greatly violates WP:UNDUE, and the section was very poorly sourced, and even contained a lot of unsourced negative statements. A section about the event in 2008 should be included, but this company has a long history and a single event does not define it. It needs to be shortened significantly. - John Galt✉05:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support reducing the size of the section. I think there are valid WP:WEIGHT concerns. This is a hundred year old company which seems to have been something of a pioneer in the financial sector and the article is focused on one controversial incident. In a comprehensive article that provides a balanced overview of the company's history I doubt the ARS criticisms would warrant more than one or two paragraphs or a short section. That said, I support condensing the coverage, not whitewashing, so the main criticisms levelled at Nuveen and their response to them should be covered. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Betty Logan - the article is heavily weighted to highlight the negative events of the last few years, and should be edited to present a more balanced view. Nuveen is a respectable company that was caught in one fiasco - a fiasco about which the entire article revolves. However, there are current efforts by the company's marketing department to gut out the entire article, essentially leaving nothing but the lede and a poorly-written chronology list. The weasel-wording of this RFC lets me believe its only purpose is to lend the nominator a crutch to remove the entire 2008 chapter, both sourced and unsourced. Having been foiled on AN/I, the nom is now trying to canvass for supporters wherever he can find them, much to the delight of the company's marketing department. The article should be fixed, not blanked. Owen×☎09:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your high horse, and stop playing wiki-games. What's next - a personal appeal to Jimbo to give you special permission to blank the article to appease Nuveen? If you were interested in improving the article, you would have done so by now, rather than engage in futile AN/I petitions, and in RFCs asking "Should the article retain X". At least be honest about what you want, and ask, "Should the article contain criticism?". You've been editing wiki long enough to know that the more you play such games, the more editors get involved, and the more likely the article is to be made neutral -- both praise and criticism. Despite what you may think, that's a good thing. Owen×☎17:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're a liar and a well poisoner. Fortunately for you, you have a lot of company here in that respect. If YOU had been interested in a "neutral and balanced" article, you would have made it so. I tagged that article 7 months ago. Instead, you've been reverting various edits to this article for years and doing nothing to improve the quality. Furthermore, take your assumptions of bad faith and shove them. I don't work for the Nuveen company, nor do I know very much detail about them, apart from their being a part of the mutual funds industry. Contrary to what you seem to think, article editing is not reserved for "experts" or special people, and it doesn't require an expert to see when something is grossly POV and weighted down with negative claims. The quality of the article before versus after wasn't the point, the point is, you WANT the heavy negativity in there. You can say and think whatever you like, but you are the personification of everything wrong with Wikipedia: assumptions of bad faith, owning articles, and arrogant attitudes towards "outsiders". Whenever I think of someone like you I image Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons: a socially-incompetent weakling who behaves in arrogant manner to people on the internet as compensation. - Who is John Galt?✉19:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RFCbot randomly recruited me to contribute here. Before even considering the subject of the question I noticed it violates RFC guidelines regarding neutrality. In my view, loading the question with opinion makes consensus impossible and pretty well negates any results. I suggest the initiator restart after reviewing the RFC guidelines. Also, the ad hominem tenor of the discussion has no place here and if there is a restart, I hope you all can stick to the issues and take your personal disagreements to your talk pages or user-conduct RFCs. Jojalozzo01:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Jojalozzo & Molestash -- RFC guidelines were violated. Will close this RFC and reboot with a better constructed question as a uninvolved editor. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
From my initial review it seems like a large portion of the section needs to be retained, with some extensive copy editing. However, that leaves the problem of WP:UNDUE. This can be resolved in a couple of ways. The first would be to have extensive efforts to improve the overall content of the article/company as a whole. With their overall age, there should be a lot that could/should be written about it using reliable sources -- although many of those are probably offline resources. A second alternative would be to consider creating a new article for the specific ARS situation or merge into Auction Rate Security page, while leaving a summary and redirect on this page. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I stated above I think there are valid WEIGHT concerns, since I think in a comprehensive article that covers a 100 year history, this amount of coverage probably wouldn't be warranted. It's hard to address in a 'Start' class article though, and we have to make sure that the outcome of this RFC won't be too prohibitive to someone if they come along and develop the article i.e. judgments about a Start class article might not apply to a GA standard article. I think what I would do is just remove all of the unsourced claims and anything relating to ARS that doesn't directly relate to Nuveen and leave it at that. Obviously the best way to balance an article is to cover other stuff, so if anyone cared that much they would do a bit of work on it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on this press release] Nuveen offered to redeem all ARPS for its municipal bond fund ((NYSE: NQU), funded by variable rate demand preferred shares (VDRPs). This suggests the article may be considerably out of date. Jojalozzo01:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undue The section is still a full 3/4ths of the article, which greatly violates WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and the section is very poorly sourced, contains unreferenced claims, etc. A section about the event in 2008 should be included, but this company has a long history and a single event does not define it. That section needs to be shortened to one paragraph at most and updated with most current information for WP:NPOV. There is already an article about ARPS, links from this article to that article are sufficient. - John Galt ✉ 05:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
REVIEW this mock up at User:Tiggerjay/ARS -- there was a lot to trim but I wanted to retain enough information so it still made sense without having to completely read and understand ARS. I think this would be a good place to start with, and then to evaluate how we can build out the rest of the page with more information to better weight the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I put your draft in as it is obviously much better and there is consensus for undue. I also trimmed some of the unsourced promotionalism in the article. However, out of the three paragraphs now in the article for the controversy, I think the second unsourced paragraph could still be trimmed. User:CorporateM20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved
