Talk:Skipton Building Society

Fair use rationale for Image:Skipton Building Society logo.gif

Image:Skipton Building Society logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion of "Controversies" section by 195.92.53.2

... which by an astonishing coincidence is in the [skipton.co.uk netblock]. That's a bit obvious. Wait until you get home from work to vandalise wikipedia! 82.6.108.62 (talk)

Oldest building society

This distinction: "Its merger with the Chesham Building Society, founded in 1845, gains it the distinction of being the world's oldest (surviving) building society." doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The BSA website lists societies in order of date founded, here: http://www.bsa.org.uk/consumer/factsheets/100004.htm and Skipton is not shown as the oldest.

Simply acquiring an older society, doesn't make Skipton older than it was already. That's because the "merger" of two societies is in fact no such thing. Legally, the engagements of one (Chesham in this case) are transferred to the other (Skipton in this case). Chesham no longer exists.

I propose to delete this comment unless anyone responds alternately. WPArgentarius (talk) 23:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. It was my edit you're discussing. Who'd have thought that when the Chesham and the Skipton described it as a merger they'd both be lying? What's the world coming to when you can't trust British financial institutions to tell the truth any more? Bazj (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Building society "mergers" are always described as such, but it's misleading. They don't want to admit that it's almost always one taking over another in practice, and always one taking over another legally!WPArgentarius (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Need for controversy section

Again this section is being used to promote unsubstantiated and poorly referenced views that when are not actually substantiated by the references. I propose that this section be bullet pointed and referenced to ensure a brevity of information in line with all other building society pages. Continually re-adding this content to the introductory page shows a bias that is not standard practice on any other Wikipedia page. The user cannot substantiated the profits by subsidiary as they are not disclosed. There are still employees of Scarbourgh building society working for Skipton. The Society is profitable. The Society has been recently upgraded by ratings agencies. Personal detail relating to John Goodfellow working for other companies are not relevant to an article about Skipton Building Society.

As no similar section heading exists on the pages of other financial organisations it is not fair on this organisation for this section to exist. It has previously been mentioned that the original poster of this information added it as part of a personal vendetta against the society. Wikipedia should not be used for this purpose and unless a justified similar heading is added to other organisations in the sector, this section should be removed. Wakey82 (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be restructured and retitled so that the heading (and sub-headings if appropriate) reflect what the content is about. However, the content is relevant and is nearly all referenced so no problem with that. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The controversy section has taken over the article, compare Nationwide Building Society or Coventry Building Society. Whilst there is a place in the article for controversy, it shouldn't be more than the length of the entire rest of the article, which in itself is filled with points about controversy. This is particularly true given many of the claims are unsourced (and in previous versions have been potentially libellous) Gamma2delta (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made edits as outlined above to give what I believe to be a more balanced article. Please discuss this here before reverting. Gamma2delta (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying that it is unbalanced to have a long controversy section compared to other BSs is totally irrelevant. If persons ABC are each people and only C has a murder conviction, only C should have a "murder conviction" section in their entry. Have Nationwide Building Society or Coventry Building Society had a feature in Private Eye and other press for hiding losses or buying IT systems from bankrupt IT companies (then bailing them out)? Was the former CEO of Nationwide Building Society or Coventry Building Society sacked for incompetence by the government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.68.126 (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I wil revert this unless a valid argument is proposed. Gamma2Delta's edits have been very +SBS even within fully referenced sections. I suggest that she is therefore the subject or agent of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.68.126 (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry (talk) if you and SBS don't like Wikipedia, but it is not a advertising circus, it is for the truth to be published about all organisations, individuals and subjects. SBS are not owners of its page. If they do not like its content, they should behave better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.68.126 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty certain that Nationwide has featured in "In the Back" several time since 2005 so your analogy is spurious, but that misses my point. My point is that the original size of the controversy section was considerably larger than the rest of the article put together, which is why I put the tag on the article. Indeed, you'll notice that the losses and the IT systems piece are still in there, along with several other controversies in a substantial (though reduced) controversies section. Furthermore it appears at least one of the anonymous editors (if there are indeed several of them) has a grudge against the company/the former chief executive (e.g. very specific comments about management styles, uses SBS as an acronym) and introduced POV statements into the article (and in previous versions, potentially libellous statements).

I have edited the article to leave the substance of many criticisms in place, please explain to me why the controversy section should be significantly larger than the rest of the article, which suggests there are clear POV issues. I am happy to discuss if you believe that I have removed *specific* controversies you would like to include, but not the entire section. And before you accuse me (again) of being connected with Skipton, I do not, and have never worked for them (or been an agent of theirs, whatever that is), my only connection to them is being a (small) customer of theirs. Gamma2delta (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

So why this then? You seem so OTT in support! Your statement is too +ve to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.68.126 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I stumbled across this, and thought "this article is a bit OTT on the controversies". I fail to see how leaving a substantial controversy section is OTT in support (or makes me an agent of them). I could equally reverse the question and ask what have you got against them that makes 400 words of controversy in a 1100 word article insufficient criticism? I could also point to your edit history, which is exclusively on this topic. Please stop reverting, as per WP:3RR, I am referring this under WP:3O Gamma2delta (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:3RR I have left this in the form of the last substantive edit (mine) until we get WP:3O — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamma2delta (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The main subject of the dispute is the controversy section, so I will focus my efforts there. Our primary guidance on controversy sections is WP:Criticism, so I hope you will both take the time to read it over. Another issue at play here is WP:WEIGHT (a section of WP's neutrality policy). While it is true that we do not cater to the subject of the article, it is important to maintain overall neutrality (including due weight) in addition to WP:Verifiability. The verifiability part is easy: if it doesn't have a reference to a reliable source, it's going away. Due weight can be a little tougher to determine, but if we can work together in the spirit of collaboration, we can find a decent balance. I expect you both to do the reading to understand WP policies and editing guidelines, but I am here to help, so please feel free to ask questions here or on my talk page, as you feel is most appropriate. Meanwhile, I have dissolved the "controversies" section into several sections, each of which can be improved individually to strike a more perfect NPOV. My main reasons for doing this are that "criticism" or "controversies" sections tend to carry more inherent POV as a united section than individual issues presented independently within the body of the article, and "criticism" sections tend to become WP:Coatracks for trivial, non-neutral additions. You may also notice I have gotten rid of the (mostly unreferenced) content that was the subject of the dispute. The main reason for this is that it was mostly non-neutral and poorly referenced. Remember also that when it comes to allegations of wrongdoing by living persons, WP:BLP policy states that contentious and potentially harmful allegations MUST be properly referenced to reliable sources or be summarily deleted. This applies whether or not the article is the biography of the subject of the allegations. For that reason, I do not abide allegations of wrongdoing by living persons without reliable sources to back up the allegations. It's not a matter of agreeing with them or not, it's a liability issue for the project. And we're building the world's biggest encyclopedia, not the world's biggest tabloid. I've watchlisted the article, so I will answer any questions left here for me. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It feels yet again that SBS have "gotten way with it". Why is there no mention of SBS being publically humiliated after hiding corporate losses? This was exposed in Private Eye an coverd in at least four newspapers. Why is there no mention of their former CEO Goodfellow being sacked by the government for incompetence after messing up millions of student loan applications leaving vulnerable students starving? These things are both germane to the SBS page and public domain. Why are they not included? Given SBS's attempts to control this page.......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.59.137 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we also need to accept that -ve comments will outweigh the +ve. If i am BT the most vocal will always be the dissenters, but should they be only allowed an average voice? Should the complaints be swallowed up by the average silence or the mass of compliance? Is Wikipedia about verifiable truth or verifiable fact? These things are different. It seems that with this article, truth is being supressed and that may become an issue for the future survivability of Wikipedia, if its' editors continue to supress truth. I feel that elements germane to this article are not being included. Furthermore, I have extremely strong qualifications and knowledge to add *this* article's information, far more than any other editor could possibly have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.59.137 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have edited this page with complete and utter factuality. If there is any unjustifable editing outside of wiki rules I will report and correct it. The SBS private eye section is germane to their modus operandi of hiding problems and cheating members. The Goodfellow sacking for incompetence as chairman of SLC is germane to the SBS boards inability to choose a competent person or persons to lead the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.64.132 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is a significant and public issue regarding the honesty and reputability of Skipton Building Society which already exist in the public domain. Attempts to supress this appear to be instigated by the subject and that is not good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.64.132 (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This article has been taken over by editors in the employ of the subject (whose only edits appear to be on this subject) in sole purpose to obfuscate the negative but true facts about Skipton Building Society's activities. All viewers are recommended to view the revision history to gain a true view of SBS's activities and modus operandi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.192.100 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have gathered together resources to ensure that this article will be maintained at the appropriate level to ensure honesty and factual representation of SBS activities. Any further attemptes to subjugate the truth will be printed in an article in Private Eye etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.71.52 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the latest SBS edit does not remove the questions about SBS's solvency so it has been removed. Thanks for increasing the no of branches to 100 in your edit Skipton. Please put some detail in a para or 2 showing that SML/PHL (and therefore SBS) is solvent rather than deleting the thing. Be honest: if you are bankrupt and about to leave loads of savers in dire straits through the activities of your former CEO Goodfellow, admit it and ask for help from the Danny Alexander. If not, prove it - but prove it in the face of you hiding so much stuff for many years. If nothing was wrong, why hide it so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.12.129 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

John Goodfellow was an arrogant, incompetent, nasty, dishonest liar. A small-minded man who cost SBS much of what is could have been, even what it was before he took over through reputational loss. His legacy to David “nice but dim” Cutter was awful, but Cutter did subscribe to the JGG dream and was also present when Callcredit was dishonestly moved, so he is at also at fault in the ruin of SBS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.12.129 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

So, I've added an edit for balance. I'm sure I'll be accused of some form of propaganda, but in reality I'm a customer, impressed by the society. I've NOT deleted any of the controversies, but I have added the achievements section - all of which is factual and none of which can be disputed. F1will2015 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Skipton Building Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225600/http://www.skipton.co.uk/about_us/pdfs/report_accounts_2006.pdf to http://www.skipton.co.uk/about_us/pdfs/report_accounts_2006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Rewrite

Having worked my way through many of the building society entries, inserting or adding to, their history, I eventually came to the Skipton. The introduction includes figures that need to be kept up to date and therefore not suitable for an introduction. The three citations are all out of date, one referring back to the 2006 accounts.

The History section is just a list of events, some minor, with no cohesion. There is no source given. There are two citations (4 and 5): number 4 no longer works and number 5 merely refers to a mortgage award. The data must have come from somewhere but I cannot find it. I do have the centenary brochure which, though brief, does provide an acceptable source for the main facts in the first 100 years of Skipton’s history, so that can be rewritten. What I cannot find is any reference to the Society being first established as The Co-Operative Steelworkers' Society of Skipton – not in the Centenary Brochure, the Skipton website, or the Skipton charitable website of the failed link.

The Mergers section is almost entirely The Scarborough; this could be merged in to the history section. There are two citations, neither of which connect.

The Controversy section has clearly attracted its own controversies. I may be wrong but I think that there is only citation that actually links with anything. Personally, I would get rid of the whole section unless someone can write it with a sense of perspective and with sources.

I can do a limited rewrite of the Skipton entry but I do not want to get embroiled in arguments.

Bebington (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)