Talk:James Crosby (banker)

CorenBot

The CorenBot is in error. It is quite difficult to write an article detailing all of the facts about Crosby without sounding like another site. The site in question has been cited as a source, help would be appreciated in improving the article.

The CorenBot is not in error. You have copied the content (word for word in certain sections). Just sourcing the article does not constitute "not plagiarizing". <3 bunny 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have amended the article with a wider range of sources and more original input. Is this better?

I think this is fine now, I removed the tag. I also moved the page as titles like "Sir" arent used in article names. You need to put "{{reflist}}" at the bottom in order to display the inline references. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Treasury Select Committee

On February 10th, 2009 at a public hearing of the Treasury Select Committee held in London, Paul Moore, formerly head of Group Regulatory Risk at HBOS, stated that he was sacked by James Crosby for raising concerns about lending practices at the company.
Dean Armond (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added the Robert Peston quote and link. Paul Moore, as Dean above notes, raised concerns around HBOS's lending practices - but it wasn't their lending that brought HBOS down, rather it was their funding. So Crosby was 'responsible' for the situation at HBOS, but not because of the reaons Paul Moore had raised before he left the bank in 2005.
Moneyie 22:22, 11 February 2009

That is POV, so I have made that clear and added the opposing view. 213.208.114.181 (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Liability / HBOS problems

Inclined to remove this. Not sure that it is directly relevant to this person-specifc article although I understand why it's been put in today. Any views please? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it needs to go. 78.105.98.199 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with it - I did query it on the editor's talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

So HBOS and the future is irrelevant to what James Crosby was up to when he was in charge? Just wait until the Treasury Select committeee ask him round for questions. Perhaps you need to be up-to-date with the news. Peterlewis (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no irrifutable evidence that he was "up to" anything. Also assuming that fellow contributors are not up to date with the news is not very collaborative on your part. The point of consensus above is that this is not the right article or the right time to include trading update info about a bank which the article's subject is no longer directly involved. I propose it is removed and would much prefer your agreement - which is why I placed it on the talk page leaky_caldron (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the Treasury select committe will be asking him about these very issues when the immediate fog has cleared. They are waiting for the KPMG report on Moore's sacking: promised for this week. No doubt the press will be publishing it as soon as they receive a copy. I think you cannot remove factual info on a story which is developing at speed.Peterlewis (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The article says Crosby left HBoS in July 2006, whereas the earliest date in the cited reference is "the last quarter of 2008". Sorry, Peterlewis, but adding this section to the article is therefore a type of original research called Synthesis of published material which advances a position. We have to be particularly careful about this in biographical material about a living person (see WP:BLP). I have therefore deleted the section. If a reliable third party source makes the same connection between today's announcment and Crosby's governance of HBOS, it won't be original research. I know how frustrating it is to have other editors delete work you did in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, and if you would like to discuss these policies further let me know. - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

  The shadow chanceller has specifically linked Crosby's governance to the losses, as reported in today's newspapers (14 Feb), so there's no WP:OR problem now. Sumbuddi has collected three references and rebuilt the paragraph around them. Looks OK to me now (though I might just tidy up the citations). - Pointillist (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See also

I've just removed Fred Goodwin, Tom McKillop and John McFall from Peterlewis's new See also section, because none of the three destination articles mentions James Crosby in any context (except where Peterlewis has linked back to this article in their "See also" sections). My main objection is that this sort of link isn't encyclopedic because it is so difficult for the reader to work out why the link is relevant. Is there any suggestion that HBOS and RBS somehow colluded or competed to maximise the risk of problems? If not, then why would you "See also" from one company's CEO to another's? That's not the way "See also" works in Wikipedia: look at David Burnside, Lord King and Rod Eddington vs Richard Branson, or Hasso Plattner vs Larry Ellison—if they are connected, it is in a specfic statement in the body of the article, not via See also.

If you want to join together the pieces of this jigsaw, the hub should be 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package or maybe "UK Banking Crisis 2008 onwards". You could directly cite all the recent stuff from the Treasury Committee and it would be a real contribution to the encyclopedia. Good luck with that - Pointillist (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do wonder if the article (esp. the FSA section) is turning into an analysis of the HBOS debacle rather than being just about James Crosby. The core issue of the HBOS situation is therefore potentially fragmented and/or duplicated leaky_caldron (talk) 10:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a developing story since Crosby will himself be releasing info to the TSC as well as further docs from Moore. The HBOS story is central to the controversy. Peterlewis (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but "will be" isn't encyclopedic—Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - Pointillist (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, good encyclopaedias have good foresight, which is one reason why they can be so useful. Peterlewis (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Disgraced"

Some editors would like to see the phrase "disgraced banker" in the article summary. There's been a lot of discussion about this on the Fred Goodwin Talk page where the consensus so far is that "disgraced" is opinion (albeit widely held opinion) and thus fails WP:NPOV. It is worth noting that "disgraced" doesn't appear in the articles on Richard Nixon, Ted Haggard, Mark Oaten, Bill Clinton and Neil Hamilton even though they have all been called "disgraced" in lots of press stories. If you disagree, please come and discuss it here, rather than just changing/reverting the summary. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the disgraced persons referred to above are extremely powerful individuals. I suspect that this is the reason Wikipedia is determined to prevent them from being described as disgraced as this might leave Wikipedia open to legal or other threats. Wikipedia should be free from political or financial bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylon93 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Though you're right that wikipedia takes care not to libel living people, I don't think this situation is really about the legal side of things. It's a style thing: encyclopedic articles have to be written with a neutral point of view and "disgraced" is opinion (even if in the case of Fred Goodwin that opinion is pretty widely held). Anyway, I see you've also posted on the Fred Goodwin talk page, so probably that's where the discussion will continue. See you there - Pointillist (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As various IPs have been re-adding the word "disgraced" without seeking consensus for it or providing any direct sources, I've temporarily reprotected the page. Reliable sources are required before including pejorative terms like this in biographies of living people. I should add I have no particular view either way - the protection is to prevent continued edit warring and BLP violations. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that this page is being censored by blocking legitimate editing which includes the word "disgraced". Sir James Crosby played a significant role in the sacking of a senior compliance officer in HBOS group for whistleblowing. If Crosby had acted on the recommendations of this compliance officer, instead of sacking him, this may well have saved the bank from near collapse. It is therefore clear that Crosby is disgraced, and I suspect that the efforts of certain Wikipedia editors to censor this information reflects Crosby's political, financial and legal influence (after HBOS he became a senior figure at the UK Financial Services Authority).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.60.143 15:41, 17 April 2009(UTC)

No. That is POV + OR + Conclusion. Plus you are block evading. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you not provide a more detailed rebuttal to the specific arguments I raised? "No" hardly demonstrates intellectual rigor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.60.143 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You need a WP:RS. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't be more wrong about my motives for reverting "disgraced". I'm just reflecting Wikipedia's approach to neutrality as stated here and in the long discussion on the Fred Goodwin talk page. There's also a fundamental point about corporate governance that people need to accept: a big public company's strategy isn't just dreamed up by one person. Quite often the CEO is chosen because his/her personal style fits the strategy, rather than the other way around. There are all sorts of checks and balances, in particular the chairman, non-executive directors and the major shareholders (often institutional investors with a great deal of commercial experience), and in HBOS's case the FSA too. Making an individual CEO the scapegoat for the bigger problem might be satisfying (and works well on tabloid front pages) but it's not really accurate - after all, the big pension funds didn't exactly complain about HBOS's strategy during the Crosby period, did they? - Pointillist (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response. I've spent 20 years working in banking and financial services (including working for one of the largest banks in the world), so I believe I'm reasonably well qualified to comment on the Crosby case. I believe that you have used the straw man fallacy with regard to your statement about "a big public company's strategy [being] dreamed up by one person". I made no such claim; what I stated was that Crosby played a specific and substantial role in sacking a whistleblower at HBOS. You also comment on pension funds not complaining about the HBOS strategy; I am involved in managing pension funds, and I can assure you that I vociferously objected to the management of many major banks, and moved pension funds from them back in 2004 as it was clear to me that they were being mismanaged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.65.125 (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It is really great that you have this experience and I wish you would create an account here and get more engaged with improving the articles. What you call my "straw man fallacy" was addressing some of the frustration and fury that some people have been showing about the individuals concerned, which hasn't been helped by the scandalous handling of Goodwin's pension. I'm sorry if it was unhelpful, but it's hard to decide how to address an anonymous number sometimes. Now I know a bit more about you I can be more direct:

• Wikipedia's rules don't allow "disgraced" in this context, so arguing about is a distraction from the real job which is to make it quite clear what has been going on.
• We need a source that clearly links the risk management whistleblower dismissal to the actual losses. When I was looking for sources in early March I didn't find one and I got the impression that the real problems were elsewhere. I may have discounted the whistleblower angle as a result.
• If you have a source that says institutional investors were unhappy with HBOS strategy pre-Hornby that would be an excellent addition to the HBOS article.
• Some independent sources that say institutional investors were divided in their opinions, and shows how the cautious ones have done better than the others, would be fascinating. There's a "British Banking Crisis" article to be written, but so far there aren't enough reliable sources for it.
• You were way out of line with that "Crosby's political, financial and legal influence" slur. I don't have any axe to grind here at all.

If you do decide to become a named editor here, I look forward to working with you. - Pointillist (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Babylon93. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about that, or whether it matters, since Babylon93, 86.155.60.143 and 86.165.65.125 have only edited here and at Fred Goodwin. I think would be helpful if the person who recently posted from 86.165.65.125 used a named account, and I'm prepared to turn the other cheek to some extent if we get a useful editor on board as a result. - Pointillist (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with your points in the order raised:

• I understand that many editors refuse to allow the use of the the word "disgraced" in this context - much as it might frustrate me.
• I have seen with my own eyes compliance officers at a global bank (bigger than HBOS) being overruled by people I believe to be spivs like Crosby. The editors at Wikpedia will not allow edits by people like me.
• As an investment professional, I fought hard to block fund mangers holding banking shares and risked censure for this approach (for legal reasons I cannot say more).
• I have had my two separate Wikipedia accounts blocked by Wikipedia censors/editors, so the only way I can carry out edits is anonymously.
• I apologise for any offense caused re the "Crosby's political, financial and legal influence" remark. However, when you work with "senior" managers in banks, you soon realize just how powerful and dangerous these people are (I wish I could say more, but I don't want a visit from the lawyers). That is why I believe that Wikipedia will not allow them to be effectively criticised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.65.125 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with what you have posted above its that it is original research - that is, information based on your own investigation rather than reports in reliable sources, and is also your point of view (eg "spivs like ..."). You're welcome to hold any view of Crosby you like, but the article can't be written as the sum of people's individual views - it must be the sum of reliable sources on the subject. Another problem is you've conceded in the above you are currently blocked from editing Wikipedia and are using an IP address to evade the block. To put it bluntly, this is not permitted and pretty much any edit you do while evading the block on your account will be removed. If you want to edit Wikipedia constructively, please log on as your account (which I suspect is User:Babylon93) and seek an unblock using the {{unblock|Your reason here}} template. Euryalus (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The net effect of this censorship is that Crosby's Wikipedia page does not accurately reflect the truth about the man. He is disgraced, but Wikipedia is helping to perpetuate the aura of credibility surrounding him. Your "just following the rules" rationale for this censorship is predictable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.65.125 (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Babylon, there are several truths out there. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, the problem is that Wikipedia is only showing the version of the "truth" that suits Crosby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.114.94 (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Max Blaze / Babylon93, you are blocked. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, if you can't contribute meaningfully to the discussion, then I suggest you remain silent. Is there anything you can add to the debate other than "you are blocked"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.114.94 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your word that you are not Max Blaze and retract that. Same IP range & MO. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, whilst I do not agree with Wikipedia's censorship policy, I would still like to contribute to the discussions. Note that I will still make edits I believe to be justified to articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth93 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Then the articles will be semi-protected and your edits will be reverted. Until User:Babylon93 is unblocked. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So as you're unable to argue effectively, you are back to censorship. Please don't use words like "reverted" or "semi protected": tell the truth and call it censorship. Apologists like you can try to defend scum like Crosby, but I will keep working, despite your efforts, to expose this man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO you'd be far better off walking away from this one. You seem to like it here and you're smart enough to make a real contribution. Why not drop the attitude, leap into your nearest phone box and come out as a kickass librarian like the rest of us? In our source-obsessed, peevishly neutral way we enjoy ourselves, and you might too.... Pointillist (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist, excellent and very funny. I know you're right and I should just let it go, but I've spent years working for people like Crosby. I've watched people like him make peoples' lives miserable: I'm talking here about the very few ethical and thoughtful people who still work in banking. It's therefore incredibly frustrating that the editors at Wikipedia take this position. I also note that my Truth93 account has now been blocked even from editing the discussion page - if that's not censorship, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are being encouraged to address OR, RS, V, Sockpuppetry and 3RR. Under your chosen login of Babylon93. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Kittybrewster, I don't understand your last post. What does "OR, RS, V, Sockpuppetry and 3RR" mean?. Also, I've lost my password for Babylon93, and as I didn't supply an email address when I created the account, I can't reset the password. Can you unblock Truth93, at least so I can participate in discussions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You are being encouraged to address WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:3RR. Under your chosen login of Babylon93. I suggest you sign into Babylon93 and click "I have forgotten my password". If that fails then post to the blocking admin from your IP address and explain your position to him. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Kittybrewster is reminding us that all those factors have to be accepted and taken on board, and of course s/he's quite right. When you have a very strong point of view about a subject, making your edits truly neutral is a challenge, so it might be a mistake for you to dive into financial services articles in the short term. It's hard to say this without sounding like a pompous [#@+, but if you like the atmosphere here, perhaps you should re-start by improving subjects that are only mildly interesting to you personally? - Pointillist (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist, my argument is that the current Wikipedia article on Crosby is far from neutral. Re your comment that I should make my "edits truly neutral", my response is that the edits you guys have made to the Crosby are far from neutral - they remind me of the work of a PR consultant that worked for one of my former colleagues at a large Edinburgh based fund management house. Perhaps you should be more honest and say that "neutral" means whatever you editors choose to interpret as "neutral" based on your personal interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. What you claim to be ensuring neutrality, could equally be described as censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

With respect, your case would get a better reception if you weren't a self-declared sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. If you want to usefully contribute to this or any other article, please log on to your main account and explain why the block should be lifted. Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"With respect" - excellent start to a post! With "respect" to you, I have zero interest in getting a "better reception" from the censors at Wikipedia - my interest is in exposing the truth behind men like Crosby, Goodwin and Myners. I can't log in using my account as I've been blocked even from the discussion pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss it withUser:Toddst1. And please sign your posts. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't discuss with User:Toddst1 as you've censored me from writing on his discussion page. I cannot sign my coments as you've censored my ability to use my account. This feels like a conversation with the FSA - ah yes, Crosby used to run the FSA until he was outed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Try posting on his talk page - instead of this page. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As I've just explained, I've been blocked/censored from posting on his page. Do you work for the FSA by any chance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet you carry on posting on FSA and here. Truth93 indeed! No I don't. Try collaberation. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Matt Crypto has even started deleting my comments in the discussion page on the FSA article. How do I report him for abuse? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.114.165 (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits, is a blog a reliable source? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the advice with regards blogs, if they are official blogs then yes. The editor of the website (one of the biggest financial websites in the UK) is an authoritive author.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; you may be right. I have raised it at [1]. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

However authoritative Andrew Oxlade may be in other contexts, on that page of the blog he's obviously just having a laugh at Crosby's expense, so it's not a reliable source (e.g. under the "Statements of Opinion" part of Wikipedia:BLOGS). Maybe Vintagekits is telling us not to take things too seriously ;-) Pointillist (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That is fair comment too. Whatever Babylon may think, I fully understand his POV. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

See same discussion at Talk:Fred Goodwin. Such editorialising is unnecessary and not WP:NPOV regardless of sourcing. This would be true even if major newspapers splashed "DISGRACED" as single-word headlines referring to him (though that would obviously be notable, WP:RS and worth noting in the body as significant media reaction). We let the facts speak for themselves, we do not editorialise, especially not in the intro and especially not in the first sentence (WP:WEIGHT). Rd232 ^talk 01:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, you do not "let the facts speak for themselves": instead you selectively edit articles to suit your own view of how the facts should be presented to the readers of Wikipedia. And you censor anyone you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.182 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS (and also WP:AGF). Look it up. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know you represent the "consensus" when you censor anything you disagree with?

The discussion on talk pages is not censored. It leads to conclusions by a process of WP:CONSENSUS. This leads to articles being edited to reflect the conclusions. If you want to ensure that you always get your own way, start your own encyclopedia. Rd232 ^talk 12:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, why do I have to change my IP address every time I want to post to the discussion page on the FSA article? Re getting my "own way" - see straw man fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.160.133 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus reached?

It appears there's a rough consensus not to include the word "disgraced" in the lead of the article. The discussion is also becoming faintly uncivil. Other than Babylon93, is there support for marking this thread as resolved? Euryalus (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Just have the courage to say "Babylon 93 and anyone who agrees with him is to be censored".

RE "consensus": it's easy to get a "consensus" when you delete the comments of anyone who disagrees with you.