Talk:Signature Bank
This article reads like an advertisement for the bank. NPOV 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.91.199 (talk)
 | Signature Bank has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 12, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A news item involving Signature Bank was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 17 March 2023. |  |
Untitled
This article reads like an advertisement for the bank. NPOV 19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.91.199 (talk)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Long term disruptive editing
This article may have been the object of long term disruptive editing. I encourage any editor with knowledge of the article and or subject to review the article and its editing history carefully in order to remove any questionable material. It may be necessary to revert the article to an earlier version. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 January 2019
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to edit the Ponzi Scheme section to provide additional, relevant information. Page 21 of the PDF found here https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=RQhhxV5o6pqIqBsCY3_PLUS_bUQ==&system=prod shows the dismissal. This is the citation used.
Replace
Ponzi Scheme
In early 2016, some investors filed suit against Signature after the company lost $66 million of investor cash in a Ponzi scheme run by William Landberg, a money manager who pleaded guilty to the crime.[1] Investors allege that Signature helped Landberg by ordering him to shift money around dozens of accounts to cover up long-term overdrafts. Landberg was sentenced to three and a half years in federal prison.[2]
With
Plan Administrator v. Signature Bank
In early 2016, some investors filed suit against Signature after the company lost $66 million of investor cash in a Ponzi scheme run by William Landberg, a money manager who pleaded guilty to the crime.[3] Investors allege that Signature helped Landberg by ordering him to shift money around dozens of accounts to cover up long-term overdrafts. Landberg was sentenced to three and a half years in federal prison.[4] Signature Bank successfully defended itself from all claims made against it related to Mr. Landberg’s actions.[5] Infoupdates36 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ Vanderford, Richard (March 30, 2012). "SEC Wants Up To $13M In Fraud Case Against West End Exec". Law360.
- ^ Moyer, Liz (February 23, 2016). "Signature Bank Sued Over Connection to Ponzi Schem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
- ^ Vanderford, Richard (March 30, 2012). "SEC Wants Up To $13M In Fraud Case Against West End Exec". Law360.
- ^ Moyer, Liz (February 23, 2016). "Signature Bank Sued Over Connection to Ponzi Schem". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331.
- ^ "Transcript of Oral Ruling". New York State Unified Court System. Retrieved 15 January 2019.
Not done: Please provide reliable secondary sources to support this new sentence. Primary sources, such as court documents, can only be used if they're interpreted by a reliable secondary source. Original interpretations of primary sources are considered original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks! — Newslinger talk 12:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The Bank keeps deleting/undoing “negative” truths/facts about the Bank.
The Bank keeps deleting/undoing “negative” truths/facts about the Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BF93 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Please explain when your edit-warring block expires. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 07:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Proposed Edits for Discussion
Since it appears that the changes that I've been made recently are continually reverted, without any discussion, I wanted to bring them up here first prior to making them again. The proposed edits are below, along with an explanation of each.
Removal of "In 2018, it was revealed that Signature Bank is the "go-to bank" to President Donald Trump and the Trump family." from the first paragraph, as this information already exists in the "Relationship with President Donald Trump" section. Seems duplicative to have it in both areas.
Removal of the "Board of Directors" section, as this section only highlights 2 of the board members that are already mentioned in the "Relationship with President Donald Trump" and "Barney Frank Controversy" section. I'd also like to add the date that Ivanka stepped down from the board to the "Relationship With President Donald Trump" section.
Renaming the "Relationship with President Donald Trump" section to "Relationship with the Trump Family" since that section includes information about other members of the Trump family.
Renaming the Ponzi Scheme section to "West End Financial Advisors LLC Ponzi Scheme" to better reflect that section's content.
Are there any objections to these proposed changes? Welltraveled (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Protected
I've protected this article and made sure both edit warriors are blocked. There's altogether too much thrashing on this article. If the parties involved wish to discuss their changes here, fine, but the edit warring makes the article unstable and unreliable. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
What's going on?
I see @Welltraveled: saying "User replaced current logo with an outdated version", but I see @Shamar121: saying "I am the website administrator for Signature Bank".[1]
What the heck is going on here? What the heck was going on previously, for that matter? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 05:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Adding Additional Information
Editors support the changes made by DGG to reduce promotionalism in the article.
- 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.
I attempted to add some additional information (link to revision) to this article, but my edit was reverted by user BBB23. As I mentioned on their talk page, I'm unsure as to why this information was removed since the information seemed to be pretty similar to info that's on other pages about banks and other financial institutions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bank_of_New_York_Mellon#Operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citibank#Products_&_Services https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley#Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalgamated_Bank#Products_and_services
Can someone else weigh in here? - Welltraveled (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Welltraveled: I've removed the material you re-added. I've added a WP:COI tag to the article as it is clear that you have a conflict of interest. If you want to continue to push your agenda on this Talk page, that's up to you, but if you persist in editing the article directly without a clear consensus from other editors that your edits are reasonable, you risk being blocked. You've been blocked twice before, and I imagine any block at this point would be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: It's unclear to me as to why you think there's some sort of conflict of interest here, as most all of the information that I've provided has been backed up by third-party citations which are publicly available. It also still hasn't been made clear to me what was actually wrong with my edits. The information that I added to the article is similar to information that is being provided on the articles of other financial institutions. I guess the next step is to open up a Third Opinion request? Welltraveled (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: I'm still unsure as to why this page has the COI flag and, in addition to that, I'd really appreciate some clarity as to why the additional information that I added didn't meet the requirements to stay on the page. Providing me with some details would certainly help me become a better editor. Welltraveled (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Greetings, Bbb23. I've been summoned to participate in this discussion. In order to have some background, could you point out, please,what is the reason for being named as having a conflict of interest with regards to Signature Bank. (Incidentally, in Welltraveled's talk page I see only only one, 24-hour block; not two. But that's not too important.} Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
RfC: Adding Additional Information Resolution
I had attempted to add some additional information to the page that outlines the various departments of the bank, similar to what I've seen on other bank/finance related articles, and I'm hoping to get some additional clarity as to why they were reverted so that I can adjust them. You can see a bit more history regarding this particular edit here. Welltraveled (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
About the Third Opinion request: The request for a Third Opinion in regard to this discussion has been removed (i.e. declined). Third Opinions are only available for content disputes and issues about conflict of interest are conduct disputes. While there may or may not also be a content issue here, content issues require thorough talk page discussion in order to qualify for a Third Opinion and that has not occurred here. If you need an evaluation on a conflict of interest issue, the conflict of interest noticeboard may be of assistance, but be aware that BOOMERANG is always a possibility. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
- I've done some basic cleanup of the current version, similar to the way I've reduced promotionalism in other bank articles. I've deemphasized the list of products to the extent that it has in other bank articles, moved ratings &c from the top to near the bottom, removed minor local charities, substitued "it" for the name of the bank after the first use in each paragraph, reduced the number of headings, and so on. The Trump material still needs some changes--it's included in two separate sections, and once is enough. I leave that, and further adjustments to others. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @DGG:Thank you for responding to my RfC - I appreciate the feedback and seeing how you 'reduced promotionalism' in this article is helpful. What do you think if we were to combine the two Trump headings into a single heading under the 'Controversies' section - something like the below?
- Relationship With Trump Family
- On July 13, 2018, The New York Times featured a full-length article on Signature Bank being the "go-to bank" to Donald Trump and the Trump family. President Trump's daughter Ivanka Trump served on Signature Bank's board of directors between 2011 and 2013, before stepping down on April 24, 2013.[19]
- Property transactions totaling more than $150 million financed through Signature Bank to President Trump's son-in-law and political advisor Jared Kushner and lawyer Michael Cohen are under review by New York banking regulators. The bank received requests in 2018 from the New York State Department of Financial Services for records of its interactions with Kushner.[27] The bank is also under investigation for whether it knew that they planned to use improper tactics to push out low-rent tenants.[28]
- Welltraveled (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Summoned by bot. I read through the article and think that the content that exists is fine, but just needs to be arranged a little better. The first standalone section about the Trump family's relationship with the bank isn't a controversy, but the investigations in the controversies section are. I moved the Trump relationship section to the end of the history section. Since he's so prominent a figure, it makes sense to highlight the familial relationship in the table of contents. This is not necessarily a bad thing, unless the investigations turn up more impropriety. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Summoned by bot - As it currently stands, I see no pressing issues but I also am going through and making some changes to improve the overall quality. Meatsgains(talk) 17:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- At this moment, and after checking up the article's edit history, I agree with the changes effected by DGG. And it is my not too speculative opinion that many articles in Wikipedia about corporations, and not just banks, are also infected by the odious bacterion of promotionalism, a lot of them in an underhand and wily manner, too. Nonetheless, WP:OSE. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I tend to clean up by subject area, and I am checking a sample of other banks. I 've once pr twoce checked every article in a subject area for promotionalism (US Law Schools, plastic surgeons) but I doubt I'll be able to return to see if what I did sticks. (if I tried to go back to everything I've work on earlier, the work would rapidly pyramid). Next up: US Med schools. There are too many banks for me to also start that myself--but if someone wants to do that. removing a checklist of routine services is very easy DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
Reads like a press release?
Can someone elaborate on which parts of this article reads like a press release or news article? It looks very similar to other articles on banks that I've edited, so I'm wondering if this flag should be added to those as well? This is noticed that I'm referring to: "This article reads like a press release or a news article and is largely based on routine coverage or sensationalism. Please expand this article with properly sourced content to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, event notability guideline, or encyclopedic content policy. (August 2020)" Welltraveled (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this sentence is inaccurate:
> As with Silicon Valley Bank, all depositors are to be made whole.
I don't think the fed has guaranteed SVB depositors will be made whole? Should we change this to reflect that theyve only said that about Signature Bank? 24.6.228.142 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's factually accurate, but may not be properly verified by the used source (may need an added citation). Edit: The prose was altered a bit not to state this which is fine.—Alalch E. 00:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Controversies Section
I think much of the "Controversies" section can be removed at this point. The first of these, in particular, seems like routine litigation rather than a true controversy. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- And how exactly is the fact that Trump banked there a controversy? 185.182.71.16 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- The section in question has been removed. There were sections on two court cases that were dismissed/settled months later. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mean to ask why the fact that the Trump family banked in Signature is considered a controversy. That section is still there. 185.182.71.27 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's because at the time that was posted, there were sections on two different lawsuits preceding the Trump information. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mean to ask why the fact that the Trump family banked in Signature is considered a controversy. That section is still there. 185.182.71.27 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- The section in question has been removed. There were sections on two court cases that were dismissed/settled months later. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Logo question
There appears to be a variation of the logo with a slogan (Looking Forward. Giving Back.
), I've defaulted to the logo as shown on the website (no slogan/tagline), but the slogan/tagline version appears to be used in their print publications (see specimen PDF here from 2/2023 archived here). Anyone have a preference one way or the other? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Prefer no slogan. Logo already contains lots of text. —Alalch E. 18:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree. In most cases, I see having a slogan in the logo as an end run of the consensus that a slogan should not be an infobox parameter. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Diversity In Management
Signature Bank was fully committed to diversity at all levels, including its board of directors. There should be a section about its commitment to diversity at all management levels because it set Signature Bank apart. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-adds-diversity-bank-board-leadership-2023-01-10/ SoulAtHazard (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi SoulAtHazard. The source you linked doesn't even mention Signature. I'm also sensitive to the fact that there is a growing conservative talking point in re: "wokeness" at failed banks. When the New York Post (which we find generally unreliable, by the way) thinks that the headline "Signature Bank boss Scott Shay led seminar on gender-neutral pronouns like 'Ze' and 'Hir'" is worth publishing, it indicates the line of attack. Mentioning corporate DEI initiatives that are par for the course in any industry and have nothing to do with the bank's history or actual reasons for failure is just a way of using Wikipedia to further that inaccurate talking point. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Signature Bank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I am happy to review this article. Please allow me 7-10 days to complete the review. Check back each day to see suggestions. Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Copyright check
Earwig picks up a direct copy of our article at a forum. In addition to Earwig I will check individual citations. Bruxton (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Lead
A good summary of what is to come. It follows MOS:LEAD. Normally I prefer to avoid citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE but the 2 citations are likely needed. All of the information in the lead is later cited in the body.- Not necessarily a GA issue but I prefer stating US$60 billion per MOS:$ on the first occurrence and $60 billion thereafter. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Establishment and expansion
The section is concise and thorough. The citations check out. Individually,
- Citation 17 checks out
- Citation 19 checks out Bruxton (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Great helpful chart "Signature Bank stock price". Bruxton (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Operations in the final years
The prose is clear and concise covering the main points without getting into too much detail. The table in this section is espeicially helpful.
- Citation 30 checks out
- Citation 3 checks out
Cryptocurrency
This section is excellent and all citations check out. It is a very thorough assessment of the bank's involvement and risk regarding cryptocurrency.
Controversies
- A dead link and dead archive here. Consider replacing. Bruxton (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton
Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Bruxton
Controversies
A very interesting section. I learned a lot reading it.
- Citations all check out Bruxton (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Collapse
- Have their been updates that allow us to know if this ever came true? "As of December 2022, 90 percent of $89 billion in bank deposits exceeded the maximum insured by the FDIC. All depositors are expected to be made whole"
Disposition of assets
Might not be a GA item, but usefull to read MOS:YEAR regarding the omission of year in the section.
- The line: "On March 19, the FDIC announced ..." I think we the article would benefit from adding the year.
- Also: "At the end of July, the FDIC". Bruxton (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Addressed all three above issues with rewording or year additions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie: Thank you for an excellent article which is both thorough and well written. It was a pleasure to review this article. Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Table
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Parent
After its takeover, the FDIC transferred Signature Bank’s deposits and assets to a temporary entity known as Signature Bridge Bank. On March 20, 2023, New York Community Bancorp agreed to purchase $38.3 billion of Signature Bank’s assets, while $60 billion remained in receivership with the FDIC. Signature Bank’s branches currently operate under a subsidiary of New York Community Bank known as Flagstar Bank.
https://www.thestreet.com/personal-finance/what-happened-to-signature-bank Pbml5489 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Copyvio seems to be a false alarm
The copyvio detector shows very high percentage of coyvio - but upon a more detailed examination the "sources" appear to be (1) a verbatim copy of an old version of our article on some forum (2) FDIC reports (public domain) (3) text copied from FDIC reports by "content creators". If someone can see something else, let me know here. Викидим (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Викидим Most of the text in this article was written last year by me. Content farms are not uncommon false positives in Earwig. Looks like someone copied over the article amid last year's bank failure — there's even a current event template in there. There are some quotes and hard-to-rephrase items ("third-largest bank failure in U.S. history") otherwise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.