# 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)  

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Jared Kushner with Signature Bank’s CEO, Joseph DePaolo and chairman, Scott A. Shay.jpg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. 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.
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. 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. Signature Bank successfully defended itself from all claims made against it related to Mr. Landberg’s actions. Infoupdates36 (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 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.  — 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

> 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)