Talk:Fred Goodwin

message: Suggestion: most of the detail of the RBS period should be moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland Group article (which doesn't have much on this period), in seemain style, and have just a summary here. Rd232 talk 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. Expansion and Collapse belong in the RBS article leaky_caldron (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: It depends what you mean by "detailed".  The Goodwin article can describe his actions (plus any verifiable notable commentary on them), but shouldn't "detail" the whole RBS saga.  By comparison, the "Watergate" section in the Richard Nixon article has limited scope, with the details being found in Watergate scandal, Watergate scandal, United States Senate Watergate Committee, Watergate tapes, Saturday Night Massacre etc. - Pointillist (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, the Saga As A Whole should be in RBS, and here just a brief summary plus detail on any particular points of relevance to Goodwin (personal actions/criticism etc). Rd232 talk 13:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: RBS

message: Is there a reason we are not allowed to document that Fred Goodwin was trading whilst insolvent?  
RD232 you seem intent on blocking the documentation of this fact.  I suspect this to be the work of a PR ageny.  As I cannot imagine a rational explanation for not wanting a true and accurate biograpy to be written.. Surely it is right and correct that his history is accurately documented?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.203.178 (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. The version I put lots of work into editing last night had no mention of insolvency - I don't know why you're asking me. Several other editors have removed contributions from you like this , and rightly so as what you wrote does not fit WP criteria. Find someone in the media who has raised this issue, and then we can report that under "media criticism" with appropriate sourcing, which would be fine. Otherwise its just editorialising, which isn't. OK? Rd232 talk 13:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think what you need here is a verifiable statement from a reliable source that talks about "trading while insolvent" - then you can mention it in the article.  It isn't "fair documentation" if you add an unsupported theory to an article, and you are being unfair to Rd232 in accusing him of being some sort of stooge for a PR company.  Anyway, if you can find sources I assure you no one will try to stifle it.  Try checking on Google for RBS "trading while insolvent" site:bbc.co.uk, substituting site:ft.com, site:guardian.co.uk, site:independent.co.uk, site:telegraph.co.uk, site:timesonline.co.uk in sequence.  Well, actually I just tried all that, but if you check again every 12 hours or so you'll probably be first to catch any mention.  - Pointillist (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I've added a comment from Vince Cable which goes in this direction. It's of course not impossible that RBS did "trade while insolvent", but my understanding is the government stepped in before this could really become an issue. But come up with some relevant reliable sources and of course we can put something in the article. I carry no candle for RBS, I don't know how you can think that given my edits. I only refrain from echoing the general public opinion of Goodwin's behaviour  here because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and because my opinion isn't relevant for editing the article - only verifiable facts are. Rd232 talk 14:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, if the government's lawyers are looking into "all possible avenues" for recovering the money, then Trading while insolvent would be one as it might make Goodwin personally liable for some of the losses. So we might hear more about this in future. Rd232 talk 14:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Insolvency

message: An IP contributor added greedy to the opening description. I was in the process of reverting it (reluctantly) but another article contributor had already done so. However, there is little doubt that greed is being widely used (just try Google for 'Goodwin greed' and dozens of reputable news sources have used this description). Just because it's distasteful doesn't mean that it is not accurate and fair. Any thoughts? leaky_caldron (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not and never have used emotive language in articles - he's a banker, not a greedy banker or a useless banker etc etc - that's tabloid journalism, we're an encyclopedia. It's also vital we don't make such libellous statements on Wikipedia per our well known BLP policies. Nick (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see Nick has removed it and I agree.  I think this sort of statement can only be used as quoted speech using irrefutable sources—e.g. a direct statement saying "X is greedy" from a significant politician.  I tried searching for an example on Google but gave up: the mentions that I was getting were either too indirect (such as "greed" in a different sentence, describing behaviour or attitude) or just reader feedback messages underneath the actual articles.  Anyway, is the first paragraph really the right place for this sort of language?  I don't think so—for example, the Robert Maxwell lead section doesn't call him names, and I imagine there are some wonderful quotes to be found.  - Pointillist (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Rd232 talk 18:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However, I understand why Leaky caldron hesitated to revert 86.138.245.201's edit and I'm sure no-one is doubting Leaky caldron's good faith. - Pointillist (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Mmm, the sentence is good but I'd prefer to avoid unnecessary refs in the intro - they should as far as possible be in the body (of which the intro is a summary). If necessary maybe add (some of) the refs I binned (I thought they were a bit duplicative anyway) into the body. Rd232 talk 01:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks. The idea of the refs. was to head off any removal on the grounds of not being substantiated. If it sticks without being reverted (the original "greedy" reference was regarded as vandalism) then there is no need for the refs. in the preview. He is by all accounts public enemy No1. in the UK, being subject to ridicule and vilification on almost every TV news channel and newspaper. This will be short lived of course. leaky_caldron (talk) 10:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "opprobrium" sentence is a factual claim, and substantiated in the body. "Greedy" is opinion. Rd232 talk 14:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Greedy

message: It's disappointing to see that Wikipedia is censoring references to Goodwin as "disgraced". Major newspapers such as The Times regularly refer to Goodwin as "disgraced"; however, it would appear that rich and powerful men such as Goodwin have apologists working for them who have the ability to censor Wikipedia. I'm sure he can afford to employ censors with his huge pension.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylon93 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you feel strongly about this, but your suggestion that your fellow editors are paid apologists goes way over the line.  Stooges from PR companies get unmasked pretty quickly (from the pattern of their edits across multiple articles), and I'm sure the editors here are unpaid volunteers trying to make a better free encyclopedia.  That aside, you're welcome to argue your case for "disgraced" here and I hope lots of other editors will join in - Pointillist (talk) 09:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Babylon93, you have literally just started your account in the Wikipedia community. Please do take into account that you're only just getting your feet wet in how WP works. Policies you'll need to get to know include verifiability and neutral point of view; and possibly even more fundamental, be civil and assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. It is widely accepted that descriptions like "disgraced" are not put in articles as if it was the opinion of Wikipedia. Facts should be there which illustrate why the term is widely used in the media (if it is); Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we do not tell our readers what to think. Note also that this is a biography of a living person and particular caution applies to writing negative things. This is not censorship (or self-censorship), it is being responsible - WP is now one of the most prominent sites on the internet so potentially damaging material should only be added after discussion agrees. Rd232 talk 12:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rd232, you seem to misunderstand the whole point of Wikipedia: it is supposed to be an arena for truth uncensored by corporate interests. What right have you or anyone else to "lock" the Wikipedia page for "Sir" Fred Goodwin or anyone else? The man is clearly disgraced, and the attempts by apologists to censor this diminishes Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.231.174 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I refer the honourable gentleman to the remarks I made on this page on 23 March. (Just above.) Rd232 talk 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If you think that Wikipedia selectively censors some user content, you've got the wrong impression.  In fact all user content is completely unacceptable:  Wikipedia isn't a blog, a chatroom, or a newspaper's opinion page—it isn't even particularly an arena for truth, except in the sense of presenting facts that have already been directly reported by reliable sources.  Sources are the holy grail for articles, so if you have acceptable sources for "disgraced" there are plenty of experienced editors here who would love to help you polish your work.  However if you want to go into battle for "disgraced" without adequate sources, bear in mind that personal opinions can be seen as the bottommost dregs of the sewer, and that some people here play academic hardball to win, so anything controversial you contribute may be examined by editors who have spent years honing their debating techniques in economics, law, history, psychology etc.  - Pointillist (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

text: WP:MORALIZE. — Matt Crypto 08:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Of course it makes sense, but alas, ego, not sense is the issue for some here. J M Rice (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

text: But even though Richard Nixon, Ted Haggard, Mark Oaten, Bill Clinton and Neil Hamilton have been called "disgraced" in lots of press stories, their articles here don't use the word "disgraced". Is Fred Goodwin's case different in some way? - Pointillist (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgraced – Censorship

message: :The "Other Activities" section 1.4 contains stuff not associated with his tenure as CEO of RBS. The separate "main" heading of CEO of RBS (2001 - 2008) suggests that everything else under it is a sub-section of it, rather than being a sub-section of the Biography and career section. Just the way I perceive it leaky_caldron (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Activities as a sub-heading of CEO of RBS 

message: There's no political momentum for 'Sir' Fred to have his knighthood removed. Because of the importance of the people making this demand I believe it warrents inclusion in the article and I am going to update accordingly. Does anyone have any input?  --Richardeast (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mention of the issue is already there - end of third para of 'Media commentary and criticism' section. I don't think it implies momentum (if that was your concern) but try tweaking it if you like. Rd232 talk 13:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  lose of knighthood 

message: Should this be mentioned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.212.140 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's the Daily Mail, so it's not exactly a sterling reliable source. I suggest that if these sorts of stories are widely reported across the media, than yes; if it's just tabloid froth, then no. — Matt Crypto 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I always apply the ten-year test. If you read this in ten years time would you consider it relevant ? I would say no, but if you want to make a wider point about "Excessive Greed associated with bankers etc etc", then maybe it could be relevant. Kbdguy (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: £1000 a roll wallpaper + fruit flown in from paris

message: While Wikipedia is not a Newspaper, it does need to reflect some reality and accuracy without obfuscation. While it may not be possible to use the term 'disgraced' according to some, it remains a point of fact that Goodwin remains a controversial figure in the world of finance during the economic meltdown (as does his successor Stephen Hester who incidentally earns what Christiano Ronaldo earnt at his first term at Real Madrid) 
It would not be incorrect to use the correct term of controversial otherwise he wouldn't have appeared in so many News papers and had his Scotland property vandalised as was the RBS Building at Threadneedle Street during the 2009 G-20 London summit protests.  Heliosphere (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We do say "he was the subject of widespread public, political and media criticism". — Matt Crypto 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so was George W Bush
I don't think history needs to to note him for simply being a CA, as the FIRST impression gives. Perhaps too many Wikipedia editors from too many PR firms are cashing in making another fortune in amplifying his  philanthropic endeavours ? Who knows? But that's just my cynical tendency conspiracy theory which is probably shared by thousands, if not millions. 
But seriously, he should be known for what he did that brought him to public attention Heliosphere (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial figure in the banking crisis 

message: I've noticed that that cause of Fred's knighthood has been edited back and forth a bit.  I think the reason for the confusion is that two different Frederick Goodwins were knighted on the same day.  "Our" Fred is here, while the "other" Fred is a Cook Islander here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Po8crg (talk • contribs) 08:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knighthood 

message: The super-injunction also prevents reporting of Fred Goodwin's affair with a colleague, which began shortly before and continued during the credit crunch of 2008. See these links (judged not good enough sources to be in main article):
Adulterous failed banker Sir Fred Goodwin obtains superinjunction « naked capitalism and this:
Unbankable Story - Guy Fawkes' blog
Comment added by Antioxidant Sunrise (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This may come out in the wash at some stage in the future, but at the moment the sourcing fails WP:BLP so it cannot be added. This is in the Daily Mail today, with a mention for Wikipedia. The Mail is itching to publish whatever it is that Fred Goodwin has allegedly done (and could barely wait in this story). The media may attempt to use this article to break the super-injunction, so caution is needed here. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "The media may attempt to use this article to break the super-injunction" - I don't think that's possible - I think they could still be violating it by reporting something revealed elsewhere, it's only an exception for reporting on parliament because of the issue of democracy (if you recall, there was briefly an issue with the Trafigura superinjunction about the lawyers even possibly attempting to gag parliament or the reporting on parliament, or something). Rd232 talk 23:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This happened before with Avram Grant. We spent half of Christmas 2009 trying to keep this out of the article. The Mail cited this at the time. Perhaps we should have an office sweepstake on how long Sir Fred is going to last out on this one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-injunction prevents reporting of Fred Goodwin's affair with a colleague 

message: Ianmacm: FAG isn't a banker because (1) he has no banking qualifications and (2) he isn't currently working as a banker. I await your comments before reverting your reversion. Perhaps "was a prominent figure in the banking industry" would be appropriate wording. OldSpot61 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How many bankers have banking qualifications? I recall Yes, Minister used to joke about that... Anyway, "former banker" or some such seems fine. Rd232 talk 00:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be pedantic here. Who really cares about his qualifications, or the lack of them? OK, he is no longer head of RBS, but "former banker" as suggested by Rd232 looks OK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 00:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with your edit.OldSpot61 (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sir Fred's stint as RBS chief appears to pass the WP:DUCK test.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Duck Test needs to be modified: walks like a banker, talks like a banker, gets paid like a banker but actually a useless banker! OldSpot61 (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a banker 

message: When you do have the balls to publish this, also note that he's now suing people in his own family -http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/24/financier-sister-in-law-injunction-breach  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.164.194 (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cojones is not the issue here. The article contains all the known facts about Fred Goodwin that have appeared in reliable sources. Since Wikipedia is not a gossip column, it cannot report blogs, speculation etc as fact. 
The Guardian story is interesting, because it uses the now familiar pussyfooting language associated with these cases. While anyone who is capable of using Google can find out about ZAM, at the moment it does not meet the notability guidelines for a separate article. ZAM could be mentioned in 2011 British super-injunction controversy‎. It would be better to start a new thread there instead. 
Also, and *please* get this right, FRED GOODWIN IS NOT ZAM. Don't go spreading any rumours here, you will only make yourself look silly when they turn out to be wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Fred Goodwin is *not* ZAM

message: I wondered whether the opening of this page should really introduce him as "Sir Fred Goodwin", given that at the time of typing (January 2012) there has been talk of stripping him of his knighthood. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:COMMONNAME, this is not an area that the article can go into. He is technically still a knight, no matter how controversial it may be.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening of this page

message: Is it an "annulment", or is it a "revocation"? The two terminologies have different meanings, connotations and implications, and are not interchangeable, just as a "dissolution" of a marriage (divorce) is different from a matrimonial "annulment". I believe that if his knighthood was ["annulled"], which it was, it should then be described EXACTLY as such. 87.102.74.124 (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "cancelled and annulled". The official announcement was made in the London Gazette on 1 Feb 2012 http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/60048/pages/1865  Technically the Knighthood wasn't "cancelled and annulled" until 1 Feb when the Letters Patent were sealed - only the _announcement_ that it _would_ be cancelled and annulled was made on 31 Jan. I will edit the article to reflect this. Bigbird3141 (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annulment or revocation?  

message: ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.185.197 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [88.111.185.197] 

message: He is a British national, and should be described as such, not Scottish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.228 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationality? 

message: This edit removed new material, but without an edit summary -- so we don't know what the objection was.  If there's no persuasive reason to keep it out, I'll restore it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  material from book 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Fred Goodwin. 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/20090304173343/http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5295-rbss-fred-goodwin-the-worlds-worst-banker to http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5295-rbss-fred-goodwin-the-worlds-worst-banker
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304140453/http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2488353.0.Exchiefs_of_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_and_HBOS_admitted_to_having_no_formal_banking_qualifications.php to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2488353.0.Exchiefs_of_Royal_Bank_of_Scotland_and_HBOS_admitted_to_having_no_formal_banking_qualifications.php
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090211220022/http%3A//www.hm%2Dtreasury.gov.uk/press_191_99.htm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_191_99.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724053649/http://www.fundraising.co.uk/node/161289 to http://www.fundraising.co.uk/node/161289
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129184122/http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/Sir_Fred_Goodwin to http://indepth.news.sky.com/InDepth/topic/Sir_Fred_Goodwin
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section headed "Early Career" includes the following statement: "For Touche Ross he headed the worldwide liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International after its collapse in July 1991."
I believe this to be incorrect. Although Goodwin was a Touche Ross partner at the time of the BCCI collapse, there is no evidence that he was ever a qualified Insolvency Practitioner, which is an absolute requirement before an individual can be appointed as either an Administrator or a Liquidator of a company under the Insolvency Act 1986. Note that it is named individuals that are appointed by the courts, not firms.
If we look at the appointment notice in the London Gazette dated 6th March 1992https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/52855/data.pdf (page 4150) we see the list of individuals appointed as BCCI liquidators as follows: B Smouha of Touche Ross & Co., London, and G Baden and J Roden, Attorneys at Law, appointed as Joint Liquidators of BCCI SA on 3rd January 1992 by the District Court of Luxembourg; and on the same day C Morris, J P Richards, N R Lyle and S J Akers, all of Touche Ross & Co., London, were appointed as Joint Liquidators by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 137 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There are other appointments covering BCCI subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. There is no mention of Fred Goodwin anywhere in these appointments.
The following passage appears in the book "Shredded - Inside RBS, the Bank that Broke Britain" by Ian Fraser:
Goodwin consistently misrepresented his role in the BCCI winding-up exercise. The Edinburgh-based financier Peter de Vink recalls: 'The very first time I met Fred was at a dinner with Gerard Eadie [chairman of double-glazing firm C R Smith]. Before Fred arrived, I was told that, at a very young age, he had single-handedly led the BCCI liquidation. I expressed astonishment. When I asked Fred about it over dinner, he led us to believe that he was the sole partner in charge - and at no point did he acknowledge that he was part of a team. A few months later I met Brian Smouha at a friend's house in London. Brian was introduced as the senior Deloitte's person on the BCCI liquidation. I said to Brian, "But I thought that Fred Goodwin led that." I'll never forget his face. Without saying a word, Brian conveyed the impression he'd never heard anything so ridiculous in his life!' 
On the basis of the above I think an edit is justified - but before proceeding with this I wanted to canvas opinion as there will be sources out there that support the line that Goodwin led the BCCI wind-down. I propose the following: "For Touche Ross he participated in the team that undertook the worldwide liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International after its collapse in July 1991."
Thoughts?
Lord Mauleverer (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is quite technical and I don't claim to understand it fully. This Guardian story says "by the time he had turned 30 was a qualified accountant at Touche Ross in charge of unravelling the collapsed BCCI." The "in charge of" part is what you seem to be disputing. This Daily Record story says "Finance journalist Ian Fraser alleges that disgraced Goodwin, 55, exaggerated about his role in the liquidation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)... “He did not ‘lead’ nor was he ever officially styled ‘chief operating officer’ of the worldwide liquidation of BCCI, as he claimed. "In fact he had a clerical, back-office role." So there is a difference of views over what he actually did.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Goodwin's role in the liquidation of BCCI