Talk:Financial services

message: This was the original text. It's not the largest financial services firms, it's just the largest firms. I don't know what that's supposed to show, it should probably have been accompanied by a mention of their market share in the industries they operate.--Jerryseinfeld 04:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Forbes 25

message: The article Grameen Bank is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support this article  with your vote.--Fenice 17:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I have removed the nonsense shown below as I feel it is unlikely to help anyone.  Most likely it was cut and pasted from some website where it may have had context. Hopefully someone can come up with a better introduction to the types of industry in financial services.  Simonthebold 18:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gibberish]]

message: "Industries" in the "industry". Product set of financial services firms. The core products are transaction services (customers are consumer and corporate), trading and derivatives (consumer and corporate),  debt & equity structuring (structured finance) (corporate), asset management (consumer and corporate), financing (debt & equity) (consumer debt, corporate debt & equity), advisory (on M&A and integrated in other products, for example structured finance and derivatives) (corporate), insurance (consumer and corporate).''
----
Hmmm, good call on the gibberish, but now the Industries info doesn't make a lot of sense once you get down to EDC & GE.
Secretagentwang 20:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Industries

message: Do we really want this article to mainly consist of company lists? It has become a link farm and there is no definition on what constitutes a "notable" company. As long as we're on this path, this article is likely to be nothing more.
I propose we take one of two approaches:
* Remove all internal and external links to specific companies, and retain the links to related topics (insurance, etc.) so the article is encyclopedic and ceases to be advertising.
:OR
* Set a very specific bar (top 5 or 10 companies - for insurance, by revenue; for banks, by assets managed, etc.) and enforce that so we don't wind up with a list of 1000+ links here.
--Pearrari (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to remove the internal and external linkfarm which seems to have turned into a giant 'See also' list. Any desired list of banks can be made into its own separate article or people can refer to List of banks. Barkeep Chat | $ 17:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: No its not, and why? noq (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Company Lists - Link Farm

message: Dr. Chakravorti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Chakravorti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Wilko Bolt & Sujit Chakravorti, 2008. "Economics of Payment Cards: A Status Report," DNB Working Papers 193, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Chakravorti's comment on this article 

message: I've been using Wikipedia to manage the growth of my own personal knowledge base (PBK) for a decade now (it's also MediaWiki) and I don't think I was ever steered quite as badly as by the previous lead here. 
There were two main reasons, and one minor reason. 
The first major reason was that finance industry redirected here, which made it seem like a top-level umbrella page. 
The second major reason was that it failed to cross-link to financial institution, and provided a duplicate list, with worse organization. 
The minor reason is that the target page titles are themselves a hodge-podge, being variously titled as institutions, services, or products, but spanning the spectrum of all three aspects, regardless. 
When a lead is constructed mainly out of lists of links to elsewhere, there's a limit to how much conformity one can impose without finally obscuring the mess on the other side. 
Here's where I wound up when I back-ported sanity achieved in my own PBK to the article here. 
Financial services are economic services tied to finance provided by financial institutions. Financial services encompass a broad range of service sector activities, especially as concerns financial management and consumer finance.
The finance industry in its most common sense concerns national banks and large commercial banks who provide market liquidity, risk instruments, and brokerage for large public companies and multinational corporations at a macroeconomic scale that impacts domestic politics and foreign relations. The extragovernmental clout and scale of the finance industry remain an ongoing controversy in many industrialized Western economies, as seen in the American Occupy Wall Street civil protest movement of 2011.
:
Styles of financial institution include credit union, bank, savings and loan association, trust company, building society, brokerage firm, payment processor, many types of broker, and some government-sponsored enterprise.
Financial services include accountancy, investment banking, investment management, and personal asset management.
Financial products include insurance, credit cards, mortgage loans, and pension funds.
I'm not claiming this is a work of art, but it at least provides a clear structure from which to move forward. Additionally, many of the lists are now more complete. 
From my perspective, it's really not acceptable that finance industry redirects here, or to finance, either. The financial industry is wagging the dog on a multinational level, often at a scale where they can intimidate national governments, sometimes even the American government. National governments have to band together at the G7 or G20 level to exert enough counter-clout to get many of these firms to pay taxes anywhere at levels comparable to smaller firms. 
This is a huge, central subject matter in the modern world order. 
The finance article is not a good home, either, because finance is a vast, sprawling, technical subject area. 
In any case, I primarily edit Wikipedia as a byproduct of maintaining my own PBK, and I don't stick around to continue debate, as I have many thousands of other pages remaining on my visitation list. 
Revise or revert as you see fit. — MaxEnt 03:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major refactor of lead 

message: As a footnote to my previous comment, here's my own list of industries, split by which ones get their own page, and which ones are forced to cohabit. 
; worthy
* tobacco industry
* alcohol industry
* sex industry
* food industry
* fishing industry
* healthcare industry
* energy industry
* military–industrial complex
* arms industry
* automotive industry
* bicycle industry
* video game industry
* telecommunications industry
* pharmaceutical industry
* semiconductor industry
* advertising industry
* language industry
; unworthy 
* steel industry — redirects to subsection 
* mining industry — redirects to subsection 
* fashion industry — redirect to subsection
* entertainment industry — redirects to subsection
; extremely unworthy
* aviation industry — redirects to aerospace manufacturer
* finance industry — redirects to financial services
— MaxEnt 03:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industries, worthy and unworthy