Talk:Wells Fargo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wells Fargo article.
Article policies
Wells Fargo was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: September 27, 2006


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Deleted rant -- please limit discussion to topics relevant to the article.

- I took out that abortion sentence, i felt it was totally misplaced in this article, especially as the second sentence.

Contents

[edit] I love the marketing speak in this article

so much for NPOV. i love the mission statement and all the other marketing speak inserted in here.

[edit] In use 05:29 20 October 2005

Search of Norwest Corporation leads to Wells Fargo. Norwest Corporation should also list Norwest Corporation, a large energy, mining, and environmental consulting entity located principally in Salt Lake City, UT and Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

I'm going to see if I can't source some of this stuff (what, no references?) while I add the one line of data ("the nations largest bank headquartered West of the Mississippi") that I came here to add. (sigh) --Kgf0 05:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Been having some major server-speed and access issues, edit ongoing. If you have something you wanted added, changed, etc., I'd appreciate it if you could post here on Talk and I'll be sure to get it in my edit. If you want the edit credit (heh, editcountitis), then I respectfully request that you edit both the main page and this one, so I don't accidentally blow your edit away. Thanks so much in advance for your coordinated efforts. --Kgf0 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

What changes will you be making? I think the negative links nicely balance out the "press release" flavor of the article. --Weirdoactor 15:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to increase balance and WP:NPOV, add in a bit more news (they're being investigated again, this time for kickbacks), and I'm trying to either source all the quotes and dubious facts or else rework/reword/remove what can't be verified. Anything I remove will be posted on this Talk page with a request for sources, since it's always possible that it came from a print source to which I do not have access. Also, I think increasing the verified balance of the article itself diminishes the need for quite so many "WF blows" links, so I'm just keeping the one's that I've used as references Iwhich is more than half of the better written ones). --Kgf0 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've done as much as I can. I think the Lines of Business section could still use some work, but it is a damn site more accurate and balanced now, overall, than it was, and more up-to-date as well. --Kgf0 07:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bits removed in need of citations

I have removed the following unsourced statements for which I could find no evidence — links to go exemplar Google searches:

  • Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich has commented often that Wells Fargo contains "more than 80 lines of businesses". Kovacevich is, most likely, calling each individual product it offers a "line of business". Google
  • Norwest was numerically the most acquisitive back of the 1980's - no support, however, found cite for "one of the most acquisitive banks of the 1990's"
  • Selected predecessor companies: Union Trust Co, First Security Bank, & Raegan McKenzie - no support (except First Security), no probative value, and all redlinks
  • Wells Fargo is the largest asset-based lender of this kind. - hard to prove, and I couldn't even fain a spurrious claim outside of wiki
  • as Kovacevich has said, "these guys make a lot of money for us." Google

If you can find sources for any of these, please put them back, and if possible use the footnote templates to cite the source. If you don't know how (or can't be bothered) just leave the source info here and I'll get on it as time permits. Thanks in advance for not ruining my work too quickly. ;-) --Kgf0 08:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"*Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich has commented often that Wells Fargo contains "more than 80 lines of businesses". Kovacevich is, most likely, calling each individual product it offers a "line of business". Google" -The article itself mentions that it is unclear what Kovacevich means when he says this. It is a phrase used in nearly ever modern investor presentation by wells however [1]. "*Selected predecessor companies: Union Trust Co, First Security Bank, & Raegan McKenzie - no support (except First Security), no probative value, and all redlinks" A cursory look at google will find support for all these things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.186.156 (talk • contribs)

Regarding your first profered Google search, all of those links which are relevant at all point to mirrors of earlier versions of this article, and are therefore worthless as sources. However, there is similar information in some of the documents on the second page to which you linked, so thank you for that, and I'll add the information, with the proper citation. Finally, regarding a "cursory look at Google," please note that I spent a solid week editing this article performing a great many Google (and other) searches in the process, and failed to find the information you claim is so readily available. If you believe the information is that simple to come by, please add it to the article yourself (with references), or at least post a better search link here. --Kgf0 20:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Here we go: [2] -wells and union trust [3] -wells and ragen


"...website and browser support policies..." The citation on this needs to be strengthened as well if it is to stay. Sourcing the policy itself does not support that people are protesting it. In addition, this only attempts to provide a source for "browser support", but not for "website support". 65.78.150.181 11:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

No responses, so it's now deleted. 65.78.150.181 18:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor change to the claim W.F. is the only U.S. Bank with the highest possible ratings for Moody's and S&P ratings. At least one other bank is (USAA). If anyone has more data to solidify the distiction, that would be good. BeboGuitar (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who Fargo?

Is it too much to ask the Wells Fargo page actually deal with the original? Trekphiler 19:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a couple sentences in the history section - I'll check back in a week and see if you've expanded it satisfactorily. Stan 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
There really needs to be either a lot more in here about the old freight, stagecoach days and how that Wells Fargo was so abusive of its franchise that it caused the lobbying that led to the creation of what is now the United States Postal Service's parcel service. Also, perhaps a link to the Tales of Wells Fargo TV series about that era. 68.53.110.123 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
See the article History of Wells Fargo for more about the stagecoach line and express service. Whyaduck 06:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Focus/GLAAD incident

I have added a mention of Focus on the Family's withdrawal from banking with WF due to its support of GLAAD. I have tried to do so in an NPOV fashion. NTK 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for additions

A few suggestions that I don't have time to do anything about right now... I believe that the Norwest merger resulted in Wells Fago picking up a fairly large insurance operation, yet there is no sub-section about insurance (commercial or individual) under the business lines section. On the Norwest topic, it would be nice to put a history of Norwest (pre-Wells Fargo name) on this page or on a dedicated Norwest page. I also have photos of Wells Fargo Center (formally Norwest Center) which was the headquarters when they were in Minneapolis. If someone is interested in using these please contact me. --BenFranske 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big huge addition

Did anyone else notice how much got added to this article, unwikified, in a single edit from a single source (4.131.155.87 (talk · contribs)) that never edited before or since? Check the diff, I think that nearly doubled the length. I've poked around online and can't prove it's a copyvio (and it doesn't seem to have come from the company itself - that IP is a dialup in LA), but it sure smells fishy anyway. Even aside from the fact that most of it probably belongs in a separate Norwest article. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 09:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, according to wikipedia conventions, since norwest bought wells fargo, if anything belongs in a seperate article it would be information about the legacy wells fargo.


Norwest did NOT buy Wells Fargo...it was a merger of equals.

I dispute that. It was widely reported that Norwest 1)Purchased Wells Fargo and then 2)Changed the company name to Wells Fargo because it was more widely recognized outside the midwest. This shouldn't be difficult to verify. -BenFranske 05:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was widely reported as a merger, not an acquisition (I think if you're going to make statements like that here, you need to provide some evidence too). Do a google search on "Norwest merger" - you get links to tons of legitimate (i.e. non-press release) news stories about the merger. Now try one on "Norwest acquisition," or "Norwest acquisition Wells Fargo" -- not a lot of news sources there. And there's no mention in any actual news source (that I could find) that called it an acquisition. Granted, I'm sure that if during the time of the merger someone would have characterized as an acquisition, some bank lawyers would be calling them the next day. But still - after the merger, former WF sharholders owned 52% of the stock in the new company...doesn't sound like an acquisition to me. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/06/09/MN9823.DTL Robko626 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Working for Wells Fargo, I can tell you that it was an acquisition. This is something which is told by the company to new hires in the department I work in. 24.118.142.223 23:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Found at https://www.wellsfargo.com/invest_relations/vision_values/15 :"Wells Fargo virtually doubled in size, again, in 1998, to $186 billion in a “merger of equals” with Norwest Corporation of Minneapolis. Norwest took on the older company’s name and moved its headquarters to San Francisco. It also brought with it the histories of about a thousand more banks and financial companies across the Midwest, the Rockies and the Southwest."
This paragraph basically summarizes what we've been arguing; but at least from the way I'm reading it, it was a "merger of equals" in that both banks were big, powerful, and reputable, but Norwest is the foundation. From my knowledge, Wells Fargo is in name only, Wells Fargo uses the banking software and processes that Norwest used. Essentially, it's Wells Fargo in name only. 151.151.21.103 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The points you make are academic. From a shareholder (i.e. ownership) perspective, it's clear that the new company represented a merger of equals, as 52% of the new company's shareholders were "old" WF shareholders. If it were an acquistion, those shareholders would have essentially liquidated their shares -- that did not occur. One poorly-worded paragraph from deep within the corporate website does not constitute proof. The preponderance of evidence is that it was indeed a merger and not an acquisition. Robko626 20:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of corporate culture or press coverage, the Agreement filed with the SEC clearly defines the transaction as a merger. Legally, that's what it was ... which was news to me, actually. The "surviving company" (for purposes of Tax ID, etc) was Norwest. Idsfa 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delisted GA

Whoa nelly, folks, i'd just to like say, take a good, hard look at those two history sections. In all the months i've edited, I don't think i've ever seen sections for real articles which are that increadibly long. While its certainly broad, its definently overly broad, and almost none of it is referenced, for all I know, it all could be fake and I wouldn't be able to tell just by reading the article. If all of that information really is notable, put it into new articles please, properly sectioned, and leave a short synopsis here with a see also at the top of each of those sections. But right now, there's waaaaaay too many unnecessary things here. Homestarmy 13:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikified

Wikified as part of the Wikification wikiproject! I took a run through the sections marked for wikification and tried to section them a bit, as well as adding some wikilinks. The history sections definitely need to be split out into their own articles. JubalHarshaw 17:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm thinking that the section of Wells Fargo history concerned primarily with the express business, from the beginning up to the 1917 merger into the Railway Express Agency, could be a single article, and then linked both from this parent article and from the "Early History" section of the American Express Company article. From what I recall of what I've read on the subject over the years, this particular section of the article is accurate (though it would be a big job to track down citations for all the specific claims it makes.) I'm not versed in how to go about separating out sections of articles, but if somebody does that then I can do a bit of Wikifying on the new article (lots of internal links are already possible.) For the remainder of the history section covering the banking business after it was separated from the express business in 1905 I wouldn't be much help. But I think it would be best if that section were made into yet another separate article, in any case. Whyaduck 06:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, what I was thinking is this entire article, from beginning to end is a bit long and should be broken into seperate sections. On the early history, we could have maybe one paragraph giving the outline and then a link to the long discussion, and then follow that sort of thing for each section. Most people coming here probably aren't expecting to spend twenty minutes reading all the intricacies. Wjhonson 06:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV info about Internet Banking

Removed inaccurate POV info about internet banking. Sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't understand how banks work, and maybe bounced some checks and is unhappy about it. It's unfair to say their accounts are "inaccurate" and don't reflect some pending payments. There isn't a bank out there that doesn't have some delay between a physical check coming in and it showing up electronically. I've had accounts with WF for years, and they've always been really good to me. I never had any problems with inaccurate info.

Robko626 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal

Came across this article as part of the WikiProject Wikify - but before it can be wikified I really think it needs to be split into three pages as it is far too long and deals with three distinctive corporate entities. The current page should stick with the info up to the merger with Norwest. A new page should deal with the history of Norwest. A second new page should be created for the company post-merger. It would also need a disambiguation page leading to all three pages. Madmedea 18:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now performed a major edit on this article. I have split off sections to form:

  • History of Wells Fargo - retained the 'key dates' and 'predecessor companies' in the main article to help the causal reader have a picture of the history the company. This could be expanded to include a 2-3 paragraph summary of the history if anyone fancies it/I get round to it.
  • First Interstate Bank - history leading up to merger with Wells Fargo
  • Norwest - history leading to takeover of Wells Fargo and taking on the Wells Fargo name.

Please, if you're not happy with what I've done don't just revert it all - leave a message on my talk page first. The history page in particular is a work in progress as there was a lot of duplicate information - feel free to help. Madmedea 13:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No this is against the so far established wikipedia principals on articles about corporations. The standards state that the article should be about the surviving corparation according to the SEC, which in this case would be Norwest. There could be a seperate article about the "legacy wells fargo".

Have to say I disagree. Norwest coroporation ceased to exist after the merger/takeover with Wells Fargo. It took on Well Fargo's identity and so the continuing company was, to all intents and purposes, a continuation of Wells Fargo (this is evidenced by the corporate history given on the official website). I thought about creating a "Wells Fargo post Norwest takeover" article but decided this would just confuse the reader - the status of the company is made clear in the introduction. If you are going to quote Wikipedia policy please reference it with a link so I can read exactly what you are referring to and please sign your posts so I know who I'm talking to Madmedea 11:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm got some anecdotal evidence to add to the discussion for what it's worth. According to my mom, who has worked at WF for ~20 years, the internal propagand of the "merger" was that it was a merger of equals. She says in actuality the Norwest managers and corporate culture dominate the combined company. ike9898 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of 'Typical Branch'

That isn't a picture of a typical branch. If you click the link, it goes into explicit detail of what it's typical of. I think there would be better branch pictures to show a 'typical' branch. --Jickyincognito 04:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem with Wells Fargo is that they have three different types of typical branches. They have those really old "adobe" designs from the 19th and early 20th centuries, like in Berkeley. Then they have the ugly 1950s and 1960s branches (usually with lots of brick walls). And then they have the contemporary ones built after 1980. Only the smaller chains like World Savings have a consistent look across all their branches. --Coolcaesar 05:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I feel the picture of the modern building should be above the picture of the "old branch". Its a large company, and first impression that this article gives is not that. I dont know, it just doesnt fit the way it is, to my eye Bl4h 15:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There's a new CEO in town

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a0H0ih8iVB6s&refer=us

John Stumpf is succeeding Richard Kovacevich, effective today. Jesse0986 27 June 2007

[edit] Advertisement Tag

No discussion of nor rationale for adding this tag. Removing. Robko626 21:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lines of Business/Internet Services

Statement about "somewhat ambiguous" is completely subjective. The "source" provided is just one investor presentation -- it's a matter of opinion whether this one presentation is ambiguous -- let alone all investor presentations. Also -- "Despite this wide range of divisions, Wells Fargo only..." Biased -- "only" is subjective. Section needs additional sourcing as well.

[edit] Loomis Fargo

Loomis Fargo redirects to this article, but the only mention of the name is in an extlink. What is Loomis-Fargo's relationship to Wells Fargo? --Golbez 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)