Talk:Wegelin & Co.

move request
Wegelin & → Wegelin & Co. – name is written with a Co., see homepage http://www.wegelinco.ch/index.html. Gryffindor (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I Give Up
"This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling"? It's badly written, probably by a non-native-speaker, and iut's badly organised too. "You can assist by editing it"? Oh really? When I tried my edits were blocked because someone was simultaneously restoring the gibberish I was trying to remove. So, yes, the article needs a lot of work, but good luck to anyone trying to get that work to stick! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.216.193 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you had edit conflict issues but hopefully the page reads better now after it has been copyedited.  Spencer T♦ C 03:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did they close?
Shame? The fine caused them to be insolvent (hard to believe)? Jyg (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Huge asset seizures, large fines, impending French and German investigations into their business dealings ... they are trying to move holdings to another bank, but, doubt this will be successful if they are trying to hide information. see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20909168 HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Jyg (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting

 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.64.83 (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The King is dead, long live the King!
I wonder how so many news company can report this tax frauding bank being death, killed by US justice, while her 700 staff and business just moved from "Wegelin & Co." to "Notenstein Privatbank", staying in the same building, same desktops. Sound more lire a comedy than anything else. Yug (talk)  21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. This was a private bank with a very long tradition, "private" meaning for example that their owners would be liable with their own fortune (and their name). Now they had to give up this bank, after most of it had been taken over by Raiffeisen Switzerland, a co-operatively organized banking group that is mostly present on the countryside. So yes, something definitely did happen. --80.219.252.141 (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

News to watch
The current case is pretty interesting. This bank is clearly doing a simple 'transfer = name change' to avoid the [deserved] big stick kick. This move and case is pretty important for tax avoidance / tax fraud, international banking, national and international taxe policy, financial crisis, global crisis. Coming news articles will likely contain interesting and valuable comments ! Please watch and inject into the article ! Yug (talk)  12:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC) To watch :
 * Google News: Wegelin
 * As the editor answered to your previous post above, your assumption isn't correct.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Probable date error 2012/2013 in reference
There seems to be a date error: reference which is presently number 7 shows date as "4 January 2012", but I think it should be "4 January 2013". I have have not fixed it because I am not certain, and I am not certain how that type of markup works and I might mess it up. FrankSier (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Bank is NOT dead.
Users should be aware that the bank is NOT dead. It will be, probably in 2013. However, Wikipedia requires accuracy so please don't say the bank "was the oldest...". It IS the oldest. When the bank is legally shut down, then Wikipedia can report it. It is ok to say that the bank is planning to close.

Similarly, President Hugo Chavez is almost a dead man, but he is not yet dead. If users put in the article that he WAS the president, they can be blocked or banned.

Auchansa (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Your proposed wording is meaningless English, as was pointed out to you before by other editors. The current opening sentence is correct because it says that the bank was only de facto disestablished and restructured in 2012. It doesn't have any activity as a bank anymore, any assets or any clients, so it's fair to say it was the oldest bank, in this context. The German Wikipedia article says the same thing ("Wegelin & Co. galt bis zu ihrer faktischen Auflösung im Jahr 2012 als älteste bestehende Bank der Schweiz"). Vanasan (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not true. It is not "meaningless English" nor has anyone pointed it out to me before.  That accusation is worse than "why don't you stop killing people" or "why don't you stop beating your spouse".  However, if the consensus is to do things incorrectly, I'll let it go since it is not a huge error. Auchansa (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The current wording is incorrect since it says it "was" the oldest bank but adds "defacto". That is almost like saying Israeli Prime Minister Sharon is practically dead.  Auchansa (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Your sentence "Wegelin & Co." is the oldest bank in Switzerland (and the 13th oldest in the world) and its de facto disestablishment and restructuring in 2012 with closure expected in 2013" is indeed meaningless English, and 2) this was pointed out to you before when User:Elektrik Shoos reverted you the first time You cannot simply change "was" to "is" at a random place without taking the entire sentence into account. Vanasan (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be very constructive to seek solutions rather than attack my sentence. The bank is not legally disbanded yet so it is the oldest bank.  "Was" is not accurate.  So try and think of a sentence that uses the word "is" and not "was" but also conveys what you want.  Auchansa (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the bank is being referred to as passe in the Reliable Sources, then that's what the article must reflect. On a personal observation, if one cannot open an account there, or remove money from an account there, and no bank statements are being issued from there, or go through a door of a building designated "Wegelin & Co." I'd say that bank is closed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The Internal Revenue Service of the United States would disagree with you. If your stock holdings are worthless and un-tradable in stock exchanges, you cannot claim a loss unless the company is bankrupt and shares declared to have no value.  There is no dispute that the bank is now a pile of ruins.  Auchansa (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first part of your statement is unrelated to what I said - apples and chalk.HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

article creator info
User:Largehole (article creator) is now editing as Whalestate, please do leave a message on my talk-page if necessary, thanks. Whalestate (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)