Talk:Bank Lombard Odier & Co/Archive 1

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Hello at LO in topic Edit request
Archive 1

(Long) suggested edit

Sorry y'all, this is rather long, but hopefully you'll enjoy the read :-)

 Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello at LO (talkcontribs) 14:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reply 14-MAR-2019

  Additional sources requested  

  • The edit request proposal relies too heavily on the bank's self-published sources, including but not limited to, Chaponnière's Two Centuries of Banking (24 ref tags), Sabrina's Lombard, Odier, Darier, Hentsch (18 ref tags) and M. Jean de Senarclens' various publications (24 ref tags).
  • While there is a myriad of other sources provided, the text from the problematic sources is too intertwined with text from the more acceptable sources. Kindly limit the sources which are published by the subject bank in favor of more references originating from independent sources.[a]

Regards,  Spintendo  15:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. Sources published by the subject bank need not be removed entirely. A minimal use is preferred.

Second version

Hello Spintendo, thank you for your time and feedback, and sorry for the delay - we wanted to clear some images to put on Wikimedia Commons first.


We've tried to address your points as best as we could:

  • took the number of references from JF Chaponnière from 24 to 11 only - he had privileged access to our archives for his book, which makes his contribution somewhat unique. The book is available in quite a few public libraries (meaning its not exactly an internal publication).
  • Also cut down on references from Siegel et al.; this being said, most of these relate to dates of entry for associates post mid-XIXth Century. This info is normally available on the Geneva Register of Commerce's website, but we chose a bibliographical reference over a collection of links as we know for sure that the former won't need to be updated every time RC changes their platform.
  • Mr. Jean de Senarclens isn't related to the bank, he was a rather notable historian for all things Geneva. We've clarified the entries to indicate they're from the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (rather than the terse "HLS-DHS" title the automated citation tool gave). Ditto for a couple of other entries.


Thank you! Hello at LO (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Reply 25-MAY-2019

  • To assist in this review, I would ask that you utilize the |quote= parameter in all instances, taking care to copy the quoted text from the source which verifies each individual claim statement and place it into the reference template under the quote parameter (be it in English, or in French).[a]
  • In instances where one reference has several ref notes, this will necessitate branching each ref note individually.
  • The quoted text will remain in the references only for the duration of the review, whereupon it may be deleted before being placed into the article (in those sections which are approved).[b]
  • Should assistance be required, the COI editor is reminded that the WikiProject Switzerland ostensibly stands ready to help with the development of articles covering the Confederation and its related topics.

Regards,  Spintendo  04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. The reasoning behind this request is thus: the current edit request requires reviewing no less than 104 separate references. Much time would be saved if those references already included the quoted text — which the reviewer could then look out for whilst verifying each individual reference. The alternative is for the COI edit request reviewer to read 104 separate references in their entirety just to locate the text in question, which on its face does not appear to be an altogether efficient use of time.
  2. The entire quoted text need not be inserted under the parameter. Only a portion significant enough so that the reviewer may task their own browser with finding it, via Ctrl+F.
Hello user:Spintendo, thank you again for your reply, and apologies for the weird formatting in our previous post (it should be corrected now). We are not sure however that we understand it correctly. Are you asking us to give the original quote or text extract for each and every reference we have been using throughout the text (which would have to be in French or German), or is there any specific point which you would like us to clarify with a relevant quote?
In any case, we don't want to take up too much of your time and will follow your advice to ask people on the Swiss project to review our proposed changes. Thank you very much again! Hello at LO (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello -- I have reviewed the draft, and it is clearly superior to the article as it stands at the moment. Therefore I support the switch to the new version. The formatting nitpicks can easily be addressed once the page is live, it's not like the current version has "good article" status or anything. --dab (𒁳) 12:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My own review was a bit cursory, so far, but I agree with that. Maybe the clause "which in fact makes it one of the biggest players in the Swiss financial sector" (in the lede) should be a bit less vague and be referenced (maybe it has to be this vague, I do not understand banking at all. I was asked to take a look because I'm a member of Wikipedia:CH—something I'd almost forgotten about :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Sluzzelin - thanks for the note, I've clarified "financial" to "private banking and added two references (one from FT, the other an industry ranking). Thanks to Cote d'Azur for their edits. I'm reopening an edit request, so that we can hopefully move on. Hello at LO (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

The text above and the one one my sandbox are identical and have been reviewed by three separate editors from the Wiki Project Switzerland, I think it is fair to say there is agreement that it is ready to replace the existing article. Thanks, Hello at LO (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate that I would be happy to review and implement these changes, but I'm afraid that given the large number of sources, I'll have to ask that the COI editor activate the |quote= parameter in order to assist in verification (especially in instances where the source is a language which is not my own). The other reviewing editors who already agree with the draft version are of course invited to implement it themselves, if they feel that these changes are acceptable. Regards,  Spintendo  16:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
There is more than a hundred references, all of them from public sources. I have seen no indication that you speak French nor German, so retrieving and translating all of these would take an extraordinary amount of time just on the assumption that you do not trust the quality of our work (which, seeing ourselves as honest professionals, feels a bit condescending to be frank, though I understand where you may be coming from if you deal with so many requests). I also haven't seen that |quote= being used to such an extent anywhere: I would rather suggest that you point at specific references you'd like us to clarify/quote, otherwise I would be happy to ask for a second opinion from someone dealing with Edit requests if this is normal practice to have people jump through so many hoops in order to improve an article. Honestly we'd rather have you to be happy with the overall quality - are you not? Best, Hello at LO (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I assure you this request is made only to ensure the quality of the implemented text. It's not that I don't trust that quality, but it's been my experience that articles which have multiple sets of critical eyes set upon them are superior to articles which are only appraised critically by one set of eyes. I understand this represents an increased amount of work for the COI editor to do, but what I'm asking for is not impossible work for an archivist to perform — especially one experienced in producing quality work such as yourself — and ultimately is necessary to secure my volunteer time implementing this request. The request remains open at this time for other editors to review as they see fit. Regards,  Spintendo  02:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Spintendo:  Not done edit request is unclear. SportsFan007 (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi SportsFan, lets go ahead and give this edit request a bit more time to receive a review if possible. I had earlier promised the COI editor that it would remain open for other editors to decide if the changes could be implemented, so it would be helpful for them if we could leave the template open so that they could have a look. Thanks, appreciate it! Regards,  Spintendo  02:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Spintendo, let me say that I find your standards a little bit excessive for an article that isn't protected, and is tagged for cleanup. User:Hello at LO is doing everything right, they openly declare their COI, they make a good effort to write within project guidelines, and they have shown great courtesy and patience. Their draft is far better than most additions we get from new editors. It is especially commendable for a "COI editor" to included a neutrally worded "controversy" section on their own accord.

I have no COI whatsoever, and I take it upon myself to implement the suggestion in my own name. I have read through all of it and I implemented minor copyedits to the draft. Please treat the edit for what it is worth as a COI-free contribution at this point. I did make several edits for tone, and did place a few inline tags requesting clarification. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your input and your availability to implement these edits, which are very much appreciated. As for my requirements vis a vis the |quote= parameter, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY — meaning I am no more compelled to alter my requirements[a] for volunteering my time to implement these edits than the COI editor is compelled to fulfill them.
It would seem then, that both of our stances were necessary in order to get the article's work done. I'm guessing that's because you might not have offered to implement these changes yourself had you not felt (mistakenly) that the COI editor was being asked to do too much work.[b] If that's true, then my sticking point regarding the |quote= parameter along with the COI editor's point of not fulfilling them[c] have both unintentionally helped to spur action which, in the end, is a good thing. Again, I appreciate very much the time you're willing to spend working on this request. Regards,  Spintendo  01:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone, and thank to all for implementing the new text. I will look into the clarification/references that have been requested and if you gentlemen are okay with it I'll simply add the references directly into the article - I don't want to waste any more of your time than is necessary, hopefully you've got your own articles to edit. We will also try again to upload some of our archives on Commons (mostly XIXth century charts, maps and portraits: our first try failed, but I suspect it was because of ours being a brand new account. If we decide to add illustrations to the text I may ping some of you for advice. Best regards, Hello at LO (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Here are our comments/corrections:
Ref: 25: The West-Switzerland railway company was indeed incorporated in Lausanne on 23 November 1852, as attested in the ‘’Journal de Genève”. There is also a 1853 publication regarding stock dividends and equity swap that mentions Lombard Odier & Cie. I guess the current article on the Compagnie (or its source) is inaccurate (it indicates 1854 as a date of incorporation).
Ref 67: the exact quote is, indeed, “Lombard Odier indicates that the facts had been brought to the attention of the Money Laundering Communications Bureau by the bank itself, triggering the investigations.”
These “facts” are presumably described in the following paragraph and relate to suspected money laundering activities in relations with the Uzbek telecom market (“Les soupçons de blanchiment d'argent sont liés au marché des télécommunications en Ouzbékistan”). I’ve clarified to “The bank stated that it had reported these money laundering activities to the authorities.
Ref 107: “the foundation announced that it had received a total sum of donations totalling CHF 116 million, and had given away CHF 59 million to some 100 organisations” is marked as unclear (meaning that CHF 57 mio are missing from the equation).
The source’s next line indicates that the Foundation gives away 10% of its principal yearly (“Nous redistribuons en moyenne 10% de notre capital chaque année”). This is the way foundations work: see, e.g., the Nobel Foundation, which the corresponding article rightfully describes as a fund. The principal is normally kept and what is being given away are dividends. I have rephrased to make this clearer and replaced it with [The Foundation] had given away every year an average of 10% of its assets to some 100 organisations (for a total of CHF 59 million).
We have also populated the commons:category:Lombard Odier with items that are now in the public domain. Hello at LO (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. In addition to providing a second pair of eyes to act as a quality check on the submissions, asking for the text to be placed in the quote parameter also helps to accomplish two of the main tasks described for COI edit request reviewers: checking for copyrighted text and the using of a source's materials out of context.[1]
  2. While a request was made by the COI editor for assistance on July 23, an offer to implement these changes was not made until 2 weeks later after they described the "hundreds" of quotes being asked for.
  3. With respect to the quotes themselves: The information that the COI editor gathered together to present in the edit request ostensibly used these very same sources that were then presented in the request. Sources which, presumably, had just recently been gathered during the drafting stages of the request. The argument that somehow these sources had suddenly become unavailable and thus could not be consulted once again in order to be placed in the quote parameter so recently after being gathered the first time is difficult to believe.

References

  1. "Template:Request edit/Instructions". Wikipedia. 15 September 2018. Instructions for reviewers—#2: Please check the suggested content for copying from existing sources as an initial task – copyright infringement is a pervasive problem and it is not only important that we don't host such material, but it often leads to significant additional work when not caught early. Instructions for reviewers—#4: Be on the look-out for cherry-picking, for the omission of material or sources, for the misrepresentation of a source's tone, and for the use of source material out of context.