Jump to content

Talk:Big Four (banking)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Big Four (banks))

France

[edit]

Currently, only three entities are listed. If it is the case that one of the three is responsible for two of the big four brands (cf. Lloyds Banking Group owning two of Scotland's Big Four), it would be desirable for this should be formally acknowledged, as for any other reorganisation which has reduced the number by one. Otherwise, the French situation does not merit inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cousteau69 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for there being four big banks

[edit]

This article really needs some information on the reasons behind the phenomenon of four banks becoming dominant. Why is it that most countries seem to have four big banks? Jackster (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that there are only four major banks in each country; it is as likely this is just a list of the top four in any countries list of banks. But it is likely there would be no less than four major banks allowed, for reasons of competition (see Australia’s Four pillars policy).
Having a "Big Four", I suggest, is a UK notion, based on there being only four clearing banks (in England), or four currency-issuing banks (in Scotland), and the original author has extended the idea worldwide.
In the articles on the non-UK banks I’ve looked at, none of them (so far) claim to be one of a “Big Four” in their own country.
What the article does need is a criterion for the claim: What qualifies a bank as one of a "Big Four"? Is it market share? Assets? Number of branches? Of staff? Cash machines? Who knows? Moonraker12 (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can explain why top *four* banks in each country is significant, as opposed to say the top 5 (or just a page of the biggest banks by country), I will propose this article should be deleted or renamed. This article is way too arbitrary and full of too much original research as-is. Rm999 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly support this - the article seems to just be filling up with more unsourced lists of banks. I question whether the entire article is about a genuine subject (if it is, it shouldn't be hard for someone in the financial sector to find a ref) and whether any of its unreferenced content is of use. OK, we might talk of 4 big banks in the UK, but that doesn't mean Indonesia does. Halsteadk (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Big four" banks is widely used terminology in South Africa, however, I was surprised that it was used elsewhere. Park3r (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

Without references, and as per the discussion immediately above, who's to say that the notion of a "big four" in all these countries is true, and that these banks class themselves (or are classed by their country) as such? Seems like an entirely synthesised article to be read with much caution at present. Halsteadk (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

Following the discussion (above) I've had a look for any references to the use of the phrase "Big Four Banks", which (I would suggest) is the only basis for inclusion here. The phrase seems to be general use in the UK, South Africa and Australia, but not elsewhere particularly. And in Canada they have a "Big Five".
So unless there are any objections, I suggest deleting all the entries that aren't backed by a reference using the term for the banks listed, or in the countries listed.
Any thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported sections

[edit]

I've taken another axe to this article; there were several sections here with sources that, on examination, didn't support the "Big Four" claim.
The India section's source turned out to be someone's blog, with a mirror of this article from about a month ago; so, not a reliable source, then.
The Poland, Romania and Russia sections all led to pages with lists of the Top Ten in those countries; the Romanian situation had two banks ahead of the rest, and the top Russian bank had more than the rest put together. There was no reference to any "Big Four", and no logical reason why there would be.
The Chinese section I've left, though the source for that is an English language publication, with no indication the term is in general use in China. But as this article is about the term I suppose it scrapes in. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The four big commercial banks are known in Chinese sources as the "四大商业银行", usually and fairly literally translated as the "big four commercial banks". My suggestion in future cases is that, where the sources are limited, you can be justified to qualify the statement which the source is purported to support - e.g. that the banks are referred to as the "Big Four" in English-language sources. However, it is not advisable to then add in "there is no evidence that ...", because that is original research - it is your own assessment of the sources supplied, which belongs on the talk page and not in the article. No doubt you are aware that you should not put statements into articles without sufficient support, and an assertion that "there is no evidence of X" is quite different from a qualified statement trimmed to within the four squares of the supporting source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments.
You may have noticed I’ve been trying to tidy up this page, which is supposed to be on the term "Big Four Banks", but had managed to turn into a list of banks in every country under the sun.
It appeared from doing that to be a western term, used in English-speaking countries only, and applied by a western press to the situation elsewhere. I put "there is no evidence the term was in general use in China itself" because there wasn’t; it appeared to be a purely western extrapolation.
But if you have a source for its use, then please add it; better yet, write a paragraph on it, explaining the use of the term in a Chinese context. It would reinforce the idea the page is about the term, not just a list of banks. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you were doing there. My word of caution is against writing "there is no evidence" simply because you have not seen any evidence of it. To do so is akin to original research, unless you can cite a source that says "there is no evidence". If the sources only evidence Western use, then you can say "there is Western use", but not "there is no evidence of other uses", since there may well be evidence but which you have not come across.
I'm afraid I don't have the time to dig for sources here, I'm happy to leave that part unsaid and for other editors to fill in (or I will return to fill it in another day. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Historical information on China

[edit]

I am restoring two lists pertaining to the historical situation in China. The "big four" term is well known in Chinese literature and literature about Chinese banks from before 1949, and it is quite reasonable that readers may wish to find out what the term refers to when they encounter it in a Wikipedia article or in their reading outside of Wikipedia.

I note that the deletion was made by Anniv22 with a rationale that this article is about the current situation and not the past. There is no requirement that Wikipedia describes only the present situation, and indeed, there are numerous articles about various concepts, places and bodies which no longer exist. The sole criterion should be whether the concept or thing is notable, and I strongly contend that the historical "big four" banks of China is notable within the scope of this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a paragraph about the use of the term in China would go some way to cover that; there would be no problem in mentioning what they historically were, if it is explained the term applied to them then. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list is fairly self explanatory - before 1949, when referring to Chinese banks, the "big four" banks referred to those listed. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

[edit]

The introduction here (and therefore the scope of the article) reads
"Big Four is the colloquial name for the four main banks in several countries, where the banking industry is dominated by just four institutions and where the phrase has gained currency."
As this definition has been disregarded by editors wishing to add lists of the top four banks in their respective countries, I have also added edit notes at the top of the page, and at the points of the most frequent offenders, saying
"This page is for instances where the phrase "Big Four" is used of the major banks, AND where the usage can be demonstrated. It is NOT a list of the four largest banks in any particular country, arising from ORIGINAL RESEARCH"
So I suggest that any sections not supported by a source which uses the term "Big Four" in connection with banks in a particular country, and says which four they are, are likely to be summarily deleted, per WP:OR. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India, etc

[edit]

I have just deleted yet another section on India, placed without regard to the definition in the introduction, or the edit notes on the subject, and unsupported by any relevant source. As the definition and notes state, and as the Scope section (above) explains, this article lists countries where the term "Big Four" is used to describe them, and NOT merely a list of the four largest banks in any particular country.
I also note that the placing and replacing of this section is usually followed by a flurry of edits seeking to change one or other of the names given. Can I suggest that if there is any dispute about which banks actually are the Big Four of India, it pretty much proves that the term is neither used nor recognized in the country, and the section should not be there at all.
Unless someone can come up with a source that uses the term "Big Four" in connection with banks in India, and says which they are, any replacement of this section will be summarily deleted. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

India, again

[edit]

The section on India was added again in February, without a source to support it; it subsequently acquired this which is simply a list of all banks in India ranked by asset size, and then this, which is a list of the top ten banks there.
As far as this article is concerned (which is on the term "Big Four" where it applies to banking (see here), and for which the problematic nature of these "India" sections has already been outlined, here), the sources show the State Bank of India with 12 (long) billion rupees, ICICI with 4 billion, then four more with 3-4 billion each. Can anyone suggest in what way this describes a banking industry dominated by four main players? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Four (banking). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Four (banking). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Big Four (banking). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

nowadays, the biggest four banks are actually 4 Chinese banks

[edit]

The current Big Four of China are also the Big Four of the whole world. Wisdood (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Big_Four_(banking)&oldid=1200005565"