Talk:Standard Life

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Cooperatives (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CooperativesWikipedia:WikiProject CooperativesTemplate:WikiProject CooperativesCooperatives articles

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Eugenia26 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Standard Life on their behalf. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declared on user talk page.

Six main areas

"Standard Life Group comprises of six main areas: ...," is then followed by a list of only five. Would someone who knows correct this. CharlesKiddell 20:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I h ave cleaned up the categories and external links header. However, the information on the page is duplicated and the article needs to be rewritten to only say the facts once unless someone wishes to cover them in more depth than they are currently dealt with in seperate sections. Ksbrown^talk 15:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Location

What's with the edit war on Scotland vs. United Kingdom? Can we bring it to the talk page? JamminBen 14:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Life is a British company based in the United Kingdom region of Scotland. The UK is the internationally recognised name of this country, not Scotland, England Wales nor Northern Ireland nor even Great Britain. I have no problem with any of the four regions being stated, but the UK must also be listed, as the UK is the official, legal and sovereign country name, like it or not. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and therefore must state accurate facts, not people's own personal preferences. In my humble opinion, this is a non-argument and the United Kingdom should take precedence. This is a norm across many FTSE 100 companies listed on Wikipedia. Darkieboy236 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally unnecessary to disambiguate the word Scotland in the English language edition of Wikipedia. Have a look at the Unilever article: is the word London disambiguated? Or the Jardine Matheson article: is the term Hong Kong disambiguated?

Further, Standard Life is registered in Scotland and is thus subject to Scots law. Above all things a company is in its very essence a legal construct, understood within the context of the legal system under which it operates.

Further, Wikipedia should not allow itself to be bullied by ip sockpuppets making a WP:POINT. --Mais oui! 07:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, it is Edinburgh that should not be disambiguated. Scotland does not fall into the same category as Edinburgh, London and Hong Kong. Otherwise, it would be acceptable to say that Jardine Matheson has its headquarters in China. Some consistency with locations might help. JamminBen 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Standard Life.gif

Image:Standard Life.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of material from SL website.

The section "History" appears to be a straight lift from the SL website - http://ukgroup.standardlife.com/html/about/history.html, with no added value from Wikipedia. I don't have a view of this, and the website is listed as a reference. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)PatrickHadfield (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)PatrickHadfield[reply]

Broken References

In the last section two of the subheadings only have one reference each and neither of them work. Can anyone find working links to back up the stories, otherwise they need to be removed.

Pspeed (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pspeed (talk • contribs) 18:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up

I have conducted an extensive clean up. Please do not add material to the article unless it is sourced to independent primary sources. Dormskirk (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is quite a bit out of date - does this company not care about it's own entry. I'd be happy to update it but there is no edit option. Must be locked for fear of negative remarks. --Waverleydog (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be updated but wiki articles should not be edited by the Company or any of its employees. Please read WP:COI aboout conflicts of interest. Dormskirk (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 109.231.203.194, 8 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the logo on the page for Standard Life as it is out of date. Their new logo can be found at the top of this page.

http://www.standardlife.co.uk/1/site/uk/home?wt.srch=1&wt.mc_id=google_standard+life&gclid=CKmG1pbLpqkCFUEb4Qodg17uuw

Thank You 109.231.203.194 (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 25 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On 31 July 2010, the sale of Standard Life Healthcare to a subsidiary of Discovery Holdings Limited (“Discovery”) (trading as Pru Health - http://www.welcometopruhealth.co.uk/) Sources: http://ukgroup.standardlife.com/content/news/new_articles/2010/healthcare.xml http://ara2010.standardlife.com/annual-reports-and-accounts (Business Review section)

In 2010, Standard Life acquired Focus Solutions Group plc http://ukgroup.standardlife.com/content/news/new_articles/2010/acquire_focus_solutions_group.xml Focus Solutions is a leading provider of software and consultancy solutions to the financial services industry. http://www.focus-solutions.co.uk/

Also in 2010, Standard Life acquired the intermediary support services business, threesixty LLP ("threesixty") The acquisition was effective from 12 March 2010. http://ukgroup.standardlife.com/content/news/new_articles/2010/sl_acquires_threesixty.xml Link : http://www.threesixtyservices.co.uk/

Renoopsvek (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dormskirk (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Not sure how this fits into this companies operations, so just here for reference:

Standard Life suspends trading in UK property fund BBC, 4 July 2016.
PRESS: STANDARD LIFE FORCED TO HALT UK PROPERTY FUND REDEMPTIONS - FT 5 July 2016.
HOLLY BLACK (5 July 2016) £2.9billion property fund freezes investors' cash over crash fears: Move by Standard Life comes as fears grow their may be a sharp fall in property prices. THE DAILY MAIL, 5 July 2016.
220 of ^Borg 06:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for updates to reflect Standard Life half year financial results announcement

I would like to request two factual updated to the page, in the 'Operations' section. This is to reflect Standard Life's 2016 half year financial results update.

Change 1: 'over £300 bn of their assets' be changed to '£328 billion of their assets'

Change 2: 'actively manages £253bn' to 'actively manages £269bn'

Both figures can be found in Standard Life's corporate website investor information section: http://www.standardlife.com/dotcom/investor-information/financial-results.page

The first change was also reported by Reuters, as well as in other places: http://www.reuters.com/article/standard-life-results-idUSL8N1AQ0P1?type=companyNews

I am not updating the page myself as I work in the Press Office team at Standard Life and therefore have a conflict of interest.

Katy Standard Life (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I didn't receive a response to my talk page change request so I've made the above changes in the artcle

Katy Standard Life (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Please use an "edit request" so other editors are alerted; you should not be making the changes yourself; you have a conflict of interest. Dormskirk (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard Life Assurance Company (1825-2017)

Hi - I am concerned that we seem to have created the situation where we now have two articles covering the history of Standard Life (Standard Life Aberdeen and The Standard Life Assurance Company (1825-2017)). The latter article should not be regarded as the "main article" on the topic (as is currently suggested in this article). That article is fundamentally flawed because (i) it largely relies on a single source (ii) it is not balanced: it ignores all the controversies that Standard Life got involved in (some of which are touched on in this article) and (iii) it is written with a person with a conflict of interest. Per WP:MERGEREASON where there is duplication (which there is here) or where there is overlap (which there is here) then a merger of articles may be the solution. That may be the best way forward. Dormskirk (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Standard Life Assurance in Uruguay

Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, per discussion. Suggestion to start separate article for the post-merge entity. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 11:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Life → Standard Life Aberdeen – The parent company is called "Standard Life Aberdeen" and has been using that name for some four years. The parent company is not referred to as "Standard Life" and is even considering selling or abandoning the Standard Life part of the name altogether. The way the group currently operates is to use the "Standard Life" brand for life assurance work and the "Aberdeen" brand for the investment management business. "Standard Life Aberdeen" encompasses both brands. Dormskirk (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be better to keep Aberdeen Asset Management and Standard Life as separate articles for pre-2017 company history, and have Standard Life Aberdeen deal only with the post-2017 merged entity? 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fine with me if there is a consensus for that. Dormskirk (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oppose move, and support creating article at Standard Life Aberdeen, as per above. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. Support alternative proposal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.