Talk:Big Five banks of Canada

Desjardins?
What is there nothing included about Desjardins? Maybe because of its business model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.179.40 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a bank. See the article title. Ground Zero | t 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CIBC ranking
the paragraph says cibc is 3rd yet in the table it is last

why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.138.42 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bailout
I've got a problem with the bailout section and its source. Reading through the report, it seems the author is sensationalizing some pretty standard banking operations and/or misrepresenting facts. I know it's only one line, but factual accuracy is paramount. Talking about "secret bailouts" is pretty close to government conspiracy territory and unless there is some corroboration, I think this section needs to be disputed and potentially deleted. RarefiedDeer (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect HQ data in Overview
All Big Five are headquartered in Toronto. Wikipedia shows RBC and BMO with HQ in Montreal, and ScotiaBank with HQ in Halifax - this is wrong. They are all in Toronto.

--Atikokan (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. While some of the banks "operational headquarters" or in Toronto, the actual, or "corporate headquarters" are in other cities. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, in terms of operations, all five banks are headquartered in Toronto, i.e. "corporate headquarters" as commonly defined. It is not to be confused with legal incorporation, which may happen in another place unrelated to the headquarters. Jphillips23 (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Operational head offices and headquarters are completely different. This is nothing more than a pathetic attempt by a Toronto user at self-promotion of the city. Which in Toronto's case has become a near epidemic. If you would like to change the long standing chart layout to include operational head offices, corporate mailing depots, etc. please use talk and an not edit war. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have once again restored the longstanding information for *both* the operational head office and the legal incorporation location. As edit history shows, User:UrbanNerd has repeatedly removed the same valid content about corporate head offices without proper explanation. (See     ) The version before his content removal mentions both the operational and legal headquarters.
 * UrbanNerd, please stop your personal attacks and disruptive edit warring. If you are going to remove the content in question, then please first achieve consensus and provide valid reliable sources supporting you claim. I suggest you take note of WP:V and WP:PA, and check Wikipedia's own article on headquarters instead of attacking other editors. Btw, the current chart makes no mention of the word headquarters at all; it simply states the operational head offices and places of legal incorporation, neither of which are at all disputed.
 * You are not going to get your way with this one by blunt force. The facts are the same whether you like them or not. If you continue to remove this content here without consensus, it will be reverted as vandalism. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you well ? These edits were NEVER part of this article. YOU added them Please follow BRD and use talk to add your bias edits. YOU are now vandalizing this article repeatedly. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Do we have any sources for any of the claims to begin with - neither version seems sourced to me here on this page. As for versions we can all see that it was there long before UrbanNerd's first edit to the article. But hes contesting the wording that I cant see sourced - WP:Burden. Will take a look tomorrow myself see what I can find.Moxy (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can assure you the legal headquarters in the article are correct, but sources would only improve the article. Adding operational head offices, main mailing depots, and regional head offices is highly irregular and nothing more than promotional material. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree all the headquarters info require sources, and don't see how one can simply assure they are correct without sources. No one is talking adding mailing depots and regional offices; please don't try to distort the discussion. Operational head office is the single most commonly understood definition for "headquarters", and is certainly much more significant in practical terms than the legal place of incorporation. Jphillips23 (talk)

I have reverted the recent edit by user:Jphillips. Looking over the history it seems the article never displayed any "Legal Incorporation" vs. "Operational Headquarters". The earliest version shows dual legal vs. operational headquarters, which is very unusual and poor editing. So until there is a consensus the longstanding legal headquarters prevails. The legal headquarters is the only headquarters a company has, anything else is only, as stated, an operational head office. The fact that user:Jphillips is adding these "operational head offices" before the headquarters in the chart, while downplaying the headquarters as "Legal Incorporations" is suspect. I have never seen the operational head offices of a business mentioned in a chart, especially mentioned before the headquarters. It also not helping his/her cause by repeatedly adding "All five banks are operationally based in Toronto" in the second sentetnce of the article. I'd have to agree that this seems more of a promotional issue than an encyclopedic reason. Lastly the reference provided for RBC in no way showed that the legal headquarters is now in Toronto vs. Montreal. 174.93.11.155 (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Looks like we have User:UrbanNerd trying to get around his indefinite editing ban as an anon IP. As User:Moxy already pointed out, we can all see that you are removing content from the longstanding consensus. Look, the fact of the matter is that I can and have easily provide citations for operational headquarters, whereas you have zero citations supporting that any of the banks are not headquartered in Toronto. The burden is on you to provide proof that BMO, for example, is headquartered in Montreal (which it is not). Again, until you can provide proper sourcing for any of your claims, your edits will be summarily reverted as vandalism. Jphillips23 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you comprehend the difference between a operational head office and a headquarters. Also, there was never a longstanding consensus as you point out so stop making up false info to help out your promotional edit. None of the references you provided offer any information whatsoever. Therefor the longstanding consensus remains and the onus is on YOU to prove otherwise. And posting useless links to websites providing no information will not suffice. Any further vandalism of this page by User:Jphillips23 will be reported. 174.93.11.155 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * For the last time, please read up on the definition of headquarters. Legal incorporation is not the same as headquarters. Also, you have not provided a single reliable source to support any of your claims. See WP:V. Again, this anon IP is likely a sockpuper of User:UrbanNerd and will be reported. Jphillips23 (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

So since no one took the time to look for refs I will post one here - then let the  editors of this dispute  fix this mess.Moxy (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

And here's two more refs. I don't think there is any possible dispute that the operational head offices for all five banks are in Toronto (that is basically a universally acknowledged fact). Meanwhile there is no reference, zero, to be found about the legal place of incorporation (this is completely unsourced). It is also clear that the definition of headquarters refers to the operational head office. As a compromise the current version makes no mention of the word "headquarters" at all. UrbanNerd's removal of information that is overwhelming is sourced, without reason,while keeping his own unsourced material is unacceptable. In any case, he (now banned) is the only one that seems to have a problem with this: It's a pretty commonly known fact to everyone that the big five banks are concentrated in Toronto's financial district. Jphillips23 (talk) 04:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

All based Toronto?
Ok so lets start this conversation on a new note. So we have conflicting sources as seen above. I personally believe all the BOOK source are good - but are clearly conflicting. So let see what more we can find. I will look today and if need be send out a few emails see what and who I can contact for more information. Should we clearly define what we mean by headquarters with a few sources aswell?Moxy (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As a starting point, I think Wikipedia already provides a pretty solid definition of headquarters. I don't think there is necessarily a conflict between the book sources. Clearly the operational headquarters for all the banks are in Toronto, but perhaps only three of the five are legally incorporated in Toronto (of course this would need further references to show where they are actually incorporated). Wikipedia's own definition of headquarters clearly shows the operational head office is the more commonly-used concept, and in practical terms it is the more important piece of info for the vast majority of readers. Otherwise, over half of the Fortune 500 companies would be "headquartered" in Delaware, but in obviously that's just a legal technicality. Wikipedia discloses the headquarters that most people actually care about on the articles for those companies. Jphillips23 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is clear the editor Jphillips23 had no real interest in proving his unreferenced edits. It has been a month with absolutely no movement whatsoever. The article will be reverted back to the long standing until Jphillips23 can reference his POV without just adding links to the "contact us" page of the banks. 174.88.200.141 (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "The article will be reverted" amounts to a threat, anon from Kitchener. Please don't threaten editors.
 * What would be even better in the table is the annual profits reported by the banks for the same fiscal year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In no way does reverting an editors vandalism constitute a threat. Now if you don't have anything intelligent to add, please refrain from commenting. 70.53.73.203 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, first, it would have to be a clear case of vandalism, which it isn't. In fact, it's a constructive addition to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Have asked for the page to be protected from IP edits. -- Moxy (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Review of new sources
Can I get a few people to look at the new sources I added at Big Five (banks) for head-office. See if we all agree they are ok? -- Moxy (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for those additions, especially for some of the claims that were long overdue for citations. I'd also suggest possibly replacing the info market capitalization, which fluctuates on a daily basis, with revenue (from the annual report), which is a better measure of a company's size. At least, the market cap figures should be accompanied by the date of the market close to put the numbers in context. Jphillips23 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * May I suggest putting the "legal incorporation" before the "operational head office" in the article. It's highly unusual on wikipedia to list the operational head office in the article first, let alone mention it at all. 70.53.106.6 (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, as already explained numerous times, it is highly unusual that the legal incorporation is included at all, because the common definition for headquarters is the operational head office. Very few readers actually care about the place of legal incorporation. Otherwise, more than half of the Fortune 500 companies can be said to be "headquartered" in Delaware, but obviously that's a legal technicality that few consider relevant. If anything, it is the legal incorporation info here that's out of place. Jphillips23 (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Bank legal incorporation location
The reference used to show that Royal Bank was legally incorporated in Montreal indicates that it was formed, chartered and named The Royal Bank of Canada while in Halifax and only later moved its headquarters to Montreal. It doesn't provide a date when the headquarters were moved to Toronto, but "headquartered in Toronto" immediately follows the name in the leading paragraph. 76.70.45.246 (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

disputing sourced edit
hi,

given that user:Walter Görlitz cited his edit re: stopping mergers allowing canada to weather 07 subprime crisis, it is incumbent upon user:199.19.253.14, who refutes the claim, to provide an equal (arguably BETTER) source than mr gorlitz.

note: canadian blogs or bnn do not count. nor do any reports from entities affiliated with Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment as this subsidiary is a large beneficiary of the misappropriation of deposits at the aforementioned banks. 96.52.168.137 (talk) 01:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Big Five (banks). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080206000929/http://www.reportonbusiness.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071103.r-cover-banks03/BNStory/Business/home/ to http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071103.r-cover-banks03/BNStory/Business/home

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked but the link was 302 forcing the bot to redirect to a login page. Nothing found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Big Five (banks). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121004162854/http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.01/page-114.html to http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.01/page-114.html#h-58
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222224343/http://www.cwbankgroup.com/investor_relations/ann_pdfs/2011_CWB_AR.pdf to http://www.cwbankgroup.com/investor_relations/ann_pdfs/2011_CWB_AR.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

On the term "Big Six"
A user has requested evidence that the term is in common use. Here and three easily-found examples from Canada's three largest newspapers.

http://business.financialpost.com/tag/big-six-banks

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/inside-the-market/article-the-big-six-bank-best-at-beating-street-forecasts-is-about-to-reveal/

https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2018/04/16/will-big-six-banks-flush-with-cash-buy-us-banks.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.127.159 (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:V is clear that content should be verifiable and WP:BURDEN is on the person wanting to add the content. The investopedia entry is enough. The sources provided here are single instances where the term is used, but not proof that it is used regularly, and doesn't define who the term applies to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This page title memorializes popular culture
My opinion might not be popular, but as I see this, this page title memorializes popular culture—or perhaps a continued PR snow job by its privileged members. Yes, I know that "big five" is common lingo in Canada with a long history. But ultimately, it's still just lingo, and makes it hard to cover banking in Canada without the undue bias of size matters—underscored by size is destiny. That's my two cents, which I certainly couldn't deposit with any of the big five. &mdash; MaxEnt 01:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)