Talk:Royal Bank of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


OK, who was the idiot who just vandalized this article as I was editing it? Fess up.--Bjeversole 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I now know of WoW.--Bjeversole 11:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting inside story at slashdot. [1]

I believe mention should be included of RBC being named in the ongoing LIBOR rigging investigation [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


Should we perhaps add something about how Centura was actually merged with the existing assets which came from RBC's acquisition of SFNB (Security First Network Bank) - at the time of it's inception ~1996, SFNB was touted as the "First Internet Bank" in that it did not have any physical locations (I think it had one office in Atlanta though). I'm not sure about the exact merger dates or details, so I can't really edit the article appropriately....


A history of the logo is available on the RBC website at, and is much more extensive that here, but it does not state a rationale for the removal of the crown. RayGates 23:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I worked at RBC at the time the logo was changed and I believe it was part of the presentation on the new logo that the crown was dropped to help with penetration of the US market. --Cjrother 00:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
It's entirely possible that RBC at some point stated that the crown was deleted to help with U.S. market penetration. However, as a U.S. financial services marketer for over 20 years, I can assure you that Americans would not soon notice or care if a crown were present on the logo. A major packaging concern in the U.S. is Crown Cork and Seal Corporation. It was founded in Philadelphia and its headquarters remains there. Its logo is, yes, a crown. I know of no one who would on their most insane day think this was either a negative, or somehow tied it to royalty.

If we look at what is retained and accept the "anti-royal" rationale, the change doesn't make a great deal of sense either. If the premise is that Americans will dislike a bank which appears to be foreign or have references to imperialism, empire or royalty, it still fails. The logo still consists of a lion holding a crown, commonly recognized symbols of the Commonwealth and Empire. I highly suspect that whatever firm was hired to change the logo recognized its power in existing markets, but also recognized that it had to change something substantially to earn its fee. Hence, the crown disappears based on a doodle by an art director and the illogical rationale appears later. The rationale has the benefit of flattering RBC management by referencing their supposedly impending dominance of the U.S. market. How could they say no?

As a former AMSOUTH customer my bank and account was transfered to the RBC Centura. While southeners (americian southeners) don't necessaraly have a anti-royal / anti-crown tone (heck the city symbol of Charlotte, NC is the same rounded crown) its somewhat unnerving when a bank that you have a lot of money with suddenly changes look. The Centura name seems a little less foreign than Royal Bank of Canada and the revesal of the lion makes the logo appear to be 'looking toward the future rather than the past'.-- 21:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RBCcentura.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RBCcentura.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 (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Editing[edit]

I have updated this article (with appropriate references) on several occasions, sometimes reporting negative information about the bank. I am a firm believer that wikipedia is not a sales tool and am concerned that someone has been inappropriately deleting/editing the article to remove these items. RBC is a very large company and as such is going to have some negative information reported. It is not wrong or harmful to educate people on everything that is going on at the bank, not just the positive news. (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The RBC commerical[edit]

The Dear RBC, I'd like to nominate Nick... comerical is becomeing annoying. Anyways, can it be placed in this article somewhere? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

RBC Centura Bank RBC states that the name will change to RBC Bank (USA) sometime this spring, not to RBC Royal Bank (USA). See recent press release) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

World Economic Outlook[edit]

Patricia Croft was a guest speaker on a recent PBS program about the world economy. What is her current position with RBC ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Article being edited by the bank itself?[edit]

An IP with ISP: Royal Bank of Canada has deleted content and a G&M reference from the section Temporary foreign workers and Canadian layoffs on 10:57, 22 April 2013‎. I have reverted this change - please help keep an eye on this article. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


I don't agree that we should have a section on this bank's main page for FATCA. Banks are subject to hundreds of laws and regulations and to specifically list each bank's response and implementation of each would be silly. As such I have made a bold edit and removed this section until such time as a consensus is reached. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mrfrobinson: I see nothing wrong with including a section informing readers that starting this summer they will have to answer more questions/ provide more documentation as proof, when they open a new bank account, and letting all customers know that their bank is under obligation to "snoop" through their records. This will most likely increase banking fees substantially and is all verifiable information.
Why do you feel this information should be kept off Wikipedia? XOttawahitech (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
this info is on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't news not is it a venue to push an opinion. Every bank doesn't need a blurb about some law that affects them. If you keep adding this info to article I will open a RFC on this.Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson: I am still trying to figure out the reason you have removed information from this article. Is it because you believe it is pushing an opinion? – If so what is the opinion you feel is being pushed? (also would you be kind enough to ping me when you reply} XOttawahitech (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The information does not need to be in each bank's article. It is a US law that affects the bank, it does not need to be included in each Canadian bank article. What about the patriot act? What about Canadian financial laws? You need to provide a rationale on why to include this in the article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson: I think it is a good idea to include in this article all of the verifiable information that you mention above which relates directly to the Royal Bank. Why don't you go ahead and add it to the article? XOttawahitech (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is written in summary style. We want to avoid repetition of information to the greatest extent practical; if every page about a specific bank contained all the information contained in Bank, articles on banks would be unreadable. FATCA is not specific to this bank, or even to Canadian banks in general. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
While FATCA is certainly a topic of interest, as an extraordinary example of US law being applied extraterritorially even in violation of other nations' laws, it is not in any way specific to RBC. Essentially the same things apply to every bank in the world with substantial ties in the US to be harmed. At most this article should link to the FATCA, it doesn't rate lengthy discussion. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit war with an ADMIN?[edit]

I see someone posted an edit about Ripping off the elderly which was reverted by ADMIN: User:Materialscientist with this edit summary: Identified as test/vandalism using STiki. So out of curiosity I googled this and with little effort found the following: What do others think was it appropriate to revert this edit with this edit summary? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech and Materialscientist: Edit war? The reverted edit was "RBC has been known to rip people off, especially the elderly. There is a home owner in Halifax who erected a sign on his front lawn after a relative had a bad experience with them. The Chebucto Road home's sign reads "RBC rips off the elder. Would you trust them?"". Also your "source" is dodgy at best. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@SuperMarioWikiEditor: My source is "dodgy"? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: Your source is a local news report about a hand written sign and the issue one person had with the bank. Not only does this not show a trend or prove anything it goes against what Wikipedia is. What Wikipedia is NOT is a news paper, a venue for publicizing an issue or a venue for original research. This is essentially the same as a research article. IF you had linked to a report done by a government agency or a news article that investigates and determines there is a systematic and intentional problem across the company. Therefore your "source" is dodgy at best. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech and Materialscientist: Also Materialscientist was not edit waring with anyone nor is their position as an admin relevant in any way, shape or form. SuperMarioWikiEditor (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Too big a change -- reverted[edit]

I just discovered this edit which removed over 3,000 bytes from the article with a rationale saying this in the edit summary: Removing unsourced/poorly sourced content; removing promo content; cleanup; breaking up lengthy paragraphs; fixing section heads. I particularly do not like removing unsourced/poorly sourced material instead of simply putting a <nowiki>[citation needed]</nowik> on instead.

I don't like to be forced to check such a big change in an established article, so have reverted the whole thing. What do others think? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me

WP:BURDEN World's Lamest Critic (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. The original info looked OK, just unsourced. Deleting it deletionism - to paraphrase: "We have to destroy Wikipedia in order to save it." Presumably from the oiks that favor content over form. Acad Ronin (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: So you were too lazy to look but decided to just revert instead? Instead of reverting, why don't you take two minutes and look it over before reverting? How are you being "forced to check such a big change"? You don't WP:OWN this page, you don't need to approve every edit made (for the record, the change isn't nearly as substantial as you are representing here). As World's Lamest Critic already pointed out, per BURDEN unsourced content should not be restored without a citation. If you'd like to restore content by adding a source, feel free. Your edit isn't helpful. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah Policy. Much more important than information. You didn't challenge; you unilaterally deleted.Acad Ronin (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)