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


INSIDER REPORTS THAT SCOTIA BANK IS UN-LEGALLY REFUSING TRANSACTIONS FROM WHITE LABEL ATM THAT THEIR CLIENTS TRY TO PERFORM. THEY ALSO HAVE INTENTIONALY HAD CERTAIN VISA CHIP CARDS PROGRAMMED TO SABOTAGE WHITE LABEL ATM'S IN CANADA. TO COMPLAIN YOU SHOULD ADDRESS: The President and CEO is called Rick Waugh, not Richard Waugh as the information box states. The current link goes to an actor who did voiceovers in computer games. Unless he is moonlighting, it appears to be wrong. ~~Bosh_78~~

Another Canadian bank acquisition in the Caribbean. (Thursday, April 20, 2006) - Scotiabank to buy Citigroup's Dominican Republic unit CaribDigita 14:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add a section about quality control problems at scotiabank, I'll get references too, unless I hear any objections, it is widely known that scotia bank atms often pass counterfeits.

I don't think Scotiabank passes any more counterfeits than the other 4... If you wish to discuss quality control, I think it should relate to all of the banks. I think you are basing your discussion simply either on a personal reflection, or a rumor you heard from an unsolicited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Move to The Bank of Nova Scotia?[edit]

I'm wondering if this article should be moved to The Bank of Nova Scotia, since that's its full name. I see that CIBC redirects to Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (the full name), so maybe this should do the same? G.He 00:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose policy is that we use the most common name. Ardenn 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, in that case, CIBC is more common than Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. G.He 01:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll list it to be moved. Ardenn 02:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree move --Coolspot 22:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Bank of Nova Scotia is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Scotiabank Group. Look it up. The official name for the group which includes Scotia Capital, SMC, etc is Scotiabank Group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor performed a ScotiabankBank of Nova Scotia move today without discussion or edit-summary. I've reverted it on process grounds (it was a cut'n'paste content change, not a page-move). The above discussion is also fairly old, so I'm not comfortable with the rename on consensus grounds either. So what should be the name of the article on the English wikipedia: "Scotiabank", "Bank of Nova Scotia", or "The Bank of Nova Scotia"? Relevant guidelines: proper corp name vs common usage and more info about whether to use "The". So let's get a current consensus. DMacks (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bombing and Latin American criticism[edit]

Inserted bombing in Mexico city. Perhaps a criticism section should be added (see earlier discussion) including atm problems, union complaints, and general latin american criticism (particularly the freezing of cuban assets in jaimaca).

Still looking for purported reasons for the bombing of the bank branches. Headlines today in canada make it sound as if Scotiabank is entirely unrelated to everything in Oaxaca, etc., and since i don't know otherwise, it would be quite interesting to find out the motivation.

--Chalyres 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It may have perhaps been only coincidence that a bank was bombed at the same time as bombs hit the electoral commission and the right-wing political party offices; no group has claimed responsibility for any of the blasts so far. But the timing's too weird, especially since the bank wasn't robbed. So there must be some kind of connection between Scotiabank Mexico, or that branch (? why?), and the Oaxaca situation, or with the PRI or Mexican capitalist expansion or ??; where there was also a Burger King bombed in Oaxaca (or raided, don't have the article handy at the moment). I've been monitoring La Jornada for the last two weeks so if I see any answers on the Scotiabank bomb I'll be back; in the meantime I'm wondering when even the bombing of a Canadian bank's branch in a neighbouring country doesn't merit further coverage, never mind the whole Oaxaca situation which has been near-completely blacked out; bizarre considering the depth of political crisis underway in D.F., never mind in Oaxaca itself.Skookum1 07:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You're on the same track as i am. There's all this other criticism, and there's this this statement from the president cheerleading Scotiabank's growth in mexico (something to the effect of mexican gains proving how embracing the free-market there really <fill in neo-liberal statement here>. So, i can see guess why, but there without a statement or even a printed speculation, there's nothing to add on the page about it. Sigh. --Chalyres 08:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
According to Miguel Angel Granados Chapa, it is just a modus operandi of these groups to target banks. Perhaps Scotiabank was most vulnerable. Also, President Elect Calderón used to work for the bank that was bought by Scotiabank to expand in Mexico.Hari Seldon 07:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub, and of mid importance, as I believe that the topic plays a strong role within Canada. Cheers, CP 14:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

History is of ScotiaMcLeod and not the main bank[edit]

The history write up is on their brokerage ScotiaMcLeod and not the main bank. The Bank of Nova Scotia's history is here,1608,CID8399_LIDen,00.html

MC, Jan. 17, 2008

Whole article not showing for me... anyone else?[edit]

I did some editing to the article yesterday, and for whatever reason the entire article isn't showing up. It just shows past the mergers/buyouts, and one line from a section lower on. Anyone else having this problem? Corath (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the reference close tags were entered incorrectly, hiding most of the text. It should be fixed now.Langhorner (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much... I sure feel stupid. Oh well, now I know! Corath (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ScotiaBank Haiti[edit]

CitiBank Haiti is working out the the ScotiaBank building after the 2010 Haiti earthquake (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Can we add this into the lead? I'm not sure if it's pronounced the same was as the "Scotia" in Nova Scotia, or some other way. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Is Scotiabanks corporate headquarters in Halifax or Toronto ? Much like the Bank of Montreal and Royal Bank of Canada which have their corporate headquarters in Montreal, and their operational head offices in Toronto, I believe Scotiabank still has it's formal corporate headquarters in Nova Scotia. Even though all it's executives and operations are run out of Toronto. I can't find any info other than talk of their operational head offices or terribly written/Toronto-centric media junk. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


Again I have removed the portion of this article that was added about FATCA. Ottawahitech has been adding this information to bank's articles without any response as to why. Yes it does affect Scotia Bank but 1) Wikipedia is not a news site and 2) there is no need to add a mention of one law to every bank's page. If we were to put the response of the banks to every law that affected them it would be an unuseable article. PLEASE before reverting post why you want to keep adding this. Previous edit summaries included mentioned of "IRS getting Canadian's info"...lets leave fear mongering out of it. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree at best it could be added to Banking in Canada#Regulation... its just one on millions of regulations. Noting to do with the bank its self....just an outside policy they need to follow. -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Moxy I can't remove it right now since I would violate 3RR. Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok i will....lets see if we can get him to come talk. Not only is is not a Scotiabank regulation its not neutral in its presentation. Not need to scare our citizens. -- Moxy (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Moxy. Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Moxy: this is the text you reverted:

The 21st century[edit]

One of the biggest challenges, according to Scotia’s CEO Rick Waugh is electronic espionage. It is thought that China and Russia engage in electronic spying, and scotia has devoted emoumous resources in its effort to protect the privacy of its customers.

Scotia has also spent almost $100 million, implementing a controversial system to report to the United States the account holdings of close to one million Canadians of American origin, and their Canadian born spouses. Scotia has been forced implement this system in order to comply with FATCA. According to the Financial Post FATCA requires Canadian banks to provide information to the United States including total assets, acount balances, account numbers, transactions and more, and includes assets held jointly with Canadian-born spouses and other family members

Please explain (or better still modify it yourself instead of removing):

  • How can we make it more neutral
  • How can it be written so as tof not "scare our citizens."

Thank you, XOttawahitech (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the Scotia Bank article, this isn't a news paper. Opinion pieces and news like this have no place in the bank's articles. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson: Why do you call this an opinion piece? XOttawahitech (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Because one of your references is an opinion piece and the wording is from a point of view and is not objective.Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson: @Moxy: So what if this one "opinion piece" reference is removed, is that all it will take? Please be specific and explain what you consider not objective in the wording. X Ottawahitech (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is the section in question with my comments, really none of it is acceptable:

"One of the biggest challenges, according to Scotia’s CEO Rick Waugh is electronic espionage. It is thought that China and Russia engage in electronic spying, and scotia has devoted emoumous resources in its effort to protect the privacy of its customers. (the main topic here is an opinion)

Scotia has also spent almost $100 million, implementing a controversial (controversial to whom? opinion) system to report to the United States the account holdings of close to one million Canadians of American origin, and their Canadian born spouses. Scotia has been forced implement this system in order to comply with FATCA. According to the Financial Post FATCA requires Canadian banks to provide information to the United States including total assets, acount balances, account numbers, transactions and more, and includes assets held jointly with Canadian-born spouses and other family members.[1][2] (1 source is an opinion piece, the other is a poor source to use on FATCA, why not reference the actual FATCA agreement? You should be using the most accurate and non-biased sources, news papers while acceptable are not the best choice, additionally FATCA does not need to be referenced in every single place that you think it applies!)" Mrfrobinson (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

electronic espionage[edit]

@Mrfrobinson: @Moxy: If I understand it correctly, you have both been engaging in a slow edit war with me since Januay 29, 2014, and this is getting nowhere. During the last round user:Mrfrobinson opined that the following section "the main topic here is an opinion":

"One of the biggest challenges, according to Scotia’s CEO Rick Waugh is electronic espionage. It is thought that China and Russia engage in electronic spying, and scotia has devoted emoumous resources in its effort to protect the privacy of its customers. “

I cannot see why this section is a problem? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No you don't understand it correctly. 5 separate editors have issue with your FATCA POV pushing, your spinning of facts to make yourself look like a victim and your blatant disregard for community consensus. Go read the quote you just posted "it is thought" is an opinion and quasi OR. Stop pushing this point for the last time. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mrfrobinson:I am sorry, I only see two editors involved here, which are the other 3 you are referrineg to? XOttawahitech (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've never been known for WP:AGF when there's a WP:DUCK around - and I smell a p.r. mole, right down to the impugned threat typical of professional info-bullies, almost as if he'd said "you have been warned". I haven't look at the editor history but have had my own experience with a choir of ducklings all clamouring for my head if they didn't get their way....and they went and found a reporter to repeat their distortions and accusations, and gee, wouldn't you know it? He sounded just like them....verbatim. If information about FATCA is "opinion" and there's a concern about causing fear in our citizens, then why is the cyber-espionage bit about China and Russia somehow OK but FATCA is not? This definitely should go on Banking (regulation) or whatever, and also on some kind of article, if ever written on Privacy laws and Canadians (more like "lack of privacy laws". And one other thing, it's not "news", it's now the status quo. How and where to put it in Wikipedia is up to debate; but insisting it should not be on Wikipedia at all is simply censorship......and op-ed pieces that contain information not found in non-oped article can still be used to cite such information......I see no POV tone in Ottawahitech's text, but I do see a lot of non sequitur "I'm going to shut you down by any means possible" coming from Mr F Robinson. What stake do you have, Mr Robinson, in working so hard to get this material deleted from Wikipedia. Do you have a COI? Well, that's really a rhetorical question....even if you're operating in an unpaid volunteer capacity (unlikely), you obviously have some kind of COI. Whether Scotibank, the governing party, the IRS or a think-tank, ordinary citizens don't complain about such matters...nor see to wiki-lawyer about it. Now, who are these other three editors and who are they again? And why, pray, does it matter so much to you to have this removed from public visibility (a job the media have been doing quite complicitly for some time). Yes, this is not a newspaper, and that means that publishers and managing editors and advertisers don't have the power over content here that they do in newspapers.....yes indeedy.[tilde not working on this webcafe computer so can't sign properly, this is Skookum1].
Hi not a PR mole, perhaps you might review my edit history. I have zero connection to banking or politics in Canada, in fact if you review my edit history you can actually verify my profession. The opinion I was refering to is the manner in which it was written. This editor has been basically spamming FATCA across every page he can, has pushed a POV on numerous occasions and does not understand that news paper opinion pieces are NOT acceptable. Nor is speculation by a bank individual. Next time you want to accuse someone please actually do some research. Ottawa has been putting the talk page conversations across so many talk pages that it makes him look like a victim, you can go see actually on his talk page the numerous times multiple editors have asked him to stop. He has gone and presented facts to different edit warning pages but leaves out anything from his side. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Also as a quick edit there is a huge article on Wikipedia on FATCA, the actual article on FATCA. Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)



There were three controversy subsections added recently. The St. John's one has nothing to do with this bank, in particular, and the importance of the others has not been established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: You have reverted a whole section in the Controversies section saying it was: COMPLETELY unrelated to Scotiabank. This is incorrect since the title of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation story used as a reference was: "Scotiabank deserves some blame over St. John's money scam Ottawahitech (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Titles are generally not reliable, and almost always not an indication of content. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Nevermind that the opinion of the CBC is not necessarily a concrete fact.Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
The opinion of the CBC headline writers, which do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the CBC editorial staff or newsreaders, is even less concrete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Uas per this tlak and one at Wp:CA........dons lie!!!!!!!!!!![edit]

-- continued from above, sigh...

My recent edit, which was a revert of a revert, has been reverted by User:Moxy with this edit summary: (Uas per this tlak and one at Wp:CA........dont lie!!!!!!!!!!!) which I am having trouble deciphering. I have recently contacted Moxy (who says that he is one of the most active Wikipedians) in regards to the many reversions I am experiencing, all initiated by user:Mrfrobinson. However, Moxy replied: I have no interests in the articles you mentioned above thus dont care all that much. which I interpreted to mean he was no longer interested in championing Mrfrobison here and elsewhere, but it appears I misunderstood. Over to you... Ottawahitech (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you convinced that this is the world vs you? They had a typo in their edit summary, there is a very clear consensus above which you ignored hence the edit summary. Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violations[edit]

The Controversies section dealing with missing money in Mexico has some copyright violations that need to be corrected. The first two paragraphs, at least, are directly lifted from the first source for that section. I don't have the time right now to go through the entire section (and to be honest, parts of each of the three sections under Controversies strongly look like they've been copied directly from a newspaper article), but will try to review and remove any copied text this evening. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, user:Ravensfire for pointing out that the first 2 paragraphs were copyrighted. I hope I have fixed that, however I did not get a chance to check whether the rest of this (interesting) section also needs to be worked on. Hopefully some of the other participants here will look into it. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I deleted the second section as it was just such a blatant and obvious copy. I'm leery about the third controversy section as well. Ravensfire (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@user:Ravensfire, Articles on Wikipedia should strive to be wp:NPOV. Removing information from the Controversies section is counter-productive. Why not rephrase it in your own words instead? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Didn't have the time and such an obvious copyright violation should have been removed months ago when I first spotted it. Copyright easily trumps NPOV. Ravensfire (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Unpaid overtime lawsuit section removed as direct copy[edit]

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted the entire Unpaid overtime lawsuit section. It's a direct copy from the source with minor editing only to delete some unwanted paragraphs. The sources used in the section were [1] and [2]. Ravensfire (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I have rephrased the section and re-added it. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm trying to revamp the third section today - we'll see how that goes. It's a bit complicated. I also left a note on Svilenv's talk page about the copyright violation. They haven't edited since they made the changes here but just in case they return, hopefully they'll take notice. Ravensfire (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Mexican fraud section cleaned of copyright violations and summarized. Ravensfire (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scotiabank. 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}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)