This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wachovia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WACHOVIA If you pronounce WACH as WATCH and you say WACHOVIA quickly over and over you'll hear yourself say "Watch over ya". Doesn't that make sense for a lending company?
-- Perhaps more pertinently, it seems like we should mention something about Wachovia's admission that their "predecessor companies" profited from slavery. Here's a link off their site [1] Brodo 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My mother had a loan from them when my parents were younger (they are in their 70s now, this was in the 60s), and did not give a care about the success of the deal, and would not give them a break on a loan she took out. So my father says the accurate name (like a bostonian talking) is Walk Over You, or Walk Ovee Yuh. My brother had a similar experience with them when they bought out the savings and loan he was working for, they fired all the employees without a rehire.. Considering the recent events, he's proud they didn't hire him, even though he spearheaded a new legal division of one of the largest savings and loans in the country, World Savings and Loan. For the record, he got a job with Meryl Lynch, which happened before the mortgage fallout.. My father also says that the banks threatening foreclosure on homes is a sin, call usury which described in the bible as a serious sin, Jesus even talks about such injustices as contrary to the debt believers owe to him. I wonder if any of these banks have Christian executives. - KH
Anyone can pay business schools to conduct surveys, Jimmy. If the references were in a field requiring hard research, I would understand. But the included text is simply expressing the opinions of customers and former customers, and is expressing such. (Who better to determine "customer service" than customers?) It doesn't say "difficulties abound," it says "reported difficulties abound." Wikipedia entries are to be no one's corporate mouthpiece, but to represent a genuine populist voice, reflecting the range of opinions on a subject, taking the bad with the good. Citations were requested and have been provided. Please be advised to retain said text as written.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.32.116.119 (
talk) (transfered from hidden text in article)
Seems to me Wachovia has alot of hidden fees in the checking account area. They hold their check card holds too long and put holds on deposits for more than 5 days at a time without notifying the person depositing the money. These practicing cause more overdrafts that do not help the working class people get ahead. For instance I had an Overdraft of $.86 and a direct deposit within four hours of $1,000...Well $5.00 for Over protection, automatic $100.00 transferred from that. Not to mention $35.00 NSF fee. That is the most I have ever paid for $.86. I have written congress regarding Consumer Checking Account fairness Act (H.R. 799) and I would like to encourage others like me to do it as well. Not to mention the OCC to check into the practices of Wachovis in general. There needs to be some kind of help for the little people who seem to never get ahead if there are always ridiculous fees to knock you back down.
Kernersville, NC
The entire "Business Model" section of Golden West Financial appears to be original research. See WP:OR for more info about what qualifies as original research.
I propose:
I will proceed with these changes within two weeks, depending on any feedback or the addition of
verifiable references to
Golden West Financial.
--
JKeene 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Wachovia having the fourth largest market capitalization of any US Bank. This has never been the case as Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have always had larger market caps. As of today, US Bank also has a larger market cap. I didn't replace this with its ranking as this changes frequently, especially with the banking market as it is now. Burke27 ( talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following article would appear to follow-up on the activities noted in the Talk:Wachovia#Controversies section. Provided for your consideration:
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the founding date to 1781. I've been personally doing some research on it, and this is what I can find: The article already cites that wachovia has continusously operated a branch since 1781. If you research Bank of North America it was clearly created back in 1781 as well. The office of the comptroller of the currancy does have a list of all national banks listing bank charter numbers, (which are cronological), and Wachovia Bank, N.A. holds charter #1. The second oldest bank, Bank of new york was founded in 1784. So, again, more adding to me being on the right track here. However, the company itself doesn't cite 1781 anywhere on their website or otherwise, rather prefering to only talk about the founding of the bank wachovia, whom the current encarnation derives its name, and First Union, who technically bought wachovia about 10 years ago. KenBest ( talk) 11:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just added a brief section on Wachovia's takeover by Citigroup. This is breaking news, and will doubtless need to be updated and expanded as more details emerge. Mikeplokta ( talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I'm a registered user, why can't I edit the Wachovia article? Can somebody add fr:Wachovia please? Tx
Greenski (
talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's POV to say "However, while Wachovia had not signed a definitive agreement with Citigroup, it has a signed agreement with Wells Fargo." What "definitive" means is subjective, but Citigroup undoubtedly has a signed agreement with Wachovia, and just got a favorable court injunction based on that agreement. [2] I'll try to make this part more neutral. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
People accounts from Wells Fargo nad Wachovia are deleted the customer account does exist in there credit , The company porceeds to to be the best , but from research and other people , the payments for their vehicle were lost and embezzeled into someones pocket . the new account is issued but the customer is still lost in the shuffle and there is no way out . The Accounts that are opened and closed or now deleted , The cunstomer is blinded and there is no way to repair the damage the bank has done. customers of wells fargo and Wachovia are now being from all sides . Due tom this no one can win. but the comes out on with profits over a $200 Billion to Trillion . The CEO is rich and customers lsss there vehicles and personal loans . There is a no win situation . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.136.21 ( talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I cannot edit this article, but the very first sentence contains a punctuation error. "Wholly owned" should not have a hyphen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.89 ( talk) 21:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be some debate as to the current legal status of Wachovia. Due to the consolidation/merger of Wachovia's bank charters with Wells Fargo, it is no longer a free-standing division or wholly owned entity. Technically, Wachovia is just a brand of Wells Fargo until integration is complete. So in order to be completely factual it should be reflected in Wachovia's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapkoski ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do we not inform the public of their fees? This is what people need and want to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi15 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the current version of the article is very subjective and undermines the reliability of the article as a whole. It should be deleted if it cannot be sourced. In the meantime, it would be better to remove the subjective adjective "ridiculous", the attributive motive (in the clause beginning "when really it was just a ploy..", and the unsourced quote. Ltlaw ( talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that one could improve the verb tense of the statement, "Starting in 2009, the Wachovia brand is being absorbed into the Wells Fargo brand in a process that was initially estimated to last three years." by replacing it with, "Starting in 2009, the absorpion of the Wachovia brand into the Wells Fargo brand began in a process that was initially estimated to last three years." 209.242.151.82 ( talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that Wells Fargo has fully intergrated and officially stopped using the Wachovia name as of this month (July 2011). I know that here in the State of Florida all of former Wachovia branches have been merged into the Wells Fargo brand using new Wells Fargo account numbers, Also Wachovia's Certifications of Incorporation issued in their home state of North Carolina have been officially merged out (see here, here and here) which means that legally Wachovia can no longer operate as a corporation either in a stand-alone or subsidiary capacity since the office of the North Carolina Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall has officially rescinded their right to operate as a corporation in the State of North Carolina. Also according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Institution Database (See here) Wachovia Bank, N.A. has been an inactive member of the FDIC since March 20, 2010 which pretty much to me like a defunct bank. Input and opinions on this subject would be appreciate. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This was a reverse merger - ie Wachovia bought out Wells Fargo and took on Wells Fargo's name. Another reverse merger: America West buying US Airways and keeping the US Airways name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.242.14 ( talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems strange that such a large bank with over 120 years of history has an article that focuses almost exclusively on the merger and end of the Wachovia name. The article should END with the transformation to Wells Fargo. It would be more encyclopedic to keep some of Wachovia's history. Was this lost with edits during the merger, I wonder? -- Bridgecross ( talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Wachovia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
From NYT a few days ago:
The case was Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. 550 U.S. 1 (2007). It should probably be mentioned in the article. 67.164.113.165 ( talk) 01:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wachovia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
WACHOVIA If you pronounce WACH as WATCH and you say WACHOVIA quickly over and over you'll hear yourself say "Watch over ya". Doesn't that make sense for a lending company?
-- Perhaps more pertinently, it seems like we should mention something about Wachovia's admission that their "predecessor companies" profited from slavery. Here's a link off their site [1] Brodo 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My mother had a loan from them when my parents were younger (they are in their 70s now, this was in the 60s), and did not give a care about the success of the deal, and would not give them a break on a loan she took out. So my father says the accurate name (like a bostonian talking) is Walk Over You, or Walk Ovee Yuh. My brother had a similar experience with them when they bought out the savings and loan he was working for, they fired all the employees without a rehire.. Considering the recent events, he's proud they didn't hire him, even though he spearheaded a new legal division of one of the largest savings and loans in the country, World Savings and Loan. For the record, he got a job with Meryl Lynch, which happened before the mortgage fallout.. My father also says that the banks threatening foreclosure on homes is a sin, call usury which described in the bible as a serious sin, Jesus even talks about such injustices as contrary to the debt believers owe to him. I wonder if any of these banks have Christian executives. - KH
Anyone can pay business schools to conduct surveys, Jimmy. If the references were in a field requiring hard research, I would understand. But the included text is simply expressing the opinions of customers and former customers, and is expressing such. (Who better to determine "customer service" than customers?) It doesn't say "difficulties abound," it says "reported difficulties abound." Wikipedia entries are to be no one's corporate mouthpiece, but to represent a genuine populist voice, reflecting the range of opinions on a subject, taking the bad with the good. Citations were requested and have been provided. Please be advised to retain said text as written.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
66.32.116.119 (
talk) (transfered from hidden text in article)
Seems to me Wachovia has alot of hidden fees in the checking account area. They hold their check card holds too long and put holds on deposits for more than 5 days at a time without notifying the person depositing the money. These practicing cause more overdrafts that do not help the working class people get ahead. For instance I had an Overdraft of $.86 and a direct deposit within four hours of $1,000...Well $5.00 for Over protection, automatic $100.00 transferred from that. Not to mention $35.00 NSF fee. That is the most I have ever paid for $.86. I have written congress regarding Consumer Checking Account fairness Act (H.R. 799) and I would like to encourage others like me to do it as well. Not to mention the OCC to check into the practices of Wachovis in general. There needs to be some kind of help for the little people who seem to never get ahead if there are always ridiculous fees to knock you back down.
Kernersville, NC
The entire "Business Model" section of Golden West Financial appears to be original research. See WP:OR for more info about what qualifies as original research.
I propose:
I will proceed with these changes within two weeks, depending on any feedback or the addition of
verifiable references to
Golden West Financial.
--
JKeene 01:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to Wachovia having the fourth largest market capitalization of any US Bank. This has never been the case as Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo have always had larger market caps. As of today, US Bank also has a larger market cap. I didn't replace this with its ranking as this changes frequently, especially with the banking market as it is now. Burke27 ( talk) 17:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The following article would appear to follow-up on the activities noted in the Talk:Wachovia#Controversies section. Provided for your consideration:
--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the founding date to 1781. I've been personally doing some research on it, and this is what I can find: The article already cites that wachovia has continusously operated a branch since 1781. If you research Bank of North America it was clearly created back in 1781 as well. The office of the comptroller of the currancy does have a list of all national banks listing bank charter numbers, (which are cronological), and Wachovia Bank, N.A. holds charter #1. The second oldest bank, Bank of new york was founded in 1784. So, again, more adding to me being on the right track here. However, the company itself doesn't cite 1781 anywhere on their website or otherwise, rather prefering to only talk about the founding of the bank wachovia, whom the current encarnation derives its name, and First Union, who technically bought wachovia about 10 years ago. KenBest ( talk) 11:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I've just added a brief section on Wachovia's takeover by Citigroup. This is breaking news, and will doubtless need to be updated and expanded as more details emerge. Mikeplokta ( talk) 12:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
I'm a registered user, why can't I edit the Wachovia article? Can somebody add fr:Wachovia please? Tx
Greenski (
talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's POV to say "However, while Wachovia had not signed a definitive agreement with Citigroup, it has a signed agreement with Wells Fargo." What "definitive" means is subjective, but Citigroup undoubtedly has a signed agreement with Wachovia, and just got a favorable court injunction based on that agreement. [2] I'll try to make this part more neutral. Superm401 - Talk 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
People accounts from Wells Fargo nad Wachovia are deleted the customer account does exist in there credit , The company porceeds to to be the best , but from research and other people , the payments for their vehicle were lost and embezzeled into someones pocket . the new account is issued but the customer is still lost in the shuffle and there is no way out . The Accounts that are opened and closed or now deleted , The cunstomer is blinded and there is no way to repair the damage the bank has done. customers of wells fargo and Wachovia are now being from all sides . Due tom this no one can win. but the comes out on with profits over a $200 Billion to Trillion . The CEO is rich and customers lsss there vehicles and personal loans . There is a no win situation . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.136.21 ( talk) 21:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I cannot edit this article, but the very first sentence contains a punctuation error. "Wholly owned" should not have a hyphen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.89 ( talk) 21:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be some debate as to the current legal status of Wachovia. Due to the consolidation/merger of Wachovia's bank charters with Wells Fargo, it is no longer a free-standing division or wholly owned entity. Technically, Wachovia is just a brand of Wells Fargo until integration is complete. So in order to be completely factual it should be reflected in Wachovia's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapkoski ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do we not inform the public of their fees? This is what people need and want to know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedi15 ( talk • contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the current version of the article is very subjective and undermines the reliability of the article as a whole. It should be deleted if it cannot be sourced. In the meantime, it would be better to remove the subjective adjective "ridiculous", the attributive motive (in the clause beginning "when really it was just a ploy..", and the unsourced quote. Ltlaw ( talk) 22:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that one could improve the verb tense of the statement, "Starting in 2009, the Wachovia brand is being absorbed into the Wells Fargo brand in a process that was initially estimated to last three years." by replacing it with, "Starting in 2009, the absorpion of the Wachovia brand into the Wells Fargo brand began in a process that was initially estimated to last three years." 209.242.151.82 ( talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Now that Wells Fargo has fully intergrated and officially stopped using the Wachovia name as of this month (July 2011). I know that here in the State of Florida all of former Wachovia branches have been merged into the Wells Fargo brand using new Wells Fargo account numbers, Also Wachovia's Certifications of Incorporation issued in their home state of North Carolina have been officially merged out (see here, here and here) which means that legally Wachovia can no longer operate as a corporation either in a stand-alone or subsidiary capacity since the office of the North Carolina Secretary of State, Elaine F. Marshall has officially rescinded their right to operate as a corporation in the State of North Carolina. Also according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Institution Database (See here) Wachovia Bank, N.A. has been an inactive member of the FDIC since March 20, 2010 which pretty much to me like a defunct bank. Input and opinions on this subject would be appreciate. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 01:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This was a reverse merger - ie Wachovia bought out Wells Fargo and took on Wells Fargo's name. Another reverse merger: America West buying US Airways and keeping the US Airways name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.242.14 ( talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems strange that such a large bank with over 120 years of history has an article that focuses almost exclusively on the merger and end of the Wachovia name. The article should END with the transformation to Wells Fargo. It would be more encyclopedic to keep some of Wachovia's history. Was this lost with edits during the merger, I wonder? -- Bridgecross ( talk) 15:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Wachovia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
From NYT a few days ago:
The case was Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. 550 U.S. 1 (2007). It should probably be mentioned in the article. 67.164.113.165 ( talk) 01:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)