Talk:Westpac

message: The timeline section states "WBC was framed with the mission to become a significant Western-Pacific bank".  There follows the dubious statement "As of 2008 this mission has not been accomplished".  On what basis is this statement made, does it not represent an editorial opinion rather than a fact, and how has it managed to stay in the article for two years??  Darcyj (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not an appropriate sentence unless sourced. Since there's been no comment and no action on it in nearly four months, I've removed the line from the article. 203.38.78.228 (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This mission has not been accomplished" 

message: Can someone find reference that either the Commonwealth Bank or Westpac is the largest bank by mrkt. capitalisation. They both conflict with no references. I have removed both statements.
--121.215.5.146 (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Bank 

message: It did not exist before then, it was created by the merger of 2 other companies, these companies ceased to exist and a new one was created. The claim its Australis oldest bank is wrong, if anything it should state westpac destroyed Australias first bank.
:The history of its predecessors is relevant, especially so as the article on Bank of New South Wales is currently a redirect to this one. It would be reasonable to develop that as an article, and also to expand Commercial Bank of Australia. Some of the history in this article would no longer be necessary, although a summary would still be useful.-gadfium 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would certainly be more accurate to say in the History section something like "Westpac was formed in 1982 through a merger of... The Bank of New South Wales. established in Sydney in 1817, was the first bank in Australia." HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But none of that would require the removal of the predecessor bank's history.  BNSW's article redirects here, so any info concerning them needs to be listed here.  I tend to discount the unsigned statement from december 11, as it would be hard for them to contribute now.  So, you have one person advocating mass removal of content and one person saying, "no way, Jose!"  I am generally against large scale removal of content, especially when it is unilateral.  So, I would say there is no consensus to remove the nearly three thousand characters that one user was trying to remove. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  westpac started in 1982 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Westpac. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070115210911/http://www.westpac.co.nz:80/olcontent/olcontent.nsf/Content/Westpac+today to http://westpac.co.nz/olcontent/olcontent.nsf/Content/Westpac+today
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Westpac is the 2nd oldest organization to the Bible Society Australia, in Australia. Very notable 114.75.195.134 (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd oldest organization in Australia 

message: I removed the "Corporate Governance" section, as it seemed rather promotional and not vital to the topic.
I also started editing the History section before realizing there are a huge number of data points presented as fact with no citations at all. The bullet lists read almost as though this section was copy-pasted from corporate promotional materials, which is reinforced in my view by the full section devoted to corporate governance, a highly atypical section for most business/company pages.
The entire article could be better-supported by sourcing, or otherwise streamlined and condensed to present verifiable facts in a less promotional way. JP Miller1 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many more citations needed 

message: I'm not a lawyer, but ...
* "1992 ... The Bank dismissed staff and raided the superannuation[citation needed] to sustain its viability."
and
* "2008 & 2009: Secret funds were secured from the Federal Reserve of USD$1.09 billion. (see Secret Bailout 2007 & 2008)"
... do not sit well with me. If no sources or sensible objections are provided in the near future I will delete these.
Wayne 16:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and potentially libellous statements.  

message: Just wondering if the current scandal should have its own page? Thoughts? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @MaskedSinger * Support – the Controversy section has the impacts the neutrality of this article, it would be better to have that content in an Australian Banking scandals articleDuncnbiscuit (talk) 02:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Duncnbiscuit Thanks for the reply.  I completely forgot about this!MaskedSinger (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current scandal requires own page?  

message: Will it may be worth having a section on banking alliances, groups or associations with whom Westpac is involved. There is no particular notable reason for there to be a section specific to the Global ATM Alliance in this article. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global ATM Alliance Section relevance 

message: The section Westpac New Zealand should have its own article Westpac New Zealand. This would be consistent with other subsidiaries of Westpac, such as St George Bank, having their own article and also with equivalent Australian owned New Zealand banks also having separate articles to their parent. Being subject to the New Zealand's regulator RBNZ Banking Standard 11,  Westpac New Zealand is also operates largely independently of its Westpac parent. plus a separate article would accommodate the history of the bank's New Zealand predecessors. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there enough content to make it an entirely new article? It seems like leaving it as a section is reasonable. --Spekkios (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Spekkios the existing section is very inadequate coverage of Westpac NZ so I'm not suggesting spitting the section into its own article following the form and content of the current section. However, I am proposing an article that significantly expands our encyclopedic view of Westpac NZ, allowing us to place it in the context of the New Zealand banking sector and economy, which is not possible within the current Australian centric Westpac article. There is a wealth of independent and notable source material available for a separate article. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that. If there is content there to write an article then it makes sense to split it off. --Spekkios (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

text:  Agree, and a kind offer from @Duncnbiscuit. Matt (Talk) 05:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Matt.T I can't publish a Westpac NZ article because I have a COI but I may be able to help with a draft, keeping a close eye the article's NPOV. Duncnbiscuit (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting proposal