Talk:Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

message: Why were there both a CIBC and this?--Jerryseinfeld 23:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate

message: If these two banks had merged, would they have become the Canadian Imperial Toronto Bank of Dominion Commerce? (Just wondering.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeromacnoo (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TD is already merged... so... "Dominion of Canada Imperial Bank" DCIB ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.93.88 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CIBC-TD

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support per nom. Ardenn 02:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hi, I wonder if it's absolutely necessary to put a large, non-cropped picture of CIBC client cards in this article. Pictures of branches or logos are very common in articles about banks, but plastic cards? Not to my knowledge. -- AirOdyssey (Talk) 04:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client card picture 

message: This article is a bloody disaster, from grammatical, content, and organization perspectives. I've tried to fix as many grammatical and spelling errors as possible, adopt a more encyclopedic tone, and consolidate a lot of the information. Until someone wants to take the time to do this article properly we should keep it simple. -unsigned 20:42, 27 May 2009
Frankly, I think this article's a mess. The history section's disjointed, and there are far too many names under the governance section (many of which I don't think are really relevant to the article). I would make more changes, but I thought I'd leave it to someone more knowledgeable of the bank. (Even the articles for TD and BMO are much better than this one, and I don't think they're stellar articles either.) - Hinto 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I'll take a shot at cleaning up this article at least to ensure it is factual. 13bubbles 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Why is it that RBC, TD Canada Trust, Bank of Montreal and Scotiabank all look like they are as clean as a whistle on here?  They have had just as many scandals as CIBC and in some cases the losses more significant...  Just another case of Canadian Media finding someone to pick on and running with it I think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.198.223.106 (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pick on CIBC 

message: This article is a bloody disaster, from grammatical, content, and organization perspectives. I've tried to fix as many grammatical and spelling errors as possible, adopt a more encyclopedic tone, and consolidate a lot of the information. Until someone wants to take the time to do this article properly we should keep it simple. -unsigned 20:42, 27 May 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.195.186 (talk)  
:I just added this comment back in after it was deleted as vandalism - I don't think it's vandalism.  99.240.195.186 should have sought consensus here before making drastic changes, and been more civil and used the edit summary, but I really think that there was enough reason here to assume good faith - most of the deleted information was not sourced, and I agree that the article is a mess. It's mostly a series of bulleted lists, when it really should be paragraphs, it's full of redlinks that are unlikely to ever become full articles, it has spelling and style problems, and, as I said, it's poorly sourced.  I'm going to work on cleaning it up and sourcing it, but I'll do it in small steps, and with notes on the talk page.  Note to 99.240.195.186 - you are welcome to come back to help in a constructive way, but it's a good idea to seek some consensus before making sweeping changes, and to explain each edit in the edit summary.  Dawn Bard (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, this was the second time in the last week that an anonymous editor had removed large chunks of text from this article. Last time, there were neither edit summaries nor explanation provided here — this time, the explanation above wasn't added until after all the edits were done. As I have a CoI, I reported the edits to WP:EAR for attention while they were in progress. Mlaffs (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand - I really hate when people do what this person did, making drastic changes without explanation in advance - I just don't think all the edits were bad, and as I said, there was enough here to assume good faith, even while reverting their edits.  And for what it's worth, I wasn't trying to pick on you or accuse you (or anyone else) of anything - you did exactly the right thing  - I wish more people would declare their conflicts of interest and seek help the way you did, so kudos.  I'm just presenting my opinion.  Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries — I knew where you were coming from and didn't take any offense at all. I just wanted to provide the context, in case you hadn't figured it out already. Mlaffs (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep it Simple

message: I have done some major restructuring of the article. All the information is intact and has mostly been organized into sections. The article was scattered across a million headings that were largely completely random. Some really had me scratching my head and were completely inconsistent with the articles of other banks.
A lot of information was redundant so I eliminated repetition. My vision for the changes were to:
a.) Make it more visually appealing 
b.) Correct all spelling and grammatical errors
c.) Eliminate redundancies 
c.) In a neutral fashion and in good faith, eliminate information that was completely obscure (i.e. no sourcing, no details) and that one could reasonably expect the average reader to be unable to interpret.
If moderators disagree with any of the changes I have made, please do not "undo" the article back to its previous state in totality. At least retain its current level of visual appearance. I know the article has been a disaster for years so I spent a lot of time working on it since noone else seems to be doing it.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.155.33 (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is general consensus that the quality of the article has improved to 'reasonable' standards as per Wikipedia, I think we should remove the 'cleanup required' tag at the top of the article. I will leave this to a more experienced user to be the judge of.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.155.33 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: February 2011 facelift

message: A case can be made against the factual basis of 'The bailout amount was estimated at 148% of the companies stock valuation.' footnote 2. Considering that the citation used in this article is absent from other Canadian banks' articles on wikipedia, and is completely inconsistent with the reported earnings of CIBC during that same period, I think the citation introduces ambiguity and inconsistency into the article.
The footnote borrows affirmations - not conclusions - from the Canadian Centre for Alternative Policy's publication The Big Banks' Big Secret. Notwithstanding any liquidity measures already in place prior to the financial crisis of 2008, no domestic Canadian bank has received 'bailout' money in any manner resembling those of the US, UK or European banks. The term 'bailout' was used to describe firms having a significant risk of collapse and/or failure necessitating emergency cash infusions to remedy a precarious financial predicament. This was never the case of any major Canadian financial institution as evidenced by their continued profitability throughout the crisis. The usage of the term 'bailout' in speaking of CIBC invites an erroneous comparison to banks having received 'real bailout' money like Citigroup, BoA, NorthernRock etc. All institutions having received bailout funds from various governments worldwide have reported significant losses prior to or immediately following the receipt of public monies.
What is more, the mortgages being securitized through the CMHC are Canadian mortgages with no ties whatsoever to foreign properties or derivatives like CDO's etc. I think the citation in question fails to discriminate between legitimate financing operations and emergency liquidity injections resulting from a deterioration in financial position.
In conclusion, I think the complete removal of the segment mentioning the receipt of 'bailout' funds be removed from the article on the grounds of disputed neutrality and factual inconsistency. Vbernier (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual inconsistency 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FATCA 

message: CIBC's claims of 1867 as its founding year are purely marketing, likely done to align with Canada 150, and are not accurate for the purposes of an encyclopedia. CIBC as it currently exists was founded on June 1, 1961 through the merger of the Canadian Bank of Commerce and Imperial Bank of Canada as indicated on the front page of CIBC's corporate history website as recently as November 12, 2016. 
The change to highlight 1867, the founding year of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, as its founding only occurred shortly after November 12, 2016 in the lead-up to Canada 150: compare the CIBC quick facts page on October 18, 2016 (no mention of 1867) and the same page a few weeks later on November 13 (lists founding as 1867).
I have corrected the article (as well as associated categories and list articles) and added an explanatory note to the infobox about how some CIBC materials claim Commerce's founding year as its own.  19:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1867 vs 1961