Talk:Bank of America

message: Recently the entire section on lawsuits was removed from the article . This is not a "controversies" section per Wikipedia:Criticism#"Controversy"_section which is cited to justify the removal. I have restored the content. Seraphim System (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, I just added a NPOV dispute tag on the section. Just because its not labeled "controversies" doesn't mean it doesn't follow that policy. Most of that information is extracted from the body of the article and compromises the article's neutral point of view. Most of that content is poorly cited and holds serious undue weight. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to be more specific to justify the tag. Seraphim System (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I most certainly do not. Per my edit summary: the information is already in the body of the article and its primary goal is to compromise the neutrality of the article. I see that all the time. Half of this article regards lawsuits, controversies, and other perceived misdeeds. I could swing that tag on the entire article given by justification, if I wanted to. I have no problem with the controversies or lawsuits, but you can't have a section called "lawsuits" as it would be undue weight. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a violation of NPOV, but we can change it to "Legal" which is what we use on most articles. Seraphim System (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, yes it is. Doesn't matter what you call it. You can call it "lawsuits" or "list of no-nos", either way it compromises the article's neutral point of view. This type of information should be integrated into the body of the article as it happened. Its important stuff. All the lawsuits and controversies are notable and need to be dealt with in accordance to Wikipedia:Criticism#Adhere to policy. LivinRealGüd (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "list of no-nos", it is legal content. Having it in a separate section helps editors who are interested in law find the content they are looking for, it also prevents mixing technical specialized content in with general history. Law content should be in its own section. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a good reason for removal. Seraphim System (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Look I understand that you're into law, but Wikipedia is not your pet project. Wikipedia is not for "technical specialized content" per WP:NOTJOURNAL. Editors "interested in law" can go off Wikipedia and read through law journals. "Law content should be its own section"? Says who? You can tell me that I "just don't like it" but I've laid out five different Wiki Policies (namely WP:TMI, WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:CRIT) to my point. If you want you can keep your "legal section", I'll just make sure the NPOV tag is right in front. Perhaps I'll even add an undue tag as well. The main body of the article has more than enough to warrant a tag over the entire article, but I am cleaning it up so I won't add it. I hope you reconsider your reversion. LivinRealGüd (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't explained how any of those policies apply to this content, other then the content is about law. You can't remove content just because it is about law. Specialized technical content is allowed about technical topics, which law is. That's not a justification for removal. Especially not because you perceive it to negative. That's not what undue means. Seraphim System (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tagbomb the section. If there are that many cn tags needed just tag it for refimprove-section. I agree that it needs some improvement. A lot of the sources don't look great, but don't just delete entire sections. You can tag it for refimprove section if you want, but in any case I will try to go over the section at some point. Seraphim System (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will add a ref improve tag then instead, if you'd like. But to my point, can you hear me okay? The only thing I have been doing is explaining how these policies apply to this content. I'm not removing this content because its about the law. I am removing it because such a section compromises the article's neutral point of view by creating an entire section dedicated to lawsuits, creating undue weight through disproportionate treatment. The Bank of America Wikipedia article is not the place for you to write about law. LivinRealGüd (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Your attitude toward that section doesn't seem to indicate that you "didn't write any of this content". Either way, that content is mentioned in an earlier section, feel free to click the "article" tab above and read all about it. This company has been involved high profile cases and those cases belong  in the main body of the history section per the multiple policies I've laid out. LivinRealGüd (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I think the article's contents are a fair representation of the subject's history. I don't agree with a neutrality dispute tag, when the contents fairly represent the notable events in the subject's timelines. If you have specific examples which you would like to shorten/cull, let's start by taking them one paragraph at a time. You could show the diffs (one para at a time) of what you want to change in a sub-page of this talk and we could discuss them over. That may allow us to reach easier consensus than broad discussions. What do you say? Warmly, Lourdes 05:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure thats fine, Lourdes. Firstly, though, I'd like the lead to be restored. I actually added and cleaned up the lead structure per MOS:LEAD, and I think you accidentally reverted it in your whole sale reversion. The only sections I have issues with are the history, lawsuits, and controversies sections. Keep in mind that theres only six sections in total, meaning half of this article is dedicated to content I believe to be not as neutral as it could be. But as far as the lead goes, there were no issues there. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Lourdes 16:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now take a look at my edits in the history section. You'll notice my edit summary was the same for all my edits: "Trimming WP:EXCESSDETAIL". For example there is a sentence on the article: "" Is that really necessary to have in the article's history section. Nope. And the citation? Evancarmichael.com. In other words, not a reliable source. Take a look at all the other trimming edits I made. Note that I didn't remove any content, I just trimmed the amount of detail around it as it was overly intricate and too technical. Its as if a law student was writing a term paper about the legal history of Bank of America. Later in the section we have a paragraph about a December 2011 settlement the bank made with the Justice Department. We see the same topic covered in the lawsuits section (in further detail). Is it really necessary for it to be mentioned twice? We see that in the article happening multiple times. In all cases, it just looks like an indiscriminate listing of legal cases. I think this information should be included, its important and maintains that the subject is covered fairly. Alas, just as one can "white wash" an article, one may turn it into a biased page. Lets work through the history section first and then move on to the lawsuits section. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text:  Also, it looks like a user named Strepice is restoring to my version of the article. You should know that this user is not me. It appears that the user has been blocked and has had account creation disabled. My account creation button still works. I am not associated with this account, I am here, working with you, to explain my edits. It seems that Jasper Deng took care of this user. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. Like I said earlier, neither you nor I would have time for broad general discussions. Place your proposed changes para by para in a sub-page of this talk page and let's get this over with this way or the other at the soonest. As you may have seen, I'm not slanted against you or towards you and am quite amenable to logical suggestions. But have no time for general discussions like the one you're starting (once again). And yes, I'm starting an SPI of the other account quoting you as a suspected party – that's just to ensure that you're in the clear. Thanks, Lourdes 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of lawsuits section 

message: I'd like to have my edits restored as they addressed the contestation above with another editor. What are other editors thoughts on the current state of the article? Do you think there is fair treatment about all the content? I believe that my edits were big improvements for the reasons outlined above and in the article edit history. My version was below this edit. The current version is live. As it stands a neutrality dispute tag is warranted over the entire article. LivinRealGüd (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article's contents are a fair representation of the subject's history. I don't agree with a neutrality dispute tag, when the contents fairly represent the notable events in the subject's timelines. If you have specific examples which you would like to shorten/cull, let's start by taking them one paragraph at a time. You could show the diffs (one para at a time) of what you want to change in a sub-page of this talk and we could discuss them over. That may allow us to reach easier consensus than broad discussions. What do you say? Warmly, Lourdes 05:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure thats fine, Lourdes. Firstly, though, I'd like the lead to be restored. I actually added and cleaned up the lead structure per MOS:LEAD, and I think you accidentally reverted it in your whole sale reversion. The only sections I have issues with are the history, lawsuits, and controversies sections. Keep in mind that theres only six sections in total, meaning half of this article is dedicated to content I believe to be not as neutral as it could be. But as far as the lead goes, there were no issues there. LivinRealGüd (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Lourdes 16:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now take a look at my edits in the history section. You'll notice my edit summary was the same for all my edits: "Trimming WP:EXCESSDETAIL". For example there is a sentence on the article: "" Is that really necessary to have in the article's history section. Nope. And the citation? Evancarmichael.com. In other words, not a reliable source. Take a look at all the other trimming edits I made. Note that I didn't remove any content, I just trimmed the amount of detail around it as it was overly intricate and too technical. Its as if a law student was writing a term paper about the legal history of Bank of America. Later in the section we have a paragraph about a December 2011 settlement the bank made with the Justice Department. We see the same topic covered in the lawsuits section (in further detail). Is it really necessary for it to be mentioned twice? We see that in the article happening multiple times. In all cases, it just looks like an indiscriminate listing of legal cases. I think this information should be included, its important and maintains that the subject is covered fairly. Alas, just as one can "white wash" an article, one may turn it into a biased page. Lets work through the history section first and then move on to the lawsuits section. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

text:  Also, it looks like a user named Strepice is restoring to my version of the article. You should know that this user is not me. It appears that the user has been blocked and has had account creation disabled. My account creation button still works. I am not associated with this account, I am here, working with you, to explain my edits. It seems that Jasper Deng took care of this user. LivinRealGüd (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there. Like I said earlier, neither you nor I would have time for broad general discussions. Place your proposed changes para by para in a sub-page of this talk page and let's get this over with this way or the other at the soonest. As you may have seen, I'm not slanted against you or towards you and am quite amenable to logical suggestions. But have no time for general discussions like the one you're starting (once again). And yes, I'm starting an SPI of the other account quoting you as a suspected party – that's just to ensure that you're in the clear. Thanks, Lourdes 08:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments

message: First off let me just say that you're correct in your overall history of BofA and how it came to be what we know today.  You are correct that pre-merger with NationsBank Corporation the bank holding company was BankAmerica Corporation. But the bank was not called that, it was called Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association back then.  It is now chartered as Bank of America, National Association.  It also had a different soaring logo.  (Not trying to be rude or anything but I lived through that time as I am 44 years old and can vividly remember the old Bank of America name and logo).  I do know that BofA at times used the term BankAmericard for its basic credit card or BankAmeriLease or BancAmerica Finance for its bank and non-bank susidiaries..This same type of thing happened with the Wells Fargo and Norwest Bank merger in 1999.  The two banks merged as equals,  however the name "Wells Fargo"was decided upon as it was a more well known name.  (Same thing with the Bank Of America and NationsBank merger, although some mergers are more equal than others.). I did work for Norwest Bank before, during, and after the merger with Wells Fargo Bank.  I also watched the same thing play out with the B of A and NationsBank merger around that same time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.139.142.108 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably true, but a reliable source is required. Wikipedia doesn't work on a basis of "I remember" (anecdote).  It can sometimes have incorrect information in it, when a source someone has used itself has incorrect information in it. The fix for that is finding better sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes , just politely correcting your article on the history of Bank of America and how it came to be today. 

message: Article needs some expansion to identify and describe subsidiaries. Two I know of (but don't know much about) are "Banamerica", and the redundantly named "Bank of America and BofA Securities" (formerly "Bank of America Merrill Lynch").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidiary entities 

message: Hey the current branch map doesn't take into consideration Bank of America's recent organic push into new markets such as Pittsburgh, Ohio, and other markets. (Trust me, I live in Columbus and am a native Yinzer, I've seen both randomly pop up, and they're still expanding.) Any chance we can get this map updated with said new locations? Jgera5 (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map update 

message: Given that Bank of America has a new, independent Merchant Services platform distinct from the now discontinued venture between Bank of America and Fiserv (formerly known as First Data), these proposed changes would better reflect the company’s current merchant-acquiring offering.
 
Specific text to be added or removed under the “Consumer Banking” section (proposed additional language indicated in ):
 
* Remove and replace first sentence with: “Consumer Banking, the largest division in the company, provides financial services to consumers and small businesses including, banking, investments,  and lending products including business loans, mortgages, and credit cards.”
 
* Remove “The company is also a mortgage servicer” and replace with “, the company is a mortgage servicer.”
 
* At the end of the paragraph, insert a new final sentence: “”
 
References supporting change:
 
* Bank of America ends joint venture with Fiserv's First Data | Reuters
 
* Bank of America and First Data, Now Fiserv, Set Future Merchant Services Strategy
 
* After a Decade And a Merger, the BofA-First Data JV Closes Out – Digital Transactions
Thank you for your help with this!
Drosen20 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done:  I added the first two proposed revisions, and I'll leave it to another editor to determine if the third proposed revision is warranted. Bowler the Carmine | talk 09:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates to Consumer Banking paragraph 

message: The main symbol is BAC. I'm unable to find the meaning of BACXL on the Internet. Who knows? Could be added to the article. Thanks! Wolfgang Kaul (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is difficult to locate. Found a detailed quote for BACXL which provides more information. Adam MLIS (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks for clearing up, it is the symbol for over-the-counter (OTC), off-market trading. Wolfgang Kaul (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stock symbols 

message: See discussion here.  Imcdc  Contact 02:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , ,  At the link provided above, Imcdc has opened a debate regarding which figures (if any) should qualify as Bank of America Corporation's founders. If you have an opinion on the matter, please take a moment to share your opinions there.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Emiya1980 (talk) 06:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Who the founders are of merged banks