Edit warring IP[edit]

An IP keeps changing the article to state that HSBC is Europe's largest bank despite the fact that the source cited (S&P Global) clearly states it is the second largest bank behind BNP. If the IP has information to support their claim that it the world's largest bank, they should produce it here rather than edit warring. In the meantime, I am tagging the article as "disputed". Dormskirk (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be possible to demonstrate that HSBC is the larger bank by total assets depending on the date and exchange rate selected but it needs a reliable published source to do that. The BNP Paribas accounts show total assets of €2.488 trillion for 2020; the HSBC accounts show total assets of US$2.984 trillion (i.e. €2.437 trillion at an average exchange rate of US$1 = €0.817). So, on my calculations, BNP Paribas is still the larger bank. Dormskirk (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the 2022 data from S&P now shows that HSBC is larger than BNP, albeit by a very tight margin. It may make sense to update the claim; at the same time, perhaps there is better wording available to reflect the fact that it is clearly very close. Any suggestions welcome. Pubcrawler2000 (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me, as long as it is properly sourced to the online S&P data. Dormskirk (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3rd country LC open condition[edit]

3rd country LC open condition 37.111.200.92 (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal bank of Scotland[edit]

I am living in malta and I need help with my visa debit card from Scotland.do you deal with them?can you help me? 88.203.78.173 (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 21:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British Bank?[edit]

Today's edit by @Boubloub removed "British" from the opening sentence of this article; the new text says HSBC is a bank "with a uniquely multinational footprint." I sympathize with the edit for two reasons. Firstly, I deplore nationalism and the tendency to put a national label on everything, and Wikipedia needs to guard against that as part of WP:NPOV. Secondly, I agree that HSBC is not a British bank in one obvious sense: a bank that primarily serves customers in the United Kingdom. It has a distinctive history as a British-owned bank primarily serving customers in Asia, and the new language is a good attempt to capture that. However, now the only reference to its Britishness is in the wikilinked "British Hong Kong". I think that misses an important aspect of the bank's culture and decision-making. Firstly, it is easy to find recent RSs referring to it as a "British bank".[1][2]. Secondly, the senior management has remained British throughout its time in Asia, in common with other British hongs. Thirdly, as a section lower down mentions briefly, in the early 1990s the bank moved its head office to London, added substantial operations in the UK, and rebranded from "Hongkong Bank" to "HSBC" in light of the impending return of Hong Kong to China rule. Other Hong Kong banks did not do this. Put crudely, when the British governing élite left Hong Kong, so did HSBC's British élite. I also think the new language does not fully capture the depth of the company's Asian inheritance: while it has a global footprint, its Chinese heritage is also part of its culture. This probably doesn't matter in the slightest if you're an HSBC bank clerk in Boston or Brasilia, but it's still a unique important market for the bank, as discussed in the Reuters source. So I would like to seek consensus for a revised opening sentence. Matt's talk 12:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this thoughtful feedback. I have amended the lead section accordingly. I plan to make further clarifying changes later on in the history section. Boubloub (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the constructive discussion. I think the new wording is adequate to address the concerns I raised. I will enjoy reading the rewritten history sections. Matt's talk 20:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good 5.45.132.141 (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories