Talk:Raiffeisen Zentralbank/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Some facts

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All Raiffeisen banks employ over 50 000 people in Austria. Therefore, they are Austrian's biggest employer.

Although there are nearly 570 single banks, they are all named "Raiffeisen" and have - at least in the same state - the same corporate identity and advertisements. Many people even in Austria believe the Raiffeisen bank is one big company which is simply not true.

The Raiffeisenbanks are the biggest bank in Austria, nearly every second Austrian is customer at a Raiffeisen.

Raiffeisenbanks exist in Austria (very dominating), Switzerland (I think also one of the market leaders) and Germany. In Germany they are called "Raiffeisen-Volksbanken-Gruppe". The Volksbanks have a similiar system like the Raiffeisenbanks and they are cooperating. Many Raiffeisenbanks can be found in Bavaria.

The Raiffeisenbanks are well known for their contacts and ownerships in the agrar-sector. They own firms like Lagerhaus (in Austria - building center like store) and BayWa (in Germany, like Lagerhaus), cattle exchanges and other firms for helping the farmers and the people living at the countryside.

There are only 8! Landesbanken in Austria, that in Vienna is for Lower Austria too - Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich/Wien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by .tom (talk • contribs)

8 Landesbanks is not fully true. The province of Carinthia has 2 organisations, one of which is a very small one covering Raiffeisenbanks domiciled in villages which are predomionantly of slowene language. Technically, as a central institute of local banks and a direct shareholder of Raiffeisen Zentralbank it is to be considered a ninth "Landesbank" (name in slowne language: Zveza). Your employment figure for Austrian Raiffeisenbanks is not accurate and probably includes rural cooperatives and other industrial participations.

Regarding the chapter "controversy" in the English article about Raiffeisen Zentralbank, the article claims that RZB has been involved in money-laundering. The content which is entered here among the chapter controversy cannot be evidenced and consists of accusations by media and newspapers without any legal foundation. RZB has never been sentenced nor has it ever been held guilty by law for any of the mentioned money-laundering cases. RZB works according to highest compliance standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.13.183.252 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged connections to Arseniy Yatsenyuk: he worked in the "Aval" bank in 1998-2001, but that bank was purchased by Raiffeisen group and renamed into "Raiffeisen Bank Aval" only in 2005-2006. --Djadjko (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Mobster Connection

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why is there no mention to the connection to semion mogilevich who is said to have control of this group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.211.186 (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I added a blurb. Josephintechnicolor (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It need reliable source especially BLP material. Matthew hk (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Emblem

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What is the history of the emblem? Is this a horsehead housegable? See the illustrations at Hengist and Horsa. 184.155.85.14 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

RZB Securities

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Agreed, this page should be included with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisenbank Josephintechnicolor (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

You can't be the thread starter and agree yourself. RZB Securities, as a division, may be mentioned in this wiki article that about Raiffeisen Zentralbank, but you need reliable source first. Matthew hk (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I was agreeing and responding to the MERGER tag that was put on the page. The source is clearly included AND from FINRA. That is a Quasi Govt site https://brokercheck.finra.org/firm/summary/45736 Are you disputing its validity as a source? RZB and GRUND, GERHARD's names are listed on the link. 08:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

No. That stub fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH based on current state. Please improve it in your own userspace sandbox or in Draft:RZB Securities. The content don't even worth for merge into this article . Matthew hk (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raiffeisen Zentralbank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The consensus is to keep the "Controversy" section. Some editors suggested that the section could be trimmed or reworded. There is no consensus to make any changes owing to lack of discussion but there is no prejudice against boldly making these changes and discussing the changes further if the changes are contested.
Cunard (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The controversy was totally against NPOV, it seem only cherry picking source that have routine mention of the bank name to the section and was content fork to Raiffeisen Bank International. Matthew hk (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Matthew hk I am having a difficult time understanding why you feel this section is disputed. I have reverted your deletion of my edits with additional sources. There is plenty of press on the issue from credible sources. Your unawareness of the issue and your attempt to remove the information is quite alarming. Wikipedia:Teahouse Josephintechnicolor (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You need to add way more citation per claim on such controversial and looks defamation material. Also, may be all company in Germany and Austria were somehow involved in the WWII, but it still need neutral point of view to present the content. Also please read WP:UNDUE, which:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Matthew hk (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It is totally legit to me to remove the content entirely if you only use one citation per "claim/fact". Matthew hk (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Rfc: Controversy section

Rfc on chopping the entire controversy section of this wiki article per WP:UNDUE (very not enough source for the disputed content, one cite for one sentence is not enough or not?), or by current state it is WP:DUE and only need refimprove. Matthew hk (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

To know more on this topic Please visit Wikipedia:Teahouse#Matthew_HK_and_Raiffeisen_ZentralBank_and_Raiffeisen_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Matthew_HK_and_Raiffeisen_ZentralBank_and_Raiffeisen_International to know more.

03:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

Keep - the entire Controversy section looks well-sourced. I was invited here by the RFC bot. EllenCT (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong Keep - (I was invited here by the RFC bot.)

Condense the Holocaust section, to more appropriately state that this bank, (like many other banks and companies - see the link to the lawsuit and all the companies listed)^[1] participated in and profited from the property confiscation from Jewish people in Austria.

Remove the section: Movement Against Jewish Business owners - *from what I can tell*, this is a movement started by and named after the INDIVIDUAL whom the bank is named after, not the bank. As far as I understand, Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen was the one who "claimed the Jews practice usury....." NOT the bank. That info could be in the article about Friedrich Wilhelm Raiffeisen, or an article on the "Raiffeisen movement"...but is not relevant to THIS article...unless somehow the HISTORY of the coop banks and rural co-op movement had for decades been antagonistic to Jewish business owners; if that is the case it should be explained more and be located in the History section.

The info in the Mafia section seems at first appearance sufficiently sourced, and relevant. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep' [summoned by the bot] The Mafia section needs some rewording into more encyclopedic language, but sources seem legit and content is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dryfee (talk • contribs) 19:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

^ https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1153156.html

Requested move 7 March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Procedurally closed. From the links provided by Josephintechnicolor, along with the lack of further input from other users, I think it's clear there are underlying issues that need to be resolved. I have seen no evidence of bias on Matthew hk's part as alleged in the sections above and below, but I think dispute resolution needs undertaking before any action can be taken on this, especially considering the lack of other users' input. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Raiffeisen Zentralbank → Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich – Source seem refer the bank to a more formal title of Austria Raiffeisen central bank: "Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich" instead of part of the proper noun "Raiffeisen Zentralbank". See Guardian, Australian Financial Review (use Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich without Ö), WSJ article 1 WSJ article 2 (Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich, despite short name also used [1][2] by WSJ). Also, we certainly dropping the legal suffix AG. Matthew hk (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Teahouse#Matthew_HK_and_Raiffeisen_ZentralBank_and_Raiffeisen_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Matthew_HK_and_Raiffeisen_ZentralBank_and_Raiffeisen_International to know more.03:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-close comment. @StraussInTheHouse:, someone is gaming the system to act as a "newbie". It rarely by coincidence for an article that was deleted 4 times that under different article title to gaming the system to be detected (edit more than 4 as i lost count on Kelly Hyman (lawyer) and Kelly Hyman (attorney)) was not created by sock or meatsock of paid editors in its fourth time of creation (edit: 6 or 7), and given the quality of other creation. The previous creator of Kelly Hyman was easily solved by checkuser block as 100% sock and sockmaster and abuse admin rights respectively, while this "newbie" was suffered from bureaucratic kick around that closing admin at SPI kick the problem to COIN as it "may have paid editing issue but no evidence as sock". While the original creator of the "controversy" section of this article, Gazpr, looks WP:NOTHERE and WP:POV pushing (or people interested in conspiracy theory) that have too good number of edits on talk page of 30. And he/she is stale. So, for solving this, please suggest a more efficient way to deal with such paid editor gaming the system and B. WP:DUE or WP:UNDUE weight on collecting such controversy or conspiracy theory content. Matthew hk (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 00:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

Matthew HK and Raiffeisen ZentralBank and Raiffeisen International

Discussion I feel we have a biased wikipedia editor in the house and I really need your help to curtail his actions. There is an apparent lack of neutrality and destructive actions on his part. His name is Matthew hk (talk)

History: 1) I first bumped into Matthew HK when I added Raiffeisen news related to the Holocaust and Mafia to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International The same news was already on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank (the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank Intl). I determined that the content should be on both pages since they are IN FACT the same company / owner. I pointed out that many companies in Germany who had Holocaust news e,g, Bayer, Hoechst, BASF and other subsidiaries of IG Farben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben followed the same treatment. Matthew HK deleted my edits and brought this issue to the dispute board and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Robert_McClenon User:Robert_McClenon presided. Matthew HK never responded to my point about IG Farben and now I cannot find the original dispute on the board. It seems to have disappeared mysteriously.

2) Now Matthew HK is trying to change the name of Raiffeiisen Zentralbank to disassociate itself from Raiffeisen Bank International. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Raiffeisen_Zentralbank He is trying to use 2 sources do do this never mind there are thousands of tier one sources and wikipedia article sources that refer to Raiffeisen Zentralbank as the parent company of Raiffeisen Bank International. We have to question Matthew HK independence on this Raiffeisen issue.

3) To further censure my work Matthew HK is now trying to bring Sock Puppetry violations against me. I have had the same IP and same account, nothing has changed. If he can prove that I used another account while I was using my current Josephintechnicolor account I would like to see the proof. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda [[Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohamed_Ouda ]]

4) A smaller issue came up when I created the RZB Securities LLC page which was a subsidiary of Raiffeisen Group of Companies (Raiffeisen Zentral Bank and Raiffeisen Bank International) and Matthew HK placed a deletion tag on the page. I accepted his deletion and offered a solution to add RZB Securities to the Raiffeisen Bank International page, this has not been done yet.

Conclusion: Matthew hk does not seem like an independent person on the topic of Raiffeisen wikipedia articles and he needs to declare himself as such. He is trying to change the Raiffeisen name and corporate structure with 2 ambiguous sources where there are thousands that say the opposite. He is not following normal wikipedia protocol with regards to the parent companies / subsidiaries and their shared news. He has aggressively been harassing my attempts to put properly sourced news on Raiffeisen's wikipedia articles. Matthew HK does not follow up on statements I made to defend my actions on the dispute board when it was HE Himself who made the disputed page on Raiffeisen in the first place. Matthew HK is overtly defending and removing Raiffeisen wikipedia pages of content/news sources. My news sources represent millions of people and many reporters who have been affected by Raiffeisen past actions and the truth should be upheld as it is for IG Farben and many others like them. I feel matthew HK is disruptive to wikipedia and should be banned.

All of these entities are related and their news is related. Matthew HK has a HIDDEN agenda to clean up Raiffeisen's past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisenbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Wilhelm_Raiffeisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Zentralbank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raiffeisen_Bank_International

02:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Josephintechnicolor (talk)

[1] ttps://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1153156.html

[1]