Talk:Loan shark
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Buying up of payday loan operations by mainstream banks
I have removed the following recently added statement from the article:
- Recently big banks like Citibank have started buying these highly profitable operations but they disguise their ownership to avoid public scrutiny of questionable lending practices.
I don't know if it is true or not, but statements which carry clear disapproval should be supported by a reference (newspaper article, etc?). Otherwise it just looks like someone who has a gripe with Citibank has made it up. Deuar 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Portuguese version
Could someone please link the portuguese version: "http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agiota"
I have no idea how to do this, sorry.
"Ah Long" does not mean dragon in Chinese. The name Tai Yee Loong in cantonese comes from the fact that Ah Longs used to put coins in thier ears. Therefore their ear appears bigger. Tai Yee Loong literally means "Big Ear Hole". Over time, they come to be known as Ah Long for short.
[edit] Link to FBI Podcast
Wikipedia policy clearly states this link is OK: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The interview is detailed, in depth, comes from an FBI agent about loan sharking in the U.S. (in the context of understanding loan sharking) and would be of benefit to *any* Wiki user researching this topic. It should not be arbitrarily removed.
- I disagree. Your website is clearly commercial and not a reliable source. The only results for your website, owners and this podcast are on PR distribution sites and payday loan sites. The information presented on your website and this podcast is not neutral. The lengthy introduction to the podcast is about how payday lending is not loan sharking, and the interview is heavily edited. Your other podcasts are about payday affiliate sites, specific companies and interviews with paid consultants. Your website lists only three reviews from over a year ago, "find a lender" links on every page, popup ads and information about how to be a podcast/etc. sponser. Since this is your website, conflict of interest and self promotion are also issues. Flowanda 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Flowanda--It is clear you are personally targeting PLIWatch for removal regardless of its value to Wikivisitors. When you say we're not a "reliable source" how can you construe that a lengthy interview with an *FBI agent* is not "reliable"? How can you make the claim that the interview is *heavily edited*? (You are, of course, intimating that we chopped up Pete's words and rearranged them.) Come on, Flowanda: this is an *FBI Agent*. We have not changed one word of content provided by Agent Kovenhoven on the topic. His statements are his statements. Of course we edited breath pauses and the like--this is *standard practice*--but his content has been left in order and untouched. The FBI recommended we interview him as he is a knowledge-area expert on this topic! We worked with the FBI to get this interview, it DOES cover the issue of loan sharking, we're not hiding any position we do take in the interview, it is a real interview, and it is information not available on Wikipedia or elsewhere, for that matter. It's straight from the FBI. PLIWatch isn't going to fight you Flowanda. You've removed us from this article and from the Payday Loan article, also. (While leaving other sites that would at best be questionable according to your criteria.) We think this is a shame. I can only hope that another Wiki editor will put us back in as a resource in the near future.Pliwatch 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have no personal interest/bias; nor am I trying to make edits based on *my* criteria. It's your website, not the interviewee, that I don't think meets the guidelines for a reliable source, based on the items I mentioned in my original post. And if it the subject and podcast is of significant interest to readers, then it should easily be found and sourced online by websites that do meet WP:RS, or quoted/referenced by journalists working on related articles. The podcast is heavily edited, and not just for "breath pauses" or "standard practice", and it's not "straight from the FBI". When you add a long introduction discussing your point of view and how you're going to debunk myths about paydayers being loansharks, and then edit your questions/comments into an already long conversation, well, there are going to be questions, especially given your website's content and your ownership in it, no matter what your disclosure or stated intent. I'll post this and the other article for a third party opinion (it's listed at the bottom of the page) because of the points you raise...does that work for you? Flowanda 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly for putting the matter into an arbitration status for careful third-party review against Wiki guidelines. Pliwatch 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Flowanda--It is clear you are personally targeting PLIWatch for removal regardless of its value to Wikivisitors. When you say we're not a "reliable source" how can you construe that a lengthy interview with an *FBI agent* is not "reliable"? How can you make the claim that the interview is *heavily edited*? (You are, of course, intimating that we chopped up Pete's words and rearranged them.) Come on, Flowanda: this is an *FBI Agent*. We have not changed one word of content provided by Agent Kovenhoven on the topic. His statements are his statements. Of course we edited breath pauses and the like--this is *standard practice*--but his content has been left in order and untouched. The FBI recommended we interview him as he is a knowledge-area expert on this topic! We worked with the FBI to get this interview, it DOES cover the issue of loan sharking, we're not hiding any position we do take in the interview, it is a real interview, and it is information not available on Wikipedia or elsewhere, for that matter. It's straight from the FBI. PLIWatch isn't going to fight you Flowanda. You've removed us from this article and from the Payday Loan article, also. (While leaving other sites that would at best be questionable according to your criteria.) We think this is a shame. I can only hope that another Wiki editor will put us back in as a resource in the near future.Pliwatch 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Third Opinion
Summary: remove
- First there is a guy speaking for about two minutes, before the interview starts. This guy is not an independent scholar, nor neutral on the issue, by what I hear on the podcast. This is just a guy. Blogs and forum posts by "just a guy" are not included in Wikipedia, and podcasts are not an exception.
- The podcast is self-published and contains unverifiable research. The authors of the site themselves confirm this in the about us section there.
- The link is mainly intended to promote a website.
- The interview is not in-depth, and not scholarly. It is aimed at a lay audience and does not provide any information that could not be found in reliable sources and added to the Wikipedia article.
Therefore, I think it should be removed. However, this could be a good link, and as I assume from the username above, that User:Pliwatch represents pliwatch.org, I will give some tips on how to format this interview to be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Host it on a third-party site, preferably one which is not open for anyone to upload content to. YouTube would be fine. This ensures that the link is not intended to promote a website.
- Link to the FBI guy's personal webpage on the FBI website, if they have such a thing, or another way of verifying he is of the FBI.
- Cut the introduction, apart from "this is a guy from the FBI, and I'm going to ask him some questions".
However, even if the above three pieces of advice are applied, my last point still stands: this podcast does not provide any information that the Wikipedia article could not. Expand the Wikipedia article rather than adding a link. --User:Krator (t c) 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References links dead
Both Ah Long references which lead to The Star only give a "Sorry, Access Denied" error message. Does anyone have other sources which don't come from The Star? --KLLvr283 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
