Talk:Visa (company)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Criticism
I am adding a section on the criticsm section and endeavor to keep it. I think VISA and Mastercard perpetuate a huge fraud in protecting frauds by Merchants who never deliver promised products / fraudulantly gets a card details. Customers are helpless in these situations and have to close their bank accounts to stop the frauds from happening. I am also considering other methods such as creation of a specific website for the purpose. Please visit this site, I would soon leave an email for you to contact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongiri (talk • contribs) 07:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
- I am proposing that this new criticism section be removed for three reasons: 1. It is a personal opinion and does not cite concrete evidence that this supposed practice is sanctioned by Visa International; 2. It is poorly written and does not follow Wikipedia style guidelines; 3. Even if it were true it more accurately would belong on the Visa product article as opposed to the Visa corporate article. Dlanddrew 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Based on no contrary opinions, I have reverted this edit. Dlanddrew 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
So, who thinks the "Controversy" section should be removed, and who thinks it should be kept, and why? I think it should be removed, because it has almost nothing to do with VISA; inasmuch as it's about any controversy at all, it's about a general controversy over credit cards. As such, if it's going to appear anywhere, it should be at the article on credit cards, or perhaps in its own article, and this article can simply mention that VISA cards, like other credit cards, are the subject of controversy (with an appropriate wikilink). That said, I'm not completely convinced this section needs to appear anywhere, seeing as it doesn't seem at all encyclopedic. Certainly if we're going to put that section somewhere, we'll need to clean it up a great deal, and add lots of {{cn}} ([citation needed] ) tags. (O.K., I've cleaned it up and {{cn}}-ified it now.) —RuakhTALK 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- It definitely doesn't belong in this article as its not specific to Visa. Claims that can be properly sourced could go into the Controversy section in credit cards if it's not already there (haven't read it). -- Hawaiian717 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Wow, having 50 cite needed statements sure does make the article look like crap. How about leaving the big cite needed at the top of the section, and one tag at the end for the whole thing? Really, it just looks terrible. JamesBenjamin 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It does look terrible, but as it looks like no one objects to the section being deleted, it won't be there for long anyway. (I'll wait until a week after I started the discussion, in case Pgr94 decides to weigh in, but if (s)he doesn't and no one else objects, then I'll delete it and its formatting won't be relevant.) —RuakhTALK 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, having 50 cite needed statements sure does make the article look like crap. How about leaving the big cite needed at the top of the section, and one tag at the end for the whole thing? Really, it just looks terrible. JamesBenjamin 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
-
Hope everyone's ok with cut-pasting the controversy section here into talk so people don't have to look at the mess of citation-neededs. It was going to be deleted anyway, but why keep a mess around for a week? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.105 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Controversies
One as-yet-unresolved question pertains to card-holders' right to be able to keep track of their balance.[citation needed] A number of factors interfere with their ability to do so, including the following: automatic charges, which are often based on complex if-then statements and contingencies[citation needed] (for example, Visa contracts that have deep clauses granting a merchant the right to collect any due amounts without any signature[citation needed]); the lack of a standard system for calculating foreign exchange rates[citation needed] (Visa refuses to grant future prices,[citation needed] so exchange-rate calculations can be based on previous-business-day newspaper standards,[citation needed] or can be calculated on the receipt itself[citation needed]); and merchant charges for "any denial" of a transaction.[citation needed] To address this problem,[citation needed] card issuers have introduced a number of innovations, such as not having over-the-limit fees,[citation needed] and such as a standard system of requiring check-type information for every transaction: name of payee, amount, date, permission of card-holder.[citation needed] Such a system does not exist, however, for automatic charges by merchants.[citation needed]
I agree that this section should be removed -- much of it isn't true, anyway (e.g. the stuff about exchange rates -- Visa has a perfectly predictable system, open to all and consistent for all transactions). That said, I cannot edit this piece of the article, because I work for the company, and policy dictates that I not get into this sort of controversy in public fora. 198.241.217.15 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] association rules
The part that talks about the rules of the association is interesting, although unsourced. Is there a consumer help site that we could link to that would outline more formally but still accessibly the rights of cardholders and obligations of members? Ojcit 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
