Talk:Visa Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Visa Inc. article.
Article policies
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment 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)

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

This section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!)
This article has been tagged since December 2006.

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)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Visa holo.gif

Image:Visa holo.gif 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 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Visad.jpg

Image:Visad.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 (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Corporate structure" disputed?

There is a NPOV tag on Visa (company)#Corporate structure, and I don't see any explanation here on talk. Superm401 - Talk 01:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VisA, Porn and Bankruptcy Reform

Shouldn't something be said about the back room deal by visa (USA) and the United states governement to attempt to eliminate porn coming from US websites in exchange for bankruptcy reform? After several online "child" protection act laws by the government were defeated by the aclu and others... the goverment worked out a deal.. simply that the major banks get there long awaited bankruptcy reform (or harder to file chapter 7..which happened right after these changes after being prevented for OVER 10 YEARS,) in return the credit card association agree to tighten the noose on the money for online porn by lowering the chargeback ratio on (high risk..ie. porn)transaction to 1% before $10,000 and $100,000 charges begin to apply... difficult for even the largest companies never mind a mom and pop shop without a massive fraud scrubbing system and massive amounts of clients to dillute the friendly fraud (..ie... your wife finds out your looking at porn and you call the card company and say... hey that wasn't me.. very huge problem and still a $15-$25 chargeback fee per transaction... sometimes 6 months back.) as well as actual fraud. These changes have driven several transaction providers that specalize in adult entertainment to shutter thier doors and not pay there clients (webmasters)..thereby causing thousands of adult websites and mom and pop shops to go under. You don't think you get much less porn ads for no reason do you.. sure penthouse is still up .. they can afford it... also one might want to mention that people who process thru a third party tansaction processor must comply with visa and mastercard rules.. but because they are not a merchant member of visa CANNOT SEE THE RULES they must follow.. and if visa blacklists you as a website they do not want to process for or for not following the rules you can't see... THERE IS NO APPEALS PROCESS. visa and mastarcard are rapidly replacing cash.. but the difference is.. no anonymity and the card associations can decide what is ok for you to watch without pesky constitutional issues that government has... they just change the rules so you don't see what they don't want you looking at.. or better yet... what the government doesn't want you looking at but can't stop you because of constitutional issues... heck just hand that down to visa USA to handle it.. its scary... a controversy section for this association.. is more then appropriate. The government cares because we have a republican president in office (for the record I generally vote republican..in the elections and did for bush) and that president gathers ALOT of support from the religous right. groups such as the Family Research Council. who do not want you to see smut as it is against their beliefs. Although you and I may take it as our god given right to look at what we want,.. they dont. When clinton was in office.. the industry recieved NO pressure. after bush came in de doubled the staff investigating indecency on the internet. credit cards are no longer just for adults. they are given to teenagers as "pre paid debit cards". the government has tried to pass several laws forcing people to put up a credit card or provide ID BEFORE they can access even a preview section of an adult website (regardless of a warning). back in 2001 I think it was most websites went black by placing only a black page up to signify the govt censorship. the aclu fought and won.. same for the next two attempts.. that left the govt with no choice but to go for the source and follow the money to censor the web.

look at the industry forums like gfy.com or AVN. look at billing provider like ibill (who was about 90% of adult transactions) at the time and many many more..they went under because visa pressured there merchant bank to stop processing causing complete havok in the industry. companies with money went offshore.. others were wiped out. american express and discover both refused to process for adult transactions even before visa and mastercard tightened the noose. heres an email from avn to a client regarding an attorney who is familiar with and has contacts in the financial industry and government. Ive heard his lectures. pretty fascinating stuff. the thing is.. we are rapidly becoming a cashless society.. the govt does not need to deal with pesky laws... they just tighten the noose thru the banks.

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200210/msg00036.html

-69.125.221.225 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chargexlogo.jpg

Image:Chargexlogo.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article changes needed after IPO

Now that Visa has had its IPO, this article needs changes to reflect the fact that Visa is now a publicly-traded company, rather than a cooperative. --JHP (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recursive acronym / backronym

Which is it? The intro says that Visa was originally called "Visa International Service Association"; near the end of the background section, it says has become a recursive backronym. If the intro is right, it seems likely to me that VISA could be the first recursive acronym. 208.79.212.66 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)