Jump to content

Talk:Bunq

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removed tag

[edit]

The tag was inserted with no explanation and doesn't meet the general wikipedia practices; the article is not having the stated problems 2402:6B00:7EF7:E900:3994:2439:AE40:B19A (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does have the stated problems •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

templates movings

[edit]

removed multiple templates and trimmed the page to eliminate unnecessary details BoraVoro (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page replacement

[edit]

I understand that this page does read as if it's subtly promotional, but we can't exactly just nuke it and replace it with unsourced negative content, as done here and here. If this article is missing things, then we could simply add content and cite reliable sources to support it. But I don't think that the edits I've mentioned do that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned Puffery in my undo to someone collapsing controversies as this article because the article contains language that promotes the subject and may need to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. For example, phrases like "innovative", "landmark court case" and "the second largest neobank" should be attributed to reliable, neutral sources or outright rephrased. Snarkyalyx (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does appear that someone(s) out there, possibly with connections to the company, are attempting to white wash the page. I've restored the controversy section as a result. There's plenty of sources, no reason was given for its removal, etc. Constablequackers (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the overall history on the page is a bit suspicious.
I have done some changes to the page that maybe help to make it sound more neutral. I'd love to hear some opinions Snarkyalyx (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on the neutrality. Bunq is a company that is unquestionably controversial and has received a lot of attention for its less than upstanding business practices. This information obviously should remain on the page but how best to present it is up for debate. Let's hope this doesn't turn into a tedious edit war with the individuals determined to just delete this content. Constablequackers (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there may be some coverage. But, in general, we have to remove uncited material. Additionally, per WP:MINREF, Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged needs an inline reference; the current controversies section has general references for each section, but they aren't actually cited inline to any of the specific controversial actions.
@Constablequackers: I notice that you restored the controversy section. Since you seem to be familiar with the sources, would you please update the citations in that area to be inline, while discussion is pending on whether or not their inclusion is WP:DUE? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: This whole thing took off like a rocket. I wasn't expecting the situation to become so heated and so quickly to boot. I can update the sources, but I'm pretty slammed over here. It might be a week or so before I can get around to it. If no one else beats me to it, I'll get on that when I can. Sorry about the delay. Constablequackers (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent activity on this page suggests an effort by some editors to discredit Bunq while actively promoting N26 as a superior alternative.Pridemanty (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pridemanty You also seem to be reverting my edits even though I am trying to achieve neutrality with the article. Can you explain that? Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snarkyalyx, I'm all for neutrality, but your edits seem to push a particular narrative rather than maintaining a balanced view.Pridemanty (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I assume you and Partylx have COI. The comments here from other users seem to agree with my edits. I would get an admin in here. Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what N26 is or does. Is that some sort of video game console ala the Nintendo 64 (AKA the N64)? Maybe a cancelled project with 26 bit graphics? And has anyone taken this to the proper channels to get an admin in here and/or a sock puppet investigation going? Constablequackers (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N26 is a competing neobank. ElementW (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation, and you're in it, as well as an ANI thread. ElementW (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rundown. I've left responses over there and below as well. Constablequackers (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see 1 edit to N26 in the past few months, which was to remove "Germany" from the phrase "Berlin, Germany". @Pridemanty: Can you explain how exactly anyone is actively promoting N26? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Conflict

[edit]

Hello @Pridemanty and @Partylix, please stop with any edit war and have a proper discussion on the issue here. For Partylix, please consider this a warning as you're a new user and might be considered a vandal or a paid editor with COI. Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above @Partlyx, I had a typo with your username Snarkyalyx (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Partlyx is a new account and laser focused on editing this page and removing content. They're unlikely to spend time doing anything else on other Wikipedia pages. This suggests they have a serious COI. Constablequackers (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns About Editorial Bias and Collaboration on Recent Edits

[edit]
"@Snarkyalyx, it's becoming clear that your edits are focused on promoting a specific agenda rather than improving the article's neutrality. Could you explain your approach and how it aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines on impartiality? Also, @Partydoos, @Partylix, are you collaborating on these changes, or is this a coincidence?"Pridemanty (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was clearly trying to create a sense of excitement (e.g., "landmark" court case and "innovative features"). It seems like you have some vested interest from my own perspective. N26 wasn't even mentioned. You're reversing the addition of controversy sections and removing puffery without even discussing this. You don't just say WP:ATTACK to remove all negative mentions. Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Snarkyalyx The concern is about maintaining a neutral and fact-based tone. While highlighting achievements is important, it shouldn’t cross into promotional language or create unwarranted hype, as seen with terms like ‘landmark’ or ‘innovative’ without proper context. The edits aim to remove puffery and ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines for neutrality. As for the controversy sections, they need to be backed by reliable sources and presented fairly, not in a way that leans too heavily into one side of the argument. Let’s focus on improving the article constructively rather than creating unnecessary conflict."Pridemanty (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The info that is contained has multiple reliable sources already. Before we do any further changes, we can consider turning these sourced claims into part of the history or shortening the section. Alternatively, we can try to find more sources on these claims from different places. Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pridemanty, there are many other articles that highlight controversies on Wikipedia, so it's not new to add them. I simply added information about N26, which doesn't mean I am connected to the subject.Partlyx (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Partlyx Please see Wikipedia:Other things exist and Wikipedia 5 Pillars. Pridemanty (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously a blatant attempt to white wash the page. There are plenty of other company pages that contain controversy sections and there's more than enough in Bunq's history to merit one here. Furthermore, such a section does not qualify as a an "attack" since the page contains other and arguably positive details about Bunq. Long story short: it's time to get an admin involved. Constablequackers (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Constablequackers Please see Wikipedia:Other things exist. Just because other company pages have controversy sections doesn’t mean it’s necessary for Bunq. Pridemanty (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very, very weak argument. Can you come up with any reasons why this information should be omitted from the page? Furthermore, your aggressive edits and the amount of time you're spending on this suggests you're a paid editor and/or someone with a serious conflict of interest. You seem well versed in the rules of Wikipedia. If you are a paid editor, now would be a good time to disclose this information. Constablequackers (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Constablequackers
Would you mind explaining adding unsourced content like below?
Lax security in fraud cases
In May 2024, the Dutch Consumers' Association highlighted concerns over bunq’s handling of helpdesk fraud cases. Unlike most Dutch banks that offer leniency and compensation for such fraud under specific conditions, bunq’s strict policies and poor security measures have left many victims of e.g. helpdesk fraud uncompensated.
The Consumers' Association deemed bunq’s practices "absurd" and "unacceptable," especially given the difficulties customers face in reaching the bank for assistance.
Please explain why you are eager to add unsourced content. And seeing your talk page you are still attacking pages despite warnings by other editors.Pridemanty (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove that section of the controversies as I cannot find a source that proves that point and rather just disproves that point. Here's one source:
Example 1: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/06/bunq-says-it-will-compensate-victims-of-online-banking-scams/
Example 2: https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/06/online-bank-bunq-steps-up-security-after-scam-claims/ Snarkyalyx (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your number of contributions to Wikipedia it is surprising you don't seem to understand how the edit history works. The section you cite was intoduced in change 1225964613 by User:Partydoos (which is, notably, not User:Constablequackers) on 2024-05-27 (178 days ago), and was status quo until now. Reverting your edits does not entail a complete agreement with the previous content more than a disagreement with the new, and you know that. Since it was obvious a conflict arose, and given your concerns expressed here you should have either:
  • upheld WP:QUO, added {{Template:Unreferenced section}} to the relevant parts, and delegated resolution to this talk page instead of engaging in WP:WAR against User:Snarkyalyx,
  • or undone 1225964613 in the first place instead of outright deleting the controversies section which aside from the subsection you cite does conform to WP:CRIT; WP:ATTACK could only be argued through the proportional size of the controversies section, in which case you are welcome to reword or shorten it as long as you do not quell sourced criticism.
I'll also note that the account User:Partlyx (talk) was created on 2024-11-17T04:46:20, less than an hour after your first mention of WP:ATTACK in 1257894517 (2024-11-17T04:02:55), only for that account to enact that exact attack page you claim to defend against. In addition, their edit 1258369954 and your subsequent revert are only spaced 20 seconds apart (respectively 2024-11-19T09:11:13 & 2024-11-19T09:11:33) which is very suspicious and really smells like a sockpuppet account here to engage in war and discrediting, furthering the allegations that you are an undisclosed paid actor or at the very least have some form of conflict of interest. ElementW (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe you all are connected and launch a spi too. Pridemanty (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you include me in the "all", for the record I am connected to User:Snarkyalyx insofar as I am a friend of hers and was informed of the situation. I have not and will not edit this page because 1. of the ongoing edit conflict and 2. I have no interest in doing so, as I am not interested in neobank topics.
You coming back at the editors here with a retaliatory SPI to obfuscate your otherwise distasteful edit behaviour, conveniently ignoring my constructive remarks, betrays the unfaithfulness of your contributions here.
Keep in mind this talk is to reach a consensus, what do you suggest?
  • The removal of the unsourced subsection is a given.
  • How should the previously existing criticism be reformulated?
  • Are their sources unsuitable according do you? If yes, which ones?
  • Otherwise, how do you argue for their complete removal?
    • WP:ATTACK is moot here as this article's purpose, given the content preceding the critical section, is obviously not disparaging (if anything it can be argued to be written in a promotional tone, but that's besides the point)
    • "WP:OTHER therefore a criticism section shouldn't exist here" is a non-sequitur, content of said section is not made up and did make the news
ElementW (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated elsewhere, I have no connection to the other individuals involved with the edits on the Bunq page and only have a passing familiarity with the company. I'm only involved in this because I don't like it when other editors attempt to white wash pages and remove any content from a company's page that's remotely critical of it. Constablequackers (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2024

[edit]

Add the following templates / disclaimers that multiple editors added but a suspected paid actor removed:

{{advert}} {{undisclosed paid}} {{weasel}} Snarkyalyx (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. I've added the {{undisclosed paid}} tag, since I think that's supported by the editing history. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to restore original version without controversies

[edit]

I request the restoration of the original version without the controversial content, as no final decision has been made on whether to retain or remove the controversies. Furthermore, editors Snarkyalyx and ElementW appear to be connected, likely acting as meatpuppets, which undermines the validity of their reasoning for including the controversies. Until a resolution is reached, I kindly request the restoration of the original content without the controversial additions.Pridemanty (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ElementW is not related to the article in the slightest, only having helped me (a new wikipedia user) getting through this edit war mess. Any connection would be completely unrelated to this page. Also, the controversies section uses multiple, reliable sources, you cannot just completely strip it. I never included them, I re-introduced them after it was removed and replaced with puffery. Snarkyalyx (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the controversy section may need additional sources, I don't think it should go anywhere. Furthermore, your accusations that myself and others are somehow connected and coordinated are blatantly false. Constablequackers (talk) 11:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bunq&oldid=1258746078"