Talk:Capital One/Archives/2012

This is an archive of past discussions about Capital One. 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.

Controversy Section Removed

Capital One has chosen to report balances instead of limits on credit reports. They do not give credit limit increases at consumers requests, they only give them on proactive reviews of accounts. Capital One is One disallows the usage of their Credit Cards for deposits into online gaming sites.

toronto raptors are a basket ball team

Capital One does not hire employees with excessive negative history in their credit reports (any accounts 120 days late or more).

All of these need cited. My disagreements paragraph by paragraph:

Why is this a controversy? This is their choice as to business practice, it isn't and shouldn't be controversial
Isn't this standard banking industry practice? I've read this in other bank's documents
Again, isn't this standard banking industry practice?

All of these need cited if they're going to stand. —Cliffb 07:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that these should not be in the article. Regarding the non-reporting of credit limits, this is controversial and has been mentioned on C-SPAN. This is a way of reducing the credit score of Capital One cardholders in order to make them appear to be greater credit risks than they actually are. This in turn makes it less likely that other banks will try to take away Capital One's customers. It protects Capital One from losing customers, but hurts its customers in the process. American Express also does this. JHP 03:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Daivd Lawson

Link to him goes to some other person's page I think

Multiple Issues

This article needs a major facelift. Specifically, it lacks sources for factual claims throughout. It is written in a tone that is overly promotional, as if it were an annual report to shareholders. Of the sources referenced, many are first-party (transcripts of interviews with the CEO, etc.) which are fine for quotations, but not acceptable for factual claims. Many of the citations are incomplete. And lastly, for a company of such consequence there just isn't enough content. I would expect there to be multiple sub-articles on a corporation as large and far-reaching. Janus303 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The article could use improvement (as could a featured article I ran into lately), but those tags were overdone, in my opinion. I think you should pick one you think is most important, if you must. -Pecoc (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)