Talk:Euronet Worldwide

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kansas City

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about Kansas City, Missouri, and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Kansas CityWikipedia:WikiProject Kansas CityTemplate:WikiProject Kansas CityKansas City articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Kansas Low‑importance

	Kansas portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Epay

Epay redirects here, but no explanation is given. Can anyone add information on this brand (maybe Barkeep, as you seem to be the only active user to have contributed a significant amount of the content)? --KnightMove (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I have no knowledge of the move a quick glance at the revision history shows that Inks.LWC made the move. A quick Google search reveals that Epay is a Division of Euronet Worldwide; which might explain the redirect. If I could further speculate, the original Epay article was not written to Wikipedia standards, most noticeably it was unsourced. KnightMove, if you are looking to add info about Epay to the article I would be bold and add a sub-section about it to the Euronet article. The only significant work I did for the article was add an infobox and a few paragraphs to a three sentence article back in 2008. Barkeep^Chat/_$ 05:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

This section explains some criticism of the company's operations, however each critical point is explained/excused with language that is not neutral.

Either the explanations/excuses should be removed, or the language should be adjusted to be neutral.

Would "The whole company is a scam robbing tourists that don't know better" be neutral enough? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute

Copy and pasting conversation from User Blackbirdxd's talk page for the larger community to possibly weigh-in on as well as a link to Blackbirdxd's post to the Administrator's Noticeboard for edit warring.

I have no WP:COI or any association whatsoever with this article subject. As pointed out by another user in a previous revision/revert, I'm following Wikipedia Policies WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. Moreover, the meat of the content you want included (events associated with Prague and Amsterdam) is just being repositioned in the article and excluding the "criticism" section (per WP:CRITS). There is no censorship with my edits. If you disagree with this point of view, before reverting again to your version, please discuss on the article's talk page to obtain an community consensus on the matter, or if you feel this is not an adequate solution, please seek out a dispute resolution request. Thank you. Barkeep^Chat 22:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have WP:COI why are you so invested in such a insignificant article for over 12 years? The WP:CRITS argument is pure nonsense, if you actually read WP:CRITS you'd see that Criticism sections are "discouraged" and not prohibited. And in this particular case I believe it's well warranted. It has reliable sources, it's written completely factualy and indiscriminately and most importantly it's something that the general public should know. Do you want more people getting scammed, is that it? I've seen hundreds of popular articles on Wikipedia with dumber things written in Criticism sections but pointing our that a company is deliberately scamming people is apparently too much. Feel free to file for dispute resolution yourself. Blackbirdxd (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if someone would post a diff of what edits are causing disagreement. Im assuming this is a fair example? Bonewah (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the current source of the dispute (at least from my POV). Although based on User:Blackbirdxd comments, the user may dispute all edits I do. The Noticeboard post shows more of that person's examples. Barkeep^Chat 16:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure i can be of much help here. Blackbirdxd, if your issue is whether or not to have a criticism section, maybe you can make an argument why WP:CRITS should be ignored in this case? Bonewah (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

Hi Barkeep and Blackbirdxd, I have a few suggestions, I hope they are helpful:

Per WP:CRIT, the offending section is actually Controversies as it gives weight to different positions, not purely negative.
Aside from retitling, it's an interesting section and in my opinion worth including.
Talking of weight, saying they faced criticism without saying who from is weasel words and therefore WP:UNDUE. For that reason I would drop that opening sentence entirely.
It would be helpful if there were an opposing view on the damage to landmarks point (presumably Euronet responded to UNESCO?) so as to keep the whole Controversies section NPOV.
Blackbirdxd should endeavour to assume good faith, not accuse other users of "wanting people to get scammed". (AGF is an actual policy, unlike CRIT which is an essay - so this is less of a suggestion, more of a firm reminder).

Paul ❬talk❭ 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]