Jump to content

Talk:PayPal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

problematic first section

Should the following text really be in the first section of this article?: "and has been involved in many cases of litigation concerning fraud scams." It seems this isn't the most definitive aspect of paypal and should both be verified and moved to a lower section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.90.6 (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti Trust Litigation

anyone know the status of the cases? It appears the law firm does not even list they are handling the case anymore. was this thrown out? Can someone update teh article with a sourced status update? -Tracer9999 (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed charge of unsavory business practice

I removed the sentence:

Paypal's terms of service are not completely disclosed upon signup and some key "conditions" are not disclosed.

If false, this claim could be considered libel. It needs to be backed up with a reference. -- Beland (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to make withdrawals without giving PayPal the keys to the kingdom?

I'm doubtful of the claim in the intro paragraph that funds recipients can receive checks or debit cards to withdraw funds received. I'm looking at an account that has funds that aren't being held, but there appears to be no way to withdraw the funds without providing bank account or credit card information to PayPal. So people who don't have or don't want to provide their bank account or credit card information to PayPal (which, given the withdrawals PayPal threatens to make in its agreements, is understandable) cannot withdraw funds? It appears the accountholder I'm helping can't send funds or close his account either, without providing bank account or credit card information to PayPal. Is this normal? Seems so. If this is normal, anyone know if it's sourcable? Definitely notable IMO. --Elvey (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Account freezing mention in article summary

I have never used paypal, but first thing that comes to mind hearing the name is account freezing. How many accounts are ever freezed? 5%? 1%? 0.1%? Should freezing be mentioned in article summary? Southrocks1 (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Indented lineFreezing is mentioned many many times. It is over-mentioned. Citing individual cases (as the article does now) contributes nothing to this article.--72.47.85.102 (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Criticism Section? Why?

I think a properly-researched and well-written criticism section would contribute to the article. The current one needs work, but doesn't justify deletion....--72.47.85.102 (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks? Paypåla is a politiocal organisation and threat to democracy in the West

Am I the only one that thinks that mentioning WikiLeaks in the article intro is unnecessary? This was a hot news item last month, but only with regard to WikiLeaks and only indirectly with PayPal. I question whether or not it needs to be in the article--let alone in the intro.--72.47.85.102 (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It is most remarkable that a payment transfer organisation/commercial company is taking firm political initiatives that is widely seen as being against democracy in the Western World, it is definitely noticeable for a Wikipedia article. It is most remarkable to take such political firm standpoints and let them be so widely spread in the world news and international awareness. To make a profile that PayPal represents the US government’s political views.

A lower political profile would be much more understandable. Especially when PayPal tries to fill a function were the regular payment transactions works pretty bad, both geographically and in some payment cases due to system limitations. It must be real bad for its business to take any official political standings what so ever, even in cases of China and Iran (whatever any thinks about them), it is not their business to do. It might be due to that PayPal is US and lives in an environment of political views in the US, that are very different from the rest of the world.

Especially when the most spectacular Wikileaks launches has been most of all, showing remarkable flaws in US administration internal information and intelligence security, that leaks are possible and with such dimensions (and the most astonishing is that such a debate has not reached by far the level of the personal views of the PayPal management (eq to the US governments public cover up of the from a objective US perspective should be shameful bad internal routines of its administration). The PayPal view to see Wikileaks as a threat to the USA as a concept.

The remarkable thing is that PayPal operates internationally and makes huge parts of their potential international customers their enemies, it must cost them a lot of revenues and opens market for competitors. This must be objectively considered as a theme of debate, if this is a remarkable flaw of the PayPal management. And it is very odd that it is not up to debate from such a view, regardless what the thoughts of Wikileaks are.

There are strong governmental forces to make cover-ups and the main issue here is if Wikipedia should take the Pravda standpoint and if Wikipedia should be an inofficial US government site or not? Many other articles in Wikipedia could be criticised for being written by the object itself and very uninteresting and partial. It is important that more views can be represented and politically there aspects are important especially regarding PayPal.

But also the commercial aspects of turning a payment company to a political frontline tool. It is quite obvious that PayPal commercially by its political standpoints strongly limited itself from huge parts of the world this way. There were equal situations among US companies, where for instance Toys r us was blockaded for years in Sweden due to its firm rejection of unions and collective bargains, made them an empty business for years to huge costs. The remarkable is that such political statements from the management so completely could come before the core business.

The last aspect is that the customers tend to think such companies are fools and would make a lot of other illogical fuzz being a customer of them. From a regular Swedes view the management of Toys r us was just nuts, totally out of market feeling, just real bad management, and a high risk supplier. The same impact has PayPal given huge parts of the international market. From these aspects and the fact that PayPal made itself an official enemy of Wikileaks, to the democracy and free journalism of the world. And so from a humanistic view rejects all customers with a different view is definitely notable in a Wikipedia article about PayPal. I for instance asked Eurosport if there are any PayPal free payment options, and I am certainly not the only one. A lot of customers cares about the quality of their suppliers and their products and make active choice.

The remarkable thing is turning PayPal as a supplier into such a situation at all, why not a low profile in a sensitive business. I think it should be commented. I think it should be commented because it is important aspects of PayPal from many perspectives, from many reasons looking into PayPal in Wikipedia. It is most important for the readers to know of criticism is there even if the criticism is unjust or wrong from many readers view. The Wikipedia should not take a standpoint but note the criticism is there and what initiatives PayPal has done. That there are huge segments of customers that thinks PayPal is a doubtful supplier of political, commercial risk and humanistic aspects.

Paypal Protection. A big farce.

Paypal freezes and takes funds from seller accounts. While at the same time claim to be offering "seller" protection. What protection? Paypal is the one that freezes and takes funds from people at will. What is the protection from? From themselves? This so called "Seller Protection" is rhetoric and dupe for unknowing sellers that actuallay think they are being protected from anything. Rather paypal has no qualms about freezing and taking sellers funds at will, and have done so to so many sellers. Even after claiming this seller protection, paypal will freeze and take the funds from sellers, even if the seller did nothing anything wrong, like something that was the fault of the delivery courier, or if the item was stolen or damaged. Paypal freezes and takes the funds. This has happened all of the major sellers on ebay. It's time for Wikipedia editors to stop siding with the rhetoric and deception propogated by paypal and listen to the actual experiences of sellers.

You will run into a problem with any edit that relies on personal experience or anecdotal evidence (for example, forum postings). You would be on much more solid ground with a third party, verifiable source for your assertions, such as a major media outlet. Statements that can be perceived as an attack on a company should be easily verifiable if the policy is as widespread as you claim, but until then should not be posted. Before you begin your search, please check out WP:SOURCES to see what constitutes a reliable source. Thanks, and happy editing! SeaphotoTalk 05:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
As a recent victim of their "We're taking all your money away for your own protection!" bullshit, I'll see if I can gather enough reliable evidence of this to write a good enough section. Given the amount of people and the number of lawsuits filed against them for this reason, this is very much within WP:DUE.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Would be great if you could do that. Thanks. Fayerman (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Phishing

No mention of the former big PayPaI scam (paypai with a capitalized "i") that even has its own article in WP? MartinezMD (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are lots of phishing scams; what's so special about that one? --jpgordon::==( o ) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Business Model Evolution needs a rewrite

The business model evolution section is pretty bad. It's unclear and confusing. Phase 2 even has a sentence with nested parentheses. That section could do with a rewrite. What tag needs to go on that? Lunixer (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


"Bank" status: In Europe, Paypal is not a bank!

Article claims that 'In Europe, PayPal is registered as a bank'. This is disinformation. No, it is explicitely NOT a bank. Although Paypal has acquired a bank license in Luxemburg, the bank license is not used by Paypal, obviously for the reason of using legal loopholes for such services against their customers. Thus, under Luxemburgian law and the laws of all other European countries where Paypal offers their business model services, Paypal Europe is a financial service but NOT a bank! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.62.159 (talk) 09:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Privacy

[I had placed this on the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Privacy but it was reversed instantly by NawlinWiki, but I'm placing here on the "talk" page, at least some can get this information and / or fix it, edit it to meet NawlinWiki standards, I got the "list of questions" from Paypal.com, you won't know these questions until you sign up and receive money, some people may find all these questions intrusive and others may not even able to answer it (e.g. not everyone has a social security #),

google: "Social Security" paypal and you will a couple of millions results, so there's lots of evidence of this, the wikipedia article of PayPal is not quite accurate, it's unfortunately misleading, it has "Forward-looking" statements, almost like brochure selling paypal stocks

Here's what I wrote: ]


PayPal will ask personal questions at its sole discretion even if no one has filed a complain (without probable cause), specially if the first transaction is direct transaction between two private parties and it didn't originate from Ebay (or another company), PayPal will deposit the money but shortly after will place the account on "limited access", an unsuspecting seller will release the product without realizing his account will be place on "limited access", without access to the funds unless he answers the following questions, these questions are asked if even on an existing verified bank account.

  • Social Security
  • Provide Invoices
  • Proof Of Address (a utility bill, a cell phone bill, an insurance bill, or a tuition bill)
  • Proof of delivery
  • Provide Invoices
  • Provide more information (Please confirm that the merchandise was delivered)

Some of above the questions overlap, PayPal also assumes the transaction was a sale, those questions would have to be answer even if the transaction was a loan or gift.

A more complete the list of question :[1]:

  • Additional Front End Documentation
  • Audited financials prepared by an accountant
  • Bank Statement
  • Business documentation
  • Business phone line/Telecom statement
  • CC Statement (Credit Card Statement)
  • Company Extract from Trade Registry
  • Copies of Anti-Money Laundering Policies
  • Evidence of Membership in a Recognized Organization
  • Evidence of Tax Exempt/Registration with Regulatory bodies
  • Information about Nature of Organization
  • Internally prepared management accounts
  • Invoices
  • Personal income tax return
  • Personal or business income tax return/filing
  • Photo ID
  • Processor statement
  • Profit and loss balance sheet
  • Proof of Address (a utility bill, a cell phone bill, an insurance bill, or a tuition bill)
  • Proof of advertising purchase
  • Proof of Business Existence
  • Proof of Business Registrations
  • Proof of Name
  • Proof of shipping/delivery of items to buyer
  • Proof of SSN (Social Security Number)
  • Supplier Contact Info
  • Voided Check Registered with Organization.

If questioned why the reason for the required information, PayPal will close the account due its security policies, and will hold the funds for six months (without interests), thereafter only a limited amount can withdrawn every month.

The buyer is never contacted about it, even though according to PayPal these are security issues.

It can be become time consuming to frequently provide details of the transactions, Merchant accounts will only ask if a complain has been filed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezbqzjwsd (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New account

I am thinking of starting up a PayPal account. Do you need online (internet) banking to start up? -- 121.216.56.30 (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint but this page is for discussions related to the article itself, not for helping people who have questions about Paypal. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Parking sources

  • "Siliconinvestor.advfn.com". Siliconinvestor.advfn.com. February 26, 2000. Retrieved 2011-01-20.
  • "Shvoong.com". Shvoong.com. Retrieved 2011-01-20.
  • "Theanalystmagazine.com". Theanalystmagazine.com. Retrieved 2011-01-20.
  • -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Parking off topic text

Parking text and source removed

I removed the above text which creates a slanderous narrative based on the report of a single person's experience. IE funds were not recvd by the seller and so PayPal issued an eventual refund. I don't think this single instance is notable enough for inclusion but if others disagree I'm open to discussion. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good removal; I was about to do the same. One incident is not "reports", it's a single "report", and is pretty meaningless, especially in the context provided. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Order of currencies

Is there any meaning to the order of the currencies listed at top of Services section? starts off alphabetical, but then appears to be supplemented by non-ordered additional currencies - would have re-ordered but just wondered whether there's any implied order to the list.Chris (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

fact

"allowing payments and money transfers to be made through the Internet." This is not true, Paypal does not allow different types of money transfer. Known here in Germany is the dispute with Rossmann over Cuban products in their online shop. 78.35.196.217 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That is a good accurate description of Paypal. I see no grounds for saying that is not true. It does not say that they enable every single type of payment to me made for all types of purchases everywhere in the universe at all times past and present and never fail in that in any circumstance whatsoever. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Safety and protection policies section POV

Safety and protection policies section explains firms' point of view, like a firm's brochure. This lead to a think that there is "protection" and that one's money are safe, if one do not look at Criticism section. --109.54.14.166 (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge sections

Someone please merge sections "Regulatory status" and "Regulation", they essentially talk about the same. Thank you. kashmiri TALK 08:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

List of countries that don't allow personal payments is incomplete

I don't have any experience editing a wiki page and don't have complete info on this but I do know that Germany no longer allows personal payments as well as some others that aren't listed. It would be really nice to have a comprehensive list of what countries do and do not allow personal payments and perhaps the fees associated with currency conversion. The one's I'm aware of are Germany, Singapore, India, Brazil... but I'm sure there are others and I can find no clear list anywhere. Paypal doesn't advertise this info so you'd have to call and ask each time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.225.249 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

Parts of the Criticism section, while mostly valid criticisms, read more like a history of things that PayPal has done to anger people, rather than a general section about what people criticize paypal for. I'm not sure if there are any explicit guidelines listed on Wikipedia about how Criticism sections should be written, but I imagine it should be more like a summary and less like a list. 64.121.99.106 (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Guidelines (although not very detailed) here: Criticism. Naturally, feel free to rework the section; would be good if no information is lost in the process. Regards, kashmiri TALK 10:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Litigation edit

This edit adds something I'm not sure is actually about PayPal in particular. My Spanish isn't that good and I certainly don't trust Google Translate, but it seems to me that this is about a Spanish company doing a bad job of managing PayPal branded prepaid debit cards, as opposed to some wrongdoing on PayPal's part. Could someone elucidate? --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Paypal unregulated by Financial Services Authority?

The article states (without citation) that, due to Paypal being based in Luxembourg, it is not under the regulation of the UK Financial Services Authority.

This is not true. PayPal's own site states "PayPal (Europe) Ltd. is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom as an electronic money institution. PayPal FSA Register Number: 226056." - an example of this is on https://www.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/Marketing/general/PorschePennyPromotionTnC-outside

FSA regulates any company offering financial services within the UK, regardless of where that company's headquarters are located.

PayPal's delisting from the FSA is cited in the article. PayPal's own site is not acceptable as a Wikipedia reference because it is not the required secondary source. Similarly, your link above is not a secondary source. If you wish to assert that PayPal is regulated by the FSA (and for all I know it may be), then you require that important secondary, reliable and verifiable source to support it. 86.149.139.47 (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Escrow

Perhaps, PayPal has some features of an online escrow service. Should be mentioneded in the article. --Djadjko (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Name Change to PayPal Holdings

I believe the article's name should be changed to PayPal Holdings because that's the company's new name. Michealin (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PayPal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

6 founders

Why removed the name of Yu Pan from the founders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosonildo (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

save

It MatAjmal (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy?

Is this something that should be mentioned in the article?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: I have reason to suspect your source is not reliable. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was unlikely that editors would have missed something that interesting if it were well documented. I just came across it when I was working on another article.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if we take the source at face value, this seems like a totally insignificant not-a-controversy. Websites have technical glitches all the time. Companies make accounting errors. As far as I can tell, no other source covered this incident, so it probably shouldn't be mentioned here, even if it's true. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Paypal Giving fund sued

Detials here.104.163.140.193 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Bank?

Paypal is a Bank, they sit on money, gaining interest - they do not pay interest or loans on the money, so what are they doing with it in their account? Profiting.

Do you have a problem with companies making profit? Did you think PayPal is a charity? — kashmiri TALK 08:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate home improvement s are needed for

—76.172.62.228 (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

?Kouri?

Why does Greg Kouri redirect here? I have not scanned all the archives, but after a cursory read-over, i see no mention of him on the article. I'm all about privacy: if Kouri doesn't want to be covered in enWP, so be it, but if there is a redirect to this article, shouldn't there be some mention of him, somewhere? To my less-than-expert eye, this appears to be a sneaky way to be a blue link w/o providing any info. rags (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Due to this. If you don't think it's merited then WP:RFD. GiantSnowman 19:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Fricker

I fixed this vandalism. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

PayPal Limitation Criticism

This section is so ungrammatical as to be almost incomprehensible. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, 16 March 2019

Please remove the following categories, which are unsourced and unsupported, per WP:CATV.

 Done. Thank you. Dr. K. 05:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

MyCash Reloadable Card Embezzlement — section removed

Hi All. I've just reverted a blog added as a second source by WP:SPA 73.210.15.131, which I now see had been previously added by apparent WP:SPA 50.179.94.19 on 3 August 2016, which was quickly reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=next&oldid=732768494

However, I then saw that 50.179.94.19 had previously added that entire section and its sole source, a first-person blog, as "MyCash Reloadable Card Embezzlement" on 18 May 2016, which I have just now removed. (No idea why both of these links appear to reach the exact same edit... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=720810930&oldid=720516594 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PayPal&diff=prev&oldid=720810930)

I can't imagine how the section survived this long, being entirely based on a singular, first-person account written in a blog. (The second source, also added and reverted at least twice, noted above, proved to be just another production of the same blog author.) I hope someone will pursue this information further, with WP:RS, should including it prove valid, because figuring it out already took me ages. AHampton (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

PayPal account

Does the credit card from PayPal redraw money from savings,cheques or others if won points rewards to change into cash cause am confused? Isaac Mawela (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PayPal banning file-hosting services

http://torrentfreak.com/paypal-bans-major-file-hosting-services-over-piracy-concerns-120710/

This should be added under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal#Criticism_and_limitations

This article needs to be expanded greatly because PayPal is suffering major issues at the moment. --Massintel (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

litigation references need to be checked

references 222 and 226 refers to other case than claimed; probably all of 222-226 should be checked. 31.165.215.242 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Financial Performance Update

I guess someone should do an update on their financial performance in the last 14 months. PayPal down 70% and Vimeo down over 90%. They need to give us the story behind all of these loses. After these levels of performance failure then they announce they are going to fine their customers $2500 for spreading whatever they claim to be 'misinformation' I guess they want to drive their stock losses to 100%? I would expect them to announce that their stockholders have fired their CEO and their Board of Directors for failure of fiduciary duties, but I won't hold my breath. Source One of the hundreds of publicly available Stock History Performance reporting sites. 217.180.228.214 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rt2510 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rt2510 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ [1], retrieved January 2012
  2. ^ "How PayPal Works". Retrieved 2010-10-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PayPal/Archive_3&oldid=1219765571"