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 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 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.

Well, although I have no knowledge of the move a quick glance at the revision history shows that

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

]

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]

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

If you don't have

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.

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 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. 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]