Talk:Loan shark

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as High-importance).

Finance & Investment High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment 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.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

he'll my name is codie may and I am bad need for money today please

Pacific loan sharking

That part doesn't seem to be legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.17.10 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buying up of payday loan operations by mainstream banks

I have removed the following recently added statement from the article:

Recently big banks like Citibank have started buying these highly profitable operations but they disguise their ownership to avoid public scrutiny of questionable lending practices.

I don't know if it is true or not, but statements which carry clear disapproval should be supported by a reference (newspaper article, etc?). Otherwise it just looks like someone who has a gripe with Citibank has made it up. Deuar 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese version

Could someone please link the portuguese version: "http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agiota"

I have no idea how to do this, sorry.

Ah Long

"Ah Long" does not mean dragon in Chinese. The name Tai Yee Loong in Cantonese comes from the fact that Ah Longs used to put coins in their ears. Therefore their ear appears bigger. Tai Yee Loong literally means "Big Ear Hole". Over time, they come to be known as Ah Long for short.

Link to FBI Podcast

Wikipedia policy clearly states this link is OK: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." The interview is detailed, in depth, comes from an FBI agent about loan sharking in the U.S. (in the context of understanding loan sharking) and would be of benefit to *any* Wiki user researching this topic. It should not be arbitrarily removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pliwatch (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 May 2007

I disagree. Your website is clearly commercial and not a reliable source. The only results for your website, owners and this podcast are on PR distribution sites and payday loan sites. The information presented on your website and this podcast is not neutral. The lengthy introduction to the podcast is about how payday lending is not loan sharking, and the interview is heavily edited. Your other podcasts are about payday affiliate sites, specific companies and interviews with paid consultants. Your website lists only three reviews from over a year ago, "find a lender" links on every page, popup ads and information about how to be a podcast/etc. sponser. Since this is your website, conflict of interest and self promotion are also issues. Flowanda 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flowanda--It is clear you are personally targeting PLIWatch for removal regardless of its value to Wikivisitors. When you say we're not a "reliable source" how can you construe that a lengthy interview with an *FBI agent* is not "reliable"? How can you make the claim that the interview is *heavily edited*? (You are, of course, intimating that we chopped up Pete's words and rearranged them.) Come on, Flowanda: this is an *FBI Agent*. We have not changed one word of content provided by Agent Kovenhoven on the topic. His statements are his statements. Of course we edited breath pauses and the like--this is *standard practice*--but his content has been left in order and untouched. The FBI recommended we interview him as he is a knowledge-area expert on this topic! We worked with the FBI to get this interview, it DOES cover the issue of loan sharking, we're not hiding any position we do take in the interview, it is a real interview, and it is information not available on Wikipedia or elsewhere, for that matter. It's straight from the FBI. PLIWatch isn't going to fight you Flowanda. You've removed us from this article and from the Payday Loan article, also. (While leaving other sites that would at best be questionable according to your criteria.) We think this is a shame. I can only hope that another Wiki editor will put us back in as a resource in the near future.Pliwatch 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal interest/bias; nor am I trying to make edits based on *my* criteria. It's your website, not the interviewee, that I don't think meets the guidelines for a reliable source, based on the items I mentioned in my original post. And if it the subject and podcast is of significant interest to readers, then it should easily be found and sourced online by websites that do meet WP:RS, or quoted/referenced by journalists working on related articles. The podcast is heavily edited, and not just for "breath pauses" or "standard practice", and it's not "straight from the FBI". When you add a long introduction discussing your point of view and how you're going to debunk myths about paydayers being loansharks, and then edit your questions/comments into an already long conversation, well, there are going to be questions, especially given your website's content and your ownership in it, no matter what your disclosure or stated intent. I'll post this and the other article for a third party opinion (it's listed at the bottom of the page) because of the points you raise...does that work for you? Flowanda 00:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for putting the matter into an arbitration status for careful third-party review against Wiki guidelines. Pliwatch 01:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Summary: remove

First there is a guy speaking for about two minutes, before the interview starts. This guy is not an independent scholar, nor neutral on the issue, by what I hear on the podcast. This is just a guy. Blogs and forum posts by "just a guy" are not included in Wikipedia, and podcasts are not an exception.
The podcast is self-published and contains unverifiable research. The authors of the site themselves confirm this in the about us section there.
The link is mainly intended to promote a website.
The interview is not in-depth, and not scholarly. It is aimed at a lay audience and does not provide any information that could not be found in reliable sources and added to the Wikipedia article.

Therefore, I think it should be removed. However, this could be a good link, and as I assume from the username above, that User:Pliwatch represents pliwatch.org, I will give some tips on how to format this interview to be fit for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Host it on a third-party site, preferably one which is not open for anyone to upload content to. YouTube would be fine. This ensures that the link is not intended to promote a website.
Link to the FBI guy's personal webpage on the FBI website, if they have such a thing, or another way of verifying he is of the FBI.
Cut the introduction, apart from "this is a guy from the FBI, and I'm going to ask him some questions".

However, even if the above three pieces of advice are applied, my last point still stands: this podcast does not provide any information that the Wikipedia article could not. Expand the Wikipedia article rather than adding a link. --User:Krator (t c) 20:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References links dead

Both Ah Long references which lead to The Star only give a "Sorry, Access Denied" error message. Does anyone have other sources which don't come from The Star? --KLLvr283 (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remove the statements. Thenewright22 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TV loan sharks

There's recently been a large amount of 'quick cash' loan companies setting up and advertising over the TV in the UK such as QuickQuid, Cash Genie etc. Typical APRs are around 2000% to 3000%. Are these worthy of inclusion in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.151.29 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

Thenewright22 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal

This article is rather odd and blatantly wrong. I get the claim of payday loans being "legal loan sharking" but that's just a rhetorical device, a way to cast that industry in a negative light. Absolutely none of those articles are actually literally making the claim that payday loans IS under any legal classification "loan sharking" because it isn't. Loan sharking is ALWAYS illegal. There is no "usually illegal" or "often extra-legal" or whatever term you want to use, it is always, always illegal. Any legal definition of loan sharking means loans that exceed legally allowable interest rates. You can't have legal loan sharking that's an oxymoron, the writers of the article are either just wanting to put in opinion or are confusing rhetoric as being a statement of fact. Write any op ed piece you want about how legal payday loans are just as bad as loan sharking, but for a Wikipedia article to say any legally licensed lender is a loan shark is very clearly wrong. I just find it odd not to have an actual article on loan sharking but instead what amounts to a Daily Beast article on payday/title loans.

Whoever you are please sign your comments WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding many years later, but the point still stands. This article is a mess and can't decide whether it is about illegal lending, or just high interest loans. It needs to decide to be a decent article. Ashmoo (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based!

Thenewright22 (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Loan shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence in South Korean media

It feels to me that loan sharks have a growing presence in popular South Korean media. (namely Squid Game and Parasite). I'm not sure if this could be put in the article, but it seems relevant. 2607:FEA8:6C66:D00:80A4:5936:898C:B636 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

No, that's fictional, don't add it in. Thenewright22 (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Loan shark high interest.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usury

This article should link to the article for usury. Usury does link to this article. I'd make the change myself, but it would probably get undone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury 2601:40B:8501:ACE0:C8BB:FA86:8E9A:F66F (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]