Talk:World-Check

A recent documentary exposes the World Check One fraudulent records on the behest of its "favourite" clients like the Sheikh of UAE. A must watch to understand the vile services this instrument of manipulation provides to exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.50.92.168 (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2024 hack

"A financially motivated criminal hacking group says it has stolen a confidential database containing millions of records that companies use for screening potential customers for links to sanctions and financial crime. The hackers, which call themselves GhostR, said they stole 5.3 million records from the World-Check screening database in March and are threatening to publish the data online. World-Check is a screening database used for "know your customer" checks (or KYC), allowing companies to determine if prospective customers are high risk or potential criminals, such as people with links to money laundering or who are under government sanctions.The hackers told TechCrunch that they stole the data from a Singapore-based firm with access to the World-Check database, but did not name the firm. A portion of the stolen data, which the hackers shared with TechCrunch, includes individuals who were sanctioned as recently as this year." Source: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/18/world-check-database-leaked-sanctions-financial-crimes-watchlist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:1C76:4300:73C1:DAC0:4739:89D9 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Total Lack of Information

This article seems more like a promotional blurb, though the creator appears to be unrelated to the company. Far more information in terms of depth and breadth may be garnered from the official overview of the company website. http://www.world-check.com/overview/ 210.176.70.2 (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The creator and editor is a copywriter in the company's Marketing Department, removing any critical edits which are widely available in other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swordsoftruth (talk • contribs) 16:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open source?

How can the World-Check repository be defined open? From their overview page (http://www.world-check.com/overview/):

World-Check can be accessed through two annual subscription models

The only link between them and open source is this (from the same page):

World-Check compiles public information from open sources via the internet.

Shouldn't that be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalotus (talk • contribs) 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Malicious" edits to World-Check article on Wikipedia

Amendments made by the swordsoftruth user (Swordsoftruth (talk • contribs) ) can hardly be considered impartial. We suspect they may have been made with malicious intent by one of our competitors. This person has made no disclosure as to his own position or relation to World-Check either, making his motives for the incendiary edits questionable to say the least.

The recent round of changes implemented by myself were intended to make this overview more compliant with Wikipedia's neutrality requirements. The repeated vandalising edits have been brought to Wikipedia's attention, and we have requested that appropriate action be taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreb2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreb2 (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by swordsoftruth pertain to the company's location- registered in London but managed from Wisconsin and South Africa, not malicious but a statement of fact the company appears to wish to hide. A widely published story regarding the subject's exaggeration of its capabilities has been removed by World-Check. Removing these established facts compromise the neutrality of the article.

swordsoftruth (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Intelligence

OK it surely means Open Source Intelligence, not Open Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalotus (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for speedy deletion

Editors have had two years to correct this page, which still reads like an advertisement and does not meet notability standards. No other pages like to this one and it contains no citations. Wiki33139 (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revelations in 'HSBC, Muslims & Me' (broadcast on BBC Radio 4, July 2015)

This BBC radio programme has some interesting revelations about how World Check works, its policies, secrecy and questionable sources.

Its investigation found that the high profile summary closure of bank accounts by HSBC in the UK in July 2014, and inability of those affected to open new accounts elsewhere, was the result of their World Check files labeling them as terrorists. Those concerned were not considered terrorists by the police, and in one case had taken over a the running Finsbury Park Mosque with the approval & encouragement of the Metropolitan police Special Branch.

I regret that poor health prevents me from writing a contribution to this article myself at this time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0639w47

79.76.82.94 (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was not created or edited for undisclosed payments

I am a Refinitiv employee. As far as I know, this article was not created or edited for undisclosed payments. We do not intend to violate any Wikipedia principles and will completely comply with all Wikipedia guidelines. However, can someone please help with removing the banners that say this was created or edited for undisclosed payments, the a major contributor has a close connection with the subject and that the writing sounds like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmendrefinitiv (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another update from me. It has been over a year since the warning appeared on this page and it is increasingly clear that there is no effort from Refinitiv to make edits to this page as a far as I am aware. I believe that the warning message should be removed. Thanks, Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshmendrefinitiv (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating again. It has now been two years since the warning appeared. According to users on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Eikon edits were made by a 3rd party that could be seen as promotional. This was not done intentionally and we have set a new policy for this to not occur again. I am no Wikipedia expert but 2 years seems like enough time to now remove the questionable content and the corresponding warning. Given my bias as a Refinitiv employee, I will not make the change myself but do encourage any experience Wikipedia editor seeing this to help. Joshmendrefinitiv (talk)

Alexandra Tolstoy’s NatWest account closure

This issue should go under the “controversies” section. Her account was closed based on inaccurate news articles which World-Check treated as “facts.” Bank account was closed without checking any tax records, business documents, or facts about the Russian father of her children. After demanding to see her records and proving the information to be false, she has been removed from the “black list.” She plans on suing. 93.176.138.193 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]