Talk:Euronet Worldwide

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)