Talk:Experian/Archives/2012

Telemarking POV
This section is boarding on a spiteful rant towards Experian. I can't say I know much about the subject, so do not wish to update it, but I think it needs to either be changed to be NPOV, or deleted. Loco830/Espio (Rant) 17:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just received a call like the one described about 10 minutes ago. It is deffinately not just a "spiteful rant" it's reality. If you google that number there re lots of people with the same issue. Killfoot 17:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The final para of section 'Experian North America' does not conform to NPOV, nor to the other two principles of 'no original research' and 'verifiability'. This para needs to be deleted or changed to satisfactorily reflect wikipedia principles.

'Its business practices have been alleged to be discriminatory, sexist, and immoral ...' - needs references to reliable and reputable sources. '... and the company is biased and immoral when deciding who to extend credit to.' - who alleges this? what references? 'It has been known to get out of legitimate complaints about its business ethics and violations of consumer privacy through its affiliation with large and influential law firms ...' - needs references to reliable and reputable sources. '... and an incomprehensible and unnavigable phone system in which it is all but impossible to speak to a real person. - this looks like a personal point of view with its subjective and emotional turn of phrase. Again needs references to reliable and reputable sources.

POV
In addition to apparently pre-existing promotional tone, User:Experian may be a representative of the company itself. That account added even more promotional material, which has since been removed. -- Beland 02:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a valid point. Stating on the article page, as someone did, that teh subject have been "manipulating " the article is not a good idea.  There is the COI template for this type of case though Rich Farmbrough, 16:57 7 January 2008 (GMT).

Experian Interactive Media
I don't see anything in the article about an outfit called "Experian Interactive Media". I saw that name on a web site ad -- one of those annoying ones with a series of "Obama says" lines, like "Obama asks moms to return to school". Sure enough, there's a experianinteractivemedia.com web site that says "a part of Experian", along with lowermybills.com and classesUSA. Wow, and *these* are the guys who know everything about me, without ever asking my permission? (But I digress, shouldn't get too POV even on a talk page... that's part of why I'm not going to touch the article.) --Robertb-dc (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Experian gets into bed with HMRC
December 2009 and HMRC get into bed with HMRC.

This is an attempt to stop fraudulent activity within the Tax Credits system.

HMRC who have a troubled past in data protection see this as a proactive move towards stability within identity fraud reduction.

Strange then considering the past where Experian has been prosecuted for fraud.

Also strange too that HMRC would get involved with a company that has a history of ending jobs within the UK and moving them to the cheaper less secure country of India?

HMRC when will you learn and how much has this adulterous collaberation cost the general public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nottinghamsherrif (talk • contribs) 18:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Business Practices
Hi, an IP address just removed the section on questionable business practices, which I have reverted.

I am aware that section needs significant clean up, and if there was a consensus among this article's editors to remove that section then I apologize, but it looked suspicious for an IP address to remove that section on an article that (judging by the talk page) has had past POV issues.  Caleb Jon talk 02:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's blatant soapboxing. I have removed it.-- Terrillja talk  02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)