Talk:Wonga.com/Archives/2014
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
APR and the cost of a Wonga loan
Very amusing, this Manchester loan shark. But it's not really about Wonga, is it? I don't think it belongs. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree on both counts. It should be removed. SmartSE (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree, it's exactly what Wonga argue, that without them people are forced to use loan sharks. I will rewrite it a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is that better? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that that's an argument Wonga have used, but citing that article here isn't appropriate as the subject of the article is a loan shark and not Wonga, creating WP:WEIGHT issues and the first sentence can't be verified from the source. I don't see how the incident is relevant to Wonga overall. SmartSE (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I can't agree. The first sentence doesn't need to be found in the source, it is what they argue as you have said. The rest is in the source and although the case was not about Wonga (and there is no suggestion it was) there was a lot of discussion about the company and legal and illegal lending that is relevant to the article. I will see if I can trim it a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Trimmed it, deals directly with the point that they are expensive but legal, which they are always saying in their defense. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I can't agree. The first sentence doesn't need to be found in the source, it is what they argue as you have said. The rest is in the source and although the case was not about Wonga (and there is no suggestion it was) there was a lot of discussion about the company and legal and illegal lending that is relevant to the article. I will see if I can trim it a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disagree that that's an argument Wonga have used, but citing that article here isn't appropriate as the subject of the article is a loan shark and not Wonga, creating WP:WEIGHT issues and the first sentence can't be verified from the source. I don't see how the incident is relevant to Wonga overall. SmartSE (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Is that better? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Disagree, it's exactly what Wonga argue, that without them people are forced to use loan sharks. I will rewrite it a bit. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)