Talk:Credit CARD Act of 2009

NPOV

The body of this article is, literally, a copy/paste of how a proponent of the bill describes it: [1]. I think this is a pretty clear NPOV violation-- any thoughts? Downfall2209 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is written in a factual way. What paragraphs or sentences do you think are problematic? Is some vital piece of information missing or incorrect? If your complaint is that the article is biased, then you ought to be able to point out precisely which sentence or paragraph is biased. This isn't an article about the pros and cons of the credit card act; it just states provisions of the act, when it was passed, etc. It seems a bit odd to slap a warning message onto the top of the article - a message that will influence many people looking at this article - without more justification.ATBS 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

As of now there is no discussion of specific parts of the article that are said to violate the NPOV policy. Thus, the article has the warning message about being a disputed article, but there is little explanation of what in the article is even said to violate NPOV - there is just a blanket statement. At what point does a lack of response by a disputer indicate that it's reasonable to remove the dispute? I'm only a moderately experienced Wikipedian and would be interested in hearing from more experienced Wikipedians about this specific case. ATBS 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)ATBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATBS (talk • contribs)

I thought it was self-evident, but I'll give more specifics. First, I apologize for my long absence. Wiki is something I do on the side, and work intervened. Now, the problem is that it's written by a press release, which is unsurprising because it's copy/pasted from a "fact sheet" distributed by advocates of the bill. For instance, "Cardholders Deserve Protections against Arbitrary Interest Rate Increases." is a statement of what the law should be, not what it is, and the changes being 'arbitrary' is simply polemic; credit card companies make changes based on risk profiles, not randomness. Similarly, "Due Date Gimmicks" isn't NPOV; it's taking a position on whether a 14 day cycle is a legitimate business practice. Similarly, "Card Companies Should Fairly Credit and Allocate Payments"; what's 'fair' is, again, a matter of opinion. Wikipedia should not be taking a position on what payment allocations are just and what are not. Similarly, we cannot objectively say whether the fees banned by the act are "excessive," whether those protected by the bill are "vulnerable consumers", whether subprime cards are "fee-heavy", or whether Congress should provide greater oversight to the credit card industry. Other parts of it are so vague it's hard to tell if it's NPOV or not; for instance, I'm not sure what practice is banned by "Prohibits card companies from slapping fees on the remaining interest-only balance of a cardholder who has paid his/her bill on time." Downfall2209 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There is undeniably a certain degree of POV-pushing in parts of the article as it currently stands: "Many banks also raised their interest rates in response and raised fees in last-minute attempts to take advantage of their customers before the new laws kicked in. The claims of the credit card companies that changes would lead to higher rates has been somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Consumer advocacy groups claim the companies were crying wolf in this sense and have used their false claims as cover to simply raise their rates and find new ways to exploit their customers." Not sure how much of this is is taken verbatim from the House.gov document which I can't access at the moment, so I'm not going to make the edit for the time being, but I think we'd all agree that a more authoritative, informational description would be: "Banks and credit card companies raised their interest rates preemptively in response to the law's passage. Consumer advocacy groups claim the companies used the law's passage as a pretext to continue to raise rates." --65.121.141.34 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that this could be considered POV, I mildly disagree here.

First, isn't there something about legal analysis that courts look to the intent of the law's author(s) for interpretation and application? In other words, phrases like "Cardholders Deserve Protections against Arbitrary Interest Rate Increases." could be not so much a POV as it is the intent of the bill's sponsors. If that phrase was circulated in documents within congress or spoken on the floor then it becomes a guide if a court is in doubt to the law's intent. If a reliablesource can be found that such phrasing was part of the legal debate then it is less likely to be POV-pushing I think.

Second, Downfall2209's NPOV argument seems to carry some (perhaps unintended) POV of it's own.. for example "... credit card companies make changes based on risk profiles ..." assumes facts not in evidence, perhaps some or even most do, but there is a wealth of evidence and cases where various credit card companies have engaged in predatory lending practices so it is by no means a fact (as implied by the good editor) that all credit card companies play by the rules. 66.102.205.222 (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Effective when?

Can someone please clarify when the act goes into effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.130.136 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that there are different parts that go into effect at different times. For instance the 45 day notice requirement goes into effect 90 days from when the bill was enacted. Assuming that is date of signature (May 22, 2009) that would be Aug 20, 2009. The reporting clause of the Better Oversight clause would be Dec of 2009. So it is not true that all of the law waits until Feb 2010 to go into effect--only the majority of it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From the text of the bill that I read, it said it goes into effect "as of the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act." I'm assuming the "date of the enactment" is the date it's signed, so I'm not clear where you get the 9-month figure. (Source of bill: http://maloney.house.gov/documents/financial/h.r.5244billtext.pdf) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarify This Please...

What does

* Requires creditors to approve customers who charge over the limit, and over-the-limit that.

mean ? This makes no grammatical sense and also is inconsistent ("over the limit" and "over-the-limit") in the same sentence. 66.102.205.222 (talk) 04:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Credit CARD Act of 2009

Cyberbot II has detected links on Credit CARD Act of 2009 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/don-t-set-us-back-half-a-century-give-stay-at-home-moms-credit

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Credit CARD Act of 2009

Cyberbot II has detected links on Credit CARD Act of 2009 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/petitions/don-t-set-us-back-half-a-century-give-stay-at-home-moms-credit

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted link fixed

I've just updated to remove the change.org link that triggered the blacklist warning. Does anyone know whether the page will automatically update to remove the warning boxes next time the bot indexes? saritonin (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Credit CARD Act of 2009. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621182431/http://washingtonindependent.com:80/42641/senate-approves-coburn-gun-amendment to http://washingtonindependent.com/42641/senate-approves-coburn-gun-amendment

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Credit CARD Act of 2009. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://washingtonindependent.com/42641/senate-approves-coburn-gun-amendment
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415135808/http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h627/actions_votes to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h627/actions_votes

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) 08:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Lede

The lede should summarize what the law actually does. Benjamin (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)