Talk:Klarna

Neutrality?

This page currently reads like a press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Multikev (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Previously deleted

This article has been deleted at least twice before, on 16 March 2010 and 7 May 2010. Tomas e (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters

Article states they are headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden. However, their website as of Nov 2019 states the have US headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, with offices in New York City. There is no mention of this, but I'm not sure if it's important to the article. 198.70.201.220 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I will investigate. For sure they are Swedes and the company is Swedish. But they are expanding into markets including the U.S. Longstreet12 (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Klarna Bank AB, headquartered in Sweden. But Klarna Inc., its American subsidiary, is indeed headquartered in Ohio. And Klarna has more local subsidiaries. The Banner talk 17:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Buzzwords and Vague tag

Please stop placing these tags. It's passive aggressive and lazy. If you would like to change words then actually do that. These tags are opinions and not informative. Aryattack (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Removing the tags without fixing the problem is the same... The Banner talk 23:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Updates

Reading local reports, it seems that at least two of the four (so not three) founders have left the company/sold out. However Klarna sold shares at a new value this month. Plenty of references. I will work this week to amend. Longstreet12 (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Privacy fine

User:TylerBurden improperly reverted my addition of Klarna's fine for privacy breaches with the reason "primary source". I have restored it, and chosen to add a second source for the same info. Per WP:PRIMARY point 3, "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This very clearly qualifies as a valid source for the statement in question and I would ask that you refrain from removing valid, relevant, and properly sourced information. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Asking for a better source would have been a better idea than just deleting it. And that better source is there now. So, case solved. The Banner talk 08:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it was improper, why use a primary source when there are secondary ones available? I would say that reverting with an explanatory edit summary as to why is, essentially, asking for a better source. It also seems a bit petty to go against bold revert discuss and simply revert my reversion, only to add another source straight after. Since it is now supported by a secondary source, like the The Banner said case solved. Not sure why you are omitting the appeal though, but that can be fixed. TylerBurden (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SEAOFBLUE

@TylerBurden:

It again seems like you haven't read your linked guideline page (Wikipedia:SEAOFBLUE), as there are no links placed next to each other.

Furthermore, I never accused you of not knowing what a trade name is, as implied by your edit summary.

Your largely unfounded rejection of a potentially useful link in this context seems quite strange to me. -- Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No you're right, just an (in my opinion) awkward looking redirect in place of text that was already clear and well established for years. I'm not sure why you would explain what a trade name is then, not that it's important. As mentioned, the article already makes it clear that Klarna is the common name, not "Klarna Bank AB".

There is no establishment of this "trade name" or "doing business as" in the article body, so yes I rejected inserting it into the immediate lead and marking it as a minor edit. See WP:LEAD. TylerBurden (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What you consider awkward looking is subjective and therefore cannot be used as an argument. My argument that the inserted link is potentially useful or interesting for readers still seems to be the only objective argument in this discussion so far.

If you are arguing that "doing business as" is not in the body of the article: the same applies to the statement that "Klarna" is the name the company is commonly referred to. I would go even further: for the claim that the company operates under "Klarna", a look at the official website is enough. For the claim that "Klarna" is the name commonly used by most people, however, there is no valid evidence. Sure, that's extremely likely, and that detail is petty, but if you're already splitting hairs, you should at least be consistent. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)