Talk:Operation Choke Point

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

discussion of deleted copyvio collapsed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. April 2014 Under the color of 'operation choke point', DOJ is coercing banks into pulling their business from OTHER legal businesses. This is HARDLY just about payday lenders. In the little city of Reno, for example, two firearms dealers were left scrambling for a bank to process their credit purchase transactions after their banks dumped them for this reason. Other businesses, such as adult content proprietors are facing similar thuggery tactics. Whose business is next in the moral judgement column - yours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.178.132.4 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 30 April 2014‎ NPOV Unsourced phrases like "which is designed to rid the country of a number of industries," "The Operation is led by political appointees and career officials,", and "It also appears to have been kicked off under wraps" are the reason I put {{NPOV}} on the page with this edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) I took a butcher knife to those three sections (and I agree with you that they're problematic as was), but I doubt that's everything, so I've left the tag intact. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC) It's a moot point, the whole article is a mix of copyright violations. I tagged it db-copyvio. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

terrorists?

Nothing I've read says this is targeted at terrorist financing and it is not supported by any citations. I've added the {{dubious}} tag and if a reliable source published before that statement was added to this Wikipedia page can't be found shortly, it should be removed. (I'm looking too). The Dissident Aggressor 17:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The one news source I found that supports this [1] was published on October 9, long after this statement was on Wikipedia and may be a case of Wikipedia influencing coverage. The Dissident Aggressor 15:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, with no response, I'm removing that objective since the majority of sources don't support it. It's likely something that was added here, then picked up. I'm not opposed to it being added back to the article but I'd request that it be supported by references published before this edit which seems to have added the concept of terrorism to this article without any support. The Dissident Aggressor 16:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple issues

This article presents highly contentious partisan claims, coming from Republican politicians and the right-wing editorial pages; and it even exaggerates them, by "reading between the lines" of carefully couched implication that such sources use to portray Choke Point as maximally scandalous. For example, Rep. Issa's report is clearly a partisan and primary source, larded with numerous extraordinary claims such as a suggestion that requiring legitimate payday lenders to demonstrate that they have the licenses legally required to operate is equivalent to the trial by dunking satirically depicted in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. But this article not only relies on the report exclusively for its "details" section, it goes even further than the report does, by explicitly characterizing general FDIC advice on how banks can mitigate third-party risks as the "details" of a program that did not even exist at the time the advice was published, and positioning these invented "details" as proof that the Obama administration was lying when it characterized Choke Point as focused on ripoffs and scams. In the course of this kind of hype the article also contradicts itself on basic issues, such as first noting that Choke Point was publicly announced in March 2013 and then going on to claim that it was "revealed" by The Wall Street Journal's writing angry editorials about it six months later. It cites a news story that quotes the Justice Department explicitly disavowing any characterization of its "preliminary inquiry" as an "actual investigation," to support the claim that the DOJ has opened an investigation, in a section titled "Federal investigations." And it concludes with the crowning absurdity of a section titled "Admission of wrongdoing" that contains no mention of any admission of wrongdoing by anyone, citing a blog post by a right-wing legal scholar that contains no original reporting and admittedly is just based on parroting The Washington Times. Lovely. 76.66.126.186 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)