Talk:Payday loans in the United Kingdom

photo of high street payday loan shop

I am contesting the removal of the pic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Barek#Payday_loans_in_the_United_Kingdom --Peabodybore (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I posted the pic of the Speedy Cash shop, which is a payday loan chain in the UK. Can you explain in which way the photo is an advert? --Peabodybore (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on advertising states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Speedy Cash has branches across the UK, ie its not a local shop (see http://wwwuk.speedycash.com/payday-loan-store-locations/ ). The Speedy Cash shop in the pic illustrates how highstreet paydayloan shops in the UK look (ie red and green colour scheme, balloons, flags, adverts containing the word "free"). Are you saying that the UK payday loan article cannot contain a picture of an actual payday loan shop in the UK because that would be advertisement?

I believe the pic and the caption does not contravene the Wikipedia policy on advertisement. How can I appeal against your removal of the pic?--Peabodybore (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The image and caption which was added both here and at Payday loan really couldn't be interpreted as anything other than an advert. As I explained on my talk page, there were multiple issues. First, the description of the image[1] was a blatant advert of the company and their loan terms. The secondary issue was in the image itself not really illustrating anything in the text of the two articles to which it was added - ie: even if you strip down the image description to more neutral wording, all that really remains in the image is a building with the most readable pieces of text being nothing more than the company name and the text "cash loan".

That said, if others agree that the image is illustrative, I have no problem with it being restored to this article, provided the wording is cleaned up. Specifically, you claimed on my talk page that it's meant as a generic illustration for this type of business, so no need to list company name in the image description. Also, the loan terms should be removed from the image description. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The caption show that this is a payday lender as defined in the article: I added the following caption with a link (verifiable):

”Speedy Cash in Peckham, London, provides payday loans at a representative APR of 2,115.69%, borrowing £100 for 30 days costs £29 interest.]]

Please explain how this is advertisement? These are the facts.

The Payday loans in the United Kingdom article intro states:

"In the absence of restrictions on interest rates the typical annual percentage rate (APR) for payday loans can be 1,000 percent APR or more. A typical payday loan in the United Kingdom costs as much as £25 for every £100 borrowed per month."

Speedy Cash is a common high street payday lender in the UK. I believe the pic and the caption comply with the Wikipedia policy on adverts:

• Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery.
• External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article.

You removed the pic and the caption from the UK payday loan article because you claim it is an advert, but it shows a UK high street payday lender (article topic) and it states their “representative APR”, ie interest rate, which is the topic of article. It is the interest rate that makes Speedy Cash a “payday lender”, ie short term loans at 1,000% APR or more.

If you remove a pic in reference to a Wikipedia policy don’t you have to explain how it contravenes the relevant policy? Again, are you claiming that the article cannot contain a picture of an actual payday lender in the UK because this would be advertisement?--Peabodybore (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can't understand how listing loan terms for a specific vendor is promotional for that vendor, then there is zero point in continuing this conversation. Information can be factual and be an advert at the same time (the two are not mutually exclusive), and sourcing to the company's home page just compounds the blatant advert content of the material. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The interest charged (one of several loan terms) is the central topic of the article. The article on Wonga (biggest UK online payday lender) states their APR in the introduction. According to your interpretation of advertisement none of the Wikipedia articles on UK payday lenders could contain any information on their interest rate.

Obviously we two don’t agree on the interpretation of the Wikipedia policy on advertisement in relation to articles on UK payday lenders. How can we can the opinion of another administrator on this?--Peabodybore (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You can't see the fundamental difference between the two articles?

This article is generic high-level discussion of the subject Payday loans in the United Kingdom. While in an article that is about a specific vendor, it can be appropriate to provide business details about that vendor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Really sorry, but I won’t engage in a "seriously.. you this and that" discussion with you. You have removed content because you claim it “blatantly” contravenes the Wikipedia policy on adverts. How can we resolve this? Any suggestions on how we can get a second opinion on this?--Peabodybore (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I have struck the line to which you seem to have taken offense - and I apologize for that wording. But it is a valid point - there are fundamental differences between an article that is a high-level review of the subject of payday loans, versus an article about a specific vendor. I find it hard to understand how such a difference can be overlooked or missed.

As to bringing in other editors, the simplest method is to post a request on related Wikiproject talk pages (two are listed at the top of this page), that simply state a discussion is taking place on this article regarding the appropriateness of an image for use on the page (keeping it neutral in the notice so as to avoid claims of establishing a bias). Alternately, an WP:RFC process could be started which can draw in editors who would not normally watch these articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am UK based it is bedtime for me. I will initiate the dispute resolution process on Saturday (tomorrow is a long day). I am concerned that you remove content in reference to Wikipedia policies, but then don’t engage factually with the issue at hand.

The pic shows the shop of a big high street UK payday lender and the caption stated their APR (showing that this is a provider of a typical payday loan as described in the introduction of the article). The article on UK payday lenders is mainly about the APR such lenders charge (the APR controversy is one of the main reasons why payday lenders have become noticeable in the UK). You believe that stating the APR charged by the payday lender in the pic is advertisement, especially because it links to the company website as source. That is why you have removed the pic. You now take the view that stating the APR would be ok if the pic and caption was in the Speedy Cash article (like the Wonga.com article states their payday loan APR, taking their website as source), but it amounts to "blatant advertisement" if the pic and the APR is included in a general article on UK payday lenders.

I note your opinion, I note that you have removed content in reference to Wikipedia policies. But as far as I can see your view on the context in which stating the APR amounts to advertisement has no basis in Wikipedia policies. Therefore it would be good to have other people's opinion on this dispute. Unlike you I am not an administrator; I rely on Wikipedia policies for guidance, I try to make useful contributions to Wikipedia, I don’t engage in edit wars and I don’t see why I should put up with “seriously… you this and that” from an administrator, who has removed content because it allegedly does not comply with Wikipedia policies.--Peabodybore (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I had previously struck the comment to which you took offence and apologized for that wording. If you still wish to complain on that issue, the appropriate place to bring that separate concern is to WP:ANI. However, it has no bearing on the discussion at hand over the appropriateness of the image and the appropriate text description.

Also, regarding your comment above, I have engaged "factually with the issue at hand" - the fact that I do not agree with your interpretation does not void that fact.

If you want me to start the dispute resolution processes, feel free to indicate which you would prefer to utilize (I am fine with either of the ones mentioned above), and I can either start them or provide assistance. Otherwise, I'll await your starting them on Saturday. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The image caption is unnecessarily specific, and descriptive in a way that reads very much like advertisement. I think it should not be included. A Wikipedia caption would normally read very plainly, like 'A payday loan shop in Peckham, London'. I have not read up on policy with regard the image, but I believe it is useful by its illustrativeness. It shows the context of how such a premises looked in the period: crass, flambuoyant, cheap. I say leave it in. -Lopifalko (talk)

That's fine with me. As I mentioned in my initial reply above, if others agree that the image is illustrative, I have no problem with it being restored to this article; provided the wording is cleaned up to remove the specific business mention as well as removing the loan terms from the image description (as this is not an article about a specific business, there is no need to promote a single business with the name/terms - and the simplified wording would still meet the initially stated intent of the image listed above, which was "the pic illustrates how highstreet paydayloan shops in the UK look"). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Payday loans in the United Kingdom. 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/20110812080846/http://www.responsible-credit.org.uk/uimages/File/payday%20lending%20the%20UK%20october%202010%20final.pdf to http://www.responsible-credit.org.uk/uimages/File/payday%20lending%20the%20UK%20october%202010%20final.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409190024/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/High-cost-credit-review/OFT1232.pdf to http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_credit/High-cost-credit-review/OFT1232.pdf

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) 04:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Dollar Financial & PayDay UK

Looking at the section PayDay UK it still says "Dollar Financial acquired PayDay UK in 2011, then the UK's largest online lender, and suggested The Money Shop's network could grow from around 350 shops to around 1200", does this still need to be there? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Have removed this, if you think it needed to stay let me know. RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Market Share

The notes about which lenders have the most market share seem to be out of date. Does anyone have any articles with figures from the last 12 months? RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)