Talk:Visa Inc./Archives/2014

Criticism

I am adding a section on the criticsm section and endeavor to keep it. I think VISA and Mastercard perpetuate a huge fraud in protecting frauds by Merchants who never deliver promised products / fraudulantly gets a card details. Customers are helpless in these situations and have to close their bank accounts to stop the frauds from happening. I am also considering other methods such as creation of a specific website for the purpose. Please visit this site, I would soon leave an email for you to contact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dongiri (talk • contribs) 07:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

I am proposing that this new criticism section be removed for three reasons: 1. It is a personal opinion and does not cite concrete evidence that this supposed practice is sanctioned by Visa International; 2. It is poorly written and does not follow Wikipedia style guidelines; 3. Even if it were true it more accurately would belong on the Visa product article as opposed to the Visa corporate article. Dlanddrew 15:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Based on no contrary opinions, I have reverted this edit. Dlanddrew 03:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

So, who thinks the "Controversy" section should be removed, and who thinks it should be kept, and why? I think it should be removed, because it has almost nothing to do with VISA; inasmuch as it's about any controversy at all, it's about a general controversy over credit cards. As such, if it's going to appear anywhere, it should be at the article on credit cards, or perhaps in its own article, and this article can simply mention that VISA cards, like other credit cards, are the subject of controversy (with an appropriate wikilink). That said, I'm not completely convinced this section needs to appear anywhere, seeing as it doesn't seem at all encyclopedic. Certainly if we're going to put that section somewhere, we'll need to clean it up a great deal, and add lots of {{cn}} ( ) tags. (O.K., I've cleaned it up and {{cn}}-ified it now.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It definitely doesn't belong in this article as its not specific to Visa. Claims that can be properly sourced could go into the Controversy section in credit cards if it's not already there (haven't read it). -- Hawaiian717 06:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, having 50 cite needed statements sure does make the article look like crap. How about leaving the big cite needed at the top of the section, and one tag at the end for the whole thing? Really, it just looks terrible. JamesBenjamin 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It does look terrible, but as it looks like no one objects to the section being deleted, it won't be there for long anyway. (I'll wait until a week after I started the discussion, in case Pgr94 decides to weigh in, but if (s)he doesn't and no one else objects, then I'll delete it and its formatting won't be relevant.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope everyone's ok with cut-pasting the controversy section here into talk so people don't have to look at the mess of citation-neededs. It was going to be deleted anyway, but why keep a mess around for a week? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.158.128.105 (talk • contribs).

Controversies

One as-yet-unresolved question pertains to card-holders' right to be able to keep track of their balance. A number of factors interfere with their ability to do so, including the following: automatic charges, which are often based on complex if-then statements and contingencies (for example, Visa contracts that have deep clauses granting a merchant the right to collect any due amounts without any signature); the lack of a standard system for calculating foreign exchange rates (Visa refuses to grant future prices, so exchange-rate calculations can be based on previous-business-day newspaper standards, or can be calculated on the receipt itself); and merchant charges for "any denial" of a transaction. To address this problem, card issuers have introduced a number of innovations, such as not having over-the-limit fees, and such as a standard system of requiring check-type information for every transaction: name of payee, amount, date, permission of card-holder. Such a system does not exist, however, for automatic charges by merchants.

I agree that this section should be removed -- much of it isn't true, anyway (e.g. the stuff about exchange rates -- Visa has a perfectly predictable system, open to all and consistent for all transactions). That said, I cannot edit this piece of the article, because I work for the company, and policy dictates that I not get into this sort of controversy in public fora. 198.241.217.15 17:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

association rules

The part that talks about the rules of the association is interesting, although unsourced. Is there a consumer help site that we could link to that would outline more formally but still accessibly the rights of cardholders and obligations of members? Ojcit 05:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Visa holo.gif

Image:Visa holo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Visad.jpg

Image:Visad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Corporate structure" disputed?

There is a NPOV tag on Visa (company)#Corporate structure, and I don't see any explanation here on talk. Superm401 - Talk 01:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

VisA, Porn and Bankruptcy Reform

Shouldn't something be said about the back room deal by visa (USA) and the United states governement to attempt to eliminate porn coming from US websites in exchange for bankruptcy reform? After several online "child" protection act laws by the government were defeated by the aclu and others... the goverment worked out a deal.. simply that the major banks get there long awaited bankruptcy reform (or harder to file chapter 7..which happened right after these changes after being prevented for OVER 10 YEARS,) in return the credit card association agree to tighten the noose on the money for online porn by lowering the chargeback ratio on (high risk..ie. porn)transaction to 1% before $10,000 and $100,000 charges begin to apply... difficult for even the largest companies never mind a mom and pop shop without a massive fraud scrubbing system and massive amounts of clients to dillute the friendly fraud (..ie... your wife finds out your looking at porn and you call the card company and say... hey that wasn't me.. very huge problem and still a $15-$25 chargeback fee per transaction... sometimes 6 months back.) as well as actual fraud. These changes have driven several transaction providers that specalize in adult entertainment to shutter thier doors and not pay there clients (webmasters)..thereby causing thousands of adult websites and mom and pop shops to go under. You don't think you get much less porn ads for no reason do you.. sure penthouse is still up .. they can afford it... also one might want to mention that people who process thru a third party tansaction processor must comply with visa and mastercard rules.. but because they are not a merchant member of visa CANNOT SEE THE RULES they must follow.. and if visa blacklists you as a website they do not want to process for or for not following the rules you can't see... THERE IS NO APPEALS PROCESS. visa and mastarcard are rapidly replacing cash.. but the difference is.. no anonymity and the card associations can decide what is ok for you to watch without pesky constitutional issues that government has... they just change the rules so you don't see what they don't want you looking at.. or better yet... what the government doesn't want you looking at but can't stop you because of constitutional issues... heck just hand that down to visa USA to handle it.. its scary... a controversy section for this association.. is more then appropriate. The government cares because we have a republican president in office (for the record I generally vote republican..in the elections and did for bush) and that president gathers ALOT of support from the religous right. groups such as the Family Research Council. who do not want you to see smut as it is against their beliefs. Although you and I may take it as our god given right to look at what we want,.. they dont. When clinton was in office.. the industry recieved NO pressure. after bush came in de doubled the staff investigating indecency on the internet. credit cards are no longer just for adults. they are given to teenagers as "pre paid debit cards". the government has tried to pass several laws forcing people to put up a credit card or provide ID BEFORE they can access even a preview section of an adult website (regardless of a warning). back in 2001 I think it was most websites went black by placing only a black page up to signify the govt censorship. the aclu fought and won.. same for the next two attempts.. that left the govt with no choice but to go for the source and follow the money to censor the web.

look at the industry forums like gfy.com or AVN. look at billing provider like ibill (who was about 90% of adult transactions) at the time and many many more..they went under because visa pressured there merchant bank to stop processing causing complete havok in the industry. companies with money went offshore.. others were wiped out. american express and discover both refused to process for adult transactions even before visa and mastercard tightened the noose. heres an email from avn to a client regarding an attorney who is familiar with and has contacts in the financial industry and government. Ive heard his lectures. pretty fascinating stuff. the thing is.. we are rapidly becoming a cashless society.. the govt does not need to deal with pesky laws... they just tighten the noose thru the banks.

http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200210/msg00036.html

-69.125.221.225 (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Chargexlogo.jpg

Image:Chargexlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article changes needed after IPO

Now that Visa has had its IPO, this article needs changes to reflect the fact that Visa is now a publicly-traded company, rather than a cooperative. --JHP (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the intro to address Visa's change from bank cooperative to publicly traded company. May need more changes in the body. Andropod (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Recursive acronym / backronym

Which is it? The intro says that Visa was originally called "Visa International Service Association"; near the end of the background section, it says has become a recursive backronym. If the intro is right, it seems likely to me that VISA could be the first recursive acronym. 208.79.212.66 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Credit vs. Debit

I removed the entire section of credit vs debit. That section was poorly written, confusing, and just plain wrong. Visa payment cards come in four flavours, Credit, Debit, Commercial, and Pre-Paid. Credit products refer specifically to accounts where credit is issued to the cardholder. Debit refers to products where there is no credit issued and the funds to pay transactions are immediately paid by the cardholder. The two terms are not opposite sides of the same system as they are in general accounting. Commercial cards fall under the credit umbrella and prepaid under the debit. Visa and its members charge fees based on the type of card used. That said, there are two systems (protocols?) for accessing the funds applied to most or all Visa cards: Signature and PIN. PIN based transactions go through an ATM network and Signature based transactions go through the Visa network. Any Visa branded debit product can also be used in a signature based transaction. Many, if not all, Credit products can also be used in PIN based transactions.Dmprantz (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"gave up control"

Bank of America gave up control of the BankAmericard program.

This is really vague. The Visa history page says that in 1970, "Visa is incorporated in the state of Delaware in 1970 as National BankAmericard Inc. (NBI)." Did B of A give up control? Are we sure? Weren't they the majority stockholder at least? I'll fact-tag the above sentence. Tempshill (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Advertising results?

I'm not quite sure how to look this up, so I'll ask for ideas here. VISA has been running ads in the U.S. that seem designed to produce specific experimental data, i.e. to measure how many people can be programmed to visit an aquarium on a Tuesday, or how many will download and pay for "Superfreak". But where is this data? Wnt (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Business Operations Expansion

I would like to expand this article with more detail regarding Visa¹s business operations, including info about the VisaNet information processing network, payment platforms and technology, and mobile payments and data security. I am going to pull appropriate third-party sources to support this information prior to posting. Ewhite Visacomms (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also going to further expand the article with updated operations and operating regulations information. Ewhite Visacomms (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to add sponsorship and other information throughout the article. Ewhite Visacomms (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section again. I do not think the tone of the section is appropriate for Wikipedia. The section might still be savable by someone more skillful than me and without WP:COI-problems of the origianal contributer, so I'll add the section below.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Business overview

Processing

Visa’s information processing network, VisaNet, facilitates the transfer of value and information among its financial institution clients, consumers, merchants, businesses and governments. Nearly 101 billion authorization, clearing and settlement transactions were processed through VisaNet in calendar year 2009. Based on testing results, Visa estimates that VisaNet is capable of processing more than 10,000 messages per second.

VisaNet operates four processing centers on three continents, all synchronized and operating identical authorization platforms. This enables Visa to shift transaction volume from one data center to another if needed. At the same time, these data centers house multiple authorization engines, essentially “data centers within a data center.” Combined, these advances help to ensure that the VisaNet system is available and has enough processing power to meet the growing demand for electronic payments.

Visa offers risk management, dispute processing, loyalty programs and other information-based services.

Innovation

Beyond the payment products listed above, recent innovations from Visa include:

• Money Transfer — Visa Money Transfer is a person-to-person payment platform that enables the transfer of funds from account to account using the Visa network.

• Chip Technology — In a number of regions, Visa supports the deployment of chip technology, whether EMV contact chip or contactless Visa payWave.

• Mobile Payments and Services — Visa’s mobile strategy is designed to take advantage of its global network to deliver mobile payments, mobile money transfer, mobile acceptance and value-added services.

• eCommerce — Visa is one of the most widely accepted payment brands online. Visa protects online transactions through multiple layers of security, including Verified by Visa, allowing issuers to authenticate cardholders in online transactions.

Security

Visa’s approach to security focuses on: securing the payments environment to protect card data, monitoring, identifying and preventing fraud through technology and best practices; managing the impact of fraud by helping issuers and acquirers recover from its effects; maintaining trust in Visa payments through merchant and consumer education and creating an environment of partnership by promoting industry engagement and accountability around security.

Recent Edit Detractions

We are recommending the re-addition of recently deleted sections (Business Overview, Processing, Innovation, Security) sections with added modifications for three reasons. 1) The content of the deleted sections includes proper citations. 2) The content is factually accurate and in accordance with Wikipedia content guidelines. 3) Sources used in the deleted sections up to Wikipedia standards. The sections were added to include information that was absent from the article and were not added with an intention to falsely advertise or bias the article. If there are no contrary opinions, we recommend reverting the deletions to the article. Ewhite Visacomms (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While it is appreciated that the content was supported by sources, this is not the only guideline which there is to abide by. Wikipedia has as one of it core principles that it needs to be written from a neutral point of view and should not be written like advertisement (see WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:SPAM). In my opinion most of this section resembles something which could have been written on a company's website which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article as Wikipedia articles need to have a sober and distanced tone. Wikipedia does realize that it can be hard to live up to these goals when one is closely affiliated with the subject of an article which is also why Wikipedia's guideline on conflicts of interest recommends editors not to edit such articles, or at least to be very cautious when doing so. As said before, I definitely think this section is salvageable, but I also think that until the tone of the section has been fixed it would be better to keep the section out of the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Microfilm

The bit about microfilm is nothing but piss-poor waffle. Can someone make sense of it, with citation, or just delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.68.7 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This makes no sense: Visa is parent of Bank Islam, Bank Islam has subsidiary Visa

WTF? The wiki page on Visa says it's a parent of Bank Islam, and that on July 1, 1900, Bank Islam did some bullshit (Bank Islam and Visa were both created several decades after that). That paragraph (in the History section) is then repeated except Visa is swapped in for Bank Islam. Also, on the Bank Islam page, it says it has one subsidiary: Visa. None of these things make any sense, and the citations given do not back up any of these statements because they link to Visa's about page... which doesn't say anything on this. -- itistoday (Talk) 11:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed the section. These Bank Islam assholes are quite persistent - they've already done it at least once, back in January, and when somebody removed the text, they put it back in less than a week later. 93.92.176.70 (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

High swipe fees

This section is poorly written and I'm not sure what the point of it is; what swipe fees are; what it has to do with interchange fees, which are interbank fees; and what any of this has to do with Visa specifically. There is also another section about 'swipe fees' that seems inaccurate or needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.20.94 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Foundation

According to the information in the Infobox, Visa, Inc. was founded in 1958. According to Visa Inc's history page, it was just that BankAmericard came out that year. National BankAmericard Inc. (NBI), was founded in 1970. And NBI changed its name to Visa in 1976. But since Visa, Inc. is technically a new company (having been restructured and had its IPO), do we change the foundation date to 2007? Or should we say 1970 or 1976? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think 1970 is the proper date, as that's when the company was incorporated. An IPO or restructuring doesn't mean the company was founded on that date. Tempshill (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, however, it may provide more clarity to provide, the organization origin and separation from the parent (independent entity). Also located reference to why the name Visa was selected.

The credit card business known today as Visa originated as a experimental credit card program by Bank of America of California in 1958. The credit card business remained a part of Bank of America until it became incorporated in 1970. This growing organization was incorporated in the state of Delaware as National BankAmericard Inc. in 1970 and was renamed Visa in 1976. The name Visa was selected because it was pronounced the same in every language.<ref name="VisaHistory">Timeline ~~~~ jatibi {{subst:Unsigned|1=Jatibi|2=20:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)}}