Talk:Debt collection

message: Well, I removed the section on "How to deal with a collection agency" from the article and formatted it so that it is only visible in the text when editing the page. The problem with this section is that it is written specifically for debtors who are dealing with collection agencies, which makes it unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia entries should always be written for a wide audience, not a specific one. This section may contain some useful facts, but they will need to be formatted and presented differently to be encyclopedic. And finally, I noticed that the article cited no sources, so I added a reference tag at the top. Andrea Parton 14:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section removal How to deal with a collection agency

message: So please grow up 65.248.134.166 and quit adding them to the article every single day. -- message was unsigned by User:Seanr451
:I added warnings to his talk page. ~a (user • talk • contribs)
::Oooo, a warning. And after this assclown racks up 10 or 12 of your warnings are you going to actually do anything? Seanr451 21:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you suggest?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: De-spammed, Removed list of debt collectors. Wikipedia is not an ad vertising venue, nor a list of businesses.  Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim  14:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertisements do NOT belong in Wikipedia

message: I found this URL:  collectionagencysupport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=22&Itemid=32 which was recently added and removed from the "external links" section.  It seems to be a verbatim copy of many sections of this article.  Except, there is no attribution (see the verbatim section of the GFDL).  Does anybody know what should be done?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link needs to be kept off. If you review the site, the sole purpose of this page is to push the link for retrieving quotes for service. This is just a sneaky advertisement. I edited the URL you listed and made it an inactive link. Having an active external link only gives them what they want. Bill 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  Sorry I made it a link at all.  Anyways, my question stands: where do we report plagerism of Wikipedia?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, I did not mean that the way it sounded. I meant that their links should be kept out of the article. I was just letting you know that I edited your the link in your comments. I can't answer your question though. It would be good to know where to report it. Did you try the Village Pump? WP:VP Bill 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, they did have something in the Village Pump:  Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks.  Thanks for your help, I'll add the site there. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page that was linked from here is a copy?

message: This page is written with bias in favour of debt collection agencies.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.17.168 (talk • contribs) .
:How so?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.193.221.144 (talk • contribs) .
::I'll answer this question by referring to an above section where I wrote:  "This whole article seems to be written from a debt collectors point of view"  out of context, the response was "nowhere does it say; 'Every debt assigned to a collection agency is correct.' Nor does it say; 'The collection agency or their clients are infalliable.'" I agree, however, if collection agencies make newsworthy mistakes, then that information belongs here.  Sadly, no such information has been proposed or added.  Maybe we should add ?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a valid point.  However, I don't think it's so much a matter of the article having a pro-debt collector bias as it is, as you point out, that the article doesn't have a section dealing with criticism of the collection agency model.  I have knowledge in this area, and expanding the article is on my personal to-do list. -Kubigula (ave) 07:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: *I don't see the edit you are talking about.  When the content was removed, did the editor who removed the content give an edit summary?  If so, what did the summary say?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe this was resolved - Alan.ca restored the deleted content.--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS 

message: I like the concept of having a section on collection agencies in the UK (and perhaps other countries too).  However, the current section reads like a how-to column on collecting debt.  I don't think that's any more appropriate than the how to get out of debt section that was previously deleted.  Any objections to removing this info?  Kudos to Dlohcierekim for cleaning up some of the advertising that had crept in. -Kubigula (ave) 20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hearing no objections, I removed the info.  However, I would still love to see someone add material on other countries. -Kubigula (ave) 00:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: The verb "to dun" has the definition "to ask or beset, as a debtor, for payment" in Wicktionary. To "dun" someone or to engage in the process of "dunning" is used I think primarily in Europe. See http://academic.uofs.edu/faculty/gramborw/sap/dunning.htm and the stub Dunning (process). I'm not sure that the process of collecting on debts should in an article entitled "Collection agency", because a collection agency is a business entity, not a process.  For now I'll put a See also Collection agency on the stub Dunning, but please consider using Debt Collection as the primary article in Wikipedia. --SueHay 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunning is used in the U.S. in that debt collection letters are referred to as "dunning letters".  That being said, I think I agree that there should be a separate article on debt collection.  Most of the Wikipedia content related to debt collection in the U.S. in currently contained in this article and the FDCPA article.  Coverage on the subject, with more international coverage, would be better centralized around a Debt collection article (one that does not redirect to collection agency).--Kubigula (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that this term is used in Canada and the United Kingdom as well. Seanr451 (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dunning 

message: Have added a new section regarding fraud and abuse by illegitimate debt collectors, which reliable sources show has become notable; being related to debt collection, I think this is appropriate for the article. --Cornince (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Cornince! I'd like to express concern about this section. It is a single sentence long and doesn't elaborate at all on what you mean. I agree that there is most certainly fraud and collection agency abuse and it is somewhat widespread, but you need to make sure you are applying this in an encyclopedic way. WP:recentism warns of randomly applying recent events to an article without making sure they are in the context of the entire article. This can also be taken as a WP:POV issue as well... My overall view of the entire article is it needs to be completely rewritten in a more encyclopedic way.Netsquall (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fraud and Abuse Section 

message: Due to lack of active editors reviewing, I have removed the Fraud and Abuse section. Much of what the one sentence it had is already covered in the article in many sections. If someone protests please feel free to make a much more fleshed out section on collection fraud and abusive practices. Netsquall (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal - Fraud and Abuse section

message: I have found that English Wikipedia does not have an article about enforcement of court decisions in general. For example, in Russian law there are such terms as исполнительное производство (civil court decisions enforcement procedure) and обращение взыскания на имущество (recovery against property, i.e. seizure and sale of the debtor's assets). Are there relevant general English legal concepts? Would it make sence to have a general article about them (rules in different countries, etc.)?
Olegwiki (talk) 13:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss information about what legal methods of enforcement there are in US and UK to claim money someone refuses to pay. In Sweden, any creditor can (if established by court) ask the National Enforcement Authority to claim money from bank accounts, or have the National Enforcement Authority (with police assistance) take proprty from the home, or sell the home itself (causing eviction). According to the article the only thing creditors can do in the US, is to call the debtor and threaten with bad credit record. --BIL (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the article Distraint which is now listed in the See also section. I think it is strange that an article to where "Debt collection" is redirected, does not describe this. --BIL (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Debt collection in general

message: Since 'Debt collection' connects here, the article should surely cover its history?  I've created a section, with a stub entry, to get us started.  If I've missed a relevant article elsewhere, kindly amend, note here, and provide a link from the text. Onanoff (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of debt collection 

message: Interesting news: A collection agency has passed a third party data security assessment.  "Compliance validation is performed in areas such as PCI DSS, HIPAA, GLBA, Red Flags Rule, ISO 27002, FISMA (NIST 800-53), Nevada NRS 603a, Massachusetts 201 CMR 17.00, and CFPB Readiness" - I find validated compliance with ISO 27002 and 201 CMR 17.00 to be impressive; few financial entities have passed such assessments.  I'd wager that First Collection Services is the only ARM Industry to have done so.  Any thoughts on if/how any of this merits mention? --Elvey (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data Security 

message: I propose that Cash collection be merged into Debt collection. I’ve recently taken up trying to improve the article on cash collection, but the more I research it, the more I’m convinced that it’s either just a synonym for debt collection or simply a common type of debt collection with few unique features of its own. Either way, I believe it doesn’t warrant its own article. “Cash collection” is currently a stub, so there shouldn’t be much disruption in a merge. I’m certainly no expert in either topic, though, so I may be mistaken about their congruence. Master Wikinym (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the proposal. When the lead asserts "Debts currently being processed for cash collection are said to be in collections" it's difficult to argue that we're not talking about a subject that can reasonably be merged into "debt collection". Arllaw (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the support! As a full disclaimer, though, I wrote that line, and used nothing more than mine aforementioned similarity research to conclude it. I had to simply assume the two pages I cited (one of which was removed by another editor for being too forcefully commercial), were talking about the same thing (One page was on the topic of cash collection, the other was on debts being in collections.), given the fact that I couldn’t draw any clear distinction between them. (Mine only guess is that cash collection is just debt collection in cash.) It’s weirding me out that I haven’t managed to find one page on the entire Internet that even explicitly acknowledges that “cash collection”, “debt collection”, and “in collections” are distinct terms, let alone any one that attempts to either separately define them or declare their synonymity. If they’re not either the same, or nested, concepts, I’ll be very much surprised. That being said, I still stand by what I wrote as being easily the most reasonable conclusion, and wish to move forward with the merge, after consensus is reached. Master Wikinym (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of these terms is that "cash collection" is a broader accounting term that focuses on the overall cycle of converting money owed into money received (cash on hand) .  "Debt collection" is the more difficult part of the process where the money owed is near or in delinquency, so that additional steps or third party assistance are needed to ensure receipt of the monies owed.  I do think the two articles could be merged, though it sounds like we probably need expert attention, perhaps from a CPA, to confirm the distinction (if any).--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I’d definitely welcome an expert’s input, if anyone here has access to one. Master Wikinym (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal