Talk:Bad check restitution program

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Finance & Investment C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Recently, someone edited this page to state that "District attorneys claim a Bad Check Restitution Program is . . ." rather than what it actually is. The paragraphs that have been added in this edit seem to be a personal attack against BCRPs rather than a factual description written at a neutral point of view. Perhaps the user who made these changes has had to deal with a BCRP him/herself, and is feeling the anger and frustration of being intimidated by one.

Though many of the statements during this recent edit were not cited, I do not doubt their accuracy, and I am sure sources can be found. But in order to meet Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be rewritten in a way that does not exclude these cases, but that contrasts these views in an encyclopedic fashion. For example, there could be a section called "criticism."

I recommend it be best if the person who originally wrote these statements make the appropriate changes. Hellno2 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. I am a lawyer intensley involved in litigation against check restitution companies. The article as I found it was nothing but industry propoganda. I attempted to add some of the very well-founded information we have gathered through several years of litigation. I though I was being neutral by not saying that this is a scam designed to extract high fees by scaring innocent people to death. I don't have much experience with Wikipedia, but I can provide any documentation you think is appropriate.

I trust that you do have a lot of knowledge about BCRPs. You could make some minor changes to this article to fix the problem. For example, it could say:

A Bad Check Restitution Program is a service that obtains monies owed to the recipient of a bad check from the writer of that check. District attorneys claim . . . But advocates and attorneys . . .

Just rearranging the words as such can do the trick. As I mentioned before, I think the person who originally contributed the information could do the best job. Hellno2 14:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What countries does this apply to?

The article gives no indication whether it is solely applicable to the US. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]