Talk:Scam/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Online Casino Scam

Yes the confidence scam related to online casinos really does work. Check out www.casinoflaw.com if you don't believe me. I signed up for two accounts for 200 each. The system claims that if you play roulette and bet on the dozens after L, M, or H (L,M and H refers to each of the groups of dozens on the roulette wheel i.e. L = 1-12 M = 13-24 and etc.) doesn't appear for five spins you can't lose as long as you follow the betting list the site provides. The list consists of eleven bet amounts which progressively increase. The idea is that if you win any of your eleven bets you will net between $1 to $3. Point being that the chance of any of the groups of dozens not coming out more than 16 times in a row is unlikely (i.e. 5 spins no L + 11 spins betting progressive amounts = 16 spins in which one you are guaranteed to hit do to a flaw in the casinos programming and the fact that the chances of one group of dozens not coming out 16 times in a row is 1/535. This scam does not work as I can tell you from trying it myself it is quite common for any one dozen to not come out for 16spins.

New post

Care needs to be taken with the list of "Famous convicted and alleged con artists". The reference to Howard Berg points to an unrelated individual with the same name. Having Matthew Lesko in a list of famous grifters is stretching the description a bit much. He belongs in this list no more than any other guy selling questionable products on midnight television. I'm changing both of these now. Sphivo 12:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

              Uri Geller Is not a con artist. He is a Performer, like David Copperfield, or Chriss Angel.

---

Family member. the con artist might be a family member of the mark.And the mark would not want to hurt said con artist by going to the police

Seems really unlikely to me.... ---

Bias

The following seems to be irrelevant and biased.

"These popular psychology tricksters often employ popular assumptions about the brain and the cerebral hemispheres that are scientifically wrong, but attractive and easy to believe. Similar scams involve the use of brain machines to alter brain waves, and intelligence amplification "

Seems like someone is giving their hobby horse a whipping. It's just about as relevant as the following:-

The pharmaceutical con

Pharamaceutical companies often sell drugs at massive profit to consumers desperate to recuperate from fatal and chronic illnesses, despite some of these drugs demonstrating less than 50% efficacy in randomised double blind studies. At the same time, the pharmaceuticals fund 'independent' studies that dismiss the efficacy of naturally occurring compounds (where patent claim cannot be made).

Yours sincerely - --~~CS~~

We should now consider the distinction between a confidence trick and fraud. Is there one? Should we have two articles? Which does Ponzi belong to? What about people like Robert Maxwell? -- The Anome 09:27, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Confidence game is essentially a subset of fraud and I there is no clear-cut border between them. One definition I have heard about is that in confidence game, the culprit takes people in their "confidence", offering them "unique opportunity" or "deal they should not miss" and use money they give for his own purposes. The trick is based either on the mark's dishonesty or gullibility. In other forms of fraud like embezzlement, people who are involved with it, usually know exactly what they are doing and they are often financiers, accountants and CEOs who need not to convince anyone. I am sure this explanation breaks down in some level. - Skysmith 10:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, "The Color of Money", the sequel to "The Hustler".

Confidence tricks in general exploit the inherent greed and dishonesty of their victims; it has been said by confidence tricksters that it is impossible to con a completely honest man. Often, the mark tries to out-cheat the conmen, only to discover that they have been manipulated into this.

This really seems to be the Hollywood version of con games, which I don't think the article is about (though in fact it's not clear). Real life cheatin' generally isn't quite so romantic. - toh 23:57, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

No, this is a very common form of scam. -- The Anome 13:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could add something about the differences between short (i.e. short term, low gain cons, such as "follow the lady") and long cons (i.e. long term, typically more elaborate, higher gain cons). I would but my knowledge of the topic is rather limited.

Pigeon drop inconsistency

The Pigeon Drop section in this article does not match up with the separate article (Pigeon drop); which one is correct? --Nibble 04:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Added "Stolen Cheques" due to personal experience

I run a website and recently we played along with the "Stolen Cheque" guys after they bombarded our email server with their spam. We wanted to see how it worked. Upon receiving the cheques, we notified the affected businesses, providing all the details we had (bank accounts, phone numbers, etc) and returned the cheques. Both companies, AT&T and Toronto Dominion Insurance (TDI) told us this is very common, and usually results form cheques actually issued, such as to pay a corporate utility bill, and stolen at the point of delivery, in the case of the AT&T cheque it was stolen from the Ontario Hydro mail room. The total of the 2 cheques was over $60,000.00. Mattwilkins 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Another aphorism

"You can't cheat an honest man" is a good principle. Another relevant aphorism, regarding poker, but perhaps with relevance to this topic, is: "Look around the table, and try to spot the sucker. If you can't, it's you." (Of course, some scams exploit even this, by providing a confederate who appears to the mark to be the sucker.) -- The Anome 13:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Travel Scam?

This article redirects from Travel Scam but I see no mention of it. Sophistifunk 05:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the same problem, why does it redirect if there is absolutely nothing on the subject???

line

The space in front of the line starting "Finding a con artist is relatively hard" makes it run all on one line and be inside a box. Is it intended to be that way? Bubba73 (talk), 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Flim flam

Flim flam links to this article, but Flim flam is not mentioned anywhere in the article. If flim flam is another name for confidence trick, I think it should be mentioned near the top. Bubba73 (talk), 05:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I definately think Scientology is a proven Con of the religious sort. Discussion?

Movie, books, et cetera lists

I am of the opinion that it would be better to trim this list down to only fictional works primarily about con-men, if we are to keep it at all. Also, the items missing abstracts should have them. Are others of accord? —Casey J. Morris 04:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Coin collecting scam

"Coin collecting scamis a scam that preys on unexperianced coin collecters. The con man convinses the mark that a low priced collection of jewlery is worth a greater amount. The coin collecter, that is clearly unexperianced at coin collecting buys the jewlery thinking its valuable when its really not."

I do not understand this paragraph? Is the coin collector buying jewlery, or coins? Why would a coin collector buy jewlery? Soapy 05:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Credit card theft by computer proxy

This section should be either rewritten or removed entirely.

I think it was written as a joke. Even if you over-looking the spelling, it is not logical. Why would someone use a credit card to buy a magazine? The author said the swindler is "long gone," indicating that he leaves. Would it not make better sense to to hold on file, while the computer is being "fixed," then taking off with the computer as well? Soapy 22:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation for "You can't cheat an honest man"

Terry Pratchett uses it in his book "Going Postal"... there's also a movie written by W.C. Fields, entitled "You Can't Cheat an Honest Man". Dunno how to add a citation, otherwise I would do so. --AnitraSmith 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Add: Confidence Trick by Police

I have tried to add, to the examples: "In California, many police departments send out computer-generated red light camera "tickets" that have not been filed with the Superior Court, thus have no legal weight and can be ignored. The intent is to bluff the registered owner into contacting a website, or writing back, and revealing the name, address and driver's license number of the person who was driving the car. The website will even let you pay the ticket via credit card. Fake ticket"

It has been removed twice, by WRS and McKay. If they, or anyone else here would like to participate in a discussion of the suitability of the entry, please join in, in the discussion section of "Phishing," under the heading "Phishing by the Police."--Einsteininmyownmind 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

More on Property Scams

The biggest scams I have heard of involve property and real estate and land. It would be great to highlight some of these in the article. Buying property off plan can net fraudster property developers millions of dollars in one hit without much legal recourse. New world areas seem to be ripe with these type of scams - places like Morocco, Brazil and Thailand. This is because non scamming real estate developers can make fantastic returns in these areas. I have linked in a site which warns users of the latest scams doing the rounds at *Totally Property. I look forward to proposing some more changes to this article soon.

This is interesting stuff. BUT do you not think that publicising these types of scams gives confidence tricksters ideas??? I wonder how many con men check wikipedia for a new scam?

- There are no "new" scams, just new versions of the old ones...writing about these scams helps possible victims as well. Soapy 04:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Grapefruit Seed Extract - is this really a confidence trick?

While the information on grapefruit seed extract might usefully form part of an article on alternative medicine, it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with confidence tricks. Would anybody miss this section if it were removed?

NegativeCharlie 10:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I would remove it. People seem to add things to this article that they consider ripoffs, but that aren't really cons at all. --Galaxiaad 10:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... alright. Anyways, it is still a consumer fraud and a ripoff. --Pillar Of Coolness 03:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Long Introduction?

The introduction before the TOC seems to be very long. I know I've seen a tag for this, but I don't know it off hand. Ghostwo 06:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Cialdini

Some of the work of Robert Cialdini should be incoporated into the article to highlight the pschlogical factors that lead to many of these types of cons being successful.

A Really Bad Article

This is a really bad article. It should be stricken in its entirety and another article written, by someone who knows confidence tricks and knows how to write logically and grammatically.

^^^My thoughts exactly. Whoever wrote the bulk of this article needs to go back to 4th grade and pick up where they left off learning English. (Also---Ocean's 11, The Italian Job, etc. are not about con games. A robbery is not a con game.)

If this article is not redone, at least fix this sentence: "The victim is then urged to forward the apparent value of the check to the trickster as cash, which they may do before discovering the cheque bounces." The spelling of the word "check" should probably not change in the same sentence. Also, this sentence does not seem to be grammatically correct. 209.189.245.114 05:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)E

Actually Ocean's 11 is a robbery that was possible because of multiple confidence tricks. Mr Goodbyte 15:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

clear it up...

The pigeon drop scam is poorly written and can be interpreted in a number of ways. Can someone who knows the scam well, write a more clear description of the scam?

More information please

The description of the "Big Store" scam could use a little more detail - for example, it would be nice if it mentioned in passing what a "Big Store" scam actually is, instead of merely referring us to a movie and a book to which we may not actually have any access.

Do fake university degrees, diplomas, or listings in worthless who-is-who directories count as fraud, cons, scams, or something else? (1) If the receiver believes in the diploma? (2) If the receiver knows the diploma is fake but uses it fraudulently, e.g. to apply for a job for which they are not qualified? See for example the Académie Parisienne des Inventeurs. --LA2 July 2, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

I do not understand why Wikipedia would be considered as a famous or alleged con (see "wikipedia, claims that a community opinion is a 'free encyclopedia'"). I think a con involves an element of intent to obtain financial gain.

Cat out of the bag

I am 99 percent certain the etymology of this comes from a cat o'nine tails... You know you're in trouble when the "cat" is out of the bag...

Job Scam

A scam that is very common in Brazil is a job offer with very high wages and benefits, but where the candidates are supposed to accomplish some succesful deals in order to get the position. Out of desperation, the candidates end by selling the services/goods to family and friends, oftend funding themselves the transaction. More often than not the services/goods are highly overpriced and impossible to sell otherwise. If one of the candidates, by chance, meets his/her quota, the con artits will just tell that "they had more candidates than they expected and now they are forced to raise the bar, and s/he will be offered the position if s/he sells five more units." The proccess go on until the mark runs out of money or hope.

Lookie-lou

Not sure of the exact spelling, but is the name of the con used in Ocean's 12 involving Tess?

Illegal Shielding

I see that one defensive move is to make confrontation from the mark illegal. Wiki might affect someone's decisions by elaborating their options. For example, should someone having bought a bricked TV that was stolen bother going to the authorities? Local law varies, of course. --Falos 03:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Impersonation

A major category of scam seems to be missing. I can't recall the exact details now, but I've heard of people going around impersonating government officials of one sort or another (tax agents, etc.) and selling non-existent 'licenses' or otherwise collecting fees under the guise of government authority. Wouldn't this qualify as a 'confidence trick' since they have to convince the victims that they need to pay this fee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.91.61 (talk)

someone needs to write about these topics below

auction fraud , porn scams , Job scams, spyware, phony sob stories, gift card scam, re-shipping goods (bought with stolen credit cards), skimming, telemarking scam, modeling scam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by STPgroup (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

add http://www.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com/

Cross-Border Fraud

   * Romance Schemes
   * Advanced Fee Scams
   * Charities Fraud
   * Debt Elimination
   * Investment Frauds
   * Job Scams
   * Nigerian "4-1-9" Scams
   * Ponzi & Pyramid Schemes

   *  Hacking
   * Identity Theft
   * Phishing/Spoofing
   * Spam
   * Spyware

Financial Fraud

   *  Terminology
   * International Auction Fraud
   * Escrow Services Scam
   *  Foreign Lottery Fraud
   * Sweepstakes/Prizes Scam

Counterfeit Payments Fraud

   *  Counterfeit Cashier's Checks
   * Counterfeit Money Orders

Pharmacy Fraud

please make sure all these are covered. thank you

Who pulled my entry of Rosenhan? Terabandit

Rosenhan experiment

Do the cons listed have to be all harmful or criminal? The Rosenhan expirement was a con on psychiatrists, they were tricked into believing they were getting fake patients when they were not given any. They still found what they were looking for. Why is this not listed as a con?--Mark v1.0 17:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Terabandit apparently did, Terabandit what is your justification? It says external, you (wiki) wants external links?--[--Mark v1.0 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 02:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC) No one has replied , so I'm putting it back in with external and internal links.--Mark v1.0 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object and disagree with characterizing Rosenhan as a "confidence trick," rather than for what it was, a scientific experiment. By the same standard, one could characterize any double blind scientific study as a confidence trick. Isn't getting the placebo from the dentist at a medical study instead of the pain meds a confidence trick as well, by that standard?

Confidence artists don't publish their findings in scientific journals, rather they try to avoid detection.

Rosenhan did not cheat or harm anyone. In fact, in light of the findings, it would be much more fair to characterize the psychiatrists as con artists, seeing as their diagnostic abilities were scientifically shown to be so poor.

I would hope that this is not a psychiatrist, angry with Rosenhan over his findings.

Furthermore, even if consensus is against me, the writing about Rosenhan is of poor quality and needs to be redone.

--RemoWilliams 03:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So you ARE defining "Confidence trick" as a bad thing. I was taking it in a positive light. I see it as a work of art , and in this case in a POSITIVE way. I don't think all cons are bad, just like the TV show dateline NBC that cons pedophiles into exposing themselves.--Mark v1.0 08:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

While browsing, I came upon this section: "Religious systems & organizations - Several systems and organizations based upon belief in the supernatural are being used as vehicles for performing confidence tricks,[4] or are alleged to be confidence scams in itself, example Glam-Televangelism or Scientology." There is some sort of defamation with this, no matter how negative it may seem, this is implying a thought that should not be made. Thanks, Daily Rubbings 22:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC).

Adding a link

I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new department of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about protecting yourself from con artists would be appropriate and mutually beneficial, because truly, who is better known in this country for giving Americans the chance to protect themselves from criminals and fight back than America's Most Wanted? The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=46 please consider it. Jrosenfe 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons Policy

I notice that Ward Churchill is listed as a con man. While I might tend to agree, it's not my opinion that's important.

I am removing him from the list. The one cited source is from the Free Republic online, and they are explicitly a biased source (iow, probaly not "reliable," as per the Wikipedia guidelines). I quote from their home page:

"Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."

I further note that his university has not even reached a decision as to his guilt.

I quote from Wikipedia:Reliable sources now (emphasis mine):

"Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people."

I'll look into the other names as well, to be certain that none are alive. Any reference to anyone alive on this page should be either removed or well-sourced. --RemoWilliams 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While the column does appear on the Free Republic web site, they're just reprinting a column that appeared in the Rocky Mountain News. And it was written by law professor Paul Campos, who describes himself as "a Mexican-American Democrat". (Not exactly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.) As for the need for multiple sources, this article also calls Churchill a "con artist": [1]Steve8675309 23:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and I would hardly call those sources "exceptional." I don't want to get into a revert war with you, so I think we'll need to ask a mediator about this one.--RemoWilliams 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

One column was written by a law professor from WC's university. The other was written by a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution [2]. I have trouble thinking of better sources. Can you give me an example of what you consider a "reliable source"? Steve8675309 12:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to place Ward Churchill in this list. Churchill has published dozens of books on a variety of political subjects which are considered reliable reading and source material. Although common it is not required by many universities for a professor to have a PHD. If Ward had somehow falsified a PHD he might be considered a grifter. Putting Ward Churchill on this list is an obvious move in personal politics by a fringe group of editors who have little or no interest in the subject of grifting.

I agree. He is certainly not widely recognized as a grifter, and his inclusion seems to be political, probably based on the 9/11 article he wrote. Again, I note, he still has his job that he supposedly grifted. I'm removing his name again. --RemoWilliams 05:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave Churchill out while his case is still up in the air.Plazak 12:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple news articles call WC a con man or grifter. The entry is well-sourced and it isn't 'political'. Again, one story was written by a law professor from WC's university, another by a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution [3].

WC's job is still up in the air, but not because of plagiarism accusations. The issue of him being a fake Indian is settled. Steve8675309 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't news articles, they're op/ed pieces, in other words, opinion. One of your sources is explicitly biased, as I pointed out before. Repeating slanderous opinion is not the same as reliable sourcing. Furthermore, even if everything you seem to believe about Churchill was true, it's a stretch to call it grifting, which is what the article is supposed to be about. So here we go again, I'm removing the reference and requesting moderation on the issue. So far, the consensus is against you.--RemoWilliams 16:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've requested mediation on this issue (from the Cabal), and I agree to abide by the decision. Steve8675309, are you okay with that also?--RemoWilliams 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just posted my case for including Churchill [4] and agree to abide by the decision. Steve8675309 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, there should be at least one very, very reliable source for everyone in the list. I am removing every name that does not have a citation beside it. Please read WP:BLP.TheRingess (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you TheRingess, it's a very fair and well reasoned decision. Steve8675309, does this work for you? --RemoWilliams 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to delete all these of these people. Most of them have their own wikipedia pages. The multiple reliable sources required by WP:BLP are listed on those pages. For example, why remove someone like Frank Abagnale, who is extremely well-known and calls himself “one of the world's most famous confidence men” on his company’s own web page [5]? As TheRingess noted, multiple reliable sources are very important in BLPs. But in most of these cases, the required sources were only one click away. Steve8675309 02:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I'd have to agree about Frank Abagnale.--RemoWilliams 02:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then use an inline citation to make it clear that there is a source other than Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS.TheRingess (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Churchill may better fit the category of Impostor. Ferdinand Waldo Demara, "The "Great Imposter" also gained employment by misrepresenting his background, but is not listed under confidence tricksters. Frank Abagnale did the same thing, but he is presumably listed in this article for forging checks, not for lying his way into various jobs. The charges of plagarism would fit better in the category of Academic scandal.Plazak 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Hello, I'll be your mediator for this case. I'd prefer to keep discussion over at MedCab to avoid cluttering the talk page while we work through this issue. I'm available at any time to discuss your concerns, please see my contact page for additional ways to get a hold of me. Shell ^babelfish 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Bad Literary Agent"

I'm sure this isn't a real confidence trick, just a joke from humorist John Hodgman's book "The Areas of My Expertise". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordpook (talk • contribs) 12:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Unfortunately, it is a real confidence trick which has been especially prevanent since the advent of the web. --Pleasantville 12:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "bad agent" in general is a real life, widespread con, although I would probably just call it "fake agent". There are also fake agents for inventing, singing, dancing, and probably other disciplines as well. The entry doesn't cite any sources though. I was looking around for sources on this one the other day but haven't found anything good so far. I'm sure there's something out there, I just haven't found it yet. --RemoWilliams 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources, and I'm going to generalize the issue a bit as well. I think I remember seeing Hodgeman doing that bit on the Daily Show also! Still, the scam is real. --RemoWilliams 00:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A number of the sources on the entry for literary agent describe what are considered legitimate business practices and link to lists of agents who are considered scam agents. The general behavior of scam agents as a class does fit the definition of confodence trick.

However, providing aditional information on this topic may make some connected to the Wikimedia organization touchy, since Wikipedia is currently being sued by an agent whose practices appear to meet the generally published critera for a scam agent, namely Barbara Bauer. There was a big fuss during the deletion of her article, and the controversey subsequently figured into User:Will Beback's poorly regarded actions against Teresa Nielsen Hayden (an edior who is an expert on scam agents) and her Wikipedia entry.

So. Sourcing that bit of the article is possible, but doing so might attract people with pitchforks and touches.--Pleasantville 11:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for the heads up. So far I've found lots of sources that don't really pass my smell test as far as the literary aspect of the scam, which really should not have been so specific in the first place. I rewrote it as Talent agency scam. --RemoWilliams 13:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Separating article

This article has the cleanup/split tag, and I agree, it's way too long. I'm going to move the "Well known Confidence Tricks" section to its own article, and summarize it, when I get a chance. I probably won't get to it for a few days at least, so please feel free to comment, or even to start the effort yourself! --RemoWilliams 01:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Support, but different split I think a better split would be short con vs. long con. A short change artist can walk out of a store having doubled his money, but that's fundamentally a different sort of con than the 419 scam. Who can say what is well-known, anyways? superluser_tc 2007 July 20, 02:56 (UTC)

Jack Harkness

From doctor who is a con men right? --80.200.45.192 20:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

I removed Characteristics of Confidence tricks, because the source given requires registration, the information contained in the list was redundant, and often vague enough that it could apply to perfectly legitimate activities.--RemoWilliams 06:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times, and many media sources require registration. I can understand removing something for vagueness and all that, but removal for requiring registration is not by itself an adequite reason. --Pleasantville 11:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The other two reasons were plenty good enough, IMO. In fact the "Trick for investment scams" section is similarly poor.--RemoWilliams 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

cut down on the list

Just a suggestion, but many of the examples listed don't have anything to do with "confidence," per se. They are just scams or frauds or almost pickpocketing. They Spanish Prisoner is the prototypical confidence game. Use that as a yardstick.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.127.51.82 (talk • contribs).

I don't think that Ringeres's cut of the list dated 00:02, 26 July 2007 was very productive. The true audience for this entry is people who have been scammed or are in process, and removing material because it's a little vague is a mistake in my opinion. For them, this stuff is vital information. --Pleasantville 12:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree somewhat. The list does need to be fixed, and could likely be categorized and rewritten in a more encyclopedic format. On the other hand, many of the items on the list are in fact fairly well known scams. People would be well served by knowing about them, and common sense says that there should be a place for it. The one that I fixed, the Talent Agency Scam, I painstakingly sourced with articles from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Hong Kong Police. If that's not good enough, I'm not sure what is. It's also certainly a confidence game, since these agents work hard to gain the confidence of their "clients," and it's often a long con. There were others removed that I also feel should be replaced. That list, as ugly as it is, is actually the best part of the article. Most of the rest of it could go, or is redundant or poorly written.--RemoWilliams 07:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The list of cons should be organized into categories. Con games, like romance or detective stories, are such a common subject for movies, TV, and novels, that complete lists would be way too long. The list of cons in film, television, and novels are already too long, and should be limited to notable examples, and include only those in which cons are the central theme.Plazak 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody here skilled and educated enough to do that? I've revised 3 sections but the lists of con tricks are quite tricky without spending a lot of time in the library.--Svetovid 17:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All Confidence tricks are bad?

I know not all confidence tricks are bad. The method to fool someone for gain can be used for good or evil. There have been good uses of the confidence trick. Unless you call it something else.--Mark v1.0 06:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

'good' and 'evil' depend on your point of view in the first place.--Svetovid 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I had added the second part of the [Rosenhan_experiment] as a con, but a good con, and it was removed by an angry person who felt that con was an insult to Rosenhan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Get-rich-quick schemes are so varied they nearly defy description.

This is perhaps the most well written sentence I have ever come across on Wikipedia. Well done, authors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.214.66 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Food scam

In this, you go to a excellent 5 star resteraunt, order a $400.00 meal, eat that, then you place dead bugs, rat shit in your meal's remains, then bellow LOUDLY that you'll sue the damn place because the place has vermin, worse in it. The staff offer YOU the $400.00 meal for FREE, since a lawsuit will destroy the place's reputation. This is a REAL scam, easily pulled off. Also Totse should be listed, since it tells HOW to pull off these scams. I placed this about the food scam, only someone said it reeks of vandalisim. This IS a scam. 65.173.105.118 (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Totse

The Totse info should be placed, since it tells people HOW to initiate different scams, such as some used to bilk Wal*Mart, often called "Wally Mart", "Wally World" on Totse. 65.163.112.114 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Charity "tricks" don't belong here.

The charity "tricks" described aren't confidence tricks, they are just beggars' lies. Their success doesn't depend on the "mark" being fooled, because it doesn't matter whether the person really is disabled, has children, is out of gas, etc. It only matters that the "mark" is sympathetic. There's a guy in San Francisco who has been showing people a foot-long bloody peeled-off scab on his arm for years now, asking for cab fare to the hospital, pretending it just happened (bike accident or something). Yes, he's really bleeding. No, it's not a confidence trick. No, he's not taking a cab to the hospital with your $25. It's just a lie, not a trick, and certainly not a confidence trick. Even less, the beggar with her kids. 99.129.197.47 (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If its a scam, it belongs here. 65.173.105.114 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your example correctly this guy is using a confidence trick. The mark mistakes the use to which the con artist intends to put the money and it is this misunderstanding that evokes the charitable response. It may not "matter whether the person really is disabled...," etc, but it does depend on deceiving the mark in some way (or else, presumably they would tell the "beggar," to sod off. Grubel (usurped) (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

In the movie examples

Awake (2007) is a recent movie involving con artists and should be listed. http://imdb.com/title/tt0211933/

192.160.131.13 (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)stf

Usage in slang

This section, aside from being poorly written, is unsourced and possibly not notable. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day may also apply. I'm going to remove it. 207.108.142.61 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Nestorius (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

article redirection

I browsed the page below:

http://www.online-literature.com/melville/confidence-man/13

and I wanted to get some information on it here, but it redirected me here. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.170.108 (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyone know the spelling of 'Coup de grau'

I'm thinking it, or a similar word means, the crowning 'Sting' - 'the best one I've ever done'. Please let me know asap. Thank you.

The only similar expression that comes to mind is Coup de grâce, though the meaning doesn't seem to be what you're looking for. --Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 01:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split

I think that the list of movies and books should be split off to it's own list page. However, the remaining article needs to be expanded. To me, it only gives limited information about confidence tricks. Even a very simple con, the shell and pea game, isn't even mentioned or explained. Shinerunner (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the list of movies and books should be split off, as it has more-or-less taken over the article. The body of the article used to be much more detailed and informative. Perhaps some of the old article could be restored after the split. Plazak (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps converting the see also listing of types of scams into a section of prose would be another way to make things better. Wongm (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wongm. The list of movies/books can be split or removed, but the article itself about CT should stay. We66er (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the list of movies and books would make a very good article on it's own, but definitely the list needs to be trimmed if kept in this article. How about making a category, say, or something similar, putting the films there, and then keeping a short list of notable films in which the confidence trick is central to the plot? --Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 01:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I would agree with this kind of suggestion given the space devoted to the media section. However, in this particular case I disagree. One needs to think of who the audience is for this article. Those to whom it would mean most is those who have just been played by a con artist and are trying to understand what happened. Both the real and fictional examples are important for such understanding and exploration. And so I vote to KEEP the article as is rather than split it. --Pleasantville (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how such a long list servers any purpose. It seems like an attempt to list all con artist movies. Wouldn't it be more helpfull to just have a couple very representative examples, and a link to the category containing the films as a link in the see also section? --Twinzor ^{Say hi!} - Do I suck or rock? 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Split it off. The list has turned into an overlong and trivial compilation of every movie or TV show remotely related to con men. Plazak (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Source?

"Persons of any level of intelligence are vulnerable to deception by experienced con artists." This statement is misleading at best. Stupid people are far more vulnerable to scams and confidence tricks. If a proper source is not cited within a week, I'm going to modify this statement. Pygmypony (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Totse

While Powerzilla does not appear offhand to be a user acct created solely to place advertising, the effect of their 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC) contrib was primarily (and without any WP-relevant purpose) to promote either the web site or the movement it presumably exists to serve, for behavior that is both criminal and irresponsibly antisocial. The fact that we occasionally tolerate non-encyclopedic appeals to (i suppose) plant more roses or save a puppy does not protect from removal this outrageous placement of non-WP-purposed material on WP space.
--Jerzy•t 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is already covered generally at the TOTSE article. It certainly doesn't need to be duplicated in this detail here. — Lomn 20:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I was placing Totse in the See Also section only. Powerzilla (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The article about TOTSE is irrelevant to this article. Just because the website may or may not have instructions on how to carry out these scams does not make it relevant. Wikipedia, in fact, has rules against any kind of "how-to" listing. And, quite frankly, you have taken up a lot of space on this talk page with that very long, and unnecessary, list. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Lomn & RepublicanJacobite are spot on. In light of whatever exact wording embodies the "non-WP purpose" principle i stated at the top of the section, we don't need (and in light of CREEP don't have) an explicit policy that WP:ISN'T liberated territory for any revolutionary movement whose infrastructure is plausibly going to be under attack in the next few years, for its illegal and anti-social activities, by any legal system having jurisdiction where our servers operate. But that clearly is an implicit policy.
I have removed the out-of-place material from this talk page on grounds that it serves no WP purpose, just as is routine for a msg on a bio's talk pg that attempts to communicate with the subject of the bio; if there is no compelling objection in the next 7 days, i will go further, by deleting all revisions of this talk page that include the removed material, in order to make it accessible only to admins; i would also add a copy of the relevant portion of the edit history -- i'm pretty confident that that is a permalink for it (well, until those revisions are deleted) even tho [beams with pride] one of them won't exist until i do this save; contact me by starting a section "History permalink" on my talk page, if you want to learn how i got it with a couple of tiny edits to server-generated URLs.
--Jerzy•t 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Too many Rdrs

It may even be the case that the accompanying article is the primary topic for all of

but even so, the corresponding collection of HatNote Dab tags is distracting and oppressive. I'm moving the corresponding Dabs to all three of those titles that are Rdrs, and removing the HatNotes.
I've checked the archive, and there has never been any justification offered; if there's explicit discussion leading to consensus that going thru a particular Dab is onerous, and that it's important for one title to have a Dab-bypassing Rdr (and more so than any one or two that by then have HatNotes, and need to be displaced by the new one), the reversing moves can be done.
--Jerzy•t 01:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The HatNote burden is now dissipated, but i noticed that the big store Dab lk i created (in place of the Rdr) must be removed: there is not the slightest mention, let alone what would satisfy a user who went not to a dict (for a dictdef) but to an encyclopedia. I guess bcz i noticed the phrase "short con" mentioned in passing, i did a Go on "long con", which Rdrs to the accompanying page but gets no mention. Can someone with a more enduring interest in the article do something about these yawning gaps, say before i get around to putting long con on RfD (the only external way of fixing it)? ("Big store" is a quick fix: i'm commenting out the entry, so another Dab-cleaner doesn't throw it away.)
--Jerzy•t 07:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Allen Stanford

The article noted Allen Stanford as a con-artist, but to date, he has only been charged, not convicted of wrongdoing, and according to the sources, maintains his innocence. Therefore the statement that he is a con artist is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. I removed the statement. RemoWilliams (talk) 10:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nigerean bankers

I understood that at least in the Anglophone world there are many cases of Nigereans calling or e-mailing with "interesting business propositions". Is that confirmed? I remember a discussion on Wikipedia about it once, but the files/photos about this were deleted I believe. Mallerd (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Advance-fee fraud, nevermind mates. Mallerd (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Split

I just removed the split template that has been sitting at the top of this article for more than two years---originally added on 10 May 2007, and receiving only scant discussion a month later. This is a truly pathetic commentary on this article and the editors who have been working on it, myself included. Given the dearth of discussion, the template should have been removed back in the summer of '07. Certainly, something should have been done before two years passed. What's worse is that it is probably a good idea, more so now than it was then. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In Search engine searches for "scam" and for "stop scams", I see that the scammers themselves are now dominating those website searches... Someone heeds to descam the search engines.. or at least add these new facts to the Wiki pages on scams...

I assembled a letter to reply to scammers... It seems to be working to stop their emails from cluttering up my mail-box... Today my mail-box was empty...

A Letter that works to wake them up:

"Sorry dude, but I get only 193-dollars a month old-age pension to live off of, from this lowlife Canada country... How much of my 193-dollars do you want me to give to you, so you can have free-fun at my life's expense..? I just don't have any extra cash to give you to live off of, in supporting your money-stealing, your cocaino drug habit, and your incessant scam-crimes targeting stupid poor old-people, habit... Are you trying to trick some old-people to give you their meager life-savings so you can do your booze and cocaine a lot, freely at the expense of poor-people's remaining lives..? It would kill them early for you to do that to them, and it would color your old age time to be the same hellish experience, only worse... It would effect blocking you from the afterlife, from the rest of Life... The first part of the afterlife lasts a max of 10-million of our years.. and there are three more parts in the first segment after this part of Life... In the forth level of this realm we are Beings of liquid light... You lose all that... By doing your bads you forfeit the rest of Life... What a waste man... You had it All, and you Blew-it by sucking money and bloods from the elderly-poor... What you've got is gold-fever at its max, manifesting in you as disease, and out from you as cosmic mental diseases and evil... It will cause you horrid cancers, and various painful vile diseases in your digestive system.. It is the base-cause of the starts of altzheimers.. It will lose you the afterlife, because one needs a fully functional mind to effect transition.... The afterlife is a gentle honest loving powerful place.. It doesn't want criminals.. It blocks them.. Evil cannot see the doors made of love... You have 7-seconds to have done the right thing after the body dies... You will waste your 7-seconds wondering what to do... What you are doing to Life will cause you to be recycled into hell's soup as sentient-excrement... That's gotta really "hurt".. The weirdest thing of it, is that you do it to yourself... I just can't understand why anyone would want to waste the rest of Life, just to rob a little "money" from the Innocent..? damaging their lives as much as yours is to be damaged by your incoming "vile black-vomit karmas"... One day you'll wake-up and notice that all what's left of your Being, is poop that only knows that it is poop... What a hell of a thing to do to a good life... You should be Ashamed of you... Have a nice extinction dude, and a happy-hell.. You built it for yourself, and made some of us live in it, and die in it, as if you've shoved some innocent strangers into your great toilet of life, then flushed-it after eating their soft parts... You're gonna reap what you sewed... You gonna get an old-age like you gave others, only much much worse... Why the f@*! would anyone want to do now what glues them to hell's extinction, to an extremely painful and complete absolute-end, when there is so much more of Life to ride and drive, for trillions more years... Why end oneself at 50, 60, 70'ish, here, when we've got infinity in our lap..? I'll never understand humans... They want good everywhere, but they make bad everywhere... Isn't that a little like "eating ones own poop"..? Me thinks "humanity" has devolved into "poopmanity" because of you and those like you... You wreck-it for billions... It'll come back to you in the worst ways... Right now the money-world is dismantling our quality of life.. selling it back to us in bits, while you're a suckin' on us like you think we're a huge full soft warm tit... This humanity species is gone insane, and is destined for hell's embrace because of the likes of you... Essentially you are hell-spawn.. here to feed off of humanity.. a vile parasite, like a blood-sucking swamp leach sucking the life fluids from what ever it can attach itself to... I'll bet you even eat human-veal.. I'll bet you are eating baby-humanity... Are you Demon..? You lizard's meal is dying because of your crowd's unstoppable feeding frenzy... You are supposed to be helping make humanity into a brotherhood of mankind.. Not Sucking the life out of it..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.95.12 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is Peter Foster, Australian con artist?

The list of con artists lacks one of the most notorious, namely Peter Foster: check out his wiki bio for some details, but he has a very colorful and extensive history and several convictions. It's very surprising that he is not on this list, and I'm kind of curious as to why. Shakeyourbooty (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well this is wikipedia, you would have been free to add him yourself... These statements always amuse me.

--Me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.155.33.1 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted addition of Foster by User:121.208.130.92. As discussed on Talk:Peter Foster, this anon editor has a record of bad-faith edits from various IPs, to the point of fabricating sources and lying about their own identity. We have learned through bitter experience that sources cited by this editor should not be trusted until they've been verified. In particular, the guy likes to make up claims based on offline sources in the hope that nobody will bother checking them. Foster does belong on this list, but there is a reason Peter Foster is now semi-protected, and if you look at the edit history/talk page of that article you'll see why Foster-related edits need to be examined VERY carefully. --GenericBob (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The word "conmen"

It redirects from "Conmen" to "Confidence trick", but the word "Conmen" is not defined in "Confidence trick" page. Please add its definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorPorton (talk • contribs) 19:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph says: "The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, or con artist..."--GenericBob (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote in Vulnerability to confidence tricks

The quote used in the "Vulnerability to confidence tricks" section is from a personal website, not from an authoritative source and is solely the opinion of the owner of the personal website from which it was taken.

I do not believe that there is any reason this quote should remain as is, being used as a statement of fact.

Jbpayton (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

merge list of confidence tricks

List of confidence tricks is logically a core part of confidence trick but is sidelined as a separate article and i think tends to get neglected. It is rather like having the "Types of lie" section in lie moved to a separate article. It undermines the value of the base article. The bulk of the existing confidence trick covers a list of con artists which is less fundamentally relevant than a list of confidence tricks. --Penbat (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose − the article was split from this one over two years ago (it took up over half of this one). Re-merging would make this article too large. Airplaneman ✈ 20:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. This is just one half of a two part process. Once the con artists material is moved to a separate new article, (i have a sandbox version in preparation here - User:Penbat/con artists) there would be almost nothing left in confidence tricks so the resultant merge wouldnt be significantly any bigger than list of confidence tricks. It is logically bizarre to find the essential part of one article in a separate article and instead find something else in the original article. --Penbat (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose − it is very good to have them split, to get an introduction. your sandbox article again contains a long list.. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

Oppose - too long. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Con Artists

I think the con artist material should be in a separate article from confidence trick and it should have a separate template.--Penbat (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if it should be a separate article but am creating a separate template anyway.--Penbat (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Victims aren't just dishonest or greedy

You will have no difficulty obtaining cites to support the claim that:

Confidence men or women exploit human characteristics such as greed and dishonesty

because it is indeed a widely made claim -- but it originates with con artists themselves, to justify their crimes. Fact is that while some cons may rely on these moral failings in the victims, it is easy to find many examples that do not. The most obvious is the one that gave the name to "con tricks": what William Thompson exploited in the people who gave him their watches was trust. This is done a little better in a later section where the list is expanded to:

greed, dishonesty, vanity, honesty, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility and naïveté.

But even that list is far from complete. Currently, the most common con in my district is for a man dressed as a tradesman to come to the house of a frail, elderly person and claim to have noticed a serious structural defect in the roof whilst working on an adjoining house. Since he is in the area, he can fix it straight away for a discount price, but if the victim delays, he may not be able to come back for several weeks (during which time it is likely to rain.) If paid, he then climbs up on the roof, loosens some roofing and fastens it back down. Of course in reality no work was required and no real work was done. The principle thing the con man exploits here is simply the frail victim's inability to inspect his or her own roof. It could be argued that the victim is credulous in accepting an unsolicited opinion from a stranger, but really, what choice do most people have in trusting the professional opinion of a tradesman? Only trust one you find in the trade listings or yellow pages? -- but that's how the "lock out service" scam works!! (And if we accept the article's claim that The common factor is that the mark relies on the good faith of the con artist, what are we to make of the shell game or the Spanish Prisoner? In both of these it is assumed the victim will realise that player is a crook, but misunderstand how it works.) The only devious part in the roof repair scam is adding the time pressure, which prevents the victim from seeking a second opinion. Yet it is very plausible, because at present it really is quite difficult to obtain the services of most tradesmen, and urgent jobs like loose roofing can easily cost five times the normal rate.

Time pressure is indeed a common feature of scams (and high pressure sales!), but it, too, is not present in all of them; a long con is the exact opposite of time pressure, luring the victim into a false sense of security by doing things very slowly. In fact the only thing that all scams have in common is that they exploit some defect of human psychology that causes us to make erroneous decisions. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment There is a problem with the format of the Wikipedia navigation box called: Con artists. It looks wrong. An administrator/editor needs to fix it. Please see the bottom of the Confidence trick article.12.196.37.227 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Long Con" redirects here, but...

...is not explained here. I hate it when that happens... -- megA (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not a list of the absolutely useless items hawked on tv especially on infomercials

Recently

Clear TV - I did a search by adding the word review to the product name. Not one review was even luke warm, not one satisfied review. url for this search: http://www.highya.com/clear-tv-reviews

No longer being hawked on TV

Hair in an aerosol can for people with bald spots.1archie99 (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Improving the definition of "confidence artist"

In the leading paragraph we currently read "A confidence artist (or con artist) is an individual, operating alone or in concert with others, who exploits characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté, or greed." I think that needs to have something appended to it that indicates the motive of the exploitation. As it stands, the sentence applies to too many people, including politicians, marketeers, and probably most parents!

Can we add "... in order to defraud them."? Or can you suggest a better wording?

Matthew C. Clarke  22:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazarene

Why is so much space devoted to this con? Shouldn't it be in the 'list of confidence tricks' page? Czolgolz (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

introduction sentence

hey guys, i was reading the introduction and i`m a bit confused by that sentence.

"Confidence tricks exploit characteristics of the human psyche such as dishonesty, honesty, vanity, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, naïveté and greed."

confidence tricks exploit dishonesty? doesn`t realy make sence to me. greetings johny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.180.141 (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Because anyone responding to an anonymous email request for help smuggling $50 million of unknown provenance into the U.S. (et al.) in exchange for a percentage of the amount smuggled is clearly a paragon of honesty

2600:1006:B10A:B052:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

that makes sence of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.180.11 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The “Stages of the con” section may be copypasta

I don't have a copy of the book, so I can't check, but nearly all of the Stages of the con section is enclosed in doublequotes and written with a different tone than the rest of the article (and in the first person!). This makes it seem to me like it's a verbatim copy of the book referenced at the end of the section.

— BlacklightShining (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the whole text (the introduction and the six-point list) appeared as written in a 1920 collection of The Police Journal, so yes, this should be cut. I'll replace it with a summary of Smith's list. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please describe the grandson/grandparent scam

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/grandparent-scam-explained-by-former-scammer-what-you-need-to-know/

The task is too complicated for me. Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Link

Add this link https://wiki-kompromat.ru/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%82%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87_%D0%9E%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2 Thanks. Irbmn (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

William or Samuel Thompson

There seems to be a confusion about the name of the original confidence man. In this article he's referred to as Samuel Thompson but he has is own article as William Thompson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Thompson_(confidence_man)128.189.195.222 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is also evident when comparing this article with List of con artists, wherein William Thompson is accredited as the original con man. 2001:4DD3:B670:0:3EDE:5932:B482:E681 (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Somebody mentioned "Matchstick Men" in the "In Fiction" section.

For once I'd just like to thank ya'll. That's an excellent reference, which I was about to add till the rest of the editorship proved to be ahead of me. After all, the whole movie is about confidence men, even double-conning each other. Whoever you are, mate (not gonna doxx), that's proper work right here. Decoy (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional movies?

I'm thinking The Producers. Does a scam rise to the level of a confidence trick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F20:4110:8800:7782:AC12:8063 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"Job scam" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Job scam and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23#Job scam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Also bundled Employment scam and Employment scams in the same discussion. Jay 💬 07:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)