Talk:Scam

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.

Jack Harkness

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

what!? has anyone here ever heard of "short-changing"?

the most common form (i would imagine) of confidence tricks is short-changing (a.k.a quick-changing). it seems odd that this is not mentioned here, or that it doesn't have it's own aricle entry. someone listed a very petty version of it in the listed cons, but that is nowhere sufficient. the only idea i can think of is that somebody (administrator perhaps), wouldn't allow this in the article because it would encourage people to try it, because of it's relative ease to commit. anyone? Helio462

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)