Talk:Scam

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)