Talk:Overdraft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not Neutral Point of View[edit]

This article seems to be entirely about the author's objections to charges unauthorised overdrafts, rather than a neutral general article about overdrafts (authorised and unauthorised). I suggest that the article be rewritten. The same author had spammed various other banking-related articles, encouraging people to sign his petition. NFH 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Viewpoints[edit]

I'm from Britain and am currently looking at the costs of being a university student. I came here to look for information on overdrafts with regards to student bank accounts.

If someone editting this article would be able to include information on this, I and many others would be very grateful.

Thank you.

As wikipedia has also stated, overdraft can also be used when talking about aquifers: "Overdraft is when a water is removed from the aquifer at a faster rate than can be naturally replaced by rain or snow. The lowering of the water table causes problems such as land subsidence, surface cracking, sinkholes on the surface, damage to the aquifer's water producing character due to compaction, and in coastal areas, salt water intrusion. Salt water intrusion occurs when the water table is low and the ground water lacks sufficient water pressure to prevent the ocean from backing up into the ground water."

Since that's about an unrelated concept, it should be covered in a different article, like Overdraft (aquifer). — Omegatron 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

updated version[edit]

the previous section on UK overdrafts has been re-written for the following reasons: (1) it was factually incorrect on a number of points; and (2) it was overtly political, in that it referred to all overdraft charges as penalties without logically justifying such a statement. (It should also be mentioned that the linked BBC articles are themselves incorrect on a number of points.) As mentioned before, Wikipedia is not a political springboard for disgruntled customers.

reverted from the updated version because the rewrite was using weasel words and attempting to minimize the use of the word "penalty" even though the law has confirmed that undue overdraft charges (i.e. in excess of actual damages) are regarded as such.

re-updated version[edit]

again this page has been edited to further an interest-group's point of view. the previous text was 100% correct, wholly neutral and contained no imflammatory language. suggest this page be locked to prevent pointless amendments.

Amending an article because it contains "weasel words" is not a valid reason for changing something; if the author wants to write rhetorical and reasonless words, suggest they become a journalist. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a mount piece for interest-groups. -Nick95 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree partially on that. I honestly think it depends on how bad the Weasel Words are. Weasel words are strongly discouraged by Wikipedia standards. However, sometimes there is no other way to express something while maintaining NPOV. In my experience Weasel Words should be removed along with other grammar issues and/or NPOV corrections. (AKA Cleanup Edits.) Still, I really don't see making an large scale edit to remove them unless the particular set of Weasel Words are used in a manner that is intentionally misleading, or attempting to hide an underlying point of view. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I cleaned up a couple of niggling grammatical bits and removed slow clearing of deposits as a reason for overdrawing, since this is not a legitimate reason for OD fees. Many of the items (such as Bank Reordering of Transactions) do indeed cause, or at least maximize, overdraft fees, but I'm not sure that they belong in reasons for overdrawing. The section on Transaction Processing Order is accurate, but doesn't seem to be NPOV. Any thoughts?

Btw, I am relatively new to this whole thing, so any suggestions would be nice.—Preceding --Koine (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Koine[reply]

[POV] I am editing this section, but I am concerned that I am skewing it too much to the viewpoint of the bank, not the customer. I feel like the current article is very skewed and has a lot of incorrect information. If anyone wants to give me a hand, that would be great. Koine (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Koine[reply]

Current state re:neutrality[edit]

What's the consensus on the current state of the article in terms of neutrality. I think we've struck a good factual stance on the causes of overdrafts and the remedies thereto, but I wouldn't want to remove the neutrality tag without confirmation. What do you all think? Stile4aly (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text Dump from Overdraft fee[edit]

Possible references[edit]

If someone wants to put in good references, there are several papers by the Consumer Federation of America: http://www.consumerfed.org/

Search for "courtesy overdraft"

Merge proposal[edit]

This page's content is subsantially similar to overdraft. I think we ought to merge the two. Comments? Stile4aly (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over a year since I suggested we merge the pages with no response. Unless anyone feels strongly, I'm going to create a redirect. Stile4aly (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say merge them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in US overdraft on Debit/ATM[edit]

A few years back there were changes on US laws concerning overdraft laws on debit and ATM cards. Specifically, debit and ATM transactions are required to be denied, unless the customer has requested overdraft protection, in which case it will be subject to overdraft protection fees and interest. This law also disallowed certain questionable practices being used to artificially increase the number of overdraft fees, such as out-of-order transactions. I'd look up the law right now, but I'm afraid I don't have the time at this moment, and I'm not sure if I can remember to get back to it. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed section[edit]

I have removed the below section as it is a clear violation of WP:ESSAY and is completely unsourced, as well as not professionally written. Zeus t | u | c 23:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Interest Rate Changes[edit]

Though the 1990s was a time of economic boom in the United States, the fall of the dot com surplus and the subsequent housing crisis called for increased regulation on lending, and a lowered Prime rate by the government in order to stimulate the economy. In response to these changes, many banks turned to fee income as a way to offset their costs, as interest income was no longer stable enough to sustain their profits. Without the increase in fee based activity, like the overdraft fee, banks would be unable to maintain steady profits and continue to offer many of their services.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Overdraft/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
=Review, June 2008=

This article is certainly a good size; however, I don't feel it quite qualifies for B-class for the following reasons:

  • The Reasons section is heavily POV: for example, the first reason, "Intentional short-term loan", has the unsourced phrase "it is not recommended as a financially prudent habit." These are weasel words, and moreover, it is not true in all cases. I use my overdraft for short- and long-term borrowing frequently; because it is interest-free, it would be less prudent not to use it. I don't think this list is interesting or encyclopaedic; after all, I wouldn't expect to see "reasons for using a credit card" as one of the main articles on credit cards.
  • The Protection in the UK section has irrelevant information about credit cards. This should be removed.
  • No mention of overdrafts given to students (see =100&in_article_id=395880&in_page_id=90 here for a source)
  • Overall, quite a lot of good material, but few sources, POV issues and irrelevant information need to be examined.
--Rhebus (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 02:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Overdraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated text included; poor disambiguation[edit]

The subtitle of this article is "Payments from a bank account exceeding the balance" and is followed by a disambiguation redirect: "This article is about the financial concept. For the term as it used in hydrology, see Overdrafting."

Yet this article ends with a section titled "For Groundwater Resources" that begins: "The term "overdraft" is also commonly in use in the hydrological sciences…" and advises the user to (see also Overdrafting). The use of "see also" implies that the hydrological information in this article is non-overlapping with the referred article—in fact, it has references that are not included in the other article's list of references—but Wikipedia users would likely miss this information because of this article's subtitle and redirect.

"Overdrafting" seems to be a conjugation of the verb "to overdraft" which is undefined in the American or British english dictionaries I use. Nevertheless, the "Overdrafting" article's subtitle is "Unsustainable extraction of groundwater" and is followed by a disambiguation redirect: "This article is about groundwater extraction. For financial uses of the term, see Overdraft."

It seems that the disambiguation (or lack thereof) in Wikipedia is based on the noun (Overdraft: finance) versus verb (Overdrafting: hydrology) form of the concept. I'm not an expert in either domain, but commonsense leads me to doubt that in reality such grammatical delineation actually disambiguates between usage in each domain.

Therefore, I recommend: 1. Moving the hydrology section to the "Overdrafting" article. 2. Revising the "Overdrafting" article's title to "Overdraft (hydrology)." 3. Revising the title of this article from "Overdraft" to "Overdraft (financial)." 4. Fixing the disambiguation redirects per the new article titles.

The above is suggested to avoid orphaned text and to provide better disambiguation; you may have more appropriate recommendations. Thanks. Pete.pereira (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overdraft&oldid=1203400501"