Talk:Financial planner

Financial services companies
Please don't add another list of FS companies to this page, there is a page for that already - Financial services. simonthebold

Need some clarification on abbreviations
This article needs some clarification on various abbreviations such as "AUM" and "FPA." Generally, the first time an abbreviation is used in any article, it should be accompanied by the corresponding term, regardless of how well the abbreviation is known to some people.

For example, in the United States almost everyone knows what the "IRS" is. In an encyclopedia article, however, the reference should be: "Internal Revenue Service (IRS)" the first time it appears in that article. Same thing for "AUM" and "FPA." Yours, Famspear 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
While this article needs a bit of a clean up, perhaps a merge with Financial Advisor may be appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.165.154 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2007

suggested links and response to post above
I work for the Financial Planning Association, a non profit organization. Our mandate is to help grow ethical, competent financial planners and to help people understand and benefit from financial planning. To this end, I think that it would be a great idea to insert the following links: www.fpanet.org and www.fpsb.org

FPSB is the body that owns the CFP marks outside of the United States.

As for the suggestion above to merge this page with a page addressing financial advisors, I think that would be unfortunate. The reality is that financial planning is a distinct profession that is already not well understood by the public. This is made worse by people who refer to themselves as financial advisors and financial planners interchangably. Having the page stand alone would better help people understand the differences between financial advisers (who generally focus mainly on investment planning) vs. financial planners who take into consideration the broad spectrum of financial goals and impacts on a person's life.

Thanks for considering this and the links above! Laurabrook (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice that the article's reference #1 already points to an article at www.fpanet.org. That reference supports statements that are part of the article – that's the sort of thing I was suggesting when I said "removing promotional links, please add content to Wikipedia, not links" when I removed these two links earlier today.  If I get time later, I'll standardize all the links in the article, they are something of a mess, and the name of your website will appear more clearly in the References section.  That site already has links in a a dozen or so Wikipeda articles (list here) that should probably be reviewed and those not appropriate to the article cleaned out.  As to the second link, in the words of the banner on its first page, it is "Promoting CFP Certification Worldwide" and thus promoting certification and a point of view, and is inappropriate. --CliffC (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cliff, thanks for your quick reply here. I am brand new to Wikipedia and my first post just occurred today. Since we are considering embracing a wiki type platform for the creation of knowledge around financial planning on our Web site, I wanted to ask you a question. When I made the posting earlier today with the links, my sense was that the response that I received (stating that there was a conflict of interest in posting a link to an organization I work for) was an automated response. I was actually hoping this would be the case, since that would make it easier for us to keep an eye on companies making postings that promote themselves or their products. This is not something that we would want taking place!

Based on what you said above, it now sounds like this was a more manual process. You mind helping me understand here? Also, anywhere that I could go to talk to others who are starting a wiki platform?

As for cleaning up the links and clearly referencing FPA, that sounds great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurabrook (talk • contribs) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Laura, if you are referring to the message that showed up on your user talk page, that's purely a manual process. Financial planner happens to be on my watchlist and the message is from me.  There's a large collection of templates that people here use to avoid reinventing the wheel each time a given situation comes up, that's why the message sounds "canned".  The message you saw is meant to give a friendly heads-up to new editors whose contributions seem to be for promotional purposes, both to welcome them and to direct them to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, of which there are many.  Don't feel bad about falling afoul of one of the rules, it happens to new contributors all the time.


 * I'm not an expert on the subject of WP:Robots, but it seems to me that among other things they do some automatic detecting of vandalism by recognizing obscenities (mostly from anonymous schoolkids) and the wholesale deletion of large chunks of text; hopefully these are not problems your company's wiki will have.


 * You asked "anywhere that I could go to talk to others who are starting a wiki platform?" I don't know the answer to that, maybe someone looking in here can steer you.  Anyone?  --CliffC (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regulation of the title "Financial Planner" in Canada
Information to be added:

"===== Canada =====

In Canada, "financial planners" are unregulated in every province except Quebec, [see Article for content]...Each R.F.P. must attest each year that financial planning is their primary vocation." Tom Bene (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Do it yourself, but please see WP:NEUTRAL first, this is too positive on Canada's financial planners. {&#123;3125A &#124; talk &#125;} 19:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Tom Bene (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you could perhaps add this information yourself if you have a reliable source to support the claim. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)