Talk:Palladium as an investment

Please elaborate exactly which parts need clean up, and why?
There are similar pages "Silver as an investment" and "Gold as an investment". I immitated how they were written and tried to be neutral, objective, and use only verifiable info. If anything is not right, please point them out instead of just flag it for removal. Silverbach 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed various promotional and unsourced weasely stuff. The original author of the page appeared to have WP:COI problems and added several other articles and edits "promoting" a palladium mine in Montana (the Stillwater Mining Company) and palladium coins and investments. Non-promotional sources are needed for the remaining portions of the article. Vsmith 02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Recent years' palladium surplus condition" should be more specific (which years? they get less recent with each passing year). Tom239 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Palladium may be a scam
Right from the very first time I had heard of palladium, I thought something seemed very fishy. It sounds like a scam, first of all the name of the metal - palladium. It sounds like 'pleiadian', which makes it seem as if it is trying to appeal to the emerging new age culture, which is slowly becoming mainstream. I feel as if this was made up to be sold on this premise, a scam - leaving less competition out for gold, silver and platinum as the world is now coming to the overwhelming realization that gold is much more important than most people think, that everybody should be holding onto their gold and so on. So someone(s) very high up there has made this to scam these people out of money and competition. Furthermore, the information for palladium online is limited, and it seems that no matter where you look there is writing mentioning why palladium may be good, however it always seems to give off a vibe of fishiness. I feel as if I'm seeing straight through the text and it's all just a big scam. For example, this page, 'Palladium as an investment', just feels as if it was made as part of the plan or scheme to advertise palladium further to the end mentioned here. There is an important discussion to be had here, what do you say, reader? Ascendah (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the editor insists on including this irrelevant material (relevant to the material, but not to the article), I thought I would comment to that effect. WP:TALK clearly indicates it shouldn't be here.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yo! I see where you're coming from but this information is very relevant to the article as the article is about palladium as an investment - the very basis and soul of the entire comment itself! Sure, it could be better worded, but it does all make sense, and is truly relevant - in what way is it not? Ascendah (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't make sense if you do any study of the issue. Why you think Palladium (named after Pallas in 1805) sounds (to you) like "pleiadian" (which may relate to new-age culture) has any relevance to something which should be in the article is beyond me.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)