Talk:Wedbush Securities/Archives/2021

Keep the "Legal cases" section
I believe the Legal cases section, as it appears on 30 Jan. 2021 in Special:PermanentLink/1003698519 should be kept. I believe legal cases can be very relevant, particularly when well-sourced like they are here. An unexplained removal of this content was attempted, so that is why I am making this note. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 07:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See section below. Toddst1 (talk) 07:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Awards section
I believe that the Awards section (for example, see Special:PermanentLink/1004738270) should be removed. This is because it appears to wholly go against the advice at WP:ORGAWARDS that
 * "Dedicated "Awards" sections should be avoided in most cases. Awards that do warrant inclusion can be included in a section that corresponds to the subject of the award." (bolding my own)

Additionally, despite the assertion in that "all awards are from a reliable source independent of the recipient or promoters of the award and are encyclopaedic in nature", the sources for the awards are, in fact, exclusively (1) press releases from Wedbush or (2) articles from the awarding organization (for example, a Barron's article is the source for an award from Barron's).

Sources of these types are clearly not "independent of the recipient or promoters of the award".

Please let me know your thoughts on the inclusion of the awards section. Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 05:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * As an additional argument, no Fortune 10 company (see Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Apple Inc., Berkshire Hathaway, Amazon.com, UnitedHealth Group, McKesson, CVS Health, AT&T, or AmerisourceBergen), and probably more I just needed to draw the line somewhere  has a dedicated "Awards" section in its article. This seems to indicate consensus against the inclusion of an "Awards" sections since the aforementioned articles are likely better-maintained than this article (and since I think that Apple Inc., for example, has received a few awards in its time). palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 05:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Long term, coordinated attacks on Wikipedia, puffing this company by COI types
The bigger problem with this article is it appeared to be a dumping ground of things that insiders found important and added as numerous WP:COI and WP:SPA editors over the last decade or so. A quick review of the page's history will show this immediately.

I have gone through and removed numerous WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims supported by only company announcements, insider trivia and things only insiders would want to trumpet in an effort to clean up this puff-piece that has been accumulating for quite some time. Toddst1 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about legal cases
An IP editor brought up some concerns on my talk page about the tone of the article after my cleanup, especially with respect to the Legal case. Now that I've trimmed all the puffery, trivia and aggrandizement out of the article, I believe the IP has a point. Having that section makes the article smell more like a WP:COATRACK. In that context, I am WP:BOLDly removing it.

I'm not opposed to it being re-added later if the article can be balanced and achieve WP:NPOV. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)