User talk:Jbarfy

World Financial Group
In a nutshell, see the relevant talk page. The article has plenty of people who believe that WFG is the utter scum of the scam corporation universe, and tend to fill the article with nothing but criticism, and another faction who believes the company can do no wrong and removes any hint of criticism or controversy, though it's impossible to reasonably deny that said controversy exists.

As to your specific points: The WMA/WFG link is well-established and noted in article references. Additional references are easy to find, via Google, on a variety of sites (such as ). The forum reference is, as noted, a questionable source. However, as best I can tell, it only sources the "critics claim" parts of the article, and those are kept as much as possible to a basic straightforward summary rather than every outlandish claim that might reside on the site. The article is careful not to assert the primacy of these claims (or the company's counterclaims), but I find that to eliminate one side or the other of the issue is a far greater disservice to the encyclopedia than cautious use of a questionable source.

Finally, as for why I simply reverted your edit without explanation: your edits (from an anonymous user) were substantially similar to any number of previous edits, also from anonymous users or one-use accounts, all of which have served to whitewash any criticism without responding to dialog on WP. I've gotten tired of typing out the same response each time only to have it ignored, so I tend to revert-without-discussion when it comes up these days. I apologize for being so brusque with a good faith editor. &mdash; Lomn 16:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)