Talk:Edward Jones Investments

Vandalism?

I have no idea how to change the page back to what it was on November 13th, 2007, but the editing on November 16th is just changing words like "profitable" to "unprofitable", "licensed" to "unlicensed", etc. Someone needs to go in and change the article back to it's November 13th, 2007 form.

Balance

When did Wikipedia turn into an internal Edward Jones PR department site? Take off the bad stuff, and fill in with a whitewash of corporate fluff. Nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.175.15 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, advertising puff through and through, needs fixing. What's the best tag to add to flag this? Ian (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A link to http://www.finra.org/Investors/ToolsCalculators/BrokerCheck/index.htm would allow people to see the millions dollars in fines against this company.Weebur (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a spell check?

"Edward Jones financial advisors sell commission-based and fee-based financial products. Offices are usually staffed by two associates: one Financial Advisor (see Financial Adviser, a licensed broker)"

In the same article, and within 2 sentences we have different spellings of "adviser." This should not be that difficult.68.2.35.66 (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Eek. Even the financial adviser article shifts back and forth. --Smashville^talk 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Can someone write down the Edward Jones history in the UK, as I saw some of their offices in the UK but they have now disappeared. 86.174.209.24 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

2007 class action settlement

At the Investment Wikiproject, an editor pointed out a class action settlement for allegations of "secret Revenue Sharing payments" posted on the brokerage's website: http://www.edwardjones.com/groups/ejw_content/@ejw/documents/web_content/ejw_900360.pdf

In reply to him/her, I hope my opinions are helpful:

• You can't post your personal allegation against the brokerage at Wikipedia.
• I am just an editor like you - I personally don't see any problem adding a mention of the settlement, as long as you (a) put the range allegations in perspective, rather than emphasize fraud and (b) mention that EDJ denies wrongdoing.
• I agree with you that the article as it is now puts undue weight on awards and trade press rankings. Everyone has rankings and unfortunately this article only lists the good ones.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

charities

The few lines on charities have a biased tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.55.232 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

advert

Hello: I see that Nouill has recently tagged both the entire article and "Awards and rankings" section as Adverts. I am unclear what is promotional, but I thought we could begin the discussion and find a consensus on what, if anything, needs to be cleaned up to achieve a NPOV. (As this is generally a sleepy article, I'm tagging those how have edited in the last year to get their input. DocWatson42, Tribe of Tiger, Steve03Mills, Darrylhopkins, Ponydepression, WikiEditCrunch, Doprendek, UnitedStatesian, Jakebed, ClassicOnAStick) Dbsseven (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

"I am unclear what is promotional" => You're kidding me ? --Nouill (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Keep it or take it out. I'm indifferent. (Although if in, those bullets have to go.) But if you take it out, I don't think it's worth the time to make some general rule about removing such sections. I personally don't like these kind of sections in general, as they are by their nature hype-ish. But they are also kinda sorta encyclopedia-like--awards are the kind of thing not uncommonly found in print encyclopedias from way back. My big concern in company articles (I do a lot of housekeeping on them) is their thinness. They are important to the world's current ruling structure and need the kind of centrally-located basic info that Wikipedia provides. But they tend to get far less coverage than say that actor who was in two early episodes of Star Trek etc. gets. The important thing IMO--and it does not seem to be a problem in this article--is to put an end to the censoring of criticisms or even outright proven infractions of companies. Doprendek (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doprendek: I completely agree that the "awards" sub-section on awards could be much more neatly summarized with prose. And I agree that business articles in general could use much more detail, including critical detail. In dealing with this issue, I am unclear what about the whole article Nouill beileves is promotional, and how the awards sub-section is itself promotional if the awards are relevant and noteworthy. Hence the discussion here. Dbsseven (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)