Talk:Legatum

Competitors, similar firms?

What firms does Legatum compete with, or share similar characteristics with? The article seems pretty bare-bones without some frame of reference or comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.43.64 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no information about where the funds invested come from (one family, rich people all over the world, or anything else), whether Legatum advertises for investors, or much else about how they work.

Conflict of interests

This whole article is a blantant case of WP:COI. The creator and maintainer of this page is a user named Legatumltd. --Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We note the points above, and acknowledge our association with the subject. That said, we are unclear how this article falls short of Wiki standards: Legatum is involved in a wide range of public activities, which have been catalogued and referenced by independent third-parties; so far as possible, we have attenpted to avoid any langauge that is not verifiable factually or self-promoting (we would certainly welcome guidance on which words or phrases are deeemed to be unsuitable). In short, we find little difference between this article and those of, for example, Blackstone or Berkshire Hathaway. Legatumltd (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that those articles cite reliable sources rather than making unsourced claims which make heavy use of weasel words. I'd recommend reading the wikipedia policies on reliable sources and weasel words, and possibly also WP:NPOV before you make any more edits. Cazort (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems do still exist clearly in the article, see all the advertising like for example "researches and promotes the principles that drive the creation of global prosperity and the expansion of human liberty". Many of these valuations come obviously from themselves or non-reliable sources (like a gulf news life-style article). Also the few reliable sources seem to be there just for the show, not to make a really comprehensive article about the org (like for example the as ref used guardian article that is a simple name list of think tanks and has no real infos about the organisation). --78.54.230.82 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]