Talk:The Motley Fool/Archives/2015
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
No criticism at all? Pushing Greed?
Is there no criticism? I only ever see them push a lot of marketing propaganda. Like some 15 minute run on video blabbering incessantly about how this is such a super "rule breaker" stock and how you gonna make millions in it, and what promise this guy makes to put 117k into this stock, and and and. This looks very shady to me. But nowhere do I see criticism? Pushing stocks? Pump and dump? 108.216.129.51 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Ikr...Not to mention their shady ads all over the internet, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.42.58 (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Bias
How come this article does not address the fact that the Motley Fool promotes itself with really dubious ads? Complete BS like "The End of the PC: What Bill Gates Doesn't Want You to Know!" is designed to prey on naive users. They're no better than all the worthless bodybuilding supplement companies that advertise online. -66.41.19.135 (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- Because that would not be in accordance with WP:NPOV, perhaps? Oscroft (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be good to mention it, though, without necessarily commenting on the veracity of it. While on HowtheMarketWorks.com for a school project, I saw no fewer than three different Motley Fool ads, each proclaiming the end of a company (Microsoft, Wal-Mart, and McDonald's) and offering to let the reader in on the supposedly expanding companies poised to beat the giants. Ugh. 71.243.223.65 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm actually feeling inclined to see if somebody hasn't written articles on their advertising, see as how lately I've seen ads from them claiming that "if insiders are right" people will be rushing to buy iPhone 5s...and also referring to Apple as a "stealth stock". Yeah, that seems legit. 163.231.6.71 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only reason I came here was to see if there was any mention of this fraudulent viral marketing. It's such obvious garbage and one wonders how it doesn't hurt their supposedly respectable reputation. 142.166.190.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Quoting WP:NPOV "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view". That means that you should state facts about their ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:900:95F:2535:ED0C:7BC6:A72A (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)