Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Affiliate programs[edit]

The article fails to mention Martin Lewis' various affiliate programs with a number of banks, and opportunity to increase personal wealth through recommendations not always in the consumers interests. 82.35.108.32 (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Lewis's affiliate links are always clearly marked as such, but if you want to contribute some encyclopedic content in this area, feel free! Take care, though: your note seems weasel-worded. Also, beware violating WP:CRITIC ... richi (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He couldn't get away with doing things against consumer interest because of the massive forum scrutinizing every word he writes. He often responds to criticism (e.g here about the use of affiliate links instead of recommending a cashback site). If you intend to add something about this to the article why not put the accusation to him on his feedback board first. If the intention is to make a positive contribution to the article it would probably be the best way to get a fair and balanced view from both him and the other site users who you allege he is in someway cheating 172.142.16.215 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Career section[edit]

I don't like the structure of the career section - it seems a bit odd that 'early career' should be at the end and MoneySavingExpert.com should be at the beginning. Wouldn't a chronological structure be more logical? Vl'hurg talk 23:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article is biased. Willing to help with a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefourthestate (talk • contribs) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic banks[edit]

This section seems to be rather disproportionately large. It was a UK wide event which Lewis was not the cause of, was just one minor factor in (e.g. the councils losing cash) and all savers (UK) got their money back. Yet it is given more space than direct issues such as bank charges, debt help work, council tax reclaiming which are much more specifically Martin Lewis. It seems to me that this event should be shortened to a line or so e.g.

"Lewis, was one of many who listed Icelandic banks amongst his best buys. The banks later collapsed, though the UK compensation scheme repaid all the money back to savers. When receiving minor flack for this from a few members of his forum and one TV interivew, Lewis pointed out that his methodology relied on explaining the protection schemes, not looking at individual bank solvency."

Any comments? Or I shall change on next edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helplinechap2 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the current version gets side tracked and perhaps suffers from having been written as events unfolded, but I don't think your rewrite is any better. How you record reaction on his forum is not simply about counting posts and saying this group far outweighs that group so we'll discard the minority. If you were conducting the Banking Enquiry you'd throw out the whistleblower's evidence! Think of an event like the politician George Osborne and the allegations against him about asking for party donations on a yacht in Corfu last year. You would not expect members of the Tory party to say anything other than we support George, he has done nothing wrong. You would not expect members of Martin Lewis' website to criticise him, what was significant was the expression of anger and the fact that some members did turn against him, and that some of those members had their posts removed (e.g skepticalquestions). The aim should be to record the factual significance and why his methodology proved controversial, your changes seem designed to bury it.

____________

On the above notes. I think your equating MoneySavingExpert.com Forums to a political party doesn't hold water. It is a very broad church with a variety of opinions. As one of the UK's biggest social networking sites to assign the idea that it automatically follow's Lewis' opinion seems rather strange; and isn't evidenced. (unsigned by HelpLineChap2).

Not sure how to answer this one. I'll leave it to t4e to respond. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion on editing Icelandic bank section and other controversial sections of Lewis' biog

Helplinechap, my suggestion above was to use compare and contrast which is a well established technique for self-checking what you write before publication. You clearly want your edits to stand. I think it will help you, I have not edited the biog but made suggestions here.

As an example, take your statement above Martin Lewis' site is 'one of the UK's biggest social networking sites'(the seventh largest according to this article http://www.pcworld.com/article/160606/friends_reunited_becomes_a_top_uk_web_destination.html). His biog says his chat forums are 'non-revenue generating activities'and this is the widely held view of millions of people on his forum, including you I guess. So it must be true.

Try compare and contrast to decide if it stands up. Think about the statement 'Moneysavingexpert's traffic is to non-revenue generating activities, such as its chat forums' and apply it to other social networks you know like My Space or Friends Reunited. Compare and contrast his terms and conditions on content with other social networks:

MSE - 6.1 All of the content on our site is owned by us or our licensors and is protected by UK and international copyright laws.

6.2 The content on our site includes any information or other material found on MoneySavingExpert.com, including chat forums, articles, databases, graphics, software and all other features of our site. You are allowed to use our content for personal, non-commercial use only. You may make one copy of extracts from this site on any single computer for personal, individual use only, provided that all copyright and proprietary notices are kept intact. Apart from that, none of our content may be republished, posted, transmitted, stored, sold, distributed or modified without our prior written consent.

7. Your content

7.1 Just so that you know, you own any copyright in the text that you post to our chat forums. However, when you post text, you expressly grant us a perpetual, unlimited free license to republish that text on our site and to redistribute/make available and/or sell that text in print or electronic form anywhere in the world as part of an edited compilation or otherwise.

My Space - 6. Proprietary Rights in Content on MySpace.

6.1 MySpace does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain any such rights that you may have in your Content, subject to the limited license herein etc

6.2 The license you grant to MySpace is non-exclusive (meaning you are free to license your Content to anyone else in addition to MySpace), fully-paid and royalty-free (meaning that MySpace is not required to pay you for the use on the MySpace Services of the Content that you post), sublicensable (so that MySpace is able to use its affiliates, subcontractors and other partners such as Internet content delivery networks and wireless carriers to provide the MySpace Services), and worldwide (because the Internet and the MySpace Services are global in reach).

Lewis does not claim his social network is non-revenue generating. To the Indy he said 'I read the forums on my own site because they're my biggest source of information on money saving' (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/martin-lewis-my-week-in-media-768665.html). His media work earns him a very substantial living I would guess and in his own words his biggest source of information is his forum. His practice of taking tips sourced by forum members and presenting them as his own work in his email and media appearances puts him at odds with his members. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=14242689&postcount=62

It's up to you if you think Wikipedia's information on his chat forum is accurate or needs to be edited, why not try out an edit here first if you think it is inaccurate and see if as polar opposites we can agree?

On Icelandic banks, I'm against your suggested edit. This was a huge story in personal finance last year (see my talk page for references). There's tons of evidence that variety of opinion on MSE isn't respected, particularly on Icesave http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=14800411&postcount=60) Thefourthestate (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Campaigns[edit]

Why not agree content for this page here before posting it? The most recent edit on energy tariffs is very specific on dates but does not fit with the evidence. For example, on 30th September 2008 Lewis stated '3 in 5 CHANCE OF UP TO 20% GAS & ELECTRICITY RISE NEXT JANUARY'http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2008/09/30/gas-and-electricity-prices-more-rises-to-come-predictions/. Helplinechap2 may not want Lewis to have said this since energy prices have actually fallen but Wikipedia is not the place to rewrite history. Instead of fighting it out changing the page, why not draft copy here and once it is felt to be accurate the actual article can be changed? Thefourthestate (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for your point of drafting here. Its certainly seems something appropriate. The problem being it isn't happening and often comments which approach defamation are left in the main biog itself. There does seem to be a bias amongst those on the current profile to seek out negative factors and highlight oft with incorrect research or value based judgements. (unsigned by Helplinechap2).

I agree with thefourthestate about seeking some consensus here before editing the main page. I feel like I am attempting to steer a middle course between t4e and hlc, but hlc probably thinks I am nearer t4e's viewpoint.
I think, though, that hlc needs to accept that the sun doesn't shine out of ML's trousers and that he has made mistakes - some of which have cost people dearly.
Any road up...
The update from the Times article is interesting, but also interesting is the 30 September quote from ML himself. He got it wrong. It's also interesting that on 6 August in his Money Tips he was saying "don't switch, the boat has sailed", whilst on 7 August on GMTV he was saying "switch now - today or tomorrow at the latest". Either I'm misunderstanding the timelines there, or he's schizophrenic. You would expect the Money Tips to be more out of date than GMTV given that GMTV is live and the money tips have to be prepared which takes some time.
How about this as a "straw man" for discussion? This is exactly how it would appear on the page so please don't mess up all the referencing!  ;)
In Summer 2008, Lewis appeared on several TV & radio programmes exhorting consumers to "cap your energy bills now".[1] After that point British Gas announced an increase of 30% on its prices.

Lewis reiterated his belief that prices would continue to rise at the end of September 2008."3 in 5 chance of up to 20% gas & electricity rise next January". 2008-09-30. Retrieved 2009-02-22.</ref>

However, in January 2009 UK energy companies' prices were reduced by 0-10%. Whilst according to info published by Uswitch after the price cuts, in February 2009, those who followed Lewis' Summer 2008 advice gained, "Those who were savvy enough to sign up to a competitive fixed-price plan last summer, before some increases in wholesale energy were passed on, are sitting pretty as prices would need to drop by 16% on average before it would be worth moving.", those who switched following later advice are likely to have made the wrong choice: "Research by Uswitch has found that those who signed up to a fix late last year or the start of 2009, when prices peaked, would most likely benefit by switching." [2]

MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with Icelandic banks, what level of detail is appropriate on a Wikipedia biog? Helpline introduced some detail that associated Martin Lewis exclusively with successful capping and disassociated him with unsuccessful capping. This required further evidence to be suggested to set the record straight, but then you are into tit for tat and I am not sure a clear picture emerges for the casual reader. I'm going to read some other biogs and come back on thisThefourthestate (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be a campaign? I don't think so, I thnk it was Lewis doing a lot of stories in the media about capping which lots and lots of other affiliates were also doing. In the Times, Uswitch does not say it was Martin Lewis' advice that savvy consumers followed , it could have been any affiliate and as I recall at the time Google News recorded something like 450 articles on utlity prices and capping in one day. Also, at the time Martin Lewis specifically plugged a BG cap which was the longest one available and which was described by some as the most expensive cap http://www.lovemoney.com/news/household-bills/change-your-energy-tariff-today-1639.aspx . http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/221676/fix-your-energy-prices-with-scottis/showthread.php?t=221676&page=2. He recommended the longest cap available because he was of the view that prices would rise 30% in January 09. However, prices have actually fallen so with hindsight at the time of his advice the best cap was British Gas Price Protect April 2009. Lewis and all the other so called money saving experts missed this. As I say, I don't think this warrants as a campaign and if it stays it should be recorded accurately. Thefourthestate (talk) 13:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not a campaign, it's simply an example of ML getting things wrong - exactly as with the Icelandic banks situation - and in both cases he was quids in as result of the advice (because of affiliate linking). As it's previously been suggested that Icelandic banks has too much prominence, maybe both sections (Icelandic banks and Energy capping) should come under a single main heading of "Dubious advice" or something like that. MarkyMarkD (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, how about a section headed Controversy where it can be recorded that although Lewis has enormous support the longterm benefits of his methods have been called into question. Icelandic banks and other brief examples could go in this section. I would like to wait a while now to hear what helplinechap thinks. Thefourthestate (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been several months and no word from helplinechap. The latest changes are from what Google search says is an IP address used for anonymous surfing. What is Wikipedia's policy on this?Thefourthestate (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it accurate to say several consumer groups have engaged Raymond Cox QC? According to BBC Radio 4 Money Box, Martin Lewis has engaged Govan Law Centre, listen here to hear it from the horse's mouth - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/moneybox/8382995.stm Signature added Thefourthestate (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Power price hike". 2008-08-07. Retrieved 2009-02-01. GMTV's Martin Lewis said: "EDF is the first of the big six suppliers to announce a price rise. Once one provider puts its prices up, the others normally follow within five to six weeks, as they operate a herd mentality. I urge everyone to cap their tariffs at the cheapest possible rate as soon as possible. "By that, I mean today or tomorrow and no later. You can still lock in cheap prices if you do it straight away, but cheap caps are vanishing faster than a rabbit at a greyhound track. Do remember that this is only the first round of rises; expect another round in December or January, if not earlier - this is why fixing's so important." {{cite web}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 308 (help)
  2. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/consumer_affairs/article5732169.ece

Charitable giving[edit]

Should the reference to charitable activity have its own section? 'Boost' is your opinion, the Mafia has a long history of donating to charity, giving to charity tells you nothing about an organisation especially when the company puts its url in the charity's logo. It could be charity, it could be tax efficient marketing, we don't know and no accounts have been filed with the Charity Commission for the registered charity MSE Charity. Hope that helps, interested to see your next edit.Thefourthestate (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, although it would need to be linked into the ethical bit about the website. I'll think about it. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the note about charity - my edit was intended to change the fact that the 'ethical stance' the site talks about isn't about the charity money raised, but how the affiliate links are designated; to change the word boost is fine. As for the idea that the charity isn't a charity... that is inappropriate supposition based on no factual information.

The MSE charity is a relatively new body - previously all the money went to main categories, and the aims on the website make it quite clear - it is a grant giving body to other charities and individuals seeking qualifications. How that could be equated to 'tax efficient marketing' I find difficult to conceive. (not signed by HelplineChap2)

Any giving by a corporate entity, or indeed an "unlimited company" is a form of tax-efficient marketing. It is naive to believe that it's anything else IMHO. MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was charitable donations are used here to bolster his claim to an ethical business, the same happens on his forum in answer to critics. He may be completely ethical, he probably is fairly ethical, but to use his giving to charity as evidence is wrong and far from it being inappropriate supposition based on no factual information my point goes all the way back to the bible http://bible.cc/matthew/6-3.htm If it's charity then the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. Martin Lewis could have kept his business separate from his chairty, then his motivation would have without question been charitable. By including the url of his company in the logo of the charity, unfortunately you need to be sceptical and there's a limit to what you can claim is his motivation.Thefourthestate (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is very valid. It would have been just as tax-efficient for ML to pay himself the money as dividends, and then to Gift Aid it as an individual to charity. But that wouldn't have benefited MSE.com, and it wouldn't have made him look good. Draw your own conclusions, Helplinechap2. MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

There was some discussion earlier about whether it should be ML (financial journalist) or ML (personal financial journalist).

How about we go the whole hog, and change it to "Martin Lewis (Money Saving Expert)" as that is how he styles himself and that will be the most likely way for most people to find the article?


Thoughts?

MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good suggestion, it's quite brilliant actually because I'm guessing helpline will agree tooThefourthestate (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I just removed a new edit -

There is some controversy within the affiliate community that Lewis misrepresents the way in which he runs his website [1] Lewis makes various claims about the website's ethical and unbiased status, defined as only ever writing about the best products, without allowing revenue to impact upon any recommendations. Lewis also provides non-affiliate links - on some products - for those who nominally wish to bypass giving him or his website commission.

That whole section seems based on a forum thread(s) and I think needs to be shown that this is a concern with the industry from a reliable source

The following paragraph (which is still in the article was moved to the newly created "Controversy" section

...the company via which Lewis owns the website changed from being a limited company...

But is this a controversy? Need a citation to a reputable source where this has been questioned or suggested to be controversial.

Perhaps you can provide a reason why this is normal or even commonplace? I cannot fathom any reason as to why anyone would remove themselves from the comfort of limited liability unless it was to hide their earnings from the public. Care to extrapolate? I can provide umpteen sources of other companies doing just this, which I believe to be sufficient. 21:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.179.214 (talk)
With the greatest respect, Wikipedia is about pure facts backed up by citable sources. You say "I cannot fathom any reason as to why anyone would remove themselves from the comfort of limited liability unless it was to hide their earnings from the public.". Fine. that's your opinion. Wikipedia is not about opinion. Check out WP:OR where is says you must NOT "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources" which is what you're trying to do.
"can provide a reason why this is normal or even commonplace?" - It's not about that. Wikipedia is not about you and me debating company structure. Even if we debated, had a great discussion, and 100% agreed at the end of the day, it would not be allowed on Wikipedia because it would be our opinion and Original Research rather than material from a reliable source. You need to find a source online where someone notable has found the structure iffy. Has an expert or known commentator in this field written a piece about this being a strange thing for MoneySavingExpert to do? Has a newspaper drawn attention to it? I don't remember any newspaper articles with titles like "Moneysavingexpert.com's controversial new structure" etc etc Identz (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I've reverted these edits Identz (talk)

Yes, that is true. It is in the public domain if you care to look. I have reverted your removal of the above paragraph, I am not sure why you removed the entire paragraph if you didn't happen to agree with one segment of it, the rest was already in the article. I suspect you have vested interests given your edit history. Can you clarify? 87.112.110.54 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No - No vested interest. I think you'll see from all my edits that I have always tried to maintain a neutral point of view. And please WP:AGF. But in order to be neutral and encyclopaedic a lot of that stuff has to go so to try to reach compromise I've done the following:
  • Removed the word Controversy. While everything you've added about what he's done with his company may be true, you haven't cited any source that says his actions are controversial. You believing that this is controversial is not enough (Even if it turned out you are the most pre-eminent expert in the field). Can you cite any reputable sources where someone else has said what Lewis has done is controversial? Because that's what's required.
A verifiable source so not the most used affiliate forum in the UK where the industry discusses this very sector? How do we decide what is a reliable source or not? Please clarify, oh holy self-appointed expert on this matter, as per your edits. If you are not Martin Lewis himself, then you definitely have an interest in affiliate marketing which I suspect is giving way to bias. Please provide some information for clarity. 87.112.179.214 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No not any kind of vested interest. My only interest is in the neutrality of the article. You say I'm a "self-appointed expert on this matter" whereas all I have done is actually to read Wikipedia's policies. Please read WP:IRS which will tell you everything you want to know about why the forum is not a reliable source. I draw your attention to in particular:
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
and
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.
...but don't just read those parts, that whole article should be read to understand how Wikipedia works. Identz (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "The website is thought to generate substantial turnover as the completion of the purchase of a few financial products, via affiliate links, can be £100 or more". Who thinks this? Once again, you may think that, but does any reputable source say this? You've provided sources why you think this might be a case and then drawn a conclusion - But that's not what's done on Wikipedia. See WP:OR. You need to find where a reliable source has drawn the conclusion the site "generate[s] substantial turnover".
Who thinks this? Not necessarily me. I didn't add that sentence. 87.112.179.214 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "There is some controversy within the affiliate community that Lewis misrepresents the way in which he runs his website Lewis makes various claims about the website's ethical and unbiased status, defined as only ever writing about the best products, without allowing revenue to impact upon any recommendations..." Citing a forum thread where a few people have had a discussion is not enough justification to be in an encylopedia. I'm sure you'll agree that if we tried, we could find a forum thread about anyone saying anything. You need an example where press or one of the major websites that covers affiliate stuff have done a piece criticising Martin Lewis. If the above could be put in then I could just as easily find a forum thread speculating Barack Obama is a space alien then go to his article and say "There's some speculation that Obama is not of this world" and link to the forum thread. It'd be just as true as what you added about Lewis in that it had been discussed in a forum thread, but worthy of Wikipedia?
There you go. You may suggest I have some sort of vested interest but I'd respectfully suggest that what I've done above is only the course of action of someone trying to be encylopedic and neutral. Identz (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Barack Obama example is unfortunate, and irrelevant. Affiliates4U, the website that I mentioned in the hastily-removed edit is the leading UK resource of the affiliate industry - which of course I am sure you are more than aware of, giving your rather unclear position. Please provide a WP:policy reference or link, on why the eminent UK forum run for and by UK affiliates does not fit the bill in your mind on a "reliable source". 87.112.179.214 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Affiliates4U...leading UK resource of the affiliate industry" - You can't leverage their name to support opinions expressed on their forum (Why don't you ask them if they're okay with that?) Do Affiliates4U themselves criticise or comment on Lewis? I've looked on their News Page. Even Industry Blogs sections. Nothing! - and you'd think they would comment if what he does is so controvesial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Identz (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only, once again, urge you to read WP:IRS and WP:OR. Which I think answers ALL of your questions. You've accused me of many things above and not WP:AGF which I have tried my best to do for you despite all your contributions to the article being negative. Please, please read these policies and you'll understand why I've removed your edits and you'll see what is needed for them to be included Identz (talk)

References

  1. ^ [http://www.affiliates4u.com/forums/affiliate-marketing-lounge/100322-cult-martin-lewis.html Martin Lewis Company Change Status

Martin Lewis (or his team) editing this & mse wiki articles?[edit]

http://www.insiders-view.co.uk/something-odd-about-an-ip-address "Martin Lewis’ (financial journalist) Wikipedia page which has been revised several hundred times has recent edits by an IP address associated with Lewis.

IP address 93.152.127.10 has edited Lewis’ page, and the Wiki entry for moneysavingexpert.com, a site owned by Lewis, 13 times."109.224.137.121 (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very safe to say that site is a bit biased
What they say looks true, but have a look at the edits:
Hardly a concerted effort to manipulate the article. Looks more like a bored office worker with time on their hands.
If someoene was told to change the article on behalf of Lewis they should be sacked for incompetence. Look at the state of it. Not even a picture!
I've been accused of being connected to Lewis/MSE before. Believe me, if I'd been employed to fix the article it wouldn't look as it currently does. It needs some serious work! Identz (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further adds of Wonga etc[edit]

I've been reverting some edits that were reverted before. Few points:

  • No I'm not part of any PR team. I have no connection at all I once again remind of WP:AGF which I'm desperately trying to do with these anonymous edits (You'll notice I'm loggin in rather than using an annoymous IP).
  • Please refer to WP:BLP where it says "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
  • Therefore you if you want to add the section about Wonga you MUST demonstrate it happedened with a citation. I can find no record of it by searching the internet nor of any widespread criticism. Further, do you think there's another Wikipedia editor out ther that'll agree with the following statement being fair or biased even if you can find a citation for him endorsing Wonga? "There was growing condemnation of the industry, and Lewis sought to distance himself from the lender. Lewis later sought cover by aligning himself with the anti-loanshark campaign". If this happened and there was widespread criticism, why can't you cite it?
  • As for the 'controversy' of the financial status, I think I've pointed out above why that must be cited.Identz (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Martin Lewis (financial journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin Lewis (financial journalist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_Lewis_(financial_journalist)&oldid=1214771260"