Talk:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

In this August 14, 2024 edit of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the listing of regulations under the CFPB is marked as "non-primary source needed".

I think we would be wasting our time attempting to find a non-primary source. (Arguably more to the point, the list of regulations that's presumably from the primary source is authoritative.) As per the "non-primary source needed" markup and in the absence of a suitable secondary source, I support summarily deleting the list of regulations. Fabrickator (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should just keep the regulations that have their own wikipedia articles and delete the others - presumably those are the most notable and have secondary sourcing Superb Owl (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Scott Bessent was not at the time he was made acting Director a hedge fund manager. That would be like saying, college student Scott Bessent. Even Secretary of Treasury and former hedge fund manager would be more correct, though it would have tonal problems given the effort to be an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.62.139 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I have asked my mentor several times to about a few minor things. I just need someone who really can mentor me on little things to help me speed up my editing. I know what I want to add since I am more into adding things that are able to add more transparency t pages like this that political hysteria in the USA has created such a far and now that Democracy really is being tested feel we need to make certain that peer review is hot on this and I suggest anyone reading to put all things on hold and focus on watching pages that may have a far slant to any side. Scottsdesk (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Scottdesk: Hi, I have removed most of your long message per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC as it contained your personal opinions on the article (and world in general). This is not what talk pages are for. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article in question. I suggest having a look at the talk page guidelines. If you are looking for guidance on editing Wikipedia, you may want to visit the Teahouse, a space for new editors to ask questions. I do have one specific piece of advice, though. Judging from your essay, it seems you want to edit Wikipedia to right great wrongs. Unfortunately, this is not how Wikipedia works, as we only record what reliable sources have written. You will be disappointed if you expect to be able to change articles on the basis of what you think is wrong with the world. Jr8825 • Talk 00:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry will try to not do this again. So where and how do create a simple notation to an article that is either wrong or has a bias that is using citations from opinion based news sources. Using a citation that comes from UPI, AP, Reuters, type of citation seems the best to provide the evidence and origin actual real noteworthy.

What I am seeing more and more is articles that are almost always more and more politicized with the side who spend the most time turning for example

The actual

Pete Hegseth

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Hegseth&oldid=1232443048

26,962 bytes

into the fictional.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Hegseth

164,130 bytes

The very first holder of that office was a WWI Lieutenant

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Forrestal&action=history

60,000 bytes

I am sorry but Pete Hegseth being 100,000 bytes more noteworthy...

Is not an opinion its a fact.

Let me use simple math with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

232,667 bytes Einstein

164,130 bytes Hegseth

So according to math...

Hegseth is 30% away from having a Einstein article.

My point here is that it is not my opinion that a article should not only contain factual and unbiased information but when compared to others having done way more over way more time simple math can pretty much prove my point..

As an example

Pete Hegseth went to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Kennedy_School

His article says

Harvard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University

Seems these are not the same schools at all.

So my objective is to try to use my expertise in research to correct these.

So is there any editors who I can talk to on this? Scottsdesk (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please remove the MAGA cultist nonsense from this page? It doesn't belong here. 67.87.253.76 (talk) 03:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. I know that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral platform, but let me just say this, SCREW ANY POLITICIAN who wanted to defund CFPB! They are literally trying to make it easier for big businesses to rip off regular people. You would only consider this agency "wasteful spending" if you are running a scam operation. This article tells ordinary consumers' stories in a really great way. https://apnews.com/article/trump-musk-consumer-protection-cfpb-3690f473e8671fbf57a6cdca035e0d01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedrickSchu (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I 100% agree and want to create a way that we can remove and keep articles clear of the total takeover of articles by people hired and paid to create total fictionalized articles.

I notice editor changes by anonymous people and I think that is a red flag.

I also wonder how they get past the editorial vetting these edits... Scottsdesk (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)