Talk:Certified mortgage planner

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Occupations (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OccupationsWikipedia:WikiProject OccupationsTemplate:WikiProject OccupationsOccupations articles

Do you have any reference for CMP's & CFP working together ? There is nothing on the CFP website for this. Without a citation, it should be removed. Wenzi 02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave specific company names off this article to maintain credibility. Otherwise it appears that you have an agenda which puts your ethics into question.

Merger proposal

This page shares many common themes with Mortgage planner, and the existence of two separate articles is causing duplicate content and confusion. I suggest they be merged into one article. --Careax 21:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article is not clear and it seems to be deliberately so.

For example, in the Benefits and Criticisms section. The sole benefit it lists does not say anything directly about how CMP can work to anyone's benefit (presumably the borrowers, since the preceding text claims that, but more on this later). Instead, it obliquely writes "Proponents of CMPing" and not CMPers. Who these proponents are is not clear. Next line uses "supporters of CMPing", again not CMPers. Again, not clear who these supporters are, and no citation.

For the criticisms, the first two appear to be criticisms against MP, not CMP. Since CMP is supposed to be deal with the shortcomings of MP, then these criticisms seems to say in a backhanded way that CMP is good. So they are not criticisms of CMP at all.

In the first para, second sentence, when a reader would expect a solid definition of CMP, instead what she sees is a non-definition written to sound more specific that it really is. The "mark a clear distinction" is not made clear at all by the rest of the article. And again, no citation.

Little else is clear on why exactly a CMP is better for the borrowers than a regular MP, or even the difference in tasks and training between CMP and MP. For example, under the Training section, it is not at all clear what additions a CMP has over an MP, other than than the hint that CMP will watch out for the borrowers. This is examplified by the last sentence that reads like a late night commercial punchline. Again, no citation.

With so much innuendos and little real substance and even less citations, this article does read like it is written with an agenda. All the information about CMP can be incorporated into the MP article, with a subsection on CMP (under MP) that spells concisely the difference between CMP and MP. From my reading of the CMP article, I would summarize CMP as (a) a designation coined by NAMP to indicate that CMPs are MPs that work for the benefit of the borrowers, (b) although it is not clear how because there is no widely accepted standard of how CMPs are different from MPs.

Thesoftener (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]