Talk:Robert Prechter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Prechter/Archive 1 article.
Article policies
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Contents

[edit] "Questionable Relevance"?

The "questionable relevance" paragraph regarding Elliott's theory seems out of place on a biographical page, especially because there is an "Elliott wave principle" page. Also, the "afterthought" and "market timing… discredited" comments do not communicate a NPOV. --Rgfolsom 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Questionable Relevance (etc.) still unexplained

The edits from Smallbones removed relevant biographical information with no explanation, and added back irrelevant and mistaken criticisms without explaining exactly what "better" means. Once more: the first paragraph under "Criticism" speaks to the Elliott wave principle, and is flagrantly not from a NPOV. As for the Criticism paragraph on Prechter himself, he published a best-selling book as recently as 2002-2003. Labels like "afterthought" are more flagrant non-NPOV.

It's also noteworthy that Smallbones had not contributed to this article before getting into an editing dispute with me regarding the Socionomics page, a fact will speak for itself in any coming requests for mediation.

Rgfolsom 23:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the Record

For the record, Smallbones has not tried to show familiarity with the subject matter or establish notability, but took an article I've been working on recently and reverted it to a stub. Robert Prechter's position as a public person more than meets the criterion set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people), and I'll soon be adding lots more references that show this. Smallbones appears to pay no regard to Wikipedia's policy regarding etiquette, consensus building, reverts, and -- in previous changes to Prechter's bio -- the policy on biased or malicious content.

Rgfolsom 22:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation

Material in this article is a WP:COPYVIO from http://www.elliottwave.com/info/prechter_bio.aspx, and does not appear to meet WP:BIO. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 02:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Deletion policy regarding lag times calls for about a week before taking a page down. Editor 141.156.240.102 summarily removed Prechter's bio without so much as identifying what part of the article may be in copyright violation, and also failed to list the article on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. Shooting first and asking questions later is hardly cordial and respectful to other editors.
Rgfolsom 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I too think that a complete deletion of the article was too hurried and uncalled for. Prechter IS NOTABLE, but in many cases for all the wrong reasons. For example, I believe that he was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal in an article that showed his meteoric rise and fall as a stock prognosticator (if anybody can find the article, I'd be obliged). As for which part of the Wikipedia article was a copyright violation, I'd say all of it except for the tiny part at the end entitled criticisms (which was contantly being removed or watered down). As a comparison the Victor Niederhoffer article had a less egregious, but similar problem a while ago and has been completely re-written since.Smallbones 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Just for reference the following is directly copied from the above site, and seems to be word-for-word what we had here.

"Biography of Robert R. Prechter, Jr.

Robert R. Prechter, Jr., CMT, began his professional career in 1975 as a Technical Market Specialist with the Merrill Lynch Market Analysis Department in New York. He has been publishing The Elliott Wave Theorist, a monthly forecasting publication, since 1979. Currently he is president of Elliott Wave International, which publishes analysis of global stock, bond, currency, metals and energy markets. He is also Executive Director of the Socionomic Institute, a research group. Mr. Prechter has won numerous awards for market timing, including the United States Trading Championship, and in 1989 was awarded the “Guru of the Decade’’ title by Financial News Network (now CNBC). He has been named ``one of the premier timers in stock market history’’ by Timer Digest, ``the champion market forecaster’’ by Fortune magazine, ``the world leader in Elliott Wave interpretation’’ by The Securities Institute, and ``the nation’s foremost proponent of the Elliott Wave method of forecasting’’ by The New York Times.

Mr. Prechter is author, co-author and/or editor of 13 books, including Elliott Wave Principle – Key to Market Behavior (1978), R.N. Elliott’s Masterworks (1980), The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics (1999), Conquer the Crash (2002), and Pioneering Studies in Socionomics (2003).

Since 1979, when he first addressed the subject, Bob has been exploring socionomics, the study and prediction of social trends in light of the Wave Principle and its implications for the social sciences. In 1999 created the Socionomics Institute, of which he is Executive Director. The institute is an independent think-tank whose mission is to develop socionomics as an academic discipline and to promote its commercial application. Recently, Mr. Prechter has made presentations on his socionomic theory to MIT, the London School of Economics and academic conferences.

In 2004, the Socionomics Foundation, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, was created to provide education and fund scholarly investigation into socionomic theory.

Mr. Prechter graduated from Yale University in 1971 with a degree in psychology. He served as the 21st president of the Market Technicians Association, and is a member of Mensa, Intertel, The Shakespeare Fellowship and the Shakespeare Oxford Society."

I made several edits and small contributions to Prechter's bio in recent weeks -- nothing I included was in violation of Wikipedia policy, copyright or otherwise. Smallbones implies otherwise, and he'll have the opportunity to back up what he says if I succeed in getting the page and its posting history undeleted. As for watered down criticism, I'll plead guilty once Wikipedia defines "watered down" as "removing a biased point of view."
Rgfolsom 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restore

OK. I have restored a set of edits which I hope are not copyvios. Admins please note:

-- RHaworth 02:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote not in article

The quotation you've included is not in the WSJ article you cite -- I've got a copy in front of me. What's more, the words have an obvious slant against Prechter and thus is completely out of place in the lead section. This is the bio of a living person, Smallbones -- ignoring me is one thing, but ignoring Wikipedia policy in this case may not be nearly as cost-free.

Rgfolsom 18:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It's quite interesting that you have the article in front of you.
please see http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/access/4338645.html?dids=4338645:4338645&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Aug+19%2C+1993&author=Power%2C+William&pub=Wall+Street+Journal&edition=Eastern+edition&startpage=A4&type=1995_1984&desc=Robert+Prechter+sees+his+3600+on+the+Dow--But+6+years+late
That's what the article said whether you like it or not. there's a slew of articles of a similar nature, and not just in the WSJ - Business Week, Fortune, etc.
I'll see if I can put them in, and everybody can see whether it's you or I who have the slant.
Smallbones 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I do have the article in front of me and the quote you posted is not in it. When you get a quote from the Wall Street Journal, then you cite the WSJ as your source. When you get an article summary from Proquest, you cite Proquest as the source and include the link. This is as basic as high school composition; Wikipedia's Manual of Style spells it out plainly.

And let's do talk about what's interesting. You didn't deny that the WSJ piece (or least your Proquest summary) is negative, and you do assure me that you want to post a slew of similar articles so that readers will see who has the slant. In other words, you're making it about me, Smallbones. You shouldn't do that. I politely remind you again that this is the bio of a living person. Readers don't come here to learn if you or I have a slant. Wikipedia has explicit warnings about grinding an axe on a page like this.

Prechter has been a public figure for more than 25 years -- by now the number of media clippings about him probably runs well into the thousands, and my guess is that the sum of the positive clippings still strongly outweighs the negative. Obviously there's a place on the page for "Criticism," and Wikipedia has guidelines to that end. But you're publicly suggesting that you intend to stack the deck to the negative side. That's just not a good idea.

Rgfolsom 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously abandoned any pretense of NPOV (and too many other Wikipedia policies to list). You typed in the abuse so quickly that some of it doesn't even make sense. If the administrators don't act quickly to stop your disruptive editing, I'll be making a request for arbitration.

Rgfolsom 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's everyone calm down and assume good faith in one another. There is no reason we can't settle this minor dispute in a mutually satisfactory manner. Gamaliel 23:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Gamaliel, I'm glad you've spoken up. Apologies for my heated tone. I didn't become a contributor to Wikipedia in order to carry in disputes on talk pages, yet this is where most of my time and words have gone -- and mostly to argue on behalf of Wikipedia policies, as best as I can understand them. I have read the assume good faith article. Look at Talk:Socionomics and you'll see how diligently I tried to meet Smallbones' demands, because I was assuming good faith. It got me nowhere.

You give constructive advice on how to properly cite sources. With Smallbones' comment in mind about posting a "slew of articles of a similar nature," can I assume that you looked closely at the citations he posted today on Prechter's page? May I also respectfully get your opinion on whether a NPOV would include seven references to Prechter's failed forecasts in the very first paragraph of his bio, vs. zero mention his successes?

I very much hope that you'll continue to weigh in on this page; I want collaboration that leads to good articles, not another second of revert wars and talk page disputes. Thanks again for trying to help.

Rgfolsom 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to put the documented truth in here?

from The Wall Street Journal, August 19, 1993

In early 1987, the "Elliott Wave" theorist from Georgia drew wide attention for his market forecasts. There he was on the cover of Barron's: "3600 on the Dow? That, Says Bob Prechter, Is Where We're Going." It was a bold prediction at a time when the Dow industrial average was barely at 2000.
Unfortunately, the Dow never got within 800 points of the target before the market crashed in October. To compound things, Mr. Prechter then turned into a superbear, causing his followers to miss rally after rally in subsequent years. The result: Mr. Prechter went from stock-market hero to punchline of in-crowd jokes.

Prechter is just terrible at predicting the stock market. It's not me that's saying this it is The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Business Week, and Esquire among others. I don't see why the 9 citations I put in should be reduced to 2. They were the only cites from major publications in this article.

Please do not accuse me of edit-warring on this page - I have only made 4 edits here and added a lot of information, and removed little if anything. All of my edits were reverted, taking out a lot of information.

Before I edited this page, it was essentially taken word-for-word directly from Prechter's web site (see above for details).

So please answer this question. If a user sees one of the world's worst stock pickers advertising on Wikipedia, how is he supposed to edit the article to put in the documented truth? Smallbones 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And Amen to that, Smallbones. I quite agree, as does Timer Digest. Perhaps "everyone is wrong" on this though hehehe. Punanimal 08:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Smallbones, you continue to insert flagrantly opinionated criticisms into the lead section of this biography, such as "Mr. Prechter went from stock-market hero to punchline of in-crowd jokes." This violates Wikipedia's policies regarding POV, bias, and undue weight. What's more, the article you cut and pasted from was already duly noted in the criticism section, which is where it belongs. Rgfolsom 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanispamcruftisement?

Will someone please remove the blatant advertising from the citations?

Elliott Wave International, P.O. Box 1618 Gainesville Georgia 30503

and

New Classics Library, 1996/2004, P.O. Box 1618 Gainesville Georgia 30503

I also have a real conflict of interest problem with the self-published book and periodical references ("New Classics Library" and "Elliott Wave International") ... that's just Robert Prechter talking about himself and his theories.

On a final note, you need an account to view the external reference citation ...

  1. ^ New York Times, Book Review, Best Sellers List, 11 August 2002.

... that link violates Wiki guidelines and should be removed per Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration.

Since the article is currently protected, would some Administrator please address these issues, i.e., make the appropriate changes? —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 12:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the addresses from the references used in the article, can one of the editors please suppli ISBN numbers for the books and I'll correct the references. Gnangarra 04:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Citing the publisher's location is in Template:Cite book, and supported by the top style guides (Chicago, MLA). As for self-publishing, the references meet Wikipedia's guidelines: "Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is... relevant to the self-publisher's notability." Finally, my talk page includes an exchange I had with an administrator regarding the NYT external link and other citations -- this person's comment was "nice work." Rgfolsom 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a side query, Rgfolsom, in your opinion what's the difference between self-published books and ... contributions on Wikipedia? I could simply engineer a citation by publishing a book on any subject I want. In fact, nobody can edit a book I self-publish but 'anyone' can edit my contributions on Wikipedia. So which is more authoritative? Punanimal 21:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 21:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
That's sort of an interesting question, though off the top of my head I'd say that the medium carries far less weight than does the literal source. Major newspapers are mediums with entire teams of editors & fact checkers, but their reporting is still often slanted and laughably wrong. Then there are individual sources like Shelby Foote, who was "self-published" in the sense that he wouldn't allow editors at his publisher to change a single word of his Civil War narrative -- yet his work is the absolute Gold Standard in terms of being an "authoritative" history.
--Rgfolsom 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

Per request, I've unprotected this article--hopefully, you've all sorted out your issues. If not, I have it watchlisted and will reprotect at the first sign of an edit war. AmiDaniel (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators please note

The page protection for the Prechter bio was put in place at the request of the mediator who is working with Smallbones and me in a related dispute. On Nov. 17, this mediator told both of us to cease and desist, and since that time I have made no comments on Talk:Robert Prechter.

But Smallbones not only failed to heed the mediator's request, he has now used my silence on Talk:Robert Prechter as a pretext to get the page protection removed. If this doesn't amount to bad faith and disruptive editing, then those phrases are meaningless. I welcome any guidance from administrators on these issues. Rgfolsom 19:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of bad faith.
Please do not remove a relevant quote taken from the front page of the Wall Street Journal or any other material just because you do not like the quote. You need to explain why you don't like the quote. If the WSJ wrote it, it is not POV to insert it in here and say "the WSJ wrote..."
Please do not re-insert the address along with the publisher's name that was removed by 2 other editors (not me) because they considered it advertising.
Please do address the concerns expressed by Marcika that you work for Prechter, Elliott Wave International and/or the Socionomics Institute/Foundation and thus have a conflict of interest Smallbones 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Just so I have this straight:

  • You DID want to make a mockery of the mediation process by flouting the mediator's directive to cease and desist the revert war on this bio,
  • You DID want to lobby until you got the protection on the Prechter bio removed that the mediator helped put in place,
  • You DID want to use my compliance with the mediator against me, as a pretext to get that protection removed,
  • But you do NOT want to be accused of bad faith?

Do I have it right, Smallbones?

No, no, no and no, you should not accuse me of bad faith, especially after you confirm that you are a writer who works for Prechter. Smallbones 11:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can recite chapter and verse of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to you all day -- I've done so before and you've ignored it. Look below at my comment to Punanimal, regarding COI in POV disputes: "Discuss the article, not the editor."

But the editor -- namely me -- is the only thing you want to discuss, which is why you posted my full identity on several Wikipedia pages.

Your edits have nothing to do with writing a good encyclopedia article. You frequently edit George Soros' bio. So why don't you go there and say he's "controversial" in the very first sentence? And why not move up the criticisms to the top section in the article proper?

Or, I could do it for you -- you know, follow you around the way you've followed me. Clearly Soros is a controversial figure, and he has been severely criticized by many people.

But wait, I guess I better not do that, because Wikipedia's policy says this: "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Do your edits to the Prechter bio fit that description, Smallbones? Were you being responsible and neutral when you made Criticism the largest and uppermost section of the article?

And by the way, I did answer your buddy Marcika's "concerns," and he didn't reply. Since you brought it up, why don't you explain why you saw fit to recruit him to fight your battles for you? Rgfolsom 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


The problem is Wikipedia:External links#Sites requiring registration ... no one can read that NYT article unless they REGISTER with the website ... you probably do not experience this problem because there is a HTTP cookie on your PC that logs you in automagically. Try using someone else's PC (call them on the telephone and talk them through getting to this article, or send them the URL by email), or go to your local public library and try clicking that link. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
ALL - Just for clarification, please refer to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, Wikipedia:Fancruft and Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement Punanimal 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Good idea about the COI page, Punanimal -- I read it with care before I began contributing to Wikipedia. It's part of the reason I didn't disguise my name or post under an anonymous IP address. But since you think COI is important, why don't you tell us how well you've abided by this guidance from Wikipedia:

COI in POV disputes

Another major case is a POV dispute. Underlying conflict of interest can clearly aggravate editorial disagreements, and it is common enough to see accusations of editing with an external agenda.

In that scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it.… Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

Discuss the article, not the editor. Got it?

Before I began contributing to Wikipedia, the articles on socionomics, the Elliott wave principle, and Prechter were full of flagrantly negative POV. I'm going to change that. I will do so in good faith according to Wikipedia's policies. Those pages (and others I edit) will read like good encyclopedia articles. I'm here to stay. Get used to it. Rgfolsom 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and citations

OK, I used {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}} tags to stop all the debates about location= (without the P.O. Box address, it's no longer spam), and to address the conflict of interest and point of view concerns that these are, in fact, Prechter's publications ... the New York Times article reference is sitting there ready for date= and page= citations (someone who is already registered at the NYT website will have to fill in the missing fields) ... and since I've had Enough Fun for one day, someone else can also go through the "Books" section (BTW, I suggest that it be renamed to "Bibliography") and insert {{cite book}} tags.

Now, everybody, please ... just {{chill}}! — 72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 23:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work with the citations. I like the {{chill}} template. Smallbones 09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bestseller claim

I think all the to-do about the bestseller claim just takes away from the main question: should people other than Robert Folsom be able to edit this article?

For what it is worth, it's clear that Conquering the Crash was a "bestseller" The Business Week reference is easily accessible:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_44/b3806033.htm

Smallbones 15:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove sources template

I have now supported the primary sources with reputable, third-party citations for every relevant assertion of fact in this bio. Look at it this way: A text with 22 sentences now includes the appearance of 18 freakin' footnotes. The primary sources tag should please be removed. Rgfolsom 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself but "the main question: should people other than Robert Folsom be able to edit this article?" Please look at the Rfd and see that there is a pretty clear consensus that other people should be able to edit this article - which is THE basic Wikipedia rule - anybody can edit. Also please see the "Unintended consequences" section under WP:COI#Editors who may have a conflict of interest. Are we agreed that I'm allowed to edit this article? Smallbones 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only are you allowed, but you are encouraged to edit any article ... to quote from Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (in case you haven't read it already):

Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

That is all I have to say about that. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 20:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Smallbones, you've got a huge axe to grind with technical analysis and market technicians. Your posting history proves this in neon lights. You've repeatedly sprinkled links and phrases like "pseudoscience" and "non-scientific" into articles related to technical analysis, even as you go around puffing up the articles related to efficient markets. Most other editors don't have the knowledge to see what you're up to, but I do and you know it.

The "anybody can edit" rule only works IF editors abide by other basic rules, namely good faith and NPOV. You fail those simple tests. You violated the mediator's directive to leave the Prechter article alone, and when I confront you with this fact all you say is "No, no, no, it's not bad faith!!" That's not an explanation, Smallbones -- it's stamping your feet in defiance.

You (and others) can lecture all you please about "ownership" of articles, as if that's somehow news to me. I'm not the one who front-loaded SEVEN negative references into the FIRST PARAGRAPH in the biography of a living person. Again I ask: what if I trotted over to the George Soros article and pulled a stunt like that? What would you say then about "THE basic rule in Wikipedia"? Rgfolsom 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for removing the source tag

Smallbones, I do not claim and I do not want ownership of the Prechter bio. If you want to make this a first-rate article, then I hope we can collaborate to make it happen.

That said, you need to please understand that I intend to abide by Wikipedia's policies, and that I will call out other editors who don't.

To understand what I mean, all you need to do is look at the lead section as it was before your most recent change. Like most other good Wikipedia biographies, it had a few defining facts about the past and present that make the person notable. Nothing about the U.S. Trading Championship, or the Trader's Hall of Fame, or Guru of the Decade, or any of the stuff you'd expect in the lead of a puff piece. It doesn't belong in the lead of this bio.

So I left out the flattering items for the same reason you should not say Prechter is "especially well known" for Black Monday. One day does not amount to a defining fact in a 30-year career of market analysis, least of all when you as an editor are making that assertion.

You might find comments from this Wikipedia essay useful:

You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited critical material must be removed immediately from both the article and the Talk page, and by extension any related Project pages. One defamation case could bankrupt the Foundation and see us shut down.
Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw. The policy on original research expressly forbids novel syntheses drawn from other sources.

I've said again and again that critical remarks should go into the Criticism section. If you disagree, I'm more than willing to consider your explanation regarding why. --Rgfolsom 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another reversion

You sound a bit more reasonable in your tone, but the fact remains you just completely reverted my contribution to the article. Is this the 12th time in a row?
Sorry, it's only 7 times (Dec.1, and Nov 29,28,16,15 (twice), and on Nov 6 or 7 when you reverted back to the copyright violation material that has since been removed. Since those versions have been removed, I'm probably missing 1 or 2 in the count) That's essentially every edit that I've made that you have reverted.Smallbones
Answering your question about why "especially well known" for 1987 calls should be included in the intro - The Wall Street Journal and Fortune and several other MAJOR media sources prominently mention this in major articles about the guy. It was - like it or not - the defining moment in Prechter's career.
The anonymous user 72....131 stated that the criticism section is by its very title POV. I think this is a correct, if strict, interpretation of Wikipedia rules. In other words there should be no "Praise" sections or "Criticism" sections. All material must be NPOV and integrated into a coherent whole.
The quote from the front-page article in the Wall Street Journal just has to be included. Most stock analysts would die for a front page WSJ article and a quote would be inevitable in any Wikipedia article about them. The fact that this one defines his career in terms of 1987 and then says that he has become the butt of jokes because of his prognostications only makes it more important.
The "laughably terrible" quote from Fortune does the same two things and shows that it is not just the WSJ saying this.
Leaving this article without sources from MAJOR media would be clearly out of line.Smallbones 13:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Please stay with me, I've got a lot to say. I think it will be worth your while.

I want you to notice that I have mentioned Prechter’s forecasting record only under "Prominence," to reflect how he did indeed become prominent. Otherwise I've avoided mention of his forecasts, but not because his record has been dismal in recent years. I could strongly argue that just the opposite is true when the record includes more than just the U.S. stock indexes.

The real reason I’ve stayed away from the track record is one that you yourself identified: "All material must be NPOV and integrated into a coherent whole."

You have no idea about how right you are; I had already given your point more thought that you could know. There are special problems in shaping a "coherent whole" with someone who forecast the markets, and those problems are especially acute with Prechter, because

  1. He has made literally thousands of forecasts over three decades,
  2. There’s a huge pile of “right,” “wrong,” and “maybe” forecasts to select from,
  3. There are thousands -- again, literally -- of quotable references about him in the media, some accurate, some inaccurate, some admire him, some condemn him.

The simple truth is, this much material means a Wikipedia editor could make Prechter out to be anything from an authentic genius to a complete lunatic. Pick the crayons you like and draw the picture you prefer. The more complicated truth has to do with the position I am in when describing Prechter. Even LexisNexis doesn’t include all the information that I can cite about the man. These cites are an accurate part of the historical record, but you couldn’t verify them short of a visit to EWI’s office.

Response You are just saying that there is no single truth about the guy. OK, but from WP:V
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
Let's just stick to verifiable sources. Smallbones 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of other notable accomplishments and episodes from Prechter’s career that I have yet to mention in the bio, which go beyond some "call" of his that proved wrong or right. For example, he clearly helped make technical analysis and pattern analysis far more widespread, and he single-handedly re-introduced Elliott wave analysis to Wall Street. That is a big deal. Forget that you don’t approve of technical analysis and try to see the accomplishment for what it is.

ResponseIt is certainly relevant to include a stock picker's record of picking stocks, the only challenge is to find a publicly available credible source. Would you object to me including Prechter's record as documented by Mark Hulbert or Barron's?Smallbones 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Several ago Prechter showed that Benoît Mandelbrot's Scientific American article about fractal patterns in the stock market included graphs that looked almost exactly like Elliott waves; he also showed that Mandelbrot knew this but failed to mention R.N. Elliott's work, which is a huge no-no in scientific research. Look it up; I'd give you the links, except I think you know why I'd rather not.

Response "a huge no-no"! This is just strange.Smallbones 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, there are the negative clippings about Prechter. Trust me, I've seen more than you have. But they don't belong in the lead of his Wikipedia bio. What's more, you can't seriously think that the two articles you've found are somehow "defining" -- no two articles could be. If you get a stack of 20 such references I could match your 20 and easily raise you by 100. This is the problem in playing that game. I won't play it.

Response Why do you say documented references from the Wall Street Journal and Fortune don't belong upfront? I'll certainly include a Wall Strret Journal, Fortune, and Barron's and see if you can match it.Smallbones 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The only "game" I want do want to play is the one that operates strictly according to Wikipedia's policies. It's the best way I know to get through the minefield of problems I spelled out above. Why do you think I've quoted those policies to you over & over again? There is no policy saying that a "Criticism" section is POV, Smallbones. I'd respectfully encourage you to look more closely at editor 72.75.93.131 before you endorse his positions.

I've made myself as clear as I can. From here we can work as collaborators to make good articles, or get Wikipedia's arbitration to sort it out once and for all. I know which path I'd rather take. --Rgfolsom 22:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response Let's start with the basics: Verifiability, Reputable sources, and NPOV. Also please be very familiar with WP:COI since you work for Prechter and have confirmed this. I'm sure any arbitrator will know about those. Smallbones 15:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over-heating! Some anger management needed!

Sheesh! Boy has this got heated. I would say that both sides have made good points, but in my view that balance hangs on the point that Smallbones raised above under WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. I'll quote the bit that caught my eye:

===Personal benefits ===
Of special concern are conflicts of interest involving editors who are paid to edit Wikipedia to promote the interests of their patron, or who receive or expect to receive any personal benefit from editing.
If you fit either of these descriptions:
  1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); or,
  2. you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia, as, for example, by being the owner, officer or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing;
… then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that all Wikipedia articles must represent views fairly and without bias. A conflict of interest may significantly and negatively affect Wikipedia's ability to meet this requirement of impartiality. It is for that reason that editors with an apparent conflict of interest may be treated with suspicion, despite our assume good faith policy.
If you have a conflict of interest, you should:
  1. avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  2. avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles, despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we strongly encourage you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia.
===Declaring an interest===
Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion. Disclaimer: Wikipedia gives no advice about whether or how to use its pages to post personal details. This guideline will only raise some pros and cons.
Advantages:
  • By declaring an interest, you pre-empt anyone outing you or questioning your good faith.
  • Most editors will appreciate your honesty.
  • You lay the basis for requesting help in having others post material for you.
Disadvantages:
  • Your declaration may be invoked against you at some point.
  • Your edits to the area in question may attract extra attention.
  • Your declaration will give you no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics. [1]
In the case of commercial editing (editing on behalf of a company):
  1. a disclosure enables you to ask openly for help in getting material posted and edited, but
  2. once your position is known, you will have to adhere stringently to neutral edits of affected articles, or no edits at all. Note that if you only correct bias against your company and its interests, and not bias in its favour, your editing will be different from that of a regular Wikipedian, who would be expected to do both.

Let's take a stance of good faith though. As a good-natured suggestion, Rgfolsom, I would say that your edits appear to suffer from a (perhaps unintentional) anger management problem. Maybe this is your writing style and it just comes across badly, but this view might be supported by observing your inolvement in edit-warring. Try and stick to arguing the subject, and not attacking fellow editors, particularly where you plainly have a conflict-of-interest problem. If you feel that people attack you, then try to rise above it and try to be less aggressive. It would probably help your case. But for the moment the vehemence of your tone hasn't done you many favors, in my opinion. Having said that, I note that you have toned it down a bit in your more recent posts. This is a good thing. CanaryInACoalmine 22:47 3 Dec 2006 (UTC)

I want to chime in in support of what Canary sang up there. R.G., you do have a massive conflict of interest here, and that does need to be addressed. Now, it is obvious that Smallbones doesn't think very highly of your boss; but that doesn't undo the fact that you are not the appropriate party to be editing the article, for the reasons Canary outlines. I've done a tiny morsel here and there to maintain some genuine neutrality; but you guys getting into a VULGARITY DELETED match here is not going to help; indeed, it makes things worse. And Smallbones, you are getting more than a bit overheated here, as well. This kind of flame war is very much destructive of the whole Wiki process. --Orange Mike 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both Canary and OrangeMike for their comments. I'd appreciate both of you keeping this on your watch list as 3rd and 4th parties will inevitably help make the article better. Yes, I do get angry when a paid editor reverts everything I edit in this article (and previously on socionomics). I apologize for the anger. Perhaps you can point out to me a better way to stop the POV PR/advertising/spam that has been going on in this article. I certainly haven't figured it out. Thanks again, Smallbones 09:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello Canary,
I see that this was the very first contribution you posted, so welcome.
It's interesting indeed that of all the places on Wikipedia, you select this one for an inaugural comment. I must say that your words have a somewhat familiar ring. You say you've read the exchanges on this talk page, so you surely noticed that certain other contributors took exception to my comments, yet did not identify what I said nor elaborate on why they objected -- perhaps you'll be good enough to do so, and please do pay attention to context.
I'm also curious about the long quote about COI, given that I've previously said here that I read the guidelines carefully. My question to you is, did you notice this comment from that page?
COI in POV disputes
Another major case is a POV dispute. Underlying conflict of interest can clearly aggravate editorial disagreements, and it is common enough to see accusations of editing with an external agenda.
In that scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it....Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.
If you did see it, can I conclude that you knew you shouldn't discuss the editor instead of the article, but that you did so anyway? Of course, if you didn't see it then pardon me. Still, in that case, the question becomes: How did you see so much without seeing the guideline that would have stopped you from discussing the editor instead of the article?
Rgfolsom 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
So much anger, Rgfolsom! It's up to you if you wish to calm down a bit and try and take the (apparent) rabidity out of your contributions. Otherwise, just keep digging until someone requests mediation! CanaryInACoalmine 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anger management 101

Smallbones, the Barron's cite & Hulbert quote is perfect -- I'm glad you used it. It makes Prechter look bad. You think you found a "reliable source," and you can the "reliable source" do the negative work.

In fact, you've made my point for me, dude. You picked your crayon and drew the picture you preferred. You should have done more digging and less drawing, or perhaps looked more closely at what you decided to overlook.

Barron's took Hulbert's data grossly out of context. And by repeating the quote you repeat the error. Not because I think so, but because of what Hulbert himself said at the time. In the NYT, Oct. 4 '98 p. C7, Hulbert's "Strategies" column listed the five "best-performing market timing strategies of the investment newsletters monitored by the Hulbert Financial Digest." Prechter's Elliott Wave Theorist made the list. Here' what else Hulbert said:

According to Prof. Jeremy Siegel at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, stocks failed to keep pace with T-bills in 25 percent of the rolling five-year periods since 1802. The situation is barely better when investors hold for 10 years; 20 percent of those periods failed to keep up with T-bills. In fact, to get the failure rate down to just five percent -- a benchmark for an acceptable bet -- investors must be willing to hold stocks for more than 20 years. No wonder so few investors have sufficient staying power to buy and hold….
But there are a select few market-timing newsletters -- just five among all those that I have tracked over the last 15 years -- that have shown that they can at least immunize investors, relatively speaking, from more risk than the performance they forfeit in the process. The Elliott Wave Theorist, for example, has had an annualized return of 12 percent since 1982 -- 3.6 percentage points shy of the Wilshire 5000, but at just about half the risk.

When Hulbert speaks for his own data, well, "a different picture of Prechter emerges" is the least one can say. (Orangemike, I respectfully I hope you're following this.)

What's more, that data you quoted is eight years old, which is obviously BEFORE the 50% decline in the S&P 500 in 2000-2002, when Prechter had investors OUT of stocks, during which time his Hulbert ratings became EVEN BETTER.

By July 2003, according to Peter Brimelow, Prechter had pulled "ahead of the Wilshire 5000 on a risk-adjusted basis over the 23 years that the HFD has been following him."

Here's what else Brimelow said:

Prechter himself is highly educated and much respected by his fellow technicians. His recent two-volume study "Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction" shows a mind-boggling range of reading, from rock music (Prechter once played in a band) to higher mathematics.

Nice quote, don't you agree? It would look great over on the Socionomics page.

Now, I'm going to repeat myself and say that I didn't want to go here. You did. And because you did, it allowed me to slam-dunk the point I made to begin with.

In fact, your references are incomplete by Wikipedia's standards, and amount to yet more POV, which Wikipedia especially forbids in a bio of a living person.

So, I'll go ahead and get the more accurate and up-to-date Hulbert data in place on the page.

That said, I'll be ready to stop posting track record stuff as soon as you are. One man's "reliable source" is someone else's shamelessly inaccurate misquotation. Rgfolsom 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 8th reversion in a row

Dear Mr. Folsom,

That was your 8th reversion in a row of my edits on this page

user:CanaryInACoalmine and User:Orangemike have very politely asked that you not edit this article because of your conflict of interest (working for Robert Prechter).

May I ask you not to accuse me of misquoting as well. Some quotes that I'm sure you'll find interesting follow.


PETER BRIMELOW Elliott Wave's Prechter sounds the alarm Oct 20, 2005 [[1]]

“by the Hulbert Financial Digest's count, the EWFF's trader's portfolio has endured a staggering annualized loss of 18.1% over the 20 years through September. (EWFF split off in 1999 from Prechter's Elliott Wave Theorist, which no longer offers specific portfolio advice. But the two seem to work in tandem.)”


PETER BRIMELOW Is Prechter's bearishness permanent? CBS.MarketWatch.com Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Jun 30, 2003

Prechter's specialty is the Elliott Wave, an esoteric theory about the movement of markets and practically everything else besides. It's fatally easy to poke fun at.

But Prechter himself is highly educated and much respected by his fellow technicians. His recent two-volume study "Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction" shows a mind-boggling range of reading, from rock music (Prechter once played in a band) to higher mathematics. [[2]]


Ride That Wave! Is Bob Prechter's long-forecast economic and market collapse finally at hand?

By Jonathan R. Laing Barron’s , October 26, 1998

Such lurid forecasts make Prechter easy to dismiss. After being accorded guru status on Wall Street in the 'Eighties for being one of the few prognosticators to predict the huge 1982 liftoff in the stock market and to stay aboard for most of the ride until just before the 1987 Crash, Prechter has been dead wrong about the market practically ever since. For he has remained timorously invested mostly in Treasury bills for the past 10 years, blowing better than 200% gains in the Dow and the S&P 500 Index. According to numbers compiled by the Hulbert Financial Digest, the Elliott Wave Theorist timing strategy would have yielded a 12% annual return from the end of 1982 through August 31 of this year, compared with 15.6% for the value-weighted Wilshire 5000 and the 16.6% annual return logged by the S&P. That's a huge underperformance, even taking into account the fact that Prechter's strategy was only half as risky as being fully invested at all times.

Smallbones 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation is not far over the horizon

I'm with Orange Mike and CanaryInACoalMine on this one. There's just too much personal antagonism here, too much jeering, too many playground taunts, too much calling to account, too much bullying and indignance, too much traction applied to one or more ends of the donkey, and too much aggression. Aggression, brute-force and anger are simply not going to help anyone's cause.

This page will therefore inevitably attract a Request for Mediation unless things change ... fast.

In the interests of full disclosure (call it an attempt at self-awareness), I would admit I am far from perfect and am striving to become a better Wikipedian. We all start from somewhere.

What I want to achieve here is a civil and constructive resolution to this debate. Why me? Well, it seems the job needs doing. I will therefore continue to withhold my opinion about this subject, I will make no more contributions to the article and will not make any inciteful comments about other editors.

In this light I would like to recommend the following pages to fellow editors, which I have been reading in order to accelerate my understanding of Wikipedia. I consider them both essential reading for the health of this debate:

If edit wars continue, if conflict of interest continues to be just brushed aside, I will add a RfM tag to this page.

Those editors who do try and bring about peace and cosmic eternal yogic love will be nominated by me for membership of the Harmonious editing club.

It's about learning to work together people, and respecting each other's right to views without venomous recrimintations resulting. I know we can do better than that, and I'm doing my part by posting this. Heaven forbid that THIS somehow provokes a withering response!!!

Can we skip to the part where we all help each other write the right article?? Punanimal 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this quote from Wikipedia:Edit_war:
Reversion wars between competing individuals are contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, reflect badly on both participants, and often result in blocks being implemented due to violations of the three revert rule.
[...]
The harmonious editing club recommends reverting only once, and then taking it to talk.
* Dissenting persons might see reason in one's approach to a particular issue
* Objective users may more easily step in and attempt to curb egregious edits (See: MeatBall:DefendEachOther).
* In emotionally heated cases, introspection and detachment from the subject oftentimes serve to cool tempers.
* One avoids the risk of violating Wikipedia policy and unintentionally reverting four times within 24 hours (WP:3RR).
I'm not taking sides here. This applies to ALL editors. Play nicely - or don't play at all. Punanimal 20:40, 5th December (2006)


Punanimal, I'll repeat here what I said on the socionomics talk page: I want a better article. You've called for civility before, though you continued to discuss the editor instead of the article. It's not a "withering response" for me to point this out. If bygones can be bygones, so be it. If you need a good idea for how to make this "the right article," then please ask -- I've got plenty of 'em.
Rgfolsom 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complete rewrite

I've done a complete rewrite here, trying to keep everything as balanced as I possibly can. I would appreciate editing help by all (especially with all those d-d references). Except, please, - I do not believe that people whose salaries are paid by Robert Prechter should edit the article (in accordance with WP:COI). It would be especially bad to see yet another reversion. Smallbones 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I just don't have the impression that you're paying attention when it comes to track record, even after I used YOUR example to prove why it's a bad idea. So keep reading, I've done more of the same. But I still wonder, Smallbones, how come you include the Barron's quote of Hulbert, instead of Hulbert quoting his own data?
And how come you want to include the negative Brimelow quote -- which is about Hulbert's "Trader's Portfolio" -- instead of Brimelow's positive quote about Hulbert's "Risk Adjusted" data?
Simple questions, Smallbones… please explain yourself.
You also continue to ignore the very guidance you quote -- WP:COI does not prohibit my contributions to this page, but it does tell you to discuss the article instead of the editor (me).


Why do you tell me to stop posting when Wikipedia doesn't agree? And why do you disagree with Wikipedia about discussing the editor instead of the article? Who's really trying to silence editors around here?
Simple questions, Smallbones… please explain yourself.
As for why I'm reverting your "balanced" rewrite, I'll let Wikipedia reply:
"Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone… The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
Keeping "doesn't overwhelm the article" in mind, I quote:
  1. "was much criticized following the crash."
  2. "Since 1987 his predictions of a severe depression and bear markets have also been much critisized [sic]."
  3. "He has made unclear claims to have advised his newsletter subscribers to exit the market before the crash."
  4. "Prominent media found fault with his 1987 prognostications."
  5. "Mr. Prechter went from stock-market hero to punchline of in-crowd jokes."
  6. "… Prechter was predicting a great depression …"
  7. "Most people haven't heard about this brand of voodoo since Robert Prechter… The Elliott theory falls at about the midpoint of wave looniness."
  8. "by the Hulbert Financial Digest's count, the EWFF's trader's portfolio has endured a staggering annualized loss…"
  9. "That's a huge underperformance, even taking into account the fact that Prechter's strategy was only half as risky as being fully invested at all times…."
There we have it, Smallbones -- you sure kept things "as balanced as I possibly can." That's nine negative citations, vs. one link from Bear Market Central. How neutral and encyclopedic of you.
By the way, I also noticed this sentence you wrote.
"His first prediction of a falling market made to the general public was published on October 20, the day after the crash."
Problem is, your WSJ references were NOT direct quotations, did NOT include the names of the writers, and did NOT include page numbers. In fact, in footnote number 14, you put Prechter's name as the writer.
Here, I've got an idea. I tracked down a couple of real and fully cited quotes, so feel free to use them on your next revert. They're not fuzzy Proquest summaries, they're the real item -- yellowed paper and ink articles, before me here on my desk. Do be sure to notice the date; these stories were on the street when the market opened on Black Monday.
Tim Metz and Beatrice E. Garcia, page one, Monday 19 October 1987, Wall Street Journal.
"Similarly, Robert Prechter, the most celebrated of the current crop of stock market gurus, was telling his telephone call-in clients… that the market has been falling so dangerously fast that the clients should 'stand aside' and await his next update."
Barbara Reynolds (interview), page 15A, Monday 19 October 1987, USA Today.
"USA TODAY: What should investors do now to protect themselves from losses? [The Dow had big losses in the previous week.]
PRECHTER: Well, my opinion, on Oct. 5, was that they should have sold right then, when the Dow was at 2640, or as close to that as possible. Anybody following the work I do got out of the market then, or close to that point, and is currently on the sidelines.
USA TODAY: So you're telling everyone to get out of the market?
PRECHTER: I'm not telling everyone to get out. I told them to get out. There's a big difference. And right now, those people are very happy. Because they're going to save 10% losses on their accounts."
Okay, so Prechter was wrong. They saved MORE than 10% losses on their accounts -- maybe you can list that among the negatives that you like to include. And I mean it about using the quotes on your next revert; if you don't, I'll use them on mine. --Rgfolsom 00:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
response I suppose those quotes deserve a response. From the WSJ "stand aside" is not the same as "sell" I clearly means 'wait.'
From USA Today - he's saying that he said to sell on Oct. 5. WSJ (to be added below) says that he was saying to buy on Oct. 6 or later. When asked point blank above whether people should sell - he does NOT answer "yes, sell" He answers "I'm not telling everyone to get out. I told them to get out. There's a big difference." A big difference indeed.
BTW, telling somebody to sell on the morning of Oct.19, 1987 wouldn't have done anybody any good. The market went almost straight down 23%, with many orders going unfilled, and many not even confirmed for a week. Smallbones 13:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Request for Mediation imminent.
Thanks for another taste of your perspective, Mr Folsom, but please read

1. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Close_relationships "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[1] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to it. As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article." 2. WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest "edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged." [...] "Your declaration will give you no rights as an advocate. You may even be cautioned or, in extreme cases, told to stay away from certain topics. [3]" [...] "^ Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not makes it clear that Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy. If you want to be an advocate for better topic coverage in an area, the conventional route is to join a related WikiProject, or start a fresh one. If you want to spread your own opinions, you are in the wrong place for that." [...] 3. Conflict of interest#Consequences_of_ignoring_this_guideline

Unintended consequences.
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to delete it or to control its content. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light by other editors. Therefore, don't create articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

Violation of these guidelines is continuing, in my opinion, irrespective of the validity or substance of Smallbones' edits. Plus (to address your next point): discussing the editor is acceptable where the editor's behavior, conflict of interest and/or eligibility are material issues. These fundamental issues challenge your eligibility for contributing to this and related topics and your edit-warring makes you culpable. They are more fudamental than any other issue you raise. They cannot be applied selectively or "after" Smallbones has taken you up on your substantive queries. They come first. Deflection isn't enough. It is also self-evident that no other editor (that I am aware of, with my small brain and limited cognitive skills) shares your views or is defending your case. The direction of the conflict is pretty clear. COULD WE HEAR FROM OTHER EDITORS TOO PLEASE? ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE?? Mediation request sadly imminent but only in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which I advise everyone here to read. And of course I will abide by the RfM's conclusions because this is all my opinion. CanaryInACoalmine 09:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Avoiding a full RfM - let's get the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal involved.
OK, here's a slightly defter way of doing it. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/Robert_Prechter. I've avoided a full RfM by finding this more discreet route. I've also asked for a mediator's input as to whether I am following the correct procedure. CanaryInACoalmine 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Canary, you don't need to drop your comments into the middle of mine to make your point. I'll read everything you say if you simply follow the talk page conventions.
You can take the mediation or mediation cabal route, but I suggest that first you do some more due diligence regarding Smallbones and me. You may save time that you'd later regret having wasted. While you're at it, take a good long look at his posting history, and at mine as well. I know how to write a good article, and how to address very thorny topics from a neutral point of view. It's all on the record.
Previously you said Smallbones and I both made "good points" about our positions on the article. But that's ALL you said about the article. Virtually everything else you've said is about the editor -- me. This doesn't come "first" by virtue of you saying that it does. If anything, Wikipedia's expressed guidance to you is that it should come AFTER a complete exchange of views about the article. I'm ready for that when you are. --Rgfolsom 14:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
This may come as a surprise, but I positioned my comments where I did for the benefit of an audience of more than one person. Their positioning was actually relevant to the point I felt I was making. But I'll omit to reinstate their original position.
Regarding why I refuse to engage with making material points, well, that's the nature of mediation. My issue is with what I believe is the very unnecessary unpleasantness of the debate here, not the substantive content of the debate. It's a meta-concern. That's what mediation is about.
Secondly, I disagree with your last point. If an editor is ineligible, they are ineligible. There's no "oh but just this one point" cluase. Since I have no authoritative opinion on whether you are eligible, however, I have submitted my request for unofficial mediation. If this fails to produce any meaningful conclusion, however, I will skip Mediation (which has already failed to produce any conclusion) and go straight to Arbitration. A more aggressive moderator would have gone straight for Arbitration, but I do not claim any special pleading here.
This might also surprise (both parties), but regardless of my own views on this topic, I would like to achieve a meaningful resolution no the issue of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, either way. If my view is the one that is voted against, then that's fine. I accept and accede to the due Wikipedia process, which even now I cannot claim perfect knowledge of. I'm not sure any of us can. CanaryInACoalmine 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Re-introduces Elliott," No falsehoods

I've summarized Prechter's efforts to publish R.N. Elliott's works, and the other ways Elliott analysis became visible.

As for a more important issue, I need to be clear, Smallbones: You have published falsehoods in the biography of a living person. I had specifically identified the problem on the talk page and removed the offending text from the article. But you reverted the article to include those falsehoods, to wit:

1. "His first prediction of a falling market made to the general public was published on October 20, the day after the crash."

I've read both WSJ articles you cited, listed as footnotes 14 and 15. They have absolutely nothing to do with your sentence. In other words, your references don't refer to the "facts" you assert. Furthermore, the USA Today quotation previously showed that your assertions were flat-out wrong. You re-posted "facts" that were a proven fiction.

2. "He has made unclear claims to have advised his newsletter subscribers to exit the market before the crash."

I've read the Investopedia page you cited. Yet here your reference has everything to do with your sentence, namely by proving the opposite of what you say: Prechter did CLEARLY "advise his subscribers to get out on Friday, October 2, 1987…The following Monday -- and the ensuing two and a half weeks -- saw the mighty index drop to 1738.74 in an astounding decline of more than 34%...Clients who took Prechter's advice to get out missed the sickening ride down and no doubt felt deeply indebted to him."

You forged the meaning of your own reference. Investopedia says Prechter clearly helped subscribers, which for you becomes "Prechter made unclear claims…"

response perhaps its a bit subtle, so let me explain this in detail. Prechter DID NOT claim to call the crash in the Investopedia article. They DID NOT quote him on this even though they clearly could have if they wanted to and he could have said straight out "I called the crash." Instead they cited a fairly minor publication which said POST-crash that Prechter called the crash. That's pretty unclear to me why such an important point would be handled in such an indirect manner. Also in the other reference “Nobody specifically predicted a ‘crash’ before it started, including me. But I did tell people to sell right when the sentiment indicators showed the majority bullish.” That's got to be considered unclear. In the first half he says he didn't call the crash, and in the second half he implies that he did. Smallbones 13:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not "vandalism" to remove falsehoods from the biography of a living person, Smallbones. Please stop and think about what you're doing. There's no policy that Wikipedia takes more seriously than this one. Rgfolsom 05:22 8 December 2006

[edit] Self-restraint and Being Fair

Rgfolsom, I certainly agree with you, although I have not checked the references in detail like you have; I'm just taking your word for it, out of good faith. "Fair play" is what's needed from all parties. Wikipedia should be used to inform and to share, accurately and without weasel words. If unintentional inaccuracies occur, then fine, the Wiki process clears them up and we all agree to that by participating; and because of the subjectivity/objectivity problem sometimes we are unaware of bias in our words, or that they would appear as weasel words.

The particular trouble is that in this case the perception of accuracy by each party is (apparently) divergent, and that the subject of disagreement is (ultimately) money, stuff that can produce the most powerful emotions. So in my opinion the solution is maybe not to argue about accuracy, but to try and find some other guiding principle(s) and to agree which one(s) take(s) precendence.

The key "meta issue", as I see it, is that Wikipedia's status in the public psyche is unclear. Is it just a harmless bit of lightweight fun, that can have no significant consequences? In which case we could live with a little inaccuracy and perhaps good-natured promotion of agendas. Oh, and maybe humor too!

But what if Wikipedia has somehow acquired the status of some kind of authority? Can we be sure that it has or hasn't? And can we know who is going to read an article, and how much they will be influenced by it? And what effect that might have on their life and behavior? These questions are important and the answer to them must surely be "we don't yet know - and maybe never will".

So what duty of care does an editor have, even unknowingly? I'll come to that in a moment.

What's unique is that Wikipedia gives people who are inexperienced in the subtleties and complexities of editing and biography (of which there are many) equal standing with entries written by people who are deeply experienced in such pursuits. Unconsciously incompetent amateurs rub shoulders with consciously incompetent acolytes who comingle with consciously competent and, even unconsciously competent journeymen. Whatever the degree of one's self-awareness or competence, it's important to get it right, to be fair and to hold back on any issue of doubt; hold oneself back, I mean. And if we find others giving us cues to hold back, we should check ourselves, not just carry on blasting away. Let's treat caution from others as a signal to reflect a little on whether we're sure that our opinion is REALLY an objective fact. What is objectivity anyway? WP, in my take, hinges on the subjectivity/objectivity problem. If everyone agrees on something, is it objectively true, or is it just a mass delusion and therefore infectious subjectivity!? But I digress a little here.

We should therefore adopt not just all the policies of NPOV, good faith and so forth, but also a policy of self restraint where an issue becomes contentious. As well as that, I have adopted a policy where I will not write something about someone that I would not like to see written about myself.

I'd be interested for people's thoughts on this. If there is official WP policy on this topic, then please guide me. We're all learners here.

And PLEASE let's all try and take the heat out of this debate. It's only Wikipedia man!!!

Just a few thoughts which I hope make sense. CanaryInACoalmine 09:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 09:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Canary, one of the references is easy to check, just click the link and read the page. As for the WSJ articles, I'll post the text here on this page if you want -- the articles are brief. As for the authority of Wikipedia, it's the most heavily used information site on the Internet. Its content matters. I try to think about Wikipedia in the way that Wikipedia thinks about itself, which is to say, editors should know and follow policy.
Biographies of living persons are serious indeed: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons...We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages."
This policy is easy to understand and follow. Violations of it are easy to recognize, too.
--Rgfolsom 15:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input CanaryInACoalmine 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 15:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please do post the 2 WSJ articles. Smallbones 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It's good of you to say "please," Smallbones, but... those articles were your references. Shouldn't you be the person who posts or at least quotes from the articles on behalf of what you wrote?
--Rgfolsom 21:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It would help your case, Rgfolsom, if your earlier offer of help didn't lead to ... attack. WP strongly recommends not ambushing people. Punanimal 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 00:44, 9 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)
Here are the 2 WSJ articles. 1st I should apologize for the confusion, I think after reading them both you can see the source of confusion. Folsom, who claims to have these in yellowed paper version could certainly have helped avoid some of this. Also I will never fully trust colleagues' memories and internet sources again without personally checking it out (even if it costs me $10).
2nd, it should be clear from these that Prechter did NOT call the crash, at least not loud enough that the Wall Street Journal could hear it, even though they considered him the major bull forecaster of the market.
3rd in the part of the original article that was not retracted the WSJ says that Prechter was recommending BUYING after Oct. 6. Smallbones 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =

The Crash of '87: Bull Market Guru Predicts Further Dow Average Fall The Wall Street Journal, 210 words Oct 20, 1987

Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Oct 20, 1987 GAINESVILLE, Ga. -- Robert Prechter, the bull market's most bullish guru, joined the bears late yesterday, predicting a further 240-point drop before the Dow Jones Industrial Average stabilizes. In his first taped forecast yesterday morning, Mr. Prechter, editor of the Elliott Wave Theorist, a popular market newsletter based here, said he expected support on the industrial average at around 2100. Two hours later, at 12:30 p.m., Mr. Prechter told callers that he would "like to see a close over 2100 today." But at 2:30, Mr. Prechter said he expected to see a support level between 1700 and 1800. In an update after the market closed -- down 508, at 1738.74 -- Mr. Prechter predicted that the next support level would be 1500. Mr. Prechter, who has long predicted that the industrial average would climb to above 3600 by 1988, then experience a cataclysm more dramatic than in 1929, now says yesterday's action "underscores the magnitude of what lies ahead for the new bear market in stocks." Mr. Prechter could not be reached for comment yesterday. Less than two weeks ago, Mr. Prechter said that if the industrial average dropped to near 2300, it would represent "an ideal buy spot." (See: "Corrections & Amplifications: Robert Prechter" -- WSJ Oct. 22, 1987)

Corrections & Amplifications: Robert Prechter The Wall Street Journal, 78 words Oct 22, 1987

Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Oct 22, 1987 ROBERT PRECHTER, editor of the market newsletter Elliott Wave Theorist, was incorrectly identified as the source of tape-recorded telephone comments on the stock market in an article published Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal. The comments should have been attributed to Daniel Ascani, a market analyst based in Newport Beach, Calif. The error resulted from a mixup in telephone numbers. (See: "The Crash of '87: Bull Market Guru Predicts Further Dow Average Fall" -- WSJ Oct. 20, 1987)

[edit] ==

[edit] More things to think about

Please see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and Wikipedia:No personal attacks especially Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples_that_are_not_personal_attacks which I quote here for everyone's ease of reference:

Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:

  • Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
  • Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.
  • A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism.

CanaryInACoalmine 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC) 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have We Achieved A Compromise Now?

I just reviewed the latest re-write of the main article. In my opinion it seems fair and balanced, without undue emphasis on either view. Of course, you may disagree with me, but I think that if I was the subject of the article, I couldn't find fault.

Dare I ask ... have we achieved a compromise now? Or will the edit war continue until the outcome of the arbitration process? CanaryInACoalmine 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 09:30, 09 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP violation

Your edits include inaccuracies, ridicule, and name calling; this is not in keeping with a biography written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and violates WP:BLP. Wikipedia's 3RR policy does not apply to the removal of such edits, so I can and will remove them as often as they appear. --Rgfolsom 14:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very clear
"The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material."
You should also re-read the section on "Using the subject as a source" [3]. This includes you since you are the employee of Prechter.
Smallbones 14:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)