Talk:Robert Prechter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robert Prechter article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Talk page archives

Contents

[edit] Arbcom

The Robert Prechter article was part of an Arbitration Committee decision in March 2007. Text of decision Rgfolsom 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Elliott Wave Theorist (EWT)

I do not think merging the EWT article is a good idea. That article is about a publication that is notable on its own merits; in the next several days I will make edits and include references that satisfy Wikipedia's standards. Thanks, --Rgfolsom 19:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in its present state is indistinguishable from Prechter's work. Without him, it has no notability. This merger is long overdue, in my opinion. (You are of course welcome to prove me wrong.) --Orange Mike 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the now-posted rewrite of the the Elliott Wave Theorist meets the general notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," thus a merger with Robert Prechter would be inappropriate. --Rgfolsom 16:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits and added references to The Elliott Wave Theorist show that it has received significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources, thus should not be merged with Robert Prechter. I am removing the tag; please see Talk:The Elliott Wave Theorist.--Rgfolsom 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malkiel's errors

THF has brought his anti-technical analysis bias to yet another article, which also by coincidence is (yet another) article that I frequently edit.

Malkiel was dismally ignorant and or laughably wrong in describing Prechter's 1987 forecast -- the errors alone in the book disqualify it for use anywhere in this article, although the POV doubly disqualifies it. THF can educate himself about what Prechter actually did say before the October 1987 crash by reading the archive of this talk page. He'll learn the same things smallbones did.--Rgfolsom 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Malkiel's book qualifies as a reliable source. If you have a reliable source saying Malkiel is wrong, feel free to insert it, but the test for Wikipedia is verifiability. It's absolutely true that Malkiel criticized Prechter, and NPOV requires its inclusion: Malkiel is a bigger name than Prechter is. THF 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

THF has brought his anti-technical analysis bias to yet another article, which also by coincidence is (yet another) article that I frequently edit.

Malkiel was dismally ignorant and or laughably wrong in describing Prechter's 1987 forecast -- the errors alone in the book disqualify it for use anywhere in this article, although the POV doubly disqualifies it. THF can educate himself about what Prechter actually did say before the October 1987 crash by reading the archive of this talk page. He'll learn the same things smallbones did.--Rgfolsom 04:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Malkiel's book qualifies as a reliable source. If you have a reliable source saying Malkiel is wrong, feel free to insert it, but the test for Wikipedia is verifiability. It's absolutely true that Malkiel criticized Prechter, and NPOV requires its inclusion: Malkiel is a bigger name than Prechter is. THF 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The deletion of a notable point of view that satisfies WP:RS and WP:V violates WP:NPOV. I thus add the tag.
Those interested in reading what Malkiel had to say can see the material on Google Books. THF 04:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Malkiel's book is dead wrong about Prechter and 1987, the fact checkers at Malkiel's publisher should have been ashamed of themselves. Here are a couple of reliable sources -- I've got others as well. Barbara Reynolds (interview), page 15A, Monday morning, October 19, 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.
Also see here:
In late September and early October 1987, Robert Prechter saw three conditions that had not occurred since the top of 1976….It was enough to cause Prechter to advise his subscribers to get out on Friday, October 2, 1987 (according to the article "Black Monday Postscript," published in S&C Volume 5 Issue 11) (see Figure 1). The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at 2640.99. 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%. October 19 became known as Black Monday and set the record for the largest one-day percentage drop - a startling 23%. Clients who took Prechter's advice to get out missed the sickening ride down and no doubt felt deeply indebted to him.
Maybe next time you'll ask.--Rgfolsom 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Prechter's ability to retroactively change his predictions is impressive, but his actual position on October 5 that there was a "50/50" chance of a "10%" drop (with the other 50% being a rise to 3600), as Malkiel documents. And I note that you're not contesting the fact that Prechter then changed his position to claim the market would go to 400, and thus missed the post-crash bull market.
More importantly, you have once again vandalized an appropriate tag in bad faith. There is clearly an NPOV dispute, so the NPOV tag remains until consensus is reached. Take it to arbitration if you don't like the tag, or fix the NPOV problem, but you don't get to unilaterally own the article and veto the tag. THF 05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone posted this dispute on the Third Opinion board, so I thought I would throw in my opinion to hopefully help you guys settle this dispute. First of all, it is important to distinguish that there is a dispute in the first place. There is a dispute between you guys, and a dispute between Malkiel and some of the other historians/sources which Rgfolsom quoted above. The fact that such debate exists in the first place is worthy of mentioning in the article. Regardless of whether or not anyone believes Malkiel to be incorrect in his fact-checking is irrelevant. That is, unless you can find a source directly disputing or criticizing Malkiel's point of view (a review of his book perhaps), in which case such a refute should also be included in the article. Either way, mentioning Malkiel's point of view is important in creating a neutral and broad article, however flawed his opinion may or may not be. What is important however, is that Malkiel's point of view is expressed as such, and within quotation marks (otherwise a casual reader might interpret it to be fact rather than one person's opinion). A particular editor's opinions of said content is fairly irrelevant: what is important is whether or not it is verifiable and from a reliable source.
I hope my third opinion has helped a little bit. I admit to knowing very little about the stock market, so if it seems something went completely over my head let me know. I'd be happy to discuss the matter further if need be. Drewcifer3000 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected and moved the Malkiel reference -- Malkiel's description of Prechter's 1987 forecast in truth gives Prechter credit for the Oct. 5 sell signal, a fact which THF had distorted in the article.--Rgfolsom 15:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not what Malkiel says. I've corrected it. Rgfolsom gives no explanation for why WP:LEAD should not be followed. THF 16:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I know exactly what Malkiel said, and I also know that you're not arguing facts and the accuracy of sources. You're actually claiming that a person's own notability is less relevant than the "notability" that comes from being the "target" of another person of greater notability. That's a perverse corollary of the argument from authority fallacy. It's also rubbish.
What's more, you distort Malkiel's text beyond recognition. Prechter's sell recommendation applied to the vast majority of his subscribers (and market participants, for that matter) -- Malkiel in truth gave Prechter "credit" for telling "traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell." No reader would ever know that from the comment you put in Malkiel's mouth, which is that he "singled out Prechter's inaccurate 1987 stock market predictions" because "shortly before the October crash, Prechter advised long-term institutional investors to hold for a target of 3686…"
Your characterization of Malkiel in the article's lead is also mistaken. Nothing you've included in this article is "accurate" or even remotely defensible -- "comprise" demands the consent of both parties, and you have nothing of the kind from me.--Rgfolsom 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
When you reverted me, I sought a third opinion instead of edit warring. The third opinion agreed with me. If you wish to escalate, and seek additional comment, please do so, but you're being tendentious by just edit warring and playing Argument Clinic on the talk page. THF 17:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The third opinion agreed that Malkiel should be in the article, and I have respected that opinion -- Malkiel is in the article. I even went to the trouble of properly sourcing the quote. And to call you on misstating Malkiel's account is not "argument clinic" -- you're obliged to acknowledge what I said, or explain why I'm mistaken.--Rgfolsom 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
You're mistaken, because as has been explained twice to you above, I have accurately quoted Malkiel, and you are improperly arguing that Malkiel is wrong. WP:LEAD requires the inclusion of notable points of view, not just those of editors who work for Prechter. THF 17:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So it appears my opinion might have caused more headaches then it solved... I am by no means a judge and jury on this kind of thing, but I'd like to help nonetheless. Although I did state that I think it is important to have Malkiel's opinion expressed, I also said it would be best to have a direct quote (which there is not) and to preface that direct quote by saying it is his opinion (which the entry kinda sorta does). If there are criticisms of Malkiel's opinion (that is, from a published, verifiable, and reliable source) that should be included too. As the entry stands, I'm not necessarily agreeing with either party. I think a more carefully-worded entry would not only be a nice compromise, but would adhere to Wikipedia policy anyways. But to say that Malkiel's opinion should be completely ignored is silly, since he seems to be a prominent figure in the industry. I hope my comments have helped. Drewcifer3000 19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drewcifer, please know that I really do want to respect the opinion of other editors who are trying to help -- that's obvious true in your case. If I draft a different sentence for the article with a quote from Malkiel and show it to you first here on the talk page, would you be willing to tell me if it comes closer to the kind of compromise you mention?--Rgfolsom 20:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Definitely! In fact, since the entry seems so disputed, it would probably be better to figure out how to word it here rather than going through tons of revisions and reverts on the main page. My opinion is no more important than everyone else's here, so that would give everyone an opportunity to work collaboratively and towards a good compromise (this is a collaborative encyclopedia afterall). Drewcifer3000 20:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
How about this in place of the current Malkiel sentence:

Speaking about Black Monday, Burton Malkiel said that Prechter deserves "credit" for telling "traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell," thus avoiding the 23% price decline on that day. But Malkiel also said that after the crash, "Prechter turned bearish for the long term….By not advising repurchase, Prechter missed out on the entire bull market of the 1990s." [1]

Please let me know -- I may be away from the screen for several hours, I'll be back online this evening. Thanks,--Rgfolsom 21:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a wild misrepresentation of what Malkiel said; it makes it seem that Malkiel is neutral about Prechter, when that is clearly not the case. Malkiel's "credit" remark was facetious in the context of the paragraph, which notes that Prechter told long-term investors that the market was going up. And again, it omits the most critical fact: Prechter was not just wrong about the post-1987 bull market, he was wildly wrong: as Malkiel notes, he incorrectly predicted an unprecedented drop of over 80% in the market. This version is accurate. THF 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have two questions for you THF.
1) I obviously have not read Mr. Malkiel's book, but is it all about Prechter? Or is there a chapter/section dedicated to discussion of Prechter? Or does Mlkiel mention him intermitently, within discussion of other topics, perhaps as an anecdote or example? I only ask because if it is the latter case, where he brings him up in discussions of a number of varying topics, it might be best to mention Malkiel's discussion of Prechter in a list format of sorts. ie "Malkiel criticized Precther's "incorrect predictions of Black Monday," overreliance on what he considered the "fallacies of technical analysis," and something else about Prechter." I made that sentence up, but hopefully you get my point. Very quick, short phrases that leave next to no room for POV outside of the author's. And of course, as I keep stressing, direct quotes are essential (hence all the phrases in quotations, which I'm pretending are quotes from Malkiel's book).
2) This version is all well and good, but do you have direct quotes to back it up? At this point the example sentence above is more grounded in reality than that version you showed us, since it quotes the source directly (albeit, potentially out of context as you have criticized, but it's getting there). Drewcifer3000 08:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restarting thread

Hi again Drewcifer,

Here’s the link that shows the relevant comments about Prechter in Malkiel’s book – it’s only two pages.

I know your questions were to THF, and he’ll speak for himself. Just to get things on the record, here’s a complete enough excerpt so all editors can see if my use of the quotes is a “wild misrepresentation,” particularly whether Malkiel was being “facetious” when he gave “credit” to Prechter.

Tarnish set in after October 1987. To Prechter’s credit, he did say that there was “a 50/50 risk of a 10% decline” in the market on October 5, 1987, when the Dow was still selling above the 2,600 level, and he advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell. Institutional investors were advised, however, to hang on for the ultimate target of 3,686 in the Dow. After the crash, with the Dow near 2,000, Prechter turned bearish for the long term and recommended holding Treasury bills. He predicted that “the great bull market is over” and that by the early 1990s the Dow Jones Industrial Average would plunge below 400. By not advising repurchase, Prechter missed out on the entire bull market of the 1990s.

I hope you’ll continue to try to help, Drewcifer. We need more reasonable editors to work on this page.--Rgfolsom 09:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the big quote. After reading it, I must be honest: I don't see much of a difference between the two "versions" being proposed:

Speaking about Black Monday, Burton Malkiel said that Prechter deserves "credit" for telling "traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell," thus avoiding the 23% price decline on that day. But Malkiel also said that after the crash, "Prechter turned bearish for the long term….By not advising repurchase, Prechter missed out on the entire bull market of the 1990s."

Burton Malkiel singled out Prechter's inaccurate 1987 stock market predictions in his book A Random Walk Down Wall Street, noting that shortly before the October crash, Prechter advised long-term institutional investors to hold for a target of 3686; after the market crashed from 2600 to near 2000, Prechter changed his forecast, saying that the Dow would drop to 400, causing his followers to miss the stock-market rally."

It seems to me that both versions are saying basically the same thing. The only differences are that the first one "credits" Prechter for his advice to short-term investors (that they should sell) and the second "criticizes" his advice to long-term investors (that they should hold). So why not mention Prechter's advice to both in either version? You guys seem to agree on what happened after the crash (he predicted an even greater decline which turned out to be bad advice in the long-term). However, stylistically the first version is preferable since it uses direct quotes and is a bit more succinct in its language. And I would disagree that the "credit" quote is out of context. Seems fine to me. Drewcifer3000 09:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The second quote version says something materially different from the first quote. The first quote (1) falsely implies that Malkiel is on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand about Prechter, when in fact Malkiel singles Prechter out for ridicule; and (2) fails to indicate how bad Prechter's forecasts were: they weren't just a little bit wrong. Prechter forecast the worst bear market in history right before the biggest bull market in history. A long-term investor following Prechter would have bought at 2600 right before Black Friday, sold (or, worse, shorted) at 2100, and missed the rise to 13000, realizing a loss instead of a 400% increase. Malkiel's "credit" statement is plainly facetious in context: "To Prechter's credit he did say there was a '50/50 chance of a 10% decline' on October 5." That's like a political forecaster saying "There's a 50-50 chance George Bush will win the 2004 election" and taking credit for the "correct" prediction because Bush won. A "50/50" prediction is meaningless: if the market goes down, Prechter can take credit, if it doesn't go down, he can take credit. That nuance is entirely absent in Rgfolsom's COI-infected/POV-pushing version. (Note also that Prechter's "10%" figure is wrong: the market went down over 25%.)
I'd be happy for the entire paragraph from Malkiel to be included if my paraphrase in the second version is somehow unacceptable. Malkiel is fairly wordy, though, and I was trying to avoid WEIGHT problems from a lengthy block quote. The first version, however, is wildly misleading. THF 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Notice that even on this page, THF quotes selectively from Malkiel. THF goes on and on trying to deconstruct “a 50/50 risk of a 10% decline.” THF even quotes Malkiel saying, "To Prechter's credit he did say there was a '50/50 chance of a 10% decline' on October 5." But here’s the part of the sentence THF left out: -- namely that Prechter “advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell.”
If Malkiel was being “facetious,” why would he include information that really does speak well of Prechter’s advice: -- “he advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell”? A "50/50" forecast is not “meaningless” when that is the reason for a “sell” recommendation -– and that is why Malkiel gave Prechter gets “credit.”
Let’s use ellipsis (…) to make the point:
  • “To Prechter’s credit…on October 5, 1987, when the Dow was still selling above the 2,600 level…he advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell.”
Or this:
  • “To Prechter’s credit…when the Dow was still selling above the 2,600 level…he advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell.”
Or this:
  • “To Prechter’s credit…he advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell.”
Do the ellipsis make Malkiel say something Malkiel didn’t mean to say? Now look again at the whole sentence – “To Prechter’s credit, he did say that there was ‘a 50/50 risk of a 10% decline’ in the market on October 5, 1987, when the Dow was still selling above the 2,600 level, and he advised traders and investors with a short-term outlook to sell” -- is Malkiel being “facetious,” or is he giving Prechter credit?
There’s more.
  • THF says that Malkiel “singled out Prechter's inaccurate 1987 stock market predictions.”
  • Here’s what Malkiel actually said: “Tarnish set in after October 1987.” (emphasis mine)
If Malkiel meant to single out Prechter’s inaccurate 1987 stock market predictions, why did Malkiel say that that tarnish set in AFTER “October” 1987?
Who is being “wildly misleading”?--Rgfolsom 01:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You are. The entire chapter is about people Malkiel considers charlatans (concluding one page later that technical analysis is akin to alchemy), and Prechter is one of the charlatans singled out. And Rgfolsom, in his increasingly bad-faith way, while complaining that I left out something, left out the part where Prechter was simultaneously telling long-term investors to stay invested until a 3600 high was hit. WP:KETTLE indeed. The "tarnish" remark refers to Malkiel sarcastically calling Prechter a "golden knight" the paragraph before after a previous technical guru had been shown unreliable. THF 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're asking about the "after" remark, then it's because Prechter was able to keep taking credit for "correct" ambiguous predictions through October 1987 by hedging his predictions with "50/50" qualifiers, and then was only tarnished in the popular imagination when he was caught for making a wildly expensive incorrect unambiguous prediction that was off by 3000%. THF 06:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is getting a little ridiculous. This is turning into a war of words that's getting nobody anywhere. Thank god an admin finally protected the article. As for me, I happen to be going on vacation tomorrow for two weeks, so I'm afraid I can't referee any more. What I would recommend is one of two things: include the entire quote from above (too much text is better than an editing war) or bring this to a higher authority. Honestly, I assume neither option will make either of you happy, but it's better than calling each other names over and over. The decision is up to you guys, but my vote would be to just include the whole quote and be done with it. Good luck. Drewcifer3000 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Drew, and I'm sorry you had to deal with Rgfolsom's bad faith efforts. As I noted in my 22:31 comment, I'm happy to include the entire quote. THF 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said above (or at least meant to imply), THF, name-calling isn't getting anyone anywhere. Passive-aggressively accusing Rgfolsom of bad faith at every possible opportunity is childish and destructive to the overall discussion. Just my opinion. But, on the bright side I'm glad you agree with me on the quote, that's definately getting us somewhere. Drewcifer3000 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP violation

Your edits include inaccuracies that are not in keeping with a biography written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, and is thus a violation of 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. Specifically, your edits go beyond siding with the critic's material, and indeed distort that material to advance your POV. BLP says,

"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."

Your accusation of "vandalism" is specious and in violation of WP:AGF.--Rgfolsom 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

For someone who regularly throws around accusations of wikilawyering, you sure know how to misapply rules. I'll raise it on the WP:BLP board. THF 17:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Every word of your latest addition to Prechter's biography is either wrong or distorted. I have the issue of Hulbert's Financial Digest that you cite (volume XXVII, number 11, part 1) open here on my desk. Page four does not mention Prechter, his company, or any of his publications. Hulbert does include performance ratings for the Elliott Wave Financial Forecast on another page -- those ratings comprise multiple categories, including several categories that show positive performance rankings. Your reference, however, mentions only those categories with the most negative rankings.

This is another violation of BLP policy, and manifest bad faith. I will remove such edits as often as they appear.--Rgfolsom 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgfolsom consistently misrepresents sources, and this is again another example. I have the PDF of the issue, which has precisely the statistics I cited on the page I cited, and I'll be happy to mail the 2MB article to any administrator who agrees to delete the file from his or her hard-drive after verification of the -25% figure. There are no positive performance rankings for the Elliott Wave Financial Forecast in the Hulbert Financial Digest. THF 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The accusation that I would include information if it was "good" is completely false and and an unwillingness to show good faith. The Elliott Wave Financial Forecast was named in June as the "Top Timer" in the bond market for the past 12 months by Timer Digest -- that fact has been on the record for more than a month, and I did not include that or other laudatory information about Prechter's publications.--Rgfolsom 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
THF continues to revert to a citation that he not only distorts to violate BLP, but the citation itself is referenced incorrectly -- the page THF identifies doesn't even have the information he references. He would know this himself if he had the publication.--Rgfolsom 16:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)‎

Contributors to this article may be interested in the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)‎. THF 23:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

moved from my talk

That you disagree with the proposed merger does not mean that the merger discussion is not happening. Please do not delete relevant tags. 24.75.88.50 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see such a discussion. In any case, this article is a biography, and if the person passes the notability test, a bio should be kept and not merged. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you click the link? There is a discussion at precisely the page the tag indicated. And it's a mergefrom tag: this article isn't disappearing. Please be more careful before removing tags. THF 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Drewcifer, I’ll leave the dispute tag in place as you ask. I will say that for now, we don’t have enough contributors to this page to reach consensus one way or another. I also saw your self-deleted comment. I’ve been wondering myself if arbitration is the only way to resolve this – I’ve been through one arb case already involving this article, and the issues now virtually mirror the issues then. The thing was, it took three freakin’ months to decide.

But please stick around and try to help. You may have noticed that ≈ jossi ≈ just made edits to the article, and he is a highly respected editor and administrator. Maybe things will improve.--Rgfolsom 20:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The article is now protected for one week. I do not see any further BLP concerns with the current version. If editors find common ground and are able to resume editing without further edit-warring before the protection expires, please place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The AfD for Socionomics is closed as merge, so we should probably create a draft subpage for incorporating material from that article. Cool Hand Luke 07:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions and removals

I'm removing the reference to Prechter's "Financial Performance," based on my previously given rationale for why such references are a poor idea. Interested editors may want to know that at least one of the arbitrators in the Prechter Arb case found that rationale to be "thoughtful and perceptive."

For the record, Hulbert's Financial Digest has multiple categories of ratings, including timing for traders, timing for investors, five rankings of risk, returns across five different time frames, risk-adjusted vs. total return, and portfolio returns vs. the Wilshire 5000. The two figures from Hulbert's July 2007 ratings that had been listed as Prechter's "Financial Performance" were the most negative in all the various categories. One could of course present only the most positive of Hulbert's July 2007 listed ratings for Prechter, such as the +9.0% total annualized return for investors' timing since 1980. The ease with which ratings can be used to make Prechter look good or bad simply makes my point. As for removing the NPOV tag, the editor who put it there has left Wikipedia. There's been none of the discussion the tag calls for, which is obvious enough given that my comments now are the first on this discussion page in more than three months.

The socionomics addition should speak for itself -- constructive thoughts & comments are welcome.

--Rgfolsom (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold

Orangemike, Do you have a quote that shows that Prechter has been consistently bearish? I do not know his market call, but I seem to remember hearing that he has been one of the most bullish on Gold for years. It would be incredibly misleading to fault him if he was correct from 250-700 and is only recently wrong. If you can show that he has been consistently wrong, please show it. In the meantime I am going to change the text to read that he has recently been wrong. Sposer (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)