This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drewcifer3000 (talk | contribs) at 19:42, 31 July 2007 (→NPOV: a third opinion twice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:42, 31 July 2007 by Drewcifer3000 (talk | contribs) (→NPOV: a third opinion twice)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | 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. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
- Talk page archives
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)
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 Misplaced Pages'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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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 Misplaced Pages 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?
- 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.
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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. Misplaced Pages'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)