Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:48, 3 December 2006

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on November 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

"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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Notability (people), and I'll soon be adding lots more references that show this. Smallbones appears to pay no regard to Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages defines "watered down" as "removing a biased point of view."

Rgfolsom 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Restore

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

• all versions from 2006-11-07 t 02:27:23 back to 2006-07-07 t 06:28:00 appear to be substantially the copyvio from elliottwave.com note above
• all versions from 2006-05-19 t 20:05:06 back to 2006-01-03 t 18:54:16 appear to be a copyvio from http://books.global-investor.com/pages/gurus.htm?PerIndex=1827&ginPtrCode=00000&identifier=

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Robert Folsom is a financial writer and editor for Elliott Wave International, the largest independent provider of technical analysis in the world. He has covered politics, popular culture, economics and the financial markets for 16 years, and today writes EWI's popular Market Watch column. Robert earned his degree in political science from Columbia University in 1985. (And Elliott Wave International is owned by Robert Prechter, who pays Folsom's salry. Added by Smallbones 18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest, Misplaced Pages:Fancruft and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages"? Rgfolsom 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages essay useful:

You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it.

Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages in areas in which you appear to have a conflict of interest. Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy states that all Misplaced Pages articles must represent views fairly and without bias. A conflict of interest may significantly and negatively affect Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages article or website of your corporation in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).

If you feel it necessary to make changes to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.

===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: Misplaced Pages 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.

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)

1. Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not makes it clear that Misplaced Pages 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.

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles