Talk:Robert Prechter

message: * Talk:Robert Prechter/Archive 1 Rgfolsom 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with Elliott Wave Theorist (EWT) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Malkiel's errors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  WP:BLP violation 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Additions and removals 

message: 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)
thread_title: Gold

message: The writer calls 'socionomics' a "vague 'theory'". Not knowing anything about Mr. Prechter really, and reading his online material, I saw the term socionomics, and found that the term fairly well described what I think is his obvious bailiwick: the study of economic trends from a sociological perspective. So my simple comment is that 'socionomics' is not a theory per se, but the 'study of...' My other comment is that the writing here should be like newspaper reporting, and just stick with the facts. Whether Mr. Prechter's study is pseudoscience is not the issue; writers here should not make judgements. ````pvr  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.125.220 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  socionomics and writer's bias 

message: Nobody argues that Mr. Prechter has made many bad calls; he is the first to admit. The simple fact is that he is not "known" for his bad calls and he is not known for his newsletters. That is the author's opinion. He is known for bringing Elliott back in fashion more than anything else.  He had one of the worst records, if not the worst, for the late-1980s to the late-1990s, from what I heard people mention in Hulbert. However, that was on stocks, not on bonds, not on FX, not on gold and commodities, so it is the negative comments are very selective too. His newsletter is also number one overall since 2007. He called the top to the day in 1998, he called the bottom in 2009 as well. I just spent a bunch of time trying to find articles criticizing Prechter, so I could provide proper attribution and even state that in the lede, but I cannot find any. I do not have access to Hulbert, and most of the blog mentions I find, mention a negative and a positive, which I cannot take out of context. Sposer (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anonymous edits

message: References to the specifics of Prechter's forecasts need to come out. I offer the same rationale here that I gave at another time, which at least one member of the Arbitration Committe said was "thoughtful and perceptive."
:There are special problems in shaping a "coherent whole" with someone who forecast the markets, and those problems are especially acute with Prechter, because
:# He has made literally thousands of forecasts over three decades,
:# There’s a huge pile of “right,” “wrong,” and “maybe” forecasts to select from,
:# 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.
Thanks.
--Rgfolsom (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Forecasts and NPOV

message: We have been through this dozens of times regarding Prechter on this page and on the Elliott Wave page. The requirements for calculating returns by these groups are not necessarily compatible with Prechter's methodology and results in incorrect calculations. It also largely refers to one particular set of forecasts around the direction of the Dow, as opposed to an overall body of work. I have no idea what Prechter's overall record is, and he has been bearish on equities forever, and wrong much of that time. But, he has also had many brilliant calls in equities and other markets in recent years.Sposer (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  CXO Edit 

message: Here is a small proposed edit to this page.
• Change “Market Technicians Association” to “CMT Association” in very first paragraph.
: Altamel (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed edit to this page