Talk:John T. Reed

message: Several of John T. Reed's competitors have their products listed on their Wikipedia entry, so I went to add them. There was no false information in those entries. Whomever has DRASTICALLY edited John T. Reed's Wikipedia entry evidently is a fan of Robert Kiyosaki, as no one seems to think his entry is self-promotion. Robert G Allen has one of his book titles mentioned. We would enjoy the same courtesy. -John's son
71.202.178.85 (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtesy? What courtesy? This is an information resource, not a promotional platform. What courtesy has Reed displayed to on his website to the myriad of competitors that he trashes regularly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.114 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant opinion

message: This is self-promoting propaganda.I bet he wrote this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.52.102 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it is. And by a non-notable self-published ("vanity published") author as well. Proxy User (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix the article instead of grinding your axe on the talk page. Rray (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little sensitive on the subject? What's your vested interest? You sound like a Reed Follower. I have no interest in Reed at all, just what I see here at Wikipedia. Proxy User (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: It's my opinion that the list of books added by Danieltreed is not an asset to the encyclopedia article about John T. Reed.  They're certainly listed on the subject's own website, which is twice linked (once as an inline citation, once in the external links section) in the article.  Listing books with independent reviews cited in reliable sources would not be a problem, but that's not what was done here.
I'd like to know the views of other editors on this.  — Athaenara  ✉  02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of books 

message: Bottom line, John T. Reed's main profession is author. The titles of his books cover many topics and are as relevant to his encyclopedia entry as anything gets.
Danieltreed (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I have no objection to including a list of books he's written. It just needs to be properly sourced. Rray (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: One issue is that all of his books appear to be self-published, which somewhat challenges even a claim to notability --Insider201283 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "notability" is exactly the point. There are thousands of finantial pundits out there. Reed is a self-published blogger whose content tends to lean towards being lite on original thought and very heavy of criticizing all other authors. I question the notability of the whole article. Proxy User (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles don't have notability; their subjects do. This article includes multiple external references as evidence of notability, and that's the criterion that's used to judge whether or not someone warrants an article here. Your entitled to your opinion, but your opinion doesn't outweigh reliable sources demonstrating notability. (Being a self-publisher and being a blogger are not evidence that a subject lacks notability. Notability is demonstrated by coverage.) Rray (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Entry on author should have book list

message: * See :Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive52#John T. Reed
I opened a discussion in the hope that editors who are neither burned out on policing this situation nor agenda-pushing single-purpose accounts would give it some attention.  — Athaenara  ✉  04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLPN

message: Last year, it was discussed that a Criticism section should be opened for the John T. Reed entry but that most criticism would be supported by non-mainstream news sources and that the moderators here would not let that stand given that John T. Reed is a living person. However, this year, I see on entries for other living persons (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski) that authors are using blogs and other non-mainstream websites to support their assertions in Wikipedia entries. Does this mean that we can now do the same for the living person, John T. Reed? It would be helpful to start a Criticism section given that the entry is largely self-promotional at this point (his son at least appears to be a promotional author here) and many criticisms of John T. Reed do exist out in the public domain of the Web. If authors take the time to properly source their assertions in a Criticism section here will the moderators allow the Criticism section to stand? Thank you in advance for your time and response.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.200.162 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section for John T. Reed 

message: The first paragraph of the article - 'He has been recommended by the National Association of Realtors as a serious investigator in the industry' does not have a veriable source. The supplied link takes you to an opinion piece by an unknown author who 'claims' that Reed is recommended. Hearsay - I suggest that the reference to National Association of Realtors is removed urgentlty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.114 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John T. Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212031107/http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-02-07/news/don-t-tread-on-me/ to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-02-07/news/don-t-tread-on-me/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified