Talk:Bob Brinker

message: I notice that in the last edit, the note about Brinker's conservative economic views was removed, most likely for reasons of NPOV. I did not find that note at all NPOV, as it is simply a fact that Brinker espouses conservative philosophies on his program. It is as silly to remove that as it would be to remove all references to conservatism from Rush Limbaugh or liberalism from Al Franken. —Cor anglais 16 (Talk) 14:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative economics 

message: I have noticed that a comment about his  show was deleted. Why? 24.23.220.206 23:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak to why it was original removed.  I removed it because it didn't read correctly to me, also it didn't sound encyclopedic. Arwen4014 04:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I think the reason that three different editors have removed your comment is because it goes against basic Wikipedia guidelines for writing an encyclopedia article. See Neutral Point of View. The comment that you keep reinserting, regarding Bob Brinker's radio show, is: "He hosts it in a monotone." That's a  statement that expresses a specific and subjective Point of View. Not everyone who listens to that show would agree. If you have a reference from an article that says "noted business writer xxx xxxxx says that Bob Brinker speaks in a monotone on his show" that might be more acceptable (see Citing sources), but is probably trivial for an encyclopedia article. I was wrong in stating that your edit was vandalism in my summary. The fact that you edited without registering as a Wikipedia user made me assume that it was vandalism. ॐ Priyanath 00:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good edit

message: In case you aren't reading your talk page, User_talk:Redjax888, be aware that editing the comments of others on an article talk page is considered vandalism, and will eventually get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. You can add a response to comments, or you can add new comments under a new heading (like this one: 'Editing the Talk Page'), but you cannot edit other people's comments here. ॐ Priyanath 21:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the Talk Page 

message: Suite101 is a Canadian company.  Their home page says "Suite Spot: Suite101.com is home to articles, blogs, discussions, and courses from 400 subject experts who speak their minds and ask what's on yours. For more than 10 years we've opened our door to original and independent commentary unique for its unrivaled breadth and depth. Click on one of our fascinating articles below to read, respond, and relate. Enter now, enter curious."
:The goal of Wiki is to present all the information.  If the information is true and relevant to the subject, then it should not matter where it comes from. One link to the suite101 website should stay on the page. Wikipedia should present both sides, and that link is sufficient. If you have information to add to the article itself, and it has references, and is not POV, you can do that. But adding multiple links to the article itself, all pointing to the same website, is considered POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for linkspamming, or overweighting an article with links to one site that has a strong POV. I deleted the link to the beginninginvesting.com because it's a password protected, pay website. No, I didn't think you were David Korn, I thought those websites were by Kirk Lindstrom...my mistake. And please re-read my comment above regarding WP links to forums. ॐ Priyanath 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please add four tildes at the end of your comments. That way people can see who is posting the comments, and also redjax88 can be blocked more easily for editing your comments. ॐ Priyanath 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Priyanath| 

message: It seems wrong to be allowed to advertise your products here.
66.245.18.62 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link has been put back. Please feel free to put the link back. Also, feel free to post a comment at WP:ANI, under the "67. If you post there, better to use the four tildes and leave a signature, though it's not required. Regarding the blurb about a for fee service, if it's neutrally presented as part of an article, then it seems ok to have it there, though I may be wrong. Maybe someone knows more about WP policy on this than me. ॐ Priyanath 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moneytalk on demand is a subscription service 

message: I removed one of the links that went to the same page of information but with a different URL selling Brinker's newsletter.  I think one commercial (advertisement) on the page is sufficient. 66.245.58.87 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate links 

message: New 7/25/06: I don't think the link to the "Website critical of Bob Brinker and his program" A.K.A. "Honey Brinker Beehive" belongs here. The link is basically a BLOG which contains unproven and questionable information. My vote is the "Beehive link" be removed since it's just an area of gossip.
:There's a place for links to alternative views in Wikipedia articles, or in this case a discussion about the radio show. A link to a neutral article about Brinker's history of advice - one that includes information about his questionable calls - would be even better. Please sign your posts with the four tildes so people can see when and who wrote the comment. With all of the underhanded edits on this article and talk page (coming from both sides), it's more than usually important. See Sign your posts on talk pages for more information.  - ॐ Priyanath 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the link to the forum/blog is no longer needed, now that the Marketwatch articles are there. See Links normally to be avoided, and you'll see included there: "9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." ॐ Priyanath 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the link 

message: Well, the issue seems to be regarding the inclusion of the link(s).   I see no good reason to link to Suite101 since the Marketwatch article includes the desired information.  I know that the Suite101 has a small number of people.   Among them is another newsletter writer, who is also the moderator of the investing portion of Suite101.  I don't think it's right to direct people to a competitor of Brinker's for the opposing point of view.  A competitor will be too biased.  I like having the opposing point of view, but again, not from a competitor.  That's just not right to link to a place that's moderated by a man selling a competing product.  If the discussion group was located anyplace else, I'd be fine with it.  71.111.136.3 03:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the suite links 

message: Suite101 has forums for many investment writers and TV commentators.  The site is supported by Google ads. Many of the people who have discussion forums there and have investment products for sale also participate; (that sells a timing service), and are but five I can remember posting on the old or new site.
----- After reading the above, I feel like I've been exposed to an infomercial for Suite101.   I still wonder what WikiHelperUSA's affilation is with this commercial site,  much of which is moderated by a newsletter writer who competes with "Bob Brinker's MarketTimer."
no more spam for Suite101 please
By the way, in general, forums are not to be linked to from Wiki.  Read the Wikipedia guidelines for more info.  71.111.136.3 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Stay 

message: Here's a recent quote from the beehive:  "Brinker is just a jabbering bag of wind."  I can find many more on the beehive as well.   This quote is taken from that site, and obviously not civil.  The beehive buzz is a forum, and in general, forums are not to be linked to from Wiki.  I therefore respectfully suggest that this link be removed, not just for this reason, but for the other reasons listed here in the talk page. I have no relation to Brinker, I am merely concerned about the quality of Wiki, which is a service I love.  72.11.113.146 00:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  more 

message: One more question for WikihelperUSA...   You are obviously at least a user of Suite101 based on some of the comments you have made here.   Question:  Are you willing to disclose your user name over on Suite101?   I can understand if you don't want to disclose this, but it might help in the discussion.   Or, are you just a 'reader' of the content over there with no account on suite101?  (I don't have an account there, so a user name for me wouldn't mean anything).  
I continue to persist in my point, because Bob Brinker helped me get where I am.  He helped me a great amount in 2000 when he said to reduce holdings -- he made me think about going to cash on some holdings, which I did.  (yes, I have 2 IP addresses I bounce between, so no mystry there.   72.11.113.146 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep the focus on what's appropriate for this website and not what someone is doing on some other website. Gamaliel 00:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem Gamaliel.  I'm still concerned that a link exists which contains so many attacks against Brinker.  Brinker helped me as he did many people in the field of investing, so I just hate to be linked to a place that is so full of attacks, and information that can't be proven.  I wish I could to set up a "Brinker Helped me" website that we could link to, but I don't have the time.   Also, I thought that forums generally aren't linked to from Wiki.   Am I mistaken here?  
Thanks for helping with this issue. I just want to be heard for the sake of balance.   respectfully,  71.111.136.3 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "I wish I could to set up a "Brinker Helped me" website that we could link to, but I don't have the time. "
Why don't you ask the manager over at Suite101 to create a topic for that?  Then ask to have that included along with the current link so there would be two forums for balance.  I've been reading other forums there and they have another Brinker forum where it seems many have positive things to say about Bob Brinker.  Link to that one or ask to start a new forum that praises Brinker in its title.  It seems you can start forums there without asking permission.
It seems you've spent hours and hours here under at least the two IP addresses you admit to using for defending Brinker. You started out deleting ALL critical links, including the Marketwatch links then turned your attention to the more critical link at Suite101.  Two links to Marketwatch and two to Suite101 might be the "Solomon's Solution" to this issue that has you so worked up.  66.245.58.137 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems Ideal for Wiki 

message: Here's some information I would like to respectfully request that someone who has edit privilige add to the Bob Brinker entry.   The information is from some printed material that I have on file from the ABC Radio Network.
Brinker is a long time member of the New York Society of Security Analysts and the Financial Analysts Federation.   He has served as Vice President Investment Council at the Bank of New York, and on Wall Street as Chief Investment Officer for the United States Subsidiary of Guardian Royal Exchange, London.  
Thanks in advance to whoever adds this factual information to the entry.   71.111.136.3 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I suspect that verifying any of this table to Wikipedia's standards might be very difficult."  Then why keep it at all?   If the link doesn't meet the standards of verification, then shouldn't it be deleted?  Caffeine USA 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be right. At minimum if the link were to be retained, then I think the table it leads to should be made NPOV. However, what you or I think about it is probably moot, since the decisions are being de facto made by the particpants in the edit war that's going on. - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 05:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new information for consideration to the article... 

message: " Brinker attempts to time the market and writes a newsletter called Marketimer but there is great debate in the press and on the internet about his effectiveness.  Other than market timing, Brinker's advice to minimize expenses and use index funds is considered good by most listeners. "
Bob himself says on his radio show that he attempts to do something he admits is hard to do.  WikiHelperUSA 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for 172.128.121.11, but my opinion is that "Other than market timing, Brinker's advice to minimize expenses and use index funds is considered good by most listeners" violates NPOV because it is an opinion. Not only is it an opinion, it is an opinion about what the opinions of others are. I would just leave that sentence out. Maybe the first sentence could use some NPOV improvement as well. For example, "...but there is great debate in the press and on the internet about his effectiveness" could be made a separate sentence, which would eliminate the sense of negation implied in the word "but," and it could be reworded as "There is controversy in the press and on the Internet about his work," which would possibly improve its neutrality. Of course I can't predict whether the person who has been deleting it will find my suggestions acceptable. BTW, one thing I would strongly suggest in the interest of accuracy is that "time the market" be replaced with "time the stock market." -Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Connor, you say that you agree that the statement doesn't have a place in the article, and then you ask 66.245.28.82 to continue his or her efforts, but he/she is the one putting the statement back in. Is that really what you meant to write? - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Caffeine, there is evidence of contoversy in the press in the two Marketwatch articles that you deleted on October 3rd. There is plenty of evidence of controversy on the Internet, but the links to the message boards which are the direct evidence of this have been deleted because of the guideline against linking to message boards. Here is a good example: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=10880 and that is one of the more civil boards. That having been said, I think the sentence would more NPOV with the clause "and its effectiveness compared to simply buying a diversified basket of index funds" deleted, but I have zero interest in participating in the edit-war that's going on over it. - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 04:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Caffeine, looking at your latest edit, it really doesn't seem very NPOV to me to include the results of his best performing portfolio in the article, while relegating his worst performing recommmendation to a linked article. - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you not consider this evidence of controversy: "I asked for it and I got it. An extraordinary number of e-mails denouncing my August 15 column on Marketimer's Bob Brinker, either for being too hard on Brinker, or for not being hard enough." Or this: "Interestingly, about half were from Brinker backers. That's unusual. Generally, people only write when they're mad. Both sides in this fierce fight accuse the other of mass e-mailing under fake names. Maybe they're both right -- although if so, they're individualizing cleverly." How about this: "So why do clouds of vengeful investors buzz around his noble head?...Indeed, they buzz around anybody's head who says anything nice about Brinker. You should see the e-mail that Mark Hulbert gets. And he's just keeping count." - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter 

message: I don't see how your solution tells people Brinker's past history at market timing.  If someone attempts to do something impossible, we should show their record.  I suggest we find a good summary, like mathjunkie wrote, or write our own here.  It is easy to verify at the library his record back to 1986 which matches Mathjunkie's summary.  We can leave off the earlier stuff until someone finds documentation.  66.245.155.178 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really take credit for writing that table; most of it was written by others. I just added some stuff for balance. The version of it in the most recent link also has stuff that was added by someone else after my last edit of it, which I believe was in December of 2003. - Math Junkie 71.131.179.177 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I know it's accurate, but I think it has a lot of point-of-view mixed in, what with all the boldface and colored fonts, and the commentary on which calls people consider to be correct and which they don't, etc. However I think my opinion on how to improve it is moot, because we don't know whether any changes I might suggest would satisfy the people who keep deleting the link. - Math Junkie 71.131.179.177 08:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you set a good example by refraining from attacking Caffeine or other users here. It's best to stick to the issues. - Math Junkie 71.131.179.177 08:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I try to be objective about his work, but I don't claim that I always succeed. If you have a problem with what I am writing on Wikipedia, please point out what I have written here that you think is incorrect, and why you diagree with it. If you find a Wikipedia rule or guideline that you think I am violating, please quote it, because I want to know about it. If you have a problem with what I write on other boards, I suggest you take it up with me on those boards. This is not the place for it. - Math Junkie 71.131.179.177 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History  

message: On 08:50, May 21, 2006 by WikiHelperUSA indicated he/she is one who contributes to suite101.   WikiHelperUSA seems to execute a number of edits which add or revert suite101 links.  Is this not linkspamming? Caffeine USA 05:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link-spamming? 

message: You can't make a claim to be a fiscal conservative then use your radio show to say the government should give health care to everyone.  You could claim to be a Socialiast or French with those views. WikiHelperUSA 12:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that different people remember what he said differently. In addition, I think there is a danger in using individual on-air comments to characterize someone's entire political philosopy. I have definitely heard him complain about excessive government spending on more than one occasion, and I have heard him make many statements suggesting that he does not favor high taxes. And yet there are people who listen to his program and think he sounds like a liberal. Judging by the disagreement here and elsewhere, it's clear that what he has said about politics and how to characterize it is a matter of opinion, and as such violates NPOV. For that reason I think the entire paragraph should be deleted. Math Junkie 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brinker is a Fiscal Conservative 

message: I see a lot of discussion about whether these are suitable links. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎. Also see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --A. B. 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are any other forums, blogs or opinion sites that do not meet the requirements of WP:EL and WP:RS, they should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules are simple. --A. B. 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suite101 

message: Linking only to Brinker's Website violates neutral point of view because his record there avoids mentioning any failed calls. Brimelow's articles are the most neutral I have seen on the subject. Friend of Kirk 17:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ironic that your first edit here, at least with the 'friend of kirk' username was an act of vandalism.  Yet you expect others to not modify your edits.  Caffeine USA 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before that, on December 20th, I reverted the vandalism of the Marketwatch link. I wasn't logged in at the time. I didn't take down the pro-Brinker links until someone repeated the vandalism the next day. The only thing I "expect" is for people to discuss the issue when there is a dispute over edits. Friend of Kirk 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't respond to something you think is vandalism by committing vandalism.  Instead, please report vandalism on the proper reporting page.   Caffeine USA 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issues 

message: All the information about Bob Brinker has been removed from Suite101.com. I see the link to Peter Brimlow's article has been removed from this article also. Those who want to do research on Bob Brinker can not easily find information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.46.156 (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censors 

message: Posted by Moderator [RW] on April 07, 2008 at 15:12:40:
In Reply to: Bob Brinker Moneytalk Summary April 5-6, 2008 posted by Investor on April 07, 2008 at 14:42:58:
.
"Bob Brinker has expressed concern about the summaries of his advice (and newsletter) that have appeared on FundAlarm, as well as links from the Board to various other sites that report his advice -- basically, some or all of these posts may violate the copyright on his material.
In accordance with Bob's request, I have agreed not to allow summaries of his advice to appear on this Board, and I've also agreed to prevent links to other sites that may make unauthorized use of his material. Therefore, I will shortly delete this thread and, to be safe, I'm aksing that that all Bob Brinker-related posts be avoided in the future. Thanks to everyone for your cooperation on this.
Roy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.156.6 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundalarm Ends Discussion 

message: When I spotted this article and looked it over, I almost immediately lunged toward my Speedy Deletion button. First, I ran the usual (and usually meaningless) Google search upon the subject's name, and sure enough, Google coughed up 77, 000 indications of visibility, as is typical of anyone effective at promoting oneself and the product or the message.
Then I ran the search once more by excluding the word "Marketwatch."
Now I see more than a few articles in established, reputable, secondary, mainstream sources with reputations for checking the facts that quote him or his publications.
While it's still not quite clear that this constitutes extensive and sustained coverage of the subject himself "in detail" by the established mainstream media (a requirement for Notability), and while coverage of the man and his work by the prominent voices in the national financial press would lend some real strength to an argument for notability as required by Wikipedia, I hereby confess to a premature reflex in my temptation to move for deletion.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.
:— Wordsmith (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether Bob Brinker (as a topic) Meets Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline|Notability]] Requirements