Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Rgfolsom

Smallbones' violations of core Wikipedia policies

(Please see the workshop page for further discussion of Arbitration Committee decisions that offer guidance regarding policy violations.)

Pattern of Biased Edits

Technical analysis article (TA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=47273732

Language in lead section describing TA as "horoscope" and "tea leaves", with no citations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=47405028&oldid=47320680

Language in lead section quote describing TA as "hocus pocus," "astrology," and "ufos."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=47428961

"…now please let's not pretend that TA is a well respected, accepted theory…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technical_analysis#Verifiable.2C_authoritative_content

The full exchange with other editors regarding the "let's not pretend" remark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=61401433

"Technical analysis" added to Pseudoscience article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=61403467

"John Allen Paulos considers technical analysis to be pseudoscience." The word "pseudoscience" came from a review of Paulos' book, not from a quotation of the book itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Technical_analysis#June_2006_Changes

Another editor: "…will you please stop implementing your agenda on discrediting both Dow Theory and Technical Analysis… We had a consensus here about not using the term pseudoscience with regards to TA."

Smallbones: "The academic studies of TA are about 95% against. This stuff is not a minor footnote to this article, but needs to be upfront."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=80845157

Added Financial astrology link.

Dow Theory article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Theory&diff=50058543&oldid=49991517

"There is very little evidence that the Dow theory can be used to earn excess profits in the stock market." Added to lead section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Theory&diff=57862949&oldid=57857320

"Dow theory is a non-scientific 'theory' on stock price movements…"

Socionomics article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=65544526

"Socionomics is a non-scientific theory invented by Robert R. Prechter, Jr in his self-published book Socionomics…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=70965260

Added Pseudoscience link to article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=83808130

"Prechter is about the only guy who believes this stuff and IS the only guy who has published about it…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=87987682

"Socionomics is a theory, which has little or no support in the academic community…"

Market trends article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_trends&diff=71414061&oldid=71020441

"This belief is generally consistent with the non-scientific practice of technical analysis and broadly inconsistent with the efficient markets hypothesis [fundamental analysis]." Added to lead section.

Day trading article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Day_trading&diff=prev&oldid=61405098

"Day trading also is very expensive, incurring multiple commissions and paying the bid-ask spread multiple times, as compared to a "buy and hold" strategy [fundamental analysis]"

Elliott wave principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elliott_wave_principle&diff=106015880&oldid=105987534

"Critics, such as John Allen Paulos, claim that 'Elliott wave theory founders on the simple question: Why should anyone expect it to work?'" Added this negative quotation to the lead section, yet the same quote already appeared later in the article. Removed quotation about Paulos' abysmal failure as an investor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elliott_wave_principle&diff=107111004&oldid=107108944

"Critics question the usefulness of the 'principle' for predicting financial market prices, and describe it in terms of pseudoscience and numerology." Added pseudoscience link.

Incivility

• Fails to use the talk page to alert other contributors regarding edits that will likely be controversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=47444574

"Technical analysis is not based on any standard theory in economics or finance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=61215649

"Technical analysis…is the non-scientific use …"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_trends&diff=prev&oldid=61216744

"Nevertheless, the efficient markets hypothesis, a well respected scientific theory, states that market prices are essentially unpridictable (sic)…" Added to lead section.

• Often reverts to those edits over the objections of other contributors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=47405028&oldid=47320680

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dow_Theory&diff=prev&oldid=59476984

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=61536672

• Often "makes it about the editor," instead of the edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Prechter#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?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=87127149&oldid=86820849

"You may not appoint yourself as the sole editor of an article" (edit summary)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionomics#No_Puffery_Please

"You're pretty wrapped up in this stuff, so I'll suggest that you should step back, take a look, and try to be as objective as possible."

Removes Relevant Information

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=62863231

Removed well-sourced link that said TA significantly outperformed buy & hold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technical_analysis&diff=prev&oldid=63199904

Removed well-sourced TA references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technical_analysis&diff=63208702&oldid=63199097#Statistical_claims

"… if you don't know anything about statistics, please do not make statistical claims in the article." [Please especially note the reply to this comment.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=84457082

"…do not cite anything this lightweight as proof of scientific status."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionomics&diff=86764419&oldid=85534954

"removed some POV stuff" (edit summary)

Harassment/Personal attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88650776

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgfolsom&diff=prev&oldid=88801424

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=89208879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socionomics&diff=prev&oldid=89285919

Please note that I did not remove or object to these postings about my identity. Smallbones did not ask me if I was Robert Folsom, nor ask if he could post information about me in Wikipedia. He did not ask me to consider taking the initiative to disclose my full identity on my own.

He also suggested that by posting my identity, I was silenced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=89208879

"User:Rgfolsom seems to have disappeared since it was revealed that Robert Folsom is a long-time employee of the Socionomics Institute..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=90235314

The irony is that my "silence" was self-imposed, and kept in good faith with the mediation; in fact I was still active in other Wikipedia articles. I ended my "silence" in the Prechter bio only after it was successfully used against me as an argument to have the Prechter bio page protection removed.

Abuse of the mediation process

Timeline:

31 Oct. 2006: Request for Mediation filed.

06 Nov. 2006: Accepted; Rgfolsom requests public mediation but concedes to Smallbones' request for private. Rgfolsom submits first statement to mediator.

15 Nov. 2006: First-ever edit by Smallbones to Robert Prechter bio.

17 Nov. 2006: Mediator requested/is granted page protection to Robert Prechter bio, directs Smallbones/Rgfolsom to cease & desist edit warring.

17-26 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom complies with Mediator's instruction.

17-26 Nov. 2006: Smallbones repeatedly lobbies administrators to remove page protection from Prechter bio.

27 Nov. 2006: Prechter bio page protection removed, Smallbones resumes edits to that page. Rgfolsom states on Talk:Robert Prechter that the mediator had requested the bio page protection. Smallbones answers.

27 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom asks for a mediation status update.

27 Nov. 2006: Mediator replies to Rgfolsom via email.

29 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom repeats on Talk:Robert Prechter that the mediator had requested bio page protection. Smallbones answers.

29 Nov. 2006: Rgfolsom and mediator exchange emails.

16:28, 1 Dec. 2006 (UTC): Mediator emails Rgfolsom.

16:29, 1 Dec. 2006 (UTC): Mediator posts that the Request for mediation/Socionomics is closed.

18:37, 1 Dec. 2006 (UTC): Mediator tells Rgfolsom via email that he has received a reply from Smallbones.

On the Workshop page, Smallbones asked for details about my allegation. Below he says, "The Prechter page was then protected for 10 days without anything happening, until I requested it to be unprotected." This is a mind-boggling claim. Let the Committee assess whether the activity in these diffs amount to "nothing happening."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=88385167

08:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC): Mediator requests page protection (also directs Smallbones/Rgfolsom to cease & desist edit warring).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Prechter&diff=88396986&oldid=88396956

10:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC): Article protected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88448824

16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC): Smallbones' first protest comes within seven hours. Denies edit warring, demands to know: "If a user sees one of the world's worst stock pickers advertising on Wikipedia, how is he supposed to edit the article to put in the documented truth?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GraemeL#Robert_Prechter

19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC): Attempts to recruit another user: "…may I ask you to look at Robert Prechter … a stock-picker with a terrible record… For some reason, I can't insert any documentation of his terrible stock picking record…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcika&diff=prev&oldid=88479760

19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC): Attempts to recruit yet another user: "Could you check out Robert Prechter and the associated Socionomics?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88650776

18:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC): Posts my identity on Prechter talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rgfolsom&diff=prev&oldid=88801424

13:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC): Posts my identity on my user talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=89208879

10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC): Protests article protection to admin Gamaliel, "Rgfolsom seems to have disappeared since it was revealed that Robert Folsom is a long-time employee of the Socionomics Institute... the page is still protected. How do I get this situation changed?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=90235314#Robert_Prechter_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29

16:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC): "Page was protected after… a claim of edit-warring was made by… Robert Folsom who works for Prechter. He has not made any contributions to the talk page since the protection, and nobody on the talk page has attempted to justify either the removal of the citations or the protection of the article."

To summarize how "nothing happened" during the 10 days in question, Smallbones abused the Mediation process by:

• Flouting the mediator's directive to cease and desist the revert war on Robert Prechter
• Recruiting help from other users in his efforts to circumvent the page protection
• Posting the identity of a user with whom he was in mediation
• Lobbying an administrator for help in removing the page protection
• Falsely claiming that I disappeared because he posted my identity
• Using my compliance with the mediator's request as a pretext to get the page protection removed
• Falsely posting on WP:RFPP that I made a claim of edit warring to get the page blocked
• More recently, falsely telling this Committee that Prechter's bio was "protected at Folsom's request."

QED. --Rgfolsom 18:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Overtly negative edits to the biography of a living person

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88036851

"That's what the article said whether you like it or not. there's a slew of articles of a similar nature… I'll see if I can put them in, and everybody can see whether it's you or I who have the slant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88051767

"Robert R. Prechter, Jr … is particularly well known for his prediction in early 1987… and other remarkably bad forecasts…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Prechter&diff=prev&oldid=88448824

"Prechter is just terrible at predicting the stock market… If a user sees one of the world's worst stock pickers advertising on Wikipedia…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Prechter&diff=90519288&oldid=90487765

"Robert R. Prechter, Jr. (b. 1949) is a controversial American stock market analyst…"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Prechter#Complete_rewrite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Prechter#.22Re-introduces_Elliott.2C.22_No_falsehoods

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Prechter&diff=92732411&oldid=92563299

The three links above show the inclusion of demonstrably false statements about Prechter by Smallbones, my removal of the offending text, and Smallbones' revert to the falsehoods with an accusation of "vandalism" against me (summary).

Reply to Smallbones' evidence

"Academic view of TA"

If academic opinions were at issue, I could readily point the Committee to the work of academics who reject the EMH and/or embrace TA -- including these professors at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, University of Chicago, Stanford, etc., etc., etc.

But, academic opinions as such are not relevant to this Request. Instead, the issue is Smallbones' pattern of bias -- including the way he uses the comments of critics in articles related to technical analysis.

Specifically, his claims exceed what his evidence supports. Some quotes from an undergraduate textbook and a few academics do not amount to "the standard academic view." Apparently he thinks this is sufficient for Committee to endorse a principle and finding of fact that "TA is Pseudoscience" on the Workshop page. I gave facts to the contrary, which Smallbones ignored or denied in his reply on this page.

The Committee will note below that Smallbones dismissed my references to scholarly books about TA because of what they don't say. This logic would mean that a book about earthquakes or volcanoes has nothing to do with geology unless the word "geology" appears in the text -- which, by the way, would mean that Wikipedia's earthquake and volcano articles have nothing to do with "geology."

The academics who wrote these books are first-rate economists of the behavioral finance school, which goes hand-in-glove with technical analysis. Consider these descriptions, first of Shiller's book and second of technical analysis:

Market Volatility … challenges the standard efficient-markets model for explaining asset prices by emphasizing the significant role that popular opinion or psychology can play in price volatility.

Technical analysis is always primarily concerned with price trends…. As an example, many technical analysts monitor surveys of investor enthusiasm. These surveys attempt to gauge the general attitude of the investment community to determine whether investors are bearish or bullish.

A quote from Shleifer's book (p. 12) is in the same vein:

"…the second line of defense of the efficient market theory is that the irrational investors, while they may exist, trade randomly, and hence their trades cancel each other out. It is this argument that the Kahneman and Tversky [links added] theories dispose of entirely. The psychological evidence shows precisely that people do not deviate from rationality randomly, but rather most deviate in the same way. To the extent that unsophisticated investors form their demands for securities based on their own beliefs, buying and selling would be highly correlated across investors. Investors would not trade randomly with each other, but rather many of them would try to buy the same securities or to sell the same securities at roughly the same time. This problem only becomes more severe when the noise traders behave socially and follow each other's mistakes by listening to rumors or imitating their neighbors (Shiller 1984). Investor sentiment reflects the common judgment errors made by a substantial number of investors, rather than uncorrelated random mistakes."

There are more academics and additional books and other reputable publishers [2] [3] [4] [5] -- and more beyond these. A "business and investing" book search for "technical analysis" on Amazon shows 2908 results.[6] From John Wiley & Sons alone, a "technical analysis" search shows 335 matches.[7] Not all of these books are by academics, yet many are. I could keep going, though I trust that the committee has seen enough about books.

I will also point out that technical analysts also have their own associations with thousands of professional members. The largest such group has a board directors that includes blue-chip professionals and academics. Its members have developed entire technical analysis college curriculums, and the courses and curriculums are increasingly recognized and taught at well-known universities. The Committee may also be interested to know that Robert Prechter served on this association's board for nine years, and was its President from 1990-1991. [8]

Finally, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recognizes the "Chartered Market Technician" (CMT) designation. The CMT program "is a certification process in which candidates are required to demonstrate proficiency in a broad range of technical analysis subjects." The Market Technicians Association developed and oversees the CMT examination. [9] [10] --Rgfolsom 18:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

--Rgfolsom 17:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Folsom takes 'ownership' of Prechter article"

The evidence in the diffs show one thing, while Smallbones' after-the-fact portrayal is another. Committee members can judge for themselves. I note two points of fact.

1. The statement that Prechter's biography was "protected at Folsom's request" is false. Not only is the accusation itself demonstrably wrong; the evidence shows that Smallbones cannot credibly claim that he believes it. The Committee need only look at the timeline and diffs above. I told him twice that the Mediator had requested page protection of Prechter's bio.
2. The person who filed the Article for Deletion of Robert Prechter was soon after exposed as a vandal and a troll. He acknowledged having a mental health issue -- literally. The "insult" Smallbones alleges was me pointing out that the AfD was frivolous and made false claims. Here again, Committee members can evaluate the evidence for themselves.

"Socionomics is a pseudoscience - not notable"

WP:SCI is a proposed guideline, yet it does offer useful guidance. Socionomics more than meets several of the criteria it sets out.

Under notability, scientific community:

1. Textbooks with non-trivial mention of socionomics.

• Behavioral Trading, p. 26.
• Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128.
• Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151.
• The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle p. 269.
• The Irwin Guide to Using the Wall Street Journal, p. 354.

2. Papers covering socionomics.

• Journal of Behavioral Finance, v. 7, no. 4, pp. 193-203.
• Journal of Behavioral Finance, v. 6, no. 3, pp. 144-160.
• Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, v. 2, no. 3, pp 120-125.

3. Institutional support of socionomics:

• American National Election Studies Science Association, a collaboration of Stanford and the University of Michigan, selected the Socionomics Foundation's proposed questions regarding social mood for inclusion in a study funded by the National Science Foundation.

Conference papers:

• The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood:, Parker & Prechter, presented at the meeting of the Association for Heterodox Economics, London, England, July 14-16, 2006.
• Methodological Individualism vs. Methodological Holism: Neoclassicism, Institutionalism and Socionomic Theory, Parker, presented at the joint annual congress of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), Paris, France, July 5-8, 2006.

Under Notability, culture at large

1. Prominent advocacy of socionomics.

Robert Prechter

2. Press coverage of socionomics.

• "I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002, p. 32.
• "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," Futures magazine (cover), Nov. 2004.
• "Social Mood and the Markets," Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, June 2003, p. 50.
• "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter," Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine, July 2003, p. 42.

Under Other sources:

Conference proceedings -- John Casti: "Why the Future Happens: Socionomics and the Science of Surprise"

Search engine -- A Google search for "socionomics" brings more than 26,700 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability.

--Rgfolsom 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Evidence on balance - what the business press says"

Smallbones has offered quotes from two dozen or so articles about Robert Prechter, and expects this Committee to believe that it amounts to the "evidence on balance." At most this is a tiny fraction -- repeat, tiny fraction -- of the available source material regarding Prechter. Major daily newspapers:

• Since 1987, Prechter has been mentioned by name 71 times in USA Today.
• Since 1981, Prechter has been mentioned by name 25 times in the New York Times.
• Since 1996, Prechter has been mentioned by name 34 times in Barron's/The Wall Street Journal.

This list obviously doesn't include articles published before the respective years listed, or the hundreds of articles published in dozens of other newspapers over the past 30 years.

His list also leaves out the trade press -- the hundreds of articles and interviews regarding Prechter in magazines and publications that target investors, traders, and financial professionals.

Smallbones' fractional slice of evidence speaks almost exclusively to Prechter's forecasts of the U.S. stock indexes. Yet Prechter has made many hundreds of other forecasts regarding other financial markets -- bonds (corporate, "junk," Treasury), commodities (energy, grains, livestock), currencies (euro, dollar index, yen, pound, various cross rates), metals (gold, silver, platinum, copper), plus the stocks of individual companies (too many to list), and stock indexes abroad (Europe, Asia, etc., etc.). Prechter's commentary and forecasts also go beyond financial markets, to include the economy (real estate, manufacturing, technology), politics (elections, legislative trends, presidential popularity), and popular culture (movies, music, fashion).

Then there are Prechter's 14 books, several of which have been reviewed and referenced, and excerpted in too many places to count. He has also published an article in a scholarly journal and presented papers at academic conferences. Prechter was an invited speaker recently at the London School of Economics and MIT.

Prechter has frequently provided commentary and given interviews that were broadcast on television and radio. Transcripts are available in most cases.

Perhaps the greatest number of references to Prechter are on the Internet. A Google search for "Robert Prechter" brings more than 60,000 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. What's more, some 28,000 of the Google search results are non-English language.

So -- this gets slightly closer to the "evidence on balance," but only by way of summary. I stand by my edit's to Prechter's Wikipedia biography, and all that I have said about it. --Rgfolsom 21:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Below Smallbones continues to insist that his stack of unflattering quotes represents the "evidence on balance" of "what the business press" says about Robert Prechter. Smallbones also suggests that I cannot present "anything substantially different." With apologies to the Committee regarding length, I'm listing abundant laudatory quotations from the business and trade press (14 articles) and books (8), plus citations/published articles (8) about Prechter in academic journals and conferences.

If Smallbones' accusation is true -- that I want a "completely unbalanced" and flattering article about Prechter -- then Committee members are welcome to wonder why my edits to Prechter's article have not included even one of the positive quotations (etc.) listed here.

Articles

• Prechter's theory, which he calls socionomics, is that the units in a social system, whether they are investors, voters, music fans or shoppers, tend to base their decisions on what they see others doing. In other words, they herd. These decisions are then translated into a social mood, which shows up in indicators such as the Dow Jones, hemlines, lyrics in songs, and so on. Armed with Elliott waves, you can start forecasting all sorts of things. Indeed, Prechter has had astonishing successes with the method in areas where no one else is even trying.

Socionomics completely turns on its head the idea that events shape social mood. Since trends in social mood produce Elliott-wave patterns, the mood itself must follow a definite pattern. And if that's true, it certainly cannot be the result of external events, which are random and don't follow set trends. The only possible conclusion, Prechter argues, is that the direction of causation goes the other way: social mood actually shapes events. Work out the social mood by looking at stock market data, Prechter says, and you can then predict future social events. John Casti, "I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002.

• Robert Prechter is a well-known author, market analyst, publisher and as he says, the first socionomist, who is best known, at least in the markets arena, for his writings on Elliott Wave. As president of Elliott Wave International, Bob has interpreted and parsed the writings of R.N. Elliott to make Elliott Wave a popular tool and area of study for serious traders. Today, although he still stays involved in the markets and trades, Bob has grown more involved in the study of socionomics, which he discusses here. As an author of such books as At the Crest of the Tidal Wave and Conquer the Crash, he has a larger view of the markets than most do. In an interview, Futures editors asked him to discuss this study of socionomics and how traders can use it in today's markets. Ginger Szala, James T Holter, "In the Mood or how to profit from socionomics," Futures Magazine, Nov. 2004, p. 50

• There's valuable guidance here, not only on how to handle the stock market but also on whether one should invest in real estate, bonds, collectibles, commodities, precious metals or just plain cash. If Prechter is right, then the only question is how much time is left for you to take appropriate action. On the other hand, even if his outlook does prove to be incorrect, taking his advice won't endanger your financial security in any negative way. So, what have you got to lose? A must-read, especially for the discerning investor. Norsiah Nurani, "Be prepared" [book review], Malaysian Business, Kuala Lumpur, Nov 16, 2003, pg. 65

• Indeed, because of that high cash component, Prechter has recently been ahead of the Wilshire 5000 on a risk-adjusted basis over the 23 years that the HFD has been following him....Furthermore, prior to 1987, Prechter had some extraordinarily prescient calls. They make him disturbing to ignore, especially if you think the market may be approaching a major juncture. Peter Brimelow, "Is Prechter's bearishness permanent?," marketwatch.com

• But there are a select few market-timing newsletters -- just five among all those that I have tracked over the last 15 years -- that have shown that they can at least immunize investors, relatively speaking, from more risk than the performance they forfeit in the process. The Elliott Wave Theorist, for example, has had an annualized return of 12 percent since 1982 -- 3.6 percentage points shy of the Wilshire 5000, but at just about half the risk. Mark Hulbert "Strategies" column, New York Times, Oct. 4 1998, p. C7.

• The social mood as a source of friction that can boost stocks and corporate profits has been extremely well analyzed by Robert Prechter in a very insightful report entitled `The Socionomic Insight versus the Assumption of Event Causality' in The Elliott Wave Theorist of June 1, 2002. According to Prechter, the recent revelations of corporate fraud, including the Enron scandal, were `not causal to any aspect of social mood whatsoever; it was a result of a change in social mood'....He rightly points out that the stock market fell for months prior to the Enron scandal as `this meter of social mood [the stock market] showed increasing negativity -- involving conservatism, suspicion, fear, anger and defensiveness -- all of which went into precipitating the Enron scandal'.

In fact, Prechter argues that the Enron scandal did not discourage investors at all, since after the revelation of the scandal, in October of last year, the stock market rose and investors' bullish sentiment almost soared to a record level while at the same time consumer sentiment improved significantly....

Prechter also makes the following point: Corporate misdeeds are not even to blame for the bear market that preceded the eruption of the Enron scandal. Corporate misdeeds were in full flower throughout the 1990s, yet no scandal erupted. In fact, those misdeeds -- Ponzi- like accounting practices -- can be credited with raising stock prices and fattening pension plans to the same extent that they can be blamed for crushing and eviscerating them.

While I am less dogmatic than Prechter is about the social mood as the cause of political, social, and economic events, and while I believe that the cause and the effect are frequently difficult to discern and, in any event, tend to reinforce themselves, I certainly do agree with him that when the social mood is optimistic and full of confidence, as it was in the late 1990s, reality is lost touch with, and careful analysis and caution are thrown to the wind, which leads to expanding P/Es and excessive valuations, and that when the mood deteriorates, a phase of sobering up and scepticism follows the preceding euphoria, which leads over time to significantly lower valuations. Marc Faber, Contrarian Investor Column, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, Aug 6, 2002.

• Robert Prechter, president of Elliott Wave International, is a technical analyst who developed a huge following in the 1970s and 1980s using the Elliott Wave theory to forecast the stock market...."Bill Gross, the bond fund manager of Pimco, sounds like a raging bull with his prediction that the Dow Jones Industrial Average will fall to 5,000. The Dow is now trading at a five-year low of just over 7,400. Mr Prechter, on the other hand, warns that "by the time the 'washout' is over, the Dow will be under 1,000".

Mr Prechter knows that his predictions might provoke jeers from economists and market analysts but he adds, with a wry smile, that most of Wall Street thought he was crazy when he predicted in the 1970s that the Dow would surpass 3,000. At the time, it was only trading in the three digits. Mary Chung, "A changing tide for the wave theorist: Robert Prechter's gloomy forecasts may help others survive the bear market," Financial Times, Oct 10, 2002, p. 24.

• "Social Mood and the Markets," Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, June 2003, p. 50.

• [Robert] Prechter has been writing market-savvy commentary since 1976 and is the recipient of numerous industry accolades and awards. Most recently, of course, Prechter was honored with the 2003 Traders' Hall of Fame Award, bestowed at the May Traders' Library/SFO Conference, one of two awards given each year to recognize excellence and preeminence in the field of trading or related fields. Kira McCaffrey Brecht, "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter," Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine, July 2003, p. 42.

• When Financial News Network (forerunner of CNBC) selected its five Masters of the Decade in money circles for the 1980s, the choice for top Wall Street Guru was easy: Robert Prechter of Gainesville, Ga... Prechter was in fast company. The other four Masters of the 1980s selected by FNN were Peter Lynch, money manager; Donald Trump, entrepreneur; John Sculley, of Apple Computers, marketer; and Rod Cannon of Compac, best CEO... Nor was Prechter a stranger to such recognition. Fortune magazine called him "the champion market forecaster"; The New York Times crowned him "the nation's foremost proponent of the Elliott Wave method of forecasting. "Whatever happened to Robert Prechter?" Grimes, Millard. Georgia Trend, Aug 1994. p. 24

• The market has exploded so far to the upside, so fast, over the last four and a half weeks that even veritable permabears have become, if not exactly true believers, at least awstruck bystanders. The kind who, when prodded, concede that the upsurge could well continue for some time -- and a goodly number of points -- before the buying exhausts itself. And as for the bulls, well, the sky's the limit....That, in a nutshell, was the essence of interviews with six of the street's savviest market analysts last week. What the six have in common is that they are technicians.... They are... Elaine Garzarelli... Dan Sullivan... Ned Davis... Justin Mamis... Richard Russell... and Robert Prechter. Kathryn M. Welling, "War and Peace: Six Top Technicians Size Up the Outlook for the Market," Barrons, Feb 18, 1991, p. 7.

• Prechter recently set a new appreciation record in Dr. Norman Zadeh's United States Trading Championship, with a gain of 444% trading options in the four months ending May 31, 1984.(Interestingly, the two leaders in the commodities futures division were also his clients.) Peter Brimelow, "Riding the Elliott Wave," Barrons, July 16, 1984, p. 24.

• After calling for a bull market at around Dow 800, Prechter stayed bullish pretty much through the eighties. When the crash of 1987 obliterated many investors, Prechter got thrown out with the bathwater. Ironically, Prechter was one of the very few to be 100 percent out of equities on Black Monday, October 19, having gotten out at the very top of the sucker's rally on October 5. But because of his identification with the bull run (and because his revised forecast called for a higher top than the 2,700 after which the market cratered), Prechter's goose was cooked. The vitriol his critics brought to the ritual flaying was shocking, especially since most of it came from the same people who'd elevated him to such a lofty pedestal. Ken Kurson, "Game over," Esquire, February 1999, p. 44.

• ...Prechter, who has been active as investor and analyst since the 1970s (in itself a considerable achievement in this business) has a unique approach to market forecasting. He believes that market moves are governed by Elliott Waves, first discovered by Ralph Nelson Elliott (1871-1948), in many ways the godfather of technical financial analysis....

The Efficient Market Hypothesis is rigorous but false because it is an artifact of the early years of econometrics, in which economists sought to fit economic models into equations they could solve, possibly not realizing -- being at best mediocre mathematicians -- that linear and exponential equations, those soluble by mid-century economists, represented only a tiny fraction of the possible mathematical relationships that occur in nature. Only after 1970, with the "Catastrophe theory" of the late Rene Thom, followed by Mandlebrot's fractals and chaos theory did the general public, including economists, come to realize that the simple equations they had studied in school adequately reflected reality in only a small fraction of situations. Like the ecological catastrophes predicted in the 1970s by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the "Club of Rome," the Efficient Market Hypothesis rested on a number of assumptions, made to simplify the equations into solubility, that were in fact demonstrably untrue....

Some day, it would be nice if the Nobel Prize Committee, when looking at financial market analyses, gave a Nobel Prize in Economics for a theory that actually worked. Prechter and, posthumously, Elliott, should be high on the list for the first such award. Martin Hutchinson, UPI Business and Economics Editor. "Wing Collar special: Wrong guys got Nobels," Nov. 27, 2002. http://www.upi.com/Business/20021127-073024-5220r/

Books

• Another new social science, called socionomics, has gotten a following as an extension of one method of technical analysis called Elliott Wave analysis. Robert Prechter, CMT, is credited with the unique view that social mood causes events in the world, and not the other way around.

For example, stock market crashes do not make people gloomy, but gloomy people act in such a way that sets up stock market crashes. Wars, government intervention in business, corporate scandals, fashion, movies, sports, and many other non-market related trends all have their place in the ebb and flow of social mood. Prechter says that the stock market is the single best indicator of this mood in that it is immediate and has analyzable history going back for centuries. No other data stream can match that. With that in mind, he found that wars break out when bear markets are at their worst, and bubble gum music and pop culture is at its peak as bull markets approach their climaxes. Bull market sports do well when stocks do well, but the more violent major sports do better in bear markets....It is not the waxing and waning of different parts of culture and society that affect the stock market and social mood, but social mood, as evidenced in the stock market, which creates changes in culture and society.

Again, this is beyond the scope of this book, but even novice technical analysts can use many of its observations as subjective sentiment indicators with regard to how they invest. Did the last boy band music CD do well or was the latest number-one hit darker industrial fare? Was the last blockbuster movie a Disney cartoon or a Friday the 13th gore fest? The answers help determine if the social mood is positive or negative, and may help investors determine how aggressive to be no matter if they are bull or bear. (pp. 127-128.) Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, Michael N. Kahn

• Chaos theory actually provided a basis for directly refuting the random walk. Robert Prechter, in his book, The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics, referring to Cunningham's 1993 paper, "Unit Root Testing: A Critique from Chaos Theory" came to the following conclusion: "Neither the Samuelson-Fama tests for efficient markets nor the popularly used Dickey-Fuller (1979) test for unit roots can successfully discriminate between a fully deterministic time series, generated from a nonlinear (chaotic) process, and a random walk. A researcher applying these methods to a simple nonlinear price process would be misled into believing that such a series is a random walk." What appears to be random may never in fact be random. (p. 26) Behavioral Trading, Woody Dorsey

• When I meet someone who is interested in learning the trading business, I always refer them to what I consider to be the four Bibles of the business… The Elliott Wave Theorist by Robert Prechter and A. J. Frost, a classic…. [McGee and Edwards'] Technical Analysis of Stock Trends and The Elliott Wave Theorist both give very specific and systematic ways to approach developing great reward/risk ratios for entering into a business contract with the marketplace, which is what every trade should be if properly and thoughtfully executed. (Billionaire commodity trader Paul Tudor Jones, forward) The Logical Trader, Mark B. Fisher

• Of primary interest... are Prechter's comments on technical analysis itself.... We enjoyed Prechter's polished exposition of a technical approach different from our own. As for his observations about fundamental analysis, we simply couldn't agree more. (p. 7.) Technical Analysis of Stock Trends, 8th ed., Robert Edwards & John Magee

• The wave idea became popular in part because one of its proponents, Robert Prechter, called for a masive bull market in 1982 that did materialize -- and then he called the top, just ahead of the 1987 Crash. That certainly got the market's attention! And prices do seem to move in waves on many charts. (p. 40) Technical Analysis for Dummies, Barbara Rockefeller

• In this field there have been many greats, from the early masters of Charles Dow... and R.N.Elliott... to the more recent names of A.J. Frost...Robert Prechter... (p. 27) Master Traders: Strategies for Superior Returns from Today's Top Traders, Fari Hamzei

• Robert Prechter, a technician who bases his predictions on the Elliott wave theory, has become the prophet of our time whose predictions can move the market -- indeed, he is largely responsible for the deviation from the pattern of 1928 that occurred on January 23, 1987. (p. 301) The Alchemy of Finance, George Soros and Paul A. Volcker

• Robert Prechter essay, "Elvis, Frankenstein and Andy Warhol," The Book of Investing Wisdom: Classic Writings by Great Stock-Pickers and Legends of Wall Street, Peter Krass (Editor)

Cited/published in academic research

• Kenneth R. Olson, A Literature Review of Social Mood, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4: pages 193-203, 2006.
• John Nofsinger, Social Mood and Financial Economics, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 6, no. 3, pages 144-160, 2005.
• Robert R. Prechter Jr., Unconscious Herding Behavior as the Psychological Basis of Financial Market Trends and Patterns, The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, Vol. 2, No. 3: pages 120-125, 2001.
• The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood:, Wayne D. Parker & Robert R Prechter Jr., presented at the meeting of the Association for Heterodox Economics, London, England, July 14-16, 2006. (Conference paper)
• Shimshon Bichler, Jonathan Nitzan, Dominant Capital and the New Wars, Journal of World-Systems Research, X, 2, Summer 2004, 255–327. http://jwsr.ucr.edu/index.php
• Heping Pan, A Joint Review of Technical and Quantitative Analysis of Financial Markets Towards A Unified Science of Intelligent Finance, School of Information Technology and Mathematical Sciences, University of Ballarat http://www.hicstatistics.org/2003StatsProceedings/Heping%20Pan%201.pdf
• Enrico Rubaltelli, Psychology of the Financial Markets: Cognitive Distortions, Perceptions, Risk and Collective Behaviors, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, May 2003 (http://www.finanzacomportamentale.it/files/rubaltelli.pdf)
• Henry Pruden, Three (Behavioral) Models from France for Technical Analysis, IFTAJOURNAL, p. 3. http://www.ggu.edu/alumni/upcoming_events/recent_alumni_events/attachment/IFTA+Journal.pdf

--Rgfolsom 16:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding evidence presented by Bucketsofg

I'm pleased that Bucketsofg restored the full history of Robert Prechter. That history confirms the account I had recalled from memory.

• The article had no active community of contributors
• I opened the talk page, and explained my edits there
• I included a substantial contribution to the criticism section
• Smallbones did not edit Prechter's bio until after the start of our earlier dispute in Socionomics.

I hope Committee members will indeed look at the diffs, but I also want the evidence on record, here on this page. This is the text I removed on October 3.

The Elliott Wave Theory holds that the market follows repeatable patterns based on the classic Fibonacci number series, and that one can effectively time it by following visual patterns. But the notion that the market can be consistently effectively predicted, or "timed," remains a will-o'-the-wisp in the minds of many experts and observers. It is often said by wags that if anyone had a magic black box enabling the market's movements to be effectively called, he probably wouldn't need to sell a newsletter.

Thus, while Mr. Prechter has worn the mantle of Elliott Wave expert for a few decades now, his market predictions over the past two decades have been of questionable merit. One problem for him in adhering to his Elliott Wave theory is that it posits a dramatic decline in the final "Wave C" of the pattern. So while Prechter garnered great acclaim for calling upward movements based on Fibonacci numerical series cycling up, he also then later predicted dramatic, nearly terminal-sounding, declines in U.S. equity markets that never materialized. For many market observers, Prechter and the theory on which his expertise was based lost a measure of credibility. Today, he seems a near afterthought, while market-timing itself has been largely discredited.

I believed those remarks were off-topic, unsourced, pejorative, and ill defined. [11] [12] [13] Here is the edit I used instead:

While Mr. Prechter has been considered the foremost Elliott Wave analyst for years, critics have focused on the stock market forecasts he published in the 1990s. They say that by calling for a major bearish reversal, Mr. Prechter missed the run-up in the U.S. equities during that decade.

Committee members will note that, in turn, Smallbones reverted my edit and replaced it with the text which is clearly outside of WP:BLP. It is also relevant that after the article was restored (Nov. 9), I had an exchange about citations with administrator Gamaliel. His concluding remark to me was, "Nice work improving the Prechter article. It's in much better shape now."

--Rgfolsom 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by uninvolved party, User:Dionyseus

Suspicious activity by CanaryInACoalMine

I noticed that an anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement. [14] I was about to revert it, but then I looked at the anon's contribution history and it revealed that the anon has an interest in the Socionomics article just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. Further investigation revealed that the anon had edited User:Punanimal's userpage. [15] User:Punanimal allowed for the edit to remain, [16] this suggests that the anon and User:Punanimal is the same person. Why is this relevant? It is relevant because a look into User:Punanimal's contribution history reveals that the user has an interest in the Socionomics and Robert Prechter articles, just like User:CanaryInACoalmine does. What made me more certain that these three users are the same person is that just minutes after the anon edited User:CanaryInACoalmine's statement, User:CanaryInACoalmine apparently logged in and modified the statement, using the same edit summary that the anon used, and modifying the signature replacing the anon ip with his own. [17] A checkuser should probably be done to see whether or not User:CanaryInACoalmine is User:Punanimal. Dionyseus 05:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted the edit the anon did on the arbitration page

The diff from the anon that I provided in the above section no longer works, why is this? I checked the contribution history of User:82.68.168.38 and his edit on December 9, 2006 in the arbitration request no longer appears, as if it never happened. Also, the diff that I provided that shows that the anon and User:CanaryInACoalmine is the same person has also been removed. Dionyseus 05:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Smallbones

Academic view on TA - no bias

I'm surprised by Folsom's emphasis on so-called "Technical Analysis" and his accusation of bias. 1st he is arguing article content here. 2nd the view that TA borders on pseudoscience is the standard academic view, which I'll document below. The 4 sets of quotes below give not just the standard academic view, but also the views of a mathematician and two notable "academic dissenters," Victor Niederhoffer and Benoit Mandelbrot.

From "Fundamentals of Corporate Finance," Richard A. Brealey, Stewart Myers, and Alan Marcus, 3rd edition, 2001, McGraw-Hill Irwin, the standard undergrad text on finance.

p. 351 "Some investors do try to spot patterns in stock prices. These investors are known as technical analysts. Some technical analysts are very sucessful investors, but we credit this to luck and good judgement, not to technical trading rules, because technical trading rules are useless when stock prices follow a random walk."

p. 350 "Researchers have therefore employed a battery of sophisticated tests and have looked at the behavior of many individual stocks as well as market indexes over many periods. With remarkable unanimity these researchers have concluded that the sequence of past price changes provide little information about future changes." (What they are refering to here is called "The weak form of the efficient-markets hypothesis (EMH)" and any academic text on finance or investments will have similiar material in it.)

p. 747 BM&M state that the EMH is the 3rd most important concept in finance (after the time value of money, and the risk-return trade-off) "The third fundamental idea is that security prices accurately reflect available information and respond rapidly to new information as it becomes available. This efficient-market theory ..."

(It's likely the Folsom will argue that the EMH has been "disproved")

p. 750 "The efficient-market theory is very persuasive, but no theory is perfect - there must be exceptions."

From "The (mis)Behavior of Markets," by Benoit Mandelbrot and Richard L. Hudson, 2004, Basic Books.

p. 9 Describing TA "It beggars belief that vast sums can change hands on the basis of such financial astrology." (Then Mandelbrot describes the opposite of TA, the EMH) "The fundamental concept: Prices are not predictable.... This is now orthodoxy to which I subscribe - up to a point."

p. 245 describing "the Elliott Wave" "But Wave prediction is a very uncertain business. It is an art to which the subjective judgement of the chartists matters more than the objective, replicable verdict of the numbers. The record of this, as of most technical analysis, is at best mixed."

From "A Mathematician Plays the Stock Market" by John Allen Paulos, Basic Books, 2003

p. 49 "Most academic financial experts believe in some form of the random-walk theory and consider technical analysis almost indistinguishable from a pseudoscience whose predictions are either worthless or, at best, so barely discernibly better than chance as to be unexploitable because of transactions costs."

p. 38-39 "(J)ustification for technical analysis is murky at best ... The quasi-mathematical jargon of technical analysis seldom hangs together as a coherent theory .... (C)omplications are introduced into the theory, so many, in fact, that the theory soon becomes incapable of being falsified. Such complications and unfalsifiability are reminiscent of the theory of biorythmns and many other pseudosciences .... Elliott wave theory founders on the simple question: Why should anyone expect it to work?"

From "Practical Speculation," by Victor Niederhoffer and Laurel Kenner, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

p.72 "The problem with technical analysis is that its practioners and advocates fail to follow standard scientific procedure in presenting and evaluating its techniques .... The propositions of technical analysis are simply not testable, as visual interpretations are not susceptible of precise definitions. Technical analysis is so rife with subjective interpretations that it must be regarded as more of a religion than a method, complete with priests who bewilder the unwashed at high-priced seminars."

p. 104 (After comparing TA to checklists on the characteristics of propaganda and pseudoscience N&K conclude)

"Investors who are susceptible to the lure of propaganda and pseudoscience may be disinclined to ask for scientific proof. Indeed whenever we have tried in our columns to provide a fair test of whether trend following works, we have been greeted with vitriol. That is guarenteed to happen when members of a cult are exposed to views that threaten their belief system."

p. 346 Compares TA to 'phrenology."

I think it should be clear to everybody now that documented criticisms of TA should be allowed in Wikipedia articles and not be labelled as biased. Smallbones 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Folsom takes "ownership" of Prechter article

User:Rgfolsom is Robert Folsom, an employee of Prechter's as he has stated in his RfA statement.

Robert Prechter is a businessman whose business is predicting stock prices in his investment newsletter the "Elliott Wave Theorist." He uses the “science of Socionomics” (sic) to help market this newsletter. [18]

Diffs on Robert Prechter are not available between 2005 and Nov.7 2006 because this material was removed for copyright violation – material taken directly from one of Prechter’s websites. [19] [20]

I had watched the article last fall and it became clear that any edit made that was not laudatory toward Prechter was removed by Folsom. This can be partly seen from the diffs on the talk page. [21] (this did not involve me) [22] (this did involve me)

About Nov. 6 I discovered that the article was essentially a word-for-word copy and I reverted the Prechter article back to a much earlier version and gave the source of the copyright violation in the edit summary. Folsom reverted back to the copyright violation version twice and attacked the other editors [23] who removed the copyright violation and attacked me twice [24][25] even though I had said that I thought the article should NOT be deleted (just rewritten) [26]

In my response to Folsom's RfA I stated that "He has improved his own citations recently. Previously they were all from Robert Prechter, now there are a few minor business publications among them." Folsom responded on the RfA page that his citations were from “credible third party publications” which he used because “of the need for verifiability from neutral sources."

Following Folsom's citations in detail shows how he has claimed “ownership” of this article. Self-references are considered credible, but everything I cite he considers to be biased. Starting from the “pre copyright version” [27] which included just 3 references - all to Prechter's books, Folsom adds a link to the NYTimes bestseller list, and removes the unreferenced and cleanup tags.

Nov. 9 [28] User: Gamaliel adds back the unreferenced tag saying it needs more references

Nov 10 [29]Folsom adds 4 references to works authored by Prechter, and removes the unreferenced tag.

Nov 13 [30] Folsom adds a reference to 'The Elliott Wave Theorist" and to 2 sources that praise Prechter.

User:Smallbones (me) [31] adds a quote with reference to a Wall Street Journal article. It turned out that this was a Proquest summary of the article in question.

Folsom removed the quote (1st reversion by Folsom) [32] and shrilly attacks the veracity of the quote and threatens me [33].

Nov 15 I [34] add a quote from Fortune with citation, which says essentially the same thing as the WSJ quote (Prechter's prognostications are so bad that people laugh at him) and a total of 9 citations from sources such as the WSJ, Business Week, Esquire, and Fortune.

Nov 15 Folsom reverts 2nd time [35] saying "poorly sourced" in his edit commentary

Nov 16 [36] I rewrite the article and add back the 9 citations, using 2 quotes in the text this time.

Nov 16 [37] Folsom removes 7 citations, moves 2 to the very end of the article in a 'criticism' section, and adds 14 of Prechter's books (essentially references) in front of the criticism section (3rd reversion)

Nov 17 [38] article protected at Folsom's request.

Nov 26 [39]Prechter's self-publishing house's address removed at request of third party.

Nov 27 [40] article unprotected at my request (nothing happened in mediation, zero)

Nov 27 I add [41] back the original quote from the WSJ with citation

Nov 27 Folsom reverts (4th reversion) [42]

Nov 28 I raise the criticism section from below the list of books to near the top of the article [43] and add back quotes

Nov 28 Folsom reverts substance (5th reversion) [44]

Nov 28 3rd party add primary sources tag [45] and then proposes deletion [46]

Nov 29 Folsom removes quote again (6th reversion) [47]

Folsom joins in on commenting on the RfD for Robert Prechter (the outcome had essentially already been determined as keep. I was the first to vote keep). He attacks the 3rd party three times for disagreeing with him [48] see last paragraph [49] see bottom again – he’s long-winded. [50] near the top this time.

December 1 I put in both the WSJ and Fortune quotes, remove primary source tag, reference to Elliott Wave Theorist newsletter, and add link to Black Monday(1987) [51].

Folsom reverts (7th time) [52]

Dec 3 [53] I add back material on 1987 and new material on Prechter's trading record. Add Barron's cite.

Dec 4 [54] Folsom deletes 1987 information and trading record information and adds conflicting trading record information. Removes Barron's reference and adds 2 of his own. (8th reversion)

Dec 6 I do complete rewrite [55] 20 sources included total, plus Prechter's 14 books.

Dec. 6 Folsom reverts for 9th time [56]

Dec 7. [57] I revert calling Folsom's reversion vandalism.

Dec. 8 Folsom erases most of my contributions, but adds more citations (10th reversion) [58]

I think that it should be clear that Folsom is not adding balanced information on the subject, and he is repeatedly deleting any information that might reflect badly on Prechter. Note that the information he is deleting is all documented from serious business publications such as The Wall Street Journal. On the other hand I generally made a point of keeping in the material that he added. But if he doesn't like any material for any reason he deletes it - this is a practical definition of "taking ownership of an article."

Smallbones 18:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Socionomics is a pseudoscience - not notable

Folsom has taken complete “ownership” of the Socionomics article. “Socionomics” is a theory developed by Robert Prechter based on the “Elliott wave principle,” a non-scientific method of predicting stock prices that was proposed by Ralph Nelson Elliott in his 1946 book “Nature’s Laws – The Secret of the Universe” [59] . The “science of Socionomics” is used to market Robert Prechter’s stock prognostication services [60] . Folsom works for Prechter.

The current version presents socionomics as if it were a respectable scientific theory [61]. The diff shows that he removed my edit saying that socionomics “has little or no academic support” in this last edit. The marketing of this pseudoscience as a science in this Wikipedia article includes a section on the academic standing of socionomics and cites two articles in a peer-reviewed journal (apparently) to support this claim.

Let’s start with the apparent peer-reviewed article by Prechter, claimed to have been published in the “Journal of Behavioral Finance.” Following the link given, [62] it’s clear that the article was published in a journal called “The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets” which wasn’t peer-reviewed, under the rubric “THE PRACTITIONER’S PERSPECTIVE”. In fairness to Prechter, it should be said that when “The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets” was upgraded after his article was published, it became peer-reviewed and was renamed “The Journal of Behavioral Finance.” But presenting this article in the “academic standing” section with the name of the wrong journal on it is clearly misleading.

The second apparent peer-reviewed article about socionomics cited is also from the “Journal of Behavioral Finance.” It was written by a finance professor at Washington State U. In the working paper version that is available, [63] it does not mention the word “socionomics” in the text. It does mention Robert Prechter in a footnote, and in the references cites Prechter’s book “The Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the New Science of Socionomics “. Given that the author does not mention socionomics in the text, it is misleading to include this in the “academic standing” section, implying that it says something about the academic standing of socionomics. Folsom removed my edit saying “does not use the term ‘socionomics’” [64]

Other than the 2 articles, Folsom has put 4 pieces of evidence in the academic standing section 1) an article in a popular science magazine by a mathematician , who also appeared in The Socionomics Institute’s film “History’s Hidden Engine”; 2) a conference paper written by another Prechter employee; 3) an announcement that questions submitted by the Socionomics Institute were preliminarily to be included in a political science opinion survey; and 4) an announcement that the Socionomics Institute had donated money to a psychology/medical study.

The section “criticism” [65] placed at the end of the article might seem to imply independent criticism but that is misleading. All but one comment is taken directly from the socionomics institutes’s film “History’s Hidden Engine” [66]. Anybody who doesn’t think that socionomics is a pseudoscience should download this film. It “explains” how “Elliott waves” determine things like rock-and-roll styles, skirt lengths, birth rates, presidential elections, etc. etc.

The article is in some places a direct copy of an article from Prechter’s Socionomics website (compare [67] to the table in [68]) . This should be removed as a copyright violation.

I really don’t know how to counter Folsom’s extremely weak claim that socionomics has scientific status, mainly since almost all people in the academic community have simply ignored the so-called theory (This is not true for the predecessor “theory,” the “Elliott wave” – see evidence above under Technical Analysis that the Elliott wave is considered to be pseudoscience.) Probably the best way is to ask Folsom to show that it has scientific acceptance and then compare it to how this problem has been handled in similar situation in Wikipedia. I could never get that far with Folsom – see [69] [70]

The new guideline “Wikipedia:Notability – Science” which wasn’t available at the time of most of this dispute may offer an easy way out of this situation [71] “Decisions about including or excluding material must always reflect the opinions of outside authorities, not those of Wikipedia editors.” Clearly Folsom was not an “outside authority” given that he works for Prechter.

From the same guideline “An article in a reputable peer reviewed journal and a refuting article in the same or a similar journal are all that are needed. Yet if those two articles are the extent of the coverage of this topic, then it is not having an impact either on the research field to which it relates or in the public at large.” Re: meeting the requirements for notability under WP:V and NOR. Folsom’s evidence doesn’t seem to meet even these requirements, which the guideline suggests are too loose.

Given the above guideline, it now seems clear that socionomics is not notable and should just be deleted (especially the copyright violations!).

Smallbones 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

I consider just about everything that Folsom has written on the talk pages to me to be incivil, but I’ll limit this section to clear examples toward other people. [72] [73] (on the 2nd part, the 1st is against me) [74] the top one this time – his insults seem to come in pairs. [75] see last paragraph [76] see bottom again [77] near the top. Smallbones 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Folsom completely misunderstands WP:COI WP:NPOV WP:V

One talk-page edit tells it all [78]

Smallbones 18:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Folsom on pseudoscience

On the workshop page Folsom argues (point by point):

It is folly to expect this Committee to equate technical analysis with astrology.

I’ll answer these below point by point:

• University professors have authored books about TA, and those books have been published by large and reputable publishing houses.[79][80][81][82]

The second, third and fourth links are not “about TA.” They do not even mention technical analysis! The 4th link seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with TA (I don’t have or know of the book itself). The books behind links 2 (Shiller) and 3 (Shleifer) do mention the efficient markets hypothesis (EMH), which is a widely accepted scientific theory that in its weakest form says that TA is nonsense. The links suggest modifying, or even throwing out the EMH almost completely. It does not follow that TA is not a pseudoscience. The Shleifer book mentions technical analysis once on page 7. The Shiller book doesn’t seem to have a single mention of TA.

New information! Shiller's 2001 bestseller paperback edition of his popularized version of the above book (Irrational Exuberance, Broadway Books)has an "afterward to the paperback edition." On pp.241-242 he has a section on a specific technical analyst (not Prechter) and describes his predictions and reasoning. Shiller doesn't give too much commentary except in 2 places.

p. 241 "His reasons appear remarkably weak."

p. 242 (conclusion of section) "The same analysis with the slightest and most plausible variations could produce very different dates. Since the world was at peace in 1982, one might well try adding 17 to 1982, which gives a date of 1999 for the end of the fourth mega-market. This is another illustration of the arbitrariness of much new-era thinking." A reminder - this is all that either of these 2 Shiller books has to say about TA.

The first link is slightly more problematic. It is about TA and one of its 2 authors is a professor. In the introduction [83] the authors note “perhaps you remember sitting in a finance class and hearing your professor say that technical analysis "is a waste of time." “ Hardly a refutation of the claim that many academics consider TA to be pseudoscience.

• Researchers and academics around the world regularly publish favorable articles about TA in scholarly journals (type "technical analysis" in the keyword field of this link).

I got 57 hits. Hardly a big number considering that most of them have not been published. Many of them seem to come out against TA. The 2nd paper on the list [84] is not from a peer-reviewed journal, rather from a Ag Extension website, but the authors are well known and competent. The Profitability of Technical Analysis: A Review by Cheol-Ho Park and Scott H. Irwin. This paper is often cited IN FAVOR of TA. It concludes “In conclusion, we found consistent evidence that simple technical trading strategies were profitable in a variety of speculative markets at least until the early 1990s. As discussed above, however, most previous studies are subject to various problems in their testing procedures. Future research must address these problems in testing before conclusive evidence on the profitability of technical trading strategies is provided.”

• Technical analysis is commonly featured in market-specific magazines and information resources that go to industry professionals, including services offered by large exchanges such as the CBOT.[85][86][87]

This says nothing about the question of “pseudoscience or science.” Folsom’s just distracting people from the question at hand. I’ll delete his similar points

• Federal Reserve economists have published numerous favorable studies about TA.[88][89][90]

The first paper I know very well. It doesn’t say anything about TA being PROFITABLE (which is the whole point of predicting markets). The 2nd link is a powerpoint presentation which includes “Recent Work on TA•TA research has stalled rather badly. •Extrapolative rules probably no longer work in FX markets. –There is a lot of noise in the data. •Why don’t the rules work anymore? –Data snooping or market adaptation?” The 3rd link is by the same author in the same market and gets somewhat different results using an overcomplicated technique.

• Then there's this comment in an online text (chapter 11, pp. 114-115) from the then-executive vice president of the New York Federal Reserve: "Nearly all traders acknowledge their use of technical analysis and charts. According to surveys, a majority say they employ technical analysis to a greater extent than 'fundamental' analysis, and that they regard it as more useful than fundamental analysis—a contrast to twenty years ago when most said they relied many more heavily on fundamental analysis."

TA gets 2 paragraphs in a 135 page book! Again it’s about practitioners not academics.

Smallbones 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Folsom's response on pseudoscience

The following from Folsom (see above)is not even close in showing that TA has a scientific following:

"Academic view of TA"

If academic opinions were at issue, I could readily point the Committee to the work of academics who reject the EMH and/or embrace TA -- including these professors at Harvard,

Yale,Columbia,University of Chicago, Stanford,etc.,etc.,etc.

"Rejecting" the EMH is simply not the same thing as embracing TA. Please check all the links and you'll see that not a single one of these webpages has a single reference to TA (If you go one link (vita[91]) further on the last etc. you'll find several mentions of TA - this is the author of the TA book given above).

BTW, I've checked the paperback version of Shiller's book and there IS a mention of TA added in this edition - very negative. I'll add it above with the other books.

This behavior of Folsom's - quoting things of no relevance to this arb - shows how weak his case is. Surely he could have come up with something better! I'll suggest that committee members remember that a pseudoscience is something that can't be proven wrong whatever the evidence against it. You might also want to re-read Niederhoffer and Kenner's comment about "religious cults" above.

Smallbones 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to Folsom's accusation of abuse of mediation

On the workshop page and above [92] Folsom accuses me of "abuse of the mediation process" On the workshop page he says that he will let the mediator give his e-mails to the arbitrators so that they can judge for themselves, but that I have withdrawn such permission (where have I done this?). Just to be clear, if the arbitrators want to see my e-mails sent to the mediator, he has my permission to release all of them. They are on

November 6, 10, 15 (twice), 17, 19, 21, and on

December 1 and 6 (three times)

From Folsom's timeline above, it seems that he only wrote the mediator twice. Just to be clear, 9 days (by Folsom's timeline) went by from the time the mediation was accepted until I edited the Prechter article. Nothing happened except that I wrote to the mediator 4 times, Folsom seems to have written once, but I got no response from Folsom via the mediator to anything I wrote.

The Prechter page was then protected for 10 days without anything happening, until I requested it to be unprotected. Nothing happened in the mediation in the meantime, i.e. I got nothing relayed to me in any form from Folsom. Every protected page says right at the top of the page that it is not the "official" version and protection is never a permanent state of affairs.

It is not clear what he is complaining about as abuse. Maybe that I requested that the Prechter page be unprotected after 10 days? He needs to be specific about what is the abuse and what rule he thinks was broken.

Smallbones 22:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence on Balance - what the business press says about him

Since the arguement seems to be that even though everything I've put into the Robert Prechter article is true and well documented, that it is unbalanced, I think the only thing I can do is show you what the business press says about him. Actually the 1st 3 references are to fairly unknown sources that show the type of material that is spread about Prechter in the absence of fact checking. The rest is from the best sources possible. Smallbones 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WSJ articles on Prechter are with WSJ website summaries except where noted

[[93]]Undated accessed 2/18/07 “Robert Prechter - Libertarian Robert R. Prechter, Jr., is one of the most successful, respected, and controversial financial advisors of our times. “

[[94]] Undated accessed 2/18/07 You also successfully forecast the crash in 1987, didn’t you? “Nobody specifically predicted a “crash” before it started, including me. But I did tell people to sell right when the sentiment indicators showed the majority bullish.”

[[95]] Undated – accessed on 2/18/07 “Elliott Wave Theory Robert R. Prechter calls have since become legendary, and he has gone on to become a best selling author. Frost and Prechter predicted, in the middle of the crisis of the 70s, the great bull market of the 1980s. Not only did they correctly forecast the bull market but Robert R. Prechter also predicted the crash of 1987 in time and pinpointed the high exactly. He followed up with the ensuing bull market and resultant bear market.”

FT MONEY: Not waving but drowning in financial theories, By John Authers Financial Times, Oct 07, 2006 (quotes) ‘Believe it or not, the arid business of analysing market charts in search of trends (without reference to fundamental data) arouses heat, passion and anger and brooks no compromise.’ …. ‘Robert Prechter, who heads Elliott Wave International, is even developing a theory called "socionomics". Many market professionals find this stuff hard to swallow.’

PETER BRIMELOW, Elliott Wave's Prechter sounds the alarm, Oct 20, 2005 [96] “by the Hulbert Financial Digest's count, the EWFF's trader's portfolio has endured a staggering annualized loss of 18.1% over the 20 years through September. (EWFF split off in 1999 from Prechter's Elliott Wave Theorist, which no longer offers specific portfolio advice. But the two seem to work in tandem.)”

FT MONEY: Message of doom and gloom can still amuse By Philip Coggan, Financial Times, Oct 01, 2005 (quotes) “The sky is falling. There is always a market for doomsday predictions about the economy and financial markets. Humans seem to get a vicarious thrill from contemplating disaster.” …. “I am not sure whether there is a statute of limitations on such predictions. Let us be generous and say five years is a decent interval. So Robert Prechter, author of Conquer the Crash: You can Survive and Prosper in a Deflationary Depression (published in 2002) has still some time to be proved right. But not much.”

PETER BRIMELOW, Is Prechter's bearishness permanent? CBS.MarketWatch.com, Last Update: 12:01 AM ET Jun 30, 2003 [[97]] Prechter's specialty is the Elliott Wave, an esoteric theory about the movement of markets and practically everything else besides. It's fatally easy to poke fun at.

But Prechter himself is highly educated and much respected by his fellow technicians. His recent two-volume study "Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction" shows a mind-boggling range of reading, from rock music (Prechter once played in a band) to higher mathematics.

INSIDE TRACK: A vicious circle of investor gloom and mistrust, by Philip Coggan, Financial Times, Feb 17, 2003 (quote)

“During equity bear markets, investor psychology changes. They opt for safe assets such as government bonds and gold and readily believe scare stories. They also extrapolate the trend to infinity. Just as, during the bull market, authors fell over themselves with aggressive targets for the US market (Dow 36,000, Dow 100,000), Robert Prechter, a technical analyst, now tells us* that "the stock market is embarking upon its biggest bear market assuredly since that of 1929-32 and possibly since that of 1720-84". This will not end, he says, until the Dow is in triple digits (that is, below 1,000). The apocalypse is predicted in many forms. Some, including Mr Prechter, invoke a 1930s-style deflation in which asset prices tumble” referring to: Conquer the Crash: You Can Survive and Prosper in a Deflationary Depression, published by Wiley

FT MONEY - EQUITY MARKETS: A long time to make money from short selling By Mary Chung, Financial Times, Oct 05, 2002 (quote)

‘You might imagine that, with such sharp falls, it makes sense to do some bargain hunting. Not so, says Robert Prechter, president of Elliott Wave International, a research firm that specialises in technical analysis. "It's not too late to sell; the Dow is going to go down a lot lower than 5,000," he says referring to comments by Bill Gross of bond fund manager Pimco. He grabbed headlines with his prediction that the Dow would drop to 5,000 last month. Mr Prechter is even more negative, warning that "by the time the 'washout' is over, the Dow will be under 1,000". ‘

FT MONEY: The high price of low inflation By Philip Coggan, Financial Times, Sep 07, 2002 (quote) ‘The deflationists are a mixed bunch. They range from the mildly concerned to the apocalyptic - such as Robert Prechter, the chartist who foretells a downturn in a "grand supercycle" that will bring deflation and depression. ‘

Barker, Robert, Business Week; 7/22/2002 Issue 3792, p90-90, 1p, 2c LEND HALF AN EAR TO THIS DOOMSAYER (quotes)

‘Think the market is rotten now? It's about to get worse, much worse, according to Bob Prechter. Worried about Dow 8000? Prechter would tell you he can see Dow 800. (No typo there--that's Dow Eight Hundred.) ‘ …. ‘If few people today know the name Robert R. Prechter Jr., few investors 15 years ago didn't. A onetime Merrill Lynch technical analyst, Prechter and his newsletter, The Elliott Wave Theorist, began gaining renown in the early '80s. He correctly saw that a long trend of rising inflation was giving way to an era of disinflation. Prechter called the bear market's August, 1982, nadir and, working from his home in Gainesville, Ga., became an off-Wall Street guru. By 1987, The New York Times called him "both prophet and deity, an adviser whose advice reaches so many investors that he tends to pull the market."

That moment, however, would prove to be Prechter's zenith. Steadily bearish calls led his followers far astray from the 1990s' humongous stock market gains--his worst error, Prechter, who is now 53, readily conceded. ’ ….’ So in his Elliott Wave charts, Prechter sees an inevitable stock market collapse that has already begun, an economic depression, and a breathtaking deflation in the prices of most every type of asset. Houses worth $500,000 today will wind up going for $150,000--or less. Banks and insurers will fail, ‘

Colvin, Geoffrey, Fortune; 10/16/2000, Vol. 142 Issue 9, p84-84, 1p, 2c THE WHEELERS, THE WAVERS, AND THE STAR-STRUCK

In an economy that seemingly defies explanation, is it any wonder that people turn to wave theory, the number 1.618, and--yes!--the stars for guidance? (quotes)

‘ For an entertaining break in your day, go to a search engine and type in "Kondratieff wave" or "Elliott wave" or, for even lighter fare, "Donald A. Bradley" (he thought stock prices were determined by the planets).’ …. ‘Most people haven't heard about this brand of voodoo since Robert Prechter, high priest of the Elliott wave, was lionized for calling the stock run-up that began in 1982 and the crash of 1987. Since then his big-picture forecasts have been laughably terrible, with global economic depression continually just around the corner and the Dow headed below 1000. His famous newsletter, The Elliott Wave Theorist, recently gave up financial forecasting in favor of broader societal issues, for which the outlook is also very grave but at least not subject to embarrassing comparisons with index numbers. (He does still venture market calls in a smaller, niche publication.)

The Elliott theory falls at about the midpoint of wave looniness. ‘ ….’ Their proponents have no idea why they should work.

Of course the results are pathetic. ‘

Ride That Wave! Is Bob Prechter's long-forecast economic and market collapse finally at hand? By Jonathan R. Laing, Barron’s , October 26, 1998 (quote)

‘Such lurid forecasts make Prechter easy to dismiss. After being accorded guru status on Wall Street in the 'Eighties for being one of the few prognosticators to predict the huge 1982 liftoff in the stock market and to stay aboard for most of the ride until just before the 1987 Crash, Prechter has been dead wrong about the market practically ever since. For he has remained timorously invested mostly in Treasury bills for the past 10 years, blowing better than 200% gains in the Dow and the S&P 500 Index. According to numbers compiled by the Hulbert Financial Digest, the Elliott Wave Theorist timing strategy would have yielded a 12% annual return from the end of 1982 through August 31 of this year, compared with 15.6% for the value-weighted Wilshire 5000 and the 16.6% annual return logged by the S&P. That's a huge underperformance, even taking into account the fact that Prechter's strategy was only half as risky as being fully invested at all times.’

Bears Will Be Right On Stocks Someday, Just You Watch --- So They Missed 5,000 Points, It's No Reason They Ought To Stop Prognosticating, by Robert McGough, The Wall Street Journal, 1285 words, Jul 17, 1997 My summary: article mentions Prechter as prominent bear.

Business Week 11-18-96, Up Front: BRACING FOR A MARKET APOCALYPSE

‘DOOMSDAY IS UPON US. So says market prognosticator Robert Prechter, who became a Wall Street celebrity by accurately forecasting the 1982-87 bull market. In his monthly newsletter, The Elliott Wave Theorist, he predicts that the market will plummet more than 50% over the next two years, followed by a 1930s-style depression.

Prechter's star has dimmed somewhat lately because he has been downbeat during the 1990s market advance. But, says Jim Schmidt, editor of Timer Digest, which tracks financial newsletters, he's still well-respected as a technician and a professional. Prechter gets attention in investing circles, even if many on Wall Street dismiss his jeremiad as extreme.’

Brimelow, Peter, Forbes; 1/3/94, Vol. 153 Issue 1, p48-48, 1p, 1c Skirts Up, Stocks Down From Abstract: “The article focuses on Robert Prechter, an investment letter writer. He is predicting a multiyear bear market, with the Dow losing as much as 90%, that's ninety percent, possibly within the decade.”

Robert Prechter sees his 3600 on the Dow--But 6 years late, By Power, William, The Wall Street Journal, 429 words , Aug 19, 1993

Six years after Robert Prechter made his prediction that the Dow Jones Industrial Average would reach 3600, the one-time stock superstar has been vindicated by the Dow's 3604.86 closing on Aug 18, 1993. Although Prechter lost many of his followers after the prediction--and became the punchline of in-crowd jokes--he feels the personal aspect of the vindication is important, but he knows the public will not forgive him for timing on the prediction.

My addition to summary (quote) ‘ . Mr. Prechter sees an approaching bear market, to be kicked off by a crash "bigger than that of 1987." His warning for stock-market investors: "You should be concerned now if you're in, and should do something about it." ‘

Advisory Newsletters Don't Seem to Be Providing Quality Assistance Traders Seek from Them, By Angrist, Stanley W, The Wall Street Journal, 1497 words, Feb 5, 1990

The poor performance of commodity trading advisory newsletters such as the Elliott Wave Theorist is discussed. The Commodity Traders Consumer Report found that only six of 26 letters followed in 1989 showed profits for the year.

'Elliott Wave' Forecaster Ends Public Appearances, The Wall Street Journal, 188 words , Mar 10, 1989

Responding to speculation that Mr. Prechter was planning to retire, Peter Hackstedde, an associate, said Mr. Prechter will still publish his newsletter, but will "delegate all his media and speaking work to his associates."

Doomsayers Now Are Salient Among Market Bears, By Constance Mitchell, The Wall Street Journal, 1374 words, Dec 27, 1988

In the December issue of his popular Elliott Wave Theorist newsletter, Mr. Prechter said he suspects that October 1988 will go down in history as an important month, "since it is likely to stand as the high of the post-crash rally, mark the end of the economic expansion which began in 1982 and kick off the next Great Depression."

Crash Topples Bullish Analysts' Pedestals Role May Diminish, By Linda Sandler, The Wall Street Journal, 1349 words, Nov 13, 1987

In the bull market, people listened when pundits like Mr. Wien or Robert Prechter talked. But the crash of 1987 knocked most of the experts off their pedestals. Setting targets for the Dow Jones Industrial Average of 3000 or higher, the market strategists mostly failed to predict anything resembling the Oct. 19 debacle.

The Crash of '87: Bull Market Guru Predicts Further Dow Average Fall, The Wall Street Journal, 210 words, Oct 20, 1987

(Part of this article was retracted. It is all about Prechter’s views on the market. In the part that was not retracted, it says that Prechter was looking to buy on price declines in the weeks preceding the Oct. 19 crash – My summary.)

People Weekly May 11, 1987 “Ace analyst Robert Prechter says when skirts rise, so does the stock market - no bull.”

Before October 1987, there is no issue - everybody agrees that he correctly called a major stock price increase. Between Oct. 2 and Oct. 19 there is an issue. Lots of pretty vague reports say that he called the Oct. 19 crash. But see the 2nd to top and 2nd to last articles! Since Oct. 20, 1987 - there is no disagreement, Prechter has consistently called for a major down move in stocks, great depressions, etc. The Dow Jones Industrial Average went from about 1,750 at the close of trading Oct. 19, 1987 to well over 12,000 now.

I invite Rgfolsom to show that any reliable business press were writing anything substantial different. He'll likely respond that he "doesn't play that game." But the only game here is documented facts and balance - he can't play that game. Smallbones 19:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rgfolsom's response above [98] which is repeated on the workshop page is remarkable for not showing any specific evidence. He just says essentially "There's lots of evidence" - this is just a non-response. Smallbones 10:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So Rgfolsom did take up my invitation and come up with some references. I guess it's up to the ArbCom now to decide if the article as written essentially solely by Rgfolsom is more balanced that the article where I contributed approx. the bottom 1/3 that contains criticisms.

As you go through the lists, I'll suggest that you consider the sources - if you don't know that a source is reliable, you probably don't want to take it too seriously. The list of books and academic articles suffer from this problem more than the newspaper/magazine articles. In particular the IFTA "journal" doesn't seem to be academic in any way and the editor specifically states "Professor Pruden’s article, which, by the way, was not submitted as a research paper,..." And the Nofsinger paper mentions Prechter only in a footnote and in the bibliography. Other than these guys, it appears that none of the authors are in finance or economics (it's hard to tell with the paper in Italian).

None of the references cited by Rgfolsom seem to dispute the basic fact shown many times in my list of references above. Prechter - who's only claim to notability is in financial market price prognostication - has, since 1987, consistently predicted that stock prices would fall drastically and the economy would enter a great depression. Meanwhile the economy has gone through one of the greatest booms in history and the Dow has gone from 1,750 to 12,000. Don't you think that - on balance - Wikipedia's readers deserve to know about this? Smallbones 20:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bucketsofg (talk · contribs) (uninvolved and only interested after-the-fact)

Brief history of the Robert Prechter article

The article was created 03:20, 26 May 2005, and for long merely a stub. Information began to be added 28 December 2005.

Much of the text that had accumulated by November, 2006 had been copied from one of Prechter's web pages, resulting in the deletion of the page on 7 November 2006 as "copyvio / spam". Rgfolsom persuaded the deleting admin to restore the article (note discussion here), but he only restored part of the history. I have today (Jan. 26) restored the full history.

The article seemed to uninvolved users as inordinately laudatory, as evidence by the speedy deletion as "spam" on 7 November, just mentioned. It was WP:PRODded three weeks later as a "soapbox", and then referred to WP:AFD, here, where the consensus was a clear keep, but several users expressed concern about the promotional tone that the article took.

The edit war at Robert Prechter

Rgfolsom (talk · contribs)'s first edit to the page, on 3 October 2006, removed material criticizing Prechter's recent market calls [99] and added positive material [100]; Smallbones (talk · contribs)' first edit to the article was 30 Oct., re-adding a paragraph describing Prechter's theoretical approach and describing its track record as "questionable". From this point a low-grade edit war continued, with Smallbones adding material that was critical of Prechter's record and Rgfolsom removing it and adding positive material.

Beginning 9 November, 2006, Rgfolsom began to add substantial detail (this diff shows next seven edits), including the addition of a section with the title of prominence in which his achievements were lauded: e.g., that he had "won the U.S. Trading Championship in 1984 , with a then-record 444% return" and named "Guru of the Decade" in 1990; that he had correctly predicted the bull market of the early 80s.

Smallbones began adding negative material in the following weeks, which Rgfolsom consistently removed, complaining about material with an "obvious slant against Prechter" (see the whole conversation here). On 15 November, for example, Smallbones inserted a series of references to contemporary criticism of Prechter's market calls in 1990s, which Rgfolsom reverted with the summary Flagrant POV, poorly sourced and disruptive edits". (The sources, as you can see were the Wall Street Journal, Fortune, and Business Week.)

On the talk page he accused Smallbones of having "abandoned any pretense of NPOV", and threatening arbitration; he complained of "seven references to Prechter's failed forecasts in the very first paragraph of his bio, vs. zero mention his successes". A couple edits later, Rgfolsom deleted most of the references with the summary "Created "Criticism," cleaned up sloppy footnoting, grammar, and punction in the citations, reverted from the flagrant POV in the first section". With this a new criticism section, limited to two references from the early nineties, was placed at the bottom of the article.

Evidence presented by User:Hipocrite

Not a notable theory

What follows is an appeal to my authority, but an accurate one none the less. This is not a notable or widespread financial theory. It is not taught in the standard texts, or the advanced texts. It is not used at major trading firms. I would be shocked if the statements in the articles regarding the miraculous effects of this theory are accurate. Finally, I note that the statements that are described as the "Standard View" vs. the "Socionomic View" demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of behavioral economics. Just looking at the first point, the standard cause of recession is now believed to be falling producer confidence - this should be listed as the "Standard" (whatever that is) view. However, socionomics takes credit for this - "Cautious businessmen cause recession." From the article: "Most of the literature regarding socionomics has been published by Robert Prechter and the Socionomics Foundation, thus the relative newness of the theory means there are few formal critiques available." Hipocrite - «Talk» 06:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Sandstein

To the extent that the conduct of Rgfolsom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is at issue here, it may be of interest that there is circumstantial evidence that he used a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account, MarkA12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics ([101]). The great majority of MarkA12's few contributions, which have now ceased, relate to Socionomics in one way or another. He also displays a broad knowledge of Wikipedia policy and writes in an educated, polite style. Both are much at odds with the impression given by the typical new user, but fit Rgfolsom's pattern of behaviour. Arbitrators are asked to refer to the accounts' contribution records, as well as to my discussions with these accounts at User_talk:Sandstein#Socionomics_deletion and User_talk:Sandstein#Re:_User:MarkA12. Sandstein 21:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)