Talk:John T. Reed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Self Publishing: What is self publishing? Is it really as simple as it sounds? It sounds like a way for normal people to get past editting and marketing bias of large book firms. Also by that definition it could be the diary of 10 year girl and her exploits in the fifth grade. Does that mean every paper you wrote from sixth grade on that gets to a web site or that you put through a desk top publishing software is literary material? (t86753039) (edit)

Archives

Archive 1: Feb - Apr 2007

[edit] Irrelevant opinion

Several of John T. Reed's competitors have their products listed on their Wikipedia entry, so I went to add them. There was no false information in those entries. Whomever has DRASTICALLY edited John T. Reed's Wikipedia entry evidently is a fan of Robert Kiyosaki, as no one seems to think his entry is self-promotion. Robert G Allen has one of his book titles mentioned. We would enjoy the same courtesy. -John's son 71.202.178.85 (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda

this is self-promoting propaganda.I bet he wrote this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.52.102 (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. And by a non-notable self-published ("vanity published") author as well. Proxy User (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So fix the article instead of grinding your axe on the talk page. Rray (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A little sensitive on the subject? What's your vested interest? You sound like a Reed Follower. I have no interest in Reed at all, just what I see here at Wikipedia. Proxy User (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of books

It's my opinion that the list of books added by Danieltreed is not an asset to the encyclopedia article about John T. Reed. They're certainly listed on the subject's own website, which is twice linked (once as an inline citation, once in the external links section) in the article. Listing books with independent reviews cited in reliable sources would not be a problem, but that's not what was done here.

I'd like to know the views of other editors on this. — Athaenara ✉ 02:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and revert that. This article already endured more than its share of POV hell several months ago (archive 1). — Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

Just judging from just some of his reviews of gurus on his website at www.johntreed.com, it seems he almost can't say anything nice about anyone. I agree it is important to be educated about which gurus can be trusted because there is a fair amount of fraud. While some/many of his claims about the gurus may be or are true, Mr. Reed seems to be on a mission to mercilessly bash every action and every quoted word of a person. To keep it short, if he finds any iota of questionable character / teaching / background in a guru, he criticizes almost everything about the guru, from court-transcripts (since the wealthy are often victims of lawsuits by people who want easy money) to plausibility of background just because HE doesn't think it's a likely background. His criticisms are chock-full of constantly negative, skeptical, sarcastic, biased statements every step of the way. A critic is supposed to be able to see the good as well as the bad, so I don't think he is very good at his self-appointed job of rating (criticizing) the gurus. In my view, his negativity is a far worse flaw than any of those gurus whom he reviews. His writing is so negative, biased and hateful, that there is no way I could trust him on his opinions about gurus -- trust is very important in this world, and he doesn't have mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.69.40 (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia article about John T. Reed. It's not really the place to publish your opinion of John T. Reed's website. Rray (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As Rray noted above and as the {{talkheader}} on this page says, “This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John T. Reed article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.” — Athaenara ✉ 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Reed indeed has little or nothing good to say about *any* other Real Estate authors. He is shamelessly self-promotional, yet finds fault in anyone else who shills their products the exact same way he does. His site is almost entirely dedicated to putting other companies and individuals down who sell Real Estate books. It's really quite hypocritical.

As to the purpose of this talk page, yes, it's for improvement of the article. This article is an advertisement, it could use not just improvement, but a total rewrite. Without a rewrite, I plan to nominate it for deletion. Proxy User (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it, and if there is a consensus that the article should be deleted, it will be. Rray (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'll feel free should I decide to. I don't need permission, but thanks anyway. Proxy User (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please note that I didn't indicate you needed my permission. Rray (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To whoever complained first, please go to Reed's web site. He does support other advisors, almost 30 in real state. Yes, JTReed can be very nasty at times, specially towards the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" author, Robert K. Anyways, what he wrote of him is true. But people need to lose their money and jobs to get what Reed says. What Reed should be denounced is for promoting free trade, although not his main interest. Americans stand no chance vs workers from China who charge almost nothing, and USA is not selling much to the rest of the world anymore. Money is only coming out, not in. But he simply ignores that and pretends that tehre will always be money in here in abundance. That's way wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.56.18 (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Entry on author should have book list

Bottom line, John T. Reed's main profession is author. The titles of his books cover many topics and are as relevant to his encyclopedia entry as anything gets.

Danieltreed (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi - I have no objection to including a list of books he's written. It just needs to be properly sourced. Rray (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One issue is that all of his books appear to be self-published, which somewhat challenges even a claim to notability --Insider201283 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think "notability" is exactly the point. There are thousands of finantial pundits out there. Reed is a self-published blogger whose content tends to lean towards being lite on original thought and very heavy of criticizing all other authors. I question the notability of the whole article. Proxy User (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles don't have notability; their subjects do. This article includes multiple external references as evidence of notability, and that's the criterion that's used to judge whether or not someone warrants an article here. Your entitled to your opinion, but your opinion doesn't outweigh reliable sources demonstrating notability. (Being a self-publisher and being a blogger are not evidence that a subject lacks notability. Notability is demonstrated by coverage.) Rray (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Since Reed has no restraint when it comes to openly criticizing other financial pundits, he (and his son) can't possibly mind a similar section here outlining criticisms of his activities. Proxy User (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to include such a section in the article if you can provide references to reliable sources for anything you add. I think you should decide whether you're going to expand the article by adding a criticism section or nominate it for deletion though, because there's no point in doing one if you're planning the other. Rray (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

One would think that the references need be no better than the ones used both in this article and the criticism sections of Mr. Reed's fellow pundits. Please don't suggest that Reed is free of criticism, or that such criticism is not relevant, that's a clear POV issue.Proxy User (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The references used in the article include MSN Money, CNN Money, the New York Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald, all of which are considered reliable sources. And nowhere did I suggest that criticism was irrelevant. I suggested that you be bold and make the changes to the article that you suggested, and that you include references with your changes. Rray (talk) 23:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)