Talk:Kenneth L. Fisher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

This article currently has a strong "autobiography" feel to it. It needs substantial cleanup, to format it as a standard bio, and remove some of the language. --Elonka 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my 2 cents to the cleanup. While doing so I actually found it quite instructive to compare the dispassionate style that is necessary in a work of reference with the vigorous language prevalent in the investment world. I hope that when Fisherinv comes back to re-edit "their" article they take this into consideration. Smalljim 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed some specific articles noted in the article for more NPOV cleanup. Netsumdisc 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Subject meets criteria for Notability. Is on the Forbes 400, and has a recurring column in the same magazine. Removing tag. Netsumdisc 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Text and response from User_talk:Jeepday#Notability via copy and paste


You've tagged Kenneth Fisher as not being notable. A page for a book he wrote, The Only Three Questions That Count was nominated for deletion, but ultimately kept, because of the notability of the author. I'm removing this tag, and adding citations. Netsumdisc 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your position and would suggest a couple things to help prevent the article from drawing deletion suggestions. First in it's current form the article reads like spam it very much needs to be written more encyclopedic. Second read WP:N#The_primary_notability_criterion then apply your referenceing and formating like was done with Bill Russell (or any other featured article) which was a Wikipedia:Featured articles. If the subject of this article is half as notable as the article would seem to like you to believe, the strive for Wikipedia:Featured articles instead of peacock status Signed Jeepday 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

End copy and paste Jeepday 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Scholarly research papers?

It's not clear to me that these are independent peer-reviewed works. But I'm sure Fisher fans can clarify that. Pleclech 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Issue is Whether He has an MBA and How He Avoided Vietnam

You can't have a biography, even a brief one, of a guy who spent the years 1968 to 1972 in college and not mention the Vietnam War. It was THE burning issue of the era, and almost 3 million of us served in Vietnam.

I used to get solicitations from Fisher Investments, so I asked where Ken had earned his MBA and, if none, what his educational, military, governmental, and private sector experience was. These are utterly reasonable questions to ask of anybody who manages large sums of money. I got no answer, presumably because Fisher has no such experience. That doesn't mean Fisher can't manage money (his father sure could!), but I expect a high degree of candor from people managing my money, and other people should expect the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.158 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I used the recommended page as a template for a rewrite-reorganziation. I took away all (most? all hopefully) of the peacock language and removed a few other non-relevant items. Added more biographical info with citations.

I did remove the Peacock tag based on the rewrite. If there are lingering peacock-isms, please point them out or go ahead and edit them out.Netsumdisc

[edit] RfC: Ken Fisher Biography or Advertising for Fisher Investments?

Add

This page serves only as an advertisement for Fisher Investments, unless information is also allowed that describes how Fisher Investments manages their clients' money. I am a publisher of a newspaper and sometimes I still write. Recently I wrote a well researched article on Ken Fisher's Fisher Investments approach to money management and why it has not worked very well in many years. When I attempted to include a link to it from the Ken Fisher's Biography page it was promptly removed. I have attempted to address issues that were brought forth by the editor of this section, but new reasons were given to me every time I posted a new link. If this page can have links to the Fisher Investments website and numerous links to dated articles about how great Fisher Investments is, it should also have links to current information that talks about their shortcomings in this millennium.

I agree that this article continues to smack of vanity and autobiography. To achieve NPOV, it is not effective to permit the inclusion of vanity material and puffery and the counter-balance it - whether with valid, reliable, published information or with less than reliable first person accounts that are effectively self-published. I read the odessapage article. It was very interesting and made some intriguing points, but I am questioning whether it qualifies as a reliable source. If it is just one person's website, with no peer review or commentary, no fact checking, no reputable publisher, etc., it probably does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. I would urge you to look for third party material that DOES meet the reliability standards and include it. In addition, anything that can be done to reduce the "ALL ABOUT FABULOUS ME!!!!" tone would be welcome.
Also, to the editor who has repeatedly removed the odessapage link....in the future, only remove links for good Wikipedia reasons, and say why you are doing so on the Talk page. Thanks! NuclearWinner (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Odesskiy Listok newspaper website is not my personal website. It is the website of a newspaper, which I just happen to be the current publisher of. This newspaper has history going back to the 1800s and has been a reliable source of information for members of our community in the United States for over 13 years.

The problem with finding “third party material that DOES meet (the peer review) reliability standard” is that it simply do not exist. If it did, I would have surely found it during my due diligence researching Fisher Investments. And this is not unique to FI. You will not be able to find peer reviewed information for any money manager. This is simply the nature of the money management industry - no money manager is going to peer review another money manager!

In all my years using wikipedia, I have never seen a requirement that all related links provided must reference peer reviewed materials. Most links I have seen on wikipedia do not follow this rule. Even most of the books published these days are not peer reviewed. Newspaper articles are virtually never peer reviewed and these are used as references routinely throughout wikipedia. Why suddenly require it here and now?

Kenneth Fisher is a great businessman and his company Fisher investments is flush with cash. They use resources wisely to scrub the web of any potential derogatory comments that potential investors could possibly find. The simple, legal and effective way they do this is by advertising on all the major financial websites and then using this leverage to make sure that all comments on these, which could be construed as negative towards Fisher Investments be promptly removed. Money talks, I guess. This is not illegal, of course, but is highly unethical, in my opinion.

Only days after I posted my original article on the web, I got a call from Fisher Investments senior management asking me what they could do to make me happy? I told them that the only way they could do that is by revising their marketing strategy, or investment strategy, or both to correspond to each other. They also told me that they saw some inaccuracies in the article, but they would not discuss any details. I also offered to post their written response, if they cared to produce such a response and also to review my article for anything they thought was inaccurate based on such a response. They said they would process the information I gave them and… I never heard from them again.

The bottom line is that by removing links such as this you are promoting Fisher Investments, robbing your readership of the valuable information they should be privy to before hiring this money manager and are straying away from the goal of being content neutral.

P.S. I posted links to this same article posted on sites unrelated to me, only to have those links removed, as well. P.P.S. Please keep in mind that I derive no financial benefit from either writing or promoting of this article. My only goal is to inform those following in my footsteps, who will be hard pressed trying to find any real information on Fisher Investments. I only wish somebody else would have put up this fight on wikipedia before me. It would have spared me much effort and financial losses - I would have been most grateful.

Berzon (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have misread your link. It seemed like your personal website. If this is in fact an actual newspaper, with known circulation, then that does make it more verifiable and I apologize. I would welcome you checking out Wiki guidelines for verifiability and adding your link back if it meets them. The fact that guidelines are sometimes or even often flouted does not render them invalid. I understand and share your zeal in protecting other consumers. A great venue for that would be Ripoff Report. Thi is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to fight battles, only to document encyclopedic facts. It is also not a place for persons with bloated egos to post lists of their accomplishments that are of interest only to their family and friends. Don't let me discourage you, please go ahead and edit to the best of your ability, just keeping WP guidelines in mind. NuclearWinner (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Odesskiy Listok is a monthly newspaper, registered with the Library of Congress, ISSN 1930-4323, with a working editorial board, verifiable printed circulation and subscribers in Canada, Germany, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Ukraine. When our readers write in to complain that they were mistreated, we routinely attempt to verify all the facts to the best of our ability and then publish their complaints.

I didn’t mention this in my article, but Fisher Investments attempted to pull $2000 in management fees (that they were not entitled to by contract) from my accounts, after I fired them. Good thing that I moved my money to a different custodian before they could pull this off. Once the figured out that they could not get the money directly, they sent me bills in order to attempt to collect. Nevertheless, I don’t necessarily want to accuse Fisher Investments of attempting to rip anyone of and am just hoping that this was an honest mistake on their part, even though it is obviously a systematic one. Thus P.poff Report may not be the appropriate place to post this info, but thank you for the suggestion - I will look into it in greater detail.

When I was doing my Internet searches on Fisher Investments prior to giving them my money, I relied and trusted independent and content neutral sources such as wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia was at the top of my research list. Now that I have additional information on Fisher Investments, not available elsewhere, I feel that it is my obligation to contribute back to this community and share it. I am puting a considerable amount of my time into this effort and want to spread the word that Fisher Investments is very successfully marketing a service that beyond the superficial shiny cover (a top dressing, if you will) is very different from the one they provide.

Potential clients simply must be well informed and understand all the ramifications of going with Fisher Investments and be familiar with their real strategy for investing clients’ money. After that they may be better able to make the right decision for themselves. Some may still find it beneficial to go with Fisher Investments for their money management needs, others may choose a smaller manager for a true personalized approach, still others will decide that they will be better of with an ETF, or a mutual fund, or that they might as well do it themselves. I don’t care which choice they make - I will not make money on their decision no matter what it is.

Fisher Investments doesn’t disclose the very important details of how they invest, so I took it upon myself to do it for them. Hope it saves some pain, money and aggravation for others, whose expectations couldn’t possible be met by Fisher Investments.

I will repost my link and hope that this section’s editor leaves it alone this time.

Berzon (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grievances, nor is it a place for product reviews. Berzon's link leads to web site Berzon owns and operate and has commercial interests in. Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise your site, or air personal grievances. Please review WP:NOR, WP:SOAP. Netsumdisc (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the publisher of the newspaper, where the article is posted. If you would rather have a link to this article posted by one of the board members - no problem. You have also removed a link to this article, when I posted it on a site that I have no interest in, so this doesn't appear to be your motivation.

The information in the article is not a grievance - I have nothing and nobody to complain about and am not asking for any resolution. An article is simply information, which can be useful to others users. You are not acting in the best interest of the wikipedia community. I will reinstate my link and if I see you remove it again with another lame explanation, such as this one, I will have no choice but to kick my RFC complaint to the next level. Berzon (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Changing recent edits

I’m, for the first time ever, reverting the two most recent edits. As a matter of full disclosure my name is Fabrizio Ornani. I am the Manager of Internet Content at Fisher Investments. I’ve never had to post at Wikipedia before, but with all due respect I must object to what, to my knowledge--contrary to the intent of what I understand Wikipedia is supposed to be about--is nothing more than ongoing egregious personal attacks and airing of personal grievances aimed at self- interested purposes.

The recent edits on 3/21/08 by two anonymous IP addresses are strikingly similar to those made by Wikipedia user Berzon on 1/30/08 and 2/8/08. If you check your Wikipedia history, you can see user Berzon was blocked for directing traffic to his own personal website, promoting his self-authored product reviews, and making ad hominem attacks. It’s apparent to me, Mr. Berzon or his staff, who to my certain knowledge have acted on his behalf in 2008 to attack Fisher Investments, it seems are simply using different IP addresses by going to public computers like at internet cafés or Starbucks to cover their tracks while directing traffic to their own commercial web site and continuing their attacks against Fisher Investments. These postings clearly came from public computers. Again, my understanding is these kinds of attacks are not generally allowed at Wikipedia.

It is abundantly clear to me user Berzon is the same Mr. Berzon who owns and operates one of the websites he linked to from this page. To my certain knowledge, Mr. Berzon has been engaging in a personal campaign against Fisher for months, regularly posting slanderous and defamatory, untruthful and misleading content on Wikipedia and on other websites, blogs and discussion boards. His self-serving and, in our view, illegal activity has been so egregious Fisher Investments has pursued legal action against Mr. Berzon, alleging defamation, trademark infringement, tortious interference with business relations and unfair business practices. This is likely his motivation for adding these links here and claiming Fisher Investments is “needlessly litigious.” As to the other legal actions he cites, please note, almost all those actions have since settled in Fisher Investments’ favor, and the rest likely to be so shortly and in total constituted a miniscule total of the millions of interactions Fisher Investments has with clients, prospects, employees, former employees and vendors each year. Fisher Investments is very far from a litigious firm.

Our intent is not to try litigation here, only point out Mr. Berzon has a history of violating Wikipedia,standards, as near as I understand them, in pursuit of his personal and commercial interests. My understanding is this is not the purpose of Wikipedia nor the forum for such activity.

Fornani (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainstream news media articles add valuable information and balance

So, let's agree to avoid any more wholesale deletion of the following material:

"* Not everyone has been impressed with Fisher Investments forecasts and performance, according to these articles from: The Wall Street Journal, February 6th, 2004[14], Business Week, May 10th, 2004[15], Odesskiy Listok, January 28th, 2008[16] and Salon.Com, February 26th, 2008[17]. * Other criticisms have also been levied against Fisher Investments. A common complaint is that the company is needlessly litigious, filing legal actions against competitors - CNN Money: November 10th, 2006[18], former employees - The Wall Street Journal, June 20th, 2007[19], Reuters, June 20th, 2007[20] and dissatisfied clients(!) - PR Log, February 25th, 2008[21]"

I'm neither pro- or anti-Fisher Investments, I'm just an editor interested in NPOV. It is rare that the press agents of a company have the objectivity required, on the topic of their employer. So please be VERY careful and listen to other editors if you are a press agent. NuclearWinner (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fornani, I'm not a sock puppet; I'm an established editor. In my judgment, those mainstream news articles add essential balance and objectivity, whereas their blanket removal looks more like a whitewash. Therefore, I am restoring them. Also, although the editor was anonymous, that is in fact permitted and even the norm on Wikipedia. If you want to remove material, please discuss before doing so, and use criteria related to accuracy, verifiability, encyclopedic quality, etc. It's very difficult to be objective about a company you work for and I would urge you to find another article to edit for a time until you have been able to fully research and internalize the NPOV requirements and ethic of Wikipedia. NuclearWinner (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with NuclearWinner on wholesale deleting content particularly when it is sourced properly. However note that the one link added by the anonymous user was removed previously for being unverified product review added by a previously blocked user who was blocked for promoting his own website. I'm not saying the anonymous user is a sock puppet. I'm inclined to assume good faith, so let's leave the text, but take out only the one link which isn't a news source like WSJ or Businessweek but opinion on a blog which maybe the editor didn't realize isn't appropriate as a source for Wikipedia. Does this seem fair? Netsumdisc (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The text with all the links that keeps being deleted was authored by a member of the editorial board of Odesskiy Listok newspaper. The removed link was to an article printed in the paper. There were no sock puppets involved. How do you judge one national newspaper to be a valid source and another national paper not to be? If it is based on your personal familiarity with the source that indicates personal bias that has no place on Wikipedia and you should restore all the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.195.28 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution. Since you seem to be a new editor, please note the link here and in other edits you've made does not go to a newspaper site, like the WSJ, at least not one that's verifiable from that link. The link in question goes to a posting written by "Jake Berzon" on a website for a "monthly almanac of humor" in a section called "Jake Berzon's Blog." Further, Mr. Berzon owns and operates this website and blog. The posting, self-authored and self-published by the owner of the blog, isn't a verifiable source like the WSJ or Businessweek. It's opinion, as the author states in his disclaimer at the top. Further, the blog posting is clearly a personal grievance and a product review, which is generally not an appropriate source for a bio page on Wikipedia.
If you want to display both sides of an issue, please do! But use verifiable third-party pieces. Mr. B may be an editor of a newspaper or an astronaut, but either way, the link in question goes to acknowledged opinon by the author on the author's blog on a web site owned and operated by the author. (See history here.) I can see why you want to add it to provide additional support, and it's great to add new content and a fresh NPOV view. (I could use your help over on Warren Buffett to be honest.) But if the reason to add this link is as support for statements, using national, widely-available sources is generally preferable to using a blog or a "humor almanac" (as you've done with the other links). The reason for this is I could start an online humor almanac with a blog and write a posting saying "Netsumdisc is the ruler of the universe" but another Wiki-editor shouldn't use that to support a statement saying "Netsumdisc is a recognized leader." That wouldn't fly. See what I mean?
As a new editor, I encourage you to review WP:PG, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, and WP:V. And if you plan on continuing to contribute, you might want to set up a profile. You don't have to, of course, but its handy to keep track of your work and helps build history and credibility. Then, if you move computers or go to a public computer (in a library or at school, etc) you don't start fresh with an annonymous IP address. And, always be sure to sign your comments! Happy editing! Netsumdisc (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
(oops - this is why you need a profile. I used another computer and forgot to sign in.)Netsumdisc (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not see how the link to the site of one newspaper is any different from the link to the site of another, or Business Week, or Salon.Com. However, I have contacted folks at the Odesskiy Listok Newspaper and they have agreed to make available the reprint of the actual article, as it appeared in the newspaper in pdf format. I'll post a link to that pdf, shortly. P.S. I am a great fan of Warren Buffett and always enjoy reading about him, but what could I possibly write about him, which has not been written before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.195.28 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your tenacity. Please note that "article" is the only one appearing in English in what is otherwise a Russian source, which still isn't a verifiable source. English sources are prefered for English language Wikipedia articles. Also, the two URLs on the PDF go to a Russian language source, which would be fine for a Russian language Wikipedia article, but not this one, and a social networking blog, which again isn't a good source. And, that doesn't diminish the fact this piece is acknowledged opinion and a product review. I'm not sure how verifiable a PDF of a screen shot is too, but the original source still appears to be the same blog on a "Russian humor almanac." I suggest you don't use this as a source here or in other places you edit, as you'll likely run into the same problems eventually.
Also, just a friendly reminder, some of your edits are opinion. Please be careful not to editorialize, as it can seem biased, and try not to make blanket, unverifiable statements. Both have a tendency to get edited out. I would make these suggestions on your talk page, but am hesitant to do so on an anonymous IP address. Netsumdisc (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The source article IS in English (as defined by the link you supplied) and was published in a very well respected and widely read publication that has history going back to 1872! I have been a subscriber of this newspaper for 3+ years and there is usually at least one article in English in every issue. I have no idea what "two URLs on the PDF" you are talking about - please explain. I can assure you that the pdf is genuine - I have a copy of the paper and it is the same. Would you prefer a scan? As far as it being an opinion, everything you ever read is an opinion! I was told that Fisher Investments after seeing the preview of this article threatened to take the newspaper's publisher to court and this was the reason why they included that lame disclosure. (Reportedly they also threatened the Wall Street Journal and fumed over the Business Journal article.) The newspaper's English language byline "Russian humor almanac" does not represent this publication well, but I guess the literal translation "for people that love and remember Odessa" (Odessa is known for the humorous attitude of its residents) would not make much sense. In any case, humor is not at all what this newspaper is about. Hope this explanation makes sense. BTW, I found this article to be extremely well researched and written. I really belive that by denying the link, you are doing a disservice to wikipedia readers. What can I do to convince you that it must be included in references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.195.28 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for complying. The link in question does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There are a number of reasons why this link fails to meet general guidelines as a Wikipedia source which I have detailed here repeatedly. I respectfully request you review WP:SOURCES and WP:PG.Netsumdisc (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)