Talk:Bob Brinker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brinker[edit]

Bob Brinker is the host of the ABC radio program Moneytalk, which has been on the air since 1986. He previously had a program on local radio in the New York area going back to 1982. He provides financial advice in a newsletter called Marketimer. Bob announced a couple weeks back,(early June 2010), he would not be broadcasting on Saturdays. Does he broadcast Moneytalk on a different day in addition to Sunday? What Time ? What day?



Conservative economics[edit]

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

Good edit[edit]

I have noticed that a comment about his show was deleted. Why? 24.23.220.206 23:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you. Hem hem 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the Talk Page[edit]

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

Link editing[edit]

WikiHelpUSA, A few things about editing on Wikipedia:

  • First, no personal attacks, including in edit summaries ('who elected Priyanath God')
  • Second, when edits turn into edit wars, it's better to discuss and explain on the articles talk page, rather than hurling insults in your edit summaries.
  • Third, please read some of the guidelines for editing on Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View, Vandalism, The Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
  • Also, some specific link guidelines, bold letters from WP guidelines followed by my comments, regarding your attempts to add several links from this article to your website:
    • The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One link to your website, and one link to the official Bob Brinker site are sufficient.
    • forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard. This article is not specifically about your website fourm.
    • Links to normally avoid: A website that you own or maintain. Self-explanatory.

To Priyanath|[edit]

Suite101 is a Canadian company. Their home page says "Suite Spot: Suite101.com is home to articles, blogs, discussions, and courses from 400 subject experts who speak their minds and ask what's on yours. For more than 10 years we've opened our door to original and independent commentary unique for its unrivaled breadth and depth. Click on one of our fascinating articles below to read, respond, and relate. Enter now, enter curious."

The goal of Wiki is to present all the information. If the information is true and relevant to the subject, then it should not matter where it comes from. One link to the suite101 website should stay on the page. Wikipedia should present both sides, and that link is sufficient. If you have information to add to the article itself, and it has references, and is not POV, you can do that. But adding multiple links to the article itself, all pointing to the same website, is considered POV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for linkspamming, or overweighting an article with links to one site that has a strong POV. I deleted the link to the beginninginvesting.com because it's a password protected, pay website. No, I didn't think you were David Korn, I thought those websites were by Kirk Lindstrom...my mistake. And please re-read my comment above regarding WP links to forums. ॐ Priyanath 17:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please add four tildes at the end of your comments. That way people can see who is posting the comments, and also redjax88 can be blocked more easily for editing your comments. ॐ Priyanath 17:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you write seems fair. I am told "Honeyoneohone" doesn't sell any products nor collect any advertising money. "please add four tildes...." Ahhh... Now I see it! Thanks for pointing that out. WikiHelperUSA 17:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moneytalk on demand is a subscription service[edit]

 It seems wrong to be allowed to advertise your products here.

66.245.18.62 15:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate links[edit]

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

About the link[edit]

New 7/25/06: I don't think the link to the "Website critical of Bob Brinker and his program" A.K.A. "Honey Brinker Beehive" belongs here. The link is basically a BLOG which contains unproven and questionable information. My vote is the "Beehive link" be removed since it's just an area of gossip.

There's a place for links to alternative views in Wikipedia articles, or in this case a discussion about the radio show. A link to a neutral article about Brinker's history of advice - one that includes information about his questionable calls - would be even better. Please sign your posts with the four tildes so people can see when and who wrote the comment. With all of the underhanded edits on this article and talk page (coming from both sides), it's more than usually important. See Sign your posts on talk pages for more information. - ॐ Priyanath 14:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


So, my vote is to get rid of the BeeHive link because it simply lacks quality, and is difficult to navigate and find useful information. Anyone else in favor of this??? 71.97.248.138 05:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with seeing all points of view, I'm all for it. But, the Brinker BeeHive discussion Page is simply a BLOG with tons of gossip. Not quite the quality needed for an Encyclopedia. Can we please consider removing the Brinker Beehive link. After all, you have the Market-Watch article which states the case of both points of very nicely. 71.97.248.138 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the link to the forum/blog is no longer needed, now that the Marketwatch articles are there. See Links normally to be avoided, and you'll see included there: "9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." ॐ Priyanath 15:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over links[edit]

I propose that the two links to the Marketwatch articles remain, and the links to the Brinker forum be removed. The articles sufficiently, and objectively, relate the story of the QQQ advice given by Brinker. Forums are not considered an encyclopedic source on Wikipedia, unless of the highest quality. See Links to Normally be Avoided. In addition, snide comments in an article page such as 'This is the forum Bob Brinker or his surrogates keep deleting the link to' are not encyclopedic. Let's discuss this, please. ॐ Priyanath 16:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath: I agree with you. That is, The Marketwatch articles should remain and the forum link be removed. I feel this will enhance the quality of the Wiki entry since blogs are to be avoided. 71.111.136.3 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some here are not following the rules of Wiki. I quote the following "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view; presenting each point of view accurately; providing context for any given point of view, so that readers understand whose view the point represents; and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution."
Regarding the 'rules of Wiki.' One is "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard." The honeoneyhoney website is a forum/blog. The Bob Brinker article is not about the honeyoneyoney forum. And I don't think that forum is of a 'particularly high standard'.
Another is 'The number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other.' The current article has two links to Brinker/ABC websites, and three links to sites critical of Brinker - including the two Marketwatch articles that raise the issue of the QQQ call.
Another is 'citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.' I don't believe the honeyonehone forum falls in that category of 'authoritative'. A Google link search showed not a single other website linking to that forum. That gives you at least a general idea of how many people consider that forum to be authoratative.
Finally, I don't have a dog in this fight, as I mentioned once before. I'm just a Wikipedia editor who has edited numerous articles, just for the sake of improving Wikipedia. I notice that all of the editors here are editing only one article on the entire Wikipedia, which suggests a strong POV on the subject of Bob Brinker. I suggest spending time reading about Wikipedia, and editing other articles, to get some experience of what Wikipedia is - an encyclopedia, and not a forum to promote strongly held Points of View.
I'll leave the forum link up for now, so that reasonable people have the chance to discuss and come to a consensus. I have a suspicion that we'll need to bring a mediator here anyway, but this is the first step. ॐ Priyanath 15:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I look at the number of different people contributing to a discussion forum, not the volume of posts made by one or two, to get an idea of how all feel about a subject. Suite101 seems to make an attempt to encourage debate and discussion from both viewpoints.

To make the POV neutral, I'd suggest removing the the first CBS Marketwatch article since the second "follow-up article" starts with a link to it. Also, Peter Brimelow at CBS Marketwatch seems to have one purpose, to write about Mark Hulbert following these investment guru's to help CBS and Mark Hulbert sell the Hulbert Financial Digest. See [http://www.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/default.asp?siteid=mktw&property=word&value=Peter+Brimelow%2c&doctype=806 Search Brimelow Articles]

I vote one link to each if we must make the POV equal.

Finally, it is CBS Marketwatch, not Dow Jones Marketwatch. WikiHelperUSA 17:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion of just having the link to the second article from "Marketwatch from Dow Jones" (that's what the masthead says......), and ONE link to the forum makes sense. I found it very confusing to navigate that forum, so making sure the link goes directly to the forum itself would be best. I think the "Marketwatch from Dow Jones" article is sufficient, and balanced, enough that there's no need for a link to another article on honeyonehone or suite101.com about the QQQ call. I also think the 'Bob Brinker Fan Club' link is extremely deceptive, and has no place here. This is just my opinion - what do others think? ॐ Priyanath 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to include any of the suite101 discussion group links. The market-watch links about cover what needs to be said, and the suite101 links are simply a BLOG type of thing. 71.111.136.3 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply] 


  To refresh, the Suite101 discussion link sites are moderated by a competitor of Bob Brinker's in the newsletter writing arena.  If we were to link to a discussion group, it should be run by a neutral party, not  a competitor of Brinker's.  71.111.136.3 01:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

His Advertising shows major calls showing he was at 60% cash between January 2000 and March 2003 http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2033/2006mailedadvertisementp1ug7.jpg

_______________________________________________________________________________

about the suite links[edit]

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

Also, What's WikiHelperUSA's affiliation with Suite101. Suite101 is a commercial site that brings in money through ads, so is he somehow getting compensated for pushing the site?

forgot to sign what I wrote above. 71.111.136.3 03:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should Stay[edit]

Suite101 has forums for many investment writers and TV commentators. The site is supported by Google ads. Many of the people who have discussion forums there and have investment products for sale also participate; (that sells a timing service), and are but five I can remember posting on the old or new site.

After reading the above, I feel like I've been exposed to an infomercial for Suite101. I still wonder what WikiHelperUSA's affilation is with this commercial site, much of which is moderated by a newsletter writer who competes with "Bob Brinker's MarketTimer."

no more spam for Suite101 please


By the way, in general, forums are not to be linked to from Wiki. Read the Wikipedia guidelines for more info. 71.111.136.3 15:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've sprotected the article until this edit war is resolved here on the talk page. Let's handle this matter with civility and let's not accuse each other of being Bob Brinker or hating Bob Brinker or whatever. Gamaliel 18:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


With that said, I feel the suite101 link should be removed for the reasons stated. It's a forum, and the moderator runs a competing newsletter.

Respectfully 72.11.113.146 19:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more[edit]

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


You have some rather uncivil and choice words about Brinker. It looks like an all-out attack. I don't mind a link to useful information, but this one is nothing more than a attack on Brinker. Something more balanced would be useful Also, I don't think you should be here pushing your own forum for several reasons. I'm all for linking to external sites about Brinker, but just not this particuar site.

I again ask that Wiki remove the link to the Beehive since it's not a very civil place. respectfuly, a wikipedia fan, 71.111.136.3 02:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the moderator for the investing portion of suite101 sells a competing newsletter to Brinkers. Should Wiki link to a direct competitor of Brinker's who is attempting to gain revenue from a competing product. That doesn't seem right to me. I would rather see links to neutral and objective parties, not competitors. 71.111.136.3 02:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________________________________

OIC now. You want to control free speech. You believe that free speech only applies if one is pro-Bob Brinker. Anything else is not "civilized" in your opinion. Any unbiased person would reach the same conclusion that I did. I will happily continue this dialogue with you at the Beehive. Honeyoneohone 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with "free speech." Why do you say that free speech only applies if one is pro-brinker? I don't see where that came from. As I already stated, this is an issue of Wikipedia Quality. In general, forums are not to be linked to. That's part of the Wiki criteria. Nothing more than that.

____________________________________________________________


you said, "Nobody is fooled by you here." Is this some kind of attack? What on earth are you talking about??? I don't know who you think I am, but I'm not who you've described here. This is getting really strange. Why the attacks on me just because I don't think the beehive should be included here? I stated my reasons several times. Forums in general are not to be linked to, and furthermore, it needs to be stated again that the moderator of the suite101 investment section is a newsletter writer who competes with Brinker's newsletter. Please stop attacking me just because my opinion differs from yours. I was hoping we could discuss this without attacks, or being accused of being someone who has apparently done bad in the past. 71.111.136.3 05:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

______________________________________________-

User 71.111.136 said: "Haven't you read where Honeyonehone has shown up here to push the beehive?" I beg your pardon!! I "showed up here" to dispute the lies that were being posted about me and the Beehive. You or someone asserted that "money" was involved.--False! You or someone claimed that the Beehive was only a blog. __False! You or someone lifted words out of context from the Beehive and posted them here. You might "show up" too, if you were being denigrated like this. Honeyoneohone 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


for the record, money is involved. The moderator of the suite101 investment section is a newsletter writer who competes with Brinker's newsletter. 72.11.113.146 15:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, money is involved at the two CBS Marketwatch sites also. Peter Brimelow writes articles to help sell Mark Hulbert's newsletter which is a competitor to Brinker's. CBS Marketwatch owns Hulbert's newsletter and pays Brimelow a salary to write the articles to drive traffic to Mark Hulbert's newsletter. At Suite101, kirk has forums to discuss the various guru's. At Marketwatch, Mark Hulbert and Peter Brimelow follow guru's in a newsletter. Hulbert's newsletter uses what the Guru's predict in a timing system that Brimelow writes about. I see little difference other than someone here has an axe to grind against honeyoneohone or suite101 while he doesn't care a bit that the other two articles he recommends are both competition and commercial. 66.245.58.137 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


____________________________________________________


Again, I respectfully request that the link the to Beehive be removed. 71.111.136.3 06:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________

User 71.111.136 said to me: "You then, without further explaination, go on to quote the verbage of a recent Brinker show."

So what further explanation is needed? Bob Brinker's own words speak for themselves. My words, which you took out of context, are followed by a VERBATIM transcript of Bob Brinker's monologue. People are capable of agreeing or disagreeing with my analysis based on Bob Brinker's own words.

Again 71.111.136, I must request that you do not use partial quotes from the Beehive. If you want to use quotes from there, please use the whole thing. Honeyoneohone 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You said, "If you continue to do this, I will be forced to post the remaining contents of the posts you are quoting."

PLEASE DO. This way people can see how much of an attack this really is on Brinker. You even take attacks written by others and re-post them on the beehive. You seem to collect Brinker attacks in your discussion page, even if they didn't originate from there. BTW, his latest S&P buy less than 1250 was spot on (at least so far). GOOD JOB BOB BRINKER AND THANK YOU FOR THE YEARS OF EDUCATION YOU HAVE PROVIDED ON THE RADIO. BOB, YOU GOT ME INTO INVESTING, AND FOR THAT I THANK YOU. I'M ABLE TO RETIRE EARLY IN LARGE PART BECUASE OF YOU, and my own hard work ;) . BECAUSE OF BOB, I DIVERSIFIED and went to a large cash position in 2000. [I'm willing to bet this doesn't get re-posted on the beehive. --unless you do it just to try to appear 'balanced' ]

Again, I respectfully request the beehive discussion group be removed as a link on wiki. for those interested in the QQQ trade, the two marketwatch articles cover that nicely, without the attacks. Discussion groups are generally not to be linked to on wiki.

BTW, where did the wiki moderators go. They seem to have done a hit and run with no follow-up or comment. They are doing what they request that we don't do: modify (or in this case modify and lock) without being part of the discussion. seems odd to me.

71.111.136.3 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

____________________________________

I respectfully invite you to bring your comments and questions to the Beehive.Honeyoneohone 16:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Ideal for Wiki[edit]

One more question for WikihelperUSA... You are obviously at least a user of Suite101 based on some of the comments you have made here. Question: Are you willing to disclose your user name over on Suite101? I can understand if you don't want to disclose this, but it might help in the discussion. Or, are you just a 'reader' of the content over there with no account on suite101? (I don't have an account there, so a user name for me wouldn't mean anything).

I continue to persist in my point, because Bob Brinker helped me get where I am. He helped me a great amount in 2000 when he said to reduce holdings -- he made me think about going to cash on some holdings, which I did. (yes, I have 2 IP addresses I bounce between, so no mystry there. 72.11.113.146 22:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the focus on what's appropriate for this website and not what someone is doing on some other website. Gamaliel 00:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Gamaliel. I'm still concerned that a link exists which contains so many attacks against Brinker. Brinker helped me as he did many people in the field of investing, so I just hate to be linked to a place that is so full of attacks, and information that can't be proven. I wish I could to set up a "Brinker Helped me" website that we could link to, but I don't have the time. Also, I thought that forums generally aren't linked to from Wiki. Am I mistaken here?

Thanks for helping with this issue. I just want to be heard for the sake of balance. respectfully, 71.111.136.3 01:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish I could to set up a "Brinker Helped me" website that we could link to, but I don't have the time. "

Why don't you ask the manager over at Suite101 to create a topic for that? Then ask to have that included along with the current link so there would be two forums for balance. I've been reading other forums there and they have another Brinker forum where it seems many have positive things to say about Bob Brinker. Link to that one or ask to start a new forum that praises Brinker in its title. It seems you can start forums there without asking permission.

It seems you've spent hours and hours here under at least the two IP addresses you admit to using for defending Brinker. You started out deleting ALL critical links, including the Marketwatch links then turned your attention to the more critical link at Suite101. Two links to Marketwatch and two to Suite101 might be the "Solomon's Solution" to this issue that has you so worked up. 66.245.58.137 13:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"It seems you've spent hours and hours here under at least the two IP addresses you admit to using for defending Brinker. You started out deleting ALL critical links, including the Marketwatch links "

please stick to facts, and don't make stuff up. I never deleted the marketwatch links. Don't attack me by making stuff up and saying I did something that someone else did. 71.111.136.3 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User 71.111.136 again makes some totally subjective, and IMO FALSE accusations, about the Beehive. He said: "Brinker helped me as he did many people in the field of investing, so I just hate to be linked to a place that is so full of attacks, and information that can't be proven."


And it is only your OPINION that the Beehive "attacks" Brinker.



Please read the following, and hopefully we can come to an agreement within a few days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

based on this criteria, I suggest the forum link be removed.

comments are welcome and encouraged.

71.111.136.3 23:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Wiki Link Guidelines...

Avoid: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research"

It looks like the Beehive link should be removed for unverified original research.

72.11.113.146 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted link. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Caffeine USA 01:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should not deletet content that is under dispute the first time you show up on a forum. I've put it back up and it should remain up until we reach agreement here on what to do. WikiHelperUSA 20:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the links I posted above. Caffeine USA 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting something off of Wiki that someone else added isn’t something I take lightly. A great deal of thought went into my edit after exhaustively reading the material on the external link, and repeatedly referring to Wiki Policy and guidelines. First, some of the information which is provided in the external link is original research and/or not verifiable. This is not meant as an attack on that site, but rather a statement of fact. It’s a forum, and sadly, some of the posts contain outright attacks on the subject of this article as well as attacks on those who listen to his radio program and/or subscribe to his newsletter. Attacks are to be avoided, even if they are only linked to. Again, please refer to the Wiki info about external links for additional information about this topic. In addition to all of this, sensitivity is necessary since the article is about a living person. Please take a few moments to read the Wiki information about articles about a living person. The combination of “living person” and “original research and/or unverifiable information” led me to del the link. I welcome further discussion, but I do ask that because of the “living person” and “unverifiable information” combination, the link be left off of the article during the discussion. It’s always better to err on the side of sensitivity with a “living person” as stated in the Wiki information about this topic. Also, any valuable and verifiable information should be included in the original article rather than linked to, if the information falls within the criteria for article writing. This makes for a better article all around, so please add to the original article --- this will be appreciated by all, including me --- thanks in advance to anyone who adds to the original article. This will only improve the article, and we can most likely find common ground when the original article is improved. Thanks very much for your time. Sincerely, Caffeine USA 05:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new information for consideration to the article...[edit]

Here's some information I would like to respectfully request that someone who has edit privilige add to the Bob Brinker entry. The information is from some printed material that I have on file from the ABC Radio Network.

Brinker is a long time member of the New York Society of Security Analysts and the Financial Analysts Federation. He has served as Vice President Investment Council at the Bank of New York, and on Wall Street as Chief Investment Officer for the United States Subsidiary of Guardian Royal Exchange, London.

Thanks in advance to whoever adds this factual information to the entry. 71.111.136.3 05:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about putting this content in the main article such that we can update it ??? --- such as the recent S&P buy below 1250. The history seems incomplete since it's missing this important buy signal. Caffeine USA 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are kidding Caffeine. He probably had 20 "buy signals" in the 1990's and he was fully invested for all of them. About half of them hit so it was like flipping coins. That would be a ton of work to put them all in the article. I like the idea of summarizing his current advice, but isn't that what the discussion forums, such as the Beehive, are for? It seems quite debatable if he gives a buy signal or just blowing smoke hence the beehive is the place to post those. 66.245.58.137 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr/Ms 66.245.58.137, I'm not sure I follow what you are getting at here. Please clarify. Wiki is to be Encyclopedic, so everything should be as factual and accurate as possible, including stuff that's linked to. Are you saying the "record link" shouldn't be there since it's incomplete? I think 2 things are missing: 1] information about results from the March 11, 2003 buy, since that was the most recent large change in the portfolios, and 2] information about the most recent buy of S&P below 1250. --- both of which are current advice.


"As for current advice, do you really want to give away what is in his current newsletter here?" If you are concerned about copyrights, my feeling is the paid newsletter shouldn't ever be quoted -- that's just common sense, but once he gives the advice on the radio, as he did with March 11, 2003, and the recent SP500 below 1250, then it's in the public domain. Am I wrong on that??? If I'm wrong, then maybe the entire link has copyright issues. Hey, Still wondering if SteveT55 is SteveT, and if WikiHelperUSA is mathjunkie, PETE, MrGreenJeans, DanG_6, or Kirk. Again, I ask since this page is linked from there, it seems like we've gone full circle. :) Caffeine USA 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and the serial vandal are Bob Brinker? WikiHelperUSA 17:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not Brinker--he just got off the radio, and I'm not a vandal. Please don't falsely accuse me of being a vandal. I wonder why you posed such a statement. I'm puzzled. --- Would you care to elaberate? I guess you are choosing to not respond to my statement where I was wondering how we got full circle since the "allocation History" link has a link to this discussion page. I ask because my vote would be that the information be included in the wiki article rather than a link. And the person who maintains the info in the link would be the most likely person to do this, and he/she obvoously knows about this discussion. By having this chart here, we could add the recent advice I stated above, which I believe is in the public domain in terms of copyright since the recent advice was on the radio. I welcome comments and discussion!!!!!!!!!!!! Open discussion is better than having an edit war!!! Caffeine USA 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question and speculation in some of the previous paragraphs, I am the person who posted as Math_Junkie on Suite 101. I also post as math_junkie2003 on Yahoo, and Math Junkie on Silicon Investor and Investors Hub. I am not WikiHelperUSA. Although I am listed as the author on one or two versions of the allocation history, my versions of it were merely an expansion of posts which were in turn based largely on a post in which DanG_6 provided an allocation history from a friend's back issues of Brinker's investment letter. I added some data based on my own back issues, as well as other Internet postings that I believe to be reliable. However, I suspect that verifying any of this table to Wikipedia's standards might be very difficult. 71.131.196.249 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"I suspect that verifying any of this table to Wikipedia's standards might be very difficult." Then why keep it at all? If the link doesn't meet the standards of verification, then shouldn't it be deleted? Caffeine USA 02:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right. At minimum if the link were to be retained, then I think the table it leads to should be made NPOV. However, what you or I think about it is probably moot, since the decisions are being de facto made by the particpants in the edit war that's going on. - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 05:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article...[edit]

Someone is posting negative articles here about Brinker without regard to the many positive articles that have been published. Some have taken this board over in an effort to sell their own products here. In the process the credibility of Wikipedia for this subject has been ruined and this is now a vandalized site. Your best bet is to ignore all written here as it has become a fictional site. September 6, 2006, Randy Seelster.

While I am not the one who is deleting speculation about the identity of one of the users, I would like to point out the following excerpt from Wikipedia's guidelines on talk pages. -Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines

If you are telling the truth "Math Junkie" then why not delete all the talk here about who everyone is? Odd you only object now.

I haven't read through this entire talk page, but I think your point is a valid one. If there are other instances of people trying to reveal other users' identities, then the policy applies to them as well. This instance attracted my attention because I was looking at the recent edit history of this talk page and saw a bit of an edit war going on. As for deleting others' comments on talk pages, personally I would rather not engage in that. I've done what I think is appropriate, which is to bring the guideline to users' attention. -Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 01:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Newsletter[edit]

" Brinker attempts to time the market and writes a newsletter called Marketimer but there is great debate in the press and on the internet about his effectiveness. Other than market timing, Brinker's advice to minimize expenses and use index funds is considered good by most listeners. "

Bob himself says on his radio show that he attempts to do something he admits is hard to do. WikiHelperUSA 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


>>"great debate in the press and on the internet about his effectiveness" This is not worth putting in the article because it's petty, and hardly a "great debate." 71.111.132.6 03:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wars here show you are wrong. 66.245.28.82 16:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 66.245.28.82: The fact that you disagree with the other side in the edit war does not make their edits vandalism and your edits not vandalism. From the article on Wikipedia vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 01:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came from the RFC page. From what I read, someone thinks another user is using wikipedia for his own purposes. Seeing as this person doesn't have an account and won't engage the talk-page in a debate, I can't help but agree that what he is doing is vadalism. Continue reverting his edits until he explains why it should be done otherwise. I also agree with user 71.111.132.6. That statement is petty and doesn't have a place in the article. User 66.245.28.82, please continue your effort. I will say that there is an interesting lack of sources in this article. The word "wrong" cannot be use to describe stances on this article. I know nothign about Bob Brinker, and this whole article could be total bull. I wouldn't be able to check through wikipedia. Please consider placing references for statements such as "Brinker espouses conservative fiscal policies on his radio show, and has been critical of government spending policies" and "There is controversy in the press and on the Internet about his work and its effectiveness compared to simply buying a diversified basket of index funds Thank you. --Connor K. 15:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, I don't think the statement about, "There is controversy in the press and on the Internet ..." belongs either. No solid evidence. I'm for deleting the text. Someone above said that it seems like there's a small group with an ax to grind, and this certainly appears like it's true. Caffeine USA 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine, there is evidence of contoversy in the press in the two Marketwatch articles that you deleted on October 3rd. There is plenty of evidence of controversy on the Internet, but the links to the message boards which are the direct evidence of this have been deleted because of the guideline against linking to message boards. Here is a good example: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/subject.aspx?subjectid=10880 and that is one of the more civil boards. That having been said, I think the sentence would more NPOV with the clause "and its effectiveness compared to simply buying a diversified basket of index funds" deleted, but I have zero interest in participating in the edit-war that's going on over it. - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 04:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Caffeine, looking at your latest edit, it really doesn't seem very NPOV to me to include the results of his best performing portfolio in the article, while relegating his worst performing recommmendation to a linked article. - Math Junkie 71.131.214.58 05:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"there is evidence of contoversy in the press in the two Marketwatch articles that you deleted on October 3rd." -- Where? All I see is the following general statement: "Do not, repeat -- NOT -- gamble the rent money, much less the retirement money, on any market timer's recommendations. Only speculate with money you can afford to lose." Sorry, other than that, I don't see much there specifically addressing market timing. Regarding your other comment about NPOV. Okay, agreed! I'll change it.

forgot my signature above Caffeine USA 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) (BTW, math junkie, what do you think of the article now?) Caffeine USA 05:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


SOLVED!!! I added a link to the wiki [market timing] page, where people can read for themselves about [market timing] while keeping this page NPOV. That should solve it! I feel good about this now Caffeine USA 05:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

I don't see how your solution tells people Brinker's past history at market timing. If someone attempts to do something impossible, we should show their record. I suggest we find a good summary, like mathjunkie wrote, or write our own here. It is easy to verify at the library his record back to 1986 which matches Mathjunkie's summary. We can leave off the earlier stuff until someone finds documentation. 66.245.155.178 19:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really take credit for writing that table; most of it was written by others. I just added some stuff for balance. The version of it in the most recent link also has stuff that was added by someone else after my last edit of it, which I believe was in December of 2003. - Math Junkie 71.131.179.177 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe it is accurate? If not, what would you do to improve it and how could we do that here? 66.245.155.178 15:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

In addition to what Math Junkie said, I would add that some of the better calls aren't emphasized equally. For example, there's very little about the how wonderful some of the most recent calls have been including his most recent call to get into SP500 this last spring/summer. Oh, and reducing Nasdaq positions near a local peak was another call of this last spring/summer. All the link says is 'fully invested June 2006,' but no mention of how much one would have made off the March 2003 call. But the material on that link is what it is, and we can't edit or change it, so that's that. By the way, Brinker's record for his model portfolios are on the bobbrinker web site under http://www.bobbrinker.com/portfolio.asp and these results are much easier to understand since results for differing time periods are given. These results are right from the horse's mouth, but there is no need for this link since we already link to the brinker web site. Caffeine USA 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Caffeine sounds just like the guy who runs around attacking anyone on message boards who say Brinker is less than perfect. Frauds abound on the net. Wiki has proven itself to be no different. Sad.... very sad. 66.245.155.178 23:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

I noticed the link in question was added back in. I deleted it since the content in the link has some issues. see above. Caffeine USA 18:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link-spamming?[edit]

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

Yes, this is linkspamming as you say it is. Also, the term "Bob Brinker Timing Model" is copyrighted and therefore Wikipedia is abusing the copyright by using this copyrighted material in the link. - James Cannon

James, Why do you post things that are not true here? Your information is wrong. I checked the Brinker web site and they don't have a circle-c "©" around the term when they use it. If it was copyrighted, they would have to protect it. People have been writing about Brinker's timing model for years so it is in everyday use now. - not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I know enough. Also, doesn't Standard and Poors own the term "S&P500?" Almost everyone writes about the S&P500 even though it is copyrighted.

The term "Bob Brinker Timing Model" is copyrighted and therefore Wikipedia is abusing the copyright by using this material in the link. The circle-c copyright sign appears after the term where it is used on the Portfolio page at the website. Wikipedia is now in violation of the copyright.

Well, it's all moot since October is just a memory, therefore the October timing model is no longer relevant. So I deleted it. Caffeine USA 05:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brinker is a Fiscal Conservative[edit]

You can't make a claim to be a fiscal conservative then use your radio show to say the government should give health care to everyone. You could claim to be a Socialiast or French with those views. WikiHelperUSA 12:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a lie. Brinker has never said the government should give health care to everyone. Your implication Brinker is a Socialist are a personal attack and your information regarding his health care comments are wrong.

It seems that different people remember what he said differently. In addition, I think there is a danger in using individual on-air comments to characterize someone's entire political philosopy. I have definitely heard him complain about excessive government spending on more than one occasion, and I have heard him make many statements suggesting that he does not favor high taxes. And yet there are people who listen to his program and think he sounds like a liberal. Judging by the disagreement here and elsewhere, it's clear that what he has said about politics and how to characterize it is a matter of opinion, and as such violates NPOV. For that reason I think the entire paragraph should be deleted. Math Junkie 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This is a lie. Brinker has never said the government should give health care to everyone." I am interested in how you know this. Do you have transcripts for every show he has done? I think Math Junkie is correct and the whole paragraph should be struck. Everyone is critical of the government for spending money it doesn't have. That is like saying Brinker likes baseball and apple pie. The debate seems to be what to do about spending and that is an opinion which should not be in the article. 66.245.20.37 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please keep it civil!!!!! I'm interested in further discussion of this recent addition to the article, but please, let's be civil. If nothing else, the present wording about health care in the article seems awkward. Caffeine USA 05:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History Link[edit]

In his or her edit summary of 4 November 2006, WikiHelperUSA refers to the disputed market timing history link, asking "Didn't Math Junkie say he wrote it long ago?" The answer to this question is no, I didn't say that. As I stated previously on this page, I can't really take credit for writing that table; most of it was written by others. I just added some stuff for balance. The version of it in the most recent link also has stuff that was added by someone else after my last edit of it, which I believe was in December of 2003. Math Junkie 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are further details on the table's authorship, which I wrote in the section above entitled new information for consideration to the article: Although I am listed as the author on one or two versions of the allocation history, my versions of it were merely an expansion of posts which were in turn based largely on a post in which DanG_6 provided an allocation history from a friend's back issues of Brinker's investment letter. I added some data based on my own back issues, as well as other Internet postings that I believe to be reliable. Math Junkie 20:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this coffee person delete it? It seems accurate from all I've read and I don't see any advertising on the page. I'm going to put it back up. WikiHelperUSA 21:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Bob Brinker fan club, only the Bob Brinker Hate Club under the cover of the phony Fan Club banner. These people have worked to discredit Brinker for years by distorting his record. These same people have been associated with publishing doctored photos of Brinker on the internet in efforts to discredit him in any way they can. One of the principals publishes his own stock newsletter and spends his time bashing Bob on the internet continuously. Wikipedia sponsoring such links as this makes itself a party to this operation. Wikipedia is disgracing itself through this association. - Ken Shetler

This link has NPOV issues. I made my case about this link almost a month ago (see earlier in the discussion). I've deleted it. Caffeine USA 06:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. Mr. Shetler may not be aware that my thread at Suite 101 does not claim to be a "fan club." This heading is in the very first post: "Honey's Brinker Beehive--Not a Fan Club." But in spite of that, I clearly state that all viewpoints and comments are welcome there. I would challenge you or anyone to find anything that I have posted that "distorts" Brinker's record. Everything that is said about his record is backed up by his own words--either from Moneytalk or Marketimer. Honeyoneohone 21:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--172.190.184.90 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)== - Links to more articles ==[reply]

I clicked on the link. It seems to be just a cover for getting one back to suite101 (with very few other additional links). Is this link-spam of some type?? Caffeine USA 05:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine, you are correct. This new link includes copyright violations as terms used are protected by copyright on Mr. Brinker's website. These efforts come from the same group and are aimed at getting Wikipedia visitors back to the suite website related pages by taking advantage of Mr. Brinker's name in violation of Wikipedia principles. Your term link-spam applies.- Ken Shetler

I've never heard of the mere use of terms being a copyright violation. Look at the article on fair use and I think you will see that such an interpretation would be unlikely to be upheld. Math Junkie 17:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine is correct. The new link comes from the same group and is aimed at getting Wikipedia visitors to the suite website pages by taking advantage of Mr. Brinker's name in violation of the Wikipedia link-spam rules. Caffeine correctly says it is a cover for getting one back to the suite website. The definition of link-spam. - Ken Shetler

I don't disagree with what you're saying about the purpose of the link. BTW, can you tell me where the Wikipedia rules on link-spam can be found? Math Junkie 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you check before you come up with these stories? I just did a search for May 20 and May 20, per your premise, and found no such admission.
Yes, and I provided a link to it yesterday. Here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Brinker&diff=54365278&oldid=54362729. See the fourth paragraph of the green highlighted area. Math Junkie 01:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math Junkie: Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and look at item #3: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, that have objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." Note the use of the word "or" as opposed to "and". Wikiproject:spam also has some interesting information. I notice this "fan club" topic came up several months ago, and user ॐ Priyanath said, "I also think the 'Bob Brinker Fan Club' link is extremely deceptive, and has no place here." I agree with this assessment. Caffeine USA 06:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your decision: Rule #3: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, that have objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming."

It seems to help people get more information about Bob Brinker and it has many links to Suite101 but it has links to other sites also. Suite101 has many advertisers but I'd not call any of them "excessive." Neither site requires registration or payment. It seems they offer several newsletters for sale including Bob Brinker's which is listed on the main page here. WikiHelperUSA 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Many lies are posted here about Mr. Brinker. The lie that he called libraries telling them to remove copies of his newsletter is the latest. But it is really about link spam to get the fan club which is really the hate club link here to direct Wikipedia visitors to the site that offers a newsletter and likes to solicit new subscribers through such link spam. Caffeine has it right. WikiHelperUSA is part of the link spam operation here by putting up links to another site. - Ken Shetler

How would you know what Brinker or his organization did or didn't do? Why do you fear a list of links to articles about Brinker by what seems to be half a dozen writers?

I hope everyone has read the specifics about why the "fan club" shouldn't be linked to from Wikipedia. We've gotten a little off topic here, but WikiHelper has already admitted to being a contributor (or some such thing) at suite101, so it's not difficult to see why this user wants links there, albeit this time somewhat indirectly via the "fanclub" cover. Caffeine USA 19:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any such admission from Wikihelper. It does seem you have something to hide and must be part of the Brinker organization if you find a list of links to true articles about Brinker offensive. JMHO.

Check the entry made to this discussion at 08:50, May 21, 2006, Wikihelper did indeed make the comment I refer to. I am not part of the "Brinker organization," whatever that may be. Caffeine USA 22:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that different people may have different time zones set in their display preferences. I think the entry you're referring to was the one made at 15:50 UTC: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Brinker&diff=54365278&oldid=54362729 Math Junkie 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search of May 21 and the only post I see is yours accusing him of spamming. I don't see his post and the site he likes seems to be a list of articles about Bob Brinker written by six different authors. I remember someone named honey wrote she was the author of some articles, but I don't see her name on the link list I want added here.


Rm fanclub link again. Caffeine USA 17:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I remember someone named honey wrote she was the author of some articles, but I don't see her name on the link list I want added here." "I think Honey said she was one of the hundreds who post at Suite101."


Suite101[edit]

I see a lot of discussion about whether these are suitable links. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎. Also see WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --A. B. 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any other forums, blogs or opinion sites that do not meet the requirements of WP:EL and WP:RS, they should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules are simple. --A. B. 21:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Issues[edit]

Linking only to Brinker's Website violates neutral point of view because his record there avoids mentioning any failed calls. Brimelow's articles are the most neutral I have seen on the subject. Friend of Kirk 17:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic that your first edit here, at least with the 'friend of kirk' username was an act of vandalism. Yet you expect others to not modify your edits. Caffeine USA 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before that, on December 20th, I reverted the vandalism of the Marketwatch link. I wasn't logged in at the time. I didn't take down the pro-Brinker links until someone repeated the vandalism the next day. The only thing I "expect" is for people to discuss the issue when there is a dispute over edits. Friend of Kirk 06:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't respond to something you think is vandalism by committing vandalism. Instead, please report vandalism on the proper reporting page. Caffeine USA 02:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censors[edit]

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


      • Please stop adding your slanted agenda on Wikipedia. Also, no links to blogs. we've gone over this before. Please read the previous talk page entries. Wiki's rules are siimple, please follow them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.175.59 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fundalarm Ends Discussion[edit]

Posted by Moderator [RW] on April 07, 2008 at 15:12:40:

In Reply to: Bob Brinker Moneytalk Summary April 5-6, 2008 posted by Investor on April 07, 2008 at 14:42:58: .

"Bob Brinker has expressed concern about the summaries of his advice (and newsletter) that have appeared on FundAlarm, as well as links from the Board to various other sites that report his advice -- basically, some or all of these posts may violate the copyright on his material.

In accordance with Bob's request, I have agreed not to allow summaries of his advice to appear on this Board, and I've also agreed to prevent links to other sites that may make unauthorized use of his material. Therefore, I will shortly delete this thread and, to be safe, I'm aksing that that all Bob Brinker-related posts be avoided in the future. Thanks to everyone for your cooperation on this.

Roy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.156.6 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Bob Brinker (as a topic) Meets Wikipedia Notability Requirements[edit]

When I spotted this article and looked it over, I almost immediately lunged toward my Speedy Deletion button. First, I ran the usual (and usually meaningless) Google search upon the subject's name, and sure enough, Google coughed up 77, 000 indications of visibility, as is typical of anyone effective at promoting oneself and the product or the message.

Then I ran the search once more by excluding the word "Marketwatch."

Now I see more than a few articles in established, reputable, secondary, mainstream sources with reputations for checking the facts that quote him or his publications.

While it's still not quite clear that this constitutes extensive and sustained coverage of the subject himself "in detail" by the established mainstream media (a requirement for Notability), and while coverage of the man and his work by the prominent voices in the national financial press would lend some real strength to an argument for notability as required by Wikipedia, I hereby confess to a premature reflex in my temptation to move for deletion.

.
— Wordsmith (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I vote to keep the article, after all, whatever one thinks of Brinker, he is heard in most major cities on the radio on Sundays. That in and of itself seems like it should be enough to have an article here on Wikipedia. 71.111.127.39 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Brinker&oldid=1200360308"