Talk:John T. Reed

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)

Courtesy? What courtesy? This is an information resource, not a promotional platform. What courtesy has Reed displayed to on his website to the myriad of competitors that he trashes regularly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.114 (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

75.162.69.40 says "it seems he (Reed) almost can't say anything nice about anyone."

On Reed's page "John T. Reed’s views of various Real-estate-investment gurus" http://www.johntreed.com/Reedgururating.html

he has positive views of, and recommends the following:

Robert Abalos, Richard Arzaga, Steve Bergsman, Bob Bruss, CCIM Courses, George F. Coats, Jay P. DeCima, Gary DiGrazia, Joe Dominquez, Jane Garvey, IREM courses, MAI courses, Bill Mencarow, Kevin Myers, My own mother, H. Roger Neal, Bill Nickerson, Jon Richards, Leigh Robinson, Stephen Roulac, Al Seastrand, John Schaub, Lonnie Scruggs, Martin Stone, Spencer Strauss, Bill Tappan, Jeffrey Taylor and Donald Trump (half and half)

Additionally, in about a third of the listings on that page he holds "No strong stance".

Inclusion on his Recommend list does not mean that person holds Reed in the same regard. Under his listing for "My own mother", he says that her response to one of his newsletters was to say "What're you - the Don Rickles of real estate?"

With the large number of charlatans, frauds and scammers in the investment industry, Reed's research and disclosure about them serves a much more important purpose than the investment advice that he started with. Kid Bugs (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

MSN Money and CNN Money may be considered reliable sources by you, but many investors view them as consumer finance fluff -- especially Money. Money is merely a mouthpiece for the financial services industry and exists primarily as a channel for mutual fund advertising and not much more. Reed being quoted in these kinds of sources suggests that he is not a "guru" for serious investors, but is merely part of the 'get rich quick' crowd he claims to disdain …

Unreferenced assertions removed in accordance with our Biographies of Living Persons policy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

…If this article is not going to be deleted for self promotion reasons, I concur with the thought above of creating a Criticism section to this article; but, the new section needs to allow for non-mainstream press sources (e.g., blogs, forums, etc.) that are considered generally reliable by Internet cognoscenti. Just because a moderator doesn't recognize the reliability of the non-mainstream source doesn't make it right for the moderator to delete the additions dependent on the source. So, if we take the time and effort to create a Criticism section to this article, will the moderators allow it to stand as long as the additions are appropriately sourced by generally reliable, non-mainstream sources recognized by Internet cognoscenti? 64.183.200.162 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

To 64.183.200.162: Have you considered posting your questions on the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? — Athaenara ✉ 00:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BLPN

• See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive52#John T. Reed

I opened a discussion in the hope that editors who are neither burned out on policing this situation nor agenda-pushing single-purpose accounts would give it some attention. — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section for John T. Reed

Last year, it was discussed that a Criticism section should be opened for the John T. Reed entry but that most criticism would be supported by non-mainstream news sources and that the moderators here would not let that stand given that John T. Reed is a living person. However, this year, I see on entries for other living persons (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kwiatkowski) that authors are using blogs and other non-mainstream websites to support their assertions in Wikipedia entries. Does this mean that we can now do the same for the living person, John T. Reed? It would be helpful to start a Criticism section given that the entry is largely self-promotional at this point (his son at least appears to be a promotional author here) and many criticisms of John T. Reed do exist out in the public domain of the Web. If authors take the time to properly source their assertions in a Criticism section here will the moderators allow the Criticism section to stand? Thank you in advance for your time and response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.200.162 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unverified information

The first paragraph of the article - 'He has been recommended by the National Association of Realtors as a serious investigator in the industry' does not have a veriable source. The supplied link takes you to an opinion piece by an unknown author who 'claims' that Reed is recommended. Hearsay - I suggest that the reference to National Association of Realtors is removed urgentlty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.114 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John T. Reed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212031107/http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-02-07/news/don-t-tread-on-me/ to http://www.eastbayexpress.com/2007-02-07/news/don-t-tread-on-me/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)