Talk:Jake Bernstein (market analyst)

Stub

I added a stub tag. A quick Google search leads me to believe this person is notable. This article needs to be expanded, or it might be a candidate for removal. Spanky dreamr (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jake Bernstein is a notable individual

I've been trying to build this page up, Jake Bernstein is a notable individual, but I'm just learning how to make Wikipedia entries so it's been slow and rough going. Please help me expand the article & prevent removal. Thor1964 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I find no evidence at Google or anywhere else that this particular Jake Bernstein satisfies Wikipedia notability requirements for inclusion. Neither popularity nor a hit count is sufficient. Every one of the websites I could find via Google referring to this particular Jake Bernstein falls into the category of a vendor, a blog, a book seller, or a promotional site within this subject's commercial community. None of these is acceptable as a credible, independent, secondary source of information about the subject, nor does any of these support the notion of this subject's notability. — Wordsmith (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

To presume Good Faith in the actions of Thor1964 is my first obligation.

He and his anonymous echoes have forfeited that presumption perhaps,

by repeatedly removing the comments of others from this article's Talk page,

and by erasing a succession of Article Issues tags without correcting or discussing

his repetitive replacement of heavily slanted statements and unacceptable sources

in violation of the principles mentioned in the preceding paragraph of half a year ago.

.

— Wordsmith (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

.

Wikipedia policy on verifiability and sources

"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

— Wikipedia policy on the standard for material statements acceptable for inclusion.

.

— Wordsmith (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

In accord with the aforementioned Wikipedia policies, I am removing the references to sources that fail to satisfy those requirements regarding independence and reputability — as well as the promotional material in the article unsubstantiated by reliable, unbiased, secondary sources from major, mainstream publications.

— Wordsmith (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

.

As I cited in the preceding section initiated by Thor1964, I intend to remove all material from this article

that violates Wikipedia policy on acceptable sources, as I had done, and as I described, last time.

.

— Wordsmith (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

______________________________________________________

Advertisement

- - This article reads like an advertisement. At best, this is a bad violation of NPOV. At worst, since a quick google of the internet shows over 2,000 links claiming that this guy is a scam artist, this article may be very badly misleading.

- I pared this article down, and deleted several pages of stuff that looked like self promotion. To give it a little bit of balance, i also added some text and citations summarizing the criticisms of from some of his critics, including a link to the decision from the 7th circuit court, affirming the sanctions levied by the NFC. 99.128.19.78 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC) (comment deleted, and put back onto the page 22 March 2010)

Critical material

I expect that it will just get deleted again, but given that the article is on the deletion discussion list, I put back onto the article the material critical of Bernstein, including the references to Forbes and to the circuit court opinion

• William Green, "There's one born every minute," Forbes, March 9, 1999 (article at Forbes.com)
• Mbh Commodity Advisors, Inc. and Jacob Bernstein, Petitioners, v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Respondent. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - 250 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2001) Decision (decision also available from caselaw)

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

More balance and some common sense needed

I have followed Jake Bernstein's methods for a number of years, with mixed results and I don't think either the obvious promtional nature of the first article and the criticism grafted onto the end draws a good balance.

Like it or not, US investment activity by small investors rely on the gurus that most financial advisors hate. Unfortunately there is a lot of crap passed off as fact or strategy.

As someone who has made money using some of his tools, but not following his systems blindly, I think there is some real value to his work on seasonality of trading (his work on seasonal trends and his season charts are quite important as a contribution as a tool).

Other ideas such as the key date trade where a trade is made on a certain date every year and exited on a certain date reminds me of the Orgone Box of Wilhelm Reich. I think Wilhelm Reich probably is a person with a biography in Wikipedia but obviously one patterned on the Bernstein article would not be good enough.

I like Jake and think he has some interesting ideas in his 40 or so books and would like to see the article improved but not deleted. 12:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.109.37.1 (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reformatted this so that the comments can be read - indents don't work in Wikipedia, use colons instead, and please remember to sign posts with 4 tildes. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violations

I have removed material cut and pasted from copyrighted sources. The material and sources can be seen here. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV violations removed

I removed quite a bit of material that violates NPOV. If the editors want to put in material saying how Bernstein is one of the most respected analyists in the business, they also have to put in some of information to the contrary-- perhaps referenceing the two thousand links saying that he is not a good analyzist, or else it is not neutral.

I also removed the long list of "webinars". Anybody can post anything on the web; this is not encyclopedic material. 128.156.10.80 (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been making similar edits, but User:Thor1964 restored an earlier version. I rolled that back and left him a note, I think the current version is much better. If folks disagree with my actions, please let's discuss it here, I don't want to start an edit war. Sorry if I've acted out of school, --Nuujinn (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted User:Thor1964 again. If anyone objects to the current version please let me know. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

COI and other Templates

I think the article is pretty clean now, so I've removed some of the advisory templates. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

[1]