Talk:Gerald Celente

NPOV issues
This article is wholly laudatory toward Celente. I doubt that there is a complete lack of quality, citable criticism. The final paragraph has serious NPOV issues concerning Gov. Paterson's tax hikes in New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.36.247 (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(The preceding paragraph is noneffective. The first and second sentence seem contradictory, apparently due to an error in the second sentence. Perhaps it should say "I doubt there is any quality, citable criticism." Can the writer edit or clarify?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.226.129.143 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly would be nice if someone would list some of the predictions he got wrong alongside those he got right. --65.184.40.166 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I note that someone disputed the neutrality of this article in January so I expected a long discussion in this section, but I find next to nothing. Shouldn't Wikipedia be taking a look at articles that have a NPOV caution added and remove it if the person that added it offers no explanation?  I know very little about Celente, but in my opinion when I see his article may be slanted, that fact right there may suggest that he may not be completely on the up and up. Gandydancer (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are Wikipedia's quidelines re neutrality:

"" The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic.""

Since the person that added the neutrality caution did not follow Wikipedia's quidelines, I will remove it. Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This is Laura289. I work at the Trends Research Institute where we have copies of very early articles written about Gerald Celente. I added information on Celente's predictions of the 1987 Stock Market collapse (taken from one of these early articles) as well as a quote from his Trends 2000 book to support his prediction of the Asian Crisis in 1997. Also, with Mr. Celente's permission, I have added numerous quotes taken from various issues of his Trends Journal, a subscriber-based publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laura289 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not investigated Gerald Celente other than a brief Google search as well as reading this article, but my sense is that Wikipedians (neutral ones) should do a much more thorough search of Gerald Celente. I'm 52. I've been around, I read stuff, I think. And how come I haven't heard about Gerald Celente until recently? Wouldn't a real futurist have a proven track record of verifiable predictions (including incorrect ones) in respected publications? That he's supposedly appeared on a few TV shows doesn't vouch for his credibility in my view. I do not see solid evidence that confirm his claims to having predicted past events. Are there experts who can vouchsafe for his reputation? The most solid-looking reference (NY Times) is recent and doesn't give specific evidence of any past predictions. I see warning flags and Wikipedia's reputation is on the line here, too. There are some aspects where I think his predictions may be right but I'm looking for a proven track record and don't see one. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)Tomwsulcer
 * His notability seems to be slowly widening but either way, the article text need only carry what's cited in reliable sources so there shouldn't be any worries: Anything not reliably sourced can and should be be taken out. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tomwsulcer, the NY Times - and most any other mainstream media, for that matter - is in the hands of masons. In a word: "You're not told what you're not supposed to know." With all due respect to your age and erudition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.75.149 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New edits
Laura289, do you have sources for new information? They would be welcome. ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag replaced
I've restored the NPOV tag. It seems pretty self-evident why it needs one, but here are the main specific reasons: KarlM (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted by the first poster above, the article is entirely positive, with zero criticisms. Given that predicting the future is almost guaranteed to be wrong a considerable portion of the time, some criticism of past predictions has to be included.  Looking at the CNN transcript cited, it looks like he was saying several of the same things in 2000 (impending major recession, but a new age of miracle cures etc.) as he did in late 2008, minus some of the doomsday stuff.
 * Much of the positive basis of the article rests on Celente's predictions of the 1987 stock crash, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the 1997 Asian financial crisis. However, there are no citations for any predictions prior to the events, only recent news stories (and one from 2000) that assert that he was correct in predicting them.  This is probably the most important point.
 * A number of the recent predictions appear to me to be a mixture of no-brainers (people growing gardens more and indulging in escapism) and somewhat outlandish scenarios (tax rebellions, food riots, major cities becoming slums). He took a mocking from Stephen Colbert about it, surely someone serious has criticized him as well.

EXACTLY! i tried to get a youtube video or anything similar from Celente from prior 2008 that would actually proof that the guy made accurate predictions prior to events unfolding (e.g. what did he say in 1999 about y2k, prior to the iraq invasion about the outcome and WMD, prior to 2008 about the housing bubble [Peter Schiff predicted that one correctly as early as 2005]) ... For Celente i found not a single interview where he predicted something accurately prior to events unfolding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.209.33 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3DfjLCcbzw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.158.116.13 (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding in criticism
I've taken a stab at adding criticism to the article. Obviously, I'd love it if people would expand, edit, discuss, etc. I've left the NPOV tag in place for now, in case my additions haven't actually solved the problem yet.Sonicsuns (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The criticism is worthless. I dont say that to offend, but the sections is just two quotes from an interview. Theres no who or why behind the critisism. I'm removing it. 155.55.60.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Be careful about doing things like that without looking at the history. It did have content, but Laura289 has now twice deleted the substantive parts without comment or justification.  Given that these are her only contributions to WP, it looks like there's an agenda afoot.  KarlM (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the criticism section back, rearranged a bit to put the more important section (on the supposed correct predictions) first, and trimming the quotes, which are less significant. Please don't mess with it unless you have something constructive to add. KarlM (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over, the 'criticism' section is complete rubbish. I'll try and pull up a few articles that I remember that discuss the problems about Celente. There is sufficient criticism out there to go away from the "there's no internet documentation... here are two quotes from Celente though" and move towards something more substantial. The whole article reeks of NPOV. 24.23.104.235 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Any article without a criticism section is, by definition, inherently biased. Nothing is devoid of some sort of valid criticism, and anyone who suggests otherwise has an agenda. Sadly, this kind of anti-critical process is pandemic on Wikipedia. One would think the fanboys and fangirls would realize that the lack of criticism would send up red flags for any thinking person, but I guess their philosophy is too superficial to think that deeply. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Remove NPOV tag?
The article is much more balanced now, and I don't think it deserves the tag anymore. If anything it's a little heavy on the criticism (in terms of the space it takes up; it's not particularly harsh in a POV way). Unfortunately we still have Laura289 deleting the best-referenced parts of the article. If you want to even it out, present documented predictions that were correct, don't just erase chunks you don't like. KarlM (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting personal

 * Laura, please do not delete sections from talk pages (see WP:TALK). The reason I replied here was because, as noted above, your message primarily dealt with the article and this is the appropriate forum for it; and I only quoted the parts relevant to the content of the article, not those that mocked my character.  It is also relevant to your history of unconstructive edits and ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, such as the ones noted above.  KarlM (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Karl: You have serious problem of interpreting issues and facts the way you want to. We don't need your analysis. You are not a trend forecaster. You are taking things out of context. And I don't need to be told by you what the proper means of anything are. Here's the whole letter. Let the facts speak for themselves rather than your selective and twisted interpretation:
 * So only "trend forecasters" can criticize "trend forecasters" now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.235.131 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I selectively quoted only the article-relevant parts here is because there is a general rule of etiquette against publicly posting personal emails from someone else. If you wish to have it up, fine; it will make interesting reading if this ends up in WP:DR.  Regarding your other points: I don't know who the "we" is in your statement "we don't need your analysis", but I'm not making predictions, I'm editing an encylopedia article.  And about your statement "I don't need to be told by you what the proper means of anything are": it seems like you do, because you have shown repeated disregard for Wikipedia policies and common civility in editing this article.  That's why it was especially amusing to read your "threat" to report me to the "appropriate Wikipedia monitors", as it suggests you don't know what they monitor.  KarlM (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Creator comment on POV
Respecting WP:OWN as I should, I'd just like to say that I created the article simply in an attempt to learn more about someone I kept seeing on the news. I went with as reliable sources as I could find, starting with newspapers of record which are a standard for RS. I attempted to include criticisms--the one I did was rightfully demonstrated not to conform to RS (I thought it a news item when in fact it was merely a blog) so I deleted them myself in response to the comment. However other editors will decide that the tone of the article should proceed, please keep in mind I tried to be exhaustive, using each and every google news sources I could use for free indiscriminately, as well as explicitly attributing Celente's statements about himself per WP:SELFPUB. The result is that the article as it began practically wrote itself, and in no way attempts to be laudatory, merely expository. In view of the lack of criticism in the sources I could find, the article could have been written no other way. I know it is not satisfying for some to hear that.

Lord knows elsewhere I've been accused of writing "hatchet jobs"--but they tend to turn out that way when the subject gets bad press and I find it. See Barrie Leslie Konicov and Naveen Jain as examples of people I personally like whose articles did not reflect it in my writing. I've seen editors likewise try to quash inconvenient positives about the infamous, as well as rush to suppress the dark secrets of their heros, or themselves. Wikipedia aims at Truth but it must get there by way of sourceable noted fact. I'd be happy if someone could follow through on my attempt to include criticism so long as these criticisms also conform to policy. Some directions to explore might include the time Celente spent shuttling between D.C. and Chicago as a consultant for powerful interests of vague alignment, his specific contributions to political figures which are also vague, and his gaffes in prediction where noted by an RS. (e.g.: Enviroman action figures. LOL!) I myself could not find appropriate sources for this information, so the article does not contain them. Thanks everyone for your interest in the article I began. Be sure to drop a line if you would like an opinion. I leave it now to you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for "resetting" me on this article. I stepped back a bit and realized that the reason the "Criticism" section isn't right is because most of the criticisms that were originally included there have now been moved to the "Missed predictions" section, so what's left is actually what he got right.  Also the sentence that you originally put in about there being little internet-available info (which was really the only OR there) isn't really relevant anymore, so I deleted it and the tag and rearranged the sections a bit.  Let me know what you think.  KarlM (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much like the edits. I was thinking the prefacing comments in one of the sections concerning "wildcards" could be exposited and expanded in a section concerning itself with Celente's views on the nature and limits of trend forecasting. He has said on occasion that a trend forecaster can only really look about 3 years ahead--which stands in sharp contrast of an Asimovian type futurist who would say that given the correct information and computational power, one could see all the way to inevitabilities of galactic scope across centuries or millenia. Celente's basis for his practice of prediction, he has said, is that 'current events predict future trends', specifically that news of interest to the trend forecaster must include three elements: social, economic, and political implications within the same current event. I personally found the statement useful and instructive, but see how other trend forecasters observe this 'tripod' of human spheres in subtler degrees or missing one aspect, for example the way that dress lengths have been noted to correlate with the economic climate. A section that details his process and theory overall would seem to be beneficial and telling. Once again, kudos. ClaudeReigns (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Still tag?
Wondering if NPOV flag still applies. ClaudeReigns (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My extensive editing with excellent and solid sources was reverted without explanation

 * I did an extensive re-write of the Gerald Celente article using solid sources (NY Times) etc with NPOV, keeping much information. Every line had a reference. It was a solid, respectable encyclopedia article. It was fair to all sides. It gave multiple points of view. If you see the history under Tomwsulcer, you can find the article I did; yet it got reverted by another user without explanation. So it's back to the flaky, poorly sourced advertising piece for Celente. I think we should consider nominating the article for deletion if this continues, or else request administrator intervention. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I am an admin and put an explanation in the edit summary. I've also commented on my talk page. Aside from the BLP and sourcing worries, please talk about any sweeping changes to the article here first, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article had numerous POV problems. It was essentially ONLY laudatory to Celente. It looked like an advertising piece. I checked the so-called "references" and most of them were bogus, nonexistent, irrelevant. I could not find any solid evidence that Celente had made any correct predictions beforehand regarding the 1987 stock market crash or dissolution of the Soviet Union; rather, he was quoted in publications AFTER these events saying that he had made accurate predictions; but I could not find any solid evidence (ie pre-1987) from any reputable source of Celente saying "I predict the 1987 stock market crash". I looked hard, found nothing. What I DID find, however, is a rather interesting picture of a business consultant who has some interesting takes on particular marketing and business problems (and I put them in the article) but who has a habit of making rather extreme negative forecasts (which rarely are proved correct but he has a right to say them and be quoted on what he says). And he IS an author. And his comments and quotes DID get picked up by some rather respectable media outlets (which I put in my revised article.) I think my revised article is NPOV, fair, balanced, and can withstand the test of scrutiny by other editors and users. Every line I put in HAD A SOLID REFERENCE. And the bloggers I quoted were, in my opinion, sharp and savvy (with excellent writing skills) who were quoted by other bloggers -- I checked the veracity of the bloggers, and what they wrote was verifiable by me. And your current article is highly POV -- essentially an advertising piece for Celente -- and makes Wikipedia look biased and flawed and stupid. If you quickly reverted my extensive edit (which I spent about a day working on, diligently checking everything) without looking over the quality work I did, then if it's true that you're an "admin" (why am I doubting you?) then you should revert your revert, and leave the article as I redid it -- solid, sure, fair. Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * First, it's not my article, second, see Verifiability, third, see WP:CONSENSUS and fourth, see Special:UserRights/Gwen_Gale. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Update Aug 5 2009 -- article much better (not perfect), much more NPOV
I believe the Celente article is getting much more up to speed, more fact based (with better references) but is still not perfect. The excellent Hullaballoo Wolfowitz thinks "original research" may still linger in it. But sharp editors like the excellent Tabercil and the excellent Dismas are contributing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

I agree with the excellent Dismas about the word "crisis" not refering to anything. I think the opening paragraph needs to be tightened somewhat; and the first section needs to be more NPOV (if anything it somewhat tilts against Celente -- what do people think about this?).Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Update Aug 7 2009
I've looked over changes made to the Celente article. Partisans who are pro-Celente and, in my view, anti-facts, have reverted many of the changes made. There have been statements made without references, claiming that Celente successfully predicted certain events before they happened. These statements REQUIRE REFERENCES. In the case of claiming that Celente made a "successful prediction" it requires solid proof -- that he made the prediction, and then later that it happened. I have searched hard to find instances in which Celente was on record, in a reputable publication with a DATE, of making a specific prediction that Event X would happen at Such-and-such time. And then seeing that event happen. I have found no instances of this at all. What I have found is that Celente is chronically gloomy as a predictor of the overall economy, but milder about business forecasts. Please understand -- Wikipedia is NOT the place to advance a pro-Celente agenda. It's a place for facts, Please SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS WITH FACTS FROM REPUTABLE SOURCES. Wikipedia is not the place to advance your particular agenda. Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Generally I think we should follow the Wikipedia policy of sticking to solid facts from reputable sources. Since this is an article about Gerald Celente, it's hard for me to see own publication "Trends Journal" as being a solid source (this is a stretch for me; if you feel you have a good case about this, let me know; make your case). If somebody wants to make a statement like a person successfully predicted event X, then I want to see a statement in a reputable source (NY Times, Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Chronicle, New Yorker, Time magazine, and many others, you know the Wikipedia policy) with a DATE, BEFORE THE EVENT HAPPENED, saying specifically that "Event X is going to happen at such and such a time, or within such and such a time frame". Then, I want to see evidence of the event happening. It doesn't count if a person is ALWAYS making negative predictions because sooner or later some of these are bound to come true -- in that case, we might say Gerald Celente predicted X, but he's always been predicting X, and X finally happened, and that really means nothing. Support your statements. Follow Wikipedia policy. If Celente did make them and you can PROVE it, I'll support you. I've spent much time looking over the record -- I've done extensive searching -- and I haven't found what I consider to be solid evidence that he successfully predicted, beforehand, the stock market crash of 87 or the Asian financial crisis of 1997. But you need to SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENTS otherwise I'll tag them, flag them, and delete them. Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

YouTube as a source I feel is problematic; what is the Wikipedia policy here? The videos are easy to manipulate, distort. Perhaps a YouTube video can be used to support a more reliable source -- such as a CNN transcript. Editors who want to use YouTube videos as a primary, stand-alone source -- please show some justification that this is official Wikipedia policy, or if there's no official policy, why it's sensible? Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

About Celente predictions before the 1987 crash -- is there a physical copy of the WSJ article in which Celente made this prediction which I can see? Or can somebody please take a fairly good picture of this specific article (with date plainly evident please), upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and we can include it in the article or use it as a source of some kind? Or is there some other way to verify the transcript -- where did it come from? How can I get a copy? But a source in 1998 saying Celente in 1985 predicted a crash in 1987 won't wash with me that he "successfully predicted" the 1987 crash; what we CAN say is that Celente SAID he successfully predicted the crash (because this is what the newspaper quotes say), but it was after the fact. Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

TOMSULCER: Stop adding that prediction of Stock Market Crash and Asian currency crisis need fact references. THE FACTS ARE EXCERPTED FROM WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE AND CELENTE'S BOOK. Go to Lexis-Nexis and see it for yourself if you must. But do not discount what I've written just because YOU CAN'T FIND IT BY DOING A SIMPLE WEB SEARCH. Laura289 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Laura289, please be civil. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda or unsupported statements. It is not a place for original research. If you make a claim like "Gerald Celente successfully predicted the 1987 stock market crash", you have to back that up with solid, verifiable proof from reputable sources. And further, a claim involving prediction requires extra work, as I have suggested in my past notes (verify the prediction BEFORE the event; and verify the EVENT). You have not provided either. If you make the statement, then it's YOUR responsibility (not mine) to provide proof. I have spent hours slogging through websites about Gerald Celente on my own because I'm curious about him; I researched him intensely. I put together a verifiable, factual and balanced article in which every line had a solid reference. That got deleted without much explanation. I worked eight hours on that perhaps. So, let's work with what you have. And the "source" listed -- which has no link to a Wall Street Journal site -- claims to be what appeared in the Wall Street Journal -- I need to see proof. Further, it is dated AFTER the stock market crash which happened October 19, 1987. So, if the "source" is real (it needs a footnote, and it must be verifiable -- you can't just claim that it exists).Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Further, using Celente's own book as a "source" is highly problematic, in my view. It's close to being original research. Celente could say in his book "elephants fly"; then, in a Wikipedia article, claim "elephants fly", and use himself as the source. See the problem? Perhaps the only place where Celente's book, or Trend Journal statements can be used as a source is if an editor makes the statement that "Celente wrote a book" -- and the source indicates the book. Ditto the "Trends Journal" stuff. The whole idea is verifiable, independent sources. I've been tolerant so far, and I'm trying to be reasonable. You need third-party sources. Find them; prove your case; and I'll support you. Best bet: get a reporter at a respectable publication to do a serious investigation of Celente's track record regarding predictions; I'll put this in in a jiffy. Otherwise, I will consistently follow Wikipedia policy and delete unsupported, unverifiable statements Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Reminder what it says at the top of this Discussion page: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." (boldface added by me for emphasis) Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I'm sorry but Laura289 has the following text on their profile page and thus has a tremendous conflict of interest: "I work for Gerald Celente at the Trends Research Institute and am privy to from-the-source information relating to Mr. Celente, his extensive past and current predictions, and a comprehensive library of his written work."

I think that any edits made by this user should be held up to the highest degree of scrutiny.Mrfridays (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mrfridays. Edits by Laura289 are highly biased, rarely supported, violating numerous Wikipedia policies, and are against the neutral unbiased spirit of Wikipedia. There is definitely a conflict of interest. I ask administrators to take note of this. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * While Laura may be an employee of Celente, I am not. I would love to see any new sourcing, and am happy to verify, as well as add to add appropriately to the article in conformance to policies such as WP:NPOV WP:SELFPUB and WP:NOR. Please list the sources themselves in a new section or on my talk page and I will give this my first priority. I would also appreciate firsthand knowledge which might suggest futurists whom Celente counts as influences so that I may give secondary attention to those articles, as yet written or not. Again, I'd appreciate if Laura289 could share that sourcing. Directly editing the article while in the employ of its subject is definitely in violation of WP:COI, but going forward, there is no reason that a newcomer who has been forthcoming about bias cannot contribute in an appropriate manner, even in the most controversial and heated of circumstances. See also: Talk:Tilman Hausherr. Contrast with: Talk:Naveen Jain. Kindly, I implore you, don't be that editor. :) ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A review of WP:SELFPUB as it relates to Trends Journal
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: Trends Journal, therefore, may be used in the article "Gerald Celente" specifically for elsewhere-noted assertions that date and verify Celente's predictions. Trends Journal may not be used to assert notability for a prediction, or we would use it entire--and the inclusion of only predictions noted in RS prevents use of the source in a dubious way. The "claims about third parties" means that we don't make direct assertions about the Jews in the article about Adolf Hitler just because Hitler said so--and that's the founding principle and example of why those clauses are there. Therefore in an article about someone who's bread and butter is prediction about third parties, we can use the Primary Source as a direct form of verificaton of the Secondary Source. It does not give us leeway to evaluate the prediction. That falls to the Secondary Source. Celente's self-published material cannot be used to rate him as a predictor. That falls to Secondary Sources. ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Are you guys crazy? You're saying that information that has been WRITTEN, DATED, PRINTED, AND GLOBALLY DISTRIBUTED CANNOT BE USED AS A SOURCE? Says who? Says you? Who are you? The information in Gerald Celente's "Trends Journal" publications PROVES that he made countless forecasts well before they happened. And because I work for him is a "conflict of interests"? All that means in this instance is I have access to his entire body of work. You're trying to discredit him; I'm providing the documented proof. That's all I'm trying to do here. Why are you being so difficult? I'm providing the proof; you're continuing to try to discount it. Obviously you have an agenda, because any person of sound mind would not dispute the facts staring them in the face.Laura289 (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Laura, please be civil and don't use terms like "crazy". I agree with ClaudeReigns generally in that Trends Journal is not a good source about verifying predictions. But it's not like ClaudeReigns and myself are trying to do this stuff to make your life difficult; rather, we're trying to conform to Wikipedia's policy, which has rules, and which, if you look at it long enough, are in everybody's best interests, because it means that Wikipedia's articles have a great deal of integrity and validity and usefulness. Like, if we don't follow these rules, others will, and we'll be overruled too if we support your view on this. I found this out the hard way, myself; I wrote a book which is on Amazon -- it's self-published -- but when I tried to write an article about my book for Wikipedia, it got deleted. And, the way I look at it now, it's right that my book got deleted, because it was a self-published source (and I hold hope that someday my book may well have an article written about it, but others will have to put it there, not me!). In the same way, Celente's "Trends Journal" is a self-published source, so it's not super valid, particularly regarding predictions. Suppose I walk into a crowded street and say "I'm great"; would anybody else believe me? My guess about the particular predictions is that Celente did make them, but he's always been making negative predictions, and therefore it doesn't mean that much -- but that's my guess and what do I know? My opinion here doesn't count. What counts is what reliable source say. Suppose Mr. Celente is an excellent prognosticator, and consistently calls major events correctly -- then it should be possible to prove this. Please, get a reporter, or an academic, or a magazine writer, to study the accuracy of Celente's predictions -- send the reporter the Trends Journal articles which you think are relevant -- have this study published in the newspaper or magazine or academic journal -- and I'll be glad to include that in the Celente article, and I'll quote the reputable source. Or, find something like this that has been done -- not just a reporter echoing (without analysis) that "Celente is known to have successfully predicted X" but a study in which the investigator took a good look at Celente's veracity as a prognosticator. Please know that I actively HUNTED for such information over many hours, doing rather extensive Internet searches, and didn't find something which, for me, proved that Celente did accurately made the predictions. I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. Please understand, I'm just following policy. If you do the work and can show me sources from a good source, I'll support you. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * New "sources" have been added which point to photocopies supposedly of newspaper articles from the past. But the only way to get TO these sources is through the Trends Journal website, which has a clearly vested interest in promoting the so-called accuracy of supposed past predictions (its money in the bank); so the validity of these so-called sources is highly suspect. I could not verify these articles (Daily Freeman, a Hudson Valley newspaper) or the supposed Wall Street Journal articles through non-Trends Journal sites -- that is, I could not get independent verification from the Daily Freeman or WSJ through independent searching. So suspect sources have been tagged. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Tomwsulcer: Who are you to impugn Gerald Celente's integrity and to take it upon yourself to question the authenticity and validity of the articles posted? All are there on public record. They are there for any intelligent and diligent researcher to access. In effect, you are calling Mr. Celente and the Trends Research Institute liars and frauds. Should your accusations continue and you persist in attacking the work of the Trends Research Institute and Mr. Celente personally by altering factual material, legal action will be taken. You are hereby put on notice to immediately cease and desist.Laura289 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

^ if that comment by laura289 isn't the sign of a charlatan at work i don't know what is. celente is a blatant fraud. and laura is a cowardly bitch- anonymous


 * Laura289, you're once more violating Wikipedia policy, this time by making legal threats. I've tried to be reasonable and I've explained my position. I'm just following wikipedia policy. At this point, I think the article should be deleted because it's being used as an advertising vehicle instead of an encyclopedia article. Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

What a mess
I started trying to clean this up but I frankly don't have the energy to pick through and keep the primary sources that are ok, rewrite the advertising copy, cut out all the BS... sheesh. Have fun guys! &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * About the mess. Yes, I agree the Gerald Celente article is a mess. But I've been working on this and have been repeatedly fussing with editors who haven't been following the rules. But last night I've been thinking of a way to try to make everybody happy (including the rules-breakers) and that's to limit the article to perhaps 5 or 6 lines maximum. Only say what we're really sure about. I'll propose a draft on THIS PAGE here but I don't want to stick it in the article lest the edit war resume. But I'm hoping editors will paste my suggested version in the article space. Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Proposed Revised Celente Article (as of Aug 15th 2009)
Proposed article follows: Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Gerald Celente (born November 29, 1946) is a United States trend forecaster business consultant, author, founder of The Trends Research Institute which publishes Trends Journal   and political forecaster. Celente has made pessimistic predictions such as recessions, depressions, terrorism, stock market crashes, war, fascism, food riots, and tax revolts, and he has been on radio, television, and in newspapers making these predictions.

Publications

 * Trend Tracking: The System to Profit from Today's Trends (1991), ISBN 978-0446392877
 * Trends 2000: How to Prepare for and Profit from the Changes of the 21st Century (1997), ISBN 978-0446519014
 * What Zizi Gave Honeyboy: A True Story about Love, Wisdom, and the Soul of America (2002), ISBN 978-0066212661

And that's it (proposed article is above)
It's all facts. I think everybody (even the pro-Celente partisans) will agree with the above statements. They're well referenced. I recommend ANOTHER EDITOR paste this in the Celente article. I dug out many of the references myself earlier (although I haven't checked over every one and some may have been modified). Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer

Pro-Celente partisans continue to disrupt Celente page
If people won't be reasonable about finding some kind of compromise, then let's delete this article. It makes Wikipedia look bad. It's advertising for Celente. It undermines all the hard work and toil that editors do (voluntarily, without pay) trying to make this encyclopedia work.Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * If you think the article should be deleted, you can take it to AfD for discussion by other editors. If there were a consensus to delete, it would be deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * At this point, article deletion seems a wise move since it's repeatedly being misused by pro-Celente partisans such as yourself to advance a pro-Celente, anti-Wikipedia agenda. It turns Wikipedia into an ad for a business consultant. It fails numerous NPOV tests. Statements like "Celente predicted X" without substantive support constitute original research and violate the WP:OR policy. "Trends Journal" is not a good source for material on Celente as numerous editors have commented. If we can't come to consensus about what the article should be, I move to delete, and I repeatedly call administrator attention to what's going on here. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * Oh, I agree it's been an utter mess, further stirred up by another editor who brought her COI far too strongly to bear on the text and in discussions. Meanwhile it's highly unlikely the article would be deleted through an AfD discussion. Starting over with the stub may indeed be helpful, sources and neutral wording can be added slowly, as they show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing it's a mess. The three lines that are there -- I think those are lines we can ALL agree on, right? Including the pro-Celente people? I'm willing to compromise on that. And I think if the article stays pretty close to that (without additions of unsourced material, unsupported statements, using "Trends Journal" as a source about Celente, etc etc) then I'm willing to accept this compromise, and stop calling for article deletion. Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * I understand your worries, my take is, stubifying the article may have been a helpful thing to do, I agree great care must be taken when citing the publications of anyone in their own BLP, since those sources are not independent of the subject, I think input from other experienced editors is needed now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your concerns. And I agree other editors should look in to this. Further, I think perhaps there should be a picture of Gerald Celente in the article too? It can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with proper copyright permissions, and tagged so we can find it, and added. But I think we should continue to watch this page; if it's repeatedly subverted, I think we should again consider nominating it for deletion.Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer
 * If a topic is notable, which this is, it won't be deleted. Disruption has nothing to do with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Who anointed Tom W Sulcer to edit my 30 year career of accomplishments as he sees fit ... down to two line of his choice? Over the course of many months many individuals contributed their time to build my profile. Indeed, it was first created without my knowledge or influence by the Wikipedia community. And now, in one fell swoop, his highness, Mr. Sulcer has decreed he knows best for everyone.

To say, for example that the Wall Street Journal is not a proper source to confirm my forecast of the 1987 stock market crashbecause a copy of the page has been scanned for review, is proof of his attempts to use any excuse to question my integrity. He further defames my character by claiming that my hundreds of media interviews featured on YouTube are not credible sources, because they could be manipulated. Manipulated by whom? Me? To credit myself with predictions I never made? Again, he is accusing me of being a fraud.

Tom Sulcer equates his failure to promote his self-published book on Wikipedia as a relevant example as to why The Trends Research Institute cannot reference from our internationally distributed Trends Journal (publishing since 1991). What twisted logic. That is like claiming that the New England Journal of Medicine cannot quote from its journal to prove what they had written in the past.

All forecasts listed were documented and appropriately referrenced. Since Sulcer writes in terms of people being "Pro Celente" and his continuing defamation of my character, he is clearly an anti-Celente malcontent and should be banned from Wikepidia for egregious and malicious attempts to discredit me and for his disservice to the Wikipedia community.

Gerald CelenteGcelente (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a total nobody, an anonymous grunt, working without pay, volunteering my time, contributing to this ongoing project of a free encyclopedia. I try my best to follow Wikipedia's rules (some of which I disagree with, but I follow policies anyway as best I can). These rules (neutrality, citing references, no legal threats, no personal attacks, reliable sources, not using Wikipedia as advertising, and so on) are bigger than me, bigger than you, bigger than everybody. I respect these rules. I try to follow them. You should too. I think these policies are what makes Wikipedia great. It enables millions of nobodies like me to put together a website which is powerful, interesting, lively, respectable, useful, truthful, credible, amazing project called Wikipedia.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Perhaps a month back I came across the article for Gerald Celente. There were few references, numerous point of view issues. It looked like an advertisement for Gerald Celente because almost everything in the article was positive. There were tags on the articles left by other editors and comments about numerous problems in the discussion pages which are on the record. Some references weren't acceptable. These discussions are on the record. For example, it's unacceptable to use "Trends Journal" as a source about "Gerald Celente" because there's an obvious conflict of interest -- Gerald Celente owns "Trends Journal". Similarly, if I was editing an article about the Wall Street Journal, it would be unacceptable to use material from the Wall Street Journal itself. I made this point numerous times in discussions with other editors, but nobody seemed to listen.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * The Gerald Celente article as of August 2, 2009 was poorly referenced, lacked good sources, had flawed sources, had numerous problems like I suggested. Editors wrote: "This article is wholly laudatory toward Celente" and "Certainly would be nice if someone would list some of the predictions he got wrong alongside those he got right" and concern that the article was "slanted". Another editor wrote: "the article is entirely positive, with zero criticisms. Given that predicting the future is almost guaranteed to be wrong a considerable portion of the time, some criticism of past predictions has to be included." Another: "For Celente i found not a single interview where he predicted something accurately prior to events unfolding." Clearly, there was controversy, yet the article remained entirely positive.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Why? Because people who work for Gerald Celente, who have a strong and powerful financial interest to promote him, were overrunning the impartial editors (who lack a strong financial incentive). One editor admitted this: "This is Laura289. I work at the Trends Research Institute". This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy -- that editors are not supposed to work on projects for which there is a clear conflict of interest. Laura works for Gerald Celente; of course she'll be highly laudatory. Similarly, Trends Journal, Laura289, and Gerald Celente are biased sources about the subject "Gerald Celente". That's how it is. Please learn to respect this rule like all the other Wikipedia editors. I can understand why someone would feel satisfied with the article when everything written was entirely positive. But Wikipedia has strong and sensible policies that editors should NOT write about themselves or companies they work for.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * So I spent considerable time trying to improve the article. I spent hours online researching the subject "Gerald Celente". I sifted through numerous websites, journals, magazines. I was particularly interested in backing up the assertion "Gerald Celente accurately predicted the stock market crash of 1987". I hunted extensively for credible sources to prove this assertion. I didn't find any. But that doesn't mean that these sources don't exist or might not be found in the future. What I'm saying is: I didn't find them. There's a Wikipedia policy that statements must be verifiable. I was trying to verify this statement. I couldn't.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Further, using "Trends Journal" as a source for the subject "Gerald Celente" is fraught with problems. There's an obvious conflict of interest. Gerald Celente OWNS Trends Journal. It would have made my searching much easier if I could quote from this "source"; but Wikipedia policy frowns on this. I think "Trends Journal" can be used as a source if I make the statement "Trends Journal exists" -- but there are inherent problems in going much beyond that, particularly when trying to back up assertions about successful past predictions. What's really needed is a report in a reliable source such as the Wall Street Journal, dated before 1987, with the name "Celente" and the prediction of Event Y about to happen, which I can find, and which other Wikipedia editors can find. There should be some public record separate from Trends Journal. That's what was needed. I remain open minded that such a source can be produced. It's not sufficient for me to see a photocopy of an alleged Wall Street Journal article which is only available through a Trends Journal website. I want to see get this fact independently. I got to verify things. That's Wikipedia policy. I follow it.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * There are further problems with trying to prove a statement like "Person X successfully predicted event Y". Suppose a person in 1983 predicted there will be a crash in 1984; and in 1984, predicted a crash in 1985; in 1985, predicted a crash in 1986, in 1986, predicted a crash in 1987. When the crash finally happens, could one say that person X is a reliable predictor? That's why what's really needed here is an academic, a reporter, a reliable source (not me -- I'm a nobody Wikipedia editor with no opinions of my own) (not you -- you've got an agenda of self-promotion) (not Laura289 -- conflict of interest) somebody who is impartial and neutral to investigate the claim that "Person X successfully predicted event Y" and say so, and take a good look at the Trends Journal, reading through all of its material, and coming to that conclusion. And publishes it in a reliable publication. If such a study happens by a reliable source, I'll include it in a nanosecond. Find this information; show me how to get it (not via a Trends Journal website); and I'll support you.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Back to August 2nd. With numerous problems with the Celente article, I did an extensive rewrite, using reliable sources, fair reporting, neutrality. Look through the history of the article. Look for August 3, 2009 at 19:21. It's readable now. Click on it. I posted a revised, fair, impartial (in my view) article. Please note my rewrite wasn't perfect -- perfection is impossible although I try my best; for example, I quoted a blogger which I have subsequently learned that Wikipedians generally agree is unacceptable, and since then I avoid bloggers; so, from what I know today, I would remove the blogger-as-source. Still, without explanation, despite my addition of numerous credible sources, my extensive edit got reverted with a click of the "undo" button. The article went back to being an advertisement. There was little discussion. I didn't revert the edit back.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * Since then, I have tried repeatedly to work with other editors, but what I've found is that most other editors are highly biased towards the subject of "Gerald Celente", unwilling to listen to my concerns about neutrality, and consistently undo my work, remove tags citing bad sources without explanation. In short, other editors have not been playing by the rules. I think if any administrator who does a fair assessment of the article's history will come to the conclusion that other editors have been disregarding Wikipedia policy. I enlisted the help of administrators. I've posted numerous explanations in this discussions page. I followed Wikipedia's policy about WP:OR and WP:RS and tagged unreferenced statements. Many times my tags such as "reliable source?" and "fact needed?" were removed without explanation or without new sources being added. I've been subject to personal attacks on my character, legal threats (which are not allowed by Wikipedia policy), and now I'm accused of accusing another of "fraud". For the record, I do not believe anybody I've written about is a fraud -- and to the best of my knowledge, I have never said this. I do not believe it now.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * So, an edit war happened. At some points, I was so fed up with things that I suggested deleting the article entirely -- but I think other editors will overrule me on this, and they made a good case that the subject "Gerald Celente" is noteworthy. At present, as a compromise, other editors and myself have only been able to agree about the three lines as being factual, provable, which conform to Wikipedia policy. So to make the statement that I, alone, whittled down the article to three lines is untrue -- rather, the resulting three lines are the only statements right now where there's some kind of consensus. I would like greatly to expand this article (as I tried earlier) but I've been consistently stymied. I think the material about the business and political predictions is interesting, notable, quotable with solid references and should be included. Further, I think the whole subject of "Person X successfully predicted Event Y" is fraught with problems and should be left alone, unsaid, or if future editors want to expand this, good sources must be used. I remain open to the possibility that good sources can be found to back up these statements.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I reiterate: I am a total nobody who only tries to follow Wikipedia policy as best I can. I work without pay. My sense would be that the Trends Research Institute should focus not on trying to get free advertising via Wikipedia and not try to push around nobodies like me, but should focus its attention on advancing its agenda with newspapers, businesses, academics -- focus on getting independent validation by impartial sources about its prognosticatory expertise. What methods does it use to make predictions? Get the New York Times interested in these methods. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising. Wikipedia has rules. I respect Wikipedia's rules. Learn to respect Wikipedia's rules like everybody else.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I will finish by refuting several arguments made in the Aug 16th comment by GCelente. This person wrote: "All forecasts listed were documented and appropriately referrenced." I disagree. Numerous other editors felt similarly. The forecasts were not well documented or referenced. (See the discussion page). Another statement: "He (meaning Tomwsulcer) further defames my character by claiming that my hundreds of media interviews featured on YouTube are not credible sources, because they could be manipulated." I disagree: I am not defaming anybody's character; I am merely following Wikipedia rules which suggest YouTube videos are not reliable sources for numerous reasons; if this policy changes, and the Wikipedia community embraces YouTube videos as credible sources, I'll follow their lead; until then, YouTube videos are problematic. Another comment: "Again, he is accusing me of being a fraud." Not true; I am not accusing anybody of being fraudulent; I am only following Wikipedia policy regarding sources. Another statement: "That is like claiming that the New England Journal of Medicine cannot quote from its journal to prove what they had written in the past." Again, that's right -- the New England Journal of Medicine is a BAD source if its editors write about itself. The editors should NOT be writing about their own publication in a place like Wikipedia. Like, suppose one finds the statement "The New England Journal of Medicine is great" but it's written by someone who works there -- would you believe this person? But what's needed is for the NY Times to say it's great; NYT = impartial source. Wikipedia's rules; again, learn them. Please understand I am trying to be reasonable, seek compromise, while following Wikipedia's rules.Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)tomwsulcer


 * I was asked to comment by Tom. I warn Gcelente about attempts to influence the content of this article. There is every reason to think the subject of an article is not going to be reliable about his own importance; the more he insists he is important, the less likely it is to be true. The most useful think a subject can do is lead others to useful sources that he may know about, and to correct mistaken facts. For example, it would be helpful to have a list of all predictions he made that were not correct, besides the elections. There must be some additional negative comment, and it must be included. I presume he can be of some help here.   I think Gwen is  editing appropriately, just as i would expect her to do,  and suggest that she should continue along the same lines. There is more to do: the main part of the article still consists of a string of partially duplicative forecasts that need to be organized.  One of two short key quotations praising him are enough, and they should be selected as coming from noted commentators on economics--  (what Glenn Beck may have said about him is not  of any relevance to the evaluation   of his work,  but it is to indicate a possibility of concordant views: it would be useful to know to what extent he is a regular guest.).   Nor is the NY Post a reliable source for economics--unless they were being ironical, they think comparing him to Nostradamaus to be a compliment! Has the WSJ said anything about his predictions--that would be much more relevant than the Seattle Times.
 * There is a problem in quoting people about their own views: if they choose the quotations, they  are likely to be selective. Random video interviews are simply public relations, and not reliable as an indication of the representative serious views of a person, one way or another. If one devotes oneself to predictions, one can simply pick out the ones one is successful at, and cite them repeatedly.
 * But I also warn Tomwsulcer about what by this point appears to be a negative prejudice. I suggest he leave further editing to others--he has made his point.    DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Outsider intruding
I have no irons in this fire at all. I came here in response to a NPOVN request.

The lead of this article was ridiculous, While I admit that this person is famous for predicted financial and political situations, the points included in the lead were so specific as to be absurd. A WP:LEAD is supposed to be essentially a summary. A person coming here knowing nothing of this person doesn't want to read about what the Washington Times thought of this person or which of the millions of possible predictions this person could have possibly made were made. A person coming here just wants to know who this person is. To that end, I removed specific predictions to the section of the article that talks about specific predictions and added a phrase to describe this person as a prognosticator.

It's fairly plain that predictors in financial and political areas have a spotty track-record, regardless of who they are. Wikipedia should tow that mainstream line. WP:NPOV demands we take no stance as to whether or not this particular prognosticator can actually predict with accuracy. Please do not write prose to either effect.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Salient edits and remarks. Welcome and thank you. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough for a Wikiquote page?
Gerald Celente is being quoted repeatedly all over the place, particularly by conservative commentators critical of current federal policies. Given this fact, would it not be appropriate to prepare a linked Wikiquote page to begin gathering his source-able quotations for reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.130.120 (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How can sources be checked and documents authenticated?

I cannot see why Trends Journal previous articles cannot be used as reference for as long as people know where the source comes from. This is a debate about whether predictions were made and nothing else (no one in this discussion is disputing where Celente was born and in this instance you would need independent sources to assert that, not sources from Celente). So any publications showing those predictions should be admissible regardless of where they come from. It's about the FACT that someone made a prediction somewhere, not about whether he is right or not (this becomes sufficiently obvious with time, there is no need to do anything about it). It's purely about the existance of that prediction and a (genuine) Trends Journal source has as much credit as any other source. The reference to Hitler is plainly wrong. It is perfectly fine to use sources from Mein Kampf if one is merely trying to document what Hitler stood for and this has nothing to do with whether you agree with him or not. It's about the fact that someone said something, not about proving or disproving any theory.

What is objective remains objective even if it comes from a biased source. An islamic terrorist website stating that the attacks on the WTC happenned on September 11. 2001 is factually correct about the date the events took place. I may understand one's reluctance to use such sources and if other sources are available, it would be preferable to use those. In this case no other sources seem readily available so we probably have to make do with what we have since, again, it deals with the reporting of FACTS and nothing else.

I agree that we cannot take Celente's word for it, and that comes from someone who agrees with a lot of what he says. But if I was in his shoes, I wouldn't want people to take the leap of faith but rather have others vindicate my position, prove my claims etc...

Note: Of course one would need to authenticate the Trends Journal source which may be difficult. Which leads me to that question: does wikipedia have a method for authenticating documents?

Three bet shove (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
Where did the section on criticism of Celente go? It has become an article of faith among Celente-believers that he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union, 1987 stock market crash, 1997 Asian currency crash and all these other things, but there has never been evidence of that. (Oran indication of precisely what he predicted and what transpired. For someone in his line of work, if he gets to set the record, there is an intense incentive for him to hype the degree to which he was correct.) There should be a degree of fair skepticism of this guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.203.172 (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

SOURCE 1: http://www.edrants.com/gerald-celente-futurist-fraud/

SOURCE 2: http://louminatti.blogspot.com/2008/11/gerald-celente-is-full-of-crap.html

SOURCE 3: http://blogs.computerworld.com/fox_news_obama_gloom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.203.172 (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually came to this wiki looking for criticisms, I must say the articles listed here are very weak. Some predictions they've mocked have since come true (resurgence in gardening), and one of the blogs only criticizes him for stating the obvious, such has people have more time after retirement. That said, these are blogs which seem to have more concern with the political party he's criticizing than anything else.

If someone does have a comprehensive and legitimate list of criticisms I'd love to see them added. Until then, it's best that these three blogs are left out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.27.58.130 (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * They had been added, and then they were taken out due to an edit war between Celente's employees and an overzealous opponent. You can find them if you flip through the history.  I just decided it's not worth putting that much effort into someone who's main notoriety is being a doomsayer on Fox News and self-promotion as a genius.  KarlM (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Predictions section
Hi guys,

I've recently taken an interest in Celente and am compiling his predictions in a new section. Any suggestions you have, especially where it comes to citation format, will be appreciated. If this section gets too large, I'll create a new Wikipedia page for them and will just leave an abbreviated summary of his predictions on this entry. I promise everything I write will be verifiable and as neutrally worded as possible. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The predictions section doesn't contain any. Maybe "observations" would be a better word. For example, "Developers have begun rehabbing some of the ghost malls for more productive uses" is not a prediction. Neither is "bloggers and independent journalists wield as much influence on voters as mainstream media outlets". In fact, I don't think the section contains even a single prediction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.86.139.32 (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Prediction deletion
I deleted the section about predicting the 1987 stock market crash. A "claim" by a source does not validate a prediction. I looked at the sources and none of them showed that he predicted the 1987 crash. Additionally this article reads like an advertisement for Gerald Celente. It appears all he does is make broad and vague claims about the future, which are mostly wrong. TimL (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I also take issue with the apparent editing having taken place with the 2009-2011 predictions. Rather than including the full text of these predictions, as is done with the 2012 section, only a vague sentence is offered in each that seem to be construed as verification to the event they describe. Selecting loosely interpreted events from larger predictions, having happened or not, isn't a proper way to document Gerald Celente, or any futurist for that matter. I'd recommend this page be limited to biography only, since apparent bias and promotion to the benefit of Gerald Celente is preventing neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkWorld81 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Celente's methods for forecasting
It would be a lot easier to judge the validity of Celente's predictions if we had some idea of how he makes these predicitons. For instance, are they the outcome of some sort of worldwide socioeconomic model, or is he just reading tea leaves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.12.184.6 (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think so many people on this talk page got him wrong: he just reads the newspapers every day and uses his intuition and experience to predict trends. He doesn't come off as a tea leaf reader and doesn't write ambiguous poetry like Nostradamus. He talks about trends. He's not a magician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.186.130 (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Celente IIRC has written a book describing his method and talked about them in at least one interview which I recall. It is somewhat akin to 'reading the newspaper everyday and using intuition' but he does state he has a specific criteria as to which articles deserve note: if they have not only political and economic but also social repercussions. Someone correct me if I have misstated or misrepresented. 107.2.143.208 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article long ago became a soapboxy coatrack for all of Gerald Celente's opinions. I presented a methodical way for us to approach Celente's predictions based on how predictions are evaluated in other topic areas. Perhaps consensus is changing? ClaudeReigns (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag added
The article is, as it stands, heavily biased. There is no criticial evaluations of the claims, nor any proper sources. As the article stands right now, only the lead section is worth anything, and the rest ought to be deleted. Kristjan Wager (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Source 11 broken
Took out the claim that he predicted certain events due to this source; there is no available evidence of Celente predicting what was claimed of the source, unless someone can provide a non-broken link or reliable other source. I'm not sure how to delete sources from the reference list, so hopefully can show me how to get rid of broken links? Gracias! Spotle99 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Strange in-text references
Is there a minor syntax error somewhere which makes many references appear in-text or did the person adding these references simply not make format them properly? - Tournesol (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Celente and his minions relentlessly patrol this page, and for some reason instead of reverting a bit of unsourced editing/IP vandalism he removed all the ref tags. It's fixed now.  KarlM (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wrong Way? An inclusionist's perspective
I started this article a long time ago to try to get a handle on what I was seeing on T.V. and on the radio and invite collaboration from the community to discover exactly what was true about a figure whom I found to be notable. I am open to any conclusions one way or the other. I was equally pleased with sourcing which demonstrated Mr. Celente's hits (gold spike, housing bubble bursting) as well as his misses (Enviroman action figure). While I understand that it is a distinct possibility that prognosticators in general may engage in the practice of postdiction, and that may render some sources unfit for certain statements withn the article, a couple of double-standards can easily be observed. It seems like someone who is in the business of making predictions has a hard time getting recognition for the notability of those predictions while a guy like the one who played Trapper John, M.D. can go on the air and tell everyone to buy Goldman-Sachs just before they crash because he's a recognizable figure and getting paid both ways to do so - without a ding to his reputation. We should be able to verifiably track what prognosticators have said and continue to say. A second double-standard relates to articles about religion. Articles about religious figures can go on and on and on about how they self-describe. And to a point, they should. We need to know what people have to say about themselves. It's a piece in the puzzle of good biography. Not that those statements shouldn't be examined with a critical eye and phrased in such a way that we take those statements as fact at face value. But if I want to review what is known about Gerald Celente in a comprehensive way, I am not going to use this article as it stands. It's far too scant. If I got any use here, I'd refer to previous versions. What I was going for was The Ultimate Dossier on a particular futurist. What we've got now IMO is the shambles of a war between a two-headed hydra with heads named Snark and Peacock.

I know, I know. I don't own the article. That's why I'm not active in editing it. Maybe I went about this the wrong way. Maybe the best way to find out about the subject is to do a wikinews article? I've never done that before. If I were ever to get involved in this again, it'd have to be with some assurance that we were going to satisfy some very valid verifiability concerns of skeptics but also positively engage editors close to the subject to encourage rational discussion. Can we find a library which has back copies of Trends Journal? Are transcripts of radio shows available from a neutral source? Can we set a guidleine for what constitutes a verifiably accurate prediction without requiring that the NYT head the front page with "HE DID IT!"? The way that we approach the article ought to inform all such articles. The overall goal being, it is advantageous for the human race to be able objectively to evaluate all notable prognosticators and have some means not only to acknowledge success when the future is predicted but also beware when a future occurance is predicted and does not come to pass. Wikipedia once stated as its goal the desire to document the sum of all human knowledge. Was that just a non-cognitive utterance? Or do we mean it? And is there some better way of accomplishing my original aims? All I can do here is marvel at how utterly I failed to do so. 107.2.143.208 (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pulling a self-pub section for examination
We need to look more closely at what the article states is a prediction. I think it will be helpful to use general observations about prognostication from the article Earthquake prediction.  With such a constant drumbeat of earthquakes various kinds of chicanery can be used to deceptively claim "predictions" that appear more successful than is truly the case.[6] E.g., predictions can be made that leave one or more parameters of location, time, and magnitude unspecified. These are subsequently adjusted to include what ever earthquakes as do occur. These would more properly be called "postdictions". Alternately, "pandictions" can be made, with such broad parameters as will most likely match some earthquake, some time, some where. These are indeed predictions, but trivial, meaningless for any purpose of fore-telling, and quite useless for making timely preparations for "the next big one". Or multiple predictions — "multidictions" — can be made, each of which, alone, seems statistically unlikely. "Success" derives from revealing, after the event, only those that prove successful.  {{talkquote|text =

2009
"The Crash of '09 was as dramatic as the crash of '29. The New Depression had begun." (Trends Journal, Summer 2008, pg. 12)

2010
Some areas of the U.S. are experiencing resurgences in real estate values due to highly localized factors, and some investors profit from this. However, the rises will almost all stop and reverse with time, and the overall national trend in real estate values is downward. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 8) Ghost malls have become a common sight across America. Especially hard-hit are big chain stores (Sears, Home Depot, etc.). (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 8)

2011
Developers have begun rehabbing some of the ghost malls for more productive uses. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 9)

2012
The economic policies of the U.S. government over the past few years have failed to fix America's fundamental problems and have merely papered over them and in fact made them worse. By 2012, the "American Empire" is collapsing. In the U.S., basic staple goods like quality food and water are too expensive for most people to afford,(T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) and "food riots" happen across the country (T.J. Summer 09, pg.1). Major American cities look like disaster zones, and mass homelessness exists across the country. Crime is rampant, with much of it being directed at the rich. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) Kidnappings and ransomings of rich people are on the rise. Average people fed up with big government, high taxes and out-of-control spending join tax revolts. (T.J. Summer 09, pg. 1) The world is also experiencing major environmental problems and "the blackest of plagues." The global financial system has also "melted down" and the situation is very bad outside the U.S.(T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) The advanced industrial economies collapse first, and their sagging consumer spending drags down the export-based economies of emerging economies next.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 2) The economy is as bad as it was during the Great Depression in many ways. In spite of all this, the U.S. government, power elites, and mainstream media continue to insist that the fundamentals of the world economy are sound, and that official policies can lead to a recovery. A growing number of average people, however, doubt this. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 1) While the Mayan and Hopi prophecies of global destruction do not come to pass, 2012 is indeed a watershed year that sees the death of an ailing and unsustainable global economic system and lifestyle and its replacement with something better. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 2) By 2012, Obama is viewed by most as a stale president who sold himself as a fresh, visionary candidate in 2008 and instead proved to be a servant of the big corporations and the military-industrial complex like his predecessors.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 5) His economic policies only delayed disaster and in fact have made the situation worse: Expansionary monetary policy and the various government bailouts and stimulus programs create a "Bailout Bubble" that invariably bursts in a cataclysm for the U.S. and world economy.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 11) Obama blames other factors for this and might have even tried to start a war by 2012 to distract attention from the domestic misery.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 12) Obama's foreign policy has also failed to accomplish anything significant on the world stage, and Pakistan is a mess and the Afghan war continues to drag on without hope of conclusion.(T.J. Summer 09, pg. 12) In the 2012 U.S. elections, online news sites, bloggers and independent journalists wield as much influence on voters as mainstream media outlets (TV, cable, magazines, newspapers) for the first time. This breaks the corporate and moneyed stranglehold on American politics and allows a third party to attain nation-level recognition. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 5)

Broad future trends
Americans will adapt to lower standards of living and will travel less, both on a daily basis and for vacations. Higher fuel costs, advances in telecommuting and an aging American population will push many more people to work from home or close to home. Walking-distance communities will be constructed and will become popular. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 7) Geographically isolated resort destinations like Las Vegas will wither due to higher fuel costs, lower American incomes and increased overseas competition while vacation spots closer to population centers will revive. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 9) Government-run lotteries, on the other hand, will thrive. (T.J. Summer 08, pg. 9) In America and to a lesser extent overseas, consumer spending habits will be motivated out of fear and escapism. Businesses that capitalize upon this will succeed. (T.J. Summer 09, pg. 24) }} My thoughts:
 * 2009 looks like a retrospect and not a prediction due to the tense "was". In other words, it refers to a 2008 publication I myself am unable to verify for content. While I am a fan of Mr. Celente, the source by itself seems insufficient, unverifiable, and is definitely self-published. Where can we find a reliable source which published Celente's predictions for 2009 prior to 2009?
 * 2010 makes a broad assessment of a general trend, vis a vis housing prices. It does not make a specific forecast.
 * Ghost malls observation is a trend, not a prediction.
 * 2011 also a broad assessment. If the use of the 2008 citation is to assert that the 2008 prediction was correct, please allow us to verify the 2008 prediction specifically through a reliable source publishing prior to 2010 and 2011.
 * 2012 Again, seems like observations meant to support a cited 2008 prediction, however in addition to the previous problem of not being able to see the original predictions sourced reliably through third parties, a slew of contestable assertions about our present condition seem to fill namespace (the article).
 * Broad future trends don't have the specificity to be assessed even by fact alone. IMO, it is absolutely essential that their notability and usefulness/accuracy be assessed by a third party before inclusion in the article.

For contrast, here is how Earthquake prediction handles individual predictions: {{talkquote|text=

1973: Blue Mountain Lake, USA
Result:

A team studying earthquake activity at Blue Mountain Lake (BML), New York, made a prediction on August 1, 1973, that "an earthquake of magnitude 2.5—3 would occur in a few days." And: "At 2310 UT on August 3, 1973, a magnitude 2.6 earthquake occurred at BML". According to the authors, this is the first time the approximate time, place, and size of an earthquake were successfully predicted in the United States.

It has been suggested that the pattern they observed may have been a statistical fluke, that just happened to get out in front of a chance earthquake. It seems significant that there has never been a second prediction from Blue Mountain Lake; this prediction now appears to be largely discounted. }} Hopefully, this helps establish the bar for notability and verifiability of predictions. This is not to say that reviews must come from an Ivy League university, nor a global body concerned with the body of research. I think in general, when a third-party source we can check on points out a Celente prediction before it is due to occur, and the prediction is evaluated by a credible third-party after the fact, it warrants an inclusion in the article. How does this standard for inclusion work for everyone? ClaudeReigns (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The first two citations are the predictors themselves in a third-party publication (Science Magazine)
 * The third citation was a review of the prediction by Princeton University Press
 * The fourth citation was another interpretation of the predictive process published in the Annual Review of Earth Planetary Science.
 * I don't see that secondary/non-selfpublished sources are necessary - after all, we're talking about whether the predictions were made before they took place, not someone's opinion about themself, so that's really the thing that needs to be cited. The issue is really that it's difficult to verify; Trends Journal isn't something carried by every local library. So until someone without a conflicting interest (i.e. someone who is not Gerald Celente or one of his employees) checks it, I wouldn't consider it validly referenced. KarlM (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that verification is an issue and that WP:V is a policy and not just a guideline. Suppose tonight, I search archive.org and find a whole slew of verifiably sourced Trends Journal quotes at archive.org which not only show what Celente said, but also reference the future at the time of its publication and not just, "I said that I said" X. (not postdiction) Do we cite all of them? In other words, how do we determine for purposes of this article which self-published sources are notable? ClaudeReigns (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would say cite all of them. Given that it seems to be his main outlet, if TJ is non-notable, it raises the question of whether Celente himself is notable. Worth asking perhaps, but a different question. KarlM (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pointless Predictions
Do we really need this section? Is there any notable source claiming that these predictions were remarkable or that they had a notable impact on anything? Could we quote the source that cares about these predictions? I hardly believe that predicting 2009 would be another bad year was all that striking, given that the prediction occurred after the 2008 crash. -- Bertrc  (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda edits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=617080938&oldid=615982343

That edit came from the House of Representatives, we can all agree to rollback that change, right? if nothing else, it's nothing more than opinion, which isn't good content for an encyclopedia.

Proof: https://twitter.com/congressedits/status/489099893836107777

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gerald Celente. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1997/12/15/236115/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828225553/http://www.trendsresearch.com/tvnews.html to http://www.trendsresearch.com/tvnews.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613223233/http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-celente-on-alex-jones-show-09.html to http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-celente-on-alex-jones-show-09.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128235633/http://sterlingspeakers.com/celente.htm to http://www.sterlingspeakers.com/celente.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303234515/http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3311/81 to http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/3311/81/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not notable
Guy is notable in that on very slow news days, ANY reporter, from any two-bit publication or penny shopper or "news" web site, can call him directly and he'll say whatever the reporter suggests would fit whatever story......It's quite convenient, when filling quotas. Great guy in that respect......

Thing is, nobody who isn't insane would actually pay for his "expert forecasts." Is a mystery how he survives....

This isn't apparent from the Wikipedia "article" on the guy. (notes below aren't mine.....seems to be somebody's formatting error)

Badiacrushed (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC) ---