Talk:John T. Reed/Archive 1

Notability
Here's a ref I found: Nothing Quick About Getting Rich With Real Estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:27, February 5, 2007 (UTC)

Who is this??? He's nobody. Doesnt below in wikipedia
Who is this guy??? Its just a guy with a website trying to get traffic to his site. Doesnt belong in wikipedia Jscottccre 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not tag articles for speedy deletion if they meet Wikipedia's Notability Guideline. I started to tag the John T. Reed article myself and did a quick Google search. The fact is, there are press articles to document his notability, so the article stays, like it or not. Those references are at the bottom of the article page. --A. B. (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete Notable and a reasonable critic of Real Estate Guru's
John T Reed - if you read the linked references - is apparently a notable entry - being referenced in neurtral main stream media at least 3 times as well as googling well.

His inclusion balances the inclusion of notable and somewhat shady Real Estate Guru's such as Robert Kiyosaki and Dolf de Roos.

I don't think he's a "nobody" and deserves a NPOV entry.

--PeterMarkSmith 08:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, do not keep tagging this article for speedy deletion
I see Jscottccre tagged the John T. Reed article for speedy deletion a second time.

I think we should all take a look at the following Wikipedia rules:

1. The Notability Guideline for People, in particular:
 * "Please see criteria for speedy deletion for policy on speedy deletion. The fact that an article doesn't meet guidelines on this page, does not necessarily mean it qualifies for speedy deletion, as a mere claim of notability (even if contested) may avoid deletion under criterion A7 (Unremarkable people or groups).  However, an AfD nomination may result in deletion, on consensus, after a 5 day debate."
 * "In general, an article's text should include enough information to explain why the person is notable, and such information should be verifiable."'
 * "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion:"
 * "The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."
 * "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:"
 * "Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths."

2. The Speedy Deletion Policy

3. The guideline, "Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia to Illustrate a Point"

I've initiated a discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents asking for assistance.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably deserves an expanded biography, but I'm too busy to do it. Not Dilbert 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability
The article is curiously coy about his publications; a few of them are mentioned without publishing details or sources in the text, and that's it. As they're the only thing that would allow this person to pass the notability test, could sources and details be given? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 23:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * * His publications are all available for order through his website. Not Dilbert 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the point; the article ought to list them properly, and give publishing details. Are they self-published, for example? --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 10:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert of not dilbert's changes
Just want to note that I backed out not dilberts changes which to my mind were questionable. I think we need citations for the court case, and the removal of the fact template should be when a citation is given. For the book's able to be bought on web site, that seems like promotion. WilliamKF 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree the book bit is promotion but the court case is mentioned in a cited article noted at the bottom. --PeterMarkSmith 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The citation needs to be given properly, as it's been questioned. Tell us which article, and make it a proper reference.
 * 2) Why did you remove the fact? --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the East Bay article, which is cited, for details of the litigation. If you have Pacer, the case was in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Use the query function to pull up the entire case file in the case. It is a subscription service, however. The "fact" was removed because if you look at Reed's website, you will see he is the author of those books. Not Dilbert 23:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A subscription service isn't a verifiable source.
 * So the books are self-published then? He seems less and less notable as information comes out.  I say "he"; are you in fact John Reed? --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 10:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am John T. Reed. That's why my handle is "Not Dilbert." Are you Russ Whitney? What an asinine insinuation you make. Not Dilbert 14:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen please avoid personal attacks even if you are frustrated. However on the issue of verifiable sources you are, in my view, correct (see discussion at WP:RS) although its arguable. It is not possible to find readable online sources for many things and the existence of a source which could be checked for unsubjective points of fact is acceptable. --BozMo talk 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't see a mention of this anywhere in WP:RS; I've left a comment and request at its Talk page. I see, incidentally, that Not Dilbert has not only resorted to personal abuse, but has violated 3RR on the article. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he hasn't violated 3RR or I would have given him a 24 hour block. --BozMo talk 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True; I misread it. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 20:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See PACER (law) -- it's the electronic records system for the federal court system in the United States. It's pretty straightforward and cheap (a few pennies a page). I think many public libraries in the U.S. may even have free access but I'm not sure of that. It should be simple to pull up that case. --A. B. (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More notability
He is well known in the real estate world largely due to the Real Estate guru ratings page on his website. Here is a short segment of bio from his site: "John T. Reed was a real estate investor for 23 years. He worked as a real estate agent and as a property manager managing office, industrial, farm, and residential properties. He is the sole writer and publisher of John T. Reed's Real Estate Investor's Monthly. He is also the author of 20 real estate investment books. Reed holds a bachelors degree from the United States Military Academy at West Point and a master of business administration degree from Harvard Business School. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.133.6.2 (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Changes by anon claiming to be Reed
The same policies and guuidelines would apply even if we knew that this person was Reed (which we don't). We don't allow unsourced claims that he's a "leading critic", or of lengths of time, etc., and there shouldn't be an adevrt for his books being sold on his Website. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 13:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article should be deleted. Clearly Reed is creating and editing articles on wikipedia for SEO purposes. This article is on a guy who sits in his house selling books he prints from his computer. Nothing more. No one of any significance. This man is a bitter, angry man who's purpase is to get attention for his website to sell his products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscottccre (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2007  (UTC)
 * AFAICT Reed is notable, to be applauded for showing up some pathetic jerks who hate him and didn't create the article. HOWEVER I would rather have no article about a living person than a potentially libellous one. Perhaps we should AfD it; since although it is easy to find newspaper references on him none are in the article and no one seems motivated to improve it. Meanwhile some of the personal comments in your last post I have deleted. --BozMo talk 15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that the level of argument is the same on both sides.

He does seem to be published only by himself, and someone claiming to be him has tried to insert PoV labguage and an advert for his books. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have emailed you about your reinclusion of comments which may slander a living person. Please take more care. I have deleted those, the other comment you make isn't important by comparison --BozMo talk 17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, it would be libel not slander. Secondly, the comment isn't mine. Thirdly, though, there are no good grounds for removing any of the other editor's comments here; the worry about legal action is overwrought.  Oh, fourthly, no e-mail has arrived &mdash; so were you talking to someone else?  Who? --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 17:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I got "Copy of your message to Mel Etitis: Wikipedia e-mail john t reed" so I suggest you check your wikipedia mail setting. --BozMo talk 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange, I've received your e-mail, but marked as having been sent at 18:22; it must have been held up ina queue. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * John T. Reed is a person who adds mentions to wikipedia (and articles around the internet) in order to direct people to his website. The mention of Robert Kiyosaki and Russ Whitney in this article are only to direct people using search engines (looking for information on Kiyosaki or Whitney) to this wikipedia page and then to Reeds website.  Notice that Reeds website is also on the Robert Kiyosaki page in wikipedia.  Searching wikipedia for Russ Whitney returns Reeds page in the 1st position.  All attempts to get search engine traffic (and wikipedia traffic) to his website in order to sell Reeds self published books and newsletter.  Reed, if anything is a master at SEO (Search engine optimization) and is using wikipedia for spam/advertising to direct search engine traffic to his website.  This article should be flagged for AfD and all mentions of reeds website should be removed from wikipedia.  Comments made in the article and on Reeds website are libelous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jscottccre (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Jscottccre, an AfD would probably backfire, especially in light of the references that clearly establish Reed's notability and in light of the previous history of attempted deletion. --A. B. (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to stick with the anon's edits (after striking the part about where to buy his books). --A. B. (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, strike the "leading" from the "leading critic" phrase. --A. B. (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In so far as there's any point in keeping them, it's because they introduce new information &mdash; but in so far as they introduce new information, it needs to be given sources. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 18:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mel, how about using Reed's own site, per Reliable sources as a source? It's already in the external links section. Some of his material is also covered in the 3 articles about him.--A. B. (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A. B., Articles around the net dont mention any action that Reed has taken for notability.  They are simply stated that he is well know... as a result of appearing high up in googles index when searching for real estate terms.  His notoriety is as as result of his search engine optimization.  That is why articles around the net speak about Reed.  If he did not show up high in googles index for search terms such as "real estate investing", Robert Kiyosaki, Russ Whitney and other keywords that he as optimized his webpage for, then there would be no reason to consider Reed a notable person.  Having this article in wikipedia adds to the illusion that he is a notable living person.Jscottccre 18:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Jscottccre, the article already cites lengthy articles in the East Bay Express, MSN Money and the Sydney Morning Herald that establish Reed's notability. You don't need to rely on Google hits, Alexa, or any other potentially SEO-tilted sites to establish notability; see the applicable Wikipedia guidelines:
 * Notability Guideline for Biographies
 * Reliable Sources Guideline
 * I hope this helps. --A. B. (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional notability references:
 * "Words to Live By in Infomercial World: Caveat Emptor", The New York Times, 8 January 2006
 * "Want to Invest? Join the Club", The New York Times, 31 October, 2004
 * "ASSETS; Tips on Becoming a Successful Investor", The New York Times, 13 February, 2005
 * "TBR: Inside the List", The New York Times, 30 October, 2005
 * "SQUARE FEET: VENTURES; 10 Ways to Stumble In Commercial Real Estate", The New York Times, 12 November, 2006 ($$ required)
 * "Readers Differ on Whether Real Estate Needs Modernization", The Wall Street Journal, 9 December, 2004 ($$ required)
 * I hope this is helpful re: notability and reliability of sources.--A. B. (talk)

I don't see anywhere where you've justified reverting to his edit; what are the sources for the claims of lengths of time, number of books, etc.? You seem to be saying that I can find the sources if I do research at his Website, but (leaving aside the value of that site as a source), it's not up to me to find the sources, but the person adding the claims. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason to also delete the links to the newspaper articles I added? They provided additional information not in the article. --A. B. (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Publications
Real estate investment books:
 * 1) Distressed Real Estate Times: Offensive and Defensive Strategy and Tactics, ISBN 0-939224-16-X
 * 2) Aggressive Tax Avoidance for Real Estate Investors, 18th edition, ISBN 0-939224-53-4
 * 3) Distressed Real Estate Times: Offensive and Defensive Strategy and Tactics, ISBN 0-939224-16-X
 * 4) How to Get Started in Real Estate Investment, ISBN 0-939224-44-5
 * 5) How to Manage Residential Property for Maximum Cash Flow and Resale Value, 5th edition, ISBN 0939224-42-9
 * 6) Real Estate Investor's Monthly on Investment Strategy Volume 1 of 3, ISBN 0939224-23-2
 * 7) Real Estate Investor's Monthly on Investment Strategy, Volume 2
 * 8) Real Estate Investor's Monthly on Investment Strategy, Volume 3
 * 9) Residential Property Acquisition Handbook, ISBN 0939224-22-4
 * 10) Fixers, ISBN 0-939224-61-5
 * 11) Deals that make sense
 * 12) How to Buy Real Estate for at Least 20% Below Market Value, Volume 1
 * 13) How to Buy Real Estate for at Least 20% Below Market Value, Volume 2
 * 14) How to Do a Delayed Exchange
 * 15) How to Increase the Value of Real Estate
 * 16) How to Manage Residential Property for Maximum Cash Flow and Resale Value, 5th edition
 * 17) Real Estate Finance Techniques
 * 18) Reverse Delayed Exchanges
 * 19) Single-Family Lease Options

Coaching books:
 * 1) Coaching Youth Football, 3rd edition, ISBN 0-939224-45-3
 * 2) Youth Baseball Coaching, ISBN 0-939224-38-0
 * 3) Coaching Youth Flag Football, ISBN 0-939224-43-7
 * 4) Football Clock Management, ISBN 0-939224-54-2
 * 5) Coaching Youth Football Defense, 3rd edition, ISBN 0-939224-36-4
 * 6) Single-Wing Offense for Youth Football, ISBN 0-939224-56-9
 * 7) Gap-Air-Mirror Defense for Youth Football, ISBN 0-939224-49-6

Other:
 * 1) Succeeding, ISBN 0-939224-56-9
 * 2) How to Write, Publish, and Sell Your Own How-To Book

--A. B. (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is one of the most horrifying link farms I've ever seen on this encyclopedia. A line in another * post up there, about all these being available for order from the subject's website, reveals serious confusion about what an encyclopedia is and is not.   — Athænara   ✉  01:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I compiled that list was because an admin deleted my entire edit, then questioned what my ref was for the number of the author's books. You will note that I had a link to the subject's web site in my addition which I though should have covered the number of books.


 * I find it unpleasant to be put in a double-bind by other editors -- not enough citations, then too many. (Note that I did not add any of the book links to the article in mainspace). I have found my experience with some of my fellow editors here to be disappointing. --A. B. (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the comment about WP:NOT, if you read my edit above, you'll see that I specifically said to leave the stuff about book sales out of the article and the book sales plug was not in my edit to the article.


 * I really don't know what else to say here. --A. B. (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, A. B., I really meant nothing at all against you when I commented on the list. I first looked at this talk page because of the noticeboard entry.  I thought you had properly removed the list from the article, placing it here.  The WP:NOT comment referred to a line in another * post.    — Athænara   ✉  20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note -- I just now saw it. Don't worry. --A. B. (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

New Editors - please note - JTR vs the Real Estate Guru Cultists
New Editors to this article please note:- this article will always suffer the attention of a certain class of editors - those who believe in the Real Estate Guru's and feel they should defend those guru's... (and JTR is a vocal critic of Real Estate Guru's). For this reason if you are new to this article please note that there will be some sort of edit war started if you defend your guru and secondly don't assume that this article is a promotional article for JTR - it's not - it's a bio of a notable person - that's all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterMarkSmith (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Amen to that. I spent the past couple of hours on cleanup for neutral point of view, manual of style, references, etc.  Much of it had already been done, but the article was a bit ragged after what had apparently been a prolonged spate of disruptive editing.   — Athænara   ✉  07:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good editing Athaenara. --PeterMarkSmith 08:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  — Æ.   ✉  17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just removed the rather over-the-top quotation box, and added the quotation to the text. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 09:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks pretty reasonable now. --BozMo talk 11:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In a small article with relatively few points to make, I quoteboxed the primary basis of the subject's notability: his work and his reputation in his field. It is a single, accurate statement, supported by other reliable, third-party publications cited in the article, from a reliable source.

The characterisation of a concise descriptive quote from a lengthy investigative article as "over-the-top" is not neutral. Adding "it has been claimed" weasel wording is not an improvement. — Athænara  ✉  17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, it was the putting of it in a box that I described as "over the top"; as I clearly explained, I retained the quotation in the text. "It has been claimed" is not weasel-wording when it's followed by the source. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally favor the boxed quote. Athaenara's update and spam removal, while eminently justified, made the article somewhat less interesting. The quote box would restore a little verve. The guy is certainly worth noting as a critic of real-estate get-rich-quick schemes; that aspect of the article is well-deserved and not spammy. EdJohnston 21:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ed, I think it's a bit unfair to characterize my edits as "spam". The links I added in good faith to the actual article (not the talk page) were to reputable sources in light of repeated questions of the subject's notability. (That includes this notability-tagging of the article by an admin in spite of three links to reputable sources at the time.) I have a hard time thinking of links to relevant New York Times articles as "spam". With regards to the whole issue of the list of books, see the comment I left above. I think I've got a decent handle on what "spam" is and isn't and I find this whole episode a bit demoralizing. --A. B. (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my misunderstanding, A. B. Please see apology on my talk page. EdJohnston 18:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's cool. --A. B. (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A quotation as eye-candy? Not very MoS, I think; I've not seen it at the bios of any genuinely notable people (and no, I don't think he's genuinely notable, just locally, and in a limited field; but I don't intend to challenge the existence of the article). --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 21:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * → ( Interjection. )—Please see Cornelius Vanderbilt in re the use of quoteboxes in bios of "genuinely notable people."   — Athænara   ✉  00:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Those quotations are from the subject's own writing, not a line selected from a third-party piece about him. Also, the article is much longer, and they're not so ontrusive.  I'm not keen on them there, though; the MoS deprecates sections for quotations, and says that they should be incorporated into the text &mdash; the same surely applies here. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm finding this increasingly offensive. I have little interest in real estate and literally had never heard of any of the individuals mentioned in the Reed article, though I have read issues of the East Bay Express, a free weekly "advertiser" which paradoxically is known for heavy-hitter investigative pieces.


 * Mel Etitis may personally feel quoteboxes are "over-the-top" "eye-candy" and personally believe that a direct quote must also be hedged with an "it has been claimed" line (which is weasel wording) but that is not neutral and encyclopedic—it's personal.


 * From my point of view, which is about as neutral as can be found, the use of a quotebox to punch the main point of a bio—who is the subject and why does it matter—is effective in its small way in more than one article and appropriate in this one.  — Athænara   ✉  23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't stop you taking things personally, and getting emotional about it, but I'd ask you to try not to. We're discussing a small article on a minor character in the U.S. property business, who publishes and sells his own books from a website. It's really nothing to get aerated about.
 * Note though, that "it has been claimed", when followed by a direct attribution, is not weasel wording; it's in the passive mood, to which some may object, but that's another issue. The "hedging" is important; we can't write as though we're presenting what this journalist says as fact; it's his opinion.
 * Moreover, the view of a local journalist should surely not be presented as being hugely significant; it belongs in the text. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 08:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree on "claimed". "Claimed" isn't neutral: "reported" is more neutral. Without the box the article is less interesting but there is an element of taste in that I suppose. I am changing claimed to reported. --BozMo talk 11:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Claim" is covered by this guideline: Words to avoid. --A. B. (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reporter made a claim; he didn't report a fact. "Claim" might be a word to be avoided in some circumstances, but it would be silly to claim that it must never be used (like old-fashioned primary-school teachers who taught their pupils that "nice" should never be used). --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 21:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "Journalist Jonathan Kaminsky has claimed" works. --A. B. (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Phew! we got there in the end. I hope that everyone else is happy. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently not. Athaenara, without discussion here, has suddenly made what was incorrectly described in the edit summary as a copy-edit, which involved, inter alia, removing the Kaminsky quotation with the peculiar claim that it had a point when paraded in a box, but not when included in the text. If anyone can explain that to me, I'd be grateful.  I've replaced it. --Mel Etitis  ( Talk ) 09:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)