Talk:Kenneth L. Fisher

Cleanup

This article currently has a strong "autobiography" feel to it. It needs substantial cleanup, to format it as a standard bio, and remove some of the language. --Elonka 23:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my 2 cents to the cleanup. While doing so I actually found it quite instructive to compare the dispassionate style that is necessary in a work of reference with the vigorous language prevalent in the investment world. I hope that when Fisherinv comes back to re-edit "their" article they take this into consideration. Smalljim 00:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed some specific articles noted in the article for more NPOV cleanup. Netsumdisc 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Subject meets criteria for Notability. Is on the Forbes 400, and has a recurring column in the same magazine. Removing tag. Netsumdisc 19:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Text and response from User_talk:Jeepday#Notability via copy and paste

You've tagged Kenneth Fisher as not being notable. A page for a book he wrote, The Only Three Questions That Count was nominated for deletion, but ultimately kept, because of the notability of the author. I'm removing this tag, and adding citations. Netsumdisc 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your position and would suggest a couple things to help prevent the article from drawing deletion suggestions. First in it's current form the article reads like spam it very much needs to be written more encyclopedic. Second read WP:N#The_primary_notability_criterion then apply your referenceing and formating like was done with Bill Russell (or any other featured article) which was a Wikipedia:Featured articles. If the subject of this article is half as notable as the article would seem to like you to believe, the strive for Wikipedia:Featured articles instead of peacock status Signed Jeepday 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

End copy and paste Jeepday 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly research papers?

It's not clear to me that these are independent peer-reviewed works. But I'm sure Fisher fans can clarify that. Pleclech 21:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I used the recommended page as a template for a rewrite-reorganziation. I took away all (most? all hopefully) of the peacock language and removed a few other non-relevant items. Added more biographical info with citations.

I did remove the Peacock tag based on the rewrite. If there are lingering peacock-isms, please point them out or go ahead and edit them out.Netsumdisc

RfC: Ken Fisher Biography or Advertising for Fisher Investments?

Add Template:RFCbio

This page serves only as an advertisement for Fisher Investments, unless information is also allowed that describes how Fisher Investments manages their clients' money. I am a publisher of a newspaper and sometimes I still write. Recently I wrote a well researched article on Ken Fisher's Fisher Investments approach to money management and why it has not worked very well in many years. When I attempted to include a link to it ( http://www.odessapage.com/new/en/fisher-investments ) from the Ken Fisher's Biography page it was promptly removed. I have attempted to address issues that were brought forth by the editor of this section, but new reasons were given to me every time I posted a new link. If this page can have links to the Fisher Investments website and numerous links to dated articles about how great Fisher Investments is, it should also have links to current information that talks about their shortcomings in this millennium.

I agree that this article continues to smack of vanity and autobiography. To achieve NPOV, it is not effective to permit the inclusion of vanity material and puffery and the counter-balance it - whether with valid, reliable, published information or with less than reliable first person accounts that are effectively self-published. I read the odessapage article. It was very interesting and made some intriguing points, but I am questioning whether it qualifies as a reliable source. If it is just one person's website, with no peer review or commentary, no fact checking, no reputable publisher, etc., it probably does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. I would urge you to look for third party material that DOES meet the reliability standards and include it. In addition, anything that can be done to reduce the "ALL ABOUT FABULOUS ME!!!!" tone would be welcome.

Also, to the editor who has repeatedly removed the odessapage link....in the future, only remove links for good Wikipedia reasons, and say why you are doing so on the Talk page. Thanks! NuclearWinner (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Odesskiy Listok newspaper website is not my personal website. It is the website of a newspaper, which I just happen to be the current publisher of. This newspaper has history going back to the 1800s and has been a reliable source of information for members of our community in the United States for over 13 years.

The problem with finding “third party material that DOES meet (the peer review) reliability standard” is that it simply do not exist. If it did, I would have surely found it during my due diligence researching Fisher Investments. And this is not unique to FI. You will not be able to find peer reviewed information for any money manager. This is simply the nature of the money management industry - no money manager is going to peer review another money manager!

In all my years using wikipedia, I have never seen a requirement that all related links provided must reference peer reviewed materials. Most links I have seen on wikipedia do not follow this rule. Even most of the books published these days are not peer reviewed. Newspaper articles are virtually never peer reviewed and these are used as references routinely throughout wikipedia. Why suddenly require it here and now?

Kenneth Fisher is a great businessman and his company Fisher investments is flush with cash. They use resources wisely to scrub the web of any potential derogatory comments that potential investors could possibly find. The simple, legal and effective way they do this is by advertising on all the major financial websites and then using this leverage to make sure that all comments on these, which could be construed as negative towards Fisher Investments be promptly removed. Money talks, I guess. This is not illegal, of course, but is highly unethical, in my opinion.

Only days after I posted my original article on the web, I got a call from Fisher Investments senior management asking me what they could do to make me happy? I told them that the only way they could do that is by revising their marketing strategy, or investment strategy, or both to correspond to each other. They also told me that they saw some inaccuracies in the article, but they would not discuss any details. I also offered to post their written response, if they cared to produce such a response and also to review my article for anything they thought was inaccurate based on such a response. They said they would process the information I gave them and… I never heard from them again.

The bottom line is that by removing links such as this you are promoting Fisher Investments, robbing your readership of the valuable information they should be privy to before hiring this money manager and are straying away from the goal of being content neutral.

P.S. I posted links to this same article posted on sites unrelated to me, only to have those links removed, as well. P.P.S. Please keep in mind that I derive no financial benefit from either writing or promoting of this article. My only goal is to inform those following in my footsteps, who will be hard pressed trying to find any real information on Fisher Investments. I only wish somebody else would have put up this fight on wikipedia before me. It would have spared me much effort and financial losses - I would have been most grateful.

Berzon (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I may have misread your link. It seemed like your personal website. If this is in fact an actual newspaper, with known circulation, then that does make it more verifiable and I apologize. I would welcome you checking out Wiki guidelines for verifiability and adding your link back if it meets them. The fact that guidelines are sometimes or even often flouted does not render them invalid. I understand and share your zeal in protecting other consumers. A great venue for that would be Ripoff Report. Thi is an encyclopedia. It is not a place to fight battles, only to document encyclopedic facts. It is also not a place for persons with bloated egos to post lists of their accomplishments that are of interest only to their family and friends. Don't let me discourage you, please go ahead and edit to the best of your ability, just keeping WP guidelines in mind. NuclearWinner (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Odesskiy Listok is a monthly newspaper, registered with the Library of Congress, ISSN 1930-4323, with a working editorial board, verifiable printed circulation and subscribers in Canada, Germany, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and Ukraine. When our readers write in to complain that they were mistreated, we routinely attempt to verify all the facts to the best of our ability and then publish their complaints.

I didn’t mention this in my article, but Fisher Investments attempted to pull $2000 in management fees (that they were not entitled to by contract) from my accounts, after I fired them. Good thing that I moved my money to a different custodian before they could pull this off. Once the figured out that they could not get the money directly, they sent me bills in order to attempt to collect. Nevertheless, I don’t necessarily want to accuse Fisher Investments of attempting to rip anyone of and am just hoping that this was an honest mistake on their part, even though it is obviously a systematic one. Thus P.poff Report may not be the appropriate place to post this info, but thank you for the suggestion - I will look into it in greater detail.

When I was doing my Internet searches on Fisher Investments prior to giving them my money, I relied and trusted independent and content neutral sources such as wikipedia. In fact, wikipedia was at the top of my research list. Now that I have additional information on Fisher Investments, not available elsewhere, I feel that it is my obligation to contribute back to this community and share it. I am puting a considerable amount of my time into this effort and want to spread the word that Fisher Investments is very successfully marketing a service that beyond the superficial shiny cover (a top dressing, if you will) is very different from the one they provide.

Potential clients simply must be well informed and understand all the ramifications of going with Fisher Investments and be familiar with their real strategy for investing clients’ money. After that they may be better able to make the right decision for themselves. Some may still find it beneficial to go with Fisher Investments for their money management needs, others may choose a smaller manager for a true personalized approach, still others will decide that they will be better of with an ETF, or a mutual fund, or that they might as well do it themselves. I don’t care which choice they make - I will not make money on their decision no matter what it is.

Fisher Investments doesn’t disclose the very important details of how they invest, so I took it upon myself to do it for them. Hope it saves some pain, money and aggravation for others, whose expectations couldn’t possible be met by Fisher Investments.

I will repost my link and hope that this section’s editor leaves it alone this time.

Berzon (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grievances, nor is it a place for product reviews. Berzon's link leads to web site Berzon owns and operate and has commercial interests in. Please do not use Wikipedia to advertise your site, or air personal grievances. Please review WP:NOR, WP:SOAP. Netsumdisc (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the publisher of the newspaper, where the article is posted. If you would rather have a link to this article posted by one of the board members - no problem. You have also removed a link to this article, when I posted it on a site that I have no interest in, so this doesn't appear to be your motivation.

The information in the article is not a grievance - I have nothing and nobody to complain about and am not asking for any resolution. An article is simply information, which can be useful to others users. You are not acting in the best interest of the wikipedia community. I will reinstate my link and if I see you remove it again with another lame explanation, such as this one, I will have no choice but to kick my RFC complaint to the next level. Berzon (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)