Talk:Martin A. Armstrong

Article name

Searched using the name "Armstrong" and "Martin Armstrong" do not list or reference "Martin A. Armstrong." I recommend that be changed as many people interestd in this person may not know his full name with middle initial. Gollum18 12:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory Tone

It is obviously unconstitutional for someone to be held in contempt of court for refusing to perform in a fashion that incriminates himself. Considering the only way he got a finite sentence was to "confess", I think your perception of "clarity" is simply not in line with most people. [contributor unknown]

Actually, that is incorrect. It is not necessarily unconstitutional for someone to be held in contempt of court for "refusing to perform in a fashion that incriminates himself." The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no person may be held, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself. There are plenty of incriminating "performances" -- the coercion of which would not involve a violation of the Fifth Amendment. For example, it is perfectly permissible under the Fifth Amendment to force someone to perform ACTS that might incriminate him, such as providing a handwriting exemplar, blood sample, and so on. Famspear (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, in certain circumstances, it is perfectly permissible under the Fifth Amendment to force someone to turn over documents that contain incriminating information against the person forced to provide the documents. Famspear (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Conspiracy Theory Tone

The problem in this case, which makes it sound conspiratorial compared with the everyday experiences of ordinary people stems from the facts themselves, i.e., the perception is a failure of the perceiver. Most people never deal with billions of dollars, international capital flows and FOREX or with accusations made by the government against them. All of these matters are factual, although they may sound to an ordinary person like a spy novel. To say that the article has a conspiratorial tone when, in fact, the person in question was treated in a manner grossly unfair and blatantly unconstitutional on its face reflects a very shallow understanding of the world and presupposes that government prosecutors would never resort to unethical tactics when such tactics are commonplace in less notable cases.

I concur. This guy was locked up for YEARS on a simple contempt charge. That is an exceptional circumstance. So how can we expect a mundane "vanilla" biography about someone who has lived through exceptional circumstances, under color of law, by a national government? This is somewhat akin to claiming that the victims of the Nazi death camps like Corrie Ten Boom just had a "persecution complex". BobbieCharlton (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing some misconceptions floating around about American law here. Nobody here has identified anything "unconstitutional" about the treatment of Martin A. Armstrong, much less anything "blatantly unconstitutional on its face." And no one has shown that Armstrong was "treated in a manner grossly unfair." Hint: If you don't understand what I'm talking about, just ask. Famspear (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, his multi-year contempt of court enslavement was anything but constitutional. It is quite clear that what happened to Mr. Armstrong was a travesty of justice and his jailers, captors and prosecutors should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Anyone claiming otherwise has clearly an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.231.202 (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC) The legal length of time the you are allowed to be held i contempt of court is 18 months, after that, you MUST let someone go, they could never prove anything against him. However, they illegally held him for years, so he just said he was a part of something so they would eventually let him go. What would you do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40A:8001:67D6:C116:20C0:5501:C0AA (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Lousy, biased article

The current article is clearly written by the subject or someone close to him, lacks biographical and historical detail, and presents a one-sided and misleading impression of Armstrong's encounters with the legal system. I'm rewriting it pretty much entirely. Creed of hubris (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

On the Supposed Conspiracy Theory Tone

Seven years in jail without a trial is not illegal? And which country would that be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.67.185.252 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The current article which was allowed to replace the original article is just touting the government line. Gone is information from Armstrong's daughter Vicky where she states that one of the main reasons her father is still in prison is because he would not hand over the source code to his 32,000 variable computer model that predicted the downfall of the soviet union and dozens of other exact market turns.

Gone is the fact that former Princeton Economics employee james Smith and other employees witnessed the CIA showing up at the door wanting to aquire the computer model, later after Armstrong was arrested the government seized the computer which self destructed.

Gone are all references to the fact that the government took away Martin's lawyers monies, and that his mother had to hire a lesser lawyer eventually. He never had a proper trial, they never proved that any of the goods demanded were bought with Japanese Client money.

No mention of what Armstrong stated: "oddly there was not one wire transfer of client money into my personal accounts".

The current article talks about Armstrong's impressive forecasting record very briefly implying that Armstrong just claimed as a trader that he predicted all that he did over the past few decades, when it fact his record was well known and published in the media. See Buzz Swartz of money radio in California who ran a website defending Martin for many years, or the #1 top rated money show across Canada host Michael Campbell of radio staion CKNW.com in Canada who worked with Armstrong for years and defended him.

Gone is the fact that Equity Magazine named Martin Armstrong as North America's top economist.

The current article is a hack job, wikipedia is a non-objective biased platform. Wikipedia's editors should be ashamed of themselves for allowing the current article. Book burners. I am not a relative of Martin's nor do I have any financial interest to do with him. I am the editor of http://princetoneconomics.blogspot.com/ and for my trouble and original contributions to the Armstrong wiki article I have now been banned from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chartliner (talk • contribs) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that this article is a travesty, and is totally devoid of useful factual information, except the paragraph with the link to www.scribd.com. When compared against the Wiki article on Bernard Madoff, it is a poor show. However much a crook, it proves that people are conspiring against Armstrong, this is not right. Time to investigate this guy elsewhere! Shame on Wikipedia gate-keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.219.71 (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What a hack job this article is. It presents the government's allegations as fact. It is inaccurate and false in its details, hides the timelines critical to understanding the government's actions. (More precisely, Cohen's actions, Cohen appointed as the receiver of Armstrong's company while being employeed by Goldman Sachs, a bitter competitor) I knew it would be a hack job when I did the lookup in Wikipedia: it lists him as "convicted" of securities fraud. He was never convicted. He pled guilty after being worn down by SEVEN years of confinement with NO trial, an abuse of justice if there ever was one. How can any of us feel secure when some magistrate has that type of power?

Another thought question to ask yourself is, if the government had a slam dunk case against this man, why did they lock him up without legal representation and without trial for seven years? Effectively silencing him for the seven years in which the housing boom mortgage derivatives trade began and flourished with great profits for Goldman Sachs for whom Cohen worked. It was Cohen who maintained the contempt order against Armstrong. If they had a case would they not just try him, sentence him, and be done with it? Fortunately, the truth can be wonderfully redundant (Margare Thatcher) and will out at some point. By the way, for grins, go to the Goldman Sachs corporate page and look at the pictures of the foxes there. How would you like to encounter them in a dark alley? Henry madison (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a very good article on Armstrong by Nick Paumgarten in the New Yorker of October 12, 2009. Someone more adept at Wik. procedures than I should furnish this reference. 74.66.82.195 (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is available for download from a Martin Armstrong fan site. It states that Armstrong was never actually a millionaire (he merely owned some Canadian pennies which were allegedly and briefly worth about a million dollars), that his economic theory boils down to an observation that Big Things happen every 1000*pi (3,141) days, and implies that most of Armstrong's key "predictions" were actually selected in hindsight from the events of the day. It also briefly reviews the evidence that supported Armstrong's contempt order and eventual conviction. The article makes Armstrong sound like a nut or a predator, but certainly not a victim. 98.234.112.116 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Egypt Crisis Will Engulf The Arab World, And Then Spread To Europe

The mysterious (and imprisoned) investment researcher has a new note about the crushing impact of sovereign debt.

http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-armstrong-the-tipping-point-2011-2

http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/armstrongeconomics-tipping-point-2-3-2011.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.155.34 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Revert to prior version?

I'm sorely tempted to revert this article from the current version to this revision. Most of the recent edits are from anons with an agenda, and it frankly doesn't seem worth the effort to clean up their edits to conform to wiki style, tone down the hyperbole, and sort fact from fiction. Any objections? Otherwise, I'll do this in a week or two. — ArthurDenture (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. The text as it stood was substantially copied from http://www.martinarmstrong.org/files/Martin%20Armstrong%20Biography%20May%202011.pdf in violation of copyright.116.28.25.242 (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

       Liberal amounts of WIKI:TRUTH  and WIKI:IRS are needed.

This article is a confusing mish-mash of disconnected statements and editorializing. For example, in one or two places, it talks about proceedings in New York state courts -- yet the record shows that the subject was convicted in federal court. I have tried to clean this up a bit, but we still need to find some sources that say exactly where Armstrong was indicted, etc. Famspear (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've read some of the comments by other editors, and it's obvious that there are some misconceptions here about how American law works and what is and is not "unconstitutional" -- and about what specifically happened in the case of Martin Armstrong. I'll try to add more information later. Suffice to say that the law on contempt of court is obviously not well understood here. Famspear (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted some data and added more data. Part of the confusion about the facts of this case stems from the fact that Armstrong was jailed for TWO reasons: First, because of his conviction following his guilty plea on the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States, and second, because of his civil contempt for willful refusal to obey a court order to turn over various documents. The article as previously worded seems to confuse these two concepts, and evidenced by some of the prior comments by other editors on this talk page.

There is no general Fifth Amendment right to refuse to stay out of jail and yet refuse to obey a court order that requires you to turn over documents that contain incriminating information about yourself. There is something called the Act of Production Doctrine, which says that you do have a Fifth Amendment right to refuse to turn over documents if the very act of producing those documents has a testimonial aspect -- meaning that the very act of producing the documents essentially gives testimony about the existence, custody or authenticity of the documents. Without going into a lot of detail, there are certain kinds of forced turnovers of documents that are NOT covered by this doctrine.

Production Doctrine is viable only in certain cases. You fail to mention the unsubstantiated portions where evidence may or may not be considered doctrine and therefore the production value is not material. In the true sense of the law, and if you understand these crucial aspects, we are subjected to terminally prescient diatribes which collude with aspects affixed to law terms. Therefore we are not subtly aware of any doctrine production cases where instigation through willful contempt exists. Your premise is clearly it appears then, to be completely biased.

There is a separate reason why Mr. Armstrong got in trouble about refusing to turn over records. I haven't finished reading the sources, but it appears that Armstrong was being required to turn over documents in his capacity as a CUSTODIAN for one or more of his companies. This point is crucial. When you become a custodian of documents of a company, you run the risk that you can be legally forced to turn over documents that incriminate you personally. That is one of the risks you take by agreeing to be a custodian of records of what the law calls a "collective entity" (such as, but not limited to, a corporation). A "collective entity" does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege against being compelled to be a witness against itself, and an individual who has custody of the records of that entity does not have a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to turn over those records.

Next, Mr. Armstrong's contempt jailing was for CIVIL contempt. That means that if he was in jail for years and years, it was probably his OWN CHOICE and HIS OWN FAULT. In civil contempt, you have the power to get out of jail at any time -- simply by obeying the court order. In this case, the order was to turn over documents. The fact that those documents contain incriminating evidence against you is NOT necessarily going to allow you to successfully invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege.

Again, completely incorrect and I think you may have a case of law ignoramus. I think it is best to leave such allegations to law professionals like us as to not undermine our great legal system. Thanks for your cooperation.

This is a complex area of law. There are constitutional limits on how long you can be jailed for civil contempt, but that would be a separate discussion. The mere fact that someone is jailed for long periods of time for refusal to obey a court order (civil contempt) does not necessarily violate the Constitution. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

All one seeks here is the Truth as supported by facts. It is that simple. It is obvious that has not occurred on either side. The only solution is to delete from Wikipedia any references and articles about Martin A. Armstrong. 75.62.152.254 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Bob75.62.152.254 (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs an overhaul.

In reading this article more closely, I realize that I had no idea how much blatant, unsourced editorializing was in the article. Much of the article has been written from an extremely non-neutral point of view. Wikipedia simply cannot properly do this kind of editorializing about Mr. Martin Armstrong. Much of the article has been nothing more than an attempt to show that Armstrong has been treated unfairly by the legal system, with the use of unsourced, unverified language that is wayyyyyyy over the top in terms of non-neutrality. Famspear (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Example of material still found in the article:

He based his decision to do so on a legal precedent whereby it had been ruled in another case that “if someone could no longer be charged with the underlying offence, they could not have conspired to commit it”.

This material is highly suspect. There is no citation as to what case this quote is supposedly taken from.

Further, this is a highly questionable statement about the law. In the United States (and we're talking about an individual charged under American laws), it is most certainly NOT the case that if someone can no longer be charged with an "underlying offence," they cannot have "conspired to commit it." That is absolutely blatantly false; it is not the law in any place in the United States of which I am aware. Under the law, a person can most certainly be properly found guilty of conspiracy to commit an offense without being guilty of actually committing the underlying offense itself. Those are two separate crimes, generally.

The fact that the quote is not sourced just makes the credibility of the statement that much more problematic. Famspear (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns here, and found several other severe issues. I gave this article an overhaul, and tried to explain as much as possible in edit summaries. The rewrite was reverted by another editor to the last version he had edited. I've reverted because of the blatant WP:BLP problems. Because I think the level of communication is insufficient and the magnitude of the WP:BLP problems isn't getting better, I've posted a thread at WP:BLPN. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Media coverage

I'm trying to determine the weight and reliability of Equity magazine, based in Vancouver. I can't find anything to indicate it's a reliable or notable publication. I've migrated it to Further Reading until a consensus can be reached on its significance. Also, the cite to the text itself and not just to the blurb. Currently, Armstrong himself hosts the target of the URL that shows only the blurb.

Also, the 370-word WSJ coverage doesn't have a whole lot to add. In my view, it doesn't indicate much biographically just to say he was covered. But it's an excellent EL for further reading.

Finally, I'm eliminating coverage by Share International — it is not a reliable source for economic topics or the claims made within the article; I think WP:FRINGE is applicable here. JFHJr (㊟) 17:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The Forecaster

Could someone insert info on the documentary movie The Forecaster? Thx! Bukk (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Working on cleaning up the page

The page was kind of a mess and I tried to clean it up a bit, using some information from old versions of the article and various resources. I'm not sure if his views on global warming are particularly relevant. I've seen a number of sources say he's been called a crank, but I'm unable to track down who originally said it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Ratel (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that Economic Confidence Model be merged into Martin A. Armstrong. Armstrong's simple theory does not warrant a separate article that will forever be a stub. Ratel (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• No Merger - It's actually not simple or a forever stub. The article used to be much longer, until an editor cut about 75% in 2012. I've been hoping someone would work on it and re-expand. -- GreenC 12:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - The ECM article is a stub, and I cannot see how it can be expanded. The simplistic notion that pi can be used to devine the movement of markets has not proved accurate, and the theory is almost certainly bunkum conceived by a man with no formal education and whose chief claim to fame is that he defrauded people and spent over a decade in prison. He also has a history of failed predictions. It could be questioned if articles about him and his theories even meet notability guidelines. Ratel (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

First, you can't !vote on your own merge proposal, it's doubling !voting, we already known your position evidently. Second, it's notable due to the many reliable sources, if you think not then start an AfD. Your personal opinion about Armstrong are interesting, and a BLP violation (chief claim to fame is that he defrauded people). It's kind of incredible that you disagree and distrust as a rationale for merger, you clearly have it out for Armstrong. The article can be expanded more than a stub as was shown in earlier versions and by in-depth reportage about it in multiple reliable sources. Your linking to unreliable dvdbeavers isn't helpful, but it's a bad analysis anyway. -- GreenC 03:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The proposal should not be counted as a vote, hence my expanded explanation under my own Merge vote. I see no rule against proposing and voting at WP:MERGE ... maybe I missed it? No BLP problems, just a fact (conviction and imprisonment) coupled with my opinion of what he's best know for. His 'model' has not shown any efficacy for the last ~10 years, so just another hokum gambling scheme, IMO. What's bad about the dvdbeavers.com analysis? Not a RS, but most of the facts are sound. Here's another critical view, also merely an opinion, but hard to refute. Ratel (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

His 'model' has not shown any efficacy for the last ~10 years that's not a reason to delete an article by way of merge. There are many financial people who make predictions that don't come true, in fact most if not all of them. No one can predict the future, but we still have financial people making predictions and articles about them. It's a logical fallacy to only look at their failed predictions, cherry picking. Regardless, what counts for Wikipedia the article has many top-tier reliable sources. Barrons, New Yorker, Time magazine, Financial Times. It's not a stub article either and used to be 4x as long and could be again. -- GreenC 14:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The article has been a stub since 2011. It'll always be a stub. The material that was removed was not encyclopedic for reasons stated by JFHJr. Ratel (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please read the definition of WP:stub. If four in-depth feature length source articles in Barrons, New Yorker, Time magazine, Financial Times are not enough to write an encyclopedia article than nothing is. The article as it stands is not a stub, unless you can explain what's missing. -- GreenC 23:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Erm, the Barron's article is just a few paragraphs that does not in any way endorse Armstrong or his theories (it's behind a paywall but you can see it at this convenience link), the New Yorker article wonders if he is a crank or conman, and is mostly about Armstrong himself and his prison experiences, and discusses other predictive theories at length (Schumpeter, Hoskins, Fibonacci, etc). There is exactly one paragraph on the ECM itself. After all, it is a simple theory. The Time article is mostly about Prechter and only mentions Armstrong in passing. Likewise the FT article on the rouble. Once again, the notability issue raises its head. Ratel (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

What does "endorsement" have to do with a Merge proposal? You seem to believe that unless he is a successful financial guru the theory shouldn't have its own article. Wikipedia covers all sorts of things that you don't like. And your characterization of the sources I disagree with. -- 14:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

You called them "in-depth feature length source articles", I say that they are mostly NOT such, and do not offer the endorsement of his prominence that you imply.Ratel (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - For some of the same reasons cited by Ratel. Famspear (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Which reasons? -- GreenC 03:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - Economic Confidence Model can easily be redirected to a section here, i.e. Martin_A._Armstrong#Predictions. Tom Ruen (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • As a test, I merged all material from Economic Confidence Model and it looks fine here. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

If a merge is controversial you don't do it until the merge discussion is finished. Will you revert? Because it can be done isn't really a rationale. -- GreenC 04:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It is easily reverted if the merge vote fails. You can see the original section here [1]. The change just expanded the existing section. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks okay to me, Tom. Thanks. Ratel (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning is circular: the merge can done therefore the merge should be done. What's the rationale for a merge? If it's because of the nom's reason(s), which ones? Then how do you address the points raised ie. it's not a stub, it has many reliable sources, it used to be 4x longer and could be again, and the bias of the nom against Armstrong unsupported by reliable sources. -- GreenC 17:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is lost in a merge. The original article will become a redirect to here, while the history of your "once longer article" remains, like [2]. If someone wants to recover material from there and defend it here. If this section starts dominating this article, content could be moved back to a separate article. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - In the interest of moving on from a lost cause and not wasting any more time, I'm willing to strike my oppose vote and close out as uncontested assuming: the redirect stays, and as noted by Tomruen the possibility is left open to recreate the article in the future should it be expanded. I have no plans to do so but wanted to keep the option should someone decide work on it. These things would probably happen anyway, but would this be an acceptable way to close for everyone? -- GreenC 23:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Acceptable to me. Ratel (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Details of the Film

• Statements made in the documentary film were removed here, saying "rmv unsourced material; does not appear in source". In which "source" do you want the statements to appear? The film is source enough, like in other film-related articles in WP.
• The list of co-producing TV stations was removed saying it was "trivial". It's not, because these (european) stations like Arte are publicly funded and have their own independent editors.

Consider that we typically publish a detailed list of the plot of films as well as the list of producers, and other data. Why not here? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE. This documentary was never put on circuit, shown only at film festivals I believe, and the plot needs a RS. Ratel (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Film has been shown on arte TV, a multi-language european public TV channel[3] and shown in Germany and France

Neutrality was respected in the text that you removed, 'the film states..' etc. Or what precisely do you consider POV there? --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the content of the film, find a RS and we'd have no problem. Regarding details of producers, co-producers and other trivia — the movie featuring at some film festivals and shown on a TV station or two is still of minor importance, and it would be undue weight to include a lot of details about this anti-government polemic and unbalanced hagiography in this article. Ratel (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• 'RS' means what?
• The details of the producers do make a difference, because public TV stations tend to avoid 'anti-government polemic' by nature. Actually I don't remember that any political topic was mentioned - what precisely do you perceive 'anti-government' in the film?
• The film contains some humor, and sarkasm about Armstrong's claims. The arte website linked above says "Is he a cheater or a genius?" etc. Sorry, but your one-sided attitude really is POV. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

RS = reliable source. Of course the film is anti-government; it gives an unchallenged platform to the absurd conspiracy theory that the CIA wanted to steal MA's magical formula, rather than cover the truth of the matter, which is that MA's criminal activities were the target. All major critical coverage suggest the film is unbalanced and one-eyed, so I find your claims of the film's "sarkasm(sic)" towards MA unconvincing. Ratel (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

T

The film is published by a multi-national public funded TV channel. That's suffice to sum up its plot here. If you don't understand sarkasm or the term "cheater" - your choice, your Point of view. Better change your attitude when you work in an international projekt like WP. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The fact that a TV channel put out the movie has nothing to do with the movie's content (aka plot). You apparently have no reliable source for the movie's content other than the reliable sources I have used (LA Times, NYT), so it stays out of WP. Please do not tell me to "change my attitude", and always WP:AGF other editors. Ratel (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

All major critical coverage suggest the film is unbalanced and one-eyed .. which coverage is that? Wouldn't those sources provide the basis for a plot summary? I think including the European producers is significant to suggest the film is more than self-published propaganda that it has outside independent support. This is significant for the reasons raised by Ratel about suggestions of it being "one sided". -- GreenC 12:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Which coverage? The ones sourced in the article. Yes, I'd have no problem with them being used to source plot summary. I will mention the European producers in the article. Ratel (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Where do we get sometimes very lengthy plot summaries from in thousands of WP articles on movies or documentaries? Are you saying these must all be based on published plot summaries by reputable sources? ;)

About the producers, the main aspect IMO is they are public, which means there is some political control to avoid one-sided biased positions. If you haven't heard about Arte before, look at BBC and Public broadcasting. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Any contentious or disputed facts must have reliable sources. I suggest you use the existing reliable sources to describe the plot. Here they are again: [4] [5] Have at it. Ratel (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you disputing the plot content that was in this article before? Like: "The film presents the claim that the only reason Armstrong discovered this was that Republic Bank had slipped up and put the funds back in the wrong account one night." If so, what is your perception on the films' claims?

Generally in WP it makes little sense to question a plot summary because anyone can view the film and value the truthfulness of the WP claims himself, like Star_Wars_(film)#Plot. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

When a film functions as a platform for a convicted felon to put his claims, unchallenged by the facts, then it becomes contentious. The US criminal justice system has already found against this person. I'm not averse to a summary like this: The film presents Armstrong's claims that he is innocent, that the bank involved was at fault, that he was coerced into admitting to fraud, and that the FBI was after his economic model. Nobody from the US Justice Department was interviewed. Agreed? Ratel (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Qui tacet consentit Ratel (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for asking. BTW, the film also presents the possibility that Armstrong is a cheater, but who wants to know this. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Princeton Economics International

Does this company even exist? The SEC says no. Ratel (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it was closed when the founder was sent to prison. --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The SEC web site is not a complete list of "existing companies." Indeed, only a very small minority of companies are regulated by the SEC. To verify that such a company does not exist (at least, as a corporation, limited partnership, or limited liability company), you might have to research state government records for all fifty states. Pretty big job. Famspear (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

MA is in NJ. The NJ company name database shows these names as registered:

• PRINCETON ECONOMICS ASSET MANAGEMENT CO.
• PRINCETON ECONOMICS GROUP, INC.
• PRINCETON ECONOMICS INC.
• PRINCETON ECONOMICS INTERNATIONAL ASSET MANAGEMENT CO.

I can't find out whether they are active or not without spending money at the NJ business records service. He probably still used one or more of them to make income in some way. Ratel (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Original Research

@Bernard367: (User:Bernard367: Per Wikipedia policy on Original Research (WP:OR) and WP:BLP I have reverted this edit. The rationale for the revert, is that oil in fact did rally into 2017 from 2016 lows (link). Calling this prediction a "failure" or "success" is voodoo magic ie. purely a matter of opinion and interpreation. As such it needs a secondary source to quote who said it was a failure; we don't make original interpretations of the data on our own. PLEASE CAREFULLY READ WP:OR. "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." No source says says it was a failed prediction, this is a conclusion reached by an analysis and synthesis of material. Do not restore this edit until there has been a discussion and we reach a policy-based consensus. Further restoration without discussion may lead to your account being blocked. -- GreenC 21:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bernard367: Thank you for finding something, a step in the right direction, thank you. Unfortunately this source is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. There is no information as to who owns the site it is basically a self-published anonymous blog post. See WP:RS and WP:V. Since this article is a Biography of a Living Person (WP:BLP) we have to be careful about criticisms, it should come from reliable published news and book sources, or a notable named person in a reliable source. -- GreenC 14:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bernard367: - the site https://armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is self-published, anonymous, blog, by an anonymous author, attack site. It fails WP:RS on WP:RSSELF. It also fails WP:BLP on WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPREMOVE. Look, you are an obvious WP:SPA who has spent weeks trying to add negative material about MA Armstrong. I don't like the guy much either, but if you are unable to find reliable sources then don't add it we are not an attack page and adding sources and material like that doesn't help. -- GreenC 00:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• A way around this is to simply state that predictions were made of x and y, sourced to the Armstrong site, without claiming the predictions failed (which would be WP:OR). Readers can draw their own conclusions. Ratel (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

He makes so many predictions. The Wikipedia way is notable predictions ie. those that received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Which is exactly what we have. If we used his website as a sole source for a prediction, how are those predictions chosen ie. are they chosen because they are failed predictions? That would be an editorial bias. It gets tricky. This why there is WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS. -- GreenC 14:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of the predictions are pretty major, so surely notable. Armstrong is not covered much by mainstream media anymore, for obvious reasons, but he seems to be active on fringe sites. So finding secondary RSes is going to be impossible. Ratel (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, WP:BLPSPS does not apply since the site is written by the subject. Ratel (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If there are notable predictions we should have no trouble finding reliable secondary sources. Anyone can predict the end of the world, a worst case scenario, but the nature of the prediction doesn't make it a notable prediction. It's only notable when reliable secondary sources write about it. Agreed there are a plurality of unreliable sources, often the case with controversial topics. With time, reliable sources do appear. I suppose it is both a feature and bug of Wikipedia. Agreed about WP:BLPSPS, striken. -- GreenC 00:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, MA's entire notability rests on his predictions, nothing else. So when he predicts "recession" and that "big banks will start to go bust" and "financial, political & banking chaos in Europe", all incorrectly, it does rise to the level of notability in the context of his biography, if nothing else. That he is being ignored by the mainstream media says much about what they think about him at this juncture, perhaps. Ratel (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Court records and primary sources

An IP is adding content sourced to court records. Wikipedia is a secondary-sourced based encyclopedia: magazines, newspapers, online news sites. We report what others have already reported. Use of WP:PRIMARY sources is generally discouraged and in a WP:BLP usually disallowed for anything but simple facts, like to verify the name of person, or something. Please rely on WP:SECONDARY sources. -- GreenC 12:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Cache of Rare Coins Discovered

In 2014, a New Jersey man claimed to have found a cache of valuable rare coins while clearing out the basement of a house and sold them to a thrift shop in Philadelphia. Three years later in 2017, the thrift shop planned to auction the coins and Armstrong claimed they were his own. The thrift shop then anonymously sued Armstrong and asked the court to declare the thrift shop as rightful owners. [1] Armstrong counter-sued also seeking ownership.[2] After Armstrong' lawyer apprised the district judge on June 27,2018 and after informing counsel for the thrift shop in August and September 2018 that the receiver may have an interest in these coins, the receiver in the earlier SEC and CFTC cases and the US government were served with subpoenas to provide inventories of coins seized in 1999. Although the receiver sought to avoid the subpoena, the district court ordered the the US government and the receiver to comply. [3] Given the receiver's renewed interest in the coins, the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York before Judge Castel, who had replaced Judge Owen and who presided over the earlier contempt hearing. Two hearings were held before Judge Castel in the summer of 2019. The court decided that the coins were part of the receivership estate, even though some of the coins had been obtained prior to the date of the alleged misconduct. [4] In the meantime, on September 20, 2019 Armstrong filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, in which he has challenged both the government's failure to differentiate untainted from tainted assets that could have been used to retain counsel of choice in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, as well as the government's sale of his personal coin collection and its failure to turn over his family property, including that belonging to his father and gifts from his mother. [5] The Solicitor General has until October 20, 2019 to respond, if he so choses.

1. Complaint filed by John Doe, Richard Roe, and ABC Company v.Armstrong, civil action number 18-1263 (March 27, 2018)(HB) 2. Third Party Complaint, docket #8, civil action # 18-1263 (June 14, 2018)(HB). 3. Antoniak v. Armstrong, civil action no. 18-1263 (HB), docket # 71 (April 245, 2019). 4. SEC v. Armstrong, 99 cv 9667, docket #s 533 (July 16, 2019) and 570 (September 5, 2019). 5. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in United States Supreme Court, September 20, 2019, docket # 19-392.

173.72.203.7 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Cache of Rare Coins Discovered

In 2014, a New Jersey man claimed to have found a cache of valuable rare coins while clearing out the basement of a house and sold them to a thrift shop in Philadelphia. Three years later in 2017, the thrift shop planned to auction the coins and Armstrong claimed they were his own. The thrift shop then anonymously sued Armstrong and asked the court to declare the thrift shop as rightful owners. [1] Armstrong counter-sued also seeking ownership.[2] After Armstrong' lawyer apprised the district judge on June 27,2018 and after informing counsel for the thrift shop in August and September 2018 that the receiver may have an interest in these coins, the receiver in the earlier SEC and CFTC cases and the US government were served with subpoenas to provide inventories of coins seized in 1999. Although the receiver sought to avoid the subpoena, the district court ordered the the US government and the receiver to comply. [3] Given the receiver's renewed interest in the coins, the case was transferred to the Southern District of New York before Judge Castel, who had replaced Judge Owen and who presided over the earlier contempt hearing. Two hearings were held before Judge Castel in the summer of 2019. The court decided that the coins were part of the receivership estate, even though some of the coins had been obtained prior to the date of the alleged misconduct. [4] In the meantime, on September 20, 2019 Armstrong filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, in which he has challenged both the government's failure to differentiate untainted from tainted assets that could have been used to retain counsel of choice in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights, as well as the government's sale of his personal coin collection and its failure to turn over his family property, including that belonging to his father and gifts from his mother. [5] The Solicitor General has until October 20, 2019 to respond, if he so choses.

1. Complaint filed by John Doe, Richard Roe, and ABC Company v.Armstrong, civil action number 18-1263 (March 27, 2018)(HB) 2. Third Party Complaint, docket #8, civil action # 18-1263 (June 14, 2018)(HB). 3. Antoniak v. Armstrong, civil action no. 18-1263 (HB), docket # 71 (April 245, 2019). 4. SEC v. Armstrong, 99 cv 9667, docket #s 533 (July 16, 2019) and 570 (September 5, 2019). 5. Petition for Writ of Certiorari, filed in United States Supreme Court, September 20, 2019, docket # 19-392.

What is the need for an administrator here? 331dot (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The user ArmstrongLawyer would like to include the above material (citations included) to the article page; however, two users continue to delete the content and add defamatory statements. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.146.13 (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

ArmstrongLawyer Are you the attorney representing Martin A. Armstrong? If so, you should review conflict of interest and paid editing. You should also be aware that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not what primary sources state. If there are defamatory statements about your client in the article, you should follow the instructions at this link. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Ice Age

Technically speaking, Britain is currently in an ice age. According to Ice Age: "Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age. Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods, and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials." Thus we are in an interglacial period of an Ice Age. However, I doubt Armstrong's blog post understands this and is not informed about earth science. -- GreenC 23:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Attempts to change the record by the subject or his acolytes can be checked against archive.org. It may be worth changing all links to his site to archive.org to prevent manipulation. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)