Talk:FIRE movement

February 2024.

Haven't the conditions for removing the neutrality message been met now? Please explain if not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakywiki123 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

December 2018. Notability

Wiki has a message asking for additional sources. Here is the article that actually got me to google FIRE and eventually lead me here. Someone better at Wikipedia can take and run with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.251.3.1 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/millennials-on-fire-frugality-movement-thats-gaining-steam

Not sure how much justifies removing the notability marker on this one but here are some additional news source references to this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.52.231 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2019‎ (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20181101-fire-the-movement-to-live-frugally-and-retire-decades-early

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-does-the-early-retirement-movement-have-so-many-haters-2018-11-12

https://www.forbes.com/sites/transamerica/2018/11/09/the-fire-movement-is-it-right-for-your-client/#2822079036c7

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/couple-not-fire-movement-090000093.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/03/myths-about-this-early-retirement-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf27d2147bc7

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/style/fire-financial-independence-retire-early.html

Thanks for the providing the above references, 150.251.3.1 and 70.94.52.231.

• The Schwab reference is promotional material and not a reliable source.
• Forbes.com contributors is not a considered reliable source per WP:RSP.
• Yahoo! Finance and Marketwatch -- appear to be in the same boat as above -- not reliable.
• Washington Post: Appears to be reliable but the article in question is a syndicated column and not traditional reporting. I included this in a secondary list below, maybe someone else with more experience in assessing reliability can help.

I have started the below section to collect references to demonstrate notability per the general notability guideline. Note that per WP:RSP, forbes.com contributors is not considered reliable source so I have not included it either. The Yahoo! Finance and Marketwatch appear to be in a similar boat, so I am also excluding those as well. All are welcome to edit this list. And if someone is convinced that notability has been established, please remove the tag from the main article. Almost all of these were published after July 2018 when the notability tag went up. FishTheFish (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

List of references to demonstrate notability

The following links represent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• https://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20181101-fire-the-movement-to-live-frugally-and-retire-decades-early
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/style/fire-financial-independence-retire-early.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/20/can-anyone-retire-in-their-30s-meet-the-people-who-say-yes
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-retirement-plan-save-almost-everything-spend-virtually-nothing-1541217688

Additional references which appear to be reliable, but whose publishers are not included in WP:RSP:

• https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T047-C000-S002-young-fire-savers-race-to-retirement.html
• https://money.com/money/5241566/vicki-robin-financial-independence-retire-early/
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/financial-planning/retiring-40-does-extreme-saving-trick-really-work/
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/03/myths-about-this-early-retirement-movement/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bf27d2147bc7
  • WaPo is considered reliable but not sure if this particular article counts as reliable given that it is syndicated content written by a columnist.

December 2018. Edits abruptly reverted without explanation

My edits on 18 December 2018 were abruptly reverted without explanation. Would someone please explain the issues with my contributions and make suggestions for a subsequent course of action on this page? Thank you. FishTheFish (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

FishTheFish, perhaps the reverter thought there were some problems with your edit, and just reverted it instead of fixing the problems. I have reverted to the version you provided. Ping to Praxidicae, can you elaborate on the problems? ― Heb the best (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Heb the best, this is appreciated. Upon further introspection, I think it was a signal that I was citing too many unreliable sources as references and possibly incorporating original research into my writing. I'll attempt to fix these issues. FishTheFish (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutral editing about the movement's history

I have reverted the recent non-neutral additions to the "History" section and left the last-used IP a talkpage message about this discussion. Self-published sources are not sufficient for such information (WP:RS), and the non-neutral tone of the content violates WP:NPOV. Personal research or analysis of primary-source information is similarly invalid (WP:OR). Of course I am not against further details and additions, but such edits must be based on independent reliable sources in due weight, phrased in a neutral dispassionate manner. Please discuss concerns or suggestions for improvements about this aspect here instead of edit-warring. GermanJoe (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

NPOV in criticism section

The criticism section seems to be deliberately setting up arguments to be knocked down by counter-arguments. Someone with some knowledge of the concept should likely rewrite the section to better maintain a neutral point of view. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)