|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
This article as it is posted on June 1 2011 is clearly objective and within guidlines.
I suggest that the following three sentences be added to the section on Publications.
"A search of EconLit shows that Mr. Bernstein has not yet published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal. EconLit, the American Economic Association's electronic database, is the world's foremost source of references to economic literature. The database contains more than 1.1 million records from 1886-present."
I think this is relevant information because, although Mr. Bernstein is often listed as an economist, his Ph.D. is in Social Welfare. He has not published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal and, thus, is not recognized as an economist by professional economists. His expertise is in social policy -- not scientific research in economics.
Let me know what you think.
I think you are correct. I looked this up because Bernstein just made a fool of himslef on MSNBC. His "opinions" regarding the timing of the effects of fiscal stimulus are smthg that any PhD economist would laugh at- he thinks such effects are instantaneous. His argument is also an example of the post-hoc fallacy. Such pseudo economists make my profession look bad. D.W.M. Ph.D.
- Hello Ebw343. :-) I saw your comment/question on the BLP noticeboard and reviewed your addition to the article. It looks to me that the material was removed because it was original research. On Wikipedia we do not engage in independent fact finding through interviews or research. Instead, Wikipedia editors rely on reliable sources to cover a topic, then we add the material to an article. So, your search of the EconLit database is original research and can not be added to the article. In order for this information to be added to an article, a reliable secondary source will need to report it first. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need whatsoever to list what the subject of a Wikipedia article is not! Only where there is a clearly notable misunderstanding about the article's subject should editors dare clarify something - and even then with extreme caution. I must remind my fellow editors the very strict guidelines of the Wikipedia rule on Biographies of Living Persons. As a secondary observation, please refrain from loaded terms (e.g. "Jew") and unsubstantiated opinions. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)