Talk:Paul Krugman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

The word stagflation misused[edit]

Under the "Macroeconomics and fiscal policy" part of the article the word stagflation is used to describe the situation if deflation and slow economic growth in Japan during the 1990's, this is a misuse of the word. Stagflation is normally used for a situation of high inflation and slow (or negative) economic gowth, such as the situation in the UK and US in the late 1970's.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.118.32 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2010‎ (UTC)

40th most influential what?[edit]

i suggest we remove [1] as a source. being the 40th most anything is not really encyclopedic, ex: Bush was the 40th most popular president, Miley Cyrus was the 40th top grossing artist of September 2013. not only is this stat trivial, but it has also been misused by editors who extract information from a single month then add that months ranking to the article. today the same link to the SAME SOURCE had Paul at TWO separate rankings [2], neither of which are currently accurate in October 2013 even if we were to use the MONTHLY calculation, which would need to be updated constantly. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

this is becoming tedious. every month the article will need to be edited to correct Krugmans monthly ranking. i changed this to the 10 year average from the same source and was reverted. this source is problematic, peacock, and trivia, falderal begone. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

failed verification tag removed without discussion[edit]

[3] is linking to the october results, not the september rankings which are better. i request the editor either provide a source for the September rank, or link to the 10 year average which doesnt change each month. many of the top economist James Heckman, Daron Acemoğlu, Peter C. B. Phillips dont even mention rank, or if they do it reads, "one of the top 10" and provides a generic link to same source. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Krugman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review; comments to follow in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This nomination appears to be a "drive-by" by an editor who hasn't yet worked on the article, so I'll keep my comments below brief for now. While there's a lot of good information here, and the article appears of reasonable quality overall, it needs further work before being ready for GA. For that reason, I'm not listing the article at this time.

The biggest issue is that the article has an outstanding cleanup tag from December 2009, so doesn't meet the GA criteria at this time. A few other things that should be cleaned up before this one is renominated for GA:

  • Statistics like "He has also written more than 750 columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times, Fortune and Slate." need citation
  • "His popular commentary has attracted considerable comment, both positive and negative" -- this is a generic and unhelpful summary--what are the things he's praised or attacked for?
  • The "In Popular Culture" section is contains some off-topic trivia, a problem for GA criterion 3b.
  • Why are "commentary" and "political views" separate sections? Seems like these overlap rather heavily; I'm not sure it's useful to divide them.
  • Copyediting appears to be needed; in the very first paragraph, for example, there's "prize Committee" -- "Prize Committee" or "prize committee" might be correct, but surely not "prize Committee".

Thanks to everybody already working on this one. I enjoy Krugman's columns, and I hope this does get to GA at some point! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reception to Paul Krugman's writing[edit]

I think this article sorely needs a section, or *some* content about other people/economists review of Krugman's major articles, predictions, and theories. I think this would put a lot of needed context around krugman's career. Thoughts? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are more articles than I can count giving critical receptions to his ideas and continuing writings:
Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There's already a lot in the article about people's reaction to his popular commentary and column writing. Let's not forget that he is an economist, first and foremost, so let's not go overboard in emphasizing his popular writings. Interesting though, that considering the many people who write about Krugman's popular writings, all the links you list are only to Krugman's detractors. LK (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
the sources given are widely read, reliable, and relevant. Krugman is whatever RS assert he is, if those mention his popular writing more, than he is now foremost that. support Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, they fail rs. As for notability, "NEWSFLASH!!! Spectator columnist bashes Keynsian economist." Probably better to put what those writers think in their own articles. TFD (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
you would need to take that up at the rs noticeboard as those sources are referenced in thousands of articles in wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No, you need to take it up in policy, because editorials are not considered to be rs for biographies of living persons. In fact the two sources that do not show external links (moneymorning and dailreckoning) are on the spam blacklist. TFD (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Enron[edit]

I was looking for information about Krugman's relationship or work for Enron but it wasn't int he article. [ WP:BLP disparagement of Krugman removed. Do not reinsert this. SPECIFICO talk 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)] Clubintheclub (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few relevant refs that indicate more can be found:
  • National Review: In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine.... etc.
  • Wall Street Journal]: "former Enron adviser Paul Krugman " and a bit of critical commentary about him
  • Andrew Sullivan on Slate: WP:RS actually quotes "Andrew Sullivan's serial pummeling of economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman " on Sullivan's self-published blog. SPS can't be used but others directly quoting them or describing the conflict can be. (Or does anyone inaccurately think SPS quotes directly from Sullivan's blog lambasting Krugman can be used??)

That's for starters. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is Krugman's response. This is a good example of why columns and blogs are not reliable source for biographies of living persons. TFD (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw that link and thought it was a non-RS Pakistani publication with a similar URL and never looked! The site is run by "Bobby" but found version which obviously is from him here. So now I've bothered to read it and see he is correcting various misconceptions. So obviously the charges in National Review, WSJ and Slate are relevant as his response in at least a paragraph. (And any response to his response should they be found?) Otherwise saavy readers will assume Wikipedia is stupid or that we are leaving it out on purpose. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that the charges are significant enough to include. So Krugman once consulted for one of the largest corporations in America which, which unbeknownst to its supporters in the NR and WSJ editorial page, turned out to be run by criminals. Of course no criticism from them about Bill Kristol, Bob Zoellick or any of the other high profile people who worked together. Zoellick's article says he advised Enron in 1999, but it is not posted as criticism; Kristol's article omits it. TFD (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not important enough to me to deal with further, though I actually didn't fully grasp what the originating editor Clubintheclub wrote until SPECIFICO removed just that after I read Krugman's reply. I guess Clubintheclub also had impression Krugman was working for the Times and promoting Enron, as I believe was mentioned in various WP:RS which I can quote on demand. So SPECIFICO really should not have removed something that just describes in slightly dramatic fashion what RS were saying. It's up to that editor to decide what to do about it.
I also don't know how all that WP:RS coverage of Krugman compares to what WP:RS said about other former Enron associates TFD mentioned. But that's really all I have to say; let the misconceptions continue if you like. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
It was you, Carolmooredc, who reinserted that language after I identified it as a policy violation. If you hadn't done that neither of us would have had to waste futher time on it. You violated BLP by reinserting. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I reinserted because I found WP:RS were in fact discussing the issue. Did you look at the WP:RS?? Like I said, I can quote more fully. I am confused about why it is ok to discuss whether or not to include various accusations about some subjects of BLPs - even if it's only speculation - but not WP:RS accusations. I don't even know if there was a reply to Krugman's denials by any WP:RS. And I don't really care. However, I do care if there is some double standard regarding discussion of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I have seen the wondrous walls of text on noticeboards that surround some of the editors commenting here, and the participants (specifically Carolmooredc) should bear in mind that while the community has a very high pain threshold and will tolerate bickering for a long time, limits can nevertheless be reached. Once a limit is passed, people are readily topic banned or blocked, and arguing about whether it is desirable for a talk page to highlight claims that a living person was corrupt is the height of absurdity. If someone has a credible proposal for an improvement to the article, it should be outlined with suitable sources, however, it is not helpful to point to some sources just because your opponent removed what they think is a BLP problem. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
After putting out initial feelers and thinking about it some more, I did propose that it be used to describe - and if possible debunk - the allegation which I can see are widespread among non-WP:RS bloggers, etc., as well as discussed by WP:RS. But as I noted the editors don't seem interested in using it to clear up misconceptions, so I won't continue to argue for it. I have seen far worse speculations continued with no RS at all, despite editors' complaints, which is why I mentioned the double standards issue. So I am glad to see a neutral/non-involved editor say that such things can be removed even if there are lots of WP:RS! (Assuming I'm interpreting you correctly? I just never saw it done before.) In fact there probably are at least a dozen still active threads like that I could remove right now. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem was not removing the BLP violation on this page. The problem occurred when you undid the removal, thus repeating the BLP violation. This is something that WP takes very seriously per WP:BLPBAN. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Considering your edit summary read Removed BLP violation. Find RS and present content. and didn't specify which part of the paragraph you thought was a BLP violation, I merely read it as the lack of WP:RS as being the BLP problem and an invitation to find WP:RS and reverted it all back when and if I found any. And I found a lot. So be a little clearer in edit summaries and we won't have these misunderstandings.
If you thought just the second sentence was the problem, you should have removed that to be clear. I barely noticed that one myself until you removed it the second time. Please assume good faith. I guess you can report me for it and we'll see??? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I find it surprising that, unlike a lot of other economists, this page does not include a "Criticisms" section. Especially since he is such a public, and arguably divisive, figure among economists. Take a look at Milton Friedman and Hayek for example. Clubintheclub (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles are not supposed to contain criticism sections, partly because they cannot be written from a neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Criticisms can be integrated where relevant. A lot of articles have them because no one argued against them. Complicated issue. See WP:Criticism essay. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In the Hayek article, where most of the criticism is about his work for Pinochet, it would be better to have a section about his work for Pinochet, then provide various views. In the case of Krugman and Enron, we would mention it chronologically either when he went to work for them or when columnists began to mention it. TFD (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I had actually not known that criticism sections were against wiki rules. I've seen them everywhere and given the massive pages of rules one can easily miss the prohibition against criticism sections. I'm grateful for the information and link to WP:Criticism. Thanks Carolmooredc and TFD for informing us. Of course, there is a loophole if one names the section Critiques, Reception, or Reviews. However, I hope the intent and spirit of WP:Criticism can be maintained by integrating criticism into the topic sections with, of course, due weight. Criticism should be in articles on the subjects but not with undue emphasis in BLPs. BLPs are about the person and there are strong rules to protect people's reputation from malicious damage. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jason. That essay, not policy doesn't say that "criticism" "reception" or other such sections should never be used. It just discusses various pitfalls and concerns with respect to core WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I see I forgot to include the full context: Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_structure reads in part: Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] The [1] reads: Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.
So, per the criticism essay I linked to, the issue is not that they never can be used but that they should not be used to promote a POV that unbalances the article and such material should be integrated into the text. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)