Talk:Tino Sanandaji

Article, Media, Reports, Lecture List

I have removed the excessive list of articles, media, reports and lectures. It took up the vast majority of the article. I don't think an entry should read like a C.V.--Frostiga flingor (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares about formal education?

"Despite having no formal education on the subject," This seems like a strange thing to say about someone with a PhD. When you're a PhD economist, your own research IS the formal education. Definitely violates neutrality. 216.232.155.236 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

It is relevant because his PhD is not in the area he writes about. This is an encyclopaedic resource, not a forum or blog where you get to pick and choose what information should be conveyed according to your own WP:POV. Your argument is pure WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

His PhD is in public policy. He writes about immigration policy. "Despite having no formal education on the subject," is a way of implying that he doesn't know what he's talking about, which is not neutral. 2001:569:718C:DE00:FC75:41C1:A468:F04 (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm unable to find what his research area is although, gathering from his publications, it is business... certainly not immigration. More to the point, his significance is highly dubious. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

He's an economist and has a PhD is in public policy. // Liftarn (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Tagging article for reliable, 3rd party sources

Having checked through the sources, I see nothing to back up Sanandaji's notability. The entire article is based on WP:BLPSPS and WP:QS, and smacks of being a promotional piece focussing on his personal political positions rather than demonstrating that he is genuinely notable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanandaji is mentioned and talked about often in Swedish-language reliable sources. I don't think there's any doubt about is notability. --Icerat (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, there shouldn't be any problems in finding such third party sources. Feel free to add them. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

NPOV and Original Research

This edit[1] changes neutrally worded text which had been agreed upon by various editors into a skewed mess. The edit says that one side "debunked" the other side, and adds original research to allege that two named individuals are "actively involved in pro-immigration groups", which is also a BLP concern, given that the individuals reject the assertion. Some of the text is also unsourced, such as "many of [the critics] are actively involved in pro-immigration groups". The edit also deleted, without explanation, reliably sourced text re: Tino's comments on the European refugee crisis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

- Please stop removing my edit. I've provided legitimate links and not just assertions from two pro-immigration professors trying to besmirch someone they don't like. Of course they reject that their unfounded assertions are (rightly) criticized by everyone who isn't a pro-immigration activist. If you have problems with the wording, then suggest edits. But there is no controversy, except a made-up one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenManXY (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources, and attribute statements to individuals in a neutral fashion. You're edit fails in numerous regards, and you haven't substantively responded to any of the concerns expressed above.Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

You should be aware that you've now reverted three times and will violate WP:3RR if you do any more. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of outdated templates?

I don't find any self published sources and the article is mostly based on third party news articles. Can I remove the templates self-published and third party? They are outdated and no longer applies?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

You are still having problems discerning reliable sources from self published sources. In fact, the source you invoked for additional content here is dubious. As such, the content is WP:UNDUE, hence I've removed it. None of the issues regarding the problems with the article have been addressed, therefore the tags have been reinstated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It is you who have sever issues with understanding what references are for. Politico is enough of a source for referencing that Politico has said that they consider them to be one of the most important persons.

Name of one the sources you thin is self published here then--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Precisely: POLITICO Europe, which you introduced, is not a reliable source on anything other than itself and its opinion. Using it as a source to jump up Sanandaji's standing is WP:UNDUE. All sources used for this article, other than primary sources proving his existence, are dubious. The only thing that's been established is that he probably scrapes in for WP:N. Further embellishments as to his importance are so shaky that they don't withstand the Wikipedia RS test. The web is crawling with SPS, blogs, etc. The fact that information can be found on just about anything does not automatically make it reliable, relevant... and certainly not encyclopaedic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. The line does not say anything other than that Politco has said so. It does not say: Everyone agrees Sanandaji is important.

Sanandaji was listed on Politico Europe's list of 28 people that are shaping Europe in 2018 for his critique of the Swedish immigration policy.

This has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. If you want to find a source that says no one has ever heard of Sanandaji, you are welcome to do that. If all of them are not reliable sources for what they claim, why don't you give a single example of this?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Maybe link 2 and 4 are broken, but they are backed up by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunmotbluescreen (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I now fixed all questionable links and extended the page with new content and links. Do you still believe the templates should remain?--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Nationality in lead

I was asked to comment on it. I would not include where the subject was born in the lead unless it is part of his notability, and in this case it may be. Do we have RS for the subjects nationality(ies)? Do we know how the subject self identifies? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Where was the subject born? The info box and lead sentence differ?, this is problematic. --Malerooster (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

My bad, it seems he is actually born in Teheran [2] 1:10. I'll fix it. Thanks for proof reading! He himself is always clear that he is a Kurd and nothing else, but to the contrary of contemporary views, you alone don't get to decide your identity. Your identify is also decided by your relation to your environment. Is it better to write: Swedish-Iranian economist who idetnifes as a Kurd? I am not sure what the policy says in this subject.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Notability for immigration?

I have now suggested two different approaches to communicate his notability for his engagement in Swedish immigration policy. It has been in the article introduction as well as a separate section, but is now downplayed to obscurity.

• "Sweden’s fiery immigration debate has divided the country into groups for and against. But one economist’s writings are drawing readers from both sides of the debate. On his blog — and in “Mass Challenge,” a bestselling book he self-published earlier this year — Tino Sanandaji mixes fierce criticism of government strategy with policy prescriptions and reasons to hope for the future."[3]
• "Han har länge varit en av de envisaste kritikerna av svensk invandringspolitik och de flesta inlägg han gör på sociala medier genererar hundratals kommentarer. " (He has long been the most keen critics on Swedish immigration polcy) [4]
• "Tino Sanandaji är nationalekonomen som hyllas av högerextrema och kallas för ”troll” av vänstern." (Tino sanandaji is the economist that has been praised by the far right and called a "troll" by the far left) [5]
• His book in immigration policy Massutmaning has become famous.

He has has never made any reasearch on immigration himself to avoid the argument of that the research he base his argument on is biased. Instead he only cites official data and other statistics [6] at 0:42. He has been criticized for that his arguments are used by the right, but calls this a Association fallacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immunmotbluescreen (talk • contribs) 12:14, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Updated article--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop trying to hide this fact Soupforone, we have taken the exact story about self published sources to the noticeboard once so you can't plead innocence this time. There is also nothing more third party about Kickstarter than his video lecture (which is originally not his own, see the Swedish version). This quote more accurately describes his position in this. We can discuss the exact formulation, but this fact is going in as it is ridiculously well sourced with 8 separate sources and is crucial for the article.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That debating immigration is an unpaid hobby is also no longer true as he as earned at least some hundreds of thousand crowns from the crowd funding campaign as well as sales of Massutmaning--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Far-right party, etc.

I've noted that Tino Sanandaji is especially critical of the far-right Sweden Democrats party [7], that per him his actual profession is economic research, and that his immigration forays are an unpaid hobby [8]. There is also no point in claiming that it is no longer just a hobby for him without an actual reliable source indicating this. Further, I've corrected the embedded url text from his video (which btw per WP:VIDEOLINK isn't a particularly reliable source -the self-published source that was discussed elsewhere was not this video or even a video) [9]. The wikitext claimed-- "While Sanandaji has deliberately refrained from researching immigration to avoid have doubts cast on the research, he has taken an active part as an economist in the public debate and written Massutmaning which heavily criticize Swedish immigration policy and the discrepancy between the public discourse and academic research." However, the actual embedded url text doesn't indicate most of this-- "My research has never been about immigration, it's an issue you could say I've found myself addressing. Deliberately, I've never researched immigration to avoid having doubts cast on the research. Instead, I've referred to other people's research." I've therefore reworded the phrasing to the more accurate and neutral-- "According to Sanandaji, he has purposely never conducted research on immigration so as to avoid public scrutiny of his work. He alludes instead to research carried out by other individuals." I've also consolidated his publications and media work/appearances. Soupforone (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow that is dishonest. To claim that the core message of [10] is his criticism of the Sweden Democrats is pretty close to a complete lie. It is obviously not an unpaid hobby if he gets paid for it, see Massutmaning and stores that sell it. A hobby is also misleading and over use of the quote, as he is an expert on the topic. There were so many sources of him being an expert that I had to move to a separate sentence. The video source is only for the first part of the sentence where he explains that he has not done any research him self, the other part of the sentence is back up by 8 sources in four different languages from 6 different countries. I could aslo bring more if you think that is not enough. I think the collective world of journalist are a strong source of him being an expert on the subject, than an individual editor claiming the opposite. I will move the source to first part of the sentence (before the comma), so that you don't get confused.

What he means when he says he does not want to research this in order to avoid people countering his arguments with that his research is biased. This is standard practice. You wouldn't trust a study by Microsoft to claim Windows is the best operative system. You want independent studies. Also journals do not publish arguments and journals are neither perfect (science is always updating) nor the only way to communicate ideas.

Why don't you let his quote stand by itself and let the news media determine who the news media considers an expert on the subject? He is just as critical of every other party as the Sweden Democrats. They mention them because criticism of immigration is usually through guilt by association all the worst sides of the Sweden Democrats.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not write that "the core message[...] is his criticism of the Sweden Democrats". What I actually indicated is that Tino Sanandaji is especially critical of the far-right Sweden Democrats party, and this is directly based on the Politico Europe profile ("he's far more scathing about the far-right Sweden Democrats than he is about the government" [11]). As for the video, nowhere does it even mention his book like the wikitext attributed to it did (the transcript is in the toggle menu). Also, per WP:SPS, "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications[...] never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Tino has no qualifications in immigration work/criminology; all of his work that has been published in reliable third-party publications (not random interviews) are instead in the field of economics [12]. The latter is his actual profession ("My ordinary job is as a researcher in economics, with a focus on taxation and entrepreneurship. Writing about immigration is an unpaid hobby of mine. It's a fun pastime, but one that demands time." [13]). Soupforone (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Somehow he can be noted for his criticism of Sweden Democrats, but at the same time using the same source, you try to prevent the wiki article to mention that he has been noted for his role as author and economist in the immigration debate. I have never suggested that he has published his own articles on the impact of immigration. The entire point of research is that others can reuse the knowledge. You can be clueless about a subject and still get published (sociology) and you can be an expert without a university degree. There is 100s of mainstream sources that views Sanandaji as an expert. You are not reliable source of the opposite. Find me a reliable source that question Sanandaji's expert status.--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

translation

Hegvald I wonder if you could provide some input on this translation? AadaamS (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, the specific time mark where Tino supposedly alludes to "policy on developing countries" or "policy on third world countries" must be pinpointed and transcribed ("As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page."). Because the Swedish-to-English translation of the actual text certainly does not indicate this, nor does the original Swedish text that it is a translation of (each is available in the toggle menu on the top-right [goo.gl/HKriAr]). Soupforone (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Sandaji has published a book with a list of references, participated in public debates and responded publicly to criticism. Translation or not, the phrase avoid public scrutiny does not accurately describe reality. It is your translation that is disputed. How does it describe reality? AadaamS (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, one obviously cannot translate into English what has already been translated into English (the English transcript of the video, not the audio I was alluding to above, is in its toggle menu). Tino indicates therein that "deliberately, I've never researched immigration to avoid having doubts cast on the research". This is certainly closer to "pre-empt public scrutiny of the research" than it is to "pre-empt criticism of the statistics used" since (1) "the research" makes it clear he is alluding to his own research whereas "statistics used" does not, and (2) he doesn't specify in that sentence what type of research he is actually alluding to, statistical or otherwise. Soupforone (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed the phrase to the actual underlying quote. "to avoid having doubts cast on the research"--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Soupforone (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: International media coverage of policy debate participation

As summarized in Politico's article [14], Sanandaji has received international media coverage of his participation in Swedish immigration debate (I have given example of the coverage in 9 different countries here [15]) as an economist and author of Massutmaning (not a random citizen of Sweden). Should this be mentioned in the article as it is in sv:Tino Sanandaji? We seem unable to resolve this ourselves. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support - It is necessary to understand who he is and there are several mainstream sources to back this up. Notice I am not saying that he has written journal articles on the topic nor that everyone likes him which some will claim. To just put some random articles about him under the author section that he hasn't written and then calling it repeated information when you describe what they are saying is not a good solution--Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)