Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Discussion at WP:ECON on appropriate editor behaviour

I have started a discussion at the Econ Wikiproject talk page about User:Vision Thing's editing behaviour, which I find greatly troubling. Since this is the article that he has been most actively editing for the last month, I would like to invite the other editors here to comment on the issue. LK (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I made a comment there. VisionThing sources and cites his information and also gets involved in discussion. Lets not confuse personal opinions and trying to represent the mainstream for Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia. In other words it seems pointless to rake this person over the coals because you have a different pov. Sourcing and citing and neutral presentation is what counts, not peoples opinions of others so called behavior unless some guidelines are flagrantly crossed, which to my knowledge have not been. skip sievert (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to discuss this issue on the discussion page that LK has set up. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes. I just want to summarise some recent changes here in this diff. Not all of it is bad, but some of it is questionable, there is quite a bit of moving things about without entirely obvious reason, and the lead has had explanation of his work removed. There's also the bizarre change of section heading from Background to Biography. What does that make the rest of the article? Rd232 ^talk 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that neither Background or Biography are perfect choices. That section should serve as a depository for all general information about Krugman that doesn't quite fit in any of the other section. -- Vision Thing -- 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the detailed explanation of his work from the lead because the explanation in the lead was copied almost verbatim from the body, and because the explanation of his work there gave hugely undue weight to New Trade Theory and giving a balanced treatment of all the work seemed too big for the lead. Gruntler (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The Great Unraveling

Current description: "His main argument was that the large deficits generated by the Bush administration — generated by decreasing taxes, increasing public spending, and fighting the Iraq war — were in the long run unsustainable, and would eventually generate a major economic crisis."

Is this actually an accurate summary? I'm reluctant to rewrite this since I've never read the book and I was only an occasional reader of his columns. But I would have expected major themes to be the Bush administration's corruption/dishonesty, the Bush administration's tilt toward the rich and powerful, media criticism, followed by "deficits are bad," in order of descending importance. My take seems to be similar to [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler (talk • contribs) 18:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but... what do you all think of this?

VIII. RE-EMBRACING KEYNES

Krugman quote... So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics... it is sourced here [2], would this information be good in the article as to Krugmans opinion of the current scene and especially in regard to his opinion of Keynes?? and if so where would it fit in? If someone wants to insert it feel free... as I mostly look at the article from a distance, and seldom edit it. - skip sievert (talk) 03:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "fringe" critiques

This has repeatedly been added and removed in the past:

Economist William L. Anderson has argued that Krugman's economic views are politically partisan and consistently promote a socialist agenda. Donald Luskin of the National Review is another frequent critic of Krugman. He has claimed that that "Krugman’s liberal agenda always takes precedence over economic principle."

The "tactic" (or to put it more neutrally, "reasoning") here appears to be to label critics of PK's views "fringe" players and therefore to delete any mention of them. But Anderson's critique was published in FORBES. It could not in any way be considered a "fringe" publication (unlike, say, a blog entry on Mises.org or LewRockwell.com). Can someone please define "fringe" and explain why a published work in Forbes cannot be included in this article? The edit warring over PK has been incredible, and I cannot understand why this has generated such heat, when everyone knows his partisan political views. Please be reasonable in response and stay on point, as a number of advocates of PK appear to be very partisan and have a zealousness that does not befit an academic, objective exercise in encyclopedia-building. - TimothyDon-HughMak (talk) 07:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: TimothyDon-HughMak is an alias of banned User:Karmaisking, see his entry in WP:LTA. LK (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It would help if the text didn't describe Anderson as merely an "economist". He is a libertarian and an adjunct scholar of the von Mises institute. Omitting that in citing his view (whatever non-peer-reviewed source it was published in) violates WP:NPOV. Rd232 ^talk 08:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain how not mentioning "libertarian" violates NPOV ? -- Vision Thing -- 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

By omitting key context. "Economist" as the sole description implies someone who is middle-of-the-road politically. Misrepresenting where the person is coming from distorts the reader's interpretation of the person's reported opinion, and thereby a violation of WP:NPOV. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly one of the reasons why I insist on description of Krugman as a liberal. Can this issue be considered resolved if "libertarian" is added to description of Anderson? -- Vision Thing -- 14:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny. "Libertarian" appears in the final sentence of Anderson's admittedly very short bio! And in fact Krugman is described as liberal in the opening sentence. Rd232 ^talk 15:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "Libertarian" is "fringe", though it's getting out there on U.S. political spectra. However, the von Mises Institute is pretty fringe even in Libertarian terms: they are a bunch of gold bugs, for one thing, they probably waste as much breath ranting against the ghost of Milton Friedman for his "fiat money" monetarism as they do denouncing Paul Krugman for advocating yet more stimulus spending. Krugman is a mainstream economist tilting strongly leftward; but Anderson is a fringe economist by any mainstream measure, left, right, up, or down. So to mention Anderson's criticisms of Krugman as if they were just one economist's view about another does omit crucial context. I have to say, however, I think Vision Thing is at least half-right to question the claim of WP:NPOV violation. The important guideline here is not WP:NPOV. If anything, it's WP:UNDUE: failing to provide clues that Anderson's economics is pretty far out of the mainstream is implicitly giving Anderson's views about Krugman's undue weight. One could do worse, of course -- one could mention "economist" Donald Luskin's negative views of Krugman. But what would anyone base "economist" on, in Luskin's case? He dropped out of college and went to Wall Street. If that's some criterion, the ranks of "economists" swell enormously. Anderson is at least an economist of some kind, that's fair to say. As for his criticism of Krugman appearing in Forbes - well, a mainstream publication can publish fringe positions. In fact, with his presidential platform plank of a flat tax, I'd say Steve Forbes was pretty fringey himself at one time -- as was "liberal" Democrat Jerry Brown, back when he was a dark-horse presidential candidate who also pushed a flat tax. I'd say you should keep critiques where the critiques (and critiquers) are notable, but also indicate fringiness where that's the case. Yakushima (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing has a good point. Krugman is pretty far on the fringe himself. It seems sensible to include critiques from the other extreme. Ramorum (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's economics is mainstream. His politics are left-wing but not extremely so. Go read the article and look at his political views--there's nothing there that you'd call radical. What makes him stand out politically is not the extremism of his views but rather that he says blunt, nasty things about people and policies he doesn't like.Gruntler (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Several things arising from this.

1. Anderson. First, the phrase "socialist agenda" doesn't appear in the column; the subheader is "a socialist laureate", and he attributes to Krugman the view that the Bush administration is not socialist enough, apparently because he preferred the UK's bank bailout to the US's. But the second sentence of the first para makes it hard to take any of this seriously anyway: "This [Krugman getting the Nobel] is not as tragic a moment in western civilization as the sacking of Constantinople in 1453 or the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, but it suffices as one of those sad moments we will regret over time."[3]
2. Luskin. First, I've just glanced at Donald Luskin; apparently he's a "public intellectual", but Krugman isn't? Okaaay. And Luskin is not "of the National Review". He is CFO of a consulting firm, and a blogger and columnist for, in particular, National Review Online. His criticism of Krugman is apparently significant enough for his bio to take up an entire section of his WP entry; but that doesn't mean his criticism is notable for Krugman's entry. More interesting is this New Yorker article: [4], which describes "Luskin’s Krugman-baiting" as "more or less a hobby", and notes that after Luskin met Krugman he blogged that “I have looked evil in the face.”

In sum, I don't think Anderson's comments are worth mentioning. On the basis of the New Yorker article, which notes Krugman responding to Luskin, the exchange with Luskin may be worth mentioning, but it'll need to be brief and even that will risk WP:UNDUE. Comments? Rd232 ^talk 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PS The 2002 Washington Monthly mentions as critics Andrew Sullivan and Mickey Kaus. Perhaps we could find some secondary sources about that. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Gruntler and RD232. The inclusion of Lushkin has always troubled me. With so many tenured professors getting into battles with Krugman this last year, we don't really have to drop to that level. BTW, anyone who thinks Krugman is fringe should open any popular university level economics textbook; Krugman is solidly in the mainstream. As an example, Brad Delong, tenured professor of Economic History at UC Berkeley has frequently quipped:[5][6][7][8]

The best way to understand the world is through these two rules:

1. Paul Krugman is right.

2. If you ever think Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule #1.

LK (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Economics textbooks call him "liberal economist". Also, what do you mean by "we don't really have to drop to that level"? Krugman dropped to that level by having a high profile quarrel with Luskin. -- Vision Thing -- 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That comment doesn't make sense. What textbooks call who? And why is that relevant? Also, lots of people pick fights with notable people. It should be obvious that an encyclopedia shouldn't sink to the level of reporting every insult thrown at a person. That would not balanced. Several tenured professors have gotten into arguments with Krugman over the last year, and those dialogues have been reported in major newspapers. We should report those arguments. LK (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Vision Thing's pluralization of "textbooks" in that comment seems to make sense only if you count different editions of Greg Mankiw's book as two different books, which is a pretty arguable basis for pluralization. (I've only done Google book search, admittedly.) "Liberal economist" is, in fact, a reasonably common way to describe Krugman, but interestingly, it seems to appear pretty often in left-wing criticisms of Krugman's views.

That Krugman as an academic is a part of the mainstream is irrelevant for his work as a columnist. Views that he expresses in his columns can be very far away from the mainstream.

"Far", "very far" -- could we have some quantifications please, with citations? It shouldn't be hard. You might look at poll numbers, for example. Take universal health coverage. Krugman's in favor of it. How wild and wacky can you get! What's next -- will he advocate, in his next column, a violent Bolshevick takeover of the nation's capital? In July/August of this year, 77% (MoE 4.5%) of Americans polled by CNN/Opinion Research answered "Necessary" to the question "Do you think it is or is not necessary to make major structural changes in the nation's health care system in order to make sure that all Americans have health insurance?". OK, let's take an issue where Krugman has taken a somewhat unpopular stand: NAFTA. In a Pew Research Center/Council on Foreign Relations in Spring 2008, 48% of respondents said "bad thing" when asked, "In general, do you think that free trade agreements -- like NAFTA, and the policies of the World Trade Organization -- have been a good thing or a bad thing for the United States?" 35% said "good thing". Paul Krugman is a defender of NAFTA. But even though he's in the minority view, it's not a minority view associated with leftists, who mostly despise NAFTA. And his view is not "far out of the mainstream." Lots of Americans believe in free trade. Yakushima (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is one recent example. [9] -- Vision Thing -- 12:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But not a very useful one. So a Rasmussen poll says 75% of Americans think the U.S. banking system should not be nationalized? So what? I'm not surprised. Now you'll have to show us where Krugman said the entire U.S. banking system should been taken over and run by the government, permanently. He's in favor of nationalizing troubled banks under criteria that are more or less those that the FDIC and the Federal Reserve use when they take over (yes, that is nationalizing) insolvent banking operations -- and not least so that depositors can get their FDIC payouts. Here are his own words: [10]

"How would nationalization take place? All the administration has to do is take its own planned "stress test" for major banks seriously, and not hide the results when a bank fails the test, making a takeover necessary [....] long-term government ownership isn't the goal: Like the small banks seized by the FDIC every week, major banks would be returned to private control as soon as possible."

And how do Americans feel about that kind of thing? Surprise, surprise: Largely positive. At about the same time early this year as that Rasmussen poll you like so much, VT, 56% of respondents answered "nationalize" in response to the following question:

"Temporary nationalization is another way for the federal government to deal with large banks in danger of failing. This is where the government takes over a failing bank, cleans its balance sheets, and then quickly sells it off. In general, which do YOU think is the better way to deal with failing banks: government financial aid WITHOUT any government control of the bank, OR, nationalization, where the government takes temporary control?" (Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 4-5, 2009. [11])

I follow Krugman pretty closely, but I can't remember where he's ever spoken of any sweeping, permanent, uncalled-for nationalization of the entire U.S. banking system. Do you know of such a statement, VT? Then show us where it is. You probably think you saw something like that, but let me tell you right now: You won't find it. Because that's not in line with his thinking, which you don't seem to be directly acqainted with. I mean, come on: Krugman just praised -- and called for the reappointment of -- Ben Bernanke, who is a moderate Republican. You keep saying that Krugman holds views far out of the mainstream, but you can't seem to substantiate that claim. Why don't you just give up and admit it: you just don't know what you're talking about here. And I'm sure you'd agree that Wikipedia articles really ought to be written by people who know what they're talking about. Yakushima (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody stopping you from reporting Krugman's arguments with other professors? -- Vision Thing -- 14:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If I may venture an answer: you, Vision Thing, with your ceaseless and baseless objections deriving more from ideology rather than from verified fact? Just a guess, here. Yakushima (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to persist in misunderstanding. Is anybody stopping you from reporting Krugman's arguments with other professors instead of non-notable fringe figures? Oh, and the political views expressed in his columns are pretty much standard of Democratic Party members. Are you arguing that the views of the party in power are 'pretty far from the mainstream'? LK (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quoting me selectively and building a straw man, but I'm glad that you agree that Krugman's columns are clearly partisan. -- Vision Thing -- 12:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, Anderson says that Krugman offered socialism (nationalization) as the cure for financial crisis (true). As for seriousness, Krugman regularly makes way worse personal remarks about other economists. -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that clearly identifies your point of view on Krugman and these issues. LK (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Offering nationalization of the financial sector during a crisis equates somehow to socialism? Then Augusto Pinochet must have been a socialist. During Chile's economic crisis in the early 1980s, Pinochet nationalized many more banks than Allende had ever been able to. (Pinochet also ran huge deficits in order to engage in Keynesian stimulus programs. I believe he even outdid FDR in that respect, if you normalize his spending on a GDP per capita basis.) Yakushima (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In one of his books Krugman noted that he is often labeled as knee-jerk liberal or socialist (I can find a quote if needed). Such views should be included in the columnist or political views section for this article to be neutral. -- Vision Thing -- 12:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That Krugman gets labeled as a knee-jerk liberal or socialist is a statement on par with "the sun will rise tomorrow." How does quoting Krugman mentioning the obvious makes the article any more "neutral"? Yakushima (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article there are no such criticisms at all. That is pretty glaring omission. -- Vision Thing -- 09:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would help to step back a bit and do some thinking about what the major, important *types* of criticisms of Krugman and Krugman's journalism are. What should be included? After agreeing on that we could identify some quotes that illustrate the types of criticism that ought to be included. I see the following kinds of issues brought up:

1. His column is very partisan. This partisanship causes him to make analytical or factual errors. Example source: the much-discussed Economist editorial, or the Okrent quote in the article.

2. Conservative criticism of the form: "Krugman is liberal, liberals are wrong about things, therefore Krugman is wrong about things." Example: the Daniel Klein quote in the article, or the Luskin quote above.

3. Krugman was wrong about some event in the past. (Recently discussed: housing bubble.)

4. Criticism of the form "Krugman's not a nice person." example: Okrent

5. "Socialism" (example: Anderson)

6. Notable dispute with somebody.

My opinions:

On 1: This is a point of view which a significant number of people hold. To the extent that his journalism is discussed in the bio, this POV should be included.
On 2: This seems like an example of a fairly boring type of criticism, honestly. Conservatives disagree with liberal, big deal, I'm not sure if readers benefit from seeing it? OTOH it's a common POV.
On 3: Setting aside the difficulty of determining whether he was in fact wrong about the events, I'm not sure that this type of criticism belongs in a BLP *unless* Krugman played a significant role in the event in question or if his views were shown to be influential at the time. Everyone who has a weekly column is wrong about stuff all the time. We wouldn't go make notes in every columnist's bio page if they thought that Hillary Clinton was sure to win the presidency.
On 4: Generally does not belong in a BLP. Illustrated by Okrent's quote: "when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance." The quote is about Okrent's dealings with Krugman, not about the column. We wouldn't put "his coworkers found him difficult to get along with" in a BLP. I think this ought to be removed.
On 5: Krugman's views are mainline Democratic Party views. Calling these views socialist is fringe.
On 6: It's got to be *really* notable to qualify for inclusion, I think. By comparison, the Henry Louis Gates arrest got one short paragraph in his bio.
Gruntler (talk) 23:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst we're on the subject of fringe critiques, Daniel B. Klein is hardly mainstream either. He's also a libertarian (I detect a theme...), and the analysis cited in the article, whilst it has some substance in reviewing 650 articles from 1997 to 2006, does so clearly from a libertarian perspective. It also professes to use Krugman as an example of an archetype, which makes me uneasy about including it. More substantively, the piece tries to defend the thesis that Krugman isn't defending the interests of the poor as much as he claims, because he doesn't defend libertarian positions (eg school vouchers, getting rid of the FDA, and getting rid of medical licencing) which according to Klein any good economist would support and which according to Klein are in the interests of the poor. This analysis seems to me to fall under WP:FRINGE, especially as it is published in a journal edited by the author, which is virtually if not actually self-publication. In sum, we might draw on Klein's analysis of Krugman's topic focus (there's a table breaking down topic focus of columns which seems neutral and useful, though it may be WP:SYNTHy to pick things from it), but I'm doubtful about including Klein's conclusions, for the reasons stated. If we nonetheless agree to keep it, the context of the quote certainly needs to be explained. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have read this entire section, and i fail to see how a critique in a respected publication (Forbes), constitutes "fringe". Unless i hear some concise, valid assertion referring to wikipedia policy, i am adding back. Dragonlord kfb (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Anderson paraphrase at the top of this section? Regardless of Anderson's fringiness, I don't think it belongs. The critiques already in the article amply cover the issue of Krugman's partisanship. So the only thing Anderson adds is the word "socialist" and I'm not sure that that is a significant or informative thing to have in the article, esp since Von Mises Institute scholars seem to call everyone socialist anyway. Gruntler (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For example here's Anderson talking about "road and bridge socialism." [12] Gruntler (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Council of Economic Advisers

I fail to see what was synthesis in this removed material. -- Vision Thing -- 22:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make that edit but it looks like "not being picked because he was considered too volatile and outspoken" is improper synthesis of Krugman not being picked and Krugman considering himself too outspoken for the role. Clinton could have had any number of other reasons for not picking Krugman and we don't know what Clinton's reasons are. There's also some non-impartial language there too--"propaganda war" for example.

Looking at it now I don't think this text fits in best with the biography section, while the biography section should include things like the fact that he's professor. Too much for me to tackle right now though. Gruntler (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not make such conclusion. That connection was established by reliable sources: "But Krugman was passed over--largely, say former Clinton officials, because he was deemed too volatile." [13] "Krugman's outspokenness, NEWSWEEK has learned, is the main reason the Clinton administration didn't offer him a job." [14] "Former Clinton officials say he was passed over because he was "too volatile"." [15] Concern about non-impartial language can be easily addressed. -- Vision Thing -- 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ok. That seems reasonably definitive. I added the idea that he wasn't chosen because of his outspokenness back.

Another synthesis is "After not being picked because he was considered too volatile and outspoken, he attacked Clinton's appointees..." implying that he attacked them because he was bitter about not being picked. I see that Washington Monthly made that connection too, but I don't like the idea that Washington Monthly, or anyone but Krugman, is a reliable source for what's going on inside Krugman's head, especially since Krugman's statements in other sources deny bitterness. Gruntler (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

We really have to be careful here. The entries introduced by VT and some others seem to have it as a goal that this article should include every single negative comment about Krugman ever published anywhere. We have to keep in mind balance. There are very many positive things said about Krugman that have not been introduced into the article, the negative comments should not overbalance the positive, making it seem (incorrectly) that Krugman is viewed negatively by society at large. LK (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Krugman, or at least views that he expresses in his columns, are viewed negatively by society at large. -- Vision Thing -- 10:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this VT. Krugman is very pointed in his criticism and he's received pointed criticism, but I'm not sure where the generalization that he is "viewed negatively bu society at large" is coming from? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"when Rasmussen Reports polled on several representative Krugman quotes, the columnist's views were generally at odds with those of most Americans." [16] -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you completely didn't mean to leave the casual reader with the impression that the source you cite backs up your very general claim above that he is "viewed negatively by society at large". Fortunately I can rescue you from that error by looking at your source, which from your quote links here to polling on the single subject of tax cuts, the article looking at the extent to which those polls on tax cuts tally with Krugman's views of tax cuts. (Not even, it must be noted, polling on what the public thinks of Krugman's views of tax cuts.) Rd232 ^talk 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I quoted their conclusion about their study. If you have a better source that supports opposite view please provide it. -- Vision Thing -- 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Un. Be. Lievable. I defy anyone to look at (a) VT's general comment "Krugman, or at least views that he expresses in his columns, are viewed negatively by society at large" (b) VT's followup quote "when Rasmussen Reports polled on several representative Krugman quotes, the columnist's views were generally at odds with those of most Americans." (c) look at the study which that quote (an HTML link summary) links to [17] and (d) look at VT's response to my pointing this out and (e) respond coherently - without profanity - within 60 seconds. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, take a look at this please Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks and please restrain yourself from focusing on editors, or Drama. skip sievert (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[censored] What part of my comment above qualifies as a "personal remark"? By your implied definition, no-one could ever criticise comments another editor made. Ergo, you violated your own made-up rule (based on somebody's essay, by the by). PS I've unwatched this page so don't expect a reply. Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PS This is a rather better essay on the same theme. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Public intellectual

Some time ago, I inserted "public intellectual" into the lede, so it read "American economist, columnist, and public intellectual"; I just re-added it and could find no recent record of its removal. The current citation, which I did not add, from The Chomsky Effect, substantiates this claim, as does the Foreign Policy/Prospect poll. I think it's important to note this, to demonstrate that Krugman is not just an academic, nor just a pundit, but a hybrid, an accomplished economist, Ivy League professor, and Nobel laureate who grapples with contemporary political issues in a public forum. The phrase denotes no more value judgment than does "intellectual" on its own -- it's a descriptor of his public role. Are there any objections to its inclusion? Grunge6910 (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I found the archived objections. I think the notion that "public intellectual" implies subjectivity is nonsense. The most trenchant criticism seems to me to be the notion that "economist, columnist and author" sums him up without using "intellectual." I disagree: as I said, the term "public intellectual" demonstrates the melding of roles that Krugman has accomplished. Take Camille Paglia, for instance, a literary critic who also writes columns. Her profession as literary critic and her academic post do not bear upon her public commentary to the same extent that Krugman's profession as economist bears upon his public commentary. He takes his intellectual field and uses it in the public sphere in a way that many academics-cum-commentators do not. Hence I think the term "public intellectual" is apropos. Grunge6910 (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

According to your source, a public intellectual is "Someone who has shown distinction in their own field along with the ability to communicate ideas and influence debate outside of it." While this is a fair description it is not a commonly used term. The fact that Krugman is an economist and columnist gives us all that information anyway. Therefore I would not include it in the lead. His rating in the poll may be relevant to the article for inclusion elsewhere. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a commonly used term? I don't know about that. Can you prove it? The Wiki article on intellectual, for instance, has a rather lengthy discussion of the term. For the reasons I mentioned I think calling him just an economist and columnist leaves out the link between the two. Grunge6910 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I prove that public intellectual is not a commonly used term? It is really up to you to prove that it is a commonly used term. Do you think that it is more commonly used and better understood than "economist" or "columnist"? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not more used than they are, but it's not replacing them, only complimenting them. I certainly do think it's commonly used. An essay by Alan Lightman, a novelist and professor at MIT, contends that the notion of public intellectual in American life dates back to at least Emerson, and has only grown in relevance and prevalence since then. Richard Posner did a comprehensive academic study of the phenomenon of the public intellectual. The term has been used in journalism from Reason.com to the New York Times, and is a commonly recurring phrase throughout print journalism and scholarly literature. Grunge6910 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible for a person to be both an economist and a columnist but not be a public intellectual? In other words, does the term public intellectual add anything? The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It adds a sense of public recognition. "Columnist" encompasses everything from weekly NYT editorials to occasional contributions to a local paper. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I argue that it does. The term implies that his work as columnist is linked in some concrete way to his work as economist. Grunge6910 (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Four Deuces that "public intellectual" doesn't add anything to the "economist" and "columnist". -- Vision Thing -- 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) What about Noam Chomsky? His public speaking has nothing to do with his major contribution to learning as a linguist. Yet he is considered a public intellectual too. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but as somebody who also has spent a lot of time editing the Chomsky article I would argue that there are important and inextricable ties between his politics and the philosophical foundations of his linguistics. See "Language and Freedom" for instance. I do see your point; for the record I'd be perfectly in favor of adding "public intellectual" to his lede, too. Grunge6910 (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Public intellectual seems like a bad term to call anyone. It sounds negative like you would see some story about them in people magazine maybe or see them on Oprah. How public and what public? The term also sounds like a neologism. Is it one? I think he was voted as a public intellectual on some forum blog poll on the internet... correct? Seems like a bad way to describe anyone. Public lavatory or public library... those we know what they mean in general... but do we know what a public intellectual is? Is Krugman really an intellectual or known as one beyond some obscure sourcing to a blog forum, or some obscure poll elsewhere? Not to my knowledge. He seems anti-intellectual promoting a growth economy, but that is my opinion. Again the danger of fan site like promotion of Krugman.

Hard to believe that this term is anything but negative. I remember in the old gangster movies people were called public enemy. Too confusing a term, and it could be a neologism also. Is there a compound word in the dictionary of public intellectual? Probably a good idea to drop this idea of using the phrase in the article. It may detract, and probably does not add information wise or clarity wise. - skip sievert (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Before reading this discussion, I would have considered "public intellectual" to be a phrase that most people would understand. It has none of the negative connotations you suggest. It's certainly not a neologism, or at any rate, not a recent one. As far as usage, it appears in 19000 Wikipedia articles. Gruntler (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to learn more about the term, skip sievert, I provided plenty of documentary materials to do so a few posts above. Your characterization of the term is unfortunately inaccurate. Grunge6910 (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. skip sievert (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What sort of evidence do you think is necessary? Gruntler (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer descriptions "economist, liberal columnist and author" because they represent all main sections of the article (Academic career, Author, Commentator, Political views). -- Vision Thing -- 19:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the term "public intellectual" has a negative implication I would imagine it is because it would seem come off as pretention when used to describe most people and would provoke a sense of here is someone straining to buttress their resumé in those hearing it. To describe many well-known columnists as "public intellectuals" could reasonably provoke guffaws because the intellectual credentials of many are not that strong. However, Krugman is a true public intellectual and the term is not a stretch by any means. Lambanog (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Economic views

I’ve added a new section, “Economic views”, which seems complementary to the “Political views” section; the content didn’t seem to fit elsewhere.

Economics has a number of schools and debates within it, some of which Krugman is party to, and providing some context (Krugman’s self-identification as saltwater, espousal of some Post-Keynesians) helps understand Krugman’s role and thinking.

I’ve provided a number of citations, though I imagine the material could be expanded (as noted) or otherwise reworked; there is scope for overlap with the “political views”.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's Law

This was just introduced into the article:

A proposed extension to Godwin's law made by the economist Paul Krugman. According to Krugman, "there are a lot of moral equivalents of Nazi comparisons, and they should receive the same treatment." The new formulations include:

• Responds to calls for more government action in some area — employment creation, health care, whatever — by invoking the example of the Soviet Union
• Responds to suggestions that moderate inflation and/or dollar depreciation is acceptable by invoking the example of Zimbabwe
• Responds to any demonstration that projected debt levels, while high, are within the range advanced countries have successfully dealt with in the past by invoking the example of Argentina

I removed it, as per previous discussion, we shouldn't just source things to Krugman's writings, but rather should have some secondary sources to show notability. I'm happy to see it back in once a few other external reliable sources have commented on it. LK (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. This was coming from an AfD on Krugman's Law. (As it clearly didn't need a standalone article). --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Krugman and the Austrian School

I am aware the Austrian School of economic thought can be thought of as controversial so I can imagine reasons why an editor might quickly remove referral to it. Still to say that Krugman opposes it would seem correct. I was wondering if there is any particular reason why a recent edit showing that Krugman is opposed to it should have been removed and not restored. Lambanog (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to this [18] edit? My take on that would be that Krugman opposes a whole lot of things and I'm not sure why the Austrians would deserve special mention. Gruntler (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Austrian School say what else you will of it, is an opposing school of economic thought to the current dominant economic ideology. As such it sets in stark relief the current ideology's strengths and weaknesses. Considering the relative failure of the current economic regime to anticipate and prevent the disastrous economic upheavals of the past couple of years, there is a sense that current economic orthodoxy should be re-examined. Someone new to the subject might well think why not Austrian School economics? To that what would you say? Lambanog (talk) 19:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I meant--I certainly don't mean to wade into the debate about the relative importance of the Austrians right now. But based on what I've read of Krugman, I just haven't see him devoting much time to the Austrians. Googling [19] mainly gets a Slate article from 1998 and a bunch of blogs and things discussing that article. So opposition to the Austrian school doesn't seem like an important component of Krugman's work to me. Gruntler (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The main opposition to the current policies from what I can see in the political sphere comes from conservatives and libertarians on the far right who are more likely to espouse beliefs closer to Austrian School economics especially with Chicago School freshwater economics in current disrepute. That Slate article you refer to from what I can tell is actually one of the most cogent and accessible arguments put forth by a respected economist against the Austrian School economics made for a public audience. Considering it is an economic argument aimed at the ideology of some of his most vociferous critics I'd say it is notable. That said ignoring them entirely and dismissing them outright because of the vitriol from that quarter is understandable too. Lambanog (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So because he's supports mainstream policies, he opposes Austrianism? I guess I could buy that, but a similar argument would apply to a whole host of schools of thought, some more notable and influential than the Austrians (for example Communism). And it would apply to a lot of other economists too. For the Slate article--if it was someone other than Krugman I might agree that it merited inclusion, but this is a guy with 25 books and almost a thousand columns, and the article isn't even really about Austrians. If Krugman had strong feelings about the Austrians, it would surely have come up again since 1998; more likely, he just never thinks about them. What you say above seems more like an argument for including the article on the Austrian school page (and I see it's already there). Gruntler (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack on China in the US Section

I've added the recent stuff on Krugman advocating what appears to be a protectionist-style import tariff against Chinese imports in the US policy section, as it's really pushing for Washington to change its policies towards China, rather than addressing China directly. So it should properly be placed in the US policy section, as it is in reality advocating a change to US import/trade policy, not China trade policy. I did not include the Peter Schiff commentary describing Krugman's recommendations as "ridiculous" because it doesn't appear as though an entry on LRC has been considered legit in the past. Of course, an editorial piece in the UK's Daily Telegraph is both notable and "mainstream" enough to be a ref in WP. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.153.59 (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'ld like to (again) remind the people editing this article to be mindful of appropriate weight. It is not appropriate to insert every negative thing written about Krugman into this article. Specifically, this series of edits violates NPV and BLP, and was inappropriate. LK (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mistook difference in opinion from other commentators as attack on Krugman. It'd be better if you can seek consensus. Now wiki (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is a biography of Paul Krugman. It is not an article about US trade policy. As such, the opinions of others on US trade policy--whether they agree or disagree with Krugman--aren't particularly relevant to the topic. If they were instead saying something interesting about Paul Krugman (above and beyond "Krugman is wrong") then it might be worth including. Gruntler (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. What Steve Roach talked about is Krugman's proposed 'China tariff', not general US trade policy. (May be I lacked the skill to better quote Roach.) I added Jim O'Neill's opinion on chinese yuan because the basis of Krugman's argument is: yuan is purposely undervalued. All of these relate to what Krugman advocates. Is it possible to divorce Keynes' thoughts from the man (Keynes)? Now wiki (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

In spite of the implications of the Bloomberg article, the idea that the US ought to push China to revalue its currency is hardly Krugman's original idea; what we have here is a long-standing dispute in which Krugman has recently decided to pick a side. John Kerry was talking about this stuff way back in 2004 and I'm sure there's earlier stuff that I don't remember. Krugman is just one of many voices in support (albeit more influential than most), and Roach, O'Neill, etc. are some of many voices against. Maybe Krugman's proposals differ in the details but the general thrust is the same. Gruntler (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite catch your reasoning and argument, specifically, how it's relevant to the discussion of edits. Now wiki (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

What Roach thinks about the renminbi doesn't tell the reader much about Paul Krugman, even if Roach happened to be responding to a Krugman article. If this had been some idea that was originated by Krugman, it'd be a different story; hearing how people react to, say, New Trade Theory tells us something important about Krugman and his influence. Gruntler (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kerry is a politician. May be I'm not as update about news as I'd like to admit, can you name another Nobel laureate that support the so called China tariff? The key is not should the U.S. push China to relax its exchange policy, it is how, and, specifically, will the China tariff bring much good to the States? Now wiki (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'ld like to approach this from the issue of proper weight. We have to craft a one-page article about a guy who has a lot of views, achievements and controversies associated with him. Per WP:WEIGHT & WP:RECENT, the amount of space given in this edit to this relatively minor recent issue is inappropriate. LK (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your thinking. Actually, I am trying to par it down before my edits were reverted. (BTW, editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and they should not pretend to have a crystal ball.) Now wiki (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commentator - U S economic policies

"Some people believe that by not allowing their currency to rise, in line with their trade surplus, the Chinese Communist Party are instigating self-destructive protectionism, and not playing 'by the rules', not least some businessmen within China, as reported on Bloomberg."
The Bloomberg report cited does not even mention Krugman, can you explain what's the relevance in the biography of Paul Krugman.76.69.73.245 (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Housing bubble revisited

An IP continues to insert a section about discussion of a housing bubble in 2002. Could you please explain the relevance of the section and obtain concensus for including this. Also, this topic has been discussed in substantial detail already, so could you please read the previous discussion. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I had to look the previous discussion up, here it is. Lambanog (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My bad. I should have searched the talk page before adding the ==criticism== . Sorry for the mess. I still think that quote from 2002 should be in the article, but I know that it is wrong just to put it there when it was already discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.170.113 (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in adding a criticisms section. Friedman has an Austrian School criticisms section, which is preceded by a section of criticisms from Keynesians including Krugman. Winger13 (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with criticisms from cited reliable sources inserted with proper respect to due weight. In fact there are many criticisms spread throughout the article. What is 'wrong' though is editors who come here wanting to add every negative thing that has ever been published about Krugman in any source anywhere. LK (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New Keynesian?

While Krugman takes a generally Keynesian view in his newspaper articles, and his macroeconomics textbooks, those are not his main research contribution. His main research contribution is New Trade Theory. I would suggest (several others have suggested the same thing) that he should be taken out of the list of New Keynesian economists, and placed in a list of New Trade theorists. Marc Melitz should also be on that list. See these discussions: Talk:New Keynesian economics and Template_talk:Keynesians. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Krugman Changing His Tune on Budget Deficits?

There is a paper that is being included as a reference purportedly showing Krugman as changing his view of deficits depending on the administration. In my view it looks too much like a partisan piece to be presented as a neutral document and the weaknesses of its arguments and the misleading way it frames them make me think it simply shouldn't be kept.

Saying Krugman is all for spending when it is a Democratic administration while against it during Republican administrations comes across very differently from saying he is for educational spending while against military spending. Context also matters. Timing of spending advocacy in relation to economic cycle and policies also needs to be factored in appraisal. Paper claims to account for these but the budget deficit info numbers it presents apparently to show a Krugman contradiction suggests it doesn't. Overall a poor paper that comes across partisan with a preconceived end result in mind.

The phrasing used to introduce it in this Wikipedia article was also ambiguous and misleading. For these reasons I have removed it. Lambanog (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Support this. Econ journal watch is also a partisan journal, whose editor is a vocal Krugman critic. This is obviously a partisan criticism of Krugman framed as a study. LK (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Support this. Econ journal watch is not a partisan journal, whose editor is not a vocal Krugman critic. This is obviously a partisan criticism by a Krugman supporter framed as a edit. Conclusions without premise(s) are great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.193.143 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Political Views

In reference to citation 90, I believe the citation is to controversial to merit inclusion. Can you really be anti-establishment if you are criticizing an administration for not increasing spending enough? I see this as fortifying the establishment because if the establishment is spending more money, they are exercising more power and control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winger13 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. I believe the article violates WP:NPV by claiming that Paul Krugman is anti-establishment as well as the wording used in some sentences about Krugman's stance on the Obama administration. As quoted in the article, he has been critical of the administration on several points including support of the banking sector rescue efforts, he is largely viewed as the primary third party support for President Obama's policies and traditionally supports his plans (albeit while calling to take them further) even when other liberal pundits favor a more conservative approach. Sentences like "Krugman has also been a prominent critic of the Obama administration's economic policies" seem to violate WP:NPV by calling Krugman a "prominent critic" of the administration's policies. While he is both prominent and an occasional critic, he is certainly not the first name that comes to mind (even disregarding conservative pundits) as a critic of the administration. His views are in line with the administration on the green economy, stimulus spending, unemployment benefits, etc. Calling for more of something than someone else does not make you a critic in common parlance, but it may make you critical from time to time. In fact, under the "commentator" section of this biography, there is no explicit mention of Krugman's support for any of Obama's policies. It seems to me that at least that section was written by a liberal and displays vast subconscious POV. It's not factually incorrect, but mostly leaves the reader with a sense that Krugman has been hypercritical of the Obama administration, while in reality his views are relatively well in line with the administration's. I think the section needs to be reworded for balance and factual accuracy. Schmittz (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Lock down

Can anybody lock down this article for awhile? There's one editor (or possibly two) that is making particularly egregious edits to this page and it has to stop.--Dark Charles (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

70.36.134.199 needs to be blocked from this page, at very least.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Public Intellectuals Poll

"He was voted sixth in a 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals by Prospect.[6]"
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2008/07/intellectualstheresults/
Apparently, this poll was re-taken in 2008, and Krugman came in 30th. Is the rank in 2005 still notable?
69.118.202.168 (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say no.--Dark Charles 00:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the wiki link for Prospect_(magazine), the circulation was 27,552 in 2008 and the "global poll" was a poll of its readers. Is either poll then notable? If so, there should at least be clarification of the size and scope of the poll. The current verbiage reads more like a press release or a self-agrandizing resumé filler. 68.104.176.42 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing criticism section

The only cite in the criticism section has NPOV issues. The article is Paul Krugman, the Self-Contradicting Economist. I was going to give a lenghtier justification, but I think the older quote used in "Healtcare" illustrates the problem with this article. Here's what Arvind Kumar presents:

Healthcare

TWO CHEERS FOR THE WELFARE STATE... - Fortune, May 1, 1995

That means that, while I believe in free trade and have no sympathy with the sort of liberalism that wants to centralize economic decision-making in Washington (cases in point: Jimmy Carter's energy planners and Bill Clinton's health planners)...

The Swiss Menace - New York Times, Aug 16, 2009

True "socialized medicine" would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That's why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.

However, Arvind Kumar leaves an important part of the original quote out (emphasis added):

That means that, while I believe in free trade and have no sympathy with the sort of liberalism that wants to centralize economic decision-making in Washington (cases in point: Jimmy Carter's energy planners and Bill Clinton's health planners), I also believe in the need to preserve, even strengthen, the social safety net.

So basically, it looks like Arvind Kumar is cherry picking quotes, taking them out of context, etc. Not to mention the number of "old" quotes that rely on POV secondary sources -- see the one on globalization as an example vs. first hand quotes for the new ones (usually from Krugman's articles or blog), making for a sort of apples-to-oranges comparison. It's also not clear to me how useful it is to be picking quotes from years to decades earlier to compare to recent ones. People do evolve over time. Heck, so do theories. By Arvind Kumar's yardstick, does the NEG coming out 11 years after the NTT make Krugman contradictory?

For the above reasons, I am removing the cite to that article, and since it is currently the only cite in the Criticism section, I am removing that as well. There are enough people that disagree with Krugman that it should be possible to find articles with more substance than this one. Argel1200 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The current text integrates criticism into the rest of the article, which is the preferred approach.

By this edit I removed some further criticism, added by an anon IP. The presentation was very POV, in that it adopted the criticisms as true rather than merely reporting them. Beyond that, I don't know if we want to go down the road of Krugman-said-this-a-critic-said-that on a litany of particular points. The current text gives information about general criticisms of Krugman. If we start detailing particular controversies, we could end up with a sentence about practically every Krugman column. If we give the other side as well, it would turn into a paragraph. (For example, the anon's addition gave some collateral information about Loughner's motivations, but there are other sources that could be cited in support of Krugman's viewpoint.) This article shouldn't go down the road of being a column-by-column review of Krugman's work. JamesMLane t c 14:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over Nobel prize

I deleted the two sentences mentioning the "controversy" over Krugman's Nobel prize, i.e. whether it was motivated by his political positions. There is absolutely no evidence for any political motivation on the part of the Nobel committee, other than speculation on some right-wing blogs. Krugman's work has had huge scientific impact, making him one of the most widely-cited economists (and scientists at large) in the world, and has been widely praised and cited by colleagues across the political spectrum. There is therefore plenty of evidence that he received the prize based on the strength of his contributions alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.180.197 (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Brown section

I'm welcoming the fact that Paul Krugman has made Gordon Brown more valuable politician than any American politician. But from the position of the Central Europe the stance on certain issues is different. The by Americans so called "Eastern Europe" has a view of more social policy and in fact based on different platform and not depend on Western products. What can Eastern Europe including the new EU members The Slovak Republic, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia offer is more spirituality. And especially Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.69.136 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Gary Becker on Paul Krugman

I have attempted to add this text to the article:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker describes Krugman as no longer performing economic research saying, of Krugman, "He was a serious economist. He was. He's not doing serious work now."

User:Dark_Charles undid this addition, above, with the reason "He actually still publishes so this isn't true." I undid your revision saying "The prior reversion, by User:Dark_Charles, was improper. The linked audio meets the WP:PROVEIT criteria. A statement by a Nobel prize winning economist meets the WP:SOURCES criteria." User:Dark_Charles, yet again undid my revision listing as a reason "Undid revision. It's just not true, e.g. see http://www.economia.esalq.usp.br/intranet/uploadfiles/539.pdf . Also, WP:3RR)".

Note that WP:PROVEIT, WP:SOURCES has precedence over both of User:Dark_Charles's justifications for the removal of the Becker quote.

I ask that User:Dark_Charles restore my update or justify removal in the context of WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOURCES.

Deicas (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I provided a source http://www.economia.esalq.usp.br/intranet/uploadfiles/539.pdf. What's more, it's a published paper by Paul Krugman that was written in 2009! Not only does this prove your claim is false, my source is stronger than yours according to WP:SOURCES. And you've violated WP:3RR!--Dark Charles 01:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the comments from User:Dark_Charles, just above:

WP:PROVEIT and WP:SOURCES provide criteria for inclusion of information in Wikipedia. To my knowledge, my satisfaction of the WP:PROVEIT & WP:SOURCES criteria for the Becker quote is not in dispute. If this is in dispute then please state this explicitly and explain your reasoning.

You describe my addition of the Becker quote as "your [Deicas's] claim". No, it isn't *my* claim, it is Gary Becker's claim. -- I'm just the editor.

That *you* believe that the existence of the publication http://www.economia.esalq.usp.br/intranet/uploadfiles/539.pdf is evidence that Krugman is currently engaged in "serious work" does not allow you, per Wikipedia policy, to delete the correctly-cited assessment of a Nobel Prize Economic Science laureate.

Deicas (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sir, this is what your edit says:

Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker describes Krugman as no longer performing economic research saying, of Krugman, 'He was a serious economist. He was. He's not doing serious work now.'

That's not true. I provided a research paper written by Paul Krugman, which proves that the claim "Krugman [is] no longer performing economic research" is false. WP:SOURCES says: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources..." As such, my source overrides yours. Also, by the way, take a look at google scholar or look through the archives of Krugman's blog, there are several other papers I could have used to prove that the statement "Krugman [is] no longer performing economic research" is false.

If you want to be technical and say that we should leave your edit in regardless of whether it's true simply because it's a quote from another economist, then I'll invoke WP:UNDUE to claim that your edit places undue weight on an erroneous comment by Gary Becker.--Dark Charles 04:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have changed my text from "... Krugman as no longer performing economic research ..." to "... Krugman as no longer performing important economic research ..." which is better in line with Beckers "... not doing serious work".

If you remove the Becker quote again, and this time claim that the removal was on the basis of WP:UNDUE, please support your claim. Pay particular attention: 1) to the claim of WP:UNDUE for one quote, from a Nobel Prize winner, in a long Wikipedia article and; 2) demonstrating that Krugman is performing "serious work" as judged by Gary Becker.

Deicas (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I guess that's fine.--Dark Charles 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Serious work" in the Commentary section? As a commentator it is hard to argue one can get a more serious platform than one in a newspaper of record as often referred to as the New York Times. Maybe not serious work as a research economist? Timing is unclear too. What does "now" mean? If Krugman's last paper was published last century it seems more credible but he still seems to be producing recent material of note. Becker's comment in contrast to recent activity can be included but it is undue when there is evidence against it that is not included. Lambanog (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

More relevant than the evidence countering Becker's comment is the lack of a stated basis for it. This wasn't a paper Becker wrote analyzing Krugman's recent work, or even a column or other written piece about Krugman. Becker was giving an interview about current economic conditions and possible responses. The interviewer mentioned Krugman as an example of an economist who said that the Obama stimulus package had been too small. Becker's answer was about his own view of the stimulus package, but he made the passing comment about "serious work" by Krugman. He didn't elaborate -- didn't mention the research paper cited by Dark Charles, didn't mention any other recent Krugman work, certainly didn't explain why the work should not be considered "serious".

We don't need to include everything uncomplimentary that's said about Krugman. We should give a fair presentation of each important point of view. I think this POV is better represented by our quotation of Tomasky's charge that Krugman has moved "from being a center-left scholar to being a liberal polemicist." JamesMLane t c 21:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can jump on this bandwagon. I didn't look at the actual source (my internet is slow and I have monthly bandwidth quotas). Assuming what JamesMLane said is true and the comment quoted in Deicas' edit isn't a focus of his source, then it shouldn't be included. WP:BLP says:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

Grabbing one comment out of a conversation generally on a different topic doesn't meet the conservative presentation criterion, in my opinion. It all depends on what the source says.--Dark Charles 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to User talk:Lambanog '"Serious work" in the Commentary section?', The "serious work" in the Becker quote refers to economic research. Are you suggesting the Becker quote be moved? To which section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a misunderstanding on many BLP pages that just because someone has verifiably criticized a person, that criticism must appear in the article. This is not true. Any statements included should be i) relevant to the section in which the statements are inserted, ii) proportionate to their notability, and iii) balanced with other relevant views. The current insertion fails on all three counts. As an off-the-cuff statement, that has not been commented on by reliable sources, Becker's statement is not notable enough to include. Even if it were notable, the relevant place to include it would be in the section about Krugman's academic work. Lastly, if included, it should be balanced with other views about Krugman's academic work, in rough proportion to what is said about Krugman's academic work in all reliable sources. LK (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, unrelated to the argument for inclusion; it's kind of a funny criticism to say that a Nobel laureate is no longer doing serious research. Almost all Nobel laureates are no longer doing active research. They usually get their Nobels for work done ages ago. (Nobels are given for having had serious, lasting impact on a field.) For instance, Gary Becker hasn't published a peer reviewed piece in decades. Krugman is actually one of the few Nobel laureates who is still producing active research. LK (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo makes a number of claims in the entry just above. Below I will attempt to disarticulate and address these claims.

First I'd like to cite an overreaching issue that User:Lawrencekhoo does not touch on. WP:PROVEIT & WP:SOURCES specify criteria for including information in Wikipedia. The Gary Becker quote, in dispute, meets this criteria. Why have User:Lawrencekhoo et al. deleted Becker's quote, rather than moving, amending, or expanding it?

Per User:Lawrencekhoo: "... just because someone has verifiability criticized a person, that criticism must appear in the article". Just a "[S]omeone"? Note that the "someone" doing the criticizing is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics and thus clearly speaks with authority. Is this denied?

Per User:Lawrencekhoo: "Any statements included should be ... i) relevant to the section in which they are inserted". The Becker quote was removed from the "Commentator" section. Am to understand that User:Lawrencekhoo doesn't believe that it is relivant to Krugman's economic pronouncements, as a commentator, that an economic expert believes that Krugman is not currently engaged in serious economic work? Isn't that the difference between a pundit and a economist?

Per User:Lawrencekhoo: "Any statements included should be ... ii) proportionate to their notability". Please clarify your meaning. To whom/what does "their" refer?

Per User:Lawrencekhoo: "Any statements included should be ... iii) balanced with other relevant views": am I to understand that you claim that a every single Wikipedia edit needs to include balancing information? Is not this balancing information found elsewhere in this long article with 26 sections and subsections?

User:Lawrencekhoo claims that Becker's statement is "off-the-cuff". Oh what basis is this claim made?

User:Lawrencekhoo claims that because Becker's statement "has not been commented on by reliable sources" it is thus "not notable". Since when does the pronouncement of a Nobel Prize winner need to be "commented on by reliable sources" to become notable?

User:Lawrencekhoo makes a number of pronouncements, above, that presumably derive from Wikipedia policies, but do not reference these policies. These pronouncements would be better addressable and more authoritative were they to cite the Wikipedia policies, whence presumably, they derive.

Deicas (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

challenged living wage laws? the source says he supports living wage?

challenged minimum wage and living wage laws, Darkstar1st (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Krugman on minimum wage

Here is what Krugman wrote in his book review of Living Wage: What It Is and Why We Need It:

So what are the effects of increasing minimum wages? Any Econ 101 student can tell you the answer: The higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. ... David Card and Alan Krueger, find that where there have been more or less controlled experiments, for example when New Jersey raised minimum wages but Pennsylvania did not, the effects of the increase on employment have been negligible or even positive. Exactly what to make of this result is a source of great dispute. Card and Krueger offered some complex theoretical rationales, but most of their colleagues are unconvinced; the centrist view is probably that minimum wages do, in fact, reduce employment, but that the effects are small and swamped by other forces.

What is remarkable, however, is how this rather iffy result has been seized upon by some liberals as a rationale for making large minimum wage increases a core component of the liberal agenda--for arguing that living wages "can play an important role in reversing the 25-year decline in wages experienced by most working people in America" (as this book's back cover has it). Clearly these advocates very much want to believe that the price of labor--unlike that of gasoline, or Manhattan apartments--can be set based on considerations of justice, not supply and demand, without unpleasant side effects. This will to believe is obvious in this book: The authors not only take the Card-Krueger results as gospel, but advance a number of other arguments that just do not hold up under examination.

For example, the authors argue at length that because only a fraction of the work force in the firms affected by living wage proposals will be affected, total costs will be increased by only 1 or 2 percent--and that as a result, not only will there be no significant reduction in employment, but the extra cost will be absorbed out of profits rather than passed on in higher prices. This latter claim is wishful thinking of the first order: Since when do we think that cost increases are not passed on to customers if they are small enough? And the idea that employment "of the affected workers" will not suffer because the affected wages are only a small part of costs is a non sequitur at best.

It's quite clear that he's arguing against 'living wage' policies, and against relying on minimum wage laws in general. LK (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

perhaps the wording could be changed. i don't see anything above suggesting he would be for ending the min wage, or challenged law Darkstar1st (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Change already made, it states that he "queried the logic behind ...". LK (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In this paragraph, it's incumbent upon us to summarize Krugman's unambiguously pro-market views, not where he has been equivocal or indecisive. His views cited so far are from 1998. Krugman has subtly changed his position since then, from mildly skeptical of Card and Krueger to more accepting. In Conscience of a Liberal (the book), he wrote

"All the empirical evidence suggests that minimum wage increases in the range that is likely to take place do not lead to significant job losses. True, an increase in the minimum wage to, say, fifteen dollars an hour would probably cause job losses …. But that is not what is on – or even near – the table." (As quoted here: [20]).

In the same book, he wrote that Card and Krueger

"... found no evidence that minimum wage increases in the range that the United States has experiences led to job losses. Their work has been attacked because it seems to contradict Econ 101 and because it was ideologically disturbing to many. Yet it has stood up very well to repeated challenges, and new cases confirming its results keep coming in." (p.261)

Krugman has clearly made up his mind about living wage laws: he thinks they are ridiculous. But he also seems to be saying that the moderate increases proposed for the minimum wage in the U.S. would not cause job losses. His position seems to be: minimum wages possibly address a market failure but "living wage" policies are definitely counter-productively anti-market. Again, since this paragraph is a compendium his pro-market views, that puts the emphasis on his opposition to Living Wage. If you think his views on wage policy merit more nuanced treatment, well ... you can always start a new section. Yakushima (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

free trade or managed trade?

calling nafta free trade is as misleading as calling the patriot act patriotic. why would one need a rulebook the size a dishwasher to trade freely with another? Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments.

advocated a surcharge on Chinese imports

Krugman advocating a return to self-destructive protectionism Darkstar1st (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Source: Former speechwriter for G.W. Bush:he was correct

Quote: "When a former former speechwriter for George W. Bush says nice things about Paul Krugman it's worth taking notice. Krugman was one of Bush's toughest critics; to suggest that he was correct in his savage evisceration of Bush's economic policies is apostasy of the highest order."

• • "Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.117.149 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
• Bush speechwriter: Krugman was right salon.com Friday, Aug 5, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.117.149 (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

New Criticism section

In my opinion the elaborate Criticism section newly added by an SPA does not present the criticism from an appropriately neutral point of view. From the way the text is phrased, it is clear that the author agrees with the criticism. If one writes, for example, "X discovered that Y lied" (instead of "X stated that Y lied"), this implies that the author is of the opinion that Y did indeed lie. Much of what is presented here as criticism is presented like that. I'm also not really convinced that this criticism is all in good faith; for example, if someone is one day in favour of spending money (namely for some worthy goal) and the next day against spending money (on something frivolous), it is not fair to accuse them of flipflopping. What do others think?  --Lambiam 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this article in a while. This section is now ridiculously large and ridiculously pov. Everyone who ever said anything about Krugman gets their own pull quote. Lovely. If this article was about a conservative, the howling would be so intense we'd be at arbcom by now. Gamaliel (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of it could be used in a section that was more balanced. The Economist cites Krugman as much as it has criticized him. A Newsweek piece from 2009 describes Krugman as Obama's biggest critic on the Left. His recent comments can hardly be said to be that favorable toward the Obama administration. Many of the criticisms from the Right are hairsplitting from commentators of dubious expertise or simply polemic in nature. I would support the removal of the entire section despite some added information on the grounds that it is non-neutral and that it is better to provide less than mislead with more. Lambanog (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way there is a lot of other stuff that can be said of Krugman. One small study found him to be the most accurate pundit it tracked. His call at the time of the stimulus was that it was too small and there was a danger that if it didn't work opponents would point to it as proof that stimulus doesn't work. Joe Klein has positive comments on Krugman in Time Magazine. There's David Frum's comments in the Salon article above. None of that has been included. A laundry list detailing each accusation and commendation is going to take up too much space. Lambanog (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is "Richard Baehr" and why does he deserve a whole subsection of the criticism section? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

He is the "Chief Political Correspondent" of the conservative e-zine American Thinker. The editor who added the Criticism section apparently likes his ideas.  --Lambiam 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Without objection, I would like to remove that entire section as a NPOV violation, giving too much credence to one POV pusher. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm thinking maybe the entire criticism section should be removed as well as a BLP issue. It might be easier to start from scratch than to try to whip this mess into shape. Gamaliel (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Please be bold. Like Lambanog above, I'm even in favour of removing the whole Criticism section as it is now – without prejudice to recreation in a shorter and more balanced version that passes muster with respect to a neutral point of view.  --Lambiam 18:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sustained. Removing the whole thing might not be a bad idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that this Criticism section is more than 2.3 times the length of the sections Economic views and Political views combined. That is wildly unbalanced, giving undue weight to the criticism (even disregarding the issue of the non-neutral presentation).  --Lambiam 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start by trimming the blatant NPOV and decide after that what should be deleted as UNDUE, yes? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This all just sounds like a bunch of bias in the other direction if you ask me. This one of the most well-known and controversial people in his field, and obviously has plenty of critics, and his article goes for 8 years without a criticism section, and someone finally sits down and bangs one out and the first thing people start talking about is "let's just remove the whole thing." It's been a long time since I've been here too, but I always thought it strange that there wasn't even a section, when so many other articles have them. --Wikisian (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that the current text does not violate our neutral-point-of-view policy? Or is it the case that you agree that the section violates WP:NPOV, but advocate that it nevertheless remain?  --Lambiam 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism" is per se POV - the elements found in that section should be placed appropriately in the various sections of the current article - not dismissed entirely by any means. Without the balance using material found in that section, the article may seem to some to be more hagiographic than is proper for an encyclopedia article. See WP:PIECE for one view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue I brought up is not that the criticism reported on is POV, but that Wikipedia's report on that criticism does not take a neutral point of view, but instead presents this in a way that appears to imply that Wikipedia agrees with the criticism. Moreover, the amount of text devoted to it totally overwhelms the presentation of Krugman's views, which also violates our policy.  --Lambiam 17:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The solution is not deletion of the section, but of incorporating all notable elements thereof in the main body of the article. No one expects Wikipedia to be taking sides - but elimination of the section is most certainly "taking sides." Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No one is, I think, suggesting a permanent deletion. But BLP requires immediate action and it can be replaced with a more appropriate section once we fashion one. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of it may be salvageable but the section is grossly unbalanced and many of the comments do not give clear attribution to the parties making them and their biases. Half of the comments are from basically unknown commentators who subscribe to the Austrian school of economic thought which isn't mainstream and which Krugman in the past has derided. [21]. Their comments could be summarized in a couple of sentences; the context of their accusations if included should also be made clear. Considerable editorializing going on as well and use of the word "documents" to describe contentions usually made in an opinion piece of a newsletter aimed at a narrow audience. Lambanog (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this "is not that the criticism reported on is POV, but that Wikipedia's report on that criticism does not take a neutral point of view" is all about.  That's not what you said when you deleted it.  The reasoning given there was basically that Krugman is bound to attract criticism from people who disagree with him.  And the entire section was deleted.

And this notion that "we should just delete the whole thing now and make a criticism section when we get around to fashioning a better one" baffles me. That is not how Wikipedia works. And when exactly were you planning on fashioning such a section? As I said earlier, this article has been around for almost a decade and this is the first appearance of a criticism section (at least as far as I can tell. Of course I could be wrong, and previous one(s) may have been completely removed under the same weak reasoning).

Again this all just smells very fishy to me. I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know much about Krugman or economics for that matter. Like I said I hadn't been here in a while. The last time I looked at this article I think I was writing a paper for a class or looking up something from a news article, but I remember thinking it strange that so many other entries on wikipedia had a criticism section and this one didn't, when even I had heard criticism about Krugman and didn't even know who a lot of these other people even were. That's why all this talk is so surprising to me. Maybe it's a political thing, but it just seems like anytime anything with any relation to politics gets criticized it's like the normal rules of Wikipedia don't apply and people are so willing to adopt some new way of dealing with things. --Wikisian (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, when living people are involved, that is exactly how Wikipedia works. Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please cite where it says that? --Wikisian (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored drasticaly shortened criticisms section backed up with mainly mainstream sources, while eliminating many criticisms from conservatives. What is still maybe missing are criticsms from the other liberals. -- Vision Thing -- 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed comments from sources not clearly delineated or established. The trio of George Mason University professors and the Cafe Hayek duo are not notable enough individually to merit individual comments, maybe under the attribution Austrian school some of their views may be included; bloggers known for nothing else except maintaining anti-Krugman blogs are not notable enough period with mention of them here serving to be promotional. Lambanog (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation

This paragraph as originally written is a serious BLP violation:

When Republican Senator Jon Kyl stated that unemployment relief doesn't create new jobs and in fact is a disincentive for unemployed individuals to seek new work, Krugman called it a "bizarre point of view" and stated that "What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says [...] But that's not how Republicans see it". James Taranto of the WSJ used a passage from Krugman's Macroeconomics textbook which states: "The drawback to [unemployment benefits] is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job" to claim that Krugman is "the bitter partisan columnist."

What Krugman called 'bizarre' was not the argument that unemployment relief is a disincentive for unemployed individuals to seek new work, but rather, the view that "what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs". The original misquotes Krugman to falsely criticize him, and exposes us to a lawsuit for defamation. To whomever first wrote that paragraph, please check the original source before unthinkingly repeating a partisan accusation. Repeating false defamation of living persons is a serious BLP violation. Please be more careful in the future. LK (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Partisanship sub-section

The sub-section titled Partisanship seems highly partisan, and the partisan identity of some quoted critics is not stated. For example, a libertarian critic should be identified as such. This failure seems to defeat the purpose of a section on Krugman's partisanship, and to violate the NPOV policy, and possibly the BLP policy?

Krugman is most certainly a liberal partisan, but not a partisan of the Democratic party. The quotes criticizing Krugman as partisan in the party-loyalty sense are simply false. For example, the opening quote from a 2003 Economist article fails to note not only that the Economist routinely takes partisan positions itself, but that radical economic policies (incl a return to deficit spending via the Bush tax cuts) were being implemented by a Republican administration. Krugman was a scathing critic of the Republican president Bush, but based on specific policies rather than party politics. He has also been a persistent critic of the Democratic president Obama, again based on specific policies, since before Obama became president.

So even though he is an outspoken liberal, the quotes about Krugman being a party partisan are false, and the insinuations to that effect are misleading. Some of the points are laughable, as this example from illustrates: "On Krugman's "prophecy of doom" following the 2010 election, Will Wilkinson, in The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog, called it a "baseless partisan freakout"." That's just an unsubstantiated slur, quoted for its defamatory value.

Looking it up, Krugman's "prophecy of doom", the "baseless partisan freakout" which opens Wilkinson's article, is this: "This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness." Less than a year later, Krugman's prediction appears to be a reasonable analysis rather than a baseless partisan freakout. He was not even being hyperbolic: If what we are seeing as a result of the Tea Party influence and success in the 2010 election, including the recent debt-ceiling fiasco, are not "political chaos and economic weakness" then the words have no meaning. Today, a great many people of all political persuasions are suggesting that these problems are at least in part attributable to the radical new members of Congress, and that the problems will last a long time.

Krugman is clearly and unabashedly partisan in the sense of being a liberal. He named his blog and one of his books The Conscience of a Liberal. He is also one of the most systematically demonized figures in American politics today, which is one definition of controversial, and that needs to be presented as well. But he is clearly not a partisan in terms of political party affiliation or support. I don't know if this is a helpful criticism, but I was just reading some economics pages and ended up on this one, and that sub-section of it reads like "fair and balanced" "teach the controversy" muddying of the waters than like NPOV.

Michael Hurst (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all the above. Proper attribution of beliefs of those making criticism remains a problem. The section has already been worked on from the originally added version but much work remains. Reverting it all remains in my view a reasonable action to take since some of the criticism is already dated—Posner for example pretty much said he went on to read Keynes and agrees Keynes's General Theory is an important work—but in the spirit of accommodating other points of view I think the opportunity for those wanting to add the section has been provided. Lambanog (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journal?

The legitimacy of Econ Journal Watch has been challenged, in particular the legitimacy of the claim that it is in fact a peer reviewed journal. According to Wikipedia "peer review" in this context is:

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal. The work may be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries.

The procedure for this is described here. Anyone who challenges the notion of Econ Journal Watch being a peer reviewed journal should demonstrate how it fails to meet the relevant criteria. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on you to show that your edits are justified. WP:SCHOLARSHIP has the guidelines on this issue. In any case, even if Econ Journal Watch is peer reviewed, we do not preface peer-reviewed journals with the words 'peer reviewed'. E.g. we do not say Krugman published his paper XXX in the peer-reviewed Quarterly Journal of Economics.

As for the particular article that you want to include, I seem to remember that we've had a discussion on this issue before, and consensus was that it was a not well-researched piece written by an undergraduate out to prove a partisan point, which Daniel B. Klein published because he has a partisan bias against Krugman. LK (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

LK, you delete a source that details Krugman's change of position of deficits [22] and then you insert a tag asking for clarification of his position on deficits.[23] You first claimed that Econ Journal Watch was not a peer reviewed journal and listed that as a reason for his removal [24] and now after it was established that it is indeed peer reviewed you are claiming that it is not well-researched. You have even tried to change criteria for notability of academic journals [25] but got reverted by uninvolved user [26]. It seems like you are clutching to every straw argument that you can think of. -- Vision Thing -- 19:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong VisionThing, I added the tags requesting for clarification for reasons that should be quite clear. LK is also further correct in stating that inclusion of the journal in question is still subject to editor discretion. This article is supposed to be a representative presentation and overview of Krugman. Given the voluminous amount of material written about him only the higher quality sources need be provided any space and they should be provided in proportion to what is out there. A quick look at many of the better articles being referenced show there what can be seen as even-handedness in presentation but the extracts being selected are not representative of those articles as a whole. There is clearly POV pushing going on. Lambanog (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Vision Thing. You have made it quite clear you have your own bias in favor of Krugman. As I quoted before "all material published [in Econ Journal Watch] is externally refereed as well as accepted by two editors". If you are claiming that does not equate to being "peer-reviewed" you must demonstrate why, which would of course include giving some sort of specific criteria for determining that status. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow this has gotten pretty involved. I left this for a while, but coming back now it doesn't look like things have really improved. I must say LK it does appear you seem to have your own bias in favor of Krugman, even if some of these others have their own against him. Either way, in this case of attempting to include critiques of Krugman, their bias is irrelevant...as the material that is being submitted is generally meeting of WP criteria for inclusion. It is your bias of attempting to keep out non-OR, verifiable, and neutral (as far as WP defines it for this kind of case) information simply because it reflects poorly on the subject of the article that is damaging to the encyclopedia.

It looks to me that Econ Journal Watch is in fact a peer reviewed journal. Do you have a link to some official criteria that it doesn't match up to? Or do you have proof that what has been said about the journal's publishing policy is not true? If not, I do not see how you can maintain this argument. --Wikisian (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its inclusion isn't mandatory. Econ Journal Watch is suspect in its self-proclaimed peer review status as is its neutrality and notability. Right-wing criticism can of course be included but it is already being given too much space and is unrepresentative of all opinions on Krugman. Unless it is balanced out with other material which is out there—it's not as if there isn't—the article will tilt into a POV viewpoint. Lambanog (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the claim of peer review does not prove peer review. To prove that a journal is peer reviewed, an independent reliable source must attest to this. In any case, I don't see how a paper by an undergraduate student with an axe to grind, published in an online journal by an editor who is a known critic of Krugman, is in anyway reliable or notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article on Krugman. I suggest floating the inclusion of this paper at BLP/N to see what the people there think. LK (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) one of the criteria under which the journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential if it has an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports. Econ Journal Watch has an impact factor. -- Vision Thing -- 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Lawrencekhoo: "Its inclusion isn't mandatory."

This is what amounts to an argument? You censor the Wikipedia citing "Its inclusion isn't mandatory"? Neither is the article on Paul Krugman. Or anyone else for that matter. And the paper could have been written by a 12 year old Doogie Howser, that doesn't change the fact that it was subject to outside refereeing and ultimately published under the acceptance of at least two editors. According to Wikipedia the journal is considered notable:

“ If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article. [...]

1. The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.[...]

The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the journal is included in the major indexing services in its field. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus.

For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1.

”

Econ Journal Watch is abstracted and indexed in the Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, EconLit, Journal of Economic Literature, and Research Papers in Economics. And according to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2010 impact factor of 0.920.

The journal is notable and reliable enough to warrant its own page on Wikipedia, and you're claiming it's not notable enough to include as a citation. Please provide something else other than baseless claims of "axes to grind" or refrain from removing the text from the article. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There are more detailed sources on Krugman from the more notable Time, Newsweek, and NYMag for starters that are not singled out and given their own paragraph. Even the paragraph given to The Economist is not wholly representative of their coverage on Krugman. There is a very notable slant to the recent additions being pushed. Lambanog (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In the last edit only one sentence was given to the study. Also, are you arguing that only sources that should be used in this article are mainstream newspapers? -- Vision Thing -- 22:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No criticism section?

Why doesn't this article have a criticism section? I could find link after link contradicting claims he's made in his columns on just the current situation in Wisconsin. If someone is willing to help me write it, I'll provide links aplenty. PokeHomsar (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism has at least two different possible meanings. One of those would be inherently POV. There are better more neutral section headings under which criticism can be supplied. Lambanog (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at all the people with criticism sections. Whatever your opinion, this man does have a viewpoint and, thus, makes mistakes from time to time because everyone can be blinded by their ideology. PokeHomsar (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your bias is showing. The point of including criticism in an encyclopedia article is to inform the reader of what the subject of the article is criticized for. It is not to prove the subject's viewpoints are mistaken or that they are blinded by their ideology or even to present the viewpoints of others. The topic is Paul Krugman, his life, work, and views. A summary of the most commonly made criticisms of him is appropriate; adjudicating their merit is not. Equally inappropriate would be a chapter and verse round-up of everything unkind ever said by anyone prominent. The point is to give the information about the subject (in this case Krugman), not to dish or muckrake or debate him. TheCormac (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Milton Friedman has a decently sized criticism section including a whole paragraph on some random statement Krugman made about his beliefs in general that was not part of some greater criticism movement against him yet krugman has NO criticism section. Why not a Friedman Criticism of Krugman at least? --76.102.188.95 (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do find Friedman's criticism of Krugman, I think it will make a good addition to the article. Also, any other serious criticisms (not off-the-cuff remarks) from other Nobel prize winners or other economists of high-standing would be appropriate. LK (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Winner Friedrich Hayek has some good general critiques of Keynesian theory as well...--  Novus  Orator  05:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Such would not be appropriate here, as that would make this article into a coatrack. All articles referenced should directly address the subject of this article. LK (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Milton Friedman has a decently sized criticism section including a whole paragraph on some random statement Krugman made about his beliefs in general that was not part of some greater criticism movement against him yet krugman has NO criticism section. Why not a Friedman Criticism of Krugman at least? <-- Yes please, get it up 82.143.250.169 (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

proposing wage cuts as a solution to unemployment is a totally counterproductive idea

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/would-cutting-the-minimum-wage-raise-employment/

are we sure Krugman is a Keynesian?

to boost employment, real wages had to go down, Keynes

proposing wage cuts as a solution to unemployment is a totally counterproductive idea, Krugman Darkstar1st (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Article you present addresses a specific highly irregular situation not a general standard one. Context matters. An alternative link to the ref cited is this one: [27]. Lambanog (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

could you paste the exact text you feel sums "challenging the living wage laws" here? i cant find anything specific, mostly the article is about krugmans support of income redistribution. in the mean time, could we at least delete the part about him challenging the minimum wage laws? maybe he has changed his position on the issue? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

From the reference:

But in any case there is a fundamental flaw in the argument: Surely the benefits of low turnover and high morale in your work force come not from paying a high wage, but from paying a high wage "compared with other companies" -- and that is precisely what mandating an increase in the minimum wage for all companies cannot accomplish. What makes this an odd oversight is that the book contains a lengthy and rather well-done critique of attempts by local governments to create jobs through investment incentives, arguing that they mainly end up in a zero-sum poaching war; how could the authors have failed to notice the parallel?

Comparing the argument in the post you provided he seems consistent in his logic. My interpretation of his argument is that only if there is relative improvement against a baseline is there an effect but if the whole baseline is moved the effect is defeated. Lambanog (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

so would it be ok to remove the part about challenging minimum wage law? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

on a different note, which "living wage" law did he challenge. i can find any on the books in any country? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be challenging minimum wage and living wage laws as a concept in general. I do not see why the statement and source should be removed. Maybe you might want to add more context with other sources and references and say something along the lines of in this situation he said something else but a statement supported with a good reference should not be removed without good reason. Lambanog (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

in what context does proposing wage cuts as a solution to unemployment is a totally counterproductive idea mean challenging minimum wage law? what/where is a living wage law, how can one challenge what does not exist? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read the two referenced articles being discussed on their own independently. Please understand the two different contexts of the two discussions and do not conflate the two. One is in the context of ceteris paribus, the other a liquidity trap. A theoretical idea exists and can be discussed even if it does not yet exist in the law books in the manner you are choosing to define it. The foregoing should be understandable with a little reading and comprehension. Lambanog (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

all other things being equal, i understand clearly that krugman thinks wage cuts would not help unemployment, Keynes clearly does.

what does lowering interest rates or increasing money supply have to do with lower wages? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

An employer could be enticed to hire by providing them with more money to hire (increasing the monetary supply). If the employer still doesn't want to hire, however, despite having the money on hand, the argument that lowering wages will induce hiring (the flip side of the same coin) is less convincing. Lambanog (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

we may have a different understanding of liquidity trap, if the government increases the money supply, wouldn't the employers cost rise at the same rate? he could pay the employee more, charge more and pay more for materials. the worker would earn more, pay more for gas and housing. i think it nonsensical to assume debasing the currency will increase employment. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

flipside, if the employer lowered wages, he could hire more people for the same payroll, thus decrease unemployment. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically yes employers could hire more, but the same holds by increasing the money supply. Increasing the money supply, however, does not seem to be doing what is expected of it, which raises the question: why should lowering wages do better? As for costs rising that would happen only if demand exceeds supply. The economy is flirting with a liquidity trap scenario. Different dynamics are at work. The danger is a deflationary spiral. If the idea establishes itself that it's better to keep holding off hiring or buying because it will be cheaper tomorrow the economy will stall. Japan is one possible outcome but, as unappealing as that is, an even less appetizing outcome is the Great Depression. Lambanog (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

proposing wage cuts as a solution to unemployment is a totally counterproductive idea, continued

to boost employment, real wages had to go down, Keynes

proposing wage cuts as a solution to unemployment is a totally counterproductive idea, Krugman

Lambanog, i understand you to believe the two statements above are not in conflict. if so, could you clarify why you believe such? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not know the context in which Keynes made his comments; it may well be they are in conflict on this point. Keynes was advocating a revolutionary largely untested paradigm to address the shortcomings of economic theory at the time of the Great Depression, and while providing valuable insight, not all of it is accepted even by Keynesian adherents. I wonder how many people realize that the ideas being advocated contrary to Keynesianism are the Classical economics that were found wanting back then? But this discussion is possibly getting away from the purpose of these talk pages. Lambanog (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

you are suggesting there are beliefs held by Keynesians not held by Keynes, what is your source? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

reducing wages would at best do nothing for employment; more likely it would actually be contractionary., krugman :::::http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/would-cutting-the-minimum-wage-raise-employment/ Darkstar1st (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Which version of Keynes are you referring to? The young Keynes? The middle-aged Keynes? The old Keynes? The Keynes who was trying to educate the world about his theory—or the Keynes who was trying to dispel the misinterpretations of his theory? Apparently you aren't familiar with the various Keynesians such as the Post-Keynesians, Cambridge Keynesians, Neo-Keynesians, and New Keynesians. Please define your terms better. But if you don't know what you are talking about, it is hard to go over everything and get you up to speed. Also this isn't the correct venue for that so you'll have to forgive me if I take a pass on answering your questions unrelated to the article. Lambanog (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

which version is commonly known as "Keynesian" as it appears under krugmans name? are you suggesting we change it to post-keynesian, or some other qualifier? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The heart of the 'new Keynesian' view rests on microeconomic models that indicate that nominal wages and prices are "sticky," i.e., nominal wages and prices do not change easily or quickly with changes in supply and demand, so that quantity adjustment prevails. According to economist Paul Krugman, while I regard the evidence for such stickiness as overwhelming, the assumption of at least temporarily rigid nominal prices is one of those things that works beautifully in practice but very badly in theory. doesn't sound like he is a "new-Keynesian" Darkstar1st (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And in fact, when I noticed he was described as "New Keynesian", I was a little shocked: how could anyone have gotten that impression? He's done some work in that vein, but has also expressed a bit of contempt for it too. So I changed it to Keynesian, plain and simple. He's clearly at best ambivalent about New Keynesianism (see his Nobel lecture [28] where he smacks New Keynesianism twice, then describes some collaboration with Eggertsson as an attempt to put debt into a New Keynesian framework.) Yakushima (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Yakushima. Krugman should be classified as a new trade theorist, not as a New Keynesian. His policy prescriptions are often Keynesian, in the old sense of the word. His modeling methods are not New Keynesian, and he did not make major contributions to that field. Therefore I have often argued that he should not be included in the list of New Keynesians. More info on classifications: Template_talk:Keynesians. Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

agreed, and certainly shocking, given the amount of people following this article. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

HEY - EVERYBODY ON THIS SUBHEAD, please read the following notice posted at the top of this talk page: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. TheCormac (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

no controversy in the lead?

WP:LEAD: It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [emphasis added]

is there support for adding text to the lead about his most notable controversies? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

For a disagreement to be considered a controversy, there has to be (or have been) a back-and-forth; and for a controversy to be prominent, it has to be, at the very least, notable. So it can only be considered prominent if several secondary sources have reported on it in depth. If you know of such prominent controversies, you can of course report on them in the article, and then also mention them in the lead. But I think they should only be mentioned in the lead if they are dealt with in the body of the article.  --Lambiam 18:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Those all look like WP:ELNO sources to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

good point, perhaps paul krugman is not controversial? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We already have a properly referenced claim in the text about him being "described as the most controversial economist in his generation". That could be appropriate for the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

true. i get the impression the policy wants us to mention a specific controversy. i am having a difficult time getting his more well known controversy approved for the lead, odd given he is the most controversial economist alive. perhaps this article is suffering from pov editing? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversial mainly from a political perspective which skews the criticism. Statement is misleading in that it suggests he is controversial as an economist when he is more controversial as a political commentator. Lambanog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, are you aware of any paul krugman controversy, political or other suitable for the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Something that would go beyond partisan political gimmickry? Nothing springs to mind immediately that stands out from the usual political noise he attracts. Perhaps that as a pundit his staunch democratic support has made him an object of criticism for Republicans. Lambanog (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you should not edit the article of "the most controversial economist in his generation", if you are unable to cite a controversy? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are interested in controversies for the sake of controversies maybe you should read gossip columns, that's what they're for. You might find Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan interesting. Lambanog (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

i am only interested in correcting the article to abide by wp:lead, which requires notable controversy to be included. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Lambanog, do you have other suggestion? Controversies should be summarized somehow. 17:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Nearly all controversies I see associated with Krugman fall into a political partisan divide. As I suggested above, saying that he is known to lean towards the left of the political spectrum and partisan in his comments as a political pundit attracts criticism from the Right pretty much covers it unless you can point to one where that isn't an issue. I do not think insisting on controversies in the lead is an accurate portrayal of the man. He isn't notable for controversies so much as he is notable thus controversies are drawn to him. Lambanog (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think insisting on controversies in the lead is an accurate portrayal of the man, it is WP:LEAD who insisted on the inclusion, your thoughts are immaterial. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

printing money controversy

In front of Krugman, Ferguson said, “If Keynes was here, I wish he were, he would say ‘don’t listen to this vulgar Keynesian with this remedy of printing money.” http://contender.egloos.com/2693186 Darkstar1st (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

deficit controversy

"To put it in analogy, MMT looks at a fire and notices that firemen are the most effective method to combat the fire. By comparison, the classical explanators are those who notice that whenever there is a fire, there always seems to be a lot of firemen. So hence, the best way to decrease the number of fires is to decrease the number of firemen." http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2011/03/krugman-v-mmt-continued.html Darkstar1st (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the above look like Krugman centered controversies as much as ideological differences. Neither do the commentators referenced seem notable. Lambanog (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, maybe more so, simply different economic schools of thought. I'd say, though, that Niall Ferguson is notable, but the referenced Contender blog is not a reliable source. The issue is presented better (referencing reliable sources) at Niall Ferguson#Exchange with Krugman.  --Lambiam 08:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

inefficient markets, irrational investor controversy

"Free markets are the worst system ever devised -- except for all of the others.", John Cochrane

"Paul's Keynesian economics requires that people make plans to consume more, invest more, and pay more taxes with the same income." Darkstar1st (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/09/whats-wrong-with-macroeconomics.html several different shades of this controversy between the fresh and saltwater economist. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

== no controversy in the lead, still?

the most controversial economist of a generation, yet each time we add a controversy to the lede it is edited out. i will restore an earlier controversy, if it is reverted again, i will ask the page be locked for edit warring. Darkstar1st (talk)

Lead

I have added a brief summary of controversies with additional sources [29]. It could be longer but I don't know if that would be appropriate. -- Vision Thing -- 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless political direction criticism is coming from is identified I will oppose inclusion of such addition. Lambanog (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is really summary as opposed to just highlighting a generic criticism made by a couple of obscure critics. Gamaliel (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The comments made in the referenced articles are stretched in the proposed addition to come up with a dubious statement. Phrasing is questionable "not based on proper economic reasoning". The reasoning is fine. It is the support for it that isn't in the small number of cases it might be an issue and it is debatable. Context of criticism is important and not given (Krugman's polarizing effect as a pundit). Without that, criticism in the lead will be undue. Lambanog (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, these critics are:

• Clive Crook - a senior editor of The Atlantic, a columnist for National Journal, and a commentator for the Financial Times [30]
• The Economist - generally regarded as one of the world’s preeminent journals of its kind [31]
• John H. Cochrane - Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business where among other seminars he teaches Applied Macroeconomics. He has also been Editor of the Journal of Political Economy, and associate editor of several journals including the Journal of Monetary Economics, Journal of Business, and Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. [32]

These sources are not "obscure" under any relevant criteria. -- Vision Thing -- 19:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to weigh in on this issue. I think fundamentally this edit satisfies WP:DUE; I hear the criticism that's pointed out in Vision Thing's edit all the time. I'm afraid I don't understand Lambanog's objection. Is it WP:WEASEL?--Dark Charles (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE and WP:Weasel. Undue because it is both partisan criticism—I do not think left leaning observers would agree in general with the statement—and because if surveying his work as a whole it is less significant than what would find in someone else in the same role. Those accusing of Krugman stretching the truth are also usually stretching the truth themselves. Context is important. Pundits are paid to say and to have an opinion on things. By the very nature of the job there is ample opportunity to find stuff to criticize. Among pundits Krugman's record is very good; he has been found by one study to be the most accurate pundit. The most questionable economic views he has expressed that I am aware of are defensible if not popular and his comments on them would not be representative of the greater body of his work. Partisanship may be an appropriate criticism; but if included in the lead it should balanced with the approbation he also engenders to keep the lead neutral. Lambanog (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever eventually ends up in the lead, it should not have disproprotionate weight. We have to keep in mind what he is notable for and write accordingly. It should also summarize his main critics fairly, without engaging in original research. LK (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the things he is famous for is his partisanship. The lead doesn't convey that and it should. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the other things he is famous for is that he is accurate and brilliant. The lead should say that too if the partisanship criticism is included. Lambanog (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see what the lead says about Krugman's brilliance: professor at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at LSE, Nobel Prize winner, 15th most widely cited economist in the world, published 20 books, 200 scholarly articles and 750 columns. Now let's see what the lead says about Krugman's partisanship: 0. -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It says he considers himself a liberal, writes for the New York Times and has a blog called "The Conscience of a Liberal". It's clear where his political sympathies are. Lambanog (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem is that criticism is not that he is a liberal, but that he puts his political belifs before economics, in the ends justify the means sort of way. -- Vision Thing -- 19:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is already going into arguable territory, as much as saying Krugman was the most prescient and notable pundit during George W. Bush's presidency. Both contentions can likely be sourced to someone, but there is room for debate. The longstanding lead simply states the facts and keeps the interpretation to a minimum and is therefore more neutral for it. Lambanog (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying that he is controversial and sometimes accused of making politically convenient arguments is also stating a fact. -- Vision Thing -- 19:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The degree is debatable. One can say that on the contrary he isn't that controversial at all and it is just his partisan opponents making mountains out of molehills when they criticize him and that there is little notably controversial in his statements and positions if they were to be said by someone else. Lambanog (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That is your personal view, but those criticisms are well sourced and Wikipedia policy requires for the lead to be a summary of most important aspects of the article - including controversies. -- Vision Thing -- 19:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Krugman is not a Liberal...he is a Progressive or if you prefer a Neo-Marxist...there is a vast difference in the Liberal Theory of Political Science and that of Progressive/Marxists/Neo-Marxist Theory...of which the later has failed repeatively...sugar coating a person of such, in many cases less than educated opinion is not adding to a so called educational site...Krugman benefits from george Soros from his attachment to "Truthout.org" on other far LEft radical Marxsit organizations...it is intellectually dishonest to call this Marxist/Neo-Marxist partisan anything but…just more fluff from people with like thinking…how many times has Marxism worked again…oh yeah never…love C. Brook Johnson, BA, MS, PhD Candidate Political Science… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.22.214 (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Krugman's partisanship is well noted by many mainstream sources. For example:

• The Economist: "perhaps the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship" "Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory" [33]

• Jennifer Rubin: "Even among liberal commentators, Krugman stands out as an embarrassing example of flimsy argumentation and unreasoned partisanship." [34]

• Michael Tomasky: "Many liberals would name Paul Krugman of The New York Times as perhaps the most consistent and courageous—and unapologetic—liberal partisan in American journalism." [35]

• Richard Posner: "an unabashed Democratic partisan" [36]

• Daniel Okrent: "[Krugman has] the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults."[37]

• Clive Crook: "If you wish to know what Mr Krugman thinks on any policy question, do not read his scholarly writings; see which policies are advocated by the progressive wing of the Democratic party. Mr Krugman agrees with liberal Democrats about most things, and for the rest gives as much cover as the discipline of economics can provide – which, given its scientific limitations, is plenty. He does this even on matters where, if his scholarly work is any guide, the economics is firmly against his allies." [38]

• Edward Prescott:"[Krugman] doesn't command respect in the profession" [39]

• Robert Barro "He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist." [40]

Question is what is the best way to summarize these criticisms for the lead. My suggestion was "[Krugman] is sometimes accused of making politically convenient arguments that are not based on proper economic reasoning" but that perhaps doesn't go deep enough. -- Vision Thing -- 16:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the version as here "Critics have said that he has made economic arguments motivated by his politically liberal views." is fine. Yes, "critics have said" is wp:weasel, but if it's elaborated in the main article, and specific references are provided, that eliminates the weasel-problem in my mind. There might be a more-optimal phrasing, but this certainly doesn't seem bad. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if those against would come here and discuss rather than simply delete it under what appears to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rational. Arzel (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for those that don't like it to come and discuss. Arzel (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

There is some discussion below at BLP/N. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly re-inserting the material while ignoring objections and making flip accusations against opposing editors might not be the best way to promote discussion. Seems more likely to stoke the flames of an edit war already well underway. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And objections are...? -- Vision Thing -- 19:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Already stated; exaggerating and misrepresenting the source, for starters. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions to guide discussion.

• Dispute on this subject is pitched enough that proper resolution might require a comprehensive assessment of the criticism/controversy section itself. Ordinarily, in absence of dispute, judgments about notability and weight seem to be made informally, sometimes by a quick editor sampling of what is out there on the Internets. But where we're talking about the hotly disputed lead-paragraph treatment of the controversy section of a major public figure who is also an academic, it may be more appropriate to insist on a more rigorous assessment which relies on what high-quality reliable sources have said about the balance of opinion. This, I think, is an approach already suggested by Wikidemon and fundamentally supported by the aim of NPOV.
• To the extent that an acceptable summary of mainstream academic (and other) opinion about Krugman, sourced as suggested above, could be objected to because it fails to reflect something that appears in the "Criticism" section, it may be that the more appropriate course is to eliminate that material from the article rather than indulging in our own modification of any "standard" view that actually exists.
• On a similar note (but deserving of its own bullet point) it is important to distinguish between different types of criticism and grounds for criticism. It seems natural to expect that an economist's political views may be colored, or not, by his economic views, and vice versa. Accusing an economist of taking partisan positions in columns he writes on political topics that involve economic discussion may not be the same as accusing an economist of basing his fundamental economic views on a political bias and expressing those inherently skewed views in columns he writes on political topics that involve economic discussion — even if all his columns are on political topics and involve economic discussion. To the extent that any noteworthy commentary clearly makes such distinctions, and to the extent a range of noteworthy criticism varies in that regard, these distinctions should not be lost to a misleading oversimplification.

Food for thought? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I still hold out hope for a bit more D and a bit less R in our BRD, but to try to appease the other side and stop further back-and-forth reverts I've taken a stab at a version that states the criticism strongly without exaggerating it or misrepresenting it. At the same time, it's now much worse off from the point of view of WP:SUMMARY. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the way I've reflected what the Economist source says? I'm still not certain it should go in the lead, and without attribution, but perhaps this is an acceptable WP:WRONG version for now -- assuming, that is, that a discussion proceeds. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that current version is good enough. I have removed "recent" because these kind of criticisms are at least 8 years old and I have also shortened it a bit. -- Vision Thing -- 19:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's absurd OR, friend. If you prefer, we could say that a 2003 article in the Economist indicated that some critics at the time had complained about Krugman's recent writing. Simply removing "recent" introduces a major, major distortion of the source. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First, you can not call criticism from 2003 recent. If anything is distorting, it is that. Second, there are criticisms from other people who make same argument as The Economist so putting a specific year is also distorting. Remember that this sentence should be a summary of different critiques. -- Vision Thing -- 19:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The 2003 economist article called it recent. The article was careful not to say that the criticism is about all his work. Eliminating the word "recent" is OR and results in misleading misrepresentation of the source. This is completely unacceptable. And, the Economist article is not summarizing material that's in the article; hence my suggestion that it should not go in the lead to begin with if the material is worded in this way. We certainly don't reword an article to say things it never said and give the impression that it's summarizing views it was not in fact summarizing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Introducing word "recent" misrepresents the source, because a reader of your sentence will think that it is referring to a recent period (2011) not 2003 and earlier. -- Vision Thing -- 20:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My first comment in response to you addressed this objection. "If you prefer, we could say that a 2003 article in the Economist indicated that some critics at the time had complained about Krugman's recent writing." This is obviously a far superior alternative to changing what the source says to imply that the criticism was vastly more far-reaching than the article actually said it was. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Too much back and forth

There's been too much back and forth for a heavily trafficked BLP. People, we have to stop. Clearly the recent changes are highly contentious. I suggest a freeze and a hashing out of consensus here before future changes. The current version, which is an old version of the page, before the recent contentious changes, seems an appropriate place to pause.

I propose either a freeze or 1RR until we have consensus about these issues. People, do not add to the page unless you're fairly sure your addition won't be reverted. Don't re-add something if your addition has been reverted.

--LK (talk) 04:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This is utter madness. You have been fighting any changes that are even remotely critical of Krugman from the start, constantly attempting to censor or edit out completely anything that might reflect poorly on Krugman. And now (for the second time) you are attempting to remove all critical material and essentially freeze the article from further addition. This is a blatant attempt at censorship and is against what the Wikipedia is about. You are not trying to make the encyclopedia better. You are trying to make sure it only says what you want it to say. You don't mean "we" should stop...you mean anyone adding any criticism of Krugman should stop...regardless of how legitimate and appropriate the criticism is.

It was asked earlier this year why this article doesn't have a criticism section. I think the answer is obvious. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 11:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You keep on mis-attributing words and actions to me, please check and provide a diff before making any such claims. Remember personal criticisms are personal attacks. Comment on content and edits, never about another editor.

Regardless of what I may have or have not edited before, the fact remains, this is a BLP. As such, any controversial contents should be removed until there is consensus that it is NPV, balanced and properly sourced. This is how BLPs work on wikipedia. Please respect our policies. LK (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason the Barack Obama and Sarah Palin articles do not have one. Criticism sections are rather poor features in terms of structure for highly charged subjects as they are neutrality defying magnets. Anyone interested in neutrality I think would argue against the inclusion of such a section in this article. I am actually okay with adding a little more criticism and tried to accommodate certain views but it is clear there is a POV being pushed; the revert to a particular favored version even in the face of redundancy makes me think a stricter analysis of proposed additions is appropriate since other article considerations apparently are being ignored simply to add the material. Lambanog (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

LK, version to which you are reverting to is actuality contentious one. -- Vision Thing -- 18:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

user:Lawrencekhoo, I suggest you follow your own advice and provide a "diff" before claiming I "keep mis-attributing words and actions to you". It would also be nice to be linked to a relevant source that says "personal criticisms are personal attacks".

user:Lambanog, I find it surprising that this would have to be pointed out, but Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are not only politicians, but they are also incredibly public and highly polarized. We're talking about an economist/blogger and your comparison is the President of the United States and his Vice Presidential opponent, who is just as well-known among Americans, and raises just as much scrutiny as the President himself? You could at least pick an academic if you're going to try to play that game. And it's funny you should claim considerations are being ignored to push a POV. I'd say that's exactly what is happening here with a constant attempt to censor and shut down editing that doesn't agree with a particular bias. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Hello everyone. I'm not particularly interested in getting into this fight, but I thought it might be constructive to point out a few things about criticism in WP articles, most notably those about living people. From WP:BLPSTYLE:

Criticism ... should be included if [it] can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.

Also relavent is WP:STRUCTURE:

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

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. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

I thought this would be helpful. I'm sure everyone has seen this stuff before, but refreshers are often helpful. Best regards, --Dark Charles (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

If you consider something "Peer Reviewed" because it was reviewed by others of similar thinking, then you are wrong...Krugman has been reviewed by other that do not share his "utopian" view of Social and Economic Justice and he has been found lacking many times...things like this must come to the forfront of anyone trying to not to be biased...C. Brook Johnson... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.22.214 (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

controversial conroversies

It's pretty clear that this is the section that the back and forth has been about. I've moving it here till NPOV, balance and weight issues are addressed. LK (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Krugman's critics are notable and criticisms are well sourced. Removing criticisms and not allowing controversies to be noted until your concerns are addressed whitewashes the article and removes the incentive for you and Lambanog to seek consensus. If you think that section has NPOV issues tag it until dispute is resolved. That's what NPOV tags are for. -- Vision Thing -- 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please keep in mind our policy about BLPs. Editing against this policy is a serious violation of community norms. LK (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are having BLP concerns feel free to file a report here. -- Vision Thing -- 16:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Partisanship

In a 2003 article, The Economist noted that Krugman's critics argue that "his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument". The Economist also wrote that the vast majority of Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans and almost none criticize Democrats, making him "a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left—a thinking person's Michael Moore" On Krugman's "prophecy of doom" following the 2010 election, Will Wilkinson, in The Economist's "Democracy in America" blog, called it a "baseless partisan freakout".

Author and federal appeals court judge Richard Posner called Krugman "an unabashed Democratic partisan who often goes overboard in his hatred of the Republians [sic]." He also notes that Lyinginponds.com, which tracks partisanship among public intellectuals, has in most years from 2002–2008, ranked Krugman number 1 or number 2 among Democratic columnists for partisanship.

Liberal journalist and author Michael Tomasky in The New York Review of Books stated "Many liberals would name Paul Krugman of The New York Times as perhaps the most consistent and courageous—and unapologetic—liberal partisan in American journalism." New York Magazine called Krugman "the leading exponent of a kind of liberal purism", while liberal historian Michael Kazin has opined that Krugman’s account of the right succumbed to the Marxist flaw of false consciousness.

Economics and policy recommendations

Economist and former United States Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers has stated Krugman has a tendency to favor more extreme policy recommendations because "it’s much more interesting than agreement when you’re involved in commenting on rather than making policy."

According to Harvard professor of economics Robert Barro, Krugman "has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics" and makes arguments that are politically convenient for him. Harvard history professor Niall Ferguson expressed doubt that Krugman changes his position on fiscal deficits depending on the party in power. Ferguson also criticized Krugman for advocating fiscal stimulus in already highly indebted economy, warning that the United States will experience a Japanese-style 'lost decade'. Nobel laureate Edward Prescott has charged that Krugman "doesn't command respect in the profession", as "no respectable macroeconomist" believes that economic stimulus works.

In 2007, after Krugman berated then-Senator Barack Obama for worrying about the future of Social Security, stating Obama had been misled by "decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues", Greg Mankiw, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President G. W. Bush, responded that "Paul's interpretation seems to be based on either a faulty memory or an especially inclusive definition of what constitutes a conservative ideologue". Mankiw argued that not only did Democratic President Bill Clinton voice similar concerns, but that he was under advisement of well-known economist Edward Gramlich, whom Krugman had in the past praised as being particularly prescient.

• Major problem with the above is the unspecified leanings of Barro, Ferguson, and Prescott which are actually commented on in the referenced sources. Barro's comment is questionable considering Krugman is cited for his views on Japan's liquidity trap and consulted with governments during the Asian financial crisis, one would probably have to use an especially exclusive definition of Keynesian macroeconomics to accept his view. Prescott's anti-Keynesian stance is related as a minority view in the referenced source. The language is also vague: "makes arguments that are politically convenient for him" please stop and ask what that means; "expressed doubt that Krugman changes his position" this would seem to mean the opposite of the intent given the context. Not convinced Wilkinson is notable enough to include his views and his leanings yet again are not stated. Furthermore given what has happened since Wilkinson's comments, it could be argued that Krugman's point has been demonstrated. Lambanog (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could replace Wilkinson's comments with Jennifer Rubin's: "Even among liberal commentators, Krugman stands out as an embarrassing example of flimsy argumentation and unreasoned partisanship." WP -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if the comment was ascribed to "neoconservative Jennifer Rubin in her column Right Turn in The Washington Post", but the number of clearly partisan commentators should be limited else it will turn into a laundry list and balanced out by commentators from the rest of the political spectrum. So a representative sample should be proposed; a minority position for example should not be more represented than a majority position and a point should not be repeated ad nauseum. If conservatives believe he is partisan, saying it over and over again in conservative individuals' words is simply redundant. Choose from Posner or Rubin or with one statement cite both. Lambanog (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your suggested edit on this? -- Vision Thing -- 16:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Conservatives say..." etc? My current objection is that Posner and Rubin are basically saying the same thing. Pick between them who is more credible and use their comments or reword to a generalized statement that cannot be faulted and cite both as references. I was already trying to incorporate Posner earlier but you reverted my attempt. Lambanog (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

To label Posner as a conservative we would need a really reliable source per Wiki policy on living persons. Do you have it? -- Vision Thing -- 09:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This Money magazine article[41] says that Poser is "a libertarian conservative who has harshly criticized overzealous antitrust enforcement." Rubin's Washington Post blog about box says: FurrySings (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ABOUT JENNIFER RUBIN Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.

That seems fine. I'll go ahead and add "libertarian conservative" for Posner. -- Vision Thing -- 20:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Econ Journal & Nobel

There are two additional criticisms inclusion of which should be decided during this discussion:

• According to the study published in Econ Journal Watch Krugman was the only economist of the 17 whose statements were examined to "significantly" change his stance on the federal budget deficit for partisan reasons.

An article written by an undergraduate and published in a web journal is not notable. LK (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Some economists have raised questions whether the Swedish Academy decision to award him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was politically motivated. Peter Boettke stated "the Swedes just made perhaps the worst decision in the history of the prize today in naming Paul Krugman the 2008 award winner [...] today I would say is a sad day for economics, not a day to be celebrated." Economist Bill Anderson deemed the announcement indicative "that outright political partisanship is not a deterrent to winning." Russell Roberts of George Mason University called it "just another reminder that those of us who believe in liberty are in for a long time in the intellectual wilderness." Robert Higgs stated Krugman’s selection made a travesty of the prize and constitutes "an insult to the few excellent economists [...] who have received the prize in the past." Higgs wrote: "For economists who would like the Nobel Prize to mean something, today is a very sad day."

All Austrian economists who represent a minority position. Anderson is only notable if at all for an attack blog on Krugman. The others are barely more recognizable. None of them deserve individual recognition. Lambanog (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

They are all notable enough to have their own articles. However, maybe their views could be summarized in one or two sentences. Would that be ok with you? -- Vision Thing -- 16:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Austrian economists" I think would be acceptable. Criticism from the school or its adherents can probably be contained in a short paragraph, maybe combined with anti-Keynesian sentiments. Lambanog (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

How about: "Some economists have raised questions whether the Swedish Academy decision to award him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was politically motivated. Austrian school economist especially questioned award of the prize to Krugman arguing that it serves to promote political partisanship instead of economic scholarship."? -- Vision Thing -- 09:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

These comments should be balanced by those who praised the Nobel committee's decision. LK (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There's also the WP:WEASEL issue. I didn't check the sources... if they're OK then everything else more or less checks out. But remember the conservative presentation criterion; one can go overboard with negative comments.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

LK, do you have a suggestion for wording of positive comments? -- Vision Thing -- 20:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP/N

Somebody filed a BLP report and that's why I'm here. I've posted my thoughts on the noticeboard.[42] In short:

• Please dont' edit war
• WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, and WP:BLP all urge that you not try to force disputed / contentious negative information into the lede when others are objecting to the reliability of sources, OR, SYNTH, etc.
• However, my conclusion is that the Economist source cited in the lede and others in the body are strong enough that the lede should mention something about him having vocal critics who object to partisanship in his works - the partisanship, and criticism thereof, look to be a legitimate, important aspect of his biography.
• The criticism is that he's partisan, not that he's liberal - partisan in favor of liberal groups, nations, and causes. My recent edit left it general but some of the suggestions describe this with more specificity, which is better.
• The weaker among the sources (opinion pieces) are unneeded when we have stronger sources
• The lede is not the correct place to introduce a new source if it's not used in the body.

That's all for now. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. FurrySings (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

9/11

The column by Krugman hits the meaning of "controversial" at this point in time. Made Newser, Politico etc. Well over a million Google hits already, and growing by the minute. It is gettig a lot of play in the "9/11 conspiracy theory" sector as well. And criticism in the Village Voice, a bastion of liberals. [43]. Delaying this would sure smell bad. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree, perhaps we should work on some wording. This has been roundly criticized outside of the most ardent left. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I find this controversy extremely silly, but it exists. Would not object to inclusion if handled properly, though I suspect it would not be appropriate due to concerns of recentism. Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I was looking for just such a WP guideline as that WP:RECENT, but didn't find it. I also haven't been following or noticing the supposed controversy. To me, it seems foolish to put any emphasis on a recent blog post. The blog post will seem WP:UNDUE to me for inclusion unless the response to it has been very significant, meaning: the criticism comes from someone prominent who doesn't regularly criticize Krugman or other liberal bloggers. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I just read that [44] Village voice bit] (also a blog), and it's really strikingly blah. It more or less says that Krugman expressed himself very poorly. That's not a criticism which leads to the initial blog post being notable. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

For the Voice, it is extraordinary criticism. Meanwhile, [45] shows the substantial coverage of the blog, and of subscription cancellations to the NYT. Also note [46] and other editorial opinions thereon. Notable in spades, doubled and redoubled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rubin obviously qualifies as someone who regularly criticizes Krugman and others on the left daily. Nothing noteworthy at all there. Gamaliel (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

IDIDNTHEARTHAT? With over a hundred newspapers etc. finding the column notable - it is not notable enough for Wikipedia? The Voice did not go far enough, so it does not count. A WaPo columnist is "regularly criticizes Krugman" or the like, so she does not count? Krugman adds [47] and it is still not notable? Clearly someone told Krugman that his post did not stand well on its own. No readers' comments for an abvious reason. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

My comment was only about the significance of Rubin's commentary as a justification for including this incident. Perhaps you didn't hear the part where I said "Would not object to inclusion if handled properly". Gamaliel (talk) 23:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The edit I had suggested was a simple exposition of Krugman's exact words, if you wish to look at the edit history of the article. [48]. How would that conceivably have been an improper edit? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording: "On the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Krugman wrote a New York Times blog accusing former U.S. President George W. Bush and former New York City Rudy Giuliani of rushing "to cash in on the horror" after the attacks and describing the anniversary as "an occasion for shame". Comment provoked an outrage among conservatives." [49] [50] -- Vision Thing -- 19:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that a liberal being attacked by right-wing talk show hosts does not meet the requirements of notabllity for readers who do not spend all day watching Fox News Channel. It is what is expected. It's why you rarely see headlines like "dog bites man". TFD (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Might you show us the excess of criticism about Krugman in the article currently? Might you look at, say, Bill O'Reilly and tell us how much criticism is levelled in his article, and whether it also meets your "dog bites man" analogy and is thus not notable? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get the part about "right-wing talk show hosts"? Neither of the secondary sources mentions talk show hosts reaction. -- Vision Thing -- 21:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Brad DeLong

I have posted on BLP noticeboard regarding the latest dispute with Gamaliel. -- Vision Thing -- 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I described DeLong as liberal using the same criteria that I used to describe Posner as libertarian conservative. DeLong is not a neutral observer in this. As for these changes full quote can be provided if needed. -- Vision Thing -- 16:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be multiply reverting on this article. I suggest this is problematic behavior. I am concerned that you are using this article to denigrate a living person. This is problematic behavior, and needs to stop, immediately. Hipocrite (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that reverting without explaining reasons why are you reverting on talk is problematic behavior. -- Vision Thing -- 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think my explanation was quite clear - you were roundly told at BLPN that you were wrong, you were told here you were wrong, and you are now reverting everyone who disputes your preferred version here. I believe that your edits to this article are designed to denigrate a living person. Please seek consensus for any future changes to this article - if your behavior continues, I will seek to have you restricted from any further edits to articles about living persons. Hipocrite (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some editors on BLP thought that there is no reason to remove DeLong's claim about Krugman and in my edit I'm not removing it. That is all. If you can point to comments that say that one version is better than other, I would appreciate it. -- Vision Thing -- 18:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Every uninvolved editor on BLPN said their preferred solution was to remove the whole thing. I have implemented that consensus. Hipocrite (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Info box

I am not quite sure what the "opposed" section in the info box is for. It is not self-evident (at least to me) why it is even in the info box. Should there not then be a corresponding "support" section? It does not really even identify who is opposed to what. A reasonable (and at the same time, unreasonable) interpretation of it could be that Freshwater Economics is opposed to Paul Krugman. I think the section should be removed, it is out of place as it is now. ScamperCat ^(meow) 03:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The template documentation says "opposed refers to persons or schools whose ideas were opposed by this economist." Rostz (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

After reading the template documentation, it does make more sense. Thanks for the link. ScamperCat ^(meow) 16:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Improving The Criticim Sentence in the Lead

I'll move this to a new section to clarify the topic. My goal here is to improve the last paragraph of the lead. I think it needs to be somewhat tweaked in order to sound encyclopedic and neutral. Krugman has many critics and is highly controversial. I don't think this is really in dispute. After rereading the paragraph again, I don't think my earlier suggestions (above) improve the flow. Here is how it reads now:

He also writes on various topics ranging from income distribution to international economics. Krugman considers himself a liberal, calling one of his books and his New York Times blog "The Conscience of a Liberal". Some critics have described his recent journalistic writing as politically partisan.

Problems and suggestions:

Starting the paragraph with "He also writes" isn't great for a stand-alone paragraph. How about "He often writes"?

The second sentence sounds tacked on, and is where a majority of the neutrality dispute sits. "Some critics have described" is just weaselly. If this sentence is kept, starting it with "Critics have described" or "Critics such as (blank) have described" is better. The sentence is also inaccurate (even though it may conform to the source statement) in that it implies that he may not have been described as a partisan in not-so-recent times. He has been described as partisan for a long, long time. He is a controversial figure, and stating that outright is actually more neutral than beating around the bush, which is how the current sentence sounds even if it not intended that way.

Krugman is a commentator, commentary by its very nature presents opinions. If you comment on political matters, you will most likely be politically partisan. This is why I think criticizing him as partisan is like criticizing Metallica for being metal. However, this is my opinion on why criticizing him for being partisan is absurd, and isn't relevant to what his critics say. It does mean though, that wording the criticism sentence the way it is, is somewhat awkward. This brings me to:

Krugman is controversial. Highly controversial. He has lots of critics and supporters. Describing someone as controversial, when that is not in dispute, is neutral. Stating that he has critics, without pointing out that he also has supporters, is not. Why not just say that he is controversial and has critics and supporters? Suggested paragraph (changes in bold):

Krugman often writes on various topics ranging from income distribution to international economics. He considers himself a liberal, calling one of his books as well as his New York Times blog "The Conscience of a Liberal". His journalistic writing is frequently controversial, and attracts numerous supporters and critics alike.

I am fairly new at contributing (although I am a long time lurker) so I will need some help with how to cite references here, but I can get cites for the fact that he is controversial, that he has supporters, and that he has critics. ScamperCat ^(meow) 17:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right that the whole last paragraph needs tweaking. First sentence should be more encompassing, for example: "Krugman often writes on various topics ranging from domestic politics to international economics." I would also add "He considers himself a liberal and partisan..." using his book as a source.

Your last sentence is also a step in right direction. As for sources, this New Yorker article on him could be useful since it states that: "Even some people who agreed with him felt that he was too relentlessly partisan for a columnist in a mainstream paper. But on the left he was revered." -- Vision Thing -- 09:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead (again)

Several days ago I invested significant effort into suggesting guidelines for a discussion on an issue everyone seemed to agree was in a state of dispute, and in fashioning a carefully worded sentence in the lead reflecting what is currently our only undisputed "reliable, survey source" on opinion about the Paul Krugman's political leanings and economics. I thought the latter as a sort of olive branch to editors who were frustrated at a pattern of disputes which, in their view, has wrongfully kept criticism of Krugman out of the lead. (I have only been watching this article for a short period, and as to whether that perception of the article's history is valid, I can only comment that several attempts that I've seen to put criticism in the lead have been objectionable, not because they were critical, but because they overstated, misstated, or conflated the underlying sources, or otherwise failed to observe important policies.)

There hasn't been a lot of response on the talk page, and that's not by any means a criticism of other editors, but I want to try to get a discussion back on track and renew the points I was trying to make before. So, again:

Suggestions to guide discussion.

• Dispute on this subject is pitched enough that proper resolution might require a comprehensive assessment of the criticism/controversy section itself. Ordinarily, in absence of dispute, judgments about notability and weight seem to be made informally, sometimes by a quick editor sampling of what is out there on the Internets. But where we're talking about the hotly disputed lead-paragraph treatment of the controversy section of a major public figure who is also an academic, it may be more appropriate to insist on a more rigorous assessment which relies on what high-quality reliable sources have said about the balance of opinion. This, I think, is an approach already suggested by Wikidemon and fundamentally supported by the aim of NPOV.

• To the extent that an acceptable summary of mainstream academic (and other) opinion about Krugman, sourced as suggested above, could be objected to because it fails to reflect something that appears in the "Criticism" section, it may be that the more appropriate course is to eliminate that material from the article rather than indulging in our own modification of any "standard" view that actually exists. And to the extent that no standard view exists on a controversial topic, my understanding is that Wikipedia policy clearly forbids us from manufacturing one.

• On a similar note (but deserving of its own bullet point) it is important to distinguish between different types of criticism and grounds for criticism. It seems natural to expect that an economist's political views may be colored, or not, by his economic views, and vice versa. Accusing an economist of taking partisan positions in columns he writes on political topics that involve economic discussion may not be the same as accusing an economist of basing his fundamental economic views on a political bias and expressing those inherently skewed views in columns he writes on political topics that involve economic discussion — even if all his columns are on political topics and involve economic discussion. Furthermore, taking partisan positions unrelated to economics may say nothing at all about one's economics. To the extent that any noteworthy commentary clearly makes such distinctions, and to the extent a range of noteworthy criticism varies in that regard, these distinctions should not be lost to a misleading oversimplification.

Food for thought?

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Vision: in response to the summary of your most recent edit which was reverted by TFD ("second part is among other sources based on The Economist, and as you said The Economist surveys the field of opinion so it is not OR"):

The piece from The Economist is only a source for what that piece says. Its inclusion does not turn other sources in the same sentences into survey sources. The piece from The Economist mostly discusses criticism of the partisanship of Krugman's journalism. It includes only a single example of a criticism of his economic analysis, and it's a criticism being made by The Economist itself and thus does not substantiate the text you inserted stating that "a number of people ... have criticized his economic reasoning". And of the other two sources you cited (one of which is a dead link.. try Bloomberg instead of Businessweek), one features a single critic questioning Krugman's reasoning in general, and the other features a single critic making an academic challenge to an economic model referenced by Krugman and another economist. The latter is quite a different sort of criticism from the former; I would imagine that every academic has had his reasoning criticized in this sense. Dispute does not imply criticism of a colleague's reasoning in the sense you are looking for. In any event, piecing these together in this way is the very definition of SYN. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So you don't object to the first part [51] of the edit on the basis of OR? -- Vision Thing -- 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the point I've been trying to make all along, but in response I've been greeted with jeers of WP:IDONTLIKETHAT by people who WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. We need a reliable secondary source if we wish to make a broad claim about criticism directed at Krugman. A collection of primary sources of criticism is a WP:SYNTH violation. Gamaliel (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessarily a good practice for the lead but if you insist on following it we can pick one representative criticism and put it in the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not what either of us was suggesting in the comments above. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I should qualify that statement. If by "representative criticism" you mean something like the Economist source that is reliable and actually surveys a broad range of notable opinion, or that at least summarizes a range of notable criticism, then that's exactly what we mean. But if you mean picking a single critic and dropping that in the lead as if to say that it is representative of what else is out there, that's contrary to policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The latter is not what we said, it is in fact the opposite of what we said. What is required is the former. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If you two insist on following such criteria than large part of current lead should be deleted. -- Vision Thing -- 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful. Can you give a specific example of something that would be deleted and why? Gamaliel (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

For example, claim "Krugman is known in academia for his work on international economics" is based on this source. Show me how is that supported by the source? -- Vision Thing -- 20:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I support replacing this source with a reliable secondary source. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, the first sentence of the cited Forbes article reads:

"After nearly 30 years, the Swedish Academy has returned to international trade awarding the Nobel Prize to Princeton economist Paul Krugman. Earlier, in 1977, the award had gone to two giants, Bertil Ohlin and James Meade, whose brilliant work formed the foundations of trade theory as it was taught when I came to Princeton to do my Ph.D. in 1974. Krugman, no less a giant, revolutionized the field." (emphasis added)

Our article, however, only cites the source for the much weaker claim that Krugman "is known for his work" in the field. Now, this is something I don't think even Krugman's critics would dispute; and it is neither criticism nor praise.

By contrast, the material you're insisting upon is criticism, which is inherently contentious and likely to be disputed. Such material is held to a higher standard on sourcing, even to be included in the article body, let alone the lead. At least, this is my understanding of what is said on the WP:BLP policy page, and in practice this is what I've seen in articles on controversial topics or subjects. And this is all prior to considerations on weight and the WP:SUMMARY style that must be observed in the lead. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is opinion of one economist and it is used to support a broad claim. Using criteria on which you insisted above it is OR. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As I just said, I think WP policy plainly calls for more careful treatment of contentious material, and the material you're trying to add is contentious. The above is not. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But it violates policy on OR and it should be removed on that basis. -- Vision Thing -- 18:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

How's that? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a claim that is not advanced by the source. The source does not make that statement as far as I can see. Can you provide a quote that supports it? -- Vision Thing -- 16:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment puzzles me. The Forbes article says he is "a giant" in the field of international trade. Do you really suggest that the article does not thereby also advance the position that he is "known" in that field? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Author of the article is stating his personal opinion that Krugman is "a giant", he is not saying that others see him in that way too. -- Vision Thing -- 18:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(A) How do you figure that? Actually, it appears to either be presented as a fact, or as the opinion of Forbes magazine. Reliable sources are careful to note when they publish something that only reflects the views of the author -- they include a little note indicating that he does not speak for the publication itself, but only himself. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

(B) Does that mean you're withdrawing your argument that the position is not advanced by the source? If not, please respond to my question.

(C) If the real problem is opinion vs. fact (again, I don't see where you're getting the idea that the author is referring only to his own personal opinion), then why isn't textual attribution, rather than removal, the proper solution?

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Let us say that I agree with all your objections. What would you say about summarizing the statement "Krugman has become a well-known public intellectual not because of his work on trade, but because of his twice-weekly op-ed column in The New York Times, where outright partisanship is substituted for economic analysis" in the lead? It is from the same source, Forbes [52], it was published on the same day and for the same occasion - Krugman winning a Nobel. -- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Without actually comparing the credentials of the two authors, my first impression is that the two sources are of equal fitness as sources of opinion on Krugman. I certainly have no objection to it going in the article body. I'm still hesitant to construct the lead in this fashion though; rather than creating a mashup of statements by individual authors, we really ought to be looking for what we've been referring to as "survey sources" that summarize and evaluate a range of opinion, rather than summarizing it and evaluating it ourselves.

I'm thinking some sort of RFC or noticeboard posting might be the most promising way to resolve this debate. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC) (formerly editing as FCAYS)

I think we are making a good progress here and I have pointed out one "survey source". I would appreciate your comment. -- Vision Thing -- 09:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. Editorial opinion of the subject rarely belongs in a WP:BLP and certainly not in the lede. In your example above, you are stating partisan opinion as if it were fact. That's just not done. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Views on how this should be treated seem to be all over the map. I don't think consensus is going to arise out of a piecemeal discussion conducted exclusively on this talk page. 01:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll restore neutrality tag until such consensus emerges. -- Vision Thing -- 16:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I don't have especially stringent views on the requirements for keeping an article tagged for NPOV, but for my benefit and that of possible late-comers, could somebody hazard a brief summary of the NPOV concern that warrants the tag? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For a reminder here are three sections on talk that already discuss NPOV problems with the lead: [53], [54] and [55]. Is the forth section really needed? -- Vision Thing -- 18:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead now ends with the accurate, neutral statement:

Some critics have described his recent journalistic writing as politically partisan.

That seems to me like an adequate response to the first section (see [56]). Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The only remaining controversy I can detect in the second section (see [57]) is disagreement over whether and how exactly to employ the word 'recent'. It's a valid issue, but insufficient to justify an NPOV tag. Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Third section is more of the same (see [58]). One editor seeks to introduce provocative language into the lead. Many attempts have been made to provide a neutral and appropriate summary of controversy surrounding Krugman. Perhaps the current lead could still be improved. But it would be preferable to propose alternative wordings here, rather than sticking on an NPOV tag, which is completely unjustified by the minor differences of opinion actually under discussion. Therefore removing NPOV tag is appropriate. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the statement "Some critics have described his recent journalistic writing as politically partisan" is in any way neutral. Krugman is an Op/Ed columnist. Op/Ed columns by their very definition are opinionated. Also, "recent"? I have been reading his NYT columns for nearly a decade now and I can't think of any time in which he was not called partisan by his critics. Who are these "some critics" and why are they criticizing Krugman for being partisan, as that is what Op/Ed columnists are to begin with. This statement is not NPOV precisely because it implies that the fact that he is partisan is something for which he should be criticized. How about this as an alternative:

As a self-identified progressive, Krugman's Op/Ed columns have a progressive outlook on social, political, and economic topics, and are often controversial.

This sentence states forthrightly, as opposed to relying on "some critics" to point it out, that his columns are politically progressive in nature. It is also much more NPOV as it does not imply that his columns should be anything other than politically partisan in nature, and also states forthrightly that his columns are controversial, but in a much more dispassionate manner.

I'm sure I can find good sourcing on this statement in his own books, which although written by him, should be sufficiently reliable for documentation of his own views. Actually, I'm going to be bold and replace the less eloquently-stated sentence with the one above. Yea! My first time being bold! On a highly controversial article! (Ducking for cover) ScamperCat ^(meow) 03:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a significant strain of criticism which takes him to task for purportedly excessive partisanship. Please look at the article from The Economist that was listed as the reference for the sentence you deleted. Yours was clearly a good-faith edit, but I am going to revert it, because the sentence you removed was at least partly the product of an ongoing debate about how to reflect criticism of Krugman in the lead, and because what you replaced it with is an unsourced amalgamation of conclusions on a subject which I think needs to be treated with great care and unquestionable sourcing. Centrify (talk) (contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC) (formerly editing as Factchecker)

While I understand and appreciate what you are saying here, I have to disagree. My statement was a summary of the final chapter of his book The Conscience of a Liberal. I had to dig up my copy of the book before I could provide a cite. His summary of his own beliefs and perspective (p. 273): "...being an active liberal means being a progressive, and being a progressive means being a partisan." I think this covers the self-identified portion. The fact that his book and blog are titled The Conscience of a Liberal would imply his works are from a liberal POV (yes, this can be said to be OR, however, it seems like a logical conclusion that the average person would view as accurate). That he is controversial I don't think is in dispute. But criticizing him for being partisan (even excessively so), when that is part and parcel of who he is? That's like criticizing Metallica for being excessively metal. However, that is my unsourced opinion and is neither here nor there.

While I do see that there has been a lot of debate here, I don't think it has been particularly fruitful, and the focus seems to be on making sure that the lead indicates that prominent people don't like (ie: criticize) him. I think the word controversial is more in line with NPOV than noting that "some critics" find him partisan. He is partisan. If you want to state that he is excessively partisan then say so. Don't hint at it. If you have to hint at something, that is an indication that it is maybe not the best idea to include it. Yes, I am a Krugman fan, however, I realize that he is a polarizing figure and to not state that somewhere in the lead would be POV. I just object to the way it is stated, which also seems POV. Stating that he is a liberal (or my preferred term "progressive" -Krugman uses both) and a partisan, and controversial gets the same point across without seeming like a tacked-on sentence from Krugman detractors (which the current statement does). Can we modify the sentence I suggested to better fit the desired goals? ScamperCat ^(meow) 16:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Some possible alternatives:

As a self-defined progressive and partisan (cite to book), Krugman is often a controversial figure in both journalism and economics (cite to Economist).

Krugman is a highly controversial figure in both economics and journalism, with many critics and supporters alike. ScamperCat ^(meow) 16:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Last note: the current sentence reads: Some critics have described his recent journalistic writing as politically partisan. Some semantic quibbles: "some critics" is weaselly, just plain "critics" is better. As I said above, while "his recent journalistic writing may be seen as politically partisan", so was his not-so-recent journalistic writing. His opposition of the Iraq war was highly contentious. "Critics have described his journalistic writing as politically partisan" would flow better, although I still think it is POV as stated. I am sure we can find prominent critics of his writing since he started at the NYT, and even back when he contributed to Slate if necessary. ScamperCat ^(meow) 16:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't respond at length to your comments at this time, but I did want to comment that you surely must realize that if you add material without listing a source, it looks like unsourced material... Centrify (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Article lead treatment of criticism of Paul Krugman

There is an apparently long-standing dispute at the article on Paul Krugman as to how, or perhaps whether, criticism of Krugman should be treated in the lead. It is clear that there is a considerable body of criticism of him out there, but a number of factors seem complicate the issue.

• First, I consider myself fairly experienced with core policy such as NPOV/V as well as BLP but feel out of my depth with regard to SUMMARY so I'm not sure how to proceed.
• Second, since Krugman is both an academic and a popular journalist, "criticism" is really quite an oversimplification of a body of discussion that ranges from rather sophisticated academic arguments (which may be largely inaccessible to the public) to more pedestrian accusations of partisanship.
• Third, there is a lot said about Krugman, positive and negative, so I am left wondering how a well-written article section, and the lead segment summarizing it, would be organized, or how to possibly determine WEIGHT issues properly. Discussion of such issues sometimes also implicates, and bleeds into discussion of, the question of what counts as reliable source on the subject.

I started/continued a discussion suggesting guidelines for the types of sources we would agree to build the lead with, as well as how to organize and delineate any distinct "strains" of criticism, but the discussion has foundered, despite earnest attempts on all sides. Sorry for the textwall; I will post a link to this request at WikiProject Economics in hopes of encouraging a more academic discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The article does have section about criticism of him, and the lead is supposed to summarize what's in the rest of the article. I think it is completely appropriate to have sentence in the lead which summarizes the criticism of him. I have added to the sentence there is that his partisanship may be to the detriment of his integrity as an economist, as that to me seems like the most damning criticism of him, and a criticism which has also been voiced by fellow economists. I would say that that prominent voices within economics should be given most weight, as he is after all primarily an economist. I also think something like the The Economist article is a very good source to rely on as a tertiary source, summarizing the most important points of criticism against him.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit is not reflective of the criticism section. Nowhere in the criticism section does it suggest that Krugman's integrity is suspect. Please seek feedback on the talk page before such a potentially controversial edit. LK (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think that much of the criticism does circle back to being about his integrity and honesty to the field of economics. Robert Barro is cited in the criticism section as saying that Krugman makes arguments which are politically convenient for him. Larry Summers says that Krugman makes extreme policy recommendation, not because he believes in them, but just to be interesting. And the The Economist article says he sometimes uses terminology from economic theory loosely, only to add (paraphrasing) the illusion that his political beliefs are empirically derived from economic theory. The article also asserts that he paints a very one-sided picture in his journalistic writing, without the nuance usually expected from economists. All this I take to in some way be about what I would call his integrity and honesty as an economist. Maybe other words could be found to describe this, but I think it is something which needs be in some way summarized in lead, seeing as this is a criticism which seems to come from all of his most respected critics.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Like all figures associated with American politics, he has many detractors. But the opinions of his detractors are in no way an important biographical detail and absolutely not essential enough to be included in the lede. To put it simply, the lede explains what he is known for. He is not notable for having been criticized, he is notable because he's a famous writer and Nobel Prize winner. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

From WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." and the nutshell says "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So basically everything which is any the body of the text should be summarized lead. So if the criticism of Krugman is notable enough to have fairly large section dedicated to it the body of the article, I think it is appropriate weight to also have a sentence about it in the lead.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Among other things he is know for are controversy and partisanship and the lead should reflect that. You say that he is associated with American politics but from reading our intro you would never know that he is a hard-core Democrat who despises Republicans. -- Vision Thing -- 18:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The Economist article is a solid source to support the contention that he is partisan, but it does not support the notion that his integrity is suspect. I agree with TheFreeholder that mention in the lede is warranted. While virtually every notable economist or writer will have some detractors, and it may not always deserve mention in the lede. Roughly speaking, though, I would think that if criticism was notable enough to earn more than passing mention in the article, it deserves some mention in the lede.--SPhilbrickT 19:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just think that only saying he is partisan too general. I think the criticism of him, at least the most serious of it, is more focused than that. I think much of it comes back to the scientific integrity of his journalist writing. This includes criticism like accusations of misusing terminology to dress up arguments, making extreme recommendations just to seem interesting, and only presenting economic theory which suits his political standpoint. I just don't think these things are adequately summed up by saying his journalist writings are "overly partisan". Maybe the word integrity is too strong, but I don't know how else to express it.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BLP - Krugman is an identifiable living person, and stating an identifiable living person "despises Republicans," is problematic. The lede states clearly "Krugman considers himself a liberal...Some critics have described him as overly politically partisan in his recent journalistic writing." What exactly do you want changed, keeping in mind that Kurgman is most notable from a global and historical perspective (the one that encyclopedias are written for) for winning a Nobel Prize. Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that criticisms from The Economist "Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory" and Okrent "Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults" should be covered in the lead. Saying that he is a partisan doesn't cover it. -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on many biographies, most economists' bios don't have criticisms in the lead. This is one of the exceptions. Consider this: Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek don't have criticisms in the lead even though they were controversial figures. For Krugman, anything more than what is already there would be over-doing things. FurrySings (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but that doesn't mean those articles follow Wiki policy. They are not considered Wikipedia's best work. -- Vision Thing -- 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

FurrySings, actually Keynes has some criticism at the lead: «Keynes's influence waned in the 1970s [...] partly because of critiques from Milton Friedman and other economists [...]». I do not have much of an opinion here, just a general remark: if the criticism is inserted in order to better understand the influence of the person - that is what happens in Keynes - fine; if it is hammered in because 'we must have one for NPOV sake', I guess it is not needed. - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an observation about his influence. Not about Keynes, 'the Man'. FurrySings (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That is what I have just said, no? I meant to... - Nabla (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

How about tweaking the last sentence to: "Some critics have described him as overly politically partisan and alleged that he uses data selectively in his journalistic writing."? -- Vision Thing -- 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Responding to notice by RfC bot: Reference to criticism should not be in the lead section. My reading of the article persuades me that doing so violates WP:WEIGHT. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

After carefully reading through the article I agree with ScottyBerg. Reference to criticism in the lead violates WP:Weight. FurrySings (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Just saying that something violates policy doesn't make it so. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• (Notified by RFC bot) Again? Vision_Thing's conduct is disruptive. Please raise an RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
• No. If the criticism directed against Krugman is on economic issues, the dispute is clearly not notable enough to merit a mention in the introduction. (Krugman's work in Economics is not notable for the controversies or disputes it causes.) Economists will, more often than not, disagree amongst themselves and dispute each other's positions on theory. Nothing notable there, in itself. If the criticism is about political issues (Krugman is a well-known public commentator), then, again, there is nothing notable enough about them to merit a mention in the lead paragraph. (It would be, possibly, in the case of e.g. a Milton Friedman.) -The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. This is not about potentially "defaming" a living person, as has been implied. Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons do apply at all times, of course, but are simply not relevant. This is about notability. -The Gnome (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a guideline about what deserves to be a subject of the article, not what should be in the lead of it. See section Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article which states "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". -- Vision Thing -- 19:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Freeloader writes above that "Larry Summers says that Krugman makes extreme policy recommendation, not because he believes in them, but just to be interesting." FL then repeats this claim later: "... making extreme recommendations just to seem interesting." With no substantiation either time, from RS. I wasn't aware of this particular characerization of Krugman by Summers. I know Summers has been quoted as follows:

I ask Summers what he thinks is Krugman’s underlying complaint with the Obama administration. “Paul may be the smartest and most creative applied economic thinker of this era,” he says, “but there is some element of him that is like the guy in the bleachers who always demands the fake kick, the triple-reverse, the long bomb, or the big trade.”[59]

But I don't find Summers being quoted in that source (or any other I've looked at) as saying the Krugman makes such demands just to be interesting. It makes sense to me that Summers would have a better sense of what's politically realistic in economic strategy, since he spent so much more time under presidents than Krugman ever did. But I can't remember Summers ever saying Krugman was arguing in bad faith for more radical policies, or taking controversial positions simply to grandstand. A "guy in the bleachers" may call for dramatic plays out of sincere belief. Summers doesn't say otherwise in Krugman's case. So I'm wondering what FL's source is, for this particular "just to be interesting" claim. Yakushima (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to emphasize the "just" in "just to be interesting" -- just in case you misunderstood me. Summers was quoted as saying "[Krugman] always gravitates to opposition and dramatic policy because it's much more interesting than agreement when you're involved in commenting on rather than making policy." But this is clearly Snide Larry talking -- he's saying "Krugman just doesn't have the policy-entrepreneur cojones I got -- he doesn't have what it takes to sit through all those meeting and listen to all those moronic opinions by non-economists and then marshall agreement on the only consensus those people are likely to arrive at." We now know that the Obama economic team agreed on a front of unanimity: they would say the stimulus program was certainly adequate -- or at least keep mum about their individual doubts -- even though the better economic heads among them (which would be Romer and Summers, at the very least) knew better. What got passed was what could pass Congress (and it barely passed as it was.) Krugman has complained repeatedly about how the White House claimed the stimulus was adequate when he and others were predicting, based on pretty straightforward Keynesian arguments, that it was not. What Krugman doesn't seem to understand (as usual) is the politics: that going out there with a possibly-inadequate stimulus proposal while saying "it's probably not enough" would only undercut the White House legislative push; and if the law passed somehow, "it's probably not enough" would also undercut what little stimulus you'd get, since stimulus is very much about cultivating consumer and investor confidence. Pushing for adequate stimulus was also a non-starter: it would only delay stimulus while the economy continued to plunge. What Summers is alluding to here with "more interesting than agreement" is this kind of purely political, expediting process. Krugman's absolutely right: collaborating to present a unified front for something you don't believe in is dishonest. However, as Summers is saying indirectly, it also rather dull and frustrating work, which is the price of having influence on policy at all. Krugman, in describing his tenure under Martin Feldstein during the early years of the Reagan administration, reported despair over having to deal with so much idiocy. Summers was brought in about the same time, as was Mankiw, all recruited by Feldstein. IMHO, Summers and Mankiw have been more influential because they were willing to shut up at times, to tolerate people's wilful ignorance and stupidity. That was a price Krugman himself says he wasn't willing to pay after a while. Is that because he "just" wants to be more "interesting"? Well, you can put that in this bio if you can back it up with a source. But I don't see one. I don't even see anyone claiming that. Summers' comment is not quite that, especially when taken in context and read for (fairly obvious) tone, not just pure denotation. Yakushima (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is a lot of effort put into arguing just one little part of a comment I made. I never intended that the examples I mentioned should be included in the article, I was merely gathering some examples in the article's sources where I see what I think is criticism of the scientific seriousness in Krugman's journalistic writings. I don't know why you ask for sources, as firstly, you already have it in the quote from New York Magazine, and secondly, I'm not proposing it should be added, as it is already in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Then it seems you're abandoning a distinction you originally claimed was key, here: that Krugman takes positions in a way that casts doubt on his integrity. To quote you directly:

Well, I think that much of the criticism does circle back to being about his integrity and honesty to the field of economics. [....] I think much of it comes back to the scientific integrity of his journalist writing. This includes criticism like accusations of misusing terminology to dress up arguments, making extreme recommendations just [my emph. added] to seem interesting, and only presenting economic theory which suits his political standpoint.

I follow Krugman closely and am unaware of any particular misuse of terminology. As for "only presenting economic theory which suits his political viewpoint," it seems to me quite the opposite: he's forever presenting other people's economic theories (or their lack thereof, in a way a more serious problem) the better to shoot them down. That leaves the question of whether he does all this just to seem interesting. I'm sure he's interested in being interesting. He writes about economics more lucidly than almost any other economist I can think of, and that's a sign of being interested in being interesting, because it's a hard skill to learn. But just to seem interesting? Summers didn't say that. You're putting words in Larry Summers' mouth. And you're clearly motivated by a desire to see Krugman as lacking in integrity. As far as I can tell, if he is suffering any such lack, he has somehow kept that fact between him and God -- unless Robin Wells knows something we don't. Yakushima (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the examples I mentioned come from the The Economist article about the criticism of Krugman. And while this isn't the place for the exchange of personal opinions, I can assure you I am not here because of my ideological beliefs, I actually agree with Krugman on many of his most important viewpoints. But I do believe the The Economist article is right when it says that Krugman in his opinion sometimes does not present the nuance you would expect from an economist. It is this sentiment I want to be reflected in the article, as I think it is one shared quite broadly. As I said, maybe integrity is too strong a word, maybe lack of nuance might be better.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

"I said he lacked integrity, but maybe it would be better to say he lacked nuance"? Wow. That's like "I said he was immoral, but maybe it would be better to say he's rude." That's like "I said he was a liar, but perhaps it would be more accurate to say he's loud." That's like "I said he twists the truth, and tells half-truths, but maybe the real problem is that he uses stronger adjectives than I would." My AGF now hangs by a fraying thread, but I'll cling to it desperately anyway: perhaps you haven't looked up some typical definitions of "integrity" and "nuance"? If it's been awhile, a trip to the dictionary might be more instructive for you than I could ever be. Yakushima (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the concepts are related in this way: You expect that an economist, or any scientist in general, will present all the relevant information and knowledge they have about a certain subject, and not only presenting (or cherry-picking) the information which favors their own position. So if Krugman chooses to present an unnuanced picture, despite knowing that reality is more nuanced than that, I think that calls into question Krugman's scientific integrity. And I think this is in the The Economist article when it says something like "the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship." and in the part where it says that Krugman tends to ignore the "principle" of no free lunch.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"if Krugman chooses to present an unnuanced picture" - that's an awfully big IF, Freeloader. Especially considering that he blogs a couple times a day, on average, about how others are missing various nuances, and usually scrupulously documents their hit-and-miss reasoning. You need to document a sweeping claim here. Which The Economist opinion piece does not accomplish. Here's another thing the Economist misses: the years after 2003, when the piece was published. Krugman has since savagely criticized Obama (and Hilary Clinton) even during the 2008 election campaign. He is not just some hack for the Democrats. Yes, he has an ideology, which he clearly and unabashedly identifies. But, as he correctly points out, everybody has an ideology. Does it actually poison his economic conclusions? Just recently, he wrote this:

"... I try to analyze the economy as best I can, never mind what’s politically convenient, and indeed to bend over backward to avoid believing things that make me comfortable, to avoid turning everything into a morality play that confirms my political values. Here’s an example: is economic inequality the source of our macroeconomic malaise? Many people think so — and I’ve written a lot about the evils of soaring inequality. But I have not gone that route. I’m not ruling out a connection between inequality and the mess we’re in, but for now I don’t see a clear mechanism, and I often annoy liberal audiences by saying that it’s probably possible to have a full-employment economy largely producing luxury goods for the richest 1 percent. More equality would be good, but not, as far as I can tell, because it would restore full employment."[60]

The Economist is hardly the final word on Krugman's intellectual integrity. As I document below, they can't even get their facts straight in this particular piece. You should stop treating this opinion piece as if it was the final word -- or even as if it were a fact-checked article. It might make a fair summary of criticisms made against Krugman. But that doesn't make any of those criticisms accurate. Especially the gibe about how they think he's forgotten there's no free lunch. Where the hell did they get that one from? No sources are referenced or quoted. Yakushima (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Role of Wikipedia editors is to report what sources say about topic and not to come up with OR arguments but just to reply on your claim that Krugman has criticized Obama and Hilary. That is absolutely true, he has criticized them but the problem is that he has criticized them from the left and not from the right. And that is just what Clive Crook argues when he says that Krugman sides with the progressive wing of the Democratic party. He is no centrist, even among Democrats... -- Vision Thing -- 08:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh? It seems I composed (and meticulously referenced) the following section of the article in vain:

Krugman has advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has written against rent control in favor of supply and demand,[140] likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via natural selection,[135] opposed farm subsidies,[141] argued that sweatshops are preferable to unemployment,[34] dismissed the case for living wages,[142] argued against mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks for ethanol,[143] questioned NASA's manned space flights,[144] and has written against U.S. zoning laws[145] and European labor market regulation.[146][147]

Krugman violates progthink precepts when fairly vanilla economics tells him that progthink is B.S. And a lot of it is. To say that he criticizes only from a Left perspective is disturbingly simplistic, because it's easily shown that a lot of commentators on the Left dislike him, primarily for his generally market-friendly brand of economics. The only way you could not know this about him is if you're really not paying much attention to his career and his opinions. Yakushima (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I actually think the economist article is a very good tertiary source to rely on for summarizing the criticism of Krugman. It's a respected source, and I think it is only an opinion piece in the sense that is summarizing a general sentiment towards Krugman's journalistic writing. I don't think it is our job as Wikipedia editors to judge if the criticism is accurate. We should merely pass it on with the due weight it deserves in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yakushima, FYI I regularly read his columns and blog posts. In the paragraph you quote a passing remark about zoning laws, that was said in the context of dismissing Perry's Texas record, is the only recent one. Also, zoning is an issue on which Krugman is on the same side as other liberal bloggers such as Matthew Yglesias and Ezra Klein. In the last ten years Krugman has shifted his stance significantly and started to promote liberal goals. When was the last time when he wrote a column on a issue that went against liberal orthodoxy? -- Vision Thing -- 21:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about just yesterday, in his piece on the possible Euro breakup, when he trashed liberal orthodoxy about political-unity-through-monetary-union and conservative orthodoxy about austerity policies (which many supposed liberals have also signed up for, strangely). Liberals are typically pro-Euro, after all; euroskepticism was almost the official position of most conservative European parties. If Yglesias and Klein have argued similarly on zoning, bear in mind that both are heavily influenced by Krugman's positions on practically everything. I wouldn't call either of them leftists in any case. You don't address how much Krugman is hated among the Anti-Globalization Left. His positions on rent control wouldn't go down well in Santa Barbara or Berkeley (or NYC, for that matter.) And the list goes on. He's basically a very pro-market economist who nevertheless favors government stepping in where markets clearly fail. But he also sees that governments can fail: when people tried to use his work in New Trade Theory to advocate industrial policy (a species of economic central planning after all), he says governments can't guess better than the market anyway, so better that they stay out. He's no more a leftist than your average Social Democrat in Europe, and somewhat to the "right" even of many of those, in certain respects. If he criticizes the GOP consistently from the left, one must take into account that, by very reasonable measures, the party has moved so far right that many Reagan Republicans, like Martin Feldstein, now form either part of its left wing, or (like Bruce Bartlett) have felt forced to renounce membership altogether. Your characterization of Krugman as "despising Republicans", is similarly simplistic. I don't think he despises Martin Feldstein, who brought him into the Reagan administration. I don't even think he despises Ben Bernanke (a moderate Republican), despite heaping considerable criticism at times on recent Fed moves and Bernanke statements. The real problem seems to be that "moderate Republican" is an increasingly endangered species. Why else would Mitt Romney (in late 2008 an advocate of massive federal stimulus) perform so many ideological pirouettes recently, unless it's just to make it seem like he isn't actually a moderate Republican? Colin Powell could still be president in a walk, just from his favorability ratings even today, but why would he want to go through this awful primary/nominating process where you have to pander to hyper-conservative wingnuts just to stay in the game? Yakushima (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes he is criticizing Euro project, but only because their leaders are not ready to go far enough. What is his proposed solution for the crisis? It's more stimulus: But they don’t seem at all ready to acknowledge a crucial fact — namely, that without more expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in Europe’s stronger economies, all of their rescue attempts will fail. [61] Also, don't forget this post from 2009 when he claimed that If these countries [Italy and Belgium] can run up debts of more than 100 percent of GDP without being destroyed by bond vigilantes, so can we. Now when Italian bond yields have exploded he is again arguing against austerity but this time saying that the right way out is debt monetization by ECB. No matter what happens time for budget cuts is always in some unspecified future. You mentioned European conservatives. Only "true" major European conservative party is UK's. Person most responsible for the state the Britain is now in is Gordon Brown. But when has Krugman criticized him? I can't recall. He has praised him even though he has followed a policy of budget deficits in "fat" years when according to conventional Keynesian prescription he should have followed a fiscal policy that produces a budget surplus. [62] Brown and Blair basically inherited a balanced budget just as Bush did but while he is condemning Bush's fiscal record, Brown is showered in praise... As for Kruman's critics on the the anti-globalization left, are you referring to criticisms of his writings in the 90's and very early 2000's? As far as I know Krugman is no longer actively pushing against their views and lately he is even arguing for trade war with China which reflects how far he has moved from his previous positions. You are right that he doesn't despise Republicans like Bernanke or Mankiw. When I said that I was thinking on Republican politicians, and don't get me wrong I don't have a high opinion on them also and I agree with you. Politics and public discourse are getting radicalized and that is another sign of the depth of current crisis. Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion leave a comment on my talk or sent me an e-mail since we are no longer following talk page guideline not a forum. -- Vision Thing -- 13:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"What is his proposed solution for the crisis? It's more stimulus." Yes, as I'm sure Keynesian Republicans like Martin Feldstein and even Greg Mankiw (more quietly) would agree.

By the way, Yes, we are still talking about this article. Remember, we're trying to see how (or whether) to characterize Krugman's partisan tendencies (imagined and real) in the lead of this article. And euroskepticism has historically been a more conservative than a liberal position, which is what you asked to see.

If Krugman favors decoupling from the Euro for certain peripheral economies so that fiscal stimulus, not just (relatively weak) monetary stimulus, becomes a real option, well, that's not inherently partisan. Overtly favoring massive fiscal stimulus in the face of the current crisis could be seen as far right as Mitt Romney in late 2008. On the monetary side, Krugman's no further left than Milton Friedman.

Did Krugman say, If these countries [Italy and Belgium] can run up debts of more than 100 percent of GDP without being destroyed by bond vigilantes, so can we.? So what? He could have pointed to Japan, which has blown far past that 100% limit, but suffers deflation rather than the explosion of inflation that the (invisible) bond vigilantes are (invisibly) so concerned about. (This just in: JGBs are now the favored safe haven for an impending Euro implosion.) Was it crazed politically correct progressives who ran up all that Japanese debt? No, Japanese government indebtedness grew to such proportions under the Japanese equivalent of the GOP.

So this ECB positioning issue isn't really a debate about Krugman's supposedly blinkered partisan positions or supposedly disingenuous economistic style of argument. This is a debate about the nature of economic reality. And Krugman's excellent record of prediction, based on models that, however simplified, correspond closely to what has actually happened, and what is happening as we write, has him strongly favored as the ultimate winner of that debate.

You say, "no matter what happens [Krugman's] time for budget cuts is always in some unspecified future." Here your ignorance of Krugman's thinking is really showing. As a faithful Keynesian (Keynes counseled fiscal conservatism in healthy economies, after all), Krugman knows otherwise. He sharply lambasted Greenspan for calling for tax cuts in 2001, saying he doubted the budget surplus projections Greenspan cited, and that long-term Social Security and Medicare funding should take priority if there was more money to spend. That's the Keynesian fiscal conservative talking. He doesn't believe in an "unspecified future" for ending fiscal stimulus. He believes time for budget cuts is when you've returned to the long-term growth trend line. That time, being easily defined, is hardly "unspecified," even if it's not a date certain but a rough projection. The only question is whether underlying factors (population growth, productivity growth, etc.) could actually support a return to that long-term trend. I know of nobody who's made a solid case against that possibility. You certainly won't hear a case against it from the GOP, whose favorite prognosticator (Paul "Fuzzy Math" Ryan) claims that, with enough tax cuts and cuts to government services, he can produce literally unprecedented economic growth rates. Yakushima (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as to this (implicit) claim of yours that Krugman never criticized Gordon Brown? Try this: [63]. Brown might have inherited a balanced budget, as you say, but he also inherited a bubble economy, when it's easy to balance a budget. A bubble economy that Krugman blames Brown (among others) for, above, citing his "passivity" about deregulation, even a Greenspan-ish support of it at times. Then there's this: somehow, in your mind, the state that Britain is in owes entirely to Gordon Brown's post-2006 fiscal policies? Is that what you're saying? A global financial crisis, with a collapse of stock and housing bubbles, had nothing to do with it? As Krugman is at pains to repeat, the deficits in the U.S. are primarily a result of the need to suddenly increase basic social support services after a massive financial crisis tanked the economy, even while saddled with falling tax revenues caused by that same recession. As you'd expect in any recession. When you look at the actual spending part of Obama's stimulus (40% of the ~$800B), it just about balances the reduction in state-level spending. In what way was the UK qualitatively different? Are we talking about events that transpired on planet Earth? By the way, you say the UK Conservatives are Europe's only "true" major conservative party? OK, then, go insert that claim as if it were fact into the lead of Conservative Party (UK) and see how long it lasts. I'll be watching. I think it's always a lovely spectacle whenever people who actually check facts on Wikipedia smell blood in the water. Yakushima (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You say that "Remember, we're trying to see how (or whether) to characterize Krugman's partisan tendencies (imagined and real) in the lead of this article." Ok, but our personal opinions and what we think we can prove is irrelevant. Only relevant thing is what is said about Krugman in reliable sources. Remember, one of the core principles of Wikipedia is verifiability, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." -- Vision Thing -- 17:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What we think we can prove might be irrelevant, but what we can disprove is relevant indeed. You asked when Krugman had ever criticized Gordon Brown, clearly implying that you thought he never had. I disproved that belief of yours easily, in about fifteen seconds of web searching. The more that can be disproved easily in a given source (such as your beloved One-Handed Economist opinion piece, which, as I've shown, suffers from a dismaying number of factual errors), the less reliable it should be considered. Obviously. The Economist has a good reputation for reliability. This particular opinion piece rides on that reputation, perhaps, but in fact only damages it when tested against the facts. If the piece is quoted, that gives the quote's expressed sentiment added weight -- weight borrowed from The Economist's reputation. But if the piece is also significantly in error, or makes sweeping claims without even an indirect reference to a reliable sources (such as its "free lunch" gibe) I think Wikipedia readers should be told so, and why. Yakushima (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Vision Thing quotes The Economist, with Freeloader chiming in:

"Overall the effect [of Krugman's economistic style of argument in two anecdotally identified op-eds mentioned in this opinion piece] is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory."

Really? I looked at the facts of the matter. One of the two anecdotal supporting claims made by this Economist piece was this:

A recent piece accused conservatives of embracing the “lump of labour fallacy”, the mistaken claim that there is a fixed quantity of work which governments must strive to allocate equitably. In fact, the paper he cited did not commit the lump of labour fallacy.

Now, The Economist would actually have been onto something there if Krugman had claimed the paper's authors had committed the lump-of-labor fallacy. But he didn't say any such thing. In fact, he praised the paper. And then he criticized some who (he says) made lump-of-labor fallacious reasoning based on the paper. And he does so in a manner clearly indicating he felt they'd misinterpreted a good paper.

It's an interesting study, and it might -- repeat, might -- shed some light on why businesses have added so few jobs during our so-called recovery. But I was puzzled at first by the enthusiasm with which a relatively academic paper was seized upon by usually bullish, supposedly hardheaded business commentators. The puzzle vanished, however, when I read these remarks more carefully: they were mainly trying to make excuses for the administration's dismal job record.[64]

Oh. Kay. One down. One to go. North Korea, game theory -- what did Krugman actually say? It's here: [65]. Now, the only actual direct references to game theory per se in that piece are these lines:

During the cold war, the U.S. government employed experts in game theory to analyze strategies of nuclear deterrence. Men with Ph.D.'s in economics, like Daniel Ellsberg, wrote background papers with titles like The Theory and Practice of Blackmail. The intellectual quality of these analyses was impressive, but their main conclusion was simple: Deterrence requires a credible commitment to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.

As I read it, Krugman's saying: "Well, duh. You don't need to be a Daniel Ellsberg -- at one time, a brilliant economist, a sharp intelligence analyst, and an expert in game theory -- to figure out that the gap between Bush's words and his (then-likely) actions might offer a kind of unintended, backhanded encouragement to Pyongyang in its WMD efforts; actually, you could probably figure it out just from recollecting a few little dramas of parental injustice from your own childhood."

The Economist refers only indirectly to these two passages to support a claim that Krugman creates an "effect" with an economistic style of argument, one that causes "illusions" among his readers. They seem to be insinuating that this is Krugman's purpose in invoking economics in certain pieces. I'd be more persuaded of that if The Economist could actually get its facts straight about two pieces it couldn't be bothered to quote directly. (And that's applying AGF to The Economist, please note.) Don't get me wrong: I love the magazine. But we definitely shouldn't be quoting this opinion piece from it as if it were definitive in any way. We're supposed to get our facts straight, even when The Economist can't. This is Wikipedia, after all. Yakushima (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Vision Thing wants to cite Okrent in the lead, where Okrent notoriously claimed, in a parting shot as he left the NYT: "Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." As I remember the Okrent Affair, there was just one little problem with Okrent's jab: "assaults", yes, those go with the territory, but none turned out to be "substantive." I.e., nobody showed where Krugman's "slicing and dicing" had been disingenuously erroneous, or even in error at all. Perhaps my memory fails me. Perhaps Vision Thing can refresh it. Yakushima (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use an Economist editorial as a source for summarizing criticism of Krugman. As was mentioned, much of the criticism directed against him comes from the Left, and much critical analysis of his views is supportive. If we want to include criticism of his views, then we must be even-handed and not provide undue weight to neoliberal criticism. TFD (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The Economist article is not an editorial but a profile, and since The Economist is a reliable and well-known source it is more than suitable for summarizing criticism of Krugman. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's use serious sources for articles not partisan op-eds, huh? TFD (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if it's not precisely an op-ed, I've called the "One-handed Economist" profile an "opinion piece" here, and for good reason: as a factual profile, it sucks.

It says, "... increasingly, people are asking whether Mr Krugman's success as a journalist is now coming at the expense of, rather than as the result of, his economics." Who are these "people"? It doesn't say.

The "profile" claims that Krugman characterized a paper as committing the lump-of-labor fallacy, when a look at what he actually wrote clearly shows him praising the paper, and criticizing others for interpreting it in fallacious terms.

The "profile" says he argued game-theoretically about the Bush adminstration's stance on North Korea, implying his reasoning was specious by saying that "[t]his probably did not convince most game theorists." But without citing any game theorists. And without noting that Krugman, if anything, he was arguing that you don't exactly PhD-level skills in game theory to see that the Bush administration's moving against Iraq rather than North Korea might lend comfort (though not aid) to Pyongyang in its nuclear ambitions.

The "profile" says he characterized himself as "a lonely voice of truth in a sea of corruption" in 2003. The only sources I can find for that quote are an unofficial translation from German that's alternately characterized in the source[66] as "awful" and "very good". So this is a translation of interview remarks from Krugman's English (his German, he confesses, is vestigial[67]) to German but then back to English, possibly amateurishly. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the translation -- or in The Economist's opinion piece, does it?

And what about this?

A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush. Regarding California's energy crisis, for example, he berated the Bush administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for not imposing price caps sooner ... [but not criticizing the roles might have Democrats played]

The only piece I can find that matches the "profile" desciption in any way is this one:[68] In it, Krugman actually takes a rain check on Bush-bashing:

Was the fix in? Given the Bush administration's record of catering to energy companies, FERC isn't entitled to any presumption of innocence. Still, the main problem seems to be with the commission's approach: even in the aftermath of large-scale price manipulation, it demands givebacks of excess profits only when it can prove that those profits arose from a specific prohibited action.

Yes, that Krugman piece is about taking de-regulation too far. And it just so happens that, when it comes to extreme de-regulation, the GOP is far more energetic (and unabashed at the disastrous results) than neoliberal Democrats could ever be.

And then there's this:

After Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister of Malaysia, recently gave an anti-Semitic speech, Mr Krugman argued that the Bush administration's ham-fisted foreign policy had forced Dr Mahathir to make the remarks in order to shore up domestic political support—most unlikely, given that he was about to step down.

Well, I encourage you all to read what Krugman actually wrote: [69] The Economist is assuming that Mahathir's "delicate balancing act" was all about his staying in office. I have no love of Mahathir, but Krugman gets it right in this piece: Mahathir is an awful cynic, and a demagogue. But he's also the father of his (post-colonial) country in an important sense -- while undoubtedly rich, he was no kleptocrat of that kind that plagues much of Africa. He would obviously prefer, in his twilight years, to influence future political positioning of other elements within the power structure he built. And one of his goals would be to help protect what is, by the standards of the muslim world, a relative economic success story, and in part through a rejection of islamist polity in favor of modernism -- even if it was through what Krugman calls a "carefully managed cronyism that holds his system together." (Which was, by the way, a management job that surrendering formal political duties would free a fading octogenarian to pursue more single-mindedly.) The Economist is showing (dare I say it?) far more nuance deficit than Krugman does, in this "profile" where they criticize so simplistically.

Well, what am I doing here now? I'm fact-checking what's basically an op-ed. What a waste of time. In 2000, The Economist endorsed GW Bush on its cover. In 2003, it was already eating some of its words. It's now 2011, and a lot more Bush chickens have come home to roost, for the indefinite future. This Economist piece is a lot of rather tendentious water under the bridge. Good riddance, if you ask me. That water never smelled very good in the first place. And now I know why. Yakushima (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)