Talk:Peter Schiff/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Patriotism Criticism

I am removing the criticism that Schiff is "anti-american", because, quite frankly, it is immature and adds absolutely nothing at all of interest to the article. --81.99.118.248 (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Why? You could change that instead of removing i.e. "some people think that he is anti-american" and give links to youtube or articles on internet. There is a lot of criticism of Schiff... 78.36.185.189 (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
The criticism of Schiff obviously has a place in the article, but that should be criticism from an economic or entrepreneurial point of view, not some dimwitted hillbillies waving the American flag calling him anti-american just because he doesn't support the administration. In fact, many would argue that being critical of the government is the most patriotic, American thing you can do. Therefore, the discussion of how patriotic/unpatriotic Peter Schiff is has no place in the wikipedia article.

Misessus (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a flagrant misrepresentation of patriotism to say that if one is critical of government, he is unpatriotic. In fact, the founding fathers were patriotic precisely because they were critical--to the point of violence--of the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.109.74 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Related to The Schiffs?

Does anyone know if he and his father (Irwin Schiff) are related to the famous Schiff family (especially Jacob Schiff -- Category:Schiff family)? --Wassermann 09:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So Schiff Has no M.B.A.?

It would appear that Schiff has no M.B.A., no M.S. in finance, and no Ph.D. in economics. This is extremely relevant because Schiff is often on TV presenting himself as an expert on the economy who is capable of predicting trends. Obviously, a person can be correct about a trend without formal education in that area, but it is also true that you want a dentist, doctor, lawyer, etc. with formal training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering most if not all "certified" economists got it WRONG, Schiff's lack of so-called certifications was an advantage, not a short coming. Results are what really matter. Jakarta iron (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This page starts with "is an American "economist". Can someone please delete that single word because the page won't allow me to edit it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfaqtor (talk • contribs) 05:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

VoteSchiff.com

Concerning Peter Schiff's possible senate run... Is it really necessary or encyclopedia worthy to link out to a coming soon page, anyone can buy a domain name and throw a logo up. I agree if this were a working website that would be one thing but that site has not changed for 3 months. Should we remove voteschiff.com until the developer puts a serious website up? ajacreative (talk) 08:20, 9 March 200p (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.0.136 (talk)

Photo?

It would be real nice if we could get a public domain and/or fair-use photo of this guy. Perhaps it can be a still-frame off of one of his television appearances? It would really enhance the attention the article gets. 76.171.53.59 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Accurate" forecasts

This page seems to be written largely by fans of Mr. Schiff's. It notes a few cases in which market downturns coincided with his predictions, essentially making him out to be a hero. He may in fact be a hero, but it isn't Wikipedia's place to judge. So I am not sure what to do with this. I may revisit it later. Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia deleted Mr. Schiff's article and ignored his opinion. If you want to add a controversy or criticism section, be my guest, but as long as reality is favoring Mr. Schiff's predictions I can't imagine you'll have much to say.--Waxsin (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to see what he was predicting in the 90's and how that compared with reality. If someone predicts recession for 15 years, they're bound to be right at some point. Though clearly, he predicted more than just some garden variety recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.175.104 (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nathan: I just watched the YouTube video about his predictions. I'm not really a fan of Schiff, but I can't deny that the dude was right (At least about the stuff on the YouTube video). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.191.163 (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

AS has been already mentioned,constantly predicting a recession will result in you being correct occasionally.It should also be pointed out that many economists saw the potential for a market melt down given the collapse of the housing market which basically meant a massive reduction in equity for the banks.Given the fact that Mr.Schiff now predicts this huge loss of money will result in hyperinflation I predict that no one will look at him as a prophet anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

"Mr.Schiff now predicts this huge loss of money will result in hyperinflation". His prediction is that the government response to current market deleveraging will result in hyperinflation. 18:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Anon


This argument stems from the accusation that someone is baseless in their claims and it was coincidental that they were correct. I do not believe this was the case with Schiff because the basis of his claims have been around since 1913. His entire argument is that since the government manipulates the markets, they are going to cause problems, and they then try to postpone the problems they caused by creating more problems, proliferating the original problem (See austrian explanation of the great depression). Based on this, I do not see a valid claim that he was simply 'crying wolf constantly with the hopes of one day having a wolf show up'. He saw the wolf on the hill and is warning that there is a wolf on the hill, he has physical and historical evidence to back him up and there is, in fact, that inevitability. He also appears to give timelines for most things, including but not limited to the housing price collapse (07-08) and the (now) fact that the latter would produce a credit situation, the price of gold hitting over $1000 an ounce (08) and his current prediction that the price of gold per ounce will break $2000 by the end of this year (09). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.48.122 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I find the constant whining about "If you keep predicting a crash you will right at some point" quite rediculous and a clear sign that some people are really disgruntled. The man wrote a damn book on the coming crash, for heaven's sake. In 2006 and 2007, he wasn't just predicting the crash, he was explaining in great detail exactly why the crash was coming, at a time when he was litterally laughed out of the debate. But he is far from alone, no Austrian economist was surprised by the crash, even though everyone else was completely dumbfounded.
It is perfectly fine not to agree with him on everything and of course EuroPac -clients will lose money in times like these, but to try to dismiss by whining about "if you keep predicting..." is pure and simple denial and intellctually dishonest.

Misessus (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Euro-pac clients have lost a lot of money because Peter Schiff predicted the US dollar would crash so he shorted it.The dollar actually got stronger because Peter was very wrong.He also says that China and the rest of the world will decouple itself from the US.This is ridiculous because it suggests that manufacturing nations will dump their biggest clients.And his whole hyperinflation thing is simply not panning out due to the extreme lack of capital.Hyperinflation won't happen in the future either because the Federal Reserve can deflate the economy by selling securities once the economy gets going again.So Peter Schiff,much like many other people including Alan Greenspan,was right about there being a bubble.However,he was wrong in so many other ways this internet love affair between him and people who are curious about the economy is quite unwarranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It is hardly accurate to claim that Peter Schiff was "very" wrong to predict a weakening dollar, considering he invests for the long term. Bear rallies are not uncommon, but seldom long lasting, and with the Fed publicly announcing it will buy a trillion worth of T-bills, you know the dollar will weaken again, which it did. Also, when foreign creditors like China will stop lending money to the US in combination with massive budget deficits, this will surely lead to further weakened dollar. The Chinese government is already saying they don't want to lend more money to the US. So how rediculous was it really?
The fact of the matter is that the people who came in late in 2008 and made substantial paper losses have already regained most of that those losses. And in any case, people who followed the advice of those professing the strength of the US financial system and financial institutions, US manufacturing and retail industry, US real estate industry and so forth, lost much, much more than the EuroPac -clients without any hope of ever regaining those losses.
And just to point out what should be fairly obvious, a client that can't pay its bill (like the US consumer and the US government) is not very much of a client. It is the mystic belief that the world is dependent on US consumption that is rediculous. There 6 billion non-americans in the world who are quite able of consuming. Thus far, it seems that places like China and India have been the largest markets for everyone except the Chinese and Indians. Once they start to serve their own consumers instead of the American consumers, they'll be fine.
Regarding hyperinflation, there is already enough dollars in the world to cause that. If any of the largest US creditors would decide to dump their dollar reserve, the hyperinflation would be a fact. To think that the Fed, the very institution who has created the actual possibility of hyperinflation, would be able to stop it is not thing short of ludicrous. Also, the extreme lack of capital is one of the things that makes the threat of hyperinflation so real, as lack of capital is the lack of savings, something common for all countries with high inflation levels. And what do you mean by "once the economy gets going"? The whole point is that the economy won't "get going" as long as government keeps interfering this way. Who do you think it is who is supposed to buy the securities to deflate the economy? Its the banks and the financial institutions who are sitting on multi trillion dollar losses right now, most of whom have been kept afloat only thanks to the printing press of the Fed. Talk about contradicting logic.
So if I were you, I wouldn't speak too loudly about the economy and who was right and who was wrong, because clearly you don't have a clue. Your comparison between Greenspan and Schiff is ample proof of that. Greenspan was the very architect of our present crisis. He is as clueless as Bernanke, Paulson Geithner, Obama and the whole host of politicians, bureaucrats, pundits and court economists who well into 2008 said that everything was alright and that the economy had never been stronger, particularly the real estate and financial industries.

Misessus (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well Greenspan's biggest contribution to this crisis was his push for deregulation of derivatives.Isn't Peter Schiff a big fan of deregulation?And Greenspan coined the term irrational exuberance which is the cause of bubbles.What did you think that term meant?

Peter's biggest problem seems to be that he thinks the whole world thinks like him but the fact of the matter is no one wants to dump the US dollar because the world economy very much depends on the American economy to be strong.The Chinese recognize this so it doesn't matter if Peter thinks they ought to decouple because they know what their country needs better than Peter.They are quite worried about all the jobs they have already lost so they are going to pass on Peter's advice of let it all crash so some brand new super economy can rise from the ashes.

No one is saying that the system doesn't need work but Peter's solution of let the whole thing crash and regrow is not much of a solution.Reforms are best done while the economy is strong and can handle adjustments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.236.24 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, one has to be careful with what words one use and in what context. The so called deregulation of the derivatives is irrelevant compared to the hundreds of billions Greenspan injected to stave off the dot.com bubble and the artificial low interest rates he maintained for the first half of this decade. That is the main cause of today’s crisis.
Yes, Peter Schiff is a big fan of deregulation but the kind most people mean when they (falsely) use the word. There seem to be some sort of misconception about what has taken place in the US financial market over the past few decades. The constant lamenting about “deregulated” markets is preposterous. There are over 12.000 full time federal regulators overseeing the financial markets, divided into seven different authorities, the SEC being the top dog of course. Now, it is an undeniable fact that these bureaucrats are both hopelessly incompetent and utterly corrupted (Bernie Madoff case in point), but there is no lack of neither regulators nor regulations.
Austrians, like Peter Schiff, wants to get rid of all the special provisions that enable financials institutions to engage in fraud and counterfeiting. Mainly, the want to abolish the Fed, introduce sound money and outlaw fractional reserve banking. Do that, and the market will regulate itself. Without all the funny money and lender of last resort, none of the crazyness we have seen the last 10 or 20 years would have been possible. That is true deregulation, and that is what is needed.
I don’t want to speculate what Greenspan meant with that phrase, but the verbal acrobatics of mainstream bureaucrats are meaningless, much like the notorious “paradox of thrift”, which of course is no paradox at all.
“Peter thinks that the whole world thinks like him”? Where in the world did you get that idea? He’s been out in the wilderness for most of his career and he is fully aware of it, he’s pointed out that fact several times. No Austrian thinks the world thinks like him. We are all painfully aware of our minority position. Ironic though, how Austrians always get so much more attention when there’s a crisis on. That is because Austrians are always the only ones who saw it coming, and, more importantly, knew why it was coming.
The world does not depend on the American economy being strong. That is an illusion deficit spenders and dimwitted hillbillies have created for themselves to justify their unsustainable ways of life. No one, and I do mean no one, needs a customer who empties your store but never pays the bill. Common sense should be enough to figure that one out.
China has starting to do exactly what Peter has said they will do, decoupling themselves from the dollar. They’ve said that they won’t be buying trillions in US Treasury bill, and they have been pushing for a new reserve currency, even though they don’t need it. That is decoupling. China is the largest US creditor. Of course they are worried about the possibility of all their dollars losing value, but its far better to get out now then to wait for a complete collapse. And judging by the rhetoric coming from Beijing, they are beginning to realize that. In addition, with the US consumer utterly broke, he is no longer as attractive as he once was. And I’m fairly sure that the Chinese and others have learnt that they can’t base their economy on the consumerism of one nation. They will diversify as well, away from their former dependency on the US consumer.
The economy isn’t strong, it is in a state of collapse! For heaven’s sake man! Look at what happened to Japan when they tried propping up zombie companies and banks. They’re well into their second lost decade. Look at what happened to the US in the 1930-ies. Better still, look at what happened to the US in the depression of 1920-1921. It was a complete crash, but the government let it crash, let the market handle it. A year or so later, the US economy was booming again.
It’s not Peter Schiff’s solution, it isn’t even the Austrian solution, it is the market’s solution. This recession neither can nor needs to be fixed by politicians and bureaucrats. It is quite simply the market’s way of correcting decades of deficit spending financed with the printing press. It has happened hundreds if not thousands of times through the course of human history. It is economic law and it cannot be circumvented. That’s just the way it is.
Misessus (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Austrians, like Peter Schiff, wants to get rid of all the special provisions that enable financials institutions to engage in fraud and counterfeiting. Mainly, the want to abolish the Fed, introduce sound money and outlaw fractional reserve banking. Do that, and the market will regulate itself. Without all the funny money and lender of last resort, none of the crazyness we have seen the last 10 or 20 years would have been possible. That is true deregulation, and that is what is needed.
Because the market regulated itself perfectly when there was sound money and no regulation. There weren't any bank runs, panics, or depressions in the nineteenth century where there. Nuh-uh, no-way, can't be. Squiems (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Betting victory?

Shouldn't someone include his bet in 2006 and his subsequent victory against Art Laffer? Dragonlord kfb (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquote page?

Considering the current affairs in political economics and the amount of writing and speaking that Mr. Schiff has undertaken and is undertaking, there are some good reasons to begin collecting his quotations in a format that can be readily accessed and expanded. Could one of the Wikipedia editors please create a Wikiquote page to which this Wikepedia article can be linked? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.131.24 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff is jew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHgxIioiff0 - proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.164.7 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the only thing we can learn from this video is that his grandfather spoke yiddish. that doesn't necessarily make peter a Jew (nor his grandfather for that matter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.186.176 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It was his first language his grandfather is obivously jew 92.101.160.44 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He's always referred to Jewish holidays on his radio show. Just look at his name and facial features. No shit he's Jewish. What's your point, by the way? Be sure to post your own ethnicity and religion, so we can all draw the "obvious conclusions" from them. VF Static (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why information about his ethnicity was deleted? 95.53.138.246 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the lead sentence per WP:MOSBIO. If you want to add ethnicity further into the article, do so as long as you include a reliable source. Thank you, --Tom (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHgxIioiff0 - this is not a reliable source????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.173.168 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. Also, didn't I say something about not going in the lead sentence? --Tom (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is it not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.173.168 (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
youtube? Nuff said. --Tom (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is youtube not a reliable source? It's Schiff own words that his grandfather's first language is Yiddish.
Because it isn't. Are we done here or are you going to continue to vandalize this article? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
If not then why there are so many links to youtube on this page? You should delete half of this article because youtube is main source for it. And I'm not vandalizing this page WP:MOSBIO is just recomendations--92.101.182.250 (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ah no, you are vandalizing this article at this point. MOSBIO is what it is, depending on your definition of "is" is. Please feel free to remove citations that use youtube or I would be happy to do so. --Tom (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a serious mess. Must be a Ron Paul thing :), sorry guys. --Tom (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ps I love the title of this section, very subtle folks...like a broken leg! --Tom (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is of vital importance to add to the list at the bottom that he's an American Jew

This article is an embarrassment to everything wikipedia stands for

Clearly, this article is a puff piece written by Ron Paul fanboys. There NEEDS to be mention in this article of Schiff's long history of predicting imminent financial catastrophe, his lack of any higher degree or economics training (the man is a stock broker, who goes on tv declaring himself to be an economic expert), his underperforming investment company, and the inaccuracy of his predictions for our current recession (E.g the value of the dollar, price of gold, inflation rate, and the economic performance of nations which had higher savings rate and far less debt than America, all of which are way off). Yes, he did predict the economy would go to hell right before it did, while the consensus was that this wouldn't happen (although he was far from the only person to predict our current troubles, and many others did so with far greater accuracy), and yes, the article should mention how many people who criticized him ended up eating their words. However, the current article is far too biased in his favor, and is nowhere near objective. Squiems (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than complaining, edit the article as long as you provide reliable sources. If you are reverted, discuss you changes here and see if you can gain consensus. --Tom (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned down at the bottom: American Jews

Schiff's Religious Background

Please stop vandalizing this article with comments about Schiff's religion. WHO CARES if his family has traditionally been Jewish? Unless he is a practicing Jew, and unless he mentions it as point of pride, then mentioning that he is Jewish can only be seen as an anti-Semitic slur. Let's grow up and be civil, folks!Trasel (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Trasel, I hear ya, but including ethnicity/heritage in BLPs is pretty standard. The problem here is 1) It should NOT go in the lead sentence unless it is the reason for the person's notability(happens about .01% of the time), usually goes in a family or personal section, ect. and 2)It needs to be properly sourced. If both those things happen, then it hard to argue against inclusion. This has been a touchy subject over the years to say the least. Anyways, I appreciate your feedback and hopefully we can work this out. If not, then page protection or other remidies will need to be used. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
As Tom said, it's not so simple. Personally, I think the WP:BLPCAT policy should apply to inclusion in the article, not just categorization, but I read the policy as only applying to categories right now. In this particular article, as Tom mentioned, there hasn't been a reliable source, so it's easy to keep it out of the article. I think the only other option at this point in this and any other article is to go through the steps to gain consensus on whether it belongs in the article. -shirulashem(talk) 18:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZi7uquwZKQ - HE SAID THAT HE IS JEWISH IN THE END OF THIS VIDEO!!!!!! IS IT STILL NOT ENOUGH?
in the video above he clearly states that he is Jewish and he celebrates rosh hashana - meaning he is at least partly-practicing.

Economic views: neutrality dispute

Is this section's neutrality still disputed? I read over it and it looks accurate to me. If there is no objection, I would like to remove the POV tag. Dbrisinda (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I cleaned up the lead, so as to conform to WP:LEAD. If there are any issues with my edits, feel bold and go right ahead to make the changes, but please also discuss here. ephix (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement attributing Schiff's "rise to fame" to a Youtube video is an unsourced POV, and does not belong in the lead. Schiff was a prominent television commentator for several years prior to this, and had many videos of himself uploaded to the internet. In any case, it's not the sort of essential information that belongs in the lead. Karpouzi (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture

There's a lack of pictures/photographs of him. The one currently being used is of poor quality because its very grainy. There are a few at his facebook page, but I don't know what license it is. Perhaps some photographs can be extracted from his youtube channel which is under the is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. Better yet, perhaps some supporters could upload some photos. Or, maybe someone could try sending a few emails requesting some photos...(has anyone tried?)...but a single grainy photo simply doesn't suffice.Smallman12q (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schiff's infobox

A lot of the information is unsourced and/or unneeded. I think the infobox should reflect his running for U.S. Senate. He needs to have a more general infobox, not the economist one. --StormCommander (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is quite well sourced. He has stated many times that he is indeed of the Austrian School of Economics. I don't believe there is an infobox for running U.S. senators, maybe there is...but even as a running candidate, there is no reason to remove his school of thought. (Is a politician to have an empty infobox-.- )Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I just think it looks a little random saying "Austrian School" above his picture. Why not "Republican Party" or "Senate Candidate." I would rather see nothing up there. --StormCommander (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The infobox is for economists...hence {{infobox economist}}. Find a different infobox for politics, not economics and then you may add in the desired info such as the fact he's running on the Republican ticket. On a side note,I've copied this discussion to Peter Schiff's talk page Talk:Peter Schiff#Peter Schiff's infobox so that other interested parties may provide input. Smallman12q (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any infoboxes for running senators?Smallman12q (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not a candidate box, but he could probably use a general politician box since he'll be an official Republican Party candidate in 2010. Omnibus (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

As far as him being an "economist" does anyone have any information about his education background?Vinithehat (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He is a licensed broker, he ran as Ron Paul's economic adviser, and in most of his interviews/appearances on television at his site, he is introduced as an economist.Smallman12q (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not enough. You could introduce me as "President of the United States, President Omnibus". Meaningless. Economic advisor =/= economist. PS - I love the "he is a licensed broker" comment. That's about the furthest thing from an economist as possible.
As far as I can tell, Schiff does not have a B.A. in economics, nor a M.S. in economics, nor a Ph.D. in anything. He has never done any economic research of any kind, published a single peer-reviewed economic paper, or anything of the like. What he is, the best I can tell, is a stock broker who makes negative economic commentary related to his stock market predictions, many of which have been ill-timed or incorrect. Meanwhile, his clients have lost money.[1] Omnibus (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
"His clients have lost money." All of them? Which ones? What percentage? If I were to word my description as vague as that one, I bet I could characterize you as President. Thesacrificebunt (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
OK. But he's still not an economist. Omnibus (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion, and there is an easy way to get around it. Economist is not an exclusive or protected title, unlike titles such as doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, lawyer etc. which are protected by law, and require official creditation.

As such, there is no formal standard for what being an economist entails or requires. Anyone can use the title - to give an example, I am a sociologist by education but deal with the economy and financial issues. I am also a member of DJOEF - The Association of Danish Lawyers and Economists, and am perfectly eligible to be so because my work relates to economics.

Furthermore, to quote the Wikipedia entry on what an economist is: "An economist is an expert in the social science of economics". Expertise can be achieved either through formal or informal education or through practice. Who is the greater expert on litterature - the academic professor in litterature or the award-winning poet? Such a question cannot be answered merely on the basis of education or job title, and the same goes for economics.

Having been educated as a stock broker (dealing with a section of the economy), having been the economic adviser of a Presidential candidate, having worked in investment, having written a best-selling book on the financial crisis which he predicted, and having been continuously interviewed on his expert opinion on economic issues by professional news channels dealing with the economy such as CNBC, it would certainly seem warranted given the circumstances that Peter Schiff be referred to as an economist. Not least because this entry in Wikipedia is far from the first time this title has been bestowed upon him (as Smallman12q points out he is often introduced as an economist).

There seems to be a fair amount of POV involved in this article, with reference to the user Omnibus' unrelated statements about Peter Schiff losing money, being mistaken etc. These statements, correct or incorrect, do not pertain to whether or not Peter Schiff is an economist. The arguments I have presented, however, are relevant to this discussion and to the Wikipedia entry on Peter Schiff.

Pontoppidan (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Peter Schiff: "I Don't Think I've Been Wrong On Anything"

Is Peter Schiff an economist?

Peter Schiff is a political candidate in the 2010 Senate election in Connecticut. He is also a licensed stock broker who makes predictions about the economy and stock market. His proponents call him an "economist" but he has never received a bachelor's, master's, or doctorate in economics, nor has he ever published any peer-reviewed studies, papers, or research of any kind in the field of economics. He has an undergraduate degree in accounting and finance and has not attended graduate school. Please help us decide if Mr. Schiff is an economist or not. Omnibus (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

An economist is anybody who is an expert in the social science of economics. I must say Peter Schiff qualifies as an economist. South Bay (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What makes Peter Schiff an expert in economics? He's not once been published in the field, nor has he ever conducted research. These are the activities that field "experts" generally participate in, don't you think? Omnibus (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
According to the U.S. government, if they have four or more university credits in economics then they are an unofficial economist. South Bay (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? Do you have a link for this U.S. government policy? Omnibus (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am reposting here as it is relevant to both entries on Peter Schiff as an economist:

This is not a productive discussion, and there is an easy way to get around it. Economist is not an exclusive or protected title, unlike titles such as doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist, lawyer etc. which are protected by law, and require official creditation.

As such, there is no formal standard for what being an economist entails or requires. Anyone can use the title - to give an example, I am a sociologist by education but deal with the economy and financial issues. I am also a member of DJOEF - The Association of Danish Lawyers and Economists, and am perfectly eligible to be so because my work relates to economics.

Furthermore, to quote the Wikipedia entry on what an economist is: "An economist is an expert in the social science of economics". Expertise can be achieved either through formal or informal education or through practice. Who is the greater expert on litterature - the academic professor in litterature or the award-winning poet? Such a question cannot be answered merely on the basis of education or job title, and the same goes for economics.

Having been educated as a stock broker (dealing with a section of the economy), having been the economic adviser of a Presidential candidate, having worked in investment, having written a best-selling book on the financial crisis which he predicted, and having been continuously interviewed on his expert opinion on economic issues by professional news channels dealing with the economy such as CNBC, it would certainly seem warranted given the circumstances that Peter Schiff be referred to as an economist. Not least because this entry in Wikipedia is far from the first time this title has been bestowed upon him (as Smallman12q points out he is often introduced as an economist).

There seems to be a fair amount of POV involved in this article, with reference to the user Omnibus' unrelated statements about Peter Schiff losing money, being mistaken etc. These statements, correct or incorrect, do not pertain to whether or not Peter Schiff is an economist. The arguments I have presented, however, are relevant to this discussion and to the Wikipedia entry on Peter Schiff.

Pontoppidan (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that EVERY BIOGRAPHY on all of Wikipedia can add "economist" to its description of the subject with this claim that "anyone can use the title of economist" is. Just to review, my argument here is not about Schiff being mistaken about his predictions. It's about the fact that he's never been trained as an economist at any level and has never formally participated in the field in any way (no peer-reviewed research or publications in this social science for starters). Omnibus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm not. First off, it's not a claim that 'economist' is not a protected title, it's a statement of fact. Secondly, I'm arguing that the discussion is a valid discussion in any Wikipedia entry where there might have been preceeding use of the term 'economist' to said person in question, and where the need to apply such a description might therefore arise. I'm not going to call Roland Barthes or Michael Schumacher economists out of the blue, and no one else is either. If you want to claim that they are economists, you're going to have to put forth a fairly good argument for how their work as a cultural semiotician and a race car driver respectively have made them "experts in the social science of economics". To my knowledge neither have published best-selling books on the economy, worked in the economy as a stock brokers, worked as chief economic advisors to a U.S. Presidential candidate or been continuously interviewed and introduced by media dealing with the economy as 'economists'. I'm not saying you couldn't make the argument, but it would be hard for me to see how. And since no one else has made the argument, and there has been no preceeding attempt to classify these figures as economists, I'd say prima facie that the case to make rests with you.

In the case of Peter Schiff, however, it's the other way around, since he does in fact have the above-mentioned credentials and has been classified as an economists by other people than himself. That means Wikipedia users don't have to make that argument if they can refer to the outside world and credible ressources, but that Wikipedia users who disagree are left with the burden of proof.

What this discussion is really about is to work towards Wikipedia reflecting reality as it unfolds outside of this website, rather than Wikipedia becoming an internal reflection on itself and its users' subjective opinions, by setting up artificial standards that have no root in reality. E.g. by continuing to stress an irrelevant point ("no peer-reviewed research or publications in this social science").

Finally, just to end this discussion, Peter Schiff graduated in Finance and Accounting from UC Berkeley. That means he received, with guarantee, extensive education in financial economics. To quote that entry: 'Financial economics is the branch of economics studying the interrelation of financial variables, such as prices, interest rates and shares, as opposed to those concerning the real economy. Financial economics concentrates on influences of real economic variables on financial ones, in contrast to pure finance.'

That means derivates, stocks, valuation, cash flow, assets, bonds, money market instruments - all areas that Peter Schiff has later worked on with expertise and offers his expert advice on to journalists and politicians. Financial economics is just as much economics as behavioral economics or industrial organization. To quote the Wikipedia entry on Economics: 'Financial economics, often simply referred to as finance, is concerned with the allocation of financial resources in an uncertain (or risky) environment. Thus, its focus is on the operation of financial markets, the pricing of financial instruments, and the financial structure of companies.

Pontoppidan (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.209.224.153 (talk)

Now we're getting somewhere. I'm willing to call him a "financial economist" which is much more specific than the broad term "economist", as he has no training or qualifications outside of the relatively small subfield of financial economics (unlike the vast majority of people calling themselves economists, who have training in "economics" in general). Omnibus (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I'v been watching this discussion and I don't see how we're getting anywhere. "Financial economist" is a double expression as economists only deal with finances. User:Pontoppidan made a good point, "Economist" is not an exclusive or protected title. Your counter argument "that EVERY BIOGRAPHY on all of Wikipedia can add "economist" to its description" is not in accords with WP:MOSBIO where it is stipulated that biography should include details on "Why the person is significant".
"Economist" is clearly par with "Author" or "Historian" which are not honoury titles bestowed upon their subjects, rather they are earned through various lines of work. It is not up to us as editors on Wikipedia to decide whether Charles Dickens was a good author, or if Martin Gilbert is a good Historian, or even if **Peter Schiff** is a good **economist**. If he has been referred to as an economist in credible sources, we include it in the article. You can help by finding these sources and posting them in the article, but not in the lead paragraph.
I have removed the tags though you are free to continue this discussion or bring it elsewhere. You can also create a "criticism section" and add the challenge to his title, if you have a good source for it. ephix (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

:::"Financial economist" is a double expression as economists only deal with finances.

Um, no. You don't seem to know the difference between finance and economics. To put it most simply. financial economics is entirely a subfield of microeconomics, whereas general "economists" are experts in macroeconomics as well.
I have removed the tags though you are free to continue this discussion
It's not up to you to remove the tag (don't know why you said "tags", there's only one). It will remain until the discussion is finished. Which will be soon I promise, if I can't get anyone from the RfC to comment. So far, the only comments are from Libertarian activists who watch this page... which is disappointing.
Omnibus (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'll remove the tag myself for now but expect this issue to come up again and again in the future, if and when Peter Schiff ever becomes better known and Wikipedians outside of his small Libertarian cult following begin to comment here. Omnibus (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Omnibus, I'd like to point you to WP:FAITH, your comment on me being a Libertarian cult member is most unbecoming, a first generation Wikipedian should know better. Nor is it correct that the Libertarian Party is a cult or that I am a member of it. You brought up some good points in your crossed out post that we can still discuss. ephix (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I am going to comment here as an editor who has had no involvement with this article (I didn't even know who Peter Schiff was) - I came across this on the WP:RFC/A page).
I did a quick search for information and came across these:
  1. Nutting, Rex (29 October 2009). "How much has the stimulus done?". MarketWatch. Dow Jones & Company. Retrieved 2009-11-18. "Economist Peter Schiff said the stimulus was an attempt to blow new unsustainable bubbles"
  2. Galea, Roberto (11 September 2009). "Economic Forum update: Friday plenary session (12:15 pm)". Warsaw Business Journal. Valkea Media. Retrieved 2009-11-18. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) "A plenary session with Finance Minister Jacek Rostowski, US economists Edmund Phelps and Peter Schiff as well as German economist Wolfgang Clement was held on Friday, discussing the status of economists in light of the present economic conditions."
  3. Flint, Joe (17 September 2009). "WWE's Linda McMahon resigns to run for Senate". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved 2009-11-18. "Economist Peter Schiff is expected to announce his candidacy today."
  4. Miller, Zeke (25 September 2009). "More Republicans join race against Dodd". Yale Daily News. The Yale Daily News Publishing Company. Retrieved 2009-11-18. "Five Republicans are competing for the chance to challenge Dodd next November, with two of the newcomers — former-World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, and economist and hedge-fund manager Peter Schiff — joining the campaign trail in the last month"
  5. Chudy, Jola (25 June 2009). "Success can take a workout". The National. Mubadala Development Company. Retrieved 2009-11-18. "I’d been following Peter Schiff, a famous economist who predicted the global recession, and it seemed to make sense to move somewhere that was growing at the time."
  6. "Nadchodzi hiperinflacja ("Here comes hyperinflation")". Wprost 24 (in Polish (with English translation available)). Agencja Wydawniczo-Reklamowa Wprost Sp. z o.o. 15 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-18.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) "Kryzys nie skończy się w tym, ani następnym roku – twierdzi amerykański ekonomista Peter Schiff, szef firmy brokerskiej Euro Pacific Capital, który już w 2006 roku przewidział obecny krach i jego następstwa." (Google Translate gives: "The crisis will not end up in this or next year - says American economist Peter Schiff, head of brokerage firm Euro Pacific Capital, which already in 2006 predicted the current collapse and its aftermath.")
I feel that there is enough mention of him as an economist in various sources to justify calling him one in the article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. ephix (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to RFC Call him a self-taught economic commentator or something of that ilk, and have done. The precise label isn't nearly as important here - it's not as if being an "economist" is a gold star or something. RayTalk 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to accomplish Omnibus? There are a number of articles that refer to Peter Schiff as an economist not to mention that he is introduced as an economist both on television and at economic debates. What defines a person as an economist to you Omnibus? Smallman12q (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to withold the title "economist." Peter Schiff is frequently cited as an authority on the state of the economy and possible investment strategies. Being an economist does not require being a university professor of economics.Hickorybark (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike Shedlock is referencenced in the article as a 'financial blogger', why is he not an 'economist'? This is rampant hypocrisy, he is equally as quallified as Schiff: both have published opinions on economics, both are refrenced in public discourse, Shedlock is a registered investment advisor and Schiff is a broker, Shedlock is a representative for SitkaPacific Capital Management and Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital. Under the arguments presented by commentators above either both are economists or neither are.--Nikopolyos (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Reply to RfC He can't be an economist without either any training or employment in the field. Where's the sense in perpetuating a known error? Dduff442 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia's job to correct 'errors' if those 'errors' appear in the majority of reliable sources. Please note Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Bastin 17:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Well his bio on the website of his own company[1] does not describe him as an economist:
Mr. Schiff began his investment career as a financial consultant with Shearson Lehman Brothers, after having earned a degree in finance and accounting from U.C. Berkeley in 1987. A financial professional for over twenty years he joined Euro Pacific in 1996 and has served as its President since January 2000. An expert on money, economic theory, and international investing, Peter is a highly recommended broker by many leading financial newsletters and investment advisory services. He is also a contributing commentator for Newsweek International and served as an economic advisor to the 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign. He holds FINRA Series 4,7,24,27,53,55, & 63 licenses.
The confusion here results from his being a so-called Austrian economist. This needs to be mentioned to clarify his views which probably lead to him being referred to as an economist in the first place. Note that Austrian Economics is an economic or political viewpoint, not a field in itself. You can't get a degree in Austrian Economics, though you can publish papers etc with that POV. Ron Paul subscribes to Austrian Economics also, naturally.
A great many economists would dispute whether it's possible to subscribe to the Austrian school and still qualify as 'expert'. Austrian Economics is basically Classical Economics, i.e. economics as it was when William IV was on the throne of England.Dduff442 (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
See also Austrian economics#Criticism. Note the remark by Milton Friedman, hardly a leftist pinko. I can't understand the desire to insert a known falsehood into the article.Dduff442 (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Friedman doesn't mention Schiff. Obviously. So stop asserting your opinion in this; if it's supported by newspapers, it goes in regardless of your personal opinion. Schiff's own website is, under Wikipedia policy, not a particularly reliable indicator, either.
Austrian economics is not at all as you characterise. Bastin 11:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Austrian economics is not mainstream and finding university tenured Austrian school economists anywhere in the world seems to be a challenge, frankly. Friedman stated that Austrian Economics is simply incorrect, a position shared by just about the entire profession.
It is not correct to say 'if it's supported by newspapers, it goes in'. It *is* correct to say 'if it's supported by newspapers, we report it's supported by newspapers'. Using a self-published source to support the claim Schiff is an economist would be incorrect; using it to refute the claim is perfectly reasonable.Dduff442 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
You really are bringing up irrelevant points, but I'm gonna refute them and move BACK TO POLICY, which is what you should be discussing, instead of your prejudices against Austrian economics. 1) You can get degrees in Austrian economics from Rey Juan Carlos University and George Mason University, for example. 2) Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School was one of the three fathers of marginal economics (i.e. fathers of modern economics), and another classical economist, Jevons, was another one of the three. 3) Austrian economics was the main opposition to Marxian economics up until Keynesianism, a century after William IV's reign - it has fallen largely out of favour since then, but it wasn't fossilised in the 1830s. 4) Hayek, Mises, Schumpeter are all well integrated into modern syntheses of economics teaching. 5) Friedman does not discuss whether Austrian economics is economics - he refutes a single point, on the business cycle. 6) None of this reflects on Peter Schiff. But, other than those minor quibbles... back to policy.
Policy is exactly what you didn't mention there. Policy is found here. You seem to be treating news articles as opinion-editorials. They're different, and Wikipedia policy differentiates between the two; if a position is repeated in news stories by major news outlets, particularly newspapers of record, it is considered by Wikipedia to be a fact that does not require attribution. Bastin 12:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply to RfC: In my mind this discussion should be a very simple one. Its' not our role as editors to judge or decide about the subject. What matters is how Schiff is described by reliable secondary sources. If they refer to him as an economist than we put that in the Wiki article. If not, then we don't. It doesn't matter what we think of his degrees or lack thereof.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I second that entirely. Bastin 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I care about policy. Some of the sources cited refer to Schiff as an economist in passing. Only one (IIRC) states 'Peter Schiff is an economist...'. His own bio does not refer to him as an economist and nobody suggests he was trained as an economist. I suggest his Pacific Capital is a perfectly valid source for proving this particular negative. How about inserting 'He has no professional training as an economist', citing this? Dduff442 (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
What you are suggesting above is Original Research, or drawing our own conclusions, which is also prohibited by Wiki (see WP:OR). It is not our role as editors to make conclusions based on multiple sources. We simply reflect what the sources say (summarizing is OK). One editor in the thread above has listed several reliable sources where Schiff is refered to as an economist. So it belongs in his Wiki bio. If you can find a reliable source that says "he is referred to by the media as an economist but does not have the traditional degrees of an economist" than we can put that in also. But we don't say it on our own. We just reflect what the sources say.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiki is not a democracy but it is characterized by consensus. With that in mind I would like to note that in this thread there are two editors who oppose the economist descriptor, two who are somewhat neutral and six who feel the term is appropriate for the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to abandon this now. I only arrived in response to an RFC. I should mention I'm fairly sympathetic to Ron Paul who is a principled outsider. That he and Barney Frank could co-sponsor a bill speaks volumes about each man. It was Paul's economics that was widely derided, however, and I suggest it would not be necessary to travel all the way to Spain to study Marxist economics or participatory economics to name but two other discredited theories. Friedman's criticism of Austrian economics is not just particular; as with the pricing of goods in Marxist economics, Friedman's critique of the Austrian interpretation of the business cycle knocks out the keystone without which the theory simply falls apart. I'm sure you'll agree that there are a myriad of quotes about Paul's economic policies from during his presidential campaign that could be dug up to make Schiff look very foolish indeed. It is very much a fringe theory. Dduff442 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Duff, your input is appreciated. I am a RfC commenter too and I have just noted that on my initial entry.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

PersonalLife section needs citations

Hi Folks, According to WP:BLP personal info must have reliable refs or it should be removed immediately. Also links to YouTube are not permitted on Wiki either as External Links or inline citations. Let's see what we can do to fix this up. Thanks for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The text below has been removed from the article as it has no sources. If sources are found it can be added back in.

This un-sourced text was removed and can be put back in when/if reliable sources are found

I believed those were sourced...those are indeed true, so sources should be fairly easy to find.Smallman12q (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
If you can source them Small that would be great. I'm just being careful per BLP guidelines. Thanks for your help.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

There are notable controversies and numerous citations that point peter schiff as one of the most influential men of the 21 century. Western Pines (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please give some links to reliable sources?Smallman12q (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Opposed"

This part of Schiffs bio listed no sources. It also did not give any indication for what it meant. Opposed by? Opposed to? Opposing these people in the upcoming election? It made no sense, and was unsourced. Weakopedia (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

in pretty much all of Schiffs frequent video blogs and TV appearances he is seen to express his strong disagreement with Greenspan, Obama, Bernanke etc. In chapter 1 of Crashproof, his book, he particularly singles out Greenspan as one of the most incompetent people ever, closely followed by Bernanke.--Penbat (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The reader of this encyclopedia page, upon seeing a section titled "Opposed" and a list of names, has to research the article to understand what the opposed referes to. The word opposed means nothing without context. If it is important that Schiff opposes these people then it should go in the body of the article, with sources and context, not in the box with his picture and other details. Weakopedia (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You make no sense.--Screwball23 talk 16:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense to me: the infobox just says "opposed." It doesn't explain if he is opposing these people, if these people are opposing him, or what. Basically, it is ambiguous and confusing to readers, so it should be moved to the body of the article. Perhaps it could go in the "economic views" section, and state exactly how and why he opposes these people. Also, unless I am mistaken, it is not the people themselves who he opposes, but their policies and ideas. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep Schiff just opposes their economic views. Obama, Greenspan, Bernanke etc just totally ignore the existence of Schiff.--Penbat (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I added at least one citation for each of the "opposed" individuals. If you require more, we can certainly flood the infobox with plenty, as Schiff expresses his opposition to each of those individuals pretty much every time he opens his mouth or writes something down. I, however, feel that having to include so many citations in the small space of the infobox, in multiple ways handicaps the entire point of an infobox, as it makes it much more difficult to gather the information at a quick glance. If others agree, we can remove all or at least some of them...which I would prefer. I'm sorry if you find the term confusing, but that has been the consensus for the infobox. If you have a problem with it, take it to the Template talk:Infobox economist page and bring it up there. Until then, just as the template page says:

"Opposed" refers to persons or schools whose ideas were opposed by this economist. Randall Collins (1998: 379-380) argues that the most important relationships in shaping the evolution of philosophies are "rivalrous" relationships, between opposing thinkers. There may well be overlap between Opposed and Influences (as, for example, Aristotle was both influenced by and opposed to Plato).

It has nothing to do with being "enemies," Weakopedia. Another thing, I'm curious as to why (according to you) this section requires direct citations, while all the others (e.g. "influences," "nationality", etc.) do not. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, your explanation makes sense. I guess we could go either way on citations: if we keep them in the infobox, we should be consistent and cite the influences, at least, though I don't think it's necessary to cite nationality. The other option would be to remove them and ideally have more information in the body of the article, with citations. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason the references to people he might be opposed to requires sourcing is in case he isn't opposed to those people. No-one is saying he isn't, and I haven't read his book, but if a Wiki editor is going to put words in someones mouth then BLP says they need a source to make sure they are the right words. The better option would be to include in the body of the article the reasons for the opposition, which there must be if the opposition is notable, and that saves having to put citations in the infobox. And I will take it up at the infobox talkpage, the wording is unencyclopedic. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. "The reason the references to people he might be opposed to requires sourcing is in case he isn't opposed to those people." That does nothing to explain why the "opposed" section requires citations and "nationality" doesn't. You could say that for every single sentence in every single article...The fact that he's an American needs to be cited "in case he isn't an American." This is not what an encyclopedia is about. Check through WP:CS to get a better understanding of Wikipedia protocol. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You didn't need to go that far down the policy page - look at the first line, where it says "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.". Your information wasn't just likely to be challenged - it was challenged. His nationality is non-controversial and therefore unlikely to be challenged. Regards. Weakopedia (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, notice I linked directly to the "Why and when to cite sources" section...which is precisely what we're talking about here. And I would suggest you actually read the information that follows that sentence, which puts it into context:

"The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research."

Something is "likely to be challenged" if it is full of weasel words and opinion-based statements...not simply because it exists on Wikipedia. Again, without that context you could make the argument that every sentence of every article could possibly be "likely to be challenged."

What's more, your statements still do nothing to explain how why "influences" does not need to be cited, and "opposed" does. Again, simply saying "his nationality is unlikely to be challenged" is not sufficient to distinguish it as something that doesn't need to be cited from something that does, using your logic. Not to mention, if one were to read the article, one would gain an understanding of how Schiff opposed the economic philosophies of those men...and it would be unlikely to be challenged. Just because you didn't understand the meaning of the "opposed" section and decided to try and remove it, doesn't constitute a legitimate challenge. You weren't disputing that Schiff opposed those men, you just had no idea what it meant, and personally thought that it was possible that he didn't oppose them and you personally didn't like the idea of having that information there. That is not at all a licit challenge. If anything it seems more of a contravention of WP:OWNERSHIP.

As I said before, Schiff expresses his opposition to each of those individuals pretty much every time he opens his mouth or writes something down. That information wasn't a statement of opinion, didn't involve any weasel words or original research, and wasn't likely to be challenged. Just because someone decides to go to the pencil article, and challenge the idea that "A pencil is a writing implement or art medium usually constructed of a narrow, solid pigment core inside a protective casing," doesn't mean it is then required for that statement to include a citation. There has to actually be some sort of legitimacy behind the challenge, otherwise, Wikipedia would not exist. By your logic, someone could just go around arbitrarily challenging every single sentence in every single article, and then the entire Wikipedia community would have to start finding sources to cite for every single sentence. Again, this is not what Wikipedia is about. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you ought to try reading that quote again. It says the need for citations is especially important in this case. It does say avoid weasel words but it doesn't say that avoiding weasel words is a replacement for a citation. In fact it says "give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion". It doesn't say you don't have to bother about the citation bit if you avoided weasel words. Anyway, if you want to argue that citations are not necessary for things you already know find a policy talkpage. I'm off to template Pencils. Weakopedia (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, thank god this weirdo finally left the page. Geez, I wonder how editors like weakopedia even get Barnstars. --Screwball23 talk 15:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The same way people like Marisa Tomei get Oscars. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I also oppose the the "Oppose" section in the InfoBox. The purpose of the InfoBox is to summarize bio data such as age, birthplace, religion, education etc. It is not the place to summarize the political or economic views of the subject. It would be more appropriate to have a section in the article that discusses this topic rather than a section in the InfoBox. Furthermore, combining sources to create a conclusion ie Schiff is opposed to Mr.X and Mr. Y is original research and is prohibited under WP:OR. If there is a reliable secondary source that says that Schiff opposes various people and lists there names than that can be in the article. But for an editor(s) to combine sources to come to that conclusion is against Wiki policy and it is especially improper in the Info Box.-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of citations WP:BLP which is a core policy of Wikipedia says: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."[2]a-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that WP policy generally suggests heavier scrutiny for biographical information. Also, I'll note that one of the editors above should strike his derogatory comments aimed at another participant --- the matter really is NOT that serious. BigK HeX (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"Failed verification" tag

editor says, "Find a passage that says it holds today and cite that."

Apparently editor, JohnDoe, is suggesting that citations only apply if they make assertions that are directly tied to the current date, leading to the further ridiculous implication that new sources need to be found on a regular basis to reconfirm that the information is still current ... or something. Obviously, this sort of suggestion would be nonsense. It is my opinion that if JohnDoe continues to hold vague suspicions that there may be some unspecified reason that the sourced information is outdated, that HE source his contention. Until then, I find that the stated reasons for his use of the cleanup tag border on being silly. BigK HeX (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for beginning a discussion. To respond to your assertions: Not at all. Notice how the very source you cite says--in the sentence directly before the one you quote...the sentence you edit out--"Although by the 1930s it seemed as though the mainstream had incorporated Austrian ideas, it became clear..." Then, the very next section of the book is titled "The Perception of Austrian Economics After World War II." The point is the perception has changed. If you want to make an argument that "Austrian economics is non-mainstream" (meaning currently), I don't think it is "ridiculous" to insist that you find a source that says so, rather than finding one that says a "dividing line was redrawn" in the 1940s and 1950s.
Furthermore, I'm not even sure why it is so imperative that the hyphenated adjective be included in a random article about an apparent non-professional proponent of the school. If a reader were interested in the details about the Austrian school, he would only have to click the internal link. That's really the point of Wikifying in the first place. As I said initially, it really is superfluous. It more seems that you are not so much interested in making for the best article, as instead finding as many ways to slide in connotations of a negative nature as possible. Such as this. In the first place, there was absolutely no reason to add that commentary, as it was already brought up in detail elsewhere in the article. Second, performance record in the stock market has nothing to do with being credited as predicting the economic crisis. It is irrelevant to that passage, and the way it is introduced there is basically WP:OR. But most of all, it was an overt display of bias, as you not only blatantly gave credence to one side of the claim, you quote-cut someone who was actually defending Schiff, to make it seem as though there wasn't even two sides at all. Completely unacceptable. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, the response from Andrew Schiff did NOT exist in the article. To call it redundant is incorrect, if not disingenuous.
Secondly, the accusation that I "quoted someone out of context" is pretty questionable. The edit described a representative of EuroPac stating the accounts "suffered badly," all this in the context of questions about the value of Schiff's predictions, which is EXACTLY the context in Andrew Schiff's response.
And ... lastly. Contrary to your belief about my (dis)intention to improve the article, adding balance to some of the Schiff worship apparent there does show my interest in improving it -- specifically the article's conformance with WP:NPOV standards. That the article largely only stuck to highlights of Schiff's positive coverage and relegated a small portion of other issues at the end of the article is a source of bias. Since you seem interested in correcting such issues, I'd suggest that as a good place to start. BigK HeX (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


But, to the actual important matter at hand. The citation that supposedly "fails verification" is a 2003 book that discusses the Austrian School in the chapter which lists unorthodox economic views. JohnDoe's attempt at verifying the source seems misguided, and, ultimately, incorrect. It is almost as if he wants books from 2003 to explicitly just state "all information discussed here will still be current in 2010" --- obviously, that's pretty silly. If JohnDoe thinks something "may have changed" since the timeframe discussed in the book, I still hold that it is HIS speculation, and he is more than welcome to provide an RS for it. BigK HeX (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Except for Medical Claims WP:MEDRS, I am not aware of any Wiki policy that says that sources become obsolete over time. If there is some concern about a citation being dated then we can include that in the text. Something like "according to a 2003 article in the New York Times" etc. But we do not remove or ignore reliable sources just because of their age. On the other hand if more recent sources give new information (even if contradictory to the old source) we just add that to the text so that both the old and new info are represented. As Wiki editors it is not our job to 'decide' what sources are good, bad or outdated. We just present them in a balance, neutral and 'disinterested' fashion per Wiki guidelines WP:NPOV.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)m

Explain tag

JohnDoe has now stated that the tag is not there due to any dating issues, so if it is going to be replaced, I'd like to see a statement here of EXACTLY how the source does not back the simple assertion. The text describes in large detail how it branched off from the mainstream. Even without the detail, given the book's listing of the field in the section on the non-mainstream fields, it's pretty clear that the editors (Biddle et al) find it outside of the mainstream. I find the "failed verification" tag pretty objectionable given these facts. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You Tube Sources removed

I have removed the above sources because they contain You Tube links that are copyright violations because they are posted/published on YouTube by person(s) who do not own the copyrights for these videos. This is against the Wiki guideline [[WP:YOUTUBE]. If someone can find a transcript of the video(s) or find the video on the official web site of the company that created the video (ie. MSBC etc.) than it is not a copyright infringement and can be used as a source.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look further into the clips in question, but the "Peter Schiff was Right" compilation...I don't see how that violates policy, as that is a new work, created by the Fair Use of material. Can you elaborate on why simply linking to a source is against Wikipedia policy EVEN if that source is not violating any laws? (i.e. as far as I can tell, those networks cannot demand that the "Peter Schiff was Right" video be taken down because it is protected under various laws protecting free speech.) Even besides that, every single one of those networks has publicized the YouTube presence of the video. They have had Schiff on their networks and talked about that very video. That either further validates the lawfulness of the post...or completely confirms it, as it implies authorization from those networks. Long story short, it's either protected under free speech because it is not a simple reproduction of a broadcast OR the copyright holders authorize the content to be on YouTube. Either way, it is completely legal to be on YouTube, and there for completely legal for Wikipedia to link to it.
If no one has any response to this I will add the links to that video back. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Kbob has no idea what he's talking about. Add the links, because there is no rationale to remove a referenced link to a reputable source (MSNBC, CNBC, CNN interviews are all fair game)--Screwball23 talk 23:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Please take the time to read the guideline WP:YOUTUBE The videos I removed were posted to YOUTUBE by individuals, and not by CNBC or CNN etc. Therefore they appear on YouTube without the permission of the owners ie. CNBC etc. This means they are non-compliant with Wiki policies and put Wikipedia at risk. Therefore please consider this carefully.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with User:Screwball, in his contention that KBob's point can be so easily dismissed. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Screwball, although I do not like his or her tone. I see no problem with including the links. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Could just post this to the Copyright Noticeboard and see if they've got any guidance. Aside from that, would it be possible to link to the individual new broadcasts? I would have some concern about the compilation video being considered an unreliable source. You've got some unknown person cutting and splicing multiple broadcasts together. Did they change anything? Leave out anything to shade the views one way or the other? There is a strong preference, when linking to video, of making sure it's from the original source because you don't have that problem. Here, you do. Agree with the removal for both possible copyright and for unreliability. Ravensfire (talk) 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
From the introduction on WP:RS - "... media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party ...". Youtube is not the producer, nor is the original source - it's the person that posted the video. Ravensfire (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Revensfire for the intelligent analysis and for using actual references and quotes from Wiki policy to support your position. If there are still objections from other editors, I would be happy to create a post on the copyright noticeboard so we can get more input from uninvolved editors. Would you like me to do that?-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The copyright noticeboard is probably a good idea, since I don't think we'll be able to come to a consensus here. However, before we do that we need to clarify exactly which sources we are discussing here. There are three videos at the top of the this talk page section, but some of the discussion has also focused on the "Peter Schiff Was Right" compilation. Are we talking all of the above or just Peter Schiff Was Right? Or something else in between? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, after investigating further, I think that the three links at the top of this section are not really worth arguing about, since they can easily be replaced by referencing Schiff's books. I am going to go ahead and do that now, and we can change back to the videos if anyone objects. However, I think that the Peter Schiff Was Right video (removed here) should be kept, so if there is any disagreement about that then I propose moving on to the copyright noticeboard. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


Keithbob removed some links to full broadcasts that were used as sources. But he also removed links to the "Peter Schiff Was Right" compilation. Screwball is the only one who even acknowledged the analysis I gave. As I said before, if no one has any response to this I'm going to add the links to that video back.

On another note, Keithbob claims "The videos I removed were posted to YOUTUBE by individuals, and not by CNBC or CNN etc. Therefore they appear on YouTube without the permission of the owners ie. CNBC etc." This is pure speculation. He has no way of knowing if those videos are authorized or not. Owners of the content (companies such as Viacom) regularly create other accounts and post their content. 1

Further, some of Ravensfire's concerns are unfounded. (1) Not a single one of the videos Keithbob removed was a compilation video. Ravensfire has obviously not even looked at the sources or how they were used. Every single one of those links that were removed was an actual broadcast. (They may have been segments, and not the full broadcast for each source, but they were unedited and not compiled with any other content.) (2) The person who posted the video on YouTube is NOT the producer. If he was, then there wouldn't be an issue of copyright infringement. Just because some yutz can record some content and then mirror or reproduce it somewhere doesn't mean he created it. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim someone else owns the content and therefore holds a copyright, while some other person produced it (unless of course the rights were sold...which I've never heard of any media outlet selling the rights to its news content.)

Now, if you want to make the argument that the compilation videos are original content created from copyrighted content, and are themselves protected under free speech rights, then I can get on board with that. In fact, that's exactly what I was saying before. But to claim that somehow compilation videos are copyright infringement, and then say that the person who uploads unedited segments of news broadcasts on to YouTube is the "producer" of said content is just ludicrous.

Here's the bottom line:

1) Unedited news broadcasts uploaded to YouTube are still owned by the person or company that actually produced the broadcast...not by the person who uploaded the broadcast to YouTube. This uploader is NOT a producer in any way.
2) It can be shown that certain videos are indeed original content even if they include copyrighted material. The laws that protect free speech/1st amendment rights allow for this if the copyrighted material is included following certain guidelines of use outlined in the statutes. Just because a work includes copyrighted material DOES NOT mean it is automatically infringement.
3) Due to the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 all books, music, and videos are automatically copyrighted in the US at the moment of their creation. This means that nearly every single item on YouTube is copyrighted; the real question is not whether the clips are copyrighted, but whether they are "authorized" by the rightsholder for display on YouTube. Obviously, with rightsholders such as Viacom creating normal user accounts with names like "MysticalGirl8" and uploading its own content (an unequivocal authorization), it is nearly impossible to determine what content is authorized and which is not. The only way to be sure of authorization is of course if it is uploaded using an officially recognized account.

If the Wikimedia Foundation prefers to be on the safe side and not even link to YouTube videos unless we can be positive that the content is authorized, then that's what we'll have to do. But to claim that the content is automatically copyright infringement is simply false.

As for compilation videos using copyrighted material but which are themselves NOT copyright infringement under the law, obviously there is no reason to remove them. It is in determining if the compilation videos in question meet the requirements to be considered free speech that we should solicit the aid of Wikipedia authorities. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi John and thanks for your very comprehensive post. Here are a few points that might help:

  • You Tube clearly identifies the individual or organization that posts videos on its site. For example this You Tube video: PeterSchiff Was Right [3] was created and broadcast by CNBC but was posted to YouTube by 'jdouche' [4] who appears to have no affiliation or authorization from CNBC to publish its content. The name 'jdouche' is clearly indicated in the upper right hand corner of the YouTube video page. So there is no speculation involved here just common sense.
  • I think Ravensfire was referring to this video from the list above [5] which contains footage from numerous broadcasting networks.
  • Yes you are correct in saying that “the Wikimedia Foundation prefers to be on the safe side and not even link to YouTube videos unless we can be positive that the content is authorized” and I am happy that you agree that “that's what we'll have to do”. Wiki guidelines say: “Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.”
  • Please notice that there were many YouTube videos that I did not remove and that is because they were compliant with Wiki guidelines in that they were videos of Schiff published on YouTube by Schiff himself.

If I have misrepresented copyright law in some way I apologize. My main point is that we follow the Wiki policies and guidelines. Thanks for your understanding and patience.-- — Kbob • Talk • 13:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

John, obviously you didn't read my post quite well. If you had, you'd have noticed that I talk about the compilation video, which I did notice isn't one of the links mentioned above. My comments still stand, especially the point you did not address about reliability. Ravensfire (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the response Keithbob, but your first bullet point illustrates that you didn't fully comprehend my post. Your contention is that the YouTube user "jdouche" "appears to have no affiliation or authorization from CNBC to publish its content ... So there is no speculation involved here just common sense." Two things. One, again, it has been documented that companies such as Viacom have created normal user accounts with names such as "MysticalGirl8" and "Demansr" and using those accounts have uploaded Viacom-owned content. This is an unequivocal authorization for said content to be on YouTube. It IS NOT a copyright violation. A copyright owner cannot violate its own copyright. The type of account, or its name, has absolutely nothing to do with whether the content has been authorized. Again, this of course causes confusion...as has been documented, Viacom itself has made the mistake multiple times of raising complaints about unauthorized content and demanding it be removed, only to discover afterward that it was actually content uploaded by the company itself on one of its own user created accounts...and the company ended up having to request YouTube reinstate the removed content, as it was the company that put it there in the first place.

The point is, for all you know, "jdouche" is a CNBC-owned Youtube account. There is not "common sense" involved here. As I said originally, it is basically impossible to determine whether certain content is authorized or not, as illustrated, even the copyright holder/authorizing party cannot tell the difference at times. This was the point of my saying that if the Foundation wishes to be extra cautious, then they can demand only linking to content uploaded using officially recognized accounts.

Second, either you or Ravensfire or both (if your guess about her is correct), didn't understand that this video is not a user-created compilation. Yes, it begins with clips from various news programs. But you can see that compilation of clips is PART OF THE ORIGINAL MSNBC broadcast. That segment is in its entirety, unedited, just as it aired on MSNBC. MSNBC created that compilation and MSNBC aired those clips as part of its broadcast. If you want to argue that the news broadcast itself goes against guidelines, fine...but again, just because something contains copyrighted material doesn't automatically mean it's infringement. Obviously, if those clips were okay to include in MSNBC's broadcast, then if MSNBC's broadcast is okay to include, then those clips are as well. MSNBC obviously had legal authority for use of the clips...either through compensation, or (and this is what I believe) aired the clips under free speech statutes as they were only short segments and did not constitute infringement on the original content.

I believe this is the same reason the YouTube user-created compilation videos are not infringement either. I believe this is why they can get millions of views, and plenty of media coverage themselves (as in news programs mention the user-created compilations themselves), and not get taken off the site on copyright violation grounds. I believe because of their nature they are viewed as free speech. Clarification of this is part of what I was suggesting Wikipedia authorities could confirm.

Ravensfire, I did read and understand exactly what you said. You make two basic claims: (1) that compilation video may not be a reliable source because "You've got some unknown person cutting and splicing multiple broadcasts together. Did they change anything?" and (2) that such videos do not meet Wikipedia requirements because "media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party ..." and according to you, "Youtube is not the producer, nor is the original source - it's the person that posted the video," and I assume you are meaning to imply that the youtube user does not qualify as a reliable third party.

As I said, I understand exactly what you said. It is you who obviously didn't understand one bit of what I said. Again, NOT ONE of those three videos that Keithbob removed is a YouTube user-created compilation. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those videos is the broadcast segment, in its entirety as it was aired. So your entire premise is moot. It makes absolutely no difference that you believe a user-created compilation is not a "reliable source." Not one of those videos is a user-created compilation. It makes no difference that you believe that just because someone posts a video to Youtube that he or she is the producer of the content. Because that is not the case. If anytime someone uploaded content to Youtube that person then became the "producer" of the content, there wouldn't be any claims of infringement at all, now would there?

Whether you understand this this time around or not is irrelevant. As I said your entire premise is moot, and to a large extent this discussion is moot. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is moot. You continue to shift things and ignore the concerns raised. So I'll make it simple. If the video is not uploaded by a reliable source, it's not going to be trusted. Simple. Someone else uploaded it, NOT the original producer. I do not know if anything was changed. Link it to the original video, on the original source, or someplace that the original producer uploaded it. I'm hoping you understand the point - I'm actually not caring about copyright here (that's totally separate). Is the video a reliable source - and the answer is no. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't seem to be making any progress so I have created a post at RSN to get some outside input.[6]-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on the feedback given by uninvolved editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, specifically on this discussion,[7] I think we have a clear consensus that the YouTube citations listed at the top of this thread do not belong in the article. Thank you everyone for participating in the discussion and helping to improve the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish American Writers?

Sorry guys, but is this appropriate to categorize him as such? He's not really known for his religious views, so I fail to see why he should be put in this category, unless this is purely an ethnic category. In which case, where is the confirm of matralineal heritage in the article? My suggestion is that this category should be deleted, but please feel free to contribute. Cheers. - $$$MakeMore$$$ (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, looks like that cat came from this discussion, where no reliable sources were found. I've removed the category. --Cerebellum (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Southland Today compromise proposal

It seems like we are having difficulties with the correct way to represent Schiff's 2002 Southland Today interview. The main issue seems to be that Schiff predicted that the economy would behave in a certain way. According to Eric Tyson, it didn't, as seen in his "hugely wrong" quote. According to Schiff, it did, with some exception due to the actions of outside parties. I hope that we can agree on these basic facts; please correct me on any mistakes that I have made.

Now, the trouble arises when we, as editors, try to insert our views of what happened or didn't happen into the article. One editor adds that there was a prolonged bull market, another adds in some mitigating factors, we get some quotes, and the section gets real long real quick. This is a violation of wikipedia's policies on original research and synthesis. As the policy says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Here is what I propose to solve this problem: we drastically reduce the Southland Today stuff to something like this:

In a 2002 interview with Southland Today, Sciff predicted that the economic downtown triggered by the bursting of the stock market bubble would lead to a prolonged bear market. In 2009, journalist and finance author Eric Tyson wrote an article critical of Schiff's predictions, in which he stated that "On all of these counts, Schiff wasn't just wrong but ended up being hugely wrong." Schiff subsequently released a video addressing Tyson's criticism and stated that, "if you look at what happened to the Dow in terms of gold [and not U.S. dollars], my forecast was extremely accurate."

Short and sweet, but I think that it gets the basic facts across. Note that I include quotes from Tyson and Schiff; we don't have to have the quotes, but if we quote one then we should quote the other.

Do you guys think that something like this is acceptable? --Cerebellum (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. I have placed that text in the article. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


It's a good attempt at keeping the text from sprawling as often happens with certain pages; however, relating the relevant background information would be helpful at this point. I'm pretty sure that no one here disputes the facts of the bull market info. Per WP:ASF, we should include facts, and this seems like a cleaner approach than piling up a bunch of criticisms. If there are significant concerns about OR, then we may need to present the text on the appropriate noticeboard.
In any case, the majority of the length of the section is the text covering Schiff's quotations. If length is a concern, we might be able to shorten that section.
Apparently JohnDoe is OK with using the quote as so, "When I gave that interview in 2002, I had no way of knowing how irresponsible the Fed was going to be ... But I recognized that early: back in 2003 and 2004 I changed my forecast ... if you look at what happened to the Dow in terms of gold [and not inflated U.S. dollars], my forecast was extremely accurate."
Combining bits of text that seem to be preferred by various editors, I'd propose something simple like this:

In a 2002 interview with Southland Today, Schiff predicted that the economic downtown triggered by the bursting of the stock market bubble would lead to a bear market likely to last "another 5 to 10 years." In November of 2002, US stocks began a bull market uptrend which held steady for at least five years, until reversing course in 2008, when the Dow, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 began a decline to less than half their of their peak 2008 values, followed in 2009 by the Dow climbing 61% from its low point over the following year. After interviewing Schiff in 2009, journalist and finance author Eric Tyson, referenced various 2002 predictions and stated that "On all of these counts, Schiff wasn't just wrong but ended up being hugely wrong." Schiff later released a video stating that, "When I gave that interview in 2002, I had no way of knowing how irresponsible the Fed was going to be ... But I recognized that early: back in 2003 and 2004 I changed my forecast ... if you look at what happened to the Dow in terms of gold [and not inflated U.S. dollars], my forecast was extremely accurate."

This text reduces the sprawl (as preferred by Cerebellum), includes neutral background facts per WP:ASF (as preferred by me), and includes various rebuttals and mitigating factors (as preferred by JohnDoe). BigK HeX (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It's interesting how you are so keen on talking about the uptrend but not in mentioning the severe drop that occurred prior to that, and after the Southland interview. Your own source called it "the worst bear market since the Great Depression," something which is entirely relevant as it is precisely along the lines of what Schiff was talking about, yet you seem so bent on leaving it out. Essentially from the day of that interview onward the Dow dropped almost precipitously, losing almost a quarter of its value in less than 6 months. Why you find this irrelevant or original research, I have no idea other than what appears to be an inclination to present as much negative light on Schiff as possible without appearing overtly biased. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
In response to your first sentence, there's nothing "interesting" about it at all. I have almost no qualms about any information being included, so long as it is relevant and verifiable; however, YOU invoked WP:OR when there was such tenuous wording, so you should not be surprised at all that I will hold you to the standard YOU have applied. Above, you are using "the interview date" as a reference point without an author that discusses that date --- this is very similar to what you called "OR" when another editor [me] did it, so it follows that you likely shouldn't expect to get away with it when you attempt it. Personally, I'm ambivalent on whether that constitutes SYN, but (without community input) holding you to your own standard seems fair for the time being. If you have a source to discuss the movements of the stock market "following the date of the 2002 interview" then that would cover all of the bases. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm not sure why you are implying that the Dow "losing almost a quarter of its value" portrays Schiff positively, when he predicted the Dow to fall between 60% - 80%, and that "it might fall" further than 80%. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Did I imply that? Didn't mean to if that's what you got. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
You implied that I have some bias to portray Schiff negatively, and suggested that this supposed bias is influencing me to suppress the information about the Dow "losing almost a quarter of its value." It seems someone desiring to portray Schiff negatively would have little problems with including the fact on the Dow versus Schiff's failed prediction. Dunno.... BigK HeX (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that has to do with it being considered "positive." Anyway, go back and read the youtube section above. I did not argue that those citations should be included. In fact I stated the exact opposite. You should read more carefully. Aside from that, even if I had argued for including such videos, it seemed to be the overall feeling that Wikipedia policy is against it, and that the editors here felt a "better safe than sorry" protocol was appropriate. I don't understand. Are you saying that when an editor disagrees he is never allowed to change his mind? And if he doesn't change his mind, he should not follow the consensus and policies of Wikipedia?
It sounds like you're saying that anyone who argued that those videos should be allowed to be linked (which I didn't) shouldn't be enforcing the Wikipedia policy. Like anyone who disagrees with a rule shouldn't be following it. Is this how you operate here? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
If you really want to get into some snippy back-and-forth, then there's no need for you to be so coy about it. In my edit comment on the YouTube videos, I express a less-than-subtle bit of confusion about how YOU operate, and on what basis you decide to "change your mind" (especially as there's not much consensus at the end of the YouTube thread where you defend the use of the videos). As already covered in the "WP:OR" comments above, some instances of your approach to policy on this article seem somewhat "fluid," though the end result of your edits coincidentally remains the same. In any case .... I'm done with this largely pointless ad hominem back-and-forth. You can continue with the thinly veiled sniping on the talk page, if you like, but my further comments here will be limited to the Schiff article. BigK HeX (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, I didn't change my mind about anything. You're still confused. Again, if you'd actually read what was written, you'd see never at any time did I say those types of videos should be included against Wikipedia policy. You'd see how I stated from the first post in which non-compilation videos were brought into discussion I stated that if the policy is to not include them, then that's obviously what should be done. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


In case it got lost in the shuffle, I'm soliciting further input on an alternate proposal above, and that it seems to address the basic concern of the editors who have commented thus far. JohnDoe has noted that he believes the info on the Dow drop seems to be omitted, though there isn't yet a source describing the details as he seems to prefer to have them presented. BigK HeX (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll wait and see if JohnDoe has more comments/concerns... BigK HeX (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

BigK has allowed the rebuttal by Schiff to be deleted from the article away from either "consensus" statement, but he has twice reverted to the altered "consensus" with the claim it was consensus. See the "economist" section below for another anti-Schiff bias in BigK's enthusiasm, if the arguments above were not enough.

I have a problem with both consensus (of 2 or 3) texts. They appear to be quoting an unduly anti-Schiff source "on all accounts Schiff was hugely wrong". If you look at the article, you'll discover "on all accounts right" would have been more accurate. Anyone following Schiff's advice from the video would have increased their portfolio by a factor of 2 or 3 by investing in Gold, oil, and international stocks paying at least 7% dividends. Since then the DOW which has lost value at least relative to inflation (he stated in the in the interview the DOW was above 10,000), so you can claim it has been a bear market. The 10 year time frame Schiff gave for the DOW possibly reaching 2,000 to 4,000 has not ended. Another twisted view of things is claiming Schiff was wrong by saying oil could reach $150 in 2009. Apparently the author thought oil reaching $145+ two months after that statement in 2008 did not qualify as proving Schiff's point. Schiff said Gold would hit $1200 by the end of 2008 (he was off 11 months) but that number was based on his next sentence which was ignored: the ratio of the DOW to gold would go from 13 to 10...which it did. Also, the author made an edit note at a near bottom of the international markets (Feb 2009), citing a friend who claimed he had lost half his investment with Schiff. It would be more relevant to see how that investment is doing now.

I do not think wiki guidelines gives a consensus of 2 or 3 the unrestricted right to revert changes, as BigK implies.

I do not agree with the accuracy of either consensus statement. I prefer proposal #1 over BigK's proposal #2. I am not proposing any alternatives for consensus building because BigK has already rejected them. Judging from BigK's enthusiasm in an anti-Schiff viewpoint, I do not see any alternative except to cave in to BigK's version.

My caving in does not constitute consensus. I may get busy doing other things, so my lack of response should not be counted as a yes vote and thereby used in the future as a stick to revert changes, as was JohnDoe's lack of response above. Ywaz (talk) 11:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

So, is the above just a bunch of WP:OR and attempted characterizations of me? Surely, that will be most helpful! BigK HeX (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Economic views section

I have spent some time cleaning up the Economic views section. I have summarized and revised some sentences to give them a more encyclopedic tone while attempting to maintain the original information. I have also attempted to arranged Schiff's forecasts in chronological order. At the present time there are no subsections but one or two could be added if necessary. I would suggest chronological sub sections rather than by topic since Schiff's forecasts cover many intertwining topics. I look forward to input and ideas from others to make the article more organized and encyclopedic. cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Economist

Should the lead of this article describe Schiff as an "economist" or a "non-professional economist"? --Cerebellum (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

....just a note that both terms have a citation.
Perhaps, more broadly though, the question at hand may be how much Peter Schiff's status in economics should be elaborated upon. There seem to be a small range of issues, which I comment upon below... BigK HeX (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


IMO, one of the most pressing policy concerns is that Peter Schiff describes himself as a proponent of a school of economics which is known to be quite distinct from the majority view -- Schiff supports a school of thought that may only extend to 2% of the professionals in the field, thus representing a small minority viewpoint. As his economics represents a small minority view, how can WP:UNDUE best be satisfied in the lead. Also, of possible concern when giving Schiff a label without qualification, is the potential to create WP:GEVAL issues, since it may give the impression of validating a minority viewpoint that is considered discredited within the majority view. BigK HeX (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


This is not my primary concern, though it does seem to trouble some editors. But, there has been controversy over labeling Schiff as an economist without qualification, for the reason that Schiff's credentials may not be representative of the norm. I can see a few questions that might clear up whether this needs to be addressed.
  • Is there a significant discrepancy in Schiff's qualifications?
  • If so, then is it misleading not to qualify the text in some way?
  • If it can be misleading without qualification, then how best should the text be presented?
Perhaps, advisement on these questions can lead to consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


It may also be worthy to note it appears that Schiff himself doesn't seem to make much hay out of the "economist" label, though this is speculation. I'm not sure I'd advise it, but one option may be to forego the use of the label in the lead. BigK HeX (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


(Note to people discussing: see the section below this one as well.) Peter Schiff's views on the economy do not make him "nonprofessional". The paragraph beginning with "IMO" is POV and irrelevant to the discussion. The school of economics you are referring to is the Austrian School of economics. There are no school "memberships," they are schools of thought. This means he generally agrees with a specific group of economists. You would have to also say that Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, etc. are "nonprofessional" economists because they are related to the Austrian school of thought. I am not following this logic at all. Hayek's Wikipedia article describes him as "one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century." According to you, we should label him as "nonprofessional" since he "supports a school of thought that may only extend to 2% of the professionals in the field, thus representing a small minority viewpoint." Peter Schiff's profession is in economics: He has written books on economics and has appeared on national talk shows discussing economics. To say that he is a nonprofessional economist is simply a false statement since economics is his profession. --StormCommander (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
You may not be following the logic, because that's not the logic employed. If it is the case that he's not a professional economist, then the importance of elaborating on his particular school in the lead is vastly diminished, IMO. In effect, noting that he is not a professional economist would cover both of the major objections that have been raised when using the label without qualifying it in some way. However, if he is to be labeled simply as an economist, then his particular brand of economics does need to be elaborated upon, per WP:UNDUE. BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Comments prior to RfC

User:BigK HeX, your [first contribution to this article was prefixing Schiff as an economist with (non-professional) and then only non-proffesional, finally moving economist down in the sentence. I first deleted this comment on the 15th and you reverted it summarizing replace cited and helpful summarization.

Though you as someone with your own set of views in economics may consider Peter to be a non-professional economist and even include a citation to seemingly justify the inclusion of your comment in the lead, Schiff is in fact referred to as an economist and not as a non-professional economist in the vast majority of reliable sources. Please read up on WP:RS.

Please also read up on WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and submit an WP:RFC if you are unable to resolve your qualms in this thread. Per WP:3RR you may revert my changes only twice more in the next 24 hours.

ephix (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Because "economist" is not qualified in most sources is wholly immaterial. Sanjay Gupta may be referred to as just a "doctor" in the majority of sources, but we still specify that he is actually a "doctor of neurosurgery" in an encyclopedic summarization.
And you have used 2 reverts so far. As you are now in danger of violating WP:3RR, I'd recommend more discussion, and less reversion. BigK HeX (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Further ... accusations of WP:OR violations are amusingly baseless, given that there's an inlince citation. If you're just going to shotgun-out a bunch of policies whether they apply or not, then there's going to be little reason to grant credibility to your objections.
In any case, YOU are more than welcome to follow your own advice and begin an RFC. BigK HeX (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the main thing is to accurately reflect the sources. If we could assemble some sources showing how Schiff is characterized by the media, than we could consider the issue in more detail. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the current text reflects most of the sources most accurately. It is covered that he serves as an economist, and it also covers the sources which note that it is not his primary profession. Continuing the analogy above, we could just note Sanjay Gupta as a "doctor," but it'd be more informative to note that some sources more specifically describe his status as a "doctor of neurosurgery". BigK HeX (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the reference you cite to support your comment or rather the bogus title non-professional economist does not satisfy the guidelines laid out in WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V. You are not the first nor will you be the last to challenge Schiff's status as an economist, which doesn't automatically make this a point of contention.
Economists are both professionals in business and academia, they are not mutually exclusive. Also, WP:OR isn't just about citing sources, its about not advancing positions on Wikipedia that are not advanced by reliable and credible sources, not just one source, reliable or not. This is where I pointed out that Schiff is referred to as an economist and not as a non-professional economist in the vast majority of reliable sources. If you wish to cover the minority view based on your single source, I'm sure you can find somewhere in the main body of the article for it.
Economics is a very wide field, and as someone purportedly interested in economics, you should know this. Here is a lengthy list of economic topics.
ephix (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
While it is kind of you to inform us that economics is a wide field and to tell us that professionals in business and academia are not mutually exclusive, none of that does anything at all to detract from the fact that the text is reflecting the assertions presented within the cited source. BigK HeX (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
For such a lengthy post, instead of just invoking a vague checklist of policies, I would have hoped that you bothered to explain how the cited information actually "fails" to satisfy Wikipedia policy, in your estimation. But instead, your attempt to cite policy begins to indicate an unusual understanding of Wikipedia guidelines (or a consuming determination to censor the article text). Case-in-point ... you claim that the text fails to satisfy WP:V when, in fact, the text is clearly given an inline citation.
Anyways, you have yet to substantiate your edits with a substantive explanation of the policy you're applying, and with this being the case, I stand by the cited material. BigK HeX (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You have failed to address the points I made, especially the specific ones I made in the second paragraph of my statements above. Also, WP:V is relevant here is passing mention on a news site hardly supports the inclusion of your comment in the lead.
ephix (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

....and you shouldn't expect that I'd respond to red herring arguments that do little other than to distract from the issue at hand.

My edit involves text that is relevant, verifiable and which accurately reflects the assertions of the source. I'm still waiting for you to (substantively) explain how your edits are based on a Wikipedia policy and not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. BigK HeX (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to base your case on the merits of your own argument instead of taking issue with my wording and levelling accusations against me. You have still failed to address my points above in regards to specific guidelines. Your one sentence here simply stating your comment is relevant and sourced is not a rebuttal. ephix (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about accurately reflecting reliable sources. At present the phrase in the lead "non-professional economist" is supported by a source. However I would note that the single source listed is not from the mainstream press. Are there more reliable sources that discuss the issue of whether or not Schiff is a professional or non-professional economist? Since the current wording is sourced and elaborated upon in the body of the article, I don't see how the text in the lead violates NPOV, OR or V. I think we will make good progress in this discussion if we focus on sources rather than policies or criticisms of other editors. Thanks!-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Ratcheting down the criticisms is an excellent idea, Keithbob .... I'm glad you're here to get me back on track. Anyways, the articles from lewrockwell.com (and mises.org) seem to have been granted acceptability when used for topics related to "Austrian" economics (see Austrian School), which is likely why there haven't been any objections to that source. It seemed like an appropriate citation, since the author is something of a peer for Schiff in this group. I figured that using the assessment from someone who wasn't bashing Schiff (and in this case is clearly praising Schiff) would be the easiest way to defuse objections. BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, but why? I find it very disconcerting that your first edit to the article is this comment. As you know, Schiff is a very polarising figure so to call him a "non-professional" at anything seems detracting, either of his Senate Campaign or of Austrian Economics which is an alternative and rather controversial school of thought he belongs to. There are plenty of sources, most in fact, which refer to him simply as an economist, and considering there are more economists working as professionals in the financial sector rather than in academia, I don't see how the comment is at all relevant which is something you repeatedly say it is. ephix (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that using the prefix "non-profesional" detracts from the title of economist. This title of economist has been debated before. Not that we can't discuss it again. But I mention it because the 'non-pro' thing is sort of compromise for those editors who felt the economist word shouldn't be there at all. I don't have a strong feeling either way. In fact any of the following would be ok with me, as they are all supported by reliable sources:

  • non-professional economist
  • economist
  • expert in economic theory

For me the distinction between the three is minimal and none of them are going to make or break the article or mislead or reduce the effectiveness of the article for the reader.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the qualified title seems to perform as a very reasonable compromise (that we seem to agree clears WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV).
A quick note to the above ... I wouldn't be sure how best to present "expert in economic theory" since WP:UNDUE likely would suggest that it be qualified, since Schiff is a proponent of a non-mainstream [small-minority] theory of economics. BigK HeX (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a point of interest for possible discussion: Although Schiff is sometimes referred to as an 'economist' in the press, he doesn't use that term to describe himself. His website says:

  • Mr. Schiff began his investment career as a financial consultant with Shearson Lehman Brothers, after having earned a degree in finance and accounting from U.C. Berkeley in 1987. A financial professional for over twenty years he joined Euro Pacific in 1996 and has served as its President since January 2000. An expert on money, economic theory, and international investing, Peter is a highly recommended broker by many leading financial newsletters and investment advisory services. He is also a contributing commentator for Newsweek International and served as an economic advisor to the 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign. He holds FINRA Series 4,7,24,27,53,55, & 63 licenses.[8]-- — Kbob • Talk • 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right in that he doesn't generally list "economist" as an occupation on "about me" type of biographies, but here he does literally call himself an economist. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not an Economist

I am an economics PhD Student in Macroeconomics and I'd like to shed some light into why Mr.Schiff is not an Economist. The term econonomist among economist implies that someone is doing research in the field of economics, using the methodology of research that economists do. I would like to note that there are a number of professional jobs for forecasters that are also called economists, but these jobs are merely title and do not require the skillsets that research economist have, and are generally considered worthless experience for gaining qualifications for either completing economics graduate school, or gaining particular expertise in the fields of macroeconomics. The way the article is written implies he is a macro-economist. At the best Mr.Schiff is an Economics journalist.

The minimum qualifications to work as an Economist is a masters degree, and generally a PhD is required. Mr.Schiff does not have even a Bachelors in the subject. Unfortunately, real world and professional experience, does not compensate for these qualifications. The skill sets of economists cannot be picked up in the real world. Furthermore, Economics theory is not something that is done by word of mouth discussion but generally requires advanced mathematics education. Most PhD's in economics require a math background that is comparable to a mathematics & statistics major, withouth this mathematical background it is almost impossible to read what would be considered the leading economics research. This source can back up the comments that I have made regarding mathematics. Note this is the American Economic Associations website, which is maintained on Vanderbilt Universities Domain. The AEA isthe largest association of professional economists, though anyone can become a member.

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/gradstudents/Mathematical_Preparation.htm

This is an example of what is considered Macroeconomic Theory, http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/vhnatkovska/Research/welfare.pdf

http://faculty.lebow.drexel.edu/LainczC/cal38/Growth/Solow_1956.PDF 98.71.93.160 (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

My comments are not limited to academic economists, but also economists in the government. The former Author was originally an IMF Economist.

The idea that someone can be an economist, by merely being famous and having strong opinions about the subject is preposterous. We do not call someone a medical doctor, if they do not practice medicine. We do not proclaim someone a mathematician merely because they have some basic knowledge of calculus. I understand that some of you are making some arguments around the fact that the sources have to be verifiable. I think the burden of proof is to prove that Mr.Schiff is an Economist and not the other way around.

A search on Repec (Research Papers in Economics) which contains nearly 80% of all economics literature being published today (private, public, academec) does not yield a single paper by Peter Schiff, combined with the fact he does not hold graduate degrees in the subject provides substantial evidence that he probably is not an economist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.93.160 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 May 2010

  • Thanks to whoever took the time to write the above comment. Unfortunately Wikipedia guidelines forbid us from creating article text based on our own personal knowledge, education, experience or observation WP:OR. Our job as Wiki editors is to create article text that accurately reflects reliable sources per WP:RS. So we have to reflect what the newspapers etc. say about Schiff, even though we may not agree with what the news/books/magazines etc. say. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the person who wrote the above comment. NO I do not have any intention of creating the account. My simple comment is what credible News source cites him as an Economist? Or in specific a Macroeconomist. Unless that is cited explicitly, I would say it does not comply with wikipedia's own policies. If the argument is the news papers portray him as such, without explicitly calling him that is subjective interpretation and most likely falls under original research.

At anyrate in my previous comment I included a link to the AEA's webpage on graduate studies economics (Vanderbilt.edu server). Given that most of the information on that site is written from academic articles regarding the current state of education in the field of economics. Journal Articles being cited are directly on most pages. The webpage is of the is the website of the largest assoBciation of economist, and publishes the top journal in the field, I think that should hold more weight as being a reliable source, as per wikipedia's own policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources The BLS information on qualifications needed to become economist http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm American Economic Association on Research Economists, it covers both academic and non academic. http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AEA/students/Careers.htm#professors 98.71.92.225 (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Schiff is described as an economist in a number of what Wiki calls 'secondary sources' (its wiki's most preferred type of source, see WP:RS) and here are some examples [9][10][11][12][13][14] Also if you take a look at WP:OR which in a nutshell says: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." So WP:OR forbids editors from creating text based on their personal conclusions regardless of the source of those conclusions. Our role as editors is to summarize what others say. Not summarize what we personally think based on our education or readings of related topics. I know this sounds weird but that is how Wiki works and its a core policy. If you take time to read the two policies I've cited I think you'll understand better. Thanks for your time and participation.-- — [[User:Keithbob|Keithbob] ] • Talk • 12:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Some misc. points..... Users Kbob and Keithbob are the same editor (me), I'm just fooling around with my signature so don't be confused. Also I would suggest that none of us make changes to the lead of the article until a clear and obviuos consensus is reached here on the talk page. And lastly if we find that after some discussion that we are still equally divided in our opinions then I would suggest we make a request on the BLP noticeboard to get some input from editors who are not currently involved in the article and may have a fresh perspective. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist A specialist in economics. Is Peter Schiff a specialist in economics? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialist One who specializes in a particular occupation, practice, or branch of learning. Does Peter Schiff specialize in economics? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialize To make particular mention of. / To concentrate one's efforts in a special activity, field, or practice. Has Peter Schiff made a particular mention of economics? Yes. Has Peter Schiff concentrated his efforts on economics? Yes. In other words, Peter Schiff is an economist. --StormCommander (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Posting this on a noticeboard might be a good idea. I think a lot of the disagreement here depends on how you think of the term economist. For someone like the IP who posted above, economist means something very specific. For someone like StormCommander, it means something a little less specific. Different people attach different connotations to the same word, unlike in the Sanjay Gupta example that BigK posted above, where "doctor of neurosurgery" means exactly one thing. The case is complicated by the fact that "non-professional" can come across as belittling, while qualifying "doctor" with "doctor of neurosurgery" does not. I'm also afraid that "non-professional" carries the connotation that the man is an amateur and that he does not make a living with economic work, when he actually does (depending on how you define economic work). Perhaps Kbob's third option above, "expert in economic theory," works the best since people's perceptions will probably not affect their interpretation of the phrase as much. On the other hand, there is a word for an expert in economic theory: economist. BikK's concern is valid, so maybe "expert in Austrian economic theory" is a better choice. Finally, no matter what we choose, we have to be careful to focus on what the reliable sources are saying, and not what we want them to say. If we characterize Schiff as an expert in Austrian economic theory, we're going to have to find a source that says exactly that, unless my understanding of policy is flawed. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe it is a matter of opinion whether someone is a "professional" or "non-professional"...especially when we recognize that "professional" simply refers to one's profession. In other words, just because Jack Nicklaus may be able to speak with expertise about golf, and possibly even be able to declare someone else an expert on the sport, it doesn't mean he has the authority to call someone who makes his living playing the sport a "non-professional golfer" just because that person is not a member of the PGA Tour. No one does. You either have a profession in the field or not. It is not a matter of anyone's opinion. I completely disagree with the IP poster who claims one has to have a high-level graduate degree in the field to "work as an economist" or be declared a "professional." That's almost like saying someone has to win a tournament or he's not a professional golfer. He specifically said himself there are "professional jobs for forecasters that are also called economists." They have an economics-related profession and are called "economists." And there is no licensing requirement to work in the field (as in medicine or law), so there is absolutely no way one could claim any sort of degree is "required."

That being said, I agree with Cerebellum's assessment on the connotation of "non-professional". I agree that it gives the impression that the article subject is an amateur who does not make a living dealing with economic work, which is essentially not true, meaning the phrase could mislead the reader. It does also sound a bit belittling, which is of course less important, but it does give even more reason to find another way to describe his economic focus.

I don't agree however that it is completely necessary to specify a school of thought, or that it is even relevant if he is a "professional" or not. (I believe the case could easily be made that is a professional, but I don't see that it makes a difference.) Not one single biography page that uses the economist infobox utilizes the phrase "professional economist." By BigK HeX's logic, every single one of those pages should be including that adjective...however there has not seemed to be any confusion so far with those pages. No one seems to have any problem with Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman simply being called "economist." If it is unnecessary to designate someone as a "professional economist" why is it somehow necessary to designate one as "non-professional?"

BigK HeX's comparison is that we don't just say "doctor". However this is not a true comparison at all. It is obviously understandable why this is not done, as simply saying "doctor" does not describe the person at all. It is essentially a designation title (about as descriptive as "mister")...not a profession. One could be a "doctor" of almost anything...there are doctoral degrees offered in almost any discipline from fine arts to philosophy to...economics. Milton Friedman is sometimes referred to as "Doctor". It is important to distinguish the field of expertise, as "doctor" is a completely generic and general term. "Economist" is not. "Economist" specifies a field. "Doctor" does not. I don't think anyone would have a problem with simply referring to Sanjay Gupta as a medical doctor. While the full phrase describing his specific specialty within the medical field is useful for the reader, it is not completely necessary. "Medical doctor" is completely sufficient.

Specifying the field of study by adding "neurosurgery" is not at all the same as specifying whether one has a profession in the field.

If BigK HeX wanted to make the argument that "economist" should be specified down to specific areas within that field, such as "macroeconomist, microeconomist, financial economist, etc.", that would be a valid comparison to his "doctor" vs. "doctor of neurosurgery". To simply say "we get specific with Sanjay Gupta by saying 'doctor of neurosurgery'" and use that as a reasoning to bring in the subject of "professional" status as the specificity identifier is completely illogical. By that reasoning, we should put "professional" in front of Sanjay Gupta's title, to distinguish him from any individuals who might have a doctoral degree in the medical field with specialized extended study in neurosurgery, but whom do not work professionally in that field...as they would be "nonprofessional doctors of neurosurgery."

As you can see this distinction of "professional/nonprofessional" is completely irrelevant and not useful at all.

In the simple listing of a person's professions and occupations in his opening bio for the article, I see absolutely nothing wrong with referring to a man who is--

  1. called an economist by myriad secondary sources on a constant basis
  2. working in a profession in which he analyzes economic data on a daily basis and makes decisions in his work directly based upon economic analysis
  3. an author of multiple books and an uncountable number of other writings on the subject of economics published by a myriad of reliable sources
  4. regularly sought after, consulted, and interviewed by myriad sources specifically asking for his economic assessment on various issues

--as simply an "economist." --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


I'll note that the above does not cite policies to justify the deletion of the cited text. After having multiple editors opine that the policies he listed were not violated, Ephix's last few comments similarly failed to explain how policy was being applied, which is why I saw no further need to comment. But, I've been asked for further opinion, so I'll elaborate a bit more below. BigK HeX (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


  • Not one single biography page that uses the economist infobox utilizes the phrase "professional economist." By BigK HeX's logic, every single one of those pages should be including that adjective...
No, by my logic, that's NOT necessarily how those pages should be treated. I'm confident that most people implicitly understand "economist" as the label of a profession, and thus, it gives the impression that any person so-labeled is a professional. If that is NOT the case, then these people would be misled by the term. Here we have a citation telling us it is not the case, and so there's no need to have people misled. Contrary to what you've implied, with or without elaboration, the "economist" descriptor for Krugman, etc generates none of this confusion. So, I do not agree with your attempt at an analogy here.
FURTHER, Peter Schiff's brand of economics itself brings up questions of POV -- specifically, that "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views." Schiff holds a small minority view [even generous speculation only estimates that it encompasses 2% of economists]. To label him an "economist" without qualification again misleads on this front, as well. As Schiff himself doesn't seem to focus much on the economist label, I think it can satify policy to leave it with a simple qualifier, and having the details to the body. However, if the label is to go unqualified, then it won't make the lead simpler, since WP:UNDUE tells us to have elaborative text there describing his departure from the mainstream; specifically policy says, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view."
Overall, my point is that policy directs us to elaborate on his departure from the mainstream as an economist in one way or another. I figured the citation of a Schiff fan would both be the least objectionable and keep the text from being expanded unnecessarily; however, in the end, I'm likely apathetic on how the correction of undue weight is accomplished, so long as it is handled.
However, the most important point, so far, may be that I have endeavored to clearly explain why policy directs us to have an edit of this sort, whereas those who prefer deletion of the cited text have not explained a policy basis for eliminating that attempt at achieving NPOV. So, given that NPOV (specifically, WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID) is being weighed against ..... ummm, no given policy, there really doesn't seem to be much to debate at this point. BigK HeX (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how your argument changes the established definition of the word in dispute (economist). --StormCommander (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
If you don't see such a thing, that is very likely because I had zero intention to "change the established definition" of anything. Your contention here has very little relevance to the discussion at hand. In case it helps to point out the painfully obvious, I'll go ahead and mention that the term, "non-professional economist," still holds the label of economist and, likewise also remains covered by the definitions you've presented. I find your attempted dispute here akin to complaining that someone can't be described as an "amateur astronomer" if they fit the definition found for astronomer [see maybe Will Hay].
In any case, I'm still waiting on a policy-based discussion, if we're going to delete information provided to satisfy WP:NPOV. Until then, I'll reiterate my support for a policy-driven edit over these other wide ranging objections that still have not detailed their policy basis. BigK HeX (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
What is your reason for labeling this particular economist as "non-professional" then? I am concerned because you appear to have some sort of motive behind your edits here. --StormCommander (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, your reference (a book review) is not a neutral source. If you could link to an analysis of Peter Schiff's standing as a non-professional or professional economist, that would be more adequate. And another point on neutrality: leaving out "non-professional" or "professional" is neutral since it does not describe him as either. Despite your claims of supporting neutrality in the article, you have included the description as we are in the process of discussing the issue. The labels of professional and non-professional are not neutral descriptions in this disagreement. --StormCommander (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you want a policy-based discussion, you've resorted to reversion without discussion, nor have you asked for a third opinion from anyone or started an RFC, which would be the thing to do if you're editing in good faith, after all most editors here do not agree with your position.
But I don't think you are editing in good faith. Your "non-professional" comment was your first edit to the page, with only one book review as source being cited to place it in the lead. This isn't even a case of minority view, which is something I touched on above, for if it was, we wouldn't be reverting changes to the lead.
You have also ignored my point that economists are not just academics by profession and that in fact most economists are not academics, and now you're coming with another analogy, this time the "amateur astronomer", last time it was doctor of neurosurgery, both of which make no sense for reasons described above. If you want to talk policy, you first have to talk sense.
ephix (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "I don't think you want a policy-based discussion..."
Yet another wall of text, and not a single substantive explanation of how you're applying policy. After being asked numerous times to do so, it's exceedingly clear which of us is actually the one who is rabidly avoiding talking policy. You've yet to add anything new since I've asked you to explain how you're applying policy for your edit.
As a side note, I find your hypocrisy somewhat amusing. You accuse others of acting in bad faith for not starting an RFC, and yet you've not announced any RFC's yourself. In any case, contrary to your conveniently selective memory, I received a third opinion on the matter, and that third opinion concurred with mine's concluding that your objections are without merit.
MY explanation of policy has been made quite clear. Until you (another editor) do likewise, I still hold that nothing new needs to be said. I have little interest in engaging any of the distracting red herrings put forth so far. BigK HeX (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, you have not addressed my points, and now you've thrown down the proverbial red herring red herring. According to the vast majority of reliable sources, Schiff is an economist, plain and simple. All the guidelines I have cited are very much relevant and your flippant attitude brings this discussion to an end. The ball is in your court for an open RFC as clearly there is a consensus here. ephix (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The comments that followed mine, notwithstanding, it appears it should be reiterated: In the simple listing of a person's professions and occupations in his opening bio for the article, I see absolutely nothing wrong with referring to a man who is--

  1. called an economist by myriad secondary sources on a constant basis
  2. working in a profession in which he analyzes economic data on a daily basis and makes decisions in his work directly based upon economic analysis
  3. an author of multiple books and an uncountable number of other writings on the subject of economics published by a myriad of reliable sources
  4. regularly sought after, consulted, and interviewed by myriad sources specifically asking for his economic assessment on various issues

--as simply an "economist."

Is there anyone who disagrees with this? BigK HeX addressed none of what I said about the relevance (or lack thereof) of the "professional/non-professional" identifier, nor how it was a completely illogical comparison to the doctor-->doctor of neurosurgery specification. I agree with the previous editors and their assessment. It does appear User:BigK HeX has a motive behind his edits and is not editing in good faith. I pointed this out myself some weeks ago in the "Failed verification" tag section after the user not only added criticism without its corresponding direct rebuttal, but actually quote-cut the rebuttal and the comments of someone who was actually defending Schiff, to make it seem as though there wasn't even two sides at all. Essentially every one of this user's edits on this article have been a contributution to portraying the subject in a negative light. The majority of his efforts have been in adding criticism of Schiff, without the corresponding opposing view. Much of his time has been spent pushing his own negative sounding versions of various passages and in disproportionately pushing for the addition of irrelevant adjectives, such as this one in question, and one stating Schiff as a proponent of the "non-mainstream" Austrian School...both of which seem to be much more important to him that one would expect of a good faith editor expressing a neutral point of view.

That being said, I would also like to reiterate I see absolutely no relevance to the "professional/nonprofessional" addition. Not to mention, again as I stated, I don't at all see how one's professional status is determined by the simple comment of a single book reviewer in a single book review. If some person had written that "Sanjay Gupta was a pretty good surgeon, for a non-professional physician," would that make it true? Would that make it stand up to Wikipedia standards just because a secondary source making the comment could be cited? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no! "He has a motive!!!!"
Quite contrary to your disgusting characterizations of me, I've plainly laid out the motive for my edits. I've thoroughly explained the policy prompting my edit, which is also quite contrary to what you and others have endeavored to do. Though, given the previous "failed verification" issue, I'm less than confident that you will cease hindering efforts to correct the blatant WP:UNDUE problems with this page.
In any case, you're welcome to keep focusing your discussions on these poor attempts to characterize me, rather than getting to the WP policies. BigK HeX (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review the definition of the word in question. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonprofessional. To claim that Peter Schiff is "not of, relating to, suitable for, or engaged in a profession" of economics is false. This has been discussed above numerous times. Articles should be 1) accurate and 2) hold a neutral point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StormCommander (talk • contribs) 19:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Please review the definition of strawman. NOWHERE have I said that he can't be described as an economist of some sort. If you are repeatedly failing to comprehend my contributions to the discussion, in even the smallest portion, then perhaps there's no need to direct your responses to me --- dunno....? Otherwise, feel free to actually read the comments I've posted, clearly explaining my position. BigK HeX (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You must have misread, because the definition I linked to was for the word "nonprofessional", which is the label you keep adding in front of the word economist. --StormCommander (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
OK guys, we don't seem to be making much headway here, so I have requested comment from other users on the issue. I'm not sure if I was supposed to start a new section or not, so please fix it if I have done the wrong thing. Cheers, --Cerebellum (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed before, at length. If anyone is interested in viewing the past discussion it can be seen here [15]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Austrian School

It is not typical to put an adjective which applies to something other than the main subject of the article in the lead sentence. It is completely unnecessary because the phrase it is being applied to is a subject with an article on Wikipedia which is linked. Readers wanting more information on the Austrian School need only click through the link. Therefore, I believe the adjective "non-mainstream" should be removed. It does not add anything that cannot be found by clicking through the link to the article on Austrian School and so is redundant and off-topic for this article. Most certainly it does not belong in the lead sentence.

However, if an adjective is included, it should be completely accurate and reflect what is described in the article on Austrian School itself. The Austrian School was at one time mainstream. That article says so right in the lead. So the correct adjective to use here is "once-mainstream". If certain editors don't like that, then removing it is preferable to giving an inaccurate impression. Yworo (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The adjective should be removed altogether. --StormCommander (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The subject of the article is Schiff not Austrian Economics and so adjectives that describe or qualify Austrian Economics are probably not appropriate in the article, and particularly in the lead. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yup. That's exactly what I thought. Thanks for your input. Yworo (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style directs us to mention all appropriate controversies in the lead. WP:UNDUE directs us ensure that it is always clear what represents the minority view, when being described. Two guidelines suggest that the material be covered, and I know of no guidelines that suggest that it not be included. Feel free to correct me on this point. (But if there aren't any guidelines to support removal, then it seems there's not a whole lot to debate in this thread.) BigK HeX (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But there is nothing controversial about the Austrian School not being mainstream. Even the subject admits it. So it doesn't belong in the lead. You can't have it both ways. Yworo (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if the above logic(?) represented a sound argument against any need for satisfying WP:LEAD, what guidelines do you think support the removal of the text? Even aside from WP:LEAD, the NPOV policy (specifically, WP:UNDUE) is quite explicit that it should always be clear what text represents a minority view; and, it we are always required to satisfy the NPOV pillar. And if anything, the fact that Schiff himself describes his school of thought as "not being mainstream" only bolsters the idea that reporting it as "non-mainstream" is being fair. In any case, Schiff's advocacy for this minority viewpoint is obviously one of the notable points about him, so the lead should cover it.
For now, I'd prefer if we move away from the hand-waving, and discuss the fundamental justifications for the edits being proposed. I hope I've been clear on the policy basis for my edits -- could you describe yours? BigK HeX (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV seems to one of the overiding issues here, and regarding the "euphemisms" used to blur the simple fact that the school is not mainstream, perhaps this link may help. BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion violates both WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, because the adjective does not apply to the subject of this article, but rather to a linked article, which is where all information and details about that subject belongs. You are in the minority and reverting against consensus. This detail is included later in the article, which is where it belongs if at all. There is no controversy involved here, so your claim that it needs to be included b/c it is controversial is simply illogical. Nobody disagrees that the Austrian School is non-mainstream, including the subject of the article. It is detailed clearly in the article on Austrian School. So please, spell out what the "controversy" is that requires the inclusion in the lead sentence, which is supposed to be solely about the subject of this article and not about some other topic with its own article. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
So ... lemme get this straight. It looks like you have two basic objections here.
A) Ideological positions are not controversial when we know what position a person advocates....
B) The adjective isn't relevant enough to Schiff .... I think it's most neutral where it is, but if this is the problem, I guess this objection is easily fixed. BigK HeX (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Well ... if the term can only be used if ascribed to Schiff, then that's what we have now. Cheers. BigK HeX (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think being an advocate for a non-mainstream school of economics is controversial? Is being in the minor league rather than the major league controversial? Is having your music released in a less widespread manner rather than by a mainstream label controversial? Is being a Jew rather than a Christian controversial? My argument is that there is nothing controversial at all about belonging to any particular school of economics, whether it is or is not mainstream. Since it isn't controversial, there is no reason to include it in the lead. And by the way, you've reverted three times in the last 24 hours. Yworo (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think BigK HeX is adamant on this because he's trying to compensate for something. He must have a really small HeX... :-) --Screwball23 talk 04:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Impressive putdown! BigK HeX (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thank you. It took me hours of sitting at the computer screen to come up with that one. I think it was one of those eureka moments, when I finally came up with something productive that I could put on Wikipedia. Maybe you'll have one of these moments someday. --Screwball23 talk 05:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't he sell gold?

How come I always see web ads for gold whenever I look up Peter Schiff? Does he sell gold? --Screwball23 talk 04:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe he will in the near future. http://www.europacmetals.net/ --StormCommander (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead

The two versions that are going back and forth are:

"... adherent of the Austrian School of economics, economist holding an undergraduate degree in accounting and finance,[1] and a 2010 candidate for the United States Senate."
and
"... economist, and a 2010 candidate for the United States Senate."

There's already been one RfC on this, where there is no consensus for an unqualified 'economist'. IMO, 'Austrian school' must stay in the lead. It's a large part of his notability, and it would be misleading to just call him 'an economist', just as it would be misleading to call a Marxist economist simply, 'an economist'. This is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I'm ok with the following formulation, "... adherent of the Austrian School of economics, and a 2010 candidate for the United States Senate", or if he is called an 'economist', it should be qualified as a member of the heterodox Austrian School, "... economist of the heterodox Austrian School, and a 2010 candidate for the United States Senate."

Now everyone, please stop edit warring over the lead, and see if we can agree on something. And stop with the personal insults as well. Let's not take it to Arbcom.

LK (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. There's pretty much no question that he's noted for his non-mainstream views (goldbug/Austrian Business Cycle theory/etc). It's obviously been objected that a simple label is less informative (and potentially misleading, in addition to raising WP:UNDUE concerns); as there's not really any good reason to deny the reader verifiable and neutral information that is sufficient to let them draw their own conclusions, it should be covered. BigK HeX (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Lawrencekhoo, I can see you are dedicated to building consensus here on wikipedia. That's great. This page definitely has been a rough place for editors, and many times I have left this computer in tears because of the daily edit wars. I will explain what I think is the case here, and you can agree with me or not. The quote, which you identified, has a lot of meaning, and puts a lot out there on Peter Schiff. First off, as you might be aware, Schiff's status as an economist is debatable. In my opinion, since he doesn't have a PhD in economics, hasn't written extensively on economic theories, and is more notable as an economic forecaster/Ron Paul advisor/political candidate/investment advisor/book writer/money manager than an academic economist, this really isn't easy to settle. Editors have debated his credentials as an economist several times here, and there are many reasons why. Most of those editors have lost interest/given up, and the Schiff diehards have since taken his economist title and added credentials like his undergraduate degrees, which are used to prop him up professionally.
Long story short, I have strong disagreements with those who want to put his degrees in the lead.
I also want to put this whole Austrian School economist bit to rest too. There are tons of Austrian School economists who are not preaching doom on TV. Schiff says his ideas come from the Austrian school, and I believe that's probably true because the Austrian School is all about making predictions without major scientific basis. I want to make a distinction between his economic forecasting, which made him famous, and his adherence to the Austrian School, which did not make him famous. He is not the sole voice in the Austrian School, and his ideas seem to be on the fringe of the modern movement anyway. He certainly wasn't influential in its development. The people who support his campaign and watch him on YouTube know him as an economic forecaster, and that is what makes him notable.
I like to think about it like this: as a reader, if I wanted to know more about his economic ideas, I could find them later in the section about his economic views.--Screwball23 talk 01:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said earlier, labeling him as just an 'economist' is, I think, misleading. And, like it or not, the current usage of 'Austrian School' has come to mean the libertarian-anti-Fed-goldbug type of thinking characteristic of Ron Paul. Even Peter Boetkke and his colleagues at George Mason University (probably the foremost group of academics in the Austrian school tradition) have come to realize this. See this post for example: [16]. Hence, I feel that the most accurate way to describe him is as an "adherent of the Austrian School of economics".
The fact is, he's not an 'economist' in the way the word is commonly used. His career, work and writings bear little resemblance to the work done by most economists, and calling him 'an economist' would be misleading. I'ld like to propose that we remove 'economist' from the lead until we can agree on appropriate terminology. LK (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice work! I agree. I think the term economist should be taken down until a consensus is built to support it. I checked out your link and I liked the analysis I saw. In the article, the authors say that the results they found for Austrian school economics seems to be spun a little off-mark. I think the debate laid out is really whether Schiff is an "adherent" of the Austrian School, or if his economic views were influenced by the Austrian School. I'm leaning more towards the second one, which I think is put together in his economic views section. --Screwball23 talk 06:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not attached to the term 'economist'. How about "adherent of the Austrian School of economics"? Since we would not be calling him an economist, I don't see why it would need to be further qualified. Yworo (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears that we have consensus on "adherent of the Austrian School of economics". I'll add this to the lead. If I've mis-read consensus, I'm sure someone will point that out. LK (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
LK, I have never expected you to jump into the "we have consensus, let's run with it" group of people. tsk, tsk. :-) I know you want the reason why I made my recent reverts, so here goes. Schiff's ideas were influenced by the Austrian School. He has said so several times. I have disagreements with putting the "adherent of the Austrian School" as part of the lead. Frankly, and you are free to disagree here, but Schiff really did not become famous for being an economist. He is not what we would consider a conventional Austrian School economist, and we've been through that discussion already. Schiff became famous for his predictions. He is an economic forecaster, first and foremost. That is where his fame came from, where the "Schiff was right" videos came from, and where his popularity, book deals, tv appearances, and investment advice all came from. What I have suspected all along, and which your link helped confirm for me, is that he his economic views have been influenced by the Austrian School, but it can be debated whether he is an "adherent" or simply has been influenced by the school. Adherent sounds like a strong term to me, and considering his place as more of a layperson in comparison to the Austrian School economics world, I really can't justify putting that line in the lead.--Screwball23 talk 05:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks, as you have done here and in the past[17]. Comment on the article and edits, not about the person. LK (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I'm retracting this statement, as I'm perhaps too thin skinned, but I don't appreciate being "tsk'ed". LK (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Econ views section

Screwball23 states, "it is not up to us to put this "outside the mainstream" opinion on him..." WP:UNDUE disagrees, when it specifically directs us that "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." And, even beyond the policy, Schiff invokes the "outside the mainstream" label himself. Note that it is considered disruptive to delete text that is cited, relevant, and neutral. So, feel free to detail objections here. BigK HeX (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a misreading of WP:UNDUE, which as you are reading it is intended to apply to a non-biographical article that presents multiple viewpoints. In such a case, it is necessary to indicate which of the multiple viewpoints are mainstream, which are minority, and which are fringe, and give them corresponding amounts of space. It also applies to non-mainstream subject articles, like Austrian School, where it is necessary to note the degree of following, etc. It is not necessary on a biographical article, because linking to Austrian School (in this case) provides easy access to such details, which are neutrally presented in said article. Over-emphasizing the point by repeating such language and terms in this biographical article violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, as it is non-neutral language intended specifically to cast the subject in a more negative light. Yworo (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The subject himself is known for pushing minority views. You have not disputed this plain verifiable fact, and yet you insist on censoring it. BigK HeX (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
All you have to do is cite a source that says so. Assuming there is such a source, there is no need to complicate the reference to the Austrian School by attaching it there in the way you are doing. Just create a separate sentence and cite it to sources. Yworo (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The assertion is already cited as written. You are welcome to dispute it. You have NOT done so, and continue to push censorship instead. BigK HeX (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not an issue of censorship. It's an issue of poor writing style. Try following my suggestion to write a separate sentence. Yworo (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
So, are you saying that you're completely deleting cited information because of "poor writing style"? BigK HeX (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, I'm not saying that. Reread the section paragraph in this section. Just because you can cite it doesn't mean it's an WP:NPOV way of putting it. I really like what Lawrencekhoo has done. Perhaps you could find some less convoluted way of adding what you think needs to be said. Yworo (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


I'll go ahead and address this possible concern ahead of time. It is my opinion that whether a group may have been mainstream 70 years ago or possibly was "once mainstream" does not contribute much (if at all) to any problem with using a "non-mainstream" label. BigK HeX (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Heterodox economics

Heterodox is sufficient. Yworo (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Is that a Wikipedia guideline?
Because Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Clarity IS a guideline, and it tells us to avoid jargon. If there is no Wikipedia guideline basis to delete the text, then a PLAIN ENGLISH term (such as "non-mainstream") should be reinserted as elaboration of the "heterodox" jargon.
I don't think there is much of a good reason to remove the simple elaboration of the jargon, as you did. But, if you do have a guideline that you're applying here to support your edit, please describe the application of that guideline for us here. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this at WP:3O. Heterodox also can imply some negative judgment, since it's conflated with "heretical." Maybe that's appropriate; if so then heterodox might truly be the best word to use. But if not -- if its plain meaning is simply "not regular" as opposed to "not regular and also sorta mistrusted" then something like unorthodox might be more appropriate. Just a suggestion. — e. ripley\talk 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if heresy and heterodox are related, but Heterodox is the "official" term often used within the field; however, I don't think an English-speaking layperson would really have much idea of what that means. It seems there should be little trouble in finding a useful "plain English" alternative. "Unorthodox" is certainly an option, although, for me, that word seems to prompt a connotation of "quirkiness" or some such. Thanks for the suggestion. BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, perhaps not in an etymological way, but heterodoxy is often contrasted with orthodoxy when it comes to religious issues, to indicate some sort of view or doctrine that's at odds with an official position (which incidentally is usually considered wrong by the establishment -- and here is where heresy comes in). In any case, I agree with the notion that if you're going to pipe the term anyway, you might as well use more accessible language. — e. ripley\talk 20:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Valuable insight! Thanks, again. I'll try some more accessible language with it, and we'll see what settles out. BigK HeX (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


"Once mainstream" ... ???!

The logic that "once mainstream" is somehow not a (euphemistic) weasel term is beyond me. BigK HeX (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Yworo hasn't yet endeavored to discuss his edit on the talk page, but elsewhere User:Yworo opined

.....The link is to heterodox, yes. The term being used in the text, via a pipe, is "non-mainstream", which is inaccurate. The school was once mainstream.....

I don't really see how the above sentiments justify invoking some vague timeframe ["once mainstream"] instead of just simply using the current and widely accepted view. It's pretty vague, and considering that the Austrian School hasn't been mainstream in Peter Schiff's lifetime, there's certainly a question of relevance.
The plain English term "non-mainstream" should certainly cover the facts without invoking vague references. BigK HeX (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Reverted. Mid-20th century, as the article describes, was a long time ago. As I noted in the edit summary, 7-Up used to be marketed as a patent medicine, but I doubt anybody would describe it here as "a soft drink that once was marketed as medicinal" in a pipe. — e. ripley\talk 03:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your time and attention. BigK HeX (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


reverts by JohnDoe0007

Would User:JohnDoe0007 enlighten us as to what reason he is destroying the edits built from the above collaboration and multiple outside opinions? BigK HeX (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hex, grow up (hee hee). You have not won this argument on the talk page, and I will tell you again. It is not up to us to put labels on the Austrian School here and start disclaimers like "non-mainstream" or "adherent of a heterodox school". Focus on Schiff and what he believes, and we can come out with a much stronger page. The status of the Austrian School is an excellent topic for an article on the Austrian School, but here, it serves as a repudiation of all he stands for.--Screwball23 talk 04:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Screwball. I see no consensus here on the talk page. I'm not quite sure why you keep speaking as though there was one. This article is not about the Austrian School. It has absolutely nothing to do with Schiff's notability. Most people do not even recognize the term "Austrian school," let alone consider Schiff a representative of it. The discussion concerning calling Schiff an economist was/is completely relevant...however all of this irrelevant focus on labels that have nothing to do with Schiff does not improve the article. Internal links exist for a reason, and interjecting inappropriate details that belong on a page concerning a particular topic does not improve the reader's understanding of the subject of this article and in fact moves outside of the scope of this article as well as the realm of responsibility as editors. Not only is it not up to us to put labels on the Austrian School and start disclaimers to be added nearly every time it is mentioned, but this is not the article to even discuss such matters. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. 'Consensus' (or lack of it) on a talk page doesn't change basic Wikipedia policy. We're here to give useful information, not to censor it. Stop removing properly cited information that readers will likely want to know. LK (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
LK is spot-on. The information provides context, and is properly cited and written in a neutral manner. BigK HeX (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Focus on Schiff

Big Hex, I know you have put a lot of time and energy into this "heterodox and non-mainstream" disclaimer on Schiff, but I sincerely believe you can measure the size of a person by the size of their arguements (hee hee) :-)

Anyway, jokes aside, I think the main focus should be on Schiff. Schiff believes his ideas are out of the mainstream. That's good material, for example, but I don't see that covered. I also would like to know what beliefs Schiff has that are outside the mainstream. What in particular is different from him and conventional (or mainstream) economists?

These are my questions. As a reader, I really don't get the feel for what Schiff's principles and overall ideas are. And between your edits, I think the major focus of the article is being forgotten for his economic school.--Screwball23 talk 06:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC on Schiff's Title as Economist

Summary: Some sources refer to Schiff as an "economist". [18][19][20][21][22][23] Schiff states in his election campaign video, "Number one I'm an economist". [24] However, his company web site bio does not describe his as an economist and calls him "an expert on money, economic theory, and international investing"[25]. Also some editors feel the title economist should not be used in the article because Schiff does not have a degree in economics, is not a member of the major economic associations and does not rise to the generally accepted standards of that field. Several variations and options have come up as a result of the lengthy discussion above as well as a previous discussion.[26] The suggestions are:

  • Economist
  • Non-professional economist (one moderately reliable source supports this)
  • Expert in Austrian economics
  • Expert in economic theory

What's your opinion?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC comments from Uninvolved Editors

  • How about 'self-taught economist'. He's often said in interviews his macro course at Berkley was useless and he learnt econ from his Dad and reading his own books. This should satisfy everyone, including Schiff himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GypsyBanksters (talk • contribs) 12:16, 1 June 2010(UTC) (Note: GypsyBanksters is a sock of a banned user)
  • Writer on economics would seem to be accurate. I don't think he can be an economist if he doesn't publish scholarly books and articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Economic commentator or economic consultant. I agree with Judith above. One can't be a member of a profession unless one participates, contributes and practices in that profession. AFAIK Schiff has never been published in any economics journals, presented at any economics conferences, or worked for any economics think tanks. LK (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You're assuming economist are academics by profession only. This is not the case. There are way more economist working the financial sector than there are in academia. ephix (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There are economists working for various companies, organizations and governments. But Schiff has never worked as an economist. Has he ever held a job or position that can be described as 'economist'? I find nothing like that in his career. His work can best be described as broker, financial consultant, investment banker, manager, writer. LK (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I sure hope that we are still able to refer to people as "ists," even in the absence of official accreditation by some as-yet-to-be-determined authority. It is unusual to gain a reputation as an economist, linguist, horticulturist, whatever, without having sat through classes or earned money at it, but it is certainly not impossible. If an unaccredited person, through self-education and exchange of views, contributes significantly to a particular community, then "-ist" seems to be the appropriate term. Yes, if there's a controversy about his credibility, address it in the article, but let language work in the meantime. --Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is he has shown no evidence of doing the former. It certianly isn't impossible, but one must practice economics to be an economist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.96.220 (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is rubbish - Schiff has comprehensively shown that his economic forecasts made in 2005 are far surperior to the so-called economists like Arther Laffer. If Laffer is allowed to call himself an economist despite stating in late 2007 that the USA would not have a recession in 2008 and that the economy had never been in better shape, then Schiff is more correct to call himself an economist as he forecast the coming recession 3 years in advance and correctly stated that it would be caused by a housing collapse, sub-prome meltdown and derivative collapse. The only controversy about Schiff is that his 'extreme' but correct views annoy the technically qualified but hopelessly useless 'economists' writing snide comments above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.197 (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This notion is completely ignorant tripe. If I make weather predictions and have a very good track record, am I therefore a meteorologist? No. If I go to school for meteorology and and have a very poor track record, am I meteorologist? Yes. Not a very good one, perhaps, but I am one. Schiff may have predicted the crisis (so did Paul Krugman, FWIW), but he has no degree in economics and is not a fellow of any major economist organization. I may be able to do a great job of treating a wound and stitching it up, but that doesn't qualify me to call myself a doctor or other form of medical professional. 98.117.65.60 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Editors already in the Discussion

Peter Schiff is:

  1. called an economist by myriad secondary sources on a constant basis
  2. working in a profession in which he analyzes economic data on a daily basis and makes decisions in his work directly based upon economic analysis
  3. an author of multiple books and an uncountable number of other writings on the subject of economics published by a myriad of reliable sources
  4. regularly sought after, consulted, and interviewed by myriad sources specifically asking for his economic assessment on various issues

He is by all rights (especially those by which this encyclopedia would recognize as valid) a professional economist. It is therefore proper to include the simple term "economist" in the opening paragraph, per WP:MoS, just as every other bio for every other economist. The articles for Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, Joseph Schumpeter and other economists of "non-mainstream" schools of thought make no mention of these individuals being "non-professional" due to their adherence to a "non-mainstream" school. The equating of one's professional status with one's school of thought is completely asinine. Further, the inclusion of such superfluous language as "adherent to the non-mainstream Austrian School of Economics" and "economist holding undergraduate degrees in finance and accounting" in the opening paragraph (let alone the opening sentence) of a biography is completely unnecessary.

As WP:MoS states, the opening paragraph should include a simple mention of the subject's name(s) dates of birth and death, nationality and ethnicity, what the person did, and why the person is significant. The fact that Schiff is a student of the Austrian school is not what makes him significant, whether it is considered non-mainstream or not. The fact that he holds undergraduate degrees in finance and accounting is not what makes him significant. However, his role as an economist in a professional capacity is in large part what makes him significant.

The opening paragraph should be simple and similar to the style of every other opening paragraph of every other biographical article on Wikipedia:

Peter David Schiff (pronounced /ˈʃɪf/; born March 23, 1963) an American author, businessman, economist, financial commentator, video blogger, and a 2010 candidate for the United States Senate. Schiff is a periodic guest on financial news television and is a host and guest on internet radio.--JohnDoe0007 (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Our job as editors is to reflect reliable sources. It doesn't matter what we as editors think, or know, or conclude from other related sources. We just summarize what the most reliable secondary sources say specifically about Schiff. In this case there are several strong sources that say he is an economist. It is my opinion, therefore, that he should be called an economist in the article and without any qualifying adjectives.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, KBob. In order to avoid the previous controversy over "non-professional," that part was dropped a while ago. The current wording leaves the term "economist" without such a modifying adjective. BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
JohnDoe stated, "The equating of one's professional status with one's school of thought is completely asinine."
Those two were never equated. What was said is that if a person IS a non-professional, then their school of thought doesn't matter much.
But that's a dead topic now, as placement of the "economist" term without an adjective (as you suggest) has long been done. BigK HeX (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not a dead topic. Tour new edit presents the exact same problem as the one you've so kindly killed. You have also completely missed John Doe's point and I have reverted your changes. ephix (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent elaborations in the lead

JohnDoe commented on the current text above. It looks like the complaint boiled down "it's unnecessary." As the Manual of Style clearly directs us to mention notable controversies in the lead, I'm hoping he will elaborate a bit. My proposal merely brings in summarizations of notable facts already covered in the remainder of the article.

To elaborate a bit, I think it's pretty well-known that Schiff's views are a large departure from the mainstream, and, indeed, that this also is one of the most well-known points about Schiff [AKA, "people LAUGHED at him!!"]. In mentioning the controversial view, as suggested by MoS, any of the WP:UNDUE concerns are addressed as well. BigK HeX (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

People did not laugh at him for being a "non professional economist" or "adherent of a non mainstream school of economics", "economist holding undergraduate degrees in accounting and finance" or whatever you come up with next. Why are you "boiling down" JohnDoe's points and "elaborating" on your own single point which we already know is to to detract Schiff's status as an economist. It was your fist contribution to this article and will likely be your last, you don't seem at all interested in the main body of the article. ephix (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need for the adjectives "once mainstream" in the lead as this is a minor point in the article and creates a non-neutral tone, in my opinion. Other than that I think the current lead is OK. I would just emphasize again that we need to be careful about synthesizing ideas, concepts and sources and if we stick to what reliable sources say it will help both the discussion and the article. One other minor point is that WP:MOS says that citations are generally not used in the lead because the lead is a summary of text that is cited in the body of the article, however, the until the controversy about the lead subsides, I think having the citations there is a good idea.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Econ PhD student here again. I haven't visited in a while and there seems to have been quite a debate. I'm glad this issue at least seems to be getting some attention from the editors. The major problems I'm seeing with much of the arguments in favor of the economics tags.

1. Economic theory is not something that can be self taught, without an advanced Math Background. See earlier posts on why. Economic theory as a practice is a modeling science where one creates mathematical representations of the economy. There are cases where people with no training in economics have practiced as economist, but generally they had degrees in mathematics, physics or Statistics. If anything peter schiff may have some knowledge about the field of economics known as Economic thought.

2. Finance is not Economics. They are different subject. There is a broad confusion among those outside the field of economics or finance about this since both fields in the eye of the public are concerned with money. Financial professionals may pay attention to economics variables, while economist may pay lose attention, generally much less, to financial variables. There is some overlaps between some fields of finance in economics and certain types of academic finance are practiced similar to economics, but that is only true within academia. My entire point to begin with is among economists and finance professors there would not be confusion about the meaning of the term economist. This is something that only exists amongst the public and it is unfortunately perpetuated by journalism, and Wikipedia. The essential point is a Financial Analyst or Investors are not people who are practicing economics as a science, v.s. Academic economists like Paul Krugman (who happens to write a New York Times Column) are. This is a biconditional statement. Economists can be hired as investors, but as a science economists do not practice investing and it is not a typical job requirement.

3. Analogy has been brought up about this in terms of a medical doctor. The problem with this analogy is that he is more or less self proclaimed. We do not call people without an M.D. a medical doctor, whether they are neurosurgeons or general practitioners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.96.220 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Econ Phd student is talking rubbish again. Professional jealosy is the only reason why 'economists' with a degree but no ability to actually forecast economies rant against people who can actually do the job properly. Using the same stupid logic, Picasso cannot be called an artist because he did not have a BA[Art]. It is tiresome for students who have zero knowledge of the real world to publish their untested views in this forum. When Econ Phd student has proven that he/she can forecast economic activity correctly over at least a 20 year period, then that student can pass comments on others. Compare Schiff's claim to be an economist to Arthur Laffer whose 'models' and 'predictions' are highly respeced in academia - but WRONG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.197 (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith is generally a wikipedia policy. Picasso made his living from art. Peter Schiff does not make his living from practicing economics. Contrary to what news papers may have you believe, only a very small portion of economists are forecasters. 96.49.150.188 (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC) From Australia: IMHO - I think we should call him a professional economic and finance consultant.

I'm not so sure about calling him a consultant. That would imply he makes a living from working with people's finances or is called in by corporations for an understanding of the economy.--Screwball23 talk 02:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference official was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Schiff/Archive_1&oldid=1190132052"