Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 19 January 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Krugman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Paul Krugman was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2008.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Krugman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Matt Haber (October 14, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Bandit Claims Times Krugman Dead; Krugman Alive, Still Has Nobel Prize". New York Observer.

The word stagflation misused

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

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

Edit to influence

The material in an infobox is not only generally redundant to material in the article, it is intended that way. With some rare exceptions, such as some of the properties of some elements, anything in an info box should be discussed and referenced in the article. It may well be that Dixit and Stiglitz influenced Krugman, but if so, it should be explained in the main text. While the names appear in the footnote, that isn't IMO enough. Frankly, I'd like to see us, as a project eliminate infobox entries that are not clear cut, but until that happens, we can at least follow the reasonable guideline that the information should be a summarization of the main text, not a separate point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Krugman is listed as influenced in both the Dixit and Stiglitz articles. This is the way it's done in Misplaced Pages. Let's follow common convention and not make up stuff specific for the Krugman page. FurrySings (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the template instructions:

Entries in influences, opposed, influenced, and contributions should be explained in the main text of one of the articles. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted.

This material was added in 2006 and has not been challenged. Feel free to make a proposal to change the rules, but until you get the rules change, please follow them. I request that you revert your own reversion, as you may not have been aware of the rules.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It is now in the main text. If this issue bothers you, you should concentrate on other economists pages that are much move profligate about 'influences'. FurrySings (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

You may have missed this extensive discussion about the use of unsupported material in info boxes:

Info box discussion

which spilled over to some additional sections.

I see that you posted here just before and just after that long discussion, so it is possible you missed it. Please read it and tell me if you really want to re-open it. If you do, please start an RFC, because it has been settled, and the removal is supported, not just by template instructions, but by MOS policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not "bothered" by this issue, I am interested in following policy. Yes, I'm aware that other articles do not meet MOS standards. I've added an item to my To do list but I'm adding faster than I'm removing. It took weeks to settle the debate on this page, I think the better approach is to abolish the use of subjective entries in info boxes, and someday, I may push for it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Krugman's model is widely attributed to Dixit and Stiglitz; this is a clear cut case. I suggest you put your time and effort somewhere else more productive. For instance, you can help clean up the page on Milton Friedman, where these are listed as influences: "Adam Smith, Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Murray Rothbard, Jacob Viner, Harold Hotelling, Arthur Burns, Friedrich Hayek, Homer Jones, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Simons, George Stigler" Most of them are not mentioned in the article anywhere. FurrySings (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Neo v New Keynesian moniker

Sources identifying Krugman as New Keynesian: , , , , ,

Krugman self-identifying as New Keynesian:

• "I’m just a Keynesian, willing to follow the logic of my analysis. A perfectly standard New Keynesian model, ..."
• "NK models almost always assume imperfect competition, so that we can talk about price-setting agents. This is all in Eggertsson and Krugman, by the way."
• "We envision an economy very much along the lines of standard New Keynesian models"

Reliable sources identifying Krugman as neo-Keynesian: NONE

Essentially no one has been a 'neo-Keynesian' since the 1980s (before Krugman got his PhD). Applying the 'neo' moniker to Krugman is an attempt to smear him by implying that his economics is 30 years out of date. LK (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. When I googled this during the reverts, I similarly couldn't find any "neo-" that didn't come from Misplaced Pages. —Cupco 12:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Confused. Neo = New by definition. The only reason people associate Neo with "Bad" is because the left successfully defined neo-conservative = "bad". The whole point of neo-conservatives was a "new" conservative. Is this an attempt to re-brand Krugman or Keynesians? Arzel (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

New Kenyesian, New Classical, Neo-keynesian have different meanings in academic economics. The label refer to the type of modeling approach that a person uses in their research and is not so closely tied to political ideology as the word in the vernacular suggests. Neo Keynesian models were largely structural macroeconomic models used between 50-80s that have mostly been abandoned by almost all economists. So suggesting that krugman is Neo Keynesian, implies he doesn't use what is considered modern macroeconomics, which is not true.98.71.97.22 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"undue weight for off hand remark" dismissal of Gary Becker statement?

User FurrySings reverted my recent addition, see below, giving as a reason "undue weight for off hand remark". I fail to understand how a statement, from a recorded, on-the-record interview of a Nobel Prize-wining economist on the topic of "The Economy" could be considered an "off hand remark".

I find this "off hand remark" claim unpersuasive. Would someone please add some clarity to to this issue?

Reverted edit in question: "Another Nobel laureate economist, Gary Becker, describes Krugman as no longer performing economic research saying, of Krugman, "He was a serious economist. He was. He's not doing serious work now."

Deicas (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly that's one of the crappiest things you could add to a Misplaced Pages article. Just some other guy notable, who says this guy's work sucks? Nothing that tells you what Becker doesn't like about Krugman's work? If Becker has specific criticism, then go ahead and consider adding that. But this is silly. We can't have every "I don't like so and so" that has ever been uttered by a notable person, because then we'd die before we'd be able to finish one article on Misplaced Pages. Full disclosure: I think Krugman is awesome. Trinitresque (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Trinitresque -- I am confused as you how you are able to read Becker's "He's not doing serious work now" as meaning "this guy's work sucks". Would you please clarify?

Deicas (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Trinitresque is paraphrasing. That's essentially what Becker is saying, given that in the world of academia, serious work is the coin of the realm. Becker is essentially saying 'that guy sucks'. Suppose we have a quote from John Boehner in a reliable source saying, "Obama, not a good president - he makes bad decisions", I don't think you'll get that in the Obama article, and rightly so. Pretty much the same thing here. LK (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that is not what Becker is saying. He is saying, and it is quite clear, that Krugman is no longer an acedemic. Krugman is now a polemetic. Krugman's policy positions are now based on his partisan political positions, hell even his personal blog is a reflection of Krugman's evolution. Arzel (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are any of the commenters going to address and/or defend the "undue weight for off hand remark" as the reason for reverting the edit under discussion? Deicas (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Keep well-sourced and relevant. Krugman's column is self described as "politics" Darkstar1st (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Per "eep sell-sourced": the Becker quote in question is demonstrably a statement made by Becker and Becker is a Nobel Prize-winner in Economic Science. If you are asserting that the quote is less-than-well sourced, would you please specify deficiencies supporting the claim? Deicas (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Per 'Krugman's column is self described as "politics"'. What is the saliency of that observation? -- the Misplaced Pages article in question is "Paul Krugman" not "Paul Krugman's Column". Deicas (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

i asserted the quote is well sourced, meaning good, the saliency(or relevance) of my comment is Krugman writes about politics, which is less serious work than economics, therefore i agree with Becker and feel it relevant to this article, hence my keep comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Opps! I apologize for my obtuseness in misunderstanding Keep. Deicas (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

no problem. i suspect even Paul would agree his work today is much less serious, often bordering on humor. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Per BRD, I am removing Becker until you can convince the people who have objected that it should be there. FurrySings (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that you've already removed it once, that wouldn't be BRD. That would be edit-warring. ► Belchfire-TALK 14:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If you truly believe so, post it at ANI, rather than making an uncivil accusation here. Frankly, I think edit warring and hounding better describes your actions than mine. FurrySings (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Krugman is a public figure who is hated by some elements of the right wing. We see this reflected here, where for some years now, there have been edit wars to include as much negative material into this article as possible no matter how trivial. In this recent dispute, we have from a 31 minute podcast with Gary Becker (from the anti Keynesian Chicago school), 13 words about Krugman saying that he is not a serious economist. Some here wish to include a quote of those 13 words in full, together with commentary describing the quote. In this short biography of a Nobel winner's life and work, I think it's obvious that the edit is undue weight. To settle this matter, I will pose the same question at WP:BLPN. FurrySings (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the section it is in, I think it fits well. Perhaps if Krugman was not so confrontational with everyone that does not agree with him, he would not have so many people calling his ideas political rather than economic. Krugman has only himself to blame for his transformation from economist to polematic. Arzel (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It does not fit well as is POV with little reason so be there other than to push ones POV. --GlIllIIIIIG (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The FurrySings comment above, seems to be the only attempt, to date, to justify the "undue weight for off hand remark" revision reason. Addressing the points made therein ...

1) "Krugman ... hated by ... trivial" is an ad hominum argument and, thus, not dispositive.

2) "In this recent dispute, ... 31 minute podcast ... Gary Becker ... anti Keynesian Chicago ..." seems to be making the unstated assertion that Becker is not qualified to speak authoritatively on this topic. If this is the claim then I suggest that this be cited as a future reversion reason.

3) "saying that he is not a serious economist" -- this claim is a clear misreading of Becker's "e's not doing serious work now".

4) "this short biography of a Nobel winner's life and work, I think it's obvious that the edit is undue weight" is the only portion portion of FurrySing's comment to directly address the "undue" claim. Paul Krugman is an 8100 word article with 206 footnote. The claim that the addition, now under discussion, of thirty words and one footnote constitutes undue weight is not creditable.

Deicas (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I write this comment the edit under discussion has been re-reverted by User:GlIllIIIIIG citing "POV-cruft, not germain".

1) General Misplaced Pages question: to what degree does the reverting party have the burden of proof to justify the reversion and to what degree do the parties (e.g. me) desiring to un-revert the edit need to justify their actions?

2) General Misplaced Pages question: is it proper to re-revert a significantly discussed edit citing "POV-cruft, not germain" with no additional justification?

3) What possible justification exists to dismiss as "cruft" a serious statement, by a Nobel Prize-winning economist, about the work of an economist?

4) What possible justification exists to dismiss as "not germain" an assessment of Paul Krugman's current work in the biographic article on Paul Kurgman?

5) What possible justification exist to claim a Misplaced Pages:NPOV violation due to adding thirty words and one footnote an article of 8100 words article 206 footnote?

Deicas (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How long is it appropriate to wait for User:GlIllIIIIIG to justify his "POV-cruft, not germain" reversion prior to un-reverting my edit? User:Belchfire asserts, in an un-revert comment, that User:GlIllIIIIIG is a "sockpuppet". Should this claim be examined?

Deicas (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's being examined. Don't hold your breath while you wait for that user to come to Talk. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Absent any defense/explaination by User:GlIllIIIIIG, of his deletion of this edit, I have re-added it. I'm hoping that, should anyone remove it yet again, that they would enter a cogent explaination herein, that address the inclusion justifications above. Deicas (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:GlIllIIIIIG has been determined to be a sockpuppet and banded by administative action. Deicas (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that the active portion of this discussion has now moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman Deicas (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Zad68, We shouldn't be having our discussion at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman: "No. Read the big blue box titled 'Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard' at the top of this page to understand what kinds of issues this board is for." That's fine by me, as none of the issues currently under discussion are of a "defamatory or libelous" nature we shouldn't be having the discussion at BLPN. FurrySings shouldn't have started a Paul Krugman discussion there. I wish an administrator would editprotect Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Paul_Krugman to assure that our discussion stays off that page. Deicas (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Peter Robinson (27 Jan. 2011). "Uncommon Knowledge; The Economy with Gary Becker". http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge (Podcast). 31 minutes in. Retrieved 5 Jan. 2013. He was a serious economist. He was. He's not doing serious work now. {{cite podcast}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); External link in |website= (help)

What Becker actually said

This interview is being conspicuously misrepresented. The key portion is prefaced by the host contrasting Krugman's views about the stimulus at about 28:16. Krugman's name then comes up again at the 30:00 mark as the host says why he specifically named him, as someone with a Nobel Prize. Becker then says:

Becker: Not easy, because Paul Krugman did some important work in economics, so his Nobel Prize certainly had merit. He did important work on international trade, not on stimulus packages and the like.

Host: He's an economist of serious standing.
Becker: He was a serious economist.
Host: He was.

Becker: He was. He's not doing serious work any more, but he was a good and serious economist.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like criticism. I'm sure that the section that followed featured Becker explaining how Krugman's Keynesianism was wrong, but all that Becker is saying here is that Krugman had gotten out of research. In context, it's not a criticism, but merely an observation, perhaps, that Treasury secretaries and the like don't have time for research. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

He's not doing serious work any more, but he was a good and serious economist. "I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like criticism.", define criticism? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of this exchange, and the part immediately preceding it, is the admission that Krugman is someone who has to be taken seriously, not to dismiss him as someone who doesn't have to be taken seriously. If you keep listening, you will hear no criticism of Krugman at all, in fact. The larger context of this is the host asking, in essence, "how does an ordinary person know who to listen to?" And Becker's reply, after acknowledging the eminence of people supporting the stimulus in the quoted passage, is to call upon us laypeople to use our common sense and judge policies by their outcomes. It's clear that he and Krugman disagree, but he acknowledges that there is a lot of professional disagreement on these issues, and he does not single Krugman out for any specific criticism at all. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

was means in the past, but no longer, which supports the previous statement, not...serious. maybe there is more text you could present to support your position? Darkstar1st (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the quotation as used in our article is being used to say that Becker is dismissing Krugman as a has-been by lumping him in with Barro and Prescott. But that's not at all what Becker actually said. Becker is acknowledging Krugman as someone worthy of some respect, who is nonetheless wrong. Barro and Prescott themselves present problems here, because, not to put too fine a point on it, they are partisans of new classical economics. Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the various economic schools knows that the classical schools and the Keynesians have been in stalwart opposition for some seventy-five years, and that their mutual denunciations sound all too like the titles of Oolon Colluphid's various works. It's reasonable to say that Krugman is someone the classical econ people like to take potshots at, but we need to make clear that these are the attacks of rivals and not of neutral parties. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I dispute User:Mangoe assertion, above, that "This interview is being conspicuously misrepresented".

1) The interview isn't the item at issue here. The interview is only the *source* of Becker's statement.

2) Becker's "He's not doing serious work any more" is clear.

3) The edit that includes the Becker quotes says "... Gary Becker, describes Krugman as as no longer performing economic research ...". I believe that statement is coldly accurate. What phrasing would be more accurate? Deicas (talk) 04:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on, Deicas, the passage is in a sections on controversies. The only real controversy in the interview is that Becker is from the Chicago school and Krugman is a Keynesian and thus someone opposed to the Chicago school (and vice versa). But the presentation of the quote is to imply that Becker thinks there is something wrong with the fact that Krugman's research days are in the past. But if you listen to the statement in context, there is no such criticism implied: Becker and the host both hold up Krugman as an opponent who has to be taken seriously. There is no brief clip from the interview that I've found which provides a neat, quotable "Becker criticizes Krugman" statement. I think the paragraph could be reworded to the more truthful statement that Krugman is commonly attacked by members of rival schools, giving Barro and Prescott as examples and being up-front about their affiliations, but the Becker interview simply doesn't fit into that story. It's an interview about stimulus packages, not about Krugman. Becker's attitude in the interview towards Krugman, after the host brings him up, is of a respected but wrong-headed colleague, not the "controversial" figure that the other two are trying to paint him as. Mangoe (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are no-longer claiming "his interview is being conspicuously misrepresented" and are now claiming that the edit does not belong in the "Controversies" section? True? Where do you propose that the Becker quote be more properly located? Deicas (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, and if you understand otherwise, then you need to stop and think about what this says about your comprehension of the material. I'm saying exactly the opposite of what you're saying: the level of misrepresentation goes beyond just this one quotation, and includes the notion that Becker intended any personal criticism of Krugman at all. Assuming we even have an article on the stimulus packages, this interview could be used there, but it's useless here except as acknowledgement of Becker's professional respect, which is not what you apparently want. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please 'quote' the text that causes you to make the "misrepresentation" claim.

I, again, ask you if you're claiming that the edit under discussion doesn't belong in the "Controversies" section? Well? Are you implying that the quote in question would more appropriately below in the "Commentator" as it describes Krugman's current activities?

How, from the edit in question, do you 'possibly' construe any intent to convey the "notion that Becker intended any personal criticism"? Quote the offending words and justify your reasoning.

If you believe that the Becker quote has *no* place in article then say so and state your reason(s), e.g. "not notable".

Your "... which is not what you apparently want" is ad hominum and a violation of WP:GOODFAITH. I ask that you refrain from such statements. Deicas (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas, I've already said why the interview is not appropriate, and you came back with an WP:IDHT response. Becker was interviewed (as best I can tell) about the stimulus packages. Now, I didn't listen to all of an interview which runs for over half an hour, and I only made a transcript of the short passage quoted above because I simply do not have the several hours available to produce a complete transcript. But from what I heard of it, Krugman's name wasn't dropped until near the end, when the host said, in effect, "how does a layperson deal with all these eminent economists (such as Klugman with his Nobel Prize) who disagree with what you just said?" Becker says, "well, yes, Klugman is an eminent economist, though he's not doing new research now, and there's these other guys too; but really all you have to do is use your common sense and look at the outcome of the packages." Obviously he disagrees with Klugman, but the reading this as a personal controversy is an interpretation which the audio does not support. I'm not going over this time and again because you don't see this. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

user:Mangoe -- You assert "Becker was interviewed (as best I can tell) about the stimulus packages". That is demonstrably *false". Please look at the interview citation: the title is "Uncommon Knowledge; The Economy with Gary Becker". Therein Becker was spoke on a number of economic topics. Deicas (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Mangoe -- As you continue to assert "personal controversy"-- please address my prior "How, from the edit in question, do you 'possibly' construe any intent to convey the "notion that Becker intended any personal criticism"? Quote the offending words and justify your reasoning." The Becker quote is Becker's assessment of Krugman's current activities as an economist 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, there's no point in me wasting any more time on this. I have to doubt whether you've even listened to the passage in question, but there's nothing in it suggesting that Becker meant anything critical or controversial about the fact that Krugman isn't doing research these days. If you don't see that, I can't help you. Mangoe (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I, yet again, ask ask User:Mangoe if "... you're claiming that the edit under discussion doesn't belong in the 'Controversies' section? Well? Are you implying that the quote in question would more appropriately below in the 'Commentator' as it describes Krugman's current activities?" Please answer the question.

I, again, ask User:Mangoe "if you believe that the Becker quote has *no* place in article then say so and state your reason(s), e.g. "not notable". Deicas (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough already. I said I didn't listen to the entire podcast, and I don't deny that they certainly may have talked on any number of other topics. But you aren't appealing to anything that was actually said in those other sections, so who cares? I and everyone else have better things to do with my life than to put up with your relentless nitpicking at this. Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I correct in interpreting your "so who cares" to mean: 1) Mangoe does not object to the inclusion of the Becker quote in Paul Krugman and; 2) Mangoe does not have a opinion on where in Paul Krugman the Becker quote should appear? True? Deicas (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It means that you are ignoring what I am saying. Mangoe (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition of a criticism template to the "Controversies" section.

User:Insomesia has added a criticism template to the "Controversies" section. I dispute this addition. My reasons are as follows:

1) The "Controversies" section is well-sourced and, relative to the size of the article, is too small to constitute a Misplaced Pages:NPOV violation.

2) The "Controversies" section describes the disputes about Dr. Krugman's work.

3) Dr. Krugman is *indisputably* a controversial public intellectual and to "integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole" would only serve to ignore the real and active controversies regarding his work.

Pursuant to Misplaced Pages:BRD I have reverted the edit adding the criticism template.

Deicas (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a drive-by tag. Feel free to pull it whenever you like. ► Belchfire-TALK 01:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a very bad faith assumption and you know it. Insomesia (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You put a tag on the article without starting a discussion section, and the edit summary only said "clean up". If that's not a drive-by tag, nothing is. ► Belchfire-TALK 03:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is clean up and that is a clean up tag. Suggesting it can simply be removed flies in the face of collegial editing on Misplaced Pages. Insomesia (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If these are notable controversies then they should be woven into the article in a NPOV manner, not segregated into a POV-magnet section. If there is no place in the regular article where they can be presented in a NPOV manner then they likely don't belong at all. Insomesia (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Insomesia is right that tags about article problems should not be removed without discussion, unless clearly abandoned. WP:STRUCTURE states, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." This is WP:Policy, if you have trouble with it, take it up on the talk page. LK (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It was discussed. ► Belchfire-TALK 04:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Specific response to Lawrencekhoo per his "... if you have trouble with it, take it up on the talk page". What? I don't understand?! *THIS* is the TALK PAGE for the article under discussion. Are you referring to another "talk page"? If so please unambiguously specify the "talk page" too which you are refering. Deicas (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have again removed the criticism template inserted by User:Insomesia. If User:Insomesia, or anyone else, wants to, yet again re-add the criticism template, prior to that un-reversion, I ask that the editor please *directly* address issues 1, 2, & 3 above. Deicas (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A controversy or criticism section on a BLP especially is an advertisement that it's a poorly written article. Notable criticism, and I'm not saying any of it is or isn't, needs to be woven into the larger narrative and edited as part of the full story. Frankly a lot of it looks gossipy and should be thrown out. Insomesia (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar coin

User:Volunteer_Marek, in revision en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532290410, removed my addition of Dr. Krugman's endorsement of the potential issuance of a trillion dollar platinum coin giving, as a reason "oh for chrissake, he is too joking. He's using a joke to make a serious point. A point which has nothing to do with the existence of a trill $ coin but with the stupidity of the current budget process."

Krugman's *not* joking. On 7 January 2012 he wrote: "Should President Obama be willing to print a $1 trillion platinum coin if Republicans try to force America into default? Yes, absolutely. He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous. The decision should be obvious. ... Enter the platinum coin. There’s a legal loophole allowing the Treasury to mint platinum coins in any denomination the secretary chooses. Yes, it was intended to allow commemorative collector’s items — but that’s not what the letter of the law says. And by minting a $1 trillion coin, then depositing it at the Fed, the Treasury could acquire enough cash to sidestep the debt ceiling — while doing no economic harm at all."

Then, on 8 January he wrote "Joe Weisenthal says that the coin debate is the most important fiscal policy debate of our lifetimes; I agree, with two slight quibbles — it’s arguably more of a monetary than a fiscal debate, and it’s really part of the broader debate that has been going on ever since we entered the liquidity trap." If there is any joking in the coin issuance suggestion I can't find it. If User:Volunteer_Marek, or anyone else, is going to remove this edit claiming "joking" would they be so kind as to quote, from the cited columns, text that supports the "joking" claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To repeat: he's using a joke to make a serious point. Which you are completely missing.Volunteer Marek 06:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You make the assertion "To repeat: he's using a joke to make a serious point" but unresponsively fail to include any supporting information. Per my request, above, "... be so kind as to quote, from the cited columns, text that supports the 'joking' claim". Deicas (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, look, Krugman is using the whole trillion dollar coin example as a way of explaining why the current way that fiscal policy is conducted is absurd. Specifically, the fact that: "we have the weird and destructive institution of the debt ceiling; this lets Congress approve tax and spending bills that imply a large budget deficit — tax and spending bills the president is legally required to implement — and then lets Congress refuse to grant the president authority to borrow, preventing him from carrying out his legal duties and provoking a possibly catastrophic default.". That's the whole point of the column. The coin is just a way of illustrating that. If the administration could just ignore the ridiculous debt ceiling threat then the idea of the coin would be moot. You're focusing on HOW the argument is presented, rather than WHAT the argument actually is. And this isn't about "supporting the claim", it's about simple reading comprehension.

More generally, the fact is that Krugman makes lots of points in a lot of columns. Should we include every single one in the article? Obviously not. If this coin idea gets implemented or something then yeah, sure, this particular column or two may be notable for inclusion. But right now it's just non-notable recentism (which usually, on Misplaced Pages turns into an oxymoronic phenomenon of outdated recentism) as this just happens to be something being discussed in the blogosphere at the moment. Just because it's in print somewhere does not mean it needs to be included. And especially it does not need to be included in a way which obfuscates and misses the main point.Volunteer Marek 07:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are withdrawing the joking" claim? Please clarify.

I am not clear whether you are saying that Dr. Krugman's policy recommendation that the US Treasury should be "minting a $1 trillion coin" is inappropriate for inclusion in Paul_Krugman#U.S._economic_policies. If you are making that claim, then please specifically state same and describe the criteria that you are using to make that judgement.

I am not clear whether you are saying that the edit in question does not adequately describe the policy issue in question cf. "which obfuscates and misses the main point". If you are making that claim, then please specifically state same and perhaps you would be so kind as to extend the edit in question to address your concern. Does this extended description belong in Paul Krugman or Trillion_Dollar_Coin?

I am not aware that "recentism" is an accepted reason for edit reversion. If you claim "recentism" as a reversion, then would you please cite the Misplaced Pages policy that describes "recentism".Deicas (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have explained myself sufficiently. Volunteer Marek 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I ask the questions, above, that you decline to answer, so that I can *clearly* understand your proposed solution (eg. put extended description in Trillion_Dollar_Coin, or, never cite the referenced Krugman columns in Paul Krugman ) and the reasoning for same.

I went to the trouble of asking the questions. I ask that you go to the trouble of answering the each or, alternatively, explain why the question is not dispositive for the issue at hand. Deicas (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that Krugman thinks that the coin is a stupid idea and that he's ridiculing other Republican policies as being even stupider. If this isn't the message you're getting from the articles, then perhaps you should consider stepping away from this topic. Mangoe (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What is obvious to one, is not neccessarily obvious to another. Krugman called the coin idea a gimmick, but he also called any gimmick to get around the budget ceiling a good idea. I suppose you prefer to call Krugman's support of this gimmick to be a joke, because otherwise Krugman is just as stupid as the Republicans you are critical of. Arzel (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally it's not a good idea to suppose stuff you have no basis for supposin'. Let's call it a "serious joke", ey? Volunteer Marek 14:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I made the assertion, above, that "Krugman's *not* joking". I supported that assertion with two quotes from two different Krugman columns.

I made the request, above, "be so kind as to quote, from the cited columns, text that supports the 'joking' claim" and neither User:Volunteer_Marek, nor any one else, supported the "joking" claim. In putative defense, above, of the joking claim, Krugman is quoted writing "... weird and destructive ... catastrophic default". So? Krugman doesn't like US statue and doesn't like the way Congress conducts their business. He proposes using the Trillion_dollar_coin as a means of bypassing these perceived obstacles. No evidence has been offered to support the joking claim.

I further support "Krugman's *not* joking" with this item, from a law professor, who believes Krugman's proposal is serious: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/hope-and-change-into-clown-costume.html.

If someone wants to claim that Krugman's joking, the burden is on them to: 1) find a suitable citation that references Krugman's Trillion_dollar_coin proposal enforcement; 2) says that Krugman's joking and; 3) insert into the edit under dispute something to the effect that "... but some say Krugman's endorment is only joking". Deicas (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this isn't a matter of sourcing but a simple matter of reading comprehension. Pay attention to the part where he says He will, after all, be faced with a choice between two alternatives: one that’s silly but benign, the other that’s equally silly but both vile and disastrous though. And please stop trying to waste our time.Volunteer Marek 19:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

So Krugman observes that there is a bad solution ("silly but benign") and a worse solution ("equally silly but both vile and disastrous")? So? Politics & economics are *filled* with situations where the best solution is only least bad. How does that support your undo-ing of the edit under dispute because "... he is too joking ..."? Deicas (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a citation that supports my "Krugman's *not* joking" claim: "... having the Treasury mint a trillion dollar platinum coin ... Paul Krugman has come out in favor of it ." Deicas (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is about as ridiculous as me demanding that you present a source to the effect that "Krugman is NOT joking when he endorses the trillion dollar coin". dammit! So. Go out there and find that, then come back here and play the passive-aggressive-recent-account-but-well-versed-in-Misplaced Pages-policy shtick and maybe I'll be willing to waste my time on being trolled.Volunteer Marek 03:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have entered a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for this dispute at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:Paul_Krugman Deicas (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The people who think that the trillion dollar is a "joke" are not drawing that conclusion as economists. The Federal Reserve plans to add a trillion to its balance sheet in 2013 anyway and the difference between that, which is obviously not a "joke" since it is official Federal Reserve policy, and adding the trillion by means of seigniorage is essentially just technical. If you have been following Krugman it would have been stunning if Krugman did NOT endorse it once he got past the first impression of gimmickry. Krugman has already said the move is analogous to having the Treasury Secretary wear a clown suit, and that could be pointed out, but if Krugman considers this a "joke" then he considers his own general prescription for monetary policy a joke. If you think there's a danger in making too much out of this then the solution is to find one of the several instances where he distinguishes himself from the MMTers (who have fewer reservations than Krugman about monetizing the debt generally), and add that as a qualifier. While it is true that not everything Krugman talks about is noteworthy, on this particular point many mainstream news services which do not follow Krugman's every opinion are calling attention to his support for this. Misplaced Pages is supposed to take this usage as a guide for inclusion.--Brian Dell (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

References

1. www.businessinsider.com/why-the-mint-the-coin-debate-could-be-the-most-important-fiscal-policy-debate-youll-ever-see-in-your-life-2013-1?op=1

I wonder if Paul follows these discussions (personally, I seriously doubt it)? But my point is this - what's important is not whether supporting the coin is a "joke" or a "serious joke" or whatever, but that

1) the column and the idea is included only if it can be shown that it is significantly more notable than the other 750 columns Paul has written and the large number of ideas he's supported over the years. Actually, if he keeps popping out columns on this subject (you paying attention PK?), I'll be happy to reverse my position and support inclusion of this info. In that case...

2) the text needs to be included in a way which makes it clear WHY PK supports this idea. In other words it has to get at the substance of the issue - the way that fiscal policy is set and the threat by Republican congress to force a default - not just put "Paul Krugman supports a trillion dollar coin" in there. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the substance of your first point—the narrow issue about whether it is a "joke" or a "serious joke" or "serious" is a distraction. Until someone decides to create the equivalent of a sports teams season article—Krugman views in 2013—for example, this issue should not be included unless it is materially more notable than his day to day articles. While it is possible it may turn out to be, at the moment this hardly deserves a footnote in his life history. On the second point, we disagree. Discussion of fiscal policy deserves it own article, and Krugman's view on fiscal policy are relevant, but to use the coin as a device to discuss his views on fiscal policy is not the right approach. Nothing wrong with discussing his fiscal views, but to do so in the context of the coin would roughly be like using Frank J.'s proposal to Nuke the Moon as a way to introduce a serious discussion of geopolitical power balances.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As this matter is currently being discussed at the open RfC, should't we be having this discussion over there and *NOT* here? Deicas (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like that discussion is a dispute about whether Krugman is making a joke. Volunteer Marek and I agree (I think) that whether it is a joke or not isn't relevant. I see some question about the scope, but until the scope is clearly broadened, I'm interested in whether Krugman's views on the coin issue belong in the article. I think there's some value in having all discussion at a single location, but it isn't yet clear that the points I am discussing with Volunteer Marek are part of that discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 03:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick: insofar as I have been able to determine, every aspect of Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin that is under discussion on *this* page is under discussion at the RfC. I asking scope-of-discussion questions and keep getting no answers. Deicas (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps now, but not at the time I posted. I've weighed in a bit more there. FTR, I disagree with your observation that the consensus is for inclusion. It's a bit early to be leaping to such a conclusion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the White House called Krugman to explain why the coin option won't be pursued. How common is that? Explain why the White House would do that if it's all just a "joke"? What are so many economists talking about this so-called joke?--Brian Dell (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The second source is a blog. Misplaced Pages is suppose to be an encyclopedia not a blog-commentary aggregator. So junk that. Krugman's mention that White House responded to him on that indicates two things - it's a hot issue today and it ain't gonna happen. How about, rather than focusing on the trillion $ coin idea we actually include something about the substance of Krugman's argument in the article? We could mention the coin in passing in that context.Volunteer Marek 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to delete the line "Within days of its appearance, it was being discussed on some popular economics-oriented blogs" from this article then? In fact Misplaced Pages does not just "junk" commentary by professors and experts. An expert speaking on a blog platform is not necessarily less reliable than a know nothing using some mass market medium. How can there be any "substance" here if Krugman is joking? Or did you not claim that "he is too joking"? As for discussing the substance that's rather rich coming from you since you went and deleted that when I added it to the Trillion Dollar Coin article. I've since rewritten that section to make essentially the same point about inflation with more citations and use of quotes yet I've yet to see you back down from your claim that the coin is just a joke and the only thing that's serious is some sort of political point about Congress.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? There's a debt ceiling debate looming. Many notable people will have some comments on how the issue should be addressed. Literally hundreds. Do we plan to add a section to the page of Obama, and Senate leaders, and House budget members and every notable pundit who offers commentary on the issue? If we decide to create a page on the debt ceiling issue (for a brief moment, I thought we had one, but United States debt-ceiling crisis is the 2011 crisis) then many of those pontificators should be quoted. But it does not follow that we update their biographies with every utterance they make. Weren't you making the argument that Krugman has 375 or so columns on issues, most of which are notable? We aren't planning to expand his bio for most of those, what makes this one special? It isn't all that special, after all, the hatnote says: This article is about the 2011 debt-ceiling crisis. For information about the ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling in 2013, see United States fiscal cliff. For the 1995-1996 debt-ceiling crisis, see United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996. I bet Krugman comments on all of those. Yet I don't see any of those in this article. What makes this one special?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can point to 375 articles on CBC News like this one I'll concede your point here. Until then, you are making claims about notability without producing any supporting evidence.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

To make my point somewhat differently, in case someone draws the erroneous conclusion that I am fighting to keep Krugman comments out of Misplaced Pages, not at all. There's an article about the Trillion dollar coin. It quotes Krugman. I support that. We probably need an article about the 2013 debt ceiling crisis. If someone wants to quote Krugmans views in that article, I support it. What I object to is the notion that this minor incident (at this time) is so important to Krugman's career that it deserves mention in his bio.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that voting on *exactly* this topic is currently occurring at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is *so* prominent that Google News search produces >1,300 hits including, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and a report from ABC: "Paul Krugman Scolds Jon Stewart for Platinum Trillion Dollar Coin Coverage".

So Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin isn't news, huh? What has to happen to make it news? Do we have to wait for Krugman to grab Tim Geithner by the throat and scream "Mint the goddamn coin you miserable tax cheat!" before all the participants in this discussion admit that the topic is salient to Krugman's activities as a public intellectual? Deicas (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone still asserting Krugman's endorsement of the Trillion Dollar Coin is UNDUE, or otherwise excludable, from the article? If so then make that claim and I will respond with a pile of citations to news stories covering the topic including the Krugman/Paul Stewart dispute. How many citation do I need to provide? Deicas (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, several of your fellow editors at this article still think the proposed TDC content is undue here. A failure to address the policy-based objections raised doesn't mean the objections no longer stand. It probably means the other editors are exasperated from having to deal with WP:IDHT behavior. Repeating your statements without understanding and addressing the arguments of others is a sign of disruptive editing, see Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing.

One good thing that I'm seeing happen here is that your response has actually moved on from statements about verifiability ("Are there reliable sources that say it?") to arguments that are starting to be more in line with WP:UNDUE ("How many reliable sources say it?"). The next step you need to take is to answer the question, "Looking over all the available reliable sources covering the entirety of the subject of Paul Krugman, what emphasis is placed on the TDC?" Then finally you need to address the heart of the objection, from WP:UNDUE:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The TDC has been a quirky idea that started in 2011 (as far as I can tell) and has made for interesting, fun-to-read popular press stories. The Treasury has now formally rejected the TDC idea, of which this NYTimes article says 'the point was to expose the “absurdity” of the debt ceiling debate in the first place', quoting economics commentator Joe Weisenthal. The Paul Krugman article is big and covers his entire life. The Economic views section should summarize the most important of his economic views as found in reliable sources. There should probably be mention of Krugman's views on the debt and the debt ceiling, but the way to do that isn't through an out-of-context statement about the TDC. Zad68 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages disallows original research and requires secondary sources for interpretation

Editors are reminded that Misplaced Pages expressly disallows original research, and secondary sources are required to interpret primary sources. The fact that there is not agreement here about what the individual primary sources being brought forward mean (is it criticism or not? is it sarcasm or not?) indicates that the primary sources cannot be used in the ways being proposed, see WP:PRIMARY. The explanation of the context and meaning of these primary sources must be done by secondary sources, and not by individual Misplaced Pages editors. You need to please find reliable secondary sources to support the proposed article content changes. Zad68 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you please *specify*, above, in the appropriate discussion sections, the citations that you assert are "primary sources"/"original research" and require supporting secondary sources. Deicas (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus U.S. economic policies section?

Among the items removed by User:KTC's "pp-dispute|expiry=20 January 2013" reversion to the 25 Dec. version were a number of edits in the "U.S. economic policies" section.

Are these edits under dispute? If YES: would the person(s) disputing these edits please specify the objectionable edit(s) state their objections? If NO: I'd like to ask an administrator to restore those edits. Deicas (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed the section name, above, from "U.S. economic policies" section" to "Consensus U.S. economic policies" section?". At some point, in the not to distant future, I hope that we will be able to state the consensus on the disposition "U.S. economic policies" section in this section. Deicas (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532291255

"Enron" section removal

One of the issue under dispute at the time of User:KTC's "pp-dispute|expiry=20 January 2013" reversion to the 25 Dec. version was User:Insomesia's deletion of the "Enron" section with the reason given as "Commentator: Clean up".

References

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Krugman&oldid=532291255

Does User:Insomesia, or anyone else, have future plans to remove the section? If YES: would the person(s) proposing this removal please state their reasoning, here, more clearly than " Clean up"? If NO: I would like to make an explicit declaration that the consensus of editors is that the "Enron" section is to remain. Deicas (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Enron section is yet another example of right-wing critics swiftboating an opponent with dubious unfounded claims. Frankly, I don't see why you should want to keep it. It's more evidence of the dissembling mendaciousness of US conservatives. FurrySings (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

FurrySings: Your comment, above, is almost entirely ad hominum claims which, if my understanding is correct, is against the Misplaced Pages policies of discourse. There are enough comments on this page without adding the overhead of WP:GOODFAITH violations.

If, as you assert, there are items in the Enron section that are "dubious unfounded claims" then please *specify* the item(s) and cite you reasoning for deleting the offending item. Deicas (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Deicas, I'ld like to remind you that an unsupported accusation of impoliteness is itself impolite. If I made an ad hominem attack, name the hominem that I am attacking, and where exactly I attacked this hominem. FurrySings (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Per User:FurrySings question, just above, the persons User:FurrySings is attacking are the individuals who wrote, edited, and recommended the non-deletion of the "Enron" section. The specific ad hominums are "... right-wing critics swiftboating an opponent with dubious unfounded claims ..." and "... dissembling mendaciousness ...". Isn't this *obvious*? Deicas (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read what I wrote again. If I am criticizing anyone, it is Krugman's public critics from more than a decade ago who first dug up this non-incident in order to criticize him in the newspapers, blogs and magazines of that time.FurrySings (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:FurrySings: Your ad hominum comments above decry "The Enron section" and, by implication, the editors who put it there -- that is a WP:GOODFAITH violation.

You write "If I am criticizing anyone": *of course* you are criticizing someone! How can you use phrases like "dissembling mendaciousness" and then, vaguely, attempt to suggest that you aren't criticizing someone? If as you vaguely assert, you *might* be directing your ad hominum at "Krugman's public critics" then you are violating the Misplaced Pages guidelines of "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paul Krugman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject".

Your on-going disruptive edits, of the article and this talk page, impose an unnecessary time overhead on the people that need to respond to your disruptive behavior. I am not the first person to tell you this. I will now seek dispute resolution on this matter. Deicas (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I state that this Enron bruhaha was started by unethical political activists, and I don't see why it should be in this article. You claim that this is a disruptive attack on the editors (who I didn't refer to and frankly don't know who they are) who put this incident into the article. I suggest you ask at whatever is the right noticeboard whether I'm making any personal attacks on editors here. I'ld again like to remind you that making unfounded accusations about personal attacks is itself a personal attack. FurrySings (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Enron section was not deleted, it was moved. I don't think it needs to be kept but those more familiar with the subject can make that call, it seems undue to me. Insomesia (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for misreading the move of the "Enron" section for deletion. I'm hoping that we can arrive at a clearly articulated consensus on the disposition of "Enron" section, e.g 1) "Enron" stays in Paul Krugman and; 2) "Enron" is moved from section ??? to section ???. Something like that -- is that reasonable? Deicas (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the Enron section should be completely removed as not that notable. Insomesia (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Insomesia: when you say the Enron section is "not that notable", am I correct that you claim it does not meet the Misplaced Pages:NOTE guideline? Yes?

Per Misplaced Pages:NOTE "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" and, per Misplaced Pages:N#NCONTENT, "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article". Thus I claim that your claim of not Misplaced Pages:NOTE, if indeed that what you're claiming is not salient. Do you agree with this?

Would you please cite the specific Misplaced Pages guideline that support your assertion that the Enron section should be removed? Deicas (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:Undue which relates to WP:NPOV. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As Insomesia asserts a violation of ], just above, and there a multiple other assertions of WP:POV, all across Talk:Paul Krugman -- have we reached the point that some RfC on article-level POV problems for Paul Krugman needs to be filed/escalated? I believe this is true -- a POV RfC needs to filed & resolved before an understanding of the POV issues associated with Paul Krugman is arrived upon.

I further assert that until we resolve the POV issues -- which are *article-level*, *not* edit or section level issue -- a rational resolution of the Krugman DRN RfC is impossible. But note that User:Amadscientist has accused me of Wikilawyering for persistently making that assertion.

How do we go forward on this? What are the procedural issues? Deicas (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I call to your attention an RfC discussion of Paul Krugman at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

I'm sorry, I think I failed to invite all interested parties to the discussion when I filed the RfC. If you notice any other potentially-interested editor that I also failed to invite I encourage you to do so. Deicas (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on inclusion on the Gary Becker quote

No evidence has been provided to justify removal Becker quote & citation: No evidence offered, above, in sections "undue weight for off hand remark" dismissal of Gary Becker statement?" and "What Becker actually said" suggest that the citation fails to meets WP:PROVEIT, within WP:VERIFY, the criteria for inclusion. Therefor I assert that the Becker quote & citation is not to be removed from the article.

If anyone wishes to challenge this assertion then please cite: 1) the exclusion reason(s) from WP:VERIFY and: 2) the part(s) of the citation or quote to which it/they refer.

Absent a cogent challenge to the assertion, above, I will subsequently assert that is The Consensus that the Becker quote & citation is not to be removed from the article. Deicas (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an odd way of interpreting WP:Consensus policy. Are you not interested in a collaborative process to improve the article? I think that might include collaborative discussion instead of the antagonistic approach I'm seeing. El duderino 15:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with El duderino.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well, there's clearly no consensus that there's consensus. Deicas you really need to start familiarizing yourself with Misplaced Pages policies and process. If an addition is made to the article and it is challenged, the standard Misplaced Pages process is that the challenged content is removed and stays out of the article until there is consensus for including it. To make a legal analogy: In many legal systems, people are innocent until proven guilty. For Misplaced Pages content, challenged content is "guilty" until proven "innocent." Zad68 14:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'ld like to add that this is doubly true for BLPs (my particular topic of interest). Contested material should never be added into a BLP unless there is a rough consensus for including the material based on clear policy-based arguments. FurrySings (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not black and white like that either. Getting a few eidtors together to collectively whitewash information is a terrible standard to apply. Consensus is not popularity vote. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking the situation - it's not a few people getting together to whitewash an article. Consensus of the people from BLPN (not including people from here who followed the discussion there) commenting at the discussion appears to be that trivial sniping between economists from rival schools shouldn't be included in a BLP. FurrySings (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:FurrySings: If you are going to make a claim probative to BLP-issues then cite the applicable Misplaced Pages guide line(s) and applicable fact(s). You dragged this discussion to BLPN and we were kicked off because there were no BLP-specific issues under discussion. If you continue to make unsubstantiated BLP-related claims I will add that to my list of your disruptive editing actions. Deicas (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A Noble Prize winning economist says that another Noble Prize winning economist is no longer doing serious work and you and a few treat it as if Becker slandered Krugman. You should really check your idolitry at the talk page door. I realize that Krugman is worshiped on the left for his current polematic views, which is ironically the crux of Becker's statement, so I suppose it is only natural that those very same people on the left should run to Krugmans defense. I might be led to believe otherwise, but there is no concensus on the BLPN, so the claims of concensus here are spurious. Arzel (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I assert, yet again, that the Becker quote and associated citation meets WP:PROVEIT, within WP:VERIFY, the criteria for inclusion in an article. Ok!? If you want to dispute that assertion go ahead and do so. Be sure to cite the applicable Misplaced Pages guide line(s) and applicable fact(s).

I further assert that, in the section above, no substantive argument has been offered dispositive to the exclusion of Becker quote. I someone wants to claim "But I already said ..." then please quote the applicable argument. Deicas (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability is only the standard for whether something might be included, not will or must be. There are many other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that cover where verifiable information will not be included in the article, and you have been made aware of at least one of them many, many times now. Zad68 03:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per User:Zad68's "There are many other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that cover ...". If you want to make a claim the the Becker quote is to be removed from the article I encourage you, or anyone else, to do so: Be sure to cite the applicable Misplaced Pages guide line(s) and applicable fact(s).

I just scanned the sections, above, "What Becker actually said" and "'undue weight for off hand remark dismissal of Gary Becker statement?"

The only comment, that addressed an issue probative for quote's removal is FurrySings's claim "... obvious that the edit is undue weight", he offered no evidence to support the claim, I, above, refuted the claim and, I infer that my refutation was effective because he stopped making the claim. If anyone disagrees with my assessment that "my refutation was effective", then I encourage them to: claim UNDUE and describe the evidence and reasoning to support the claim.

I found *no* other claims above that are probative for the removal of the Becker quote, cite an applicable Misplaced Pages guild line, and offer evidence to support the claim. If User:Zad68, or anyone else, finds something to the contrary, in the reference sections, then cite the item, quote it here below, and I will issue a whimpering mea culpa. Deicas (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have this backwards. The quote is not currently in the article. If there's an argument to be made it would be to try to convince the editors here to agree in changing the article to include the proposed content. Zad68 04:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

re Deicas - "I infer that my refutation was effective because he stopped making the claim" -- This is exactly the sort of battleground mentality I was referring to earlier. That sounds like you think you're right just because other editors don't feel the need to repeat themselves. I think you, Arzel and/or anyone else arguing for Becker's inclusion (and, for that matter, the other shallow criticism currently in the catch-all 'Controversy' section) has to make a better case for passing due weight -- is there something more substantial than "he's not serious"? It's not quite enough to just say that Becker is a Nobel laureate. El duderino 08:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Per the comments of User:Zad68 of User:El duderino, above, and especially in response to User:El duderino's assertion of "... of battleground mentality": I repeat my statement, above:

I assert, yet again, that the Becker quote and associated citation meets WP:PROVEIT, within WP:VERIFY, the criteria for inclusion in an article. Ok!? If you want to dispute that assertion go ahead and do so. Be sure to cite the applicable Misplaced Pages guide line(s) and applicable fact(s).

I further assert that, in the section above, no substantive argument has been offered dispositive to the exclusion of Becker quote. I someone wants to claim "But I already said ..." then please quote the applicable argument.

Deicas (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you repeating this? It was already addressed. And would it be possible for you to please not use lawyer-y sounding language ("dispositive", "probative", etc.)? This isn't a courtroom or formal debate, and that lawyer-y language is contributing to what's coming across as a "battleground" mentality, whether you are intending it or not... Zad68 19:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Deicas (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Economics articles
• High-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• B-Class Journalism articles
• Low-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press