Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:12, 2 March 2012

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)

Why I reverted Vision Thing's edits

It looks to me like everytime Vision Thing edits this article, it is to say something negative about Krugman or to take out something positive. I don't think it's OK for someone to edit a BLP to always slant it in one direction. It seems like the only reason he edits this page is to make Krugman look bad. I don't think this is good faith editing. FurrySings (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That isn't, by itself, an acceptable rationale for reversion. We judge the inclusion or exclusion of material by criteria such as wp:weight, not by whether it was added by a particular editor. If a particular editor is editing tendentiously, that can be addressed, but it isn't as simple as reverting simply because you've observed a pattern. (I'm deliberately responding in the abstract, before looking at the edits in question; they may or may not deserve reversion, but your rationale is flawed)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's consider the first of the edits you reverted:

this edit removed the phrase "though the number of economists who support such stimulus is "probably a majority"." That phrase was added] by an IP, with no edit summary. It contains a purported quote, but that quote didn't come from the ref at the end of the sentence. We don't know where it came from, because it isn't sourced, or explained. It is clearly not the view of Prescott, as noted in the edit summary of the removal.

That was a good edit. I urge you to restore it, while I look at some of the others.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that language is quoted directly from the source. Removing it, while inserting the minority opinion of Prescott as quoted in the article, serves only to draw a conclusion which is the opposite of what the authors of the referenced article were saying. The article states that the majority says such and such while Prescott disagrees. Changing it so it was slanted entirely towards Prescott's opinion was tendentious. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That language is from the source but it is not from Prescott as your wording implies but from a journalist. -- Vision Thing -- 15:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Loonymonkey as has been noted, your claim "that language is quoted directly from the source" is false. You need to reach consensus before adding again, and making a false claim isn't a good way to achieve consensus.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In the next edit, vision thing removed a tag from November. That tag may or may not have achieved its purpose of getting more editors in to deal with the mess, but it is stale now. Removing a stale tag hardly qualifies as tendentious editing, and does not, by any stretch of the imagination, serve to say something negative about the subject. You are now 0 for 2. I'm reverting your undoing of the edits; feel free to discuss any of the edits, and make a case that they are unwarranted, but your blanket revert was not warranted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand this edit and this edit deserve further discussion.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Those two certainly are particularly egregious. The first uses weasel words and gives undue weight to an editorial opinion. The second is ridiculously non-notable and some website called lyingponds.com would never qualify as a WP:RS. There are problems with many of the other edits, too. I don't think that adding all of this back in without consensus will get us anywhere. If we discuss it individually there might be some useful edits in there, but on balance it certainly looks tendentious. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I suggested, I thought those two were problematic. If there is a consensus, they can be reverted. But it is not good form to revert perfectly legitimate edits just because one or two might be questionable (at least, not when it is an editor not under sanctions).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that lyingponds.com is unlikely to be RS, but that's not relevant, the material doesn't use lyingponds.com as a source, it uses the highly reputable Economist. I still have concerns about that inclusion, but I think it requires consensus, as it isn't obviously in violation of any policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

First (new) edit was discussed here and there was a general support for inclusion so I shorted it and added it to the article. Second edit was a revert of Loonymonkey's edit to a longstanding version of the section. He removed it by claiming that ""lyingponds.com" is not a reliable source" but content is not sourced to lyingponds. -- Vision Thing -- 15:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

FurrySings, you are violating WP:AGF. Anyway, most of what I did was to revert a series of Loonymonkey's edits by which he removed number of criticisms, sometimes by using false rationale. -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that people should just turn a blind eye when someone comes to a BLP to make the person look bad over and over again. That's what you do, and I am pointing that out. FurrySings (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

FurrySings, you are dangerously close to Edit warring. YOu made a mass reversion, which I undid, because your claim "It looks to me like everytime Vision Thing edits this article, it is to say something negative about Krugman or to take out something positive." wasn't borne out by the evidence.

I explained in some detail why some of the edits were valid. If you want to contribute to that discussion, you are welcome to, but you cannot simply revert because you don't like the edits.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you are the one that is edit-warring. Remember that until there is consensus to include material, it must stay out of the article. And considering that some of this material violates WP:BLP, it must be removed on sight. Continuing to re-add this material while discussion is ongoing is simply disruptive. Also, you should never use Twinkle in the way you did. Labeling an edit that is a mere content dispute as "vandalism" will get your Twinkle privileges revoked pretty quickly. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of the edits were to add material, some were to remove. Had FurrySings removed those items that were contentious, and not added back others that were also contentious. we wouldn't be here. That would have been following the consensus based approach. Instead, FurrySings took the route of simply reverting everything, not just reverting additions, and making incorrect statement about why the reversion occurred. Once is a mistake, doing so repeatedly after being warned can be viewed as vandalism. Thanks for actually engaging below, as that is productive. FurrySings should take the hint.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that would never be vandalism (and calling it such is abandoning all good faith). If you were to file a vandalism report on any of that it would WP:BOOMERANG pretty quickly. But really, we should return this conversation to the article (as below). It's often difficult, but the best policy is still "discuss the edits, not the editors." If there are larger issues with an editor that need to be addressed, start with the noticeboards. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I hate dragging editors to notice boards, when it can be worked out. That seems to be happening, as there is a good discussion going on below. It's unfortunate that some aren't participating, but we'll work with who shows up.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's discuss, one at a time

though the number of economists who support such stimulus is "probably a majority"

That phrase was added by an IP, with no edit summary. While Loonymonkey claimed it came from the source, it did not. If it is to be added, it requires a reference. If someone can find one, we can debate whether it is a helpful addition.

It is from the source. Go ahead and read the article again, that's the actual language the author uses. Also, it doesn't matter that it was added by an IP, the edit is just as valid. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I thought you were saying the whole addition by the IP came from the source, not just the three words in quotes, so I was searching for the whole string. I don't think it is worded well, but that's fine tuning, for later. I'm satisfied. For the record, my reference to an IP isn't an implication that IP contributions are less valuable, but when added without an edit summary, it isn't easy to discuss with the editor, when there is no reliable talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That language is from the source but it is not from Prescott as current wording implies but from a journalist who was not stating is as a fact but as his opinion (note "probably"). -- Vision Thing -- 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This has been fixed, and yet VT has continually edit warred to remove the balanced presentation. LK (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not been fixed. On what grounds speculation from a journalist merits an inclusion? -- Vision Thing -- 13:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

A cleanup tag was added to the Controversies section in November, with a note to see the talk page. That discussion looks stale to me. If someone wants to restart it, then maybe the tag is warranted, but I see no value in leaving a tag from last year, when no one is addressing it. On the other hand, if some feel the issue is not resolved, perhaps the tag serves a purpose. What do others think. Tag, or no tag? (Those in support are encouraged, though not required, to engage in good faith efforts to address the issue.

Agreed, it would need a new tag at least, but I doubt that's necessary. Generally, tags are not needed in a situation like this. That section still has some problems, but I think discussion can continue without tagging it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Telco (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Settled, it should be removed until there is an active discussion. LK (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"politically motivated"

The sentence

Some economists have raised questions whether the Swedish Academy decision to award him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was politically motivated.

could be viewed as contentious. What are the argument for and against inclusion?

That's classic WP:WEASEL. But it's not just a problem of wording. If it were rewritten to attribute it directly, all we are left with is an unfounded claim by a partisan, which is a blatant violation of WP:BLP. We don't repeat spurious charges and gossip, regardless of the source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is one voice, as a minor part of a modest argument. Weasel worded, as is, and not worth the effort to salvage. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

How is this a WP:WEASEL and stating that majority of economist believe something is not (like an issue that we are discussing above)? -- Vision Thing -- 17:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the recent deletion of this text on the basis that its not notable (WP:NOTABILITY), plus it cherrypicks and tends to unduly overstate the single source (WP:WEIGHT). It's just this professor Cowen at George Mason Univ. and all he says is that it is "fair speculation" which is an oxymoron in the context. DanielM (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Washington Post who reported it, similar point was made by Wall Street Journal: "With the committee's decision coming three weeks before the U.S. presidential election, the news sparked criticism that it was influenced by political considerations as well as academic achievements." If two out of three major newspapers (and third is Krugman's own NYT) report it in their articles about Nobel award, that should make it notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. -- Vision Thing -- 22:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Bah, I read the WSJ article. You're again cherrypicking some detail of bad writing, that is to say that the article says generically the Nobel news "sparked criticism" for politicization, then goes on to cite two or three economists who say the award was *anything but* politicized. Who pray tell, delivers the criticism? If you want to put the text back in there, cite WSJ as well, but this is an awful sourcing tactic and I think you know it. DanielM (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. This is classic cherrypicking as well as WP:UNDUE. This claim is 1/4th of our section, but a very small part of the cited articles. Perhaps this claim has a small place in a large section which discusses the award in depth and also notes that many economists thought the award was a no-brainer. But as it stands now it gives the reader the false impression that this claim was a larger part of the story than it was. Gamaliel (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

This claim is relatively small part of the cited articles because they describe Krugman's work on New Trade Theory and the New Economic Geography as well provide his biography. In this article that material is covered in other sections. -- Vision Thing -- 14:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue at all, nor does it explain why you only cherrypicked criticism and not praise from those articles. It's pretty clear that your preferred version has all kinds of NPOV issues, and not just in this section, so I've tagged the article accordingly. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Section already contains praise: "Paul Krugman has deepened our understanding of the determinants of trade and the location of economic activity." If you think it is not enough please make suggestion for addition. Writing article should be constructive, not destructive process. -- Vision Thing -- 22:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the insertion of the assertion is warranted in a manner that is sensitive and dispassionate without giving WP:UNDUE weight to the minority view. I do, however, think that this is a significant minority view. Telco (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Gamaliel. This is undue emphasis. Almost all coverage of Krugman's Nobel does not imply that there was any political motivation in awarding the award to Krugman. Mentioning it based on a couple of sources is WP:UNDUE. LK (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Almost all coverage"? It must be some funny definition when it doesn't encompasses two main newspapers. -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you were concerned about due weight, I would suggest doing a search on Krugman's Nobel in reliable newspapers to identify all articles that have covered the issue;(> 5,000 articles) and then count the number of articles where 'politically motivated' is mentioned.(23 articles, of which many don't suggest that the prize award was politically motivated) This shows that it is tiny minority of articles. Hence it is undue weight. Please do keep in mind that this is how one should look at the issue if one were concerned about including material with due weight. LK (talk) 03:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your first search is too encompassing since it covers last three years and counts every article in which 'Krugman' and 'Nobel' appear and Krugman is mostly described as a Nobel Laureate in articles that mention him. When we limit search of news articles to a time period of a month when his winning of Nobel Prize was announced (October 2008) and add 'Prize' Google News finds 66 articles, not >5000. . More importantly, your search with words 'politically' 'motivated' is irrelevant since it couldn't find either Washington Post or Wall Street Journal article on Krugman receiving the prize. -- Vision Thing -- 13:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

partisanship

You said:

He and The Economist also noted that Lyinginponds.com, which tracks partisanship among public intellectuals, has in most years from 2002–2008, ranked Krugman number 1 or number 2 among Democratic columnists for partisanship.

One argument against inclusion is that lyinginponds is not RS, but this argument is flawed, because that is the source. The Source is The Economist. Which doesn't make it an automatic inclusion. Let's discuss the merits of inclusion or exclusion.

The Economist editorial is saying that lyingponds.com made the claim. It doesn't inherit the reliability of the Economist simply by being mentioned in an editorial. (and opinion pieces, even in otherwise reliable sources, are not to be used as reliable sources in a WP:BLP). Also, there is the much larger issue of weight. Just because an opinion piece was written about Krugman, doesn't mean it belongs in his biography. It's not notably relevant to his life or career. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Economist has an opinion about an economist and you think it is not relevant? Really? Seriously, it isn't like they were discussing some obscure aspect of his life, they were discussing what makes him most famous. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just opinion, though. You're trying to state something factual that isn't backed up by any reliable source (neither the blog being quoted nor the opinion piece which quotes the blog). Remember, opinion pieces are only reliable sources as to the opinion of their author. And since we know full well that the information originates from an unreliable source, it doesn't belong. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree we are reporting the opinion of the author, in this case—the Economist. It is incumbent on the author to ensure that the opinion is based upon reasonable information. It is not our right to determine that the Economist's opinion might not be well-founded, It would be supposition of the highest order to assume that the Economist had no prior view whether Krugman was partisan, and that they stumbled upon some website and decided to use it without separate confirmation. We aren't reporting that Krugman is partisan, we are reporting that the Economist has said so. That the Economist has chosen to illustrate their position with an excerpt from a site is their editorial discretion, and one we cannot unilaterally discard. It is our responsibility to determine whether the voice of the Economist is notable, which it is, and whether their comment that he is partisan is a meaningful aspect of his life (i.e. meets the threshold for inclusion in a biography), or is simply an unimportant aside. One would have to be living in a cave to think that the discussion about whether Krugman is partisan is a trivial matter.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What we have is the Economist Atlantic interviewing a conservative libertarian judge who then says that according to a non-reliable source, Krugman is highly partisan. If I may make an analogy, suppose the Economist were to interview Michael Moore, who makes an offhand remark that according to 'some random website', Mitt Romney is the politician who has told the most lies in 2011. Do we include that in the article on Romney? I think not. The mention of some factoid from some unreliable source, does not make that unreliable source reliable for the mentioned factoid. LK (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Economist aritcle is not an interview with a conservative libertarian judge. About what are you talking about? -- Vision Thing -- 11:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Posner's piece in Atlantic is not an interview, and it is not only source used for claim. -- Vision Thing -- 22:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, just out of curiosity, which part of WP:BLP says "and opinion pieces, even in otherwise reliable sources, are not to be used as reliable sources in a WP:BLP"? Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "It's not notably relevant to his life or career"? And "Remember, opinion pieces are only reliable sources as to the opinion of their author"? Or LK's statement that "The mention of some factoid from some unreliable source, does not make that unreliable source reliable for the mentioned factoid"? Look, I don't think anything that you have said in this section sounds unreasonable, it sounds quite logical, but I would like to know if the principles you mention are reflected as policy or guidelines somewhere? Telco (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Check out WP:NEWSORG and WP:BLPSOURCES. Material included in a BLP should come only from reliable sources, opinion pieces from otherwise reliable sources are not reliable sources, except as a source for the opinion of the writer. LK (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And how The Economist doesn't satisfy those criteria? -- Vision Thing -- 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

VT is the only one arguing that this poorly sourced trivia be included in the page. This clearly fails to achieve consensus for inclusion. LK (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I asked you how The Economist doesn't satisfy BLP criteria (your prior claim) and you are responding that a information about Krugman being one of the most partisan Democratic columnists is a trivia. Who actually agrees with you? -- Vision Thing -- 13:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"standard"

Claiming that Krugman's textbook is a textbook doesn't seem contentious, but claiming that it is a standard requires, at a minimum, a RS. Even then, it has to be defended editorially. Let's discuss the pros and cons of inclusion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is "the standard textbook in international economics". That means that if one googles ""International Economics: Theory and Policy" syllabus", one would expect to see the textbook is used in courses at MIT, Yale, Sloan, NYU, Texas A&M and other reputable universities. TFD (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD is being a bit coy here, what he's trying to say is that if you google "International Economics: Theory and Policy" you find that it is a standard textbook used in classes in many top universities, such as MIT, Yale, Sloan, NYU, Texas A&M, SDSU, and Vanderbilt. Also, this article calls it a "standard textbook in international economics". LK (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is New Jersey Jewish News a reliable source? It seems to me a kind of article that could have used Misplaced Pages as a source. Anyway, if textbook is not notable enough to be mentioned in profiles of Krugman in major sources, it shouldn't be in the lead. -- Vision Thing -- 11:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Found a couple of books which refer to it as such. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Settled that it should be referred to as a standard textbook, I note however, that VT insists on describing it as an 'undergraduate' text book, when the source does not. LK (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You are lying. -- Vision Thing -- 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF. "mistaken" and "lying" are not the same.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If LK made a statement that A) was incorrect, and B) clearly impugned Vision Thing's integrity, I might characterize it as something other than a mistake, depending on context. However, in this instance, having briefly perused it, but not followed it closely, it doesn't seem like this is the case at all. Accordingly, in my view, Vision Thing should find a way to back out his or her comment. See also WP:CIV. DanielM (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

LK made a false statement in a way that I perceived as questioning my integrity. As for larger context here is one of his recent comments directed to me: . -- Vision Thing -- 11:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"You are lying" is a personal attack. "You are mistaken" is a neutral statement. Kindly note the difference. In any case, I would note that two out of three of the sources given on this page do not include the word "undergraduate", (excuse me for not checking the third) and yet you have edit warred to include it. I believe that demonstrates your thinking about this issue, and your purpose concerning the Krugman page. LK (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey Jewish News is a source of dubious reliability. Other two sources are good and one calls it "standard undergraduate textbook" and other just says "standard textbook". Neither calls it "college textbook" which is a description Furrystrings was insisting on and reverting to while using a source that calls it "undergraduate" . So who is making a transgression here? -- Vision Thing -- 13:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You are, for edit warring to include a word that two out of three sources don't use. LK (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute

This dispute seems to be fueled by personal animosity and not Misplaced Pages policy. For example, Niall Ferguson's comments keep getting removed without any explanation why. Loonymonkey originally removed them under false rationale that they are sourced to blog and now they just keep getting mass revert along with everything else with no reason given. -- Vision Thing -- 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that the dispute is fueled by personal animosity, but I would say that the dispute is fueled by personal animosity towards Paul Krugman – a characteristic of many conservatives. The constant barrage of edits to bias this BLP negatively (more than half of the edits from last year if one cares to count) is disruptive to Misplaced Pages and against policy. As evidence, I would note that almost all such attempts to throw in negative material is ultimately rejected, for using unreliable sources or using sources incorrectly, for undue weight, for quoting out of context, or for being otherwise flawed.

For example, note this egregious bit of SYN & BLP violation from this edit a few months ago:

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

As I noted here, if you search in the sources, what Krugman called 'bizarre' was not the argument that unemployment relief is a disincentive for unemployed individuals to seek new work, but rather, the view that "what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs". This was essentially an attack based on a quote taken out of context, passed off as fact, and sourced to a hack job by a biased journalist. LK (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That section wasn't originally added by me. This is what was added and shortly after removed as unbalanced. After shortening it considerably by removing more than half of it, I have reinstated it. Next day you have objected to Kye content and removed it from article. I didn't reverted you since you have given reasonable explanation for removal.

After prolonged discussion on talk consensus finally formed on how Controversies section should look like and this was it. If you care enough to look to comparison of versions of the articles then and now you you will see that Controveries section got shorter for five sentences, while introduction got richer for "In a 2011 survey, US economics professors ranked Krugman as their favorite living economic thinker under the age of 60." main body for "In the summer preceding his Nobel Prize, Krugman was voted one of the world's top public intellectuals by half a million participants in an online poll conducted by Foreign Policy". And at the same time reference for The Economist considering him a "left-leaning pundit" was removed. -- Vision Thing -- 13:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The daily beast is a blog (and a highly partisan opinion blog at that). It is not a reliable source. Such poorly sourced material must be removed from a WP:BLP on sight, those are the rules of Misplaced Pages. It doesn't matter if an editorial in an otherwise reliable source mentioned the blog post in the same news cycle, it's still just opinion from an unreliable blog post. This has been explained repeatedly in discussions in which you participated so claiming it is "without explanation" is a bit disingenuous. Frankly, this obsessiveness with trying to add negative material to a BLP, even to the point of edit-warring, comes across as particularly tendentious. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can grind that ax, but Misplaced Pages isn't one of them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the Ferguson quote. A Thatcherite historian disagrees with him in a column in the Economist. So what? TFD (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Beast and Newsweek merged over a year ago so now the site of The Daily Beast is hosting Newsweek . Anyway, that is sourced to both Newsweek and Bloomberg. -- Vision Thing -- 13:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone not think that Vision thing is acting unreasonably here in pushing a political point of view on a BLP? It's getting disruptive, and frankly, I think it's past time for a RfC:user on his behavior. LK (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If anybody is disruptive it's you and Furrystrings. I have responded to and refuted all your comments, and now that you have no more arguments you are trying to bring this down to personal level... -- Vision Thing -- 15:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with LK that Vision_Thing is obviously pushing a PoV (this is clearly wikipedia-wide behavior). I'm not interested in dealing with any more civil PoV pushers, so this'll be my final comment on this one. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is pov pushing perhaps it is those who keep removing RS like Washington Post, WSJ, Newsweek, Bloomberg, some of the largest names in publishing. one cannot declare of financial news partisan. i say put the material back and let the reader decide. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Polls

Recently two poll results were added. One in the lead, sourced to Econ Journal Watch, that says Krugman is a favorite living economic thinker under the age of 60 of US economics professors. Second, result of 2008 online poll (that was btw hijacked) by Prospect (magazine) and Foreign Policy at beginning of Commentator section that says Krugman was voted one of the world's top public intellectuals. Is there is a reason why these were added here? -- Vision Thing -- 11:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Vision, this article is a WP:PEACOCK, designed to encourage the reader to learn the correct scientific, proven, economic models. Any notable critique of his economics is not permitted in the lead or anywhere else here as per WP:NoCritiqueoftheLeft Darkstar1st (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes, the cabal strikes again. Gamaliel (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Why should they not be added? Reasonably prominent and reliably sourced polls/rankings are a good gauge of the popularity and reputation of a person. Certainly there is more reason for this to be here than for fringe gripes about his Nobel Prize. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this article has more than enough content about prominence of Krugman, and not enough about "fringe gripes" that get published in The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal simultaneously? -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that if it really was a notable fact how Krugman performed in these polls, it would have been picked up and mentioned by secondary sources which we then could cite. I think it's important when seeking to achieve a neutral PoV that mainly prominent secondary sources are used when trying to estimate the reaction to and popularity of someone or something. The sources for these polls are not secondary and are not that prominent (especially not the Econ Journal Watch which ranks #505 among economics journals ). I also agree with Vision Thing that extra caution should be used when citing online polls, as these are often easily manipulated. If there is a ranking which might be worth mention about Krugman, it may be that he in 2009 made it into the Time 100 list.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, we should take caution when citing online polls, but the particular online poll in question has its own Misplaced Pages article, which means it more than meets the criteria for notability and significance. As for the prominence of the Econ Journal Watch poll, the poll is not a prominent one but it is a poll of professional economists by a peer-reviewed academic journal, so its encyclopedic value far outweighs its lack of prominence. Agreed on the Time 100, thanks for bringing that up. Gamaliel (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think just because a list has a Misplaced Pages article it automatically means that everyone who appears on it should have it mentioned in their article. Krugman was only number 30 on that list. And I in general think it's bad practice to use Misplaced Pages articles as evidence for anything when writing other Misplaced Pages article. It leads to circular reasoning. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the Econ Journal Watch survey having encyclopedic value, this is usually an argument which should be explained further (See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). And again, I would like to point to the fact that both these sources are primary sources, something which should usually be avoided, especially when it comes to reactions and reception.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your principles in general but the specific issue here is with the noteworthiness and significance of a particular poll, and the presence of a Misplaced Pages article about that poll clearly demonstrates those criteria. #30 is a low number, but we're talking about #30 out of all the public intellectuals on the planet, so that ranking is pretty significiant. I'm not sure what to explain further about the Econ Journal Watch poll. Academic, peer-reviewed sources are generally considered more significant, more reliable, and more worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages. If you are going to include a poll, that would be the one to include. Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not really convincing me about the Foreign Policy poll. It's an online poll which has been criticized for having been manipulated in the past. There are no secondary sources confirming its notability. And Krugman still only came in 30th on it. I propose this compromise: if you would willing be agree with me not include the Foreign Policy poll, I would be willing to not push any further on the prominence issues of the Econ Journal Watch survey. Looking further into it, that survey actually looks like a proper piece of work, with randomized sampling 2000 of members of faculty at the 300 biggest economics departments in the United States. So even though there are no clear signs of notability, I still think we might be able to keep it in, also seen as Krugman actually came in first with a pretty big margin in one of the categories.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Econ Journal Watch survey also noted that Krugman's admirers are "remarkably preponderantly Democratic" and that his blog was third favorite, after Mankiw's and Marginal revolution. Selecting just one finding of the survey, most favorable to Krugman, and ignoring others violates NPOV and possibly NOR. -- Vision Thing -- 14:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I find it interesting how when you want to remove something from the article you say "no consensus for inclusion" and when you want to keep something in you say "no consensus for removal" and in both cases there is a disagreement about it on talk. Is there some double criteria which I'm not aware of? -- Vision Thing -- 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

When the disagreement is simply you disagreeing with everyone else, then there certainly is no consensus for your edits. Gamaliel (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, please see above, you missed the other editors who agree with Vision, actually, it is you who appears to be in the minority, please advise if i miscounted. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you link to these please? I appear to have missed them because I see a page full of people disputing his edits. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

no need, scroll up. i see 4 people in this section, 3 for removing the edits, and only you for keeping. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that VT's comment was about this article in general, not the specific issue of the polls. It does not appear that in general editors are in agreement with VT's edits. Gamaliel (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking generally, it looks to me like there are a few people who are determined to negatively bias this article, and that in general, others are not in agreement with those edits. FurrySings (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I'm looking your reasoning in particular and it seems that you are applying double criteria. -- Vision Thing -- 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You've already made your opinion of me quite clear. And I think your statements and actions make your motivations quite clear. Gamaliel (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

i think it is a question of balance. maybe the reader is getting not getting the full scope of the RS out there? Perhaps if we could find some critique of Krugman by similar sources we could deliver a better article. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any secondary source that uses either of these polls to establish Krugman's prominence? If there is not, and I didn't find any, there is no reason for Misplaced Pages to use them. -- Vision Thing -- 14:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Awards, and poll results, like these, are commonly mentioned in biographies. No one here is objecting to these polls except you. You are edit warring against consensus. LK (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Before you 5 other editors commented in this section, 3 against inclusion and 2 for. What are you trying to achieve by continuing to post false statements like these? You are only making it harder to AGF on your part. -- Vision Thing -- 12:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

AGF? Not only have you introduced provably false and defamatory material into this article, you have also broken WP:POLITE and have been admonished for it. LK (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So you don't want to admit you were wrong again so you are trying to distract everyone by rehashing old arguments? How Wikipedian of you... -- Vision Thing -- 09:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article say the following:

1) "In the summer preceding his Nobel Prize, Krugman was voted one of the world's top public intellectuals by half a million participants in an online poll conducted by Foreign Policy." Source: online poll by Foreign Policy magazine

2) "Some economists have raised questions whether the Swedish Academy decision to award him the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics was politically motivated." Sources: Washington Post and Wall Street Journal

3) "In a 2011 survey, US economics professors ranked Krugman as their favorite living economic thinker under the age of 60." Source: Econ Journal Watch . Relatedly, should findings from the same survey that Krugman's academic admirers are "remarkably preponderantly Democratic" and that his blog was third favorite, after Gregory Mankiw's and Marginal Revolution, be included?

4) "He and The Economist also noted that Lyinginponds.com, which tracks partisanship among public intellectuals, has in most years from 2002–2008, ranked Krugman number 1 or number 2 among Democratic columnists for partisanship." Sources: Richard Posner and The Economist

5) "Harvard economic history professor Niall Ferguson expressed doubt that Krugman changes his position on fiscal deficits depending on the party in power. Ferguson also criticized Krugman for advocating fiscal stimulus in already highly indebted economy, warning that the United States will experience a Japanese-style 'lost decade'." Sources: Newsweek and Bloomberg

-- Vision Thing -- 12:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I vote to include 1.

not include 2. objections to 2 are both newspapers are known (see their Misplaced Pages articles) to be biased. Better would be to add the comment to all of the "some economists" Misplaced Pages entry.

I would include 1st half of 3.

Not include 4.

not include 5. Put in Niall Ferguson's page in Misplaced Pages.

Jstampfl (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

1) No, online poll has no scientific value whatsoever. 2-5) Yes for the rest. All reliabley sourced, so long as no section breaks undue weight. Arzel (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I still object to 2:

It is a comment about the Committee selecting the prize and should be moved to the Misplaced Pages entry of that committee if true. The comment should also be moved to the Misplaced Pages pages of the sources. This comment says nothing about Paul Krugman.

Jstampfl (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

2 and 5 should not be included, clearly undue weight. LK (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC is "process for requesting outside input". -- Vision Thing -- 11:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is free to comment in any discussion. There is no prohibition in an RfC for commenting if you've previously weighed in. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively (see above) but #2 and #5 are undue weight in a biography (and #2 is particularly weasely. Further, #4 would be prohibited as "lyingponds.com" is not a reliable source. It doesn't matter if someone else "noted" that lyingpods.com said such-and-such in an editorial, it's still unreliable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC is poorly forumulated. There are rs, pov and or issues with some of the suggestions, which need to be addressed, not overlooked. TFD (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment