Revision as of 13:45, 17 January 2014 editCarolmooredc (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers31,944 edits →Enron: I am glad to see a neutral/non-involved editor say that such things ''can'' be removed even ''if'' there are lots of WP:RS!← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:46, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,333,658 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 6 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Economists and business theorists.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
(172 intermediate revisions by 65 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{FailedGA|19:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)|topic=Economics and business|page=1}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=yes }} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes |1= |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN|action1date=28 October 2013|action1link=Talk:Paul Krugman/GA1|action1result=failed |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|priority=high|listas=Krugman, Paul}} |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|
{{WikiProject Economics|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|topic=economics |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|itndate=13 October 2008 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Krugman, Paul|1= |
|
{{ITN talk|13 October|2008}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes|s&a-priority=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=Mid|Capital=yes|Capital-importance=Mid|Hudson=yes|Hudson-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{press| title=Misplaced Pages Bandit Claims Times Krugman Dead; Krugman Alive, Still Has Nobel Prize| author= Matt Haber| date=October 14, 2008| url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081106051534/http://www.observer.com/2008/media/wikipedia-bandit-claims-i-times-i-krugman-dead-krugman-alive-still-has-nobel-prize| org=]}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
Line 13: |
Line 22: |
|
|archive = Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Paul Krugman/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{press |
|
|
| title=Misplaced Pages Bandit Claims Times Krugman Dead; Krugman Alive, Still Has Nobel Prize |
|
|
| author= Matt Haber |
|
|
| date=October 14, 2008 |
|
|
| url=http://www.observer.com/2008/media/wikipedia-bandit-claims-i-times-i-krugman-dead-krugman-alive-still-has-nobel-prize |
|
|
| org=] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP2 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
== 40th most influential what? == |
|
|
|
|
|
i suggest we remove as a source. being the 40th most anything is not really encyclopedic, ex: ''Bush was the 40th most popular president'', ''Miley Cyrus was the 40th top grossing artist of September 2013''. not only is this stat trivial, but it has also been misused by editors who extract information from a single month then add that months ranking to the article. today the same link to the SAME SOURCE had Paul at TWO separate rankings , neither of which are currently accurate in October 2013 even if we were to use the MONTHLY calculation, which would need to be updated constantly. ] (]) 07:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:this is becoming tedious. every month the article will need to be edited to correct Krugmans '''monthly''' ranking. i changed this to the 10 year average '''from the same source''' and was reverted. this source is problematic, peacock, and trivia, falderal begone. ] (]) 10:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
=== failed verification tag removed without discussion === |
|
|
is linking to the october results, not the september rankings which are better. i request the editor either provide a source for the September rank, or link to the 10 year average which doesnt change each month. many of the top economist ], ], ] dont even mention rank, or if they do it reads, "one of the top 10" and provides a generic link to same source. ] (]) 08:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Talk:Paul Krugman/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reception to Paul Krugman's writing == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think this article sorely needs a section, or *some* content about other people/economists review of Krugman's major articles, predictions, and theories. I think this would put a lot of needed context around krugman's career. Thoughts? ] (]) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: There are more articles than I can count giving critical receptions to his ideas and continuing writings: |
|
|
:* moneymorning.com/2013/01/31/paul-krugman-may-be-the-worlds-last-flat-earth-economist/ |
|
|
:* http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/11/10/paul-krugman-is-wrong-even-when-he-is-right/ |
|
|
:* http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/10/niall-ferguson-paul-krugman-gets-it-wrong-again-and-again-and-again-why-does-anyone-still-listen-to-him/ |
|
|
:* dailyreckoning.com/paul-krugman-blown-to-bits-by-truth-bomb/ |
|
|
:] (]) 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's already a lot in the article about people's reaction to his popular commentary and column writing. Let's not forget that he is an economist, first and foremost, so let's not go overboard in emphasizing his popular writings. Interesting though, that considering the many people who write about Krugman's popular writings, all the links you list are only to Krugman's detractors. ] (]) 00:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::the sources given are widely read, reliable, and relevant. Krugman is whatever RS assert he is, if those mention his popular writing more, than he is now foremost that. '''support''' ] (]) 16:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Enron == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Section Free-trade== |
|
I was looking for information about Krugman's relationship or work for Enron but it wasn't int he article. ] disparagement of Krugman removed. Do not reinsert this. ]] 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)] ] (]) 16:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I'm not adding my point of view; I'm just quoting Krugman's different positions on free trade. I'm not violating wikipedia's neutrality at all because I'm showing all of krugman's points of view on the |
|
|
bre exchange . Moreover, the quotations are not out of context, they correspond precisely to the situation ] (]) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The clique that guards this page won’t allow anything other than glowing praise and admiration for Krugman (which is hardly neutral). It’s one example of why Misplaced Pages is not trusted ] (]) 18:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
:Here are a few relevant refs that indicate more can be found: |
|
|
|
::This is a legitimate talking point. SPECIFICO should not be vandalizing views he doesn’t agree with. Obviously at least two people have other views ] (]) 19:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
* : ''In 1999 Paul Krugman was paid $50,000 by Enron as a consultant on its “advisory board,” and that same year he wrote a glowing article about Enron for Fortune magazine....'' etc. |
|
|
* ]: "former Enron adviser Paul Krugman " and a bit of critical commentary about him |
|
|
* : WP:RS ''actually quotes'' "Andrew Sullivan's serial pummeling of economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman " on Sullivan's self-published blog. SPS can't be used but others directly quoting them or describing the conflict can be. (Or does anyone inaccurately think SPS quotes directly from Sullivan's blog lambasting Krugman can be used??) |
|
|
That's for starters. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 18:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Green New Deal == |
|
: is Krugman's response. This is a good example of why columns and blogs are not reliable source for biographies of living persons. ] (]) 21:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
This information , with the following edit summary: ''" Cherrypicked BLP content and article text over-generalizes from the source"''. I think it is relevant and should be included. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{quote|Krugman supports the ].<ref>{{cite news |title=Hope for a Green New Year |author=Paul Krugman |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/opinion/green-new-deal-democrats.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=January 1, 2019 |page=A18}}</ref> He said that a "Green New Deal stuff is investment. On that stuff, don’t worry about paying for it. Debt as an issue is vastly overstated, and a lot of these things pay for themselves. Go ahead and just deficit finance it."<ref>{{cite news |title=Paul Krugman’s 3-part test for deficit spending |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/21011742/paul-krugman-the-ezra-klein-show-democrats-green-new-deal-payment |work=Vox |date=December 13, 2019}}</ref>}} |
|
::I saw that link and thought it was a non-RS Pakistani publication with a similar URL and never looked! The site is run by "Bobby" but found version which obviously is from him . So now I've bothered to read it and see he is correcting various misconceptions. So obviously the charges in National Review, WSJ and Slate are relevant as his response in at least a paragraph. (And any response to his response should they be found?) Otherwise saavy readers will assume Misplaced Pages is stupid or that we are leaving it out on purpose. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 21:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{reflist talk}} |
|
|
-- ] (]) 09:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Expanded quote == |
|
:::I do not think that the charges are significant enough to include. So Krugman once consulted for one of the largest corporations in America which, which unbeknownst to its supporters in the ''NR'' and ''WSJ'' editorial page, turned out to be run by criminals. Of course no criticism from them about ], ] or any of the other high profile people who worked together. Zoellick's article says he advised Enron in 1999, but it is not posted as criticism; Kristol's article omits it. ] (]) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My expansion of the quote from David Kennedy's review of ''The Conscience of a Liberal'' was reverted with the comment: "There's nothing wrong with expanding content on the book and its significance, but this snippet does not add to the shorter version, and Kennedy says many other contextualizing things in the review that could be summarized and paraphrased for a more meaningful look at his reaction." It is untrue that the edit adds nothing to the shorter version. Kennedy points out that the book makes a serious contribution to the debate concerning the expansion of healthcare insurance, a topic that Krugman has addressed frequently and about which little is said in this article. --] (]) 21:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::It's not important enough to me to deal with further, though I actually didn't fully grasp what the originating editor Clubintheclub wrote until SPECIFICO removed just that after I read Krugman's reply. I guess Clubintheclub also had impression Krugman was working for the Times and promoting Enron, as I believe was mentioned in various WP:RS which I can quote on demand. So SPECIFICO really should ''not'' have removed something that just describes in slightly dramatic fashion what RS were saying. It's up to that editor to decide what to do about it. |
|
|
::::I also don't know how all that WP:RS coverage of Krugman compares to what WP:RS said about other former Enron associates TFD mentioned. But that's really all I have to say; let the misconceptions continue if you like. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It was you, Carolmooredc, who reinserted that language after I identified it as a policy violation. If you hadn't done that neither of us would have had to waste futher time on it. You violated BLP by reinserting. Thanks. ]] 03:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I reinserted because I found WP:RS were in fact discussing the issue. Did you look at the WP:RS?? Like I said, I can quote more fully. I am confused about why it is ok to discuss whether or not to include various accusations about some subjects of BLPs - even if it's only speculation - but not WP:RS accusations. I don't even know if there was a reply to Krugman's denials by any WP:RS. And I don't really care. However, I do care if there is some double standard regarding discussion of reliable sources in Misplaced Pages. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 04:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have seen the wondrous walls of text on noticeboards that surround some of the editors commenting here, and the participants (specifically Carolmooredc) should bear in mind that while the community has a very high pain threshold and will tolerate bickering for a long time, limits can nevertheless be reached. Once a limit is passed, people are readily topic banned or blocked, and arguing about whether it is desirable for a talk page to highlight claims that a living person was corrupt is the height of absurdity. If someone has a credible proposal for an improvement to the article, it should be outlined with suitable sources, however, it is not helpful to point to some sources just because your opponent removed what they think is a BLP problem. ] (]) 05:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::I ''did propose'' that it be used to debunk the allegation which I can see is widespread among non-WP:RS as well as discussed by WP:RS. But as I noted the editors don't seem interested in using it, so I won't continue to argue for it. I have seen far worse speculations continued with no RS at all, despite editors' complaints, which is why I mentioned the double standards issue. So I am glad to see a neutral/non-involved editor say that such things ''can'' be removed even ''if'' there are lots of WP:RS! I just never saw it done before. In fact there probably are at least a dozen still active threads like that I could remove right now. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 13:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Criticism section== |
|
|
I find it surprising that, unlike a lot of other economists, this page does not include a "Criticisms" section. Especially since he is such a public, and arguably divisive, figure among economists. Take a look at ] and ] for example. ] (]) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== PAUL KRUGMAN I Was Wrong About Inflation == |
|
:Articles are not supposed to contain criticism sections, partly because they cannot be written from a neutral point of view. ] (]) 21:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is an op-ed from July 21: . Seems relevant. I haven't read it yet, though. What, if anything, should be added from this? If we have any ] sources, that would be helpful. – ] (]) 17:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
::::Criticisms can be integrated where relevant. A lot of articles have them because no one argued against them. Complicated issue. See ] essay. <small>'''] (])</small>''' 21:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:I'm familiar with that op ed and the other pundits to which he refers in the op ed. It's really nothing significant in terms of his life, his career as an economist, or for that matter public policy. The Times had the cute idea of asking 8 columnists to come up with a "thing" they were wrong about. Were it not for the current obsession with monthly inflation figures, I'm sure he might have come up with something much more interesting and substantive. |
|
|
:But he didn't. I don't think this is a good pick for "criticism" or even "fallibilty of the pope" section. IP has not come up with any content proposal that would pass sourcing and content guidelines, so I think we can relax until there's some tofu on the table.]] 19:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::People make mistakes, and I agree that we don't need to point them out just for the sake of pointing them out. I would be interested to see what addition could be proposed, but if the whole idea here is just a "gotcha!" then this isn't worth the time. – ] (]) 20:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Association with Enron == |
|
In the Hayek article, where most of the criticism is about his work for Pinochet, it would be better to have a section about his work for Pinochet, then provide various views. In the case of Krugman and Enron, we would mention it chronologically either when he went to work for them or when columnists began to mention it. ] (]) 22:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
There should be honest discussion about Paul Krugman praising Enron in publications prior to the scandal. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I'm not adding my point of view; I'm just quoting Krugman's different positions on free trade. I'm not violating wikipedia's neutrality at all because I'm showing all of krugman's points of view on the
bre exchange . Moreover, the quotations are not out of context, they correspond precisely to the situation Dolytoit (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)