This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JamJamSvn (talk | contribs) at 21:23, 27 October 2024 (→Should not be characterized as an economist: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:23, 27 October 2024 by JamJamSvn (talk | contribs) (→Should not be characterized as an economist: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Self publicist
This page is entirely based on writing by the subject and completely lacks primary sources - delete? Livermore1922 (talk) 12:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's a contradictory claim, as primary sources are usually sources that are written by the subject. Do you mean it completely lacks secondary sources? I made sure that this article is largely based on secondary sources, which is required for pages on Misplaced Pages. I'm confused as to what you mean. JamJamSvn (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- He's been covered in numerous reliable secondary sources, so notability and RS have been fully established. I don't think there's any case to answer. G-13114 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there some reason why this article was written to present Stevenson's claims at face value, even when reliable sources say he's lying? bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Those sources saying he's lying are recent, and as far as I can tell weren't present when I first wrote this article! JamJamSvn (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is there some reason why this article was written to present Stevenson's claims at face value, even when reliable sources say he's lying? bobrayner (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- He's been covered in numerous reliable secondary sources, so notability and RS have been fully established. I don't think there's any case to answer. G-13114 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Should not be characterized as an economist
The first sentence and the title of the article describes the subject as an "economist". While the subject has among other things studied economics (as many people do), the subject is not an academic economist and it's misleading to describe him as such. It's puffery. Reliable sources do not consistently identify the subject as an "economist". The subject is a former financial trader, and YouTuber. Thenightaway (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- The Guardian article you cited gives his qualifications as "BSc in maths and economics, London School of Economics. MPhil in economics, Oxford." That makes him pretty well qualified does it not? G-13114 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Should the lead also describe him as a mathematician then? Why should Misplaced Pages describe the subject as an economist when RS do not? Thenightaway (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- A Master's degree is largely of higher respect than a Bachelor's degree, and he's clearly continued with economics rather than any mathematics. JamJamSvn (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Should the lead also describe him as a mathematician then? Why should Misplaced Pages describe the subject as an economist when RS do not? Thenightaway (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of scientists and academics
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class England-related articles
- Low-importance England-related articles
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in England
- WikiProject England pages
- C-Class Economics articles
- Low-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles